Have you heard this?

I'm guessing a professional political consultant would advise against this, but here's something like what I'd like to hear each of the leading Democratic presidential candidates say.

From Barack Obama:

"Sen. Clinton would make a fine president. Now I know there are some voters who might not want to vote for a woman for president. If that's you, if you're going to vote for me because you just don't want to vote for a woman, then let me say this to you: Don't vote for me either. I don't want your vote."

From Hillary Clinton:

"Sen. Obama would make a fine president. Now I know there are some voters who might not want to vote for a black man for president. If that's you, if you're going to vote for me because you just don't want to vote for a black man, then let me say this to you: Don't vote for me either. I don't want your vote."

The professional political consultant might even offer an explanation for why that's not something either of them should say. I'm not sure I would understand that explanation. That's probably why I'm not a highly paid professional political consultant.

(It's also possible that one or both candidates have already said something similar to the above. If so, please point me to it. I would find that immensely heartening.)

Comments

[John]

You answered your own question.

If the Democratic party is feckless enough to fail to enforce its own rules, its doesn't need to be in power. Throw the bums out and get adults to rebuild the party. And, just in passing, as I and Mr. Google understand the rules, delegates to the D convention are not required to vote for any particular candidate. An Obama delegate can, within the rules, vote for Clinton on the first ballot. George Will's observation applies here.

If Clinton can persuade enough delegates to vote for her, she'll win. The same for Obama. Just like our general presidential election, the popular vote does not determine the outcome of the convention, just the selection of electors who are free to vote their own minds.

[mcc]

John McCain has, for the most part, defied the party & been his own man.

I disagree with this. I think that there was a period within the last ten years where he did admirably break from the party on some specific issues, in particular torture. But he has made a specific effort to smooth or disappear those breaks as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination; and on the torture issue in particular, the issue where as far as I can tell he broke most strongly with his party, in recent votes he does not appear to be voting the way he voted two years ago. The media's interpretation of McCain as not in step with his party or somehow a "maverick" seems to me to mostly be a quirk of the way that the Republicans of late have achieved such strong party discipline that even minor deviations from the party line seem like huge breaks. In the case of the Democrats, on the other hand, how can you deviate from the party line of a party that doesn't even have one? The Democrats for the last ten years have shown an utter lack of direction, clearly defined principles, or any indication they institutionally speaking have any idea what they're doing. There's more difference between the progressive and "blue dog" caucuses within the Democratic Party than there is between the blue dogs and the Republicans. It seems like the only way you could possibly "defy" a party like that would be to outright endorse a Republican presidential candidate or something.

[Mabus]

Froborr: That'd be because we consider Republican views bad, so defying them is good. Democratic views are, um, marginally less bad, so defying them to adopt Republican views is bad.

One would assume that, for a conservative observer, the terms would be reversed.

I dislike Democratic views. I don't think they're insane (for the most part) or deliberately malicious. There are things I would not do for a Republican victory, even aside from what's currently considered "dirty tricks", and in fact I support the Dems this upcoming election.

Democrats do not seem to consistently extend the same favors to me as a Republican (though some do), and my natural expectation is that this is why Lieberman is so vilified.

[Lauren]

John: You got a link there?

[Yawzoa]

\"Clinton knows this, it\'s her only path to victory, and she doesn\'t care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.\"

So when do the bloggers at DailyKos apologize to us on the right who had the exact same opinion of Mr and Mrs Clinton back in the 90s? You know, those of us they vilified as \'haters\' to spare us the horrors of a Dole Presidency, or a resignation that would have given us President Gore?

[Jeff]

Democrats do not seem to consistently extend the same favors to me as a Republican (though some do), and my natural expectation is that this is why Lieberman is so vilified.

Karl Rove. Scooter Libby. Dick Cheney. Why should we extend Republicans **any** courtesy, when they say "I'll vote D **this time**", but seem to have no shame in their party?

======================

So when do the bloggers at DailyKos apologize to us on the right who had the exact same opinion of Mr and Mrs Clinton back in the 90s?

Because you were, and are, a bunch of lying jerks. (Vince Foster, dude?) That you may have been somewhat right some of the time is pure coincidence.

[Yawzoa]

\"Because you were, and are, a bunch of lying jerks.\"

So Hillary\'s shady business deals are still off the table? Why won\'t she release her tax returns?

