This is not a new phenomena. Our system has branches of the government pitted against each other by design. Internal conflict was the goal of the founders, as that is the only way to limit the excesses of government.

By the standards of most of US history, this presidential campaign is positively genteel:

“During the nation's first contested presidential election in 1796, supporters of Vice President John Adams charged his challenger, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, with atheism, sexual improprieties, and dangerous revolutionary intentions. For their part, Jefferson backers accused Adams of plotting to establish a monarchy, crown himself king, and ally the country with its foe, Great Britain.”

“In the election of 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson was tarred as an agent of the French Revolution…”

“Opponents of Andrew Jackson accused him of murder, while Old Hickory’s men whispered that his rival John Quincy Adams had been, while U.S. minister to Russia, a pimp for the tsar..”

“In 1864 the Lincoln reelection campaign equated opposition to the president and the Republican party with disloyalty to the Union…, depicted the Democrats essentially as traitors.”

“Democrats also got personal, characterizing Grant as an alcoholic, uncouth, simple-minded, unprincipled, Negro-loving tyrant… “

“After the Civil War the Republicans would “wave the bloody shirt”-that is, associate the Democratic party with secession and opposition to the Union war effort-in every presidential election into the 1880s. The 1868 Democratic presidential nominee, Horatio Seymour, was an especial target of the “bloody shirt” because while New York governor in 1863 he had addressed the New York City draft rioters as “My friends.” Others labeled his links to the Peace Democrats as the equivalence of treason.”

“Democrats accused Rutherford Hayes of stealing the pay of deceased soldiers while he was a Union general, opposing citizenship for all immigrants, and income tax fraud. One Democrat encouraged the Tilden camp, to no avail, to investigate the question, “Did Hayes shoot his mother in a fit of insanity?”

“An Oct. 26 headline in the New York Times: “President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascists’ Tool.”

And of course there is the particularly divisive 1860 election, when we as a country, actually decided to spend the post election environment literally shooting and killing over 600,000 of our fellow citizens.

One is tempted to suggest that unity, political civility, and polite debate in a presidential campaign is downright Un-American.

2000, as I remember, was about which guy you'd rather have beer with.

2004 was about who had the better military record, and somehow lots of people preferred the guy from the champagne unit who stayed home during the war (and whose satisfaction of discharge requirements was rather iffy, to say the least) over the guy who risked is life fighting in the war (and had the metals to show for it).

Settling for half a loaf is a deeply ingrained American tradition.

So is complaining about it.

They all have a vote, and rightly so. No politician can afford to ignore the divergent groups to the extent that he endangers his electability, and thus aborts his chances for being an effective President, leading the country in a direction he thinks is best for the nation's future.
If politics is the mechansim for how a democracy functions, then politicians are compelled to be politicians.
For that matter, we are all politicians. Isn't that the purpose of blogging and commenting? How much of that is carried out in a highly principled way?

It comes down to gauging the direction in which a candidate is heading and the qualities he exhibits when he's not busy politicng. That's what has sold me on Obama from the beginning, not his latest statement to the press.

His speech on race exhibited the ability to understand the complexities of human nature and inreracton and the intelligence required to apply his ideas to real life situations.
I ve never seen that in McCain. He compromises and cooperates out of political necessity,just like Obama does, but not because he can accept the opposing view as having legitimacy, in my view.
Even should they both come to the exact same decision, they would get there by different routes, and that makes all the difference in the world to me.

Besides and above all that, I'm aware of how much harder it is for Obama. McCains'name is never maliciously confused with Osama, nor is his skin color, lineage or family connections a detriment. Just getting to the point where he is evaluated on an even footing with McCain is an achievement all its own. That kind of ability gets my support, unqualified support.

I am actually NOT disappointed that you're not upset over Obama's FISA stance — I didn't imagine you would be. I only a little disappointed; I never took him for a progressive on civil liberties and though I hoped I might be wrong, I didn't expect I would be. I don't like him.

His strategy of tracking McCain's positions actually amuses me. It's a good strategy. He immunizes himself from attack on the issues where Dems are typically vulnerable. I do wonder where he'll draw the line (if anywhere), but he's using a strategy that worked quite well against Hillary (whom I frankly preferred).

I am focusing on his positions because I think it's important for Dems who are concerned about civil liberties to see where Obama has landed. Some — not all — have fallen into line beside him with twirly-eyed fervor without caring to know what sort of Changes he had in mind.

Comparing their Senate voting records, I've found that Obama voted the way I would wish on a couple of pieces of legislation that mattered to me; McCain didn't. Furthermore, I would rather — I THINK — see the veto power and the power to appoint judges in Obama's hands.

It's really come down to that, as far as I'm concerned. I didn't expect Obama to bring about some sort of progressive revolution. And I wasn't optimistic that he'd stand by previous assertions that turn out to be inconvenient during the general.

I'll give him this: he's a hell of a politician. I look forward to the pie fight that is to come. Somehow I don't think it is going to be a battle over issues.

******

Tell ya what. September 1st just give me a jingle and I'll send you some “Write-In Clinton” bumper stickers…we should have a truckload of them printed by then…should solve your existential meltdown…

And we don't care whether Hillary is pressured to plead with us to support The Risky Teflon Demigod or not. She's getting our vote in November, whether she says she wants it or not…lol..and then in four years if necessary…whatever..