Funny, I’d say the exact same thing about the Clintons :)
What if the real problem is that you and I are both rational beings, have access to the same information, but have very, very different ideas of good and evil? What if even if we agreed to a reasonable, decent, decorous, honest, and moral discourse, we found ourselves diametrically opposed as to policy prescription?
Pretend for a moment, you live in that world, where reasonable, decent, decorous, honest and moral people can come to a rational conclusion opposite of yours. How would you behave then? What would you do to advance your goals against a reasonable, decent, decorous, honest and moral person who disagrees with you?
My fear is this — many on the left don’t believe it’s possible for there to be reasonable, decent, decorous, honest and moral people who don’t agree with them. Perhaps more regarding some topics than others, but once one gets to the point where the act of disagreement is associated in the mind with irrationality, indecency, crass conduct, deception and immorality, it becomes incredibly difficult to be either empathetic or persuasive.