[Raka]

Robb: Glad to know I'm not the only one who'd vote for McCain before voting for Hillary.

Sorry, but no. I'd write-in either Obama or Nader, depending on what "message" I felt like sending. If I thought there were a genuine chance of McCain reforming the Republican party and bringing back something like honest conservatism, I'd be all over it. Hell, I might go for a Repub reformer over a liberal I actually like, simply because I'm willing to take 4-8 years of policies I don't favor in exchange for purifying the current pack of corrupt and dishonest power-seekers. But I've seen no signs of that from McCain. If he were to run against Hillary at the front of the Republican party of the 1980's, or possibly even Gingrich's gang of inept and odious (yet largely sincere) hounds of the 90's... maybe. He has shown an ability to break with party orthodoxy and occasionally focus on the effectiveness of policy over mere expediency. But he's also participated in too much partisan gamesmanship, and it'll take more than McCain-Feingold to make me forget Keating. It doesn't help that I find his policy positions (particularly on reproductive rights and foreign policy) antithetical to my own worldview.

I think I'm rare in that I favor honesty and accountability over policy. Policy, for the most part, can be corrected in a few years. Maybe a few thousand people are dead and a few tens of thousands have had their lives ruined. That's bad, no argument. But take away the expectation of honesty and the enforcement of accountability, and all of a sudden anything goes. Katrina wasn't a policy problem, it was a cronyism and accountability problem. Iraq wasn't a policy problem-- Bush actually campaigned on "no more nation-building"-- it was an honesty (the flood of misleading and outright untrue propaganda leading up to the war) and accountability (the endless parade of bungling that followed the invasion as decisions and appointments followed ideology and cronyism with predictably disastrous results, while the media and Democrats offered little more than a token bleat of disapproval). The erosion of civil liberties and rise of the unitary executive are not policies... and so on.

The Republicans got themselves (and the rest of us) into this mess because they were willing to ignore problems with honesty and accountability in the belief that it would support "their" party, the one that was at least superficially more aligned with their preferred policies. I don't want to make the same mistake.

[Jeff]

So Hillary\'s shady business deals are still off the table?

Yes, because they were examined and found to be "Whitewater" -- nothing at all. Her donor list, and her returns are another matter, but not for the likes of Republican scum (twice as many Americans killed than by bin Laden; more Iraqis killed than by Saddam Hussein; not to mention Katrina, and all the other disasters your friends have thrust upon my country).

[Raka]

John: ...as I and Mr. Google understand the rules...

Mr. Google? Really? Gotta say, my house has one Mr. and one Mrs.; the one who knows where everything is ain't the Mr.

[Yawzoa]

\"Her donor list, and her returns are another matter, but not for the likes of Republican scum \"

I\'m not sure I understand you; either she\'s at fault for not releasing them to the public or she\'s not. If she\'s as clean as you say, what does she have to hide?

[hapax]

I don't have a dog to hunt in the Obama /Clinton divide. I liked Kucinich and voted for Edwards, although I knew he didn't have a chance by that point. I will actively and financially support whichever takes the nomination. And, to be blunt, there is no technical way to "steal" that nomination -- except in the aggrieved fantasies of disgruntled partisans. Neither Obama nor Clinton could have made it this far in the rough-and-tumble world of Democratic party politics without knowing how to game the rules very very well -- and if either can persuade more convention delegates to vote for them, I say more power to them.

But I am truly astonished at the vitriol that is shown by their respective proxies /supporters (including here) -- although I believe that the candidates have not stooped to this level. We have had sixteen years of this kind of disgusting Republican "oppo research", turning every hardball tactic and less-than-saintly personal decision in to an insurmountable character flaw, while ignoring the quite credible track records, respectable principled positions, and above all competent and practical approaches to the business of governing.

Meanwhile the Republicans -- including the soi-disant "maverick" John McCain, who quite literally has blood on his hands with his craven caving on the torture bill, filth on his soul with his shameless pandering to the fundamentalist crowd, and may very well be an undiagnosed sociopath with his terrifying "humorous" shtik on potential war with Iran -- gets a free pass from the press because they like his way with a barbecue fork, and those here who claim to be "reality based" lap up their scribbled drippings like well-trained dogs.

If you're going to vote for McCain over Clinton (or anybody else), that is your right, your privilege, and (if you truly support the man and his positions) your duty. But don't lie to yourself or anyone else about what you are really endorsing.

