Heard them both, liked them both, and will probably write more about which I liked more in what passes for my little blog here.

For now... remembering my geometry, such as it was, one needs both axes to plot a chart.  Or, as the old song goes, "you can't have one without the other."

aMike

I think it's a pretty good description of the two differing approaches. In my mind, the pipe dream is the one promising to change our culture of politics. That is completely unattainable without once and for all strangling the right and the Reupublicans until there's just no life left in them. We've seen this approach of uplifiting our politics before. Jimmy Carter was a proponent of this kind of non-reform reform and it made him quite popular in 1976. It did nothing for him after 1976. Nothing positive at any rate, it may well have hurt him as he continued to pine away for a government and politics that did what was right while those with real, hard nosed agendas ran right over him. What Carter lacked was any clear set of priorities and policies. Similarly, Obama's broad but kind of wishy washy appeal to return to our better nature and create a new politics is a hollow husk that might win the nomination and presidency but will establish no set of priorities and thus allow either the status quo to continue uanabated or allow a further drift to the right. So that puts me in the Edwards column in terms of the path that we need to take. I like both and would have no problem voting for either for President against any of the swine Republicans, but I don't think Obama's approach promises any real, tangible hope of progress where it counts: on policies that will address the nation's real problems.

=== I also must admit that I take a bit of personal offense at the notion that our culture has been somehow degraded. To me, our culture is fine. We've just been led badly for 8 years. It creeps me out when a candidate seems overly concerned with my spiritual well-being. Please, just get us out of Iraq and leave my spiritual issues to me and my Central Park West shrink. ===

A couple of points on Obama's narrative (or Andrew's interpretation of it anyway). First, as Duncan Black has said it assumes that somewhere there is some wonderful land 'above the muck' where people float about clean and fresh, never having to shovel anything unpleasant. There isn't any such land and if there were the story of the lotus-eaters would probably come into play.

Second, our politics has not "become small" or "become" anything else. I have to question if Obama has read any of Grover Norquist's published writings for the last 20 years, or the AEI's, or PNAC's. These people laid out and then executed a very deliberate campaign to get what they wanted - part of which was the destruction of any discourse that might tend to legitimize progressive values or actions. And one of the methods they use to do this was to convince their base that anyone to the "left" of John McCain was an untrustworthy, unpatriotic, welfare-dependent "liberal". Their base now actually believes this and doesn't /want/ to be rescued by a "larger" politics - and certainly doesn't "socialized medicine".

So IMHO Obama is more than a bit naive if he really thinks this will work. Certainly Roberts, Alito, and Scalia have been left behind as time-bombs to derail such attempt.

sPh

My question would be, can you motivate people to pursue a big change in politics while only giving them small policy ideas? It will be interesting to see.

My take on that would be that Democrats have been trying to motivate people with endless 15-point plans on everything, which is really kind of silly, since it's all going to get mashed up once it hits the sausage factory of the US Congress. Changing the politics opens the door for better policies in that sausage making process -- you hopefully don't have nearly as many representatives running away from it out of fear of being called "liberal" in their next campaign. It changes the media coverage of every proposal, and it changes how much time any given progressive candidate has to spend explaining that they don't hate America, they just wish poor people made more money, and so on.

I don't want our next candidate to just undo the damage that's been done the last six and a half years. I want our next President to undo the damage Reagan did to our politics.

Do you think the 15-point plan tendency is an attempt to emulate the success of the Contract with America? (I ask this as a serious question, having been out of the country for the Newt Revolution.) Were Republican voters were responding to specific plans, or to a more generalized desire to change politics in an anti-Clinton way? Curious as to your opinion...

Thanks for your response. This all sounds plausible to me; I'm as bored by 15 points as the next person (OK, maybe slightly less so, but I don't read policy proposals for fun). But I can't help but wonder from your comment, what types of reasons "why" do you envision? Are they at the level of generality of (just making this up here) "in America we care for our neighbors and protect our freedoms"? Or are you imagining something more specific than that? I ask because (maybe too much proximity to Missouri??) if those are the sorts of reasons why, my own inclination is to ask "what do mean? give me specifics? what sort of care are you suggesting" and so on. Where's the happy medium between shibboleths and 15-point plans?

