Ah, thank you! Please forgive my slightly petulant tone: I guess the word "tribe" sounded loaded to me.

I'm not entirely sure I take your point, then, but that's all right.

Oh, I think I get it: you're drawing an analogy between us here and the students in the cafeteria Obama was referring to?

I'm not sure the analogy is apt, if I understand you correctly. She was referring not to balkanization per se, but to that due to ethnic/racial/class/regional, etc. differences.

The example you give seems to me to break down according to substance and perspective rather than socialized identity.

I think, anyway.

I'm also not convinced we're so balkanized. A fair number of us are open to honest conversation and interaction, though we have strong opinions.

Lots to mull over here...

"Americans don't want to keep being reminded of our "diversity" and our differences, as if we were all on some college campus."

Do you have some evidence, or are you just talking?

And who are these "Americans" of whom you speak?

I'm an American and I welcome being reminded of our "diversity."

But then, I like college campuses and believe education is actually a good thing, so I guess I can't be an American, huh?

"It's a bunch of left-wing newspeak, and it has no place in our national discourse on race, economics, or anything else"

Can you make an argument for this, or again, are you just talking?

You sound more resentful than informed. At any rate, there may be something to what you say, but you'll have to actually offer an argument and martial evidence for it to be convincing.

Or, short of that, at least stop pretending you have some sort of authoritative opinion, pontificating about things you don't seem to have thought through very thoroughly.

Why do you have such contempt for learning?

Thank you for a thoughtful response (and to a couple others, too, who responded thoughtfully to this question).

"First of all, let's not confuse loyalty with cronyism."

Point taken. It's good to get the terms straight first. Thank you for helping me do this, as it advances the dialogue.

"The two are not the same at all. While Carville's language is over the top, it isn't all that beyond understanding to think that with all the support and benefits the Clinton have offered Richardson, he might have stayed neutral"

No, not "beyond understanding," but my concern is the quid pro quo aspect. (Yet another term, which might differ from loyalty and cronyism, I recognize.)

But whatever you call it, it's this ethos that I'm trying to examine.

It still amounts to an expectation of neutrality (quid=something) in exchange for previous boons rendered (pro quo=for something). Maybe it's not cronyism, according to your definition, but it would seem to raise similar questions, namely, whether the appointment of one functionary to a post carries with it expectations that that that functionary remain loyal in a context that has nothing to do with the original relationship.

Do you at least see the concern I'm raising?

Would it be less loaded to call it quid pro quo rather than cronyism? Or perhaps cronyism is only one possible, though not inevitable development of a quid pro quo relationship?

Worth thinking about either way, no?

"--not endorsed Hillary but simply not endorsed anybody. One can argue that point, but it's far from an unreasonable one or an unethical one."

It depends on what we mean by "unreasonable" or "unethical." You're begging the question here, but I appreciate that you don't find it unreasonable or unethical.

"Secondly, cronyism isn't simply loyalty, it's putting people in place because they are loyal, despite their lack of qualifications."

Clear as a bell. Again, thanks for the clarification.

"Where is any, and I mean any, evidence of that from Hillary Clinton? There isn't any."

I have none, but then, as I pointed out, I was wrong to use the term cronyism. I still think it reveals an ethos of loyalty, quid pro quo, whatever, that is fair game for discussion.

"So we make this incredible leap from a talking head on TV known for his bombastic language making a single comment and now we need to "investigate" whether or not Hillary has a cronyism problem (you know, like the current inhabitant)."

I'm still not convinced from your argument that the leap is so incredible. Again, I retract the "cronyism" bit, as you define it, but still, the comparison of the respective ethoses of the Bushes and Clintons as to the expectations they have from their underlings is valid.

"This shows the utter ridiculousness of how far off the track of reasoned discourse we've gotten."

Again, I appreciate that you think so, but I'm not convinced by your argument here.

I'm still listening, though.

"There's that word again. "suggests". It's a whisper word. It's a gossip word. It's a rumor word. It's a "there's no actual evidence of anything but . . . " word."

Point taken. I did not mean it as a "whisper word," though, but rather as a way of opening up conversation. It suggested to me. It may appear to be about innuendo, but as I hope I've demonstrated, I'm not trying to trade on innuendo, but to explore an issue that seems to me worth exploring.

"It's a word of innuendo and insult. In this context, it's a sleazy word. And the comparison to Bush's world of cronyism, filled with incompetence and illegality is nothing but bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit."

I wasn't comparing the two in terms of degree or crimes committed, but rather in terms of the apparent similarity of ethos, so no, it's not bullshit.

"It's a fair line of investigation, at any rate."

no, it actually isn't. It's a disgusting line of investigation."

So say you.