[Robin Z]

mcc | Mar 17, 2008 at 07:39 PM: The media's interpretation of McCain as not in step with his party or somehow a "maverick" seems to me to mostly be a quirk of the way that the Republicans of late have achieved such strong party discipline that even minor deviations from the party line seem like huge breaks.

Are you sure? According to the Washington Post, if you count Sen. Bernard Sanders as a Democrat, the top 28 spots for "voting with the party" are all Democrats, the bottom 7 all Republicans, and the average percentages are 87.6% and 81.7%, respectively. (Note that the 102 Senators listed include former members Trent Lott and Craig Thomas - hence the illusion of a Republican plurality.) And percentages in the House are 92.3% and 85.4%, respectively.

It may be that they're forced into voting as a bloc on some important subset of critical issues, but I need to see citations if you're saying that.

[Mabus]

Jeff: Karl Rove. Scooter Libby. Dick Cheney. Why should we extend Republicans **any** courtesy, when they say "I'll vote D **this time**", but seem to have no shame in their party?

I detest these characters as much as you do. I don't have any significant influence over them, not being a party official. I am ashamed of such people, indeed--but I am not ashamed of most of my party's policies (neoconservativism aside). I would be ashamed of support for most Democratic policies. So long as Democrats continue to disagree with me on matters of policy, it would be stupid and self-defeating to vote for them, except occasionally as a protest measure.

[mcc]

Are you sure? According to the Washington Post, if you count Sen. Bernard Sanders as a Democrat, the top 28 spots for "voting with the party" are all Democrats, the bottom 7 all Republicans, and the average percentages are 87.6% and 81.7%, respectively.

Well, my comment was based on my personal perceptions rather than any kind of empirical data; this seemed reasonable at the time because the person I was responding to was offering nothing more specific themselves. If there's on the other hand any data that can seriously be used to measure the position and consistency of party orthodoxy, that might be interesting to look at.

However, I don't think the specific data point you've pulled out there is useful for that purpose. One thing I would note is that those numbers are less telling us anything about the Democrats vs Republicans as parties than they are just a simple byproduct of the relatively recent fact that the Democrats are in the majority now; take that URL you linked and replace the number "110" with the number "108" or "109" and I think you'll find the numbers in the Democrat vs Republican party voting percentages basically swap for the years when the Republicans held the majority.

(Aside from that obvious effect, this is kind of an offtopic rant here, but I personally find these party-line voting or "most liberal senator in the senate" measurements kind of dubious; you can see some interesting effects in them at times, but ultimately they're attempting to reduce something non-numerical to a numerical score. Simple measurements like these discard the fact that some votes are more important than others; Congress votes on a lot of unimportant stuff, and it's difficult to exactly tell which votes are "important" since for some bills the REALLY important vote will be not final passage but an innocuous-looking cloture or amendment vote. Meanwhile it's especially difficult to measure discipline this way since both parties engage in "catch and release" policies whereby they'll whip just enough of the moderate/"maverick" members hard on that one important cloture vote, for example, to get it to pass, then once they've hit that threshold let the rest of the "mavericks" vote against it. Then we see in other situations congresspersons gaming those exact numbers you posted by vote against the day's minutes, etc... basically if you're judging a voting record you kind of have to pick out which votes were the critical/"chips are down" ones, and most of these simple scores don't. And, of course, even if you did have a reasonable barometer of party allegiance somewhere I think it might be a little questionable for purposes of measuring the degree to which a party is focused or split, because it wouldn't tell us why any particular bill was voted for or against, or measure any split a member may have with their party that didn't come up in a major vote... *shrug*)

[Drak Pope]

So long as Democrats continue to disagree with me on matters of policy, it would be stupid and self-defeating to vote for them, except occasionally as a protest measure.

That makes sense to me. If you agree mostly with the GOP, it makes sense to vote entirely or primarily for candidates from the GOP. I don't understand why someone would expect a Republican-supporter to vote for a Democrat often.

I see Joe Lieberman as being to the Republicans as what Bernie Sanders is to the Democrats. They are both Independents, but their conservative / liberal leanings (respectively) tend to cause them to vote with a certain party on certain issues more often than is perhaps comfortable to some.