That's a great question. My primary cop-out is to say that it's not really the role of the President to come up with these huge policy proposals anyway -- that really should either come from the legislature or from the members of his or her cabinet. Now, I can't say that even I completely buy that -- the past two administrations have proven more than ever that the President has a dramatic influence on policy just from the executive, and that should be subject to democratic review, but I can get behind it for the most part. The largest role that the President plays is, both via executive power and the bully pulpit, setting the tone of the national debate. And, I'd argue, given the success of Reagan's simple "the government is the problem" statement in crippling progressive policy for decades, that these larger ideological arguments are worth paying attention to.

My main criticism of Clinton is that her temperament seems far more suited to the legislature than the executive, and has done some good work there (Iraq notwithstanding). If I could extend that to Edwards, it's that he's made a raft of legislative proposals -- ones that he never bothered to make when he was actually in the Senate.

It is certainly true that we would be better off had many of Carter's policies passed. But the point I was making was that he ran on a very squishy, non-specific platform of not being Nixon or Ford. He promised to be honest, which he was, and people liked that. But what he did not do in his campaign was set the table for his agenda as President. Whatever Carter's accomplishments were, his campaign for President did nothing to forward any particular agenda at all for his presidency precisely becuase he, like Obama, focused his campaign on platitudes about honesty, renewing our politics, etc... So once he won the election, there was no real support or mandate for any particular action other than not being corrupt. That's the flaw in that approach. The key to an effective Presidency is both to win and then to implement an agenda that puts one's philosophy into practice. This takes nothing away from Carter's accomplishments.

You wrote:

"Changing the politics opens the door for better policies in that sausage making process"

But where do you get the magic wand from to "change the politics" and how exactly is it done? The answer is there is no magic wand and no way to change the politics of the country.

The politics are pretty much the same as as they have always been. The difference between today and most other times in our history is we have a well financed, and well-organized extremist right wing that is extremely belligerent, pugnacious, and willfully opposed to an orderly but free, democratic society. This extreme element now controls the Republican Party and a good chunk of the media. They are opposed by a flaccid Democratic Party hampered by a large contingent of members of Congress who do not believe in liberalism or liberal policies and will not support them if it means taking any rish whatsoever and even when it means taking no risk. The party leadership is more interested in retaining power than implementing sound liberal policies so it compromises both with the bellicose right and the pansy "centerist" Democrats. Thus, the leadership and the Democratic Party as a whole looks and acts weak because it is. The only way to change this is for a leader to come along and lead the Democratic Party down the path it needs to go and that is to expand liberal policies and practices. Until that happens the right remains wealthy and well-organized while the Democrats remain paralyzed and unorganized. If you need a good example of what I'm talking about look at the Dems performance on Irag in the past few months. No, there's no magic wand to change our politics and discourse other than leadership on a specific agenda of policies and programs that address the needs of the nation. They can't and shouldn't be a laundry list of 15 point plans, but they can and should be a handful of major initiatives that mean something to regular people and give them a reason to keep Democrats in power. If you wait for the politics to change via the magic wand and good intentions first, I'm afraid you'll be pushing up daisies lomg before anything comes of it.

politics without policy is well...politics.

Andrew, I have to comment on this here because I think you're likely to be reading, and I apologize for thread drift. But if I comment on Etzioni's post, I can't be sure you will. So thank you for your patience. 

But I have to ask: something is going really wrong with his postings, and should we allow it? I don't just mean that he's so obviously to the right of all the comments. That's normal with America Abroad and no doubt reflects the point of view of Josh and this Web site, and I have to accept that. It's not even that he never appears to read or reply to comments, although I think that's sad and shouldn't be tolerated.

But to add to that, all his posts are cross-posts. He not only doesn't have to read stuff here and interact. He doesn't even have to contribute. He just has to have a lackey cut and paste his words of wisdom. Is that really your vision of TPM? If he wants a bigger audience, there's always MySpace.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

The 55 mph speed limit was Nixon's contribution. Originally he wanted to make it 50, but the howls were too loud.

Carter was an awful president. He "led" the country into a grotesque economic quagmire by sticking to Republican economic policies. He let the Soviets push him around. And the Iranian hostage crisis actually saved his nomination, as it effectively ended the Kennedy challenge to him in a wave of "patriotic unity."

Kennedy would have crushed Reagan. Carter, saddled with a rotten economy and impotent responses to the way too long hostage crisis, let Reagan walk all over him. He stunk in his debate with Ronnie.

