Reading political blogs lately is like eating maple candy: a little is sweet, but I can only swallow so much before I start to want to throw up. Over at TalkLeft, Barack Obama has horns. Over at DailyKos, the color of Hillary Clinton’s forked tail is a matter of great speculation. Even though I am unaffiliated with the Democratic Party, I will get to vote in the Democratic presidential primary here in Ohio in a few weeks, and I am non-definitively inclined to vote for Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton because of Obama’s better performance than Hillary Clinton in keeping his promise to hold back the FISA Amendments Act, and because Hillary Clinton voted to give George W. Bush authority to go to war in Iraq despite clear indications ahead of time that Bush was bullshitting the American public. Yes, I have recently formed a preference between these two. Yes, I’d rather have seen another candidate still in the race. But I refuse to conclude, because at this time I prefer Obama over Clinton, that Obama must be perfect and Clinton must be diabolical. I am not going to parrot the branding of the competing Democratic campaigns which says that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of experience (as if Barack Obama has none), that Barack Obama is the candidate of hope (as if Hillary Clinton is the candidate of despair), that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of specifics rather than speeches (Barack Obama has specific policy proposals and last time I checked Clinton was tooting around the country giving speeches), and that Barack Obama is the candidate of change (as if Hillary Clinton wouldn’t change a thing if she won office). How absurd this intramural branding competition has been! I feel no need to participate in it.

Pull back a bit from your examination of Clinton’s and Obama’s facial pores and you’ll find that the two candidates have much more in common with one another in their future policy proposals and past policy histories than either has with the Republican nominee-to-be, John McCain. The starkest contrast to be drawn in the 2008 presidential race is between either Clinton and McCain or Obama and McCain. That’s where the largest policy distinction lies.

Take the bankruptcy bill of 2005, for example. S. 256 was a bill that made it harder for people to declare bankruptcy when their debts overwhelmed them, made it harder for struggling people to keep basic assets like a roof over their heads when working out bankruptcy arrangements, and increased the return for credit card companies that were already making huge profits. Those who voted to pass the bill helped protect the high-profit, high-interest-rate consumer credit industry against people struggling just to keep their heads above water.

On the bill’s final passage John McCain voted YES to pass the bill. McCain voted in favor of the interests of credit card companies and against the interests of people struggling to make ends meet. Barack Obama voted NO against the bill, voting to keep protections for people in American bankruptcy law. Hillary Clinton was not present to vote on the bill’s final passage.

Before the bill made it to a final vote in the Senate, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted to prevent the closure of debate on the bill (such a vote is called “cloture” in the Senate because, well, the Senate loves to use fusty old words that confuse people like you and me). John McCain voted to stop talking about the bill and pass it already to help out his friends in the credit card industry.

Before the cloture vote and vote on final passage, the Senate voted on a series of amendments to the bankruptcy bill:

One of the tricks the credit card companies use against people is to set the minimum payment at a level that’s so low as to actually increase the amount of debt people hold month by month. Amendment 15 by Senator Daniel Akaka would have simply required credit card companies to tell people that’s what they were doing. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for Amendment 15. John McCain voted against it. If it hurts credit card company profits, John McCain’s against truth in lending.

You know how John McCain gives speeches incessantly about the need to “support the troops?” Well, Amendment 16 by Senator Dick Durbin would have kept credit card companies from charging exorbitantly high rates to members of the Armed Forces and then taking all their assets. It would have allowed soldiers fighting in the war John McCain sent them off to fight to at least keep their houses if they had to declare bankruptcy. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for Amendment 16. John McCain voted against Amendment 16. Way to not actually support the troops.

What about the elderly? John McCain voted against Amendment 17 by Senator Russ Feingold, which would at least let old folks who had to declare bankruptcy from losing their homes in the process. John McCain voted to kick them out on the street so as to increase the already heady profits of the credit card companies. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for Amendment 17 to protect the elderly from the indignity of homelessness.

Oh, there are lots of highly interesting amendments to this bill, and encourage you to peruse them all and note the repeating pattern: John McCain votes for the interests of credit card companies, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote for the protection of people who are struggling to get by. Today, I’ll note just one more: Amendment 37 by Bill Nelson of Florida. Senator Nelson is hardly progressive, and this amendment is hardly progressive. It is merely reasonable. It is the most reasonable of amendments, proposing that people be protected if their financial hardship was caused by identity theft. John McCain wouldn’t even vote YES on this amendment. McCain voted NO so that credit card companies could get more, more, more money, doubly victimizing people whose only fault was having their credit card numbers get stolen. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted YES to protect victims of theft from having their lives wholly ruined.

There’s nothing wrong with preferring one candidate over another in the Democratic primaries. But it’s not necessary to utterly demonize the other Democratic candidate when it’s clear that compared to John McCain either candidate would do better by and for the American people.