[aunursa]

mcc: One thing I would note is that those numbers are less telling us anything about the Democrats vs Republicans as parties than they are just a simple byproduct of the relatively recent fact that the Democrats are in the majority now; take that URL you linked and replace the number "110" with the number "108" or "109" and I think you'll find the numbers in the Democrat vs Republican party voting percentages basically swap for the years when the Republicans held the majority.

I have no empirical data, but I would think that the minority party would be more likely to remain loyal to the party -- an "us against the world" or "bunker mentality" if you will. The majority party, by contrast, would be harder to keep together, as the various factions strive advance their own respective agendas. And the longer the majority party is in power, the more difficult it would be to maintain unity.

[John]

Lauren,

Try the Dem Convention site

http://www.demconvention.com/how-to-become-a-delegate/

Look at the Delegate Selection Rules. There are provisions for presidential candidates vetting the list of delegates (why, if a pledged delegate is legally required to vote for a specific candidate) and the following provision:

12.J "Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

The obligation is an appeal to vote in good conscience, not a legal requirement. As I understand it, States are free to legally bind delegates to a candidate for a number of votes, but the party rules do not. I can't find any requirement that a pledged delegate vote for her candidate for a specific number of ballots in the DNC (not State) rules. If you know of any such party-wide rule, I'd be grateful if you could specify it.

Glancing at Mr. Google's list, Slate and Wikipedia also note that no legal requirement bind pledged delegates to a specific vote at the party level. The NYT, house organ of the Democratic Party, insists that pledged delegates are bound, but does not specify how delegates are freed if no candidate garners a majority at first.

[Jesurgislac]

Yawzoa: Why won\'t she release her tax returns?

Why should she? Why do people pester the Democratic candidates to release their tax returns/their military records, etc, while Republicans get a free pass? Bush got away with lying about his military service, such as it was before he deserted, and a considerable amount of mysteriously "vanishing" military records about his desertion. McCain gets away with not releasing his tax returns. Is it that total dishonesty is expected from Republicans?

[not_scottbot]

'Also, if you're that worried about IP tracking, you should consider using an anonymizer.'

Well, ironically, IP tracking is not really a worry of mine - since in the end, most of the anonymizers are merely easily managed honeypots (Tor, here's looking at you), or really well monitored choke points. Though for those interested in a service I did use, the link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penet_remailer describes some history. Take special note of 'Its initial creation stemmed from an argument in a Finnish newsgroup over whether people should be required to tie their real name to their online communications. Julf believed that people should not—indeed, could not—be required to do so.' Then read about the compromises, attacks, and shutdown. One of the most amusing things about anon.penet.fi that I remember is that when his server was actually examined, it turned out to be an old 386 - various legal authorities had imagined a vast system of incredible power posing a direct threat to civil society world wide. Somehow, the enemies of our fantasies are always more exciting than the mundane reality.

Odd as this may sound, why bother with hiding my IP? - what I want to prevent is connecting that IP to any meaningful information. Though accused of being part of some huge sockpuppet hydra, this accusation is pretty nonsensical for anyone with access to their own web logs - my posting follows a normal European rhythm, and comes from the same IP numbers. I like my privacy, but I am not trying to hide any secrets, a distinction that many people seem unable to understand. As noted above, my feelings stem from a pre-Web 1.0 era - I don't feel any need to actually build an online identity, nor to connect it with a real one.

Which in today's America, and likely tomorrow's Europe, is in and of itself an accusable crime. Because thoughtcrime is the worst problem we face, even larger than the war against a noun. And let's be honest - this is part of what is going on between Obama and Clinton. 50% of the population knows what sexism feels like, while less significantly less than that percentage knows what racism in America feels like (with overlap, of course). Considering that a significant percent of that total population even denies racism exists any longer (it is possible that the number that believes this is larger than the total black population of the U.S.), it is important to make sure that the proper thoughtcrime is punished.

For example, of a black man talking about his hatred for America - 'This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.' Ooops - that wasn't Wright. 'No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people...God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme", from a 2003 sermon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright ). Strange - Wright sounds as if he actually pays some attention to what America does, not what many Americans believe. Thoughtcrime, it seems, because questioning America's actions gives aid and comfort to our enemies. This is especially true if someone is elected who just might actually believe that America is damned as long as it kills innocent people in the name of freedom and justice. Not that any Republican or Democrat elected to the office of president would believe that - no one is forced into the job of commander in chief of the nation that spends 50% of the world's military expenditure against their will, much less against the will of our current military-industrial-media complex.