I also must admit that I take a bit of personal offense at the notion that our culture has been somehow degraded. To me, our culture is fine. We've just been led badly for 8 years.

Do you really believe this Destor? Do you really believe our culture is fine? I am assuming that we are both talking about the political culture in America. The culture that has resulted in verbal food fights on 'newsshows' with opinionated commentators like O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Talk Radio with Limbaugh and all sorts of wingnuts like Laura. Coulter and Malkin. The culture is very shrill, coarse and polarizing. Issues are not even discussed on their own merit. Rather, it is all about demeaning, humiliating and culturally devaluing the person or idea. Surely you do not think this fine?

How can you say that we have been led badly, we chose those leaders. Based on the mentality that permeates our airwaves. The airwaves are filled with acrimonious verbage and hostile sneers as these voices find no need to respect civil discourse nor the exchange of ideas. Rather they act like bullies verbally abusing people and fomenting fear and intimidation when the message does not conform to what they deem is 'best'.  Surely, calling people unpatriotic because they do not support a war or warrantless wiretapping is anything but a politically fine culture.

Our leaders are a reflection of the negativity these commentators emphasize and encourage as the 'right view'. Folks are badgered into capitulating or being subjected to scorn and derision, if they oppose America's ME policies, oppose corporate outsourcing and if they suggest that Bush is incompetent. All the while they cripple our government and fail to respond to citizens during catastophic events like Katrina and mass murder of Americans due to a short-sighted military policy in Iraq.

Surely you do not believe that the polarization of our nation into red and blue states and turning politics into a battle where citizens must take sides and where  political repsc pledge allegiance to their party affliiation over the US Constitution which erodes the very concept of democray is a political culture that is fine?

These are the fundamental ways that our political discourse has changed and must evolve from to a higher level if we are to bring about any policy changes in this country.  Policies mean nothing without the political will to implement them. It is the same with the law. There are many laws on the books that go unenforced. So no matter how many policies Edwards wants to change, we will be unable to execute them if the political culture of this nation does not change. Obama knows this and Hillary learned this much to her chagrin when she tried to implement her healthcare initiative. Great policy idea but huge political failure. Hilliary has the intellect yet  lacks the skill set  and character to benefit from her mistakes because she does not know how to build consensus on anything. i.e. she does not play well with others

It creeps me out when a candidate seems overly concerned with my spiritual well-being.

What has given you the view that Obama is  'overly concerned' about your spiritual being?  Obama made one speech on how the Democrats need not concede votes from individuals who have strong faith to the GOP. He outlined an effective political strategy of how not to do so. Obama did not belabor nor express a concern for people's spiritual well-being. He simply acknowledged that faith is important to many Americans and was a big factor as well in the lives of those who wrote the Constitution. What about that is creepy?

My suspicion and hope is that Obama is putting himself on a higher moral plane from which to launch an all out counterattack against the right's inevitable character assassinations. NOBODY can imagine that failing to respond to Republican slanders can lead to anything but defeat.

The politics are pretty much the same as as they have always been. The difference between today and most other times in our history is we have a well financed, and well-organized extremist right wing that is extremely belligerent, pugnacious, and willfully opposed to an orderly but free, democratic society. This extreme element now controls the Republican Party and a good chunk of the media.

If your first sentence here is true then the last sentence isn't. Which is it?

The only way to change this is for a leader to come along and lead the Democratic Party down the path it needs to go and that is to expand liberal policies and practices.

How can a party, let alone a leader expand liberal policies and practices if as you say the political party is flaccid and hampered by a large contingent unwilling to support liberal policies as they are risk-averse? Based on how you describe the problem it seems that political mindset is the core issue and will not respond until someone articulates the politics of change.  Until one individuals can effectively describe  and create the vision (magic wand) in order to mobilize change.

Political change is essential to progress there is no change without the political will no matter how great the ideas or initiatives. The only candidate running for President attempting to change the political will of Americans is Obama.

link

It is an interesting question. I suspect the answer is no, though. A nation of 300 million isn't like a city neighborhood. The US population is pretty much not even meant to be organized at a national level.

Doesn't this depend very much on the issue. Do you think that american's on a whole agree nationally that thr Iraq war policy along with healthcare, education and the economy need to change?  If so, that is how a city neighborhood is analogous to a nation of 300 million. It is the issues that they share in common that create the energy, political will and drive essential for change. While 'all politics are local' they reverberate at the national level.

