very interesting.  i once got the opportunity to ask her if she thought clinton had done everything he could have to help her.  she shook her head no.  i never forgot that...

i agree.  however, i'd hope that isn't the only way to organize a democracy...

Interesting hwc how you fail to list decisions made "based upon the merits" on your list of alternatives to political backscratching.  

One of the curious things I find with Clinton supporters is how it is all about "the game" as it is presently practiced to them.  There is almost a celebration of getting down into the mud, of the moral and ethical corruption of politics.

Life as pure, unadulterated self interest, mutual selfishness, and the "always has been always will be crap."  

There has never been a principled legislator, or piece of principled legislation passed on its merits?  Oh brother.

I suppose when you think about it, it make sense that a soldier who unselfishly put his own life on the line for country, would NOT join the Clinton camp.

A couple of things:

First, you commit (something like) the fallacy of equivocation by conflating different types of political bargaining. One the one hand, you are correct that laws and executive decisions often involve compromises and other kinds of value-exchange. To be sure, the rational justification of political institutions consists in cooperation for mutual advantage. However, this is (or should be) limited to actual state action--again, legislation and executive decisions/policy). What your original comment addressed, though, was Murphy's decision to personally endorse one of Clinton's competitors. In essence, you appear to claim that Clinton's personal favor to Murphy(inviting him to co-sponser high-profile legislation) should oblige Murphy to return a personal favor (endorsement of her candidacy). Personal bargaining like this is very different than political bargaining, from the perspective of political morality at least.

It's also different in another way. And endorsement is a persons public expression of support and enthusiasm for the candidate. A endorsement of Clinton based solely upon pressure to return a favor would be dishonest. Bargains that require dishonesty or other morally problematic conduct should be distinguished from the kind of cooperative efforts necessary to do the government's work.

Finally, I take issue with this claim of yours:

"I love political backscratching. It's the foundation of our democracy and, in fact, every democracy.

I much prefer it to the alternatives: a king, a charismatic cult of personality despot, or a military dictatorship."

Those are not the only alternatives. I'm not sure what you mean by "backscratching," but if you're referring to politically consequential personal favors by politicians, then I think you are ignoring a lot of feasible, preferable alternatives.

I think your full of shit and thinking you are an expert as to how this game is played. The new generation of politicians are not going to play this nonsense.

I have been around for a while also and knew HHH.

and that is not Hillary Rodham Clinton.