[bad Jim]

McCain, people? Seriously? "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Is that really what you want? A Supreme Court that would take us back to nineteenth century sexual mores?

"Straight-talk" John McCain is a corrupt, pandering, opportunistic, war-mongering, philandering suck-up. For any principle you may think he has, you can easily find when and where he's given it up for a moment's advantage. He really has no fixed principles.

Only someone utterly uninformed would choose McCain on the basis of his character, which is about as fictional as John Wayne's heroism. Do we really need another phony cowboy in the White House?

[Yawzoa]

Jesurgislac, is your only defense of Sen Clinton\'s non release of her tax returns simply that she\'s no worse than a Republican? I thought she was supposed to be better than them.

\"The big plus point of indirect democracy is that the representatives are not a simple proxy for the electorate...but on any individual decision the community is inevitably divided, or hopelessly parochial and so you have to be able to see beyond that.\"

Going back to Raka\'s \"I think I\'m rare in that I favor honesty and accountability over policy\", doesn\'t the above about indirect democracy encourage dishonesty? A \"hopelessy parochial\" electorate probably wouldn\'t elect someone who came right out and claimed that he or she was \"able to see beyond\" their views. Should gay marriage supporters, as an example off the top of my head, come right out and lie about it to get elected, so they have the power to do what you believe to be right?

[Jesurgislac]

Yawzoa: Jesurgislac, is your only defense of Sen Clinton\'s non release of her tax returns simply that she\'s no worse than a Republican? I thought she was supposed to be better than them.

Have you always had this reading comprehension problem? Is that why you vote Republican?

Clinton doesn't have to release tax returns to prove anything to anyone, because Clinton, unlike Obama or McCain, already had her finances investigated, thoroughly, at immense public expense, by her political enemies - and was found to be as clean as anyone could expect.

Clinton and Obama are, either of them, so much better a Presidential candidate than McCain that McCain is just barely qualified for a position as Presidential Bootlicker, supposing that either Obama or Clinton were planning to continue that Bush-appointee post.

But, people who are demanding to see Clinton's tax returns are somehow unconcerned about McCain's. Even though these people are in general Republicans who want McCain elected, they don't want to examine McCain's finances - only the finances of the candidate they don't want elected. Odd, that, isn't it?

[Jesurgislac]

not-Scottbot: Odd as this may sound, why bother with hiding my IP?

To avoid getting banned as Scott, fairly obviously.

[Josh]

The people whose first choice is Obama and whose second is McBush distress me: there's no way I can make sense of that position. I agree with the critics of Fred's suggestion, though, that "I don't want you vote" is not the way to go . . .

not what scott bought, your denunciations of what the U.S. public sphere and government have become are always refreshing; but I share the feeling of others here that the arguments connecting that to your policy on "online identity" and even privacy aren't persuasive. In short, "How can you criticize my view on the author-function while your government tortures innocents?" comes off as a non sequitur for me.

[Yawzoa]

\"Clinton doesn\'t have to release tax returns to prove anything to anyone\"

Where did she get the $5 million she loaned her own campaign after a lifetime of \"public service\"?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457

[aunursa]

Josh: The people whose first choice is Obama and whose second is McBush distress me: there's no way I can make sense of that position.

You underestimate the level of hatred for the other remaining Democratic candidate.

This poll is from last year, when 52% of likely voters said they wouldn't consider voting for Hillary no matter what. By contrast, each of the other candidates garnered a majority of voters who would consider them. The candidate with the next lowest rating was Mitt Romney, for whom 54% would consider voting. (60% said they would consider Obama, and 58%, McCain.)

Moreover, more voters considered Clinton unfavorably (42%) than favorably (38%). By comparison, every other candidate had a positive favorability rating.

This figure would almost certainly rise if she were to become the nominee and Obama's base believed that she took what was rightfully his nomination.

[Jesurgislac]

Where did she get the $5 million she loaned her own campaign after a lifetime of "public service"?

Given that we know the Clintons are honest dealers - thanks to the Republican's "Whitewater" investigation! - we can assume it was earned honestly.

Whereas John McCain is a noted tax dodger:

Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to the foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids’ private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.