"no matter what the core issue of the individual it is the positive energy of the group that will bring about change on all those issues."
...
"The latter group requires a person who will mold consensus from the ideas of the group and who is able to construct a vision and plan based on the ideas of the group." [NB: I think the latter group described here is the coalition of the change-minded, but it's a bit unclear from your post.]
...

WRB, I like the idea of an Obama candidacy, but it would help a lot if you could come up with a description of how you imagine this sort of non-proposal-based campaign working that isn't so acutely reminiscent of cults (positive group energy, leaders molding group consensus).

At the moment, I'm sympathetic, but the idea of responding to a general call to "change" leaves me cold. Change what? The details matter to me, although not at the level of Michael Bacon's rightly ridiculed 15-point plan. "Change" is not necessarily a progressive concept anymore -- there are plenty of nostalgic, conservative demands for change too.

He simply acknowledged that faith is important to many Americans and was a big factor as well in the lives of those who wrote the Constitution. What about that is creepy?

It's a dangerous road to take.

This incremental creep of faith into political discourse should be stopped. Using Faith as a political tool to attract the gullible into thinking that any, or even or some policy can have a foundation in faith -- is creepy. It is the chipping away of the separation of church and state, just like the religious right have been able to chip away at abortion rights.

It opens the door yet again for the religious right to frame the debate/ -- To attack the Constitution and how it was truly framed.

I don't like it

I hope Barry Lynn can have a spot on on TPM sometime and tell you exactly why this faith talk is helping the religious right on both sides of the aisle push their agenda... Listened to a talk on his new book last night... scared the crap out of me.

I don't feel comfortable with this...

So, in the 50s, when McCarthy was leading the charge, the political discourse was very respectful and deliberative?

How about during the civil rights era? I'm sure everyone had fine things to say about the Negroes.

Walter Cronkite may have presented it all in a respectful way, but the idea that this country had some sophisticated level of politics until Sean Hannity brought it down the tubes is pretty far off, in my opinion. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

It's not like the authenticity of the document is in dispute, you know.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Do I think the culture is fine? Well, I do see it in broader terms than just politics so it's very easy for me to say yes.

But even if we only limit the discussion to the political culture, I don't overly worry about Malkin, Limbaugh and Coulter. They're entertainers and they have their fans. I can live with that.

I think you're also kind of wishing for a past that never existed. Back when the news media was considered more "serious" and didn't report on things like FDR's health or JFK's dalliances, the media also didn't report on a lot of other stuff. The country was as misled into Viet Nam as it was misled into Iraq. The main media outlets were still controlled by large corporations beholden to government interests. William Buckley had a PBS show.

With the rise of the Internet, more ordinary people are now involved in major discussions than ever before. We have a long way to go but I'm somewhat inclined to believe that things are better now than they have been in a long time. Better to have all of us on here speaking for ourselves than to have Walter Cronkite try to speak for us all.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

With this statement, I think you unintentionally validate Obama's strategy:

"These people laid out and then executed a very deliberate campaign to get what they wanted - part of which was the destruction of any discourse that might tend to legitimize progressive values or actions. And one of the methods they use to do this was to convince their base that anyone to the "left" of John McCain was an untrustworthy, unpatriotic, welfare-dependent "liberal"."

Obama's strategy is basically to say "No, that's not true. Name-calling isn't an argument, and the people that your leaders have derided as "elitist" and "liberal" face the same challenges and have many of the same aspirations as you do. Conservatives have practiced a politics of division for at least the last thirty years, and it's time that you, the people are offered someone who wants to focus on what beings us together instead."

I don't think it's a naive strategy; I think it's a huge gamble, and could very easily fall prey to the cynicism of the media elite and the inherent corruption of our money-dominated system. Plus, a politics that focused on better policies has been a loser for Democrats for all of my adult life (I'm 45). The staus quo is not beneficial to progressives or the country. I'm all for trying something different.

So, in the 50s, when McCarthy was leading the charge, the political discourse was very respectful and deliberative? How about during the civil rights era? I'm sure everyone had fine things to say about the Negroes.

Yes, civil discourse was very deliberative in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s.. Go watch newscasts from that era. There weren't all these verbal food fights. There was actual analysis of the news and the content. The news was source and fact based not allegations, innuendos and celebrity rumors. People's views were challenged not demeaned. The political content was far more substantative even when subjective. Data was not 'thinktank' driven with pre-determined outcomes.

