Everyone fulminating about how Obama might not represent their views well enough (and he's not even in office yet!) should (1) take a valium and (2) do a little homework. You see, even if "your guy" wins, that doesn't mean he's bound or obligated to be your little toady. In fact, if at any point you though he/she was going to mirror your worldview for some reason, you're a little delusional.

Personally, I find it interesting that the same folks who would be appalled if a Republican president cow-towed to the whims of the religious right now demand that their Democratic leader espouse the most progressive views of their own party - with no sense of irony at all. I think most Americans feel the same way about the (self described) Democratic "base" as they do about the Republican "base" - bleh.

Two party systems inherently move to the center, so get used to it. Danny Hillis (the guy who founded Thinking Machines a couple of decaded before multi core computers were cool) wrote a nice little essay summarizing the situation. He begins:

"Many people believe that democracy works by giving voters a chance to elect a candidate whose views match their own. Actually, this isn't true. In a perfectly functioning democracy, both candidates will appear equally imperfect, elections' voter turnout will often be low, and all elections will end in near ties. The illustrations below show why this is true. They also show why a two-party system is better than a many-party system. Voters are more likely to like their choice of candidates in a many-party system, but they are less likely to like the winner of the election."

Read the essay here:

http://tinyurl.com/5eeews

I didn't express any viewpoint whatsoever, I merely stated a truism. Would you deny that there is such a thing as a self described Republican "base"? Would you say that that "base" represents centrist or moderate views?

I asked you earlier what you meant when you were talking about the Democratic "base", but so far haven't heard an answer. I certainly hope you're not employing the same "empty-headed, trite and deceitful pundit technique" that you (rightfully) claim to disdain. To me, whenever I hear the word "base", I hear someone trying to claim the center, or at least the high ground, without actually working for it.

There are extreme views on the left as well as on the right. Does anyone here deny it? Is anyone here really going to argue that America should be governed by fringe opinion? Would anyone like to deny that there is indeed a "center" to American politics? Glenn, you yourself have made very good use of statistics to illuminate the center on any number of issues.

As for silly arguments that I must support torture or eavesdropping without warrant etc. I don't even know where that is coming from so it's hardly worth a response.

For the record. I did not equate "progressive" with "extreme". I did not equate "torture" with "centrist". I think most posters here are quite reasonable and intelligent - but not all. Maybe if I'm bored tonight I'll pick fights with each and every one of them individually - but probably not. I'm lazy, so I tarred them all with one big brush. My apologies for not specifically tearing on individual posters.

My main concern remains that I don't want the Democrats, now that they are in power, to fall into the same trap that the Republicans did. If the Republicans were not held hostage by the extreme elements of their party, the world would be a much better place. Somehow, those elements have assumed far too much importance within that party. It would be pure hubris to think the same thing could not happen to the Democratic party. In fact it has happened many times, and resulted in dramatic shifts in power.

I could rattle off a few issues that are favorite fringe talking points, but all I would accomplish would be to ignite a flame war.

Primarily, I'm over-sensitive to use of the word "base". I'd like the Republican wing-nuts to keep the word to themselves, they've stunk it up so much. I don't think it was Glenn's intention, but in contemporary parlance, I think the word is all but synonymous with the tail end of the bell curve, not the center, as it's adherents would like to believe. Maybe I'm just being a cranky language lawyer tonight.

Really, the more interesting thing is the link to the article by Danny Hillis that I posted.