McCain has net assets of between $20 million and $32 million, making him the seventh wealthiest member of the Senate. His wealth is tied to Cindy Hensley McCain, his second wife and heiress to Hensley & Co., a major Anheuser-Busch distributor.

[Jesurgislac]

Oh yes - that bit about McCain's tax dodging: John McCain’s Charitable Contributions, in Harper's Magazine this year.

And here's more, from the Washington Post, that bastion of pro-Republican news:

John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show.

Yet neither of those dodgy dealings have received widespread attention in the mass media: and strangely, McCain's supporters do not seem anxious to have their candidate's financial shenanigans investigated.

Put the best spin on it you can, keep squealing "Look at Hillary!" - but McCain's deep in the financial pigpen, and he won't get clean by trying to claim that either of the Democratic candidates is dirtier.

Obama or Clinton: either would make a good President, and either will get votes from the majority who are sickened by Bush and don't want 4 years more of McBush.

[aunursa]

Jesurgislac: Obama or Clinton: either would make a good President, and either will get votes from the majority who are sickened by Bush and don't want 4 years more of McBush.

Perhaps. But as of now, it's almost a dead heat.

[Jesurgislac]

Good. So come the election, whoever is finally the Democratic candidate will beat McCain two votes to one - which should be way too much of a landslide for past Republican vote-fixing tricks and dodges to get around.

[Jesurgislac]

Okay, the last comment was flip.

Amanda Marcotte noted that the thing that was driving most of the pundits nuts was because this was an election where none of their previous rules for guesstimating applied.

And this is especially true while Obama and Clinton are both trying to win the Democratic nomination, while McCain's been tossed the Republican nomination because no one really cares and he was the best of a bad bunch. One thing the long process of choosing has proved: far more people are far more interested in who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and are turning out to campaign and vote for their choice. It pays the Republicans to stir up trouble between the supporters of the two candidates - but I hope that Clinton and Obama each have a concession speech ready where they ask their supporters to go work for the other Democratic candidate.

[Yawzoa]

Put the best spin on it you can, keep squealing \"Look at Hillary!\" - but McCain\'s deep in the financial pigpen, and he won\'t get clean by trying to claim that either of the Democratic candidates is dirtier.

Slam McCain all you want; I never favored campaign finance reform. I don\'t believe the first amendment only covers porn like some seem to believe, and would like to see him hoist with his own petard. However, instead of comparing Hillary to Obama\'s disclosure, aren\'t you squealing \"Look at McCain!!\"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html

[Jesurgislac]

. I don't believe the first amendment only covers porn like some seem to believe, and would like to see him hoist with his own petard

And yet, your primary concern on this thread has been to venomously attack Clinton, something you were anxious to let us know you've been doing for fifteen years.

Republicans never seem to care about trying to clean up their own party candidates: it's so much more effective to slime other people's.

[aunursa]

Jesurgislac: It pays the Republicans to stir up trouble between the supporters of the two candidates

Oh, so Ferraro, Wright, Bill, 3AM, Rezko, etc. are all the Republicans' fault?

[Robb]

Suggest you check McCain's voting record before you repeat the media claims unthinkingly, Robb.

McCain-Feingold? McCain Kennedy Immigration bill? Global Warming? Sure, he's voted with the party (thanks to Robin Z for the link above) as one might expect him to do as long as he bears the label of Republican.

But at least to some extent (perhaps only ostensibly, but I personally doubt it), McCain realizes that nothing gets done if you pretend you & yours are all that matter - you have to work with the other side of the aisle. You have to admit that not only are the "others" people, but that their opinions & ideals might have some value, however little.

I believe Barack Obama knows this as well - his rhetoric isn't just about getting rid of Bush, it's about uniting, reaching out & bringing together. I don't believe it's just nebulous pandering - I think it's critically important. Partisan polarization is a really bad thing. John McCain may be a Republican, but his attitude of interparty cooperation (even if it's not nearly enough) is something the leadership of the U.S. (in both parties) desparately needs.

*****

Clinton doesn't have to release tax returns to prove anything to anyone, because Clinton, unlike Obama or McCain, already had her finances investigated, thoroughly, at immense public expense, by her political enemies

That makes it all the more curious as to why she won't release more recent information. More transparency is never a bad thing.

[aunursa]

McCain-Feingold? McCain Kennedy Immigration bill? Global Warming?