Walter Cronkite may have presented it all in a respectful way, but the idea that this country had some sophisticated level of politics until Sean Hannity brought it down the tubes is pretty far off, in my opinion. 

I said it was civil, not sophisticated. People actually took the time to listen and weigh the evidence without going off halfcocked. it was not 'inyourface' it was not derisive, coarse or name calling, from people given the mike and telecast into our homes or over the airwaves. Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh did take us right down the tubes. The fact that they are so rightwing and absurd is why we Colbert and Jon Stewart are such a success.

From all I've seen and heard, it would be accurate to state that Clinton is on neither of their paths. Rather than representing the fusion of hope and action, Clinton appears (to me) to be heavily invested in maintaining the status quo in operations without the jack-booted thuggery. Clinton's world view has everyone driving down the middle of the road between the sane and sober left and the insanity of the right. Clinton is and remains a corporatist.

Obama does have the ability to inspire with high-minded ideals and well-delivered prose. There is the mind of Constitutional scholar (and damn good one if reports are true) living in his head. There is real juice in those skillsets. He is an example of what to strive for in our lives. My issue is there is two percent leading thirty percent of folks in America absolutely committed to the destruction of what Obama typifies. Obama is usually second to the mark . . . I do not know if he has force of character strong enough to overcome the monolithic mindset of the right. With Obama you are buying the force of character.

With Edwards, one gets the guy who thought about these things before they were questions and devised workable nuts and bolts solutions. The solutions sometimes lack sexiness and gamour and often reflect working with existing frameworks to get the job done. Edwards understands the needs to protect and foster the Commons and democracy. I think he needs to fire his handlers and boldly put forth his agenda. He is doing the sane misstake that Gore and Kerry did . . . and it makes him appear wishy-washy. Edwards is pragmatic and results oriented.

The question remains what does one think will work best and that's where your vote belongs.

 The game of politics(and it is a game)

 While politics may be a game, when you change the rules of the game you change how it is played. How you play the game changes the game. Just as the 3 point shot changed the game of basketball and the type of playerskill that wins games. I will concede that the rules and playerskills are tactics and that you still have to make baskets to win. Nevertheless the overall game changed.

Real leadership can change the disorganized, weak and cowardly tactics of the Democrats just as (and I hate to say this) real leadership changed the Republican Party. For real leadership to take root, you must have a clearly defined platform of issues to run on and then attempt to implement once elected

Who is it that you believe represented real leadership in the Democratic party and the GOP party at the Presidential level in the past 3 decades?

Republicans of every idealogical stripe "get" this and that is why they have marched in such close lockstep ever since Gingrich rose to the Speakership. The Republican Party under the likes of Everett Dirksen and Hugh Scott in the Senate, or Ford, Griffin and Michael in the House was characterized by weak, submissive, compliant leadership much like that which we have seen from Democrats in Congress since about midway through Tip O'Neil's reign.

So your focus is on leadership in the Congress not the executive branch? These folks are all in the Congress which is a different animal altogether from the executive branch leadership.

 You do that by making clear what you are for and what your prioties will be if elected and then actually doing that

Karl Rove has not executed this strategy at all. Rove does not care whether he delivers. He does not care about a solid majority. He is happy to win with a slim margin and marginalize others in the process when he could have pleased more citizens with a larger margin of victory. Roves tactics thrive on divisiveness not on being inclusive. His singular priority is winning not the issues. The electorate is merely there as a means to power but once he has the power the issues are irrelevant.

The weaklings leading the Congressional Democrats are afraid to be "too" different from the Republicans on key issues like the war or "too" liberal in general so what's the difference to the average voter? Very little.

I suppose that is one perspective. The other perspective is that the Democrats simply do not have a veto proof majority. They have no way of pushing through any measures without a 2/3rds majority to override a Presidential veto.

A strong leader in the White House can change the behavior of the faint of heart in Congress to a great extent and thus change the political outcomes one might expect.

 The average voter needs to understand that there needs to be a solid majority of Democrats in Congress in order to bring about change. The electorate has to understand that to elect a President  alone is not sufficient in 2008 to bring about policy change. This is not about the faint of heart it is about a Democratic majority.

That is what can bring about real political change and "changing our politics" is something that doesn't have to occur at all in order for this to happen. "Changing our politics" is, to me, nothing more than a vague generality that means little or nothing in the real world--a rhetorical throwaway line.

