Some other posters have asked about it so I thought it was worth mentioning that the LA Times ran a companion piece by their Obama campaign reporter. It is entirely consistent with tone of the McCain piece in that Nicholas, the author, laments not having a more of a personal relationship with the candidate.

The Nicholas piece borders at times on high-school melodrama starring Nicholas as the awkward outsider trying to impress the BMOC, Obama.

Another good article Glenn.

A link to the Obama piece.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-peter28-2008oct28,0,6187999.story

Is there any upside to engaging these idiots?

These are the same people who feel they lost the election because they weren't conservative enough. Let them fume and rage and make a spectacle of themselves; and let the Obama administration reach across the aisle to the saner members of the Republican Party until all that are left are Palin-Worshiping-Culture Warrior-Dittoheads and their 100 odd electoral votes.

I can't see any good reason to pay attention to the far right. The more they're ignored, the louder they'll scream and the further to the left they will push "real" America.

On the other hand it would be pretty fun to see what they do if someone could "leak" that Obama likes to hum Deutschland Uberalles in the shower.

Glenn,

I appreciate the passion and precision of your arguments, and I generally agree with your conclusions, but I disagree with you here.

This government already has one party prone to knee-jerk reactions and ideological conformity. We don't need another.

As long as this country remains stuck in a two party system, either party will have to mindful of swinging too far left or right. While it would be nice if all democrats felt the same way about all issues that I do, I think that is unreasonable.

I realize you are not asking for conformity on all issues rather a collection of issues that you see as most important (and I agree.) But I would rather have the slow progress that comes when elected representatives think for themselves and think of their constituencies instead of hewing closely to the planks of their parties' platforms.

The sense that this election was a mandate for liberal ideas is, I think, misguided. I can argue just as reasonably, that the true mandate for this election was a vote for change from the current environment of partisan politics.

From a practical standpoint, Obama still has one more election to win, and running to his base will no more help him win that election than the Palin selection helped the GOP this year.

Thank you for providing such clarity on the knee-jerk reactions I was talking about.

The ideology of the party's base is not necessarily aligned with that of a representative's constituency. We live in a representative democracy, which has been described as an imperfect form of government, that happens to be better than all others. Even if a representative is acting out of their own self interest, aren't they serving the will of the people? (Or, at least their view of it.) Isn't serving the will of the people at least as important to serving the will of the party?

How is it any less two dimensional to demonize someone for not being a true believer?

I am not new to Glenn's blog, in fact, I think I made it fairly clear this is one of the few of his pet issues with which I take exception. I find it incredibly ironic you wonder if his words have been wasted on me, is there no value in reading opinions you disagree with?

However, your larger point is well taken, and one I agree with. I am not saying that the truth lies in the middle, but what I am saying is that you aren't going to win many elections, nor rule effectively telling people what they should think. If Walz doesn't feel he's capable of selling the "FISA bad" argument to his broader constituency, should we only support candidates who are able to? Or should we give Walz the benefit of the doubt that it is not an argument his constituents are ready to hear?

In short, I have a harder time than most people here faulting a man for, in the most cynical terms, trying to get re-elected, and in the most idealistic, reflecting the will of his constituents.

You have polling data from Minnesota you would like to share with us?

Basing the will of the constituency off one letter to the editor is probably too small a sample size.

It seems to me you are extrapolating way too much out of this article. I think Glenn was extrapolating a little too much too, but at least he never confused the "Base" with the larger electorate. Regardless, my point still stands.

Demanding complete party loyalty and appeasing the "base" can be seen as what got the republicans in trouble.

and

You Potaytoe I say Potahtoe. You see an election affirming liberal ideas, I see an election affirming the desire for a change in the way things work.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

That's a quote from Winston Churchill, I paraphrased and failed to make the allusion clear enough. But the rah-rah was reserved for representative democracy, which is by no means unique to the US, so please tune your jingoism detector down a bit.

More importantly, you are arguing for a new system. And while I think another party or two would be good, I am more than willing to give this current administration four or eight years to see if it can affect change from within the system.

I think your sense that the system is broken is shared by many people, I personally feel we'd be better served trying to fix and tinker with it first instead of rebuilding it.