Sen. Obama tells us that we need to be more careful of alienating allies by flying off the handle when one of them votes the "wrong way" on an issue, be it Roberts, CAFTA, or whatever issue comes before Congress next.

I think the civility part is legit. As is decrying the hysteria that grips some people with some votes (like the minor tort "reform" bill earlier this year that amounted to little more than a jurisdictional change). There is a bigger picture, a bigger agenda. And while we can disagree on tactics, we shouldn't lose sight of who our allies are.

But here's the thing -- our elected officials due a piss poor job of explaining their votes, especially when those votes stray from party orthodoxy. They hope that by ignoring the issue, people will forget about the vote, or perhaps not notice it took place. And in the old media landscape, that was probably the case. Now, with blogs and wikis and email lists and 24/7 cable and all that, things have changed.

We beat the shit out of the Blue Dog Democrats who voted to eliminate bankruptcy protections for millions. These Dems claimed their vote was "centrist", and it was the evil radical leftists who were doing them wrong. They whined to CAP's John Podesta that one of his fellows, David Sirota, was being mean to them ("unhelpful" was the actual word). But never, not once, did they bother to try and justify or explain their vote.

That's all we ask. All you congressmen and senators -- you want civil disagreement, explain your vote. Give us an insight into why you decided the way you did. We may disagree, but we can respect a strongly reasoned argument. But if you stay quiet, we'll look at the available evidence and come to our own conclusions. For the Blue Dogs (and senators like Biden) on bankruptcy, it was clear that it was campaign contributions from the financial services industry that tipped the scales. That they couldn't or wouldn't justify the vote is a signal that the vote was a problem. And we're going to hold them accountable.

But that's not always the case. Feingold's vote for Roberts wasn't a sellout or a sign of appeasement. Nor was Obama's vote to confirm Condi Rice (which spurred a slew of diaries proclaiming the junior senator from Illinois a "sellout").

Disagreement is obviously a component of political discourse. God knows we beat the shit out of each other here, and we're among friends and allies. We've disagreed on the Roberts issue, amongst others. I wouldn't be surprised if just about every active member on this site hasn't been called a "sellout" or "appeaser" by someone else at some point.

But of course, we don't get to vote on legislation. We don't have the bullypulpit our elected officials have. And the higher the profile, the sharper the knives.

So here's the bottom line -- our elected officials need to explain their votes. The more controversial the vote, the more important the explanation. In return, we'll be more likely to give those elected officials the benefit of the doubt, more likely to disagree on the merits, than to lash out against the person.