Karl Rove doesn't agree with your thinking and neither does Obama. Rove changed our politics and that is clear to anyone who has been paying attention these past 8 years. Rove didnot care about this nation he made folks pledge allegiance to the GOP and treated the rest of the nation like scum. That is a poltical game change and a change of politics. That is how K street politics changed.

Which is why our politics need to change. The electorate understands that and so does Obama.

You are right about the 55 MPH speed limit. 

I apologize for the failure of memory and being too lazy to look it up.  With regard to the rest of your evaluation of Carter's Presidency, we're going to remain in disagreement, I'm afraid.  I find no evidence that Ted Kennedy could have quashed Reagan.  While the Wikipedia article suggests a rush of patriotism boosted Carter in Kennedy's campaign to unseat him, I think most historical accounts think that his attempt smacked of a kind of opportunism (why not run in 1972 or 1976?) and his withdrawal after winning 10 primaries to Carter's 24 a realistic appraisal the way the right would demonize him for Chappaquiddick and for his wife's bouts of alcoholism and mental illness. 

I first learned to hate the right for what they said about Kennedy.  In the long run of things, Kennedy has served superbly, "No Child Left Behind" notwithstanding.  History will remember him among the top twenty senators of all time, I think. I heard him speak at an outdoor rally in DC on Tuesday, in 98 degree heat, and he sounded 20 years younger than his 75 years, and looked at least 10 years younger.

With regard to issues of foreign and economic policy we'll have to wait to see which of our appraisals is more in tune with the judgment of history.  I will note, however, that the first ten pages of Google responses to the query Carter Foreign Policy suggest that most recent negative assessments come from one of two sources:  the right wing noise machine and the right wing of defenders of Israel demonizing him for his recent book, Palestine, Peace, not Apartheid.  One communist source also took up the Worst President Charge.

On the other hand:

• See the transcript of a Council of Foreign Relations Policy Discussion, Winning the Cold War; Jimmy Carter’s Forgotten Role which certainly argues against any evidence he was "pushed around" by the Russians.  Not mentioned here, but worthy remembering is Carter's withdrawal from the Russian Olympics and his canceling of the Wheat Contract, both, MHO, strong, principled actions which cost him dearly, politically.
• Carter's Brave Vision on Energy by David Morris, Courtesy of Common Dreams.  Morris argues that Carter's program was the most visionary before and since, that it passed congress through his energetic efforts and was sabotaged and dismantled by Ronald Reagan after an election far narrower in popular vote (51% Reagan, 41% Carter, 7% Liberal Republican John Anderson--whose candidacy hurt Carter even worse than Nader's hurt Gore) than the electoral landslide would have suggested.

aMike

My primary cop-out is to say that it's not really the role of the President to come up with these huge policy proposals anyway -- that really should either come from the legislature or from the members of his or her cabinet.

I'm very much in agreement with this, and the idea is one I should think about more.  I don't think anyone knew who the members of the Bush cabal would be in the period of his campaign for the Presidency.  I don't think Bush himself knew.  Many of us very happy with the nomination of Gore raised eyebrows to the tops of our heads with the nomination of Lieberman for Vice-President.

We know that we can tell quite a bit about a person by the company he/she keeps, but we seem not to remember that during political campaigns.  Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a candidate for the nomination would introduce fifteen articulate and convincing  persons rather than fifteen points, promising that they would have an important role as cabinet members or as an informal brains trust or kitchen cabinet.  The candidate could use these men and women as surrogates on the campaign trail.  Then, we'd really know what we were getting.

This year, I'd be very intrigued by a candidate for the nomination who promised to choose his/her vice presidential nominee from among the rest of the candidates in the race.  With a superfluity of riches in the field, why not?

aMike

There aren't any documents at the link. Nothing but the reactions and retractions are at that link.

Here's a document link

Yet, if you go back and read newspaper and pamphlet literature from the 18th and 19th century

Do you have any links or sources for this? I am not at all challenging you -- I'm actually interested in reading it. I did some searching, because I was going to respond in my comments with an example, but couldn't find anything, at least in the time that I spent on it (which was not much...).

The People in this country have never been hesitant call others commies, or niggers, or gooks, or any of the other wonderful terms that have been tossed around our politics. 

You are so right ...queers, faggots, and poor white trash along with kike, spic and wetback are so common in "political discourse".