Somewhere in the firmament, I.F. Stone is quietly applauding.

We needn't worry about whether Obama will govern as a centrist or a leftist: there's no longer much of a chasm between the two. Consider the issues: End torture and close Guantanomo. Enact a massive jobs/public works program. Greatly extend (if not universalize) access to health care. End the war in Iraq. Get serious about global warming. Raise taxes on the rich. Over the past four years, these proposals have gone from unthinkable to radical to mainstream, and they're now at the center of the new president's agenda.

To be sure, there are some items on the left's agenda that may remain on the shelf for some time to come: a serious de-escalation of US military presence abroad; a systematic rethinking of the "war on drugs"; gay marriage & an end to DADT. A far greater commitment to global development. But overall, this is a moment for the left to savor; more importantly, it's a moment to act.

We just had an eight-year experiment in having someone stupid be our president. It didn't work so well. Having Palin in charge--someone who makes Leno's Jaywalkers seem like the staff at Brookings--well, ca vait rever, as Nabokov once said, about something or other.

Glenn: couldn't I have cheered on WW II even though it resulted in the death and suffering of millions while at the same time believing that the main target of the war--the Nazis--had a unique disregard for life? The fact that I would have enthusiastically endorsed that war wouldn't mean that I am morally indistinguishable from the Nazis.

My point here is not to argue in Brooks' favor, but merely to suggest that while his argument may be wrong, it's not necessarily invalid or hypocritical.