Also the Gang of 14, which infuriated both conservatives and liberals.

[Jesurgislac]

Sure, he's voted with the party (thanks to Robin Z for the link above) as one might expect him to do as long as he bears the label of Republican.

He voted lockstep with Republicans on all issues that were of importance to the party - including working with his party to make torture legal.

But at least to some extent (perhaps only ostensibly, but I personally doubt it), McCain realizes that nothing gets done if you pretend you & yours are all that matter - you have to work with the other side of the aisle.

*shrug* That just makes McCain a professional politician. I said he was the best of a bad bunch, and obviously he'd have been a better President than Bush if Rove hadn't done him out of the candidacy. (Then again, given a choice between McCain and Gore, and without Jeb Bush ensuring Florida was rigged for his brother, the results of 2000 might have been different.)

You have to admit that not only are the "others" people, but that their opinions & ideals might have some value, however little.

When the "others" are proposing that corporations that commit crimes for the President ought to have immunity from prosecution, that US soldiers ought to be allowed to torture prisoners of war, and that political prisoners held by the US ought not to have the right to habeus corpus? Why yes, these are people - people are capable of great evil as well as great good - but their opinions and "ideals" are of the following value: they amount to fascist power for the US head of state. You think that has "some value", and you're right: but not a value I would care to support.

I believe Barack Obama knows this as well - his rhetoric isn't just about getting rid of Bush, it's about uniting, reaching out & bringing together. I don't believe it's just nebulous pandering - I think it's critically important. Partisan polarization is a really bad thing.

Absolutely. And as the Republicans are responsible for it, I hope that Barack Obama means not only getting rid of Bush and his criminal crew, but refusing to admit to any degree of power all of the Republicans who enabled and pandered Bush and his criminal crew, and who decried any opposition to Bush's criminal behavior as "partisan polarization".

My main caveat about Obama is that he may actually think the best thing for the US is to do a Ford or a Bush - forgive the criminals in the hope that they do better in future. He won't even have Ford's excuse that there had never before been an open crook in the White House: and Nixon's crimes were trivial compared to the current Bush. Nor will he have Bush Senior's rationale, that if he didn't pardon the people going to trial, their evidence might well convict him. If Obama "reaches out" to the criminals and panderers currently running the Republican party, they will smile, take his hand, and smear him across the road. Do Clinton credit: we can be certain she knows that the creepy crooks are not to be trusted.

That makes it all the more curious as to why she won't release more recent information.

It should be obvious: because if she does, the media will swoop on it and tear it to pieces, blowing up any shadow into a monster mountain. That is, it's obvious to me, because I've been alive and aware of US politics over the past 20 years or so: perhaps you're too young to remember the media jamboree over the Clinton administration?

[hapax]

I just watched the video of Obama's speech on the Wright controversy. Day-yum.

Sorry, Fred, I liked his response MUCH better than yours.

[Jeff]

Put the best spin on it you can, keep squealing \"Look at Hillary!\" - but McCain\'s deep in the financial pigpen, and he won\'t get clean by trying to claim that either of the Democratic candidates is dirtier.

Is it just me, or do the posts by Yawzoa look like a political poetry jam? ee cummings by way of Karl Rove.

[hapax]

Actually, Jeff, I keep hearing hearing Yawzoa channel Don Marquis (no, not that clear-eyed cockroach archy, but very possibly warty bliggens)

[Jeff]

Actually, Jeff, I keep hearing hearing Yawzoa channel Don Marquis (no, not that clear-eyed cockroach archy, but very possibly warty bliggens)

LOL. That sounds about right.

[Robb]

And as the Republicans are responsible for [partisan polarization]...

WHAT?!?!? That's ridiculous - Democrats are as much to blame. EVERYONE who is committed to praising/defending their side while downplaying/villainizing/demeaning the other is guilty of that. You can't begin to excuse those who hold similar views, while slamming those "others" to whom you make no pretense of respecting or agreeing with. That's blatant hypocrisy.

It should be obvious: because if she does, the media will swoop on it and tear it to pieces, blowing up any shadow into a monster mountain.

