Glenn Beck asks him about why socialism is bad. Predictably, McCain’s against it, but for all the wrong reasons. The reasons he gives are incidental and all too common among so-called conservatives and libertarians, among others opposed to socialism, in America.

Bill Clinton today remarked to a group of young liberals that Democrats have it tough because they’re held to a double standard when they try to express their views. He cited the reaction to his wife’s seemingly moderate comments about abortion made earlier this year as an example.

Hillary Clinton’s comments were made in January to the New York State Family Planning Providers. Specifically, she commented that abortion “in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”

“All of a sudden,” he continued, the media began asking, “‘Is she selling out? Is she abandoning her principles?’ But if John McCain, who’s pro-life, works with Hillary on global warming, he’s a man of principle moving to the middle.”

“It’s nuts,” the former president said.

In reality, though, what’s perplexing to Bill Clinton has a couple of simple explanations. The first is that the media — who Clinton seems to say are in on this unfair skewering of Democrats — are, by and large, liberal (and I’ll post elsewhen with support for this claim). Who screams “sellout” the loudest but for someone’s former fans? The media expects nothing good of the Republicans in the first place; but for a bastion of liberalism such as Hillary Clinton to move toward the center, the alarms must be sounded.

The second rationale is the key to why this accusation might be leveled by those outside the media cabal. On a given point of policy contention, it’s likely that, before the end, the Democrats will have not only decried the stupidity of the Republican plan, but will have subjugated that supposed stupidity to its even grosser immorality.

Thus, we all now know that racism is the core of the right’s opposition to affirmative action; that their cold-heartedness lies behind their reluctance to send yet more aid to Africa; that their dislike of Kyoto arises from their willingness to destroy the planet for a buck; that border control is purely to keep “those impure brown people” from making an honest living; that resistance to indoor smoking bans are evidence of an unholy pact with Big Tobacco at the expense of poor, ignorant smokers (and innocent third parties inhaling their foul by-products); and that in rebuking calls for national healthcare, the right has allowed its utter contempt for the lower classes to bubble to the surface yet again.

It should come as no surprise whatsoever, then, that onlookers ridicule Hillary for her move to the center on the abortion issue; the left has long proclaimed the pro-life crowd to be misogynistic throwbacks who maintain no respect for obvious women’s rights. So, to move to the middle on such an important issue, particularly for a woman, is to compromise one’s very morals.

On the other hand, notice that the intent of the left is ever and always beyond the faintest whisper of a doubt. Even in midst of their most profoundly stupid proclamations of “the way things ought to be,” they are said — even by the right — to have “noble, if misguided,” intentions. Thus, McCain’s move to the center would simply indicate that — according to popular sentiment — he has moved in the direction that we would ALL like to go, if only there were a practical way to accomplish it. Maybe he found a practical solution, maybe not, but either way his intentions are pure; and as Bob Geldoff would say, “Something must be done, even if it doesn’t work.”

And this is all just assuming that Clinton hasn’t withdrawn further into his cave of paranoia and defensiveness — his example doesn’t do anything to fortify his claim, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So rather than a double standard against Democrats, I’d like to propose the existence of a much more critical one against those not on the left: that of intentions.