Was the conservatives breaking up and reforming further right a good thing for Canada? Could a slightly different tone from liberals have perhaps ensured they formed more to the center when they came back, as they always do?

Citing historical examples of piss-poor process and performance doesn't do much to convince me of your position. When one side takes over and proceeds to squash all remaining vestiges of the loser from the face of the Earth, those people tend to get angry and fight back, usually ending up far from the place you would have rather had them end up.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, will simply lead to the same failed destinations. We don't have time for that sort of detour any longer. We need to eliminate fringe methods and ideology on the left as well as the right or we won't live to fight another day.

I think that helping the republicans find their way through this transition is the job of all Americans, otherwise we remain divided and nothing gets done. Yes, I do believe that.

Further, maintaining the dominance of political identity in our politics is the surest way for us all to fail, as has been more than evident these last 40 years. Do you enjoy fighting the same battles over and over again or do you suspect that Obama might have found a new way? He has tasked us ALL with rebuilding the country and putting away childish things. Can you honestly defend the tactics of many on this site as anything but childish? I suppose you could, but it wouldn't be factually accurate.

For the record, I am not attacking "the Democratic party on a left-leaning site" but am pointing out the hypocrisy when liberals insist the Golden Rule really only applies to the losers.

Perhaps a better quote would have made the point more clearly, but the underlying point remains the same - shoving the opposition's nose in their failure as some sort of payback for all their misdeeds is not the best way to cure what ails this country.

I appreciate the feedback, though, and will certainly look for places where my frustration may have colored my perceptions of quinn's argument, though it seemed very obvious to me that he believe the republican party deserves to die and he is willing to help them along that path.

That doesn't seem a very healthy attitude for a liberal to take and is counter to our president's fine example.

This "new thing" I have found is Obama's example of how to move the country forward, though democrats are free to disagree with my interpretation of his methods.

For openers, jason, I think I am not alone in taking offense at consistently being lectured about my implied failure to appreciate Barack's political genius or my supposed lack of support for his methods and objectives. Your constant implication that my disagreements with your discussion points is related to my ignorance of the "truth" of Obama's wisdom as it apparently is so closely shared with you is quite understandably insulting. Furthermore, it really contributes nothing to the defense of your arguments posited in the debate you engage and in fact gets in the way of any reasoned discussion at all.

And don't misconstrue my point here. It is not my disagreement with your "interpretation of his methods" that I find to be so disingenuous about your style of debate. Instead, it is your insistence that your perspective and your strategic political vision is legitimate and not to be challenged because it is an assumed given that Barack Obama has adopted it for himself.

Given this stage of his young career, I would not pretend to have such an absolute understanding of Obama's political methods. Is he effective at gaining progress on a liberal agenda by exercising the art of compromise and by cultivating bipartisan cooperation? Or will he disappoint in the way Bill Clinton and the DNC has by simply folding rather than staking out political territory and defending it? Does Obama have a burning desire to lead the country by promoting the righteousness of a progressive ideology? Or will he instead abandon and compromise core values and principles in a misguided attempt to "gain the middle" and thus supposedly win reelection by being "Republican light?" Perhaps most importantly, does he have the strength to define the political debate in Washington? Or will he instead allow the Republicans to continue doing so as he carefully avoids confrontation and hues to the muddled middle?

The signs from Obama have been promising to date. There is much he has done that is commendable, such as speaking candidly in his Inaugural Address about the failures of the Bush Administration; declaring the closure of Guantanamo on his first day; his appointment of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary; etc. Yet, it is still way too early to tell if he will be a most effective champion of progressive issues, and it is understandable that everyone watches closely and reads the tea leaves to determine how bright the future of the Progressives just might be under Obama.

Yet, there are a few things we can extrapolate from Obama as the elected President who was nominated for that position in a Democratic primary. And it is here that I have had the most difficulty finding merit in your arguments and your assessment of Obama's political methods and strategy.

You declare yourself and Obama to be keenly aligned in your vision for America as a Progressive community that adheres to liberal principles and governance. Indeed, you are extremely enthusiastic about Obama as the perfect politician for these times; that Obama will be more effective at promoting the liberal political agenda than any group or person has been able to accomplish in the last forty years.

Yet, you have determined that the proper method to pursue this agenda personally (as one "who is even more liberal than most of the liberals on TPM") is to join the Republican Party and engage the political process from within that tent.

This defies logic altogether. It is readily understood that the GOP represents and promotes a conservative ideology and that the Dems are the party of the liberals and progressives. It is proper for a Democrat to argue from the liberal perspective in the marketplace of ideas in an effort to convince more conservative voters that the liberal position is the correct choice on whatever is the issue in question. And I expect conservatives to stand as a loyal opposition to these liberal political beliefs of mine, and to do so most generally as members of the Republican Party which exists for reason of being a "home" to conservative political proponents and activists.

But it is ludicrous to suggest that it is a reasonable strategic calculation to join and support the GOP in an attempt to recreate that organization as a political party for liberals.

Is that where Barack is leading us? Is it his vision that the political landscape will be made more whole if we all join together under the same tent in a consensus approach, not just to political decision-making but to political debate itself as well? Is that what bipartisan, or "post-partisan," politics is all about?

I think not. There is an obvious and irreconcilable disconnect in this approach to politics that undermines nearly everything you promote as being a feature of this "new thing" you have found in political science.

Barack Obama may or may not be the most effective Progressive leader in this generation. Time will tell.

But he most assuredly is a Democrat, and he is savvy enough to understand that he operates politically as a Democrat in loyal opposition to the Republicans in the time honored give-and-take that is our two party system of government.

And I respectfully submit that your failure to honor this fundamental two-party principle which is inherent to the political process undercuts any discussion you engage about the "new thing" you promote as a political reality.

I think you are mixing your polls and/or sampling methods. The latest Gallup shows a 68% approval for Obama, of which at least a third of those are most likely republican or moderate of some sort. That is a slightly different total than the one you offer. Not to mention that only 63% percent turned out to vote, so that baseline number is closer to 140 million.

Regardless, I am not really all that convinced by these sort of polls nor do the pollsters have much transparency with regards to their methods or how they arrive at said numbers.

The only reason Barack is president is because a decent percentage of republicans (as well as first time voters) showed up to vote for him in the primaries and in the general. I will do everything I can do build on that trend, even if it means getting into arguments with people I normally agree with.

I am suggesting that the choice is indeed that simple and that choosing to assume that most republicans are ready to listen to reason does nothing to distract the democratic party from accomplishing its goals and may in fact help.

I cannot speak for the 'polis' (political, social, cultural ensemble of individuals who are the "we").

I can speak for myself or for what is true and right for humans in general, and maybe even beyond that qualification (it is possible to speak for the divine in a limited way).

I don't know what beatings "we" have taken over the past four decades, and I don't see how this year in particular is the strict "result" thereof. There are some obvious chronological correlations and coincidences. Did you mean something more than that?

I would agree that an intelligent youthful candidate who was a "dark horse" in many ways, did come from behind via extensive community organizing over about two years, to beat out more experienced contenders who showed weaknesses in the campaign, and that he preached a message of a kind of change which is not only an ordinary change of direction in the ordinary partisan politics sense but a change in how we do the business of politics. Was he being rhetorical?

He still needs help being kept honest, imo.

If so, you could try to answer for yourself.

But no, it doesn't reduce to just that.