I don't think that's "obvious" - you're assuming that "the media" is some kind of force unified against Hillary. Perhaps Obama has cast his magic spell on some (OBLIVIATE! ...and I'm placated- [swoon]) that has generated some residual antipathy toward her, but that doesn't mean there's a vast, right wing conspiracy in the media against her. This is the MSM we're talking about - not just Rush (may his heart spasm wildly in the throes of death) or the talking heads on Fox News. Of course they're going to shred anything she does, but will everyone else? I doubt it.

perhaps you're too young to remember the media jamboree over the Clinton administration?

That was during my teen years (I'm 29 now), and despite having vague suspicions that he wasn't totally on the level, I thought that whole Independent Council was a load of crap. But it was partisan generated crap, not something that was inspired by the general public's "outrage" with Clinton, who had some of the highest approval ratings of a Prez ever.

It was my frustration at the political media* that made me largely tune out of the 2000 primary & election process. My bad.

* Well, not entirely: there was a girl I was involved with back then that distracted me far more than a brutal SC primary or a contested re-count ever could have.

[Jesurgislac]

Democrats are as much to blame. EVERYONE who is committed to praising/defending their side while downplaying/villainizing/demeaning the other is guilty of that.

Yep. But the Democrats didn't have to downplay/villainize/demean the Republicans: just outline what the Republicans were actually doing.

Whereas the Republicans did have to downplay/villainize/demean the Democrats, and did

So the only way anyone could claim "Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans" for the partisan polarizing of the past twenty years, is someone who's been paying no attention to politics except for what Fox News/right-wing blogs tell them in all that time.

I don't think that's "obvious" - you're assuming that "the media" is some kind of force unified against Hillary.

See above. It's not "obvious" to you, because you've been paying no attention to what the media actually does.

[pat greene]

As to where Clinton made her money, she was paid an $8 million advance on her autobiography, which went on to become an international best-seller. And that doesn't even count the sales from It Takes a Village. Or her other books.

She might have other sources of income, but that's a good start.

[Robb]

It's not "obvious" to you, because you've been paying no attention to what the media actually does.

What crack do you think am I on that I'm missing this blatant sexism focused exclusively on Hillary? Brief disclaimer: I don't watch tv (save for Lost & a few other shows that I download), so I don't know what you're talking about there; but with everything I'm reading (or hearing on NPR), there's as much or more focus on the "race" issue, and far more criticism is aimed at Hillary over what she's doing now with the Florida & Michigan delegates. You may have decided that we're all sexist pigs, but if (back to the 'ol hypothetical) Henry Clinton were trying to seat delegates that he'd previously stated shouldn't be seated, just because it would favor his chance of getting a nomination he was probably not getting, there would be just as much uproar.

She's been evasive about her past mistakes, and harshly critical of someone she's claiming is good enough to be a running mate - she may have been victimized in the past, but she's far from undeserving of the rough ride she's having right now.

[Jesurgislac]

What crack do you think am I on that I'm missing this blatant sexism focused exclusively on Hillary?

You're missing a whole crapload of American political history from 1992 onwards. Seriously, if you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to go do a lot of reading. The Clintons were subject to vicious attacks throughout Bill Clinton's Presidency: both Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton got an extra level of misogynistic hostility, Chelsea for just being the Clintons' daughter (Rush Limbaugh cracked that Chelsea was the White House "dog"): and Hillary Clinton would doubtless have received that level of hostility for being Bill Clinton's wife: but she compounded her offense in the eyes of the media for being able, intelligent, ambitious, and a First Lady who was partner as well as wife. The mainstream media in the US - the White House coterie - have a long history of hostility towards both Clintons, with a special poisonous extra for Hillary Clinton.

[Jesurgislac]

pat greene: As to where Clinton made her money, she was paid an $8 million advance on her autobiography, which went on to become an international best-seller. And that doesn't even count the sales from It Takes a Village. Or her other books.

Yeah, but the creeps chanting "Release the tax returns" - at Hillary Clinton, but not John McCain! - don't care about that. They're probably convinced she made the $5M by assassinating Vincent Foster.

[Jeff]

Democrats are as much to blame

Bull-fucking-shit. Lee Atwater and Karl Rove ring any bells, buddy? You want to be in the discussion, learn at least a LITTLE history.

[Robb]

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove ring any bells, buddy?

Yes, they do. So does James Carville.

Actually, Lee Atwater is quite a fascinating figure - it's really a shame his brain tumor couldn't have happened sooner; his repentence was quite powerful, especially in the light of the cruel things he said/did during his career. Bad Boy was a very interesting book.