This article is not fair; its arguments are oversimplifications and misrepresentations of complex events. Take, for example, this statement:
“with Franken himself “mysteriously” meeting with said donors behind the scenes”
This is dirty-trick mudslinging. The citation makes clear what really happened. Mr. Franken met with wealthy supporters in the home of one. Ms. Doyle deceitfully suggests that this was a secretive, conspiratorial plot to wreak revenge upon Ms. Gillibrand. I urge readers to examine the cited story, which demonstrates the Mr. Franken’s behavior was completely innocent. The true issue was resentment that Ms. Gillibrand had pushed for the resignation of a popular politician.
The author suffers from the error all fanatics make: elevating a single issue to a paramount position and dismissing all other considerations. Rational people don’t think in simplistic black-and-white terms; they weigh a number of factors in arriving at considered judgements. Ms. Doyle appears to believe that there is only one issue facing civilization: the status of women. Mr. Franken degraded the status of women with his actions. But he also elevated the status of women with some of his other actions. He performed other beneficial actions in other policy areas. Some people, upon considering all these factors, conclude that Mr. Franken, despite his sins, was making the world a better place overall and should have remained in his position. I respect the judgement of those who consider that his sins outweighed his positive contributions. I condemn those who rejected him on a single matter.
The same arguments apply to Ms. Doyle’s condemnations of Mr. Biden. They are the ravings of a single-issue fanatic who refuses to see the world in all its complexity.