The Dems have a black man with an Arabic name running against a woman, for President and it's not progressive enough for them. Maybe the liberal 'blogosphere' is just retarded & vain & we need not take it seriously anymore. If you set out to be your own Manchurian Candidates you couldn't possibly be more self destructive.

...if Obama is able to authentically end bipartisanship, then Rush Limbaugh will be out of a job.

"I would love the bipartisanship of liberalism as a 20 percent body of thought in this country. I could live with that kind of bipartisanship."

Rush's dreaming, as ever. The everyday American is far more liberal than their representatives, although the Right has managed to demonize "liberal" so much that folks eschew the label while actually supporting the ideas behind it.

The only way to move forward is to look forward -- you can progress, or you can regress. Maybe progressives should start calling conservatives "regressives" -- it more adequately characterizes their views and solutions to problems.

This country was not "founded on partisanship." If there was one thing on which the founding fathers agreed, it was that parties were destructive factions to be avoided. Of course, human nature being what it is, Jefferson's and Adams's supporters soon went their separate ways and eventually became, um, well, parties. But they had good reason to want to avoid the thuggish factionalism of Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. At one point in the 17th century, Whig members of Parliament used to carry a small but potentially lethal bludgeon called the "Protestant flail" with which they threatened to "bonk, bonk, bonk on the head" any Catholics who threatened their concept of homeland security. Jefferson didn't want to see that in America, which is why he'd tear his hair out in horror to hear the demagoguery of Limbaugh et al.

If there's no partisanship Rush is out of a job. If we were pilots and Obama was talking about banning airlines we'd be saying the same thing.

Partisanship has bought Rush a lot of big houses and bottles of Vicadin so of course he likes it.

Nulla Salas states "The Dems have a black man with an Arabic name running against a woman, for President and it's not progressive enough for them."

You left out the Mexican.

Oops! I apologize for the "Salas" misspelling. Must have been thinking of Spanish instead of Latin...

Well, of course when Limbaugh says, "...and this gets back to basic conservatism 101..." (emphasis added) he obviously doesn't want bipartisanship. In his view, partisanship is great, as long as the following applies:

• You never have to admit that you could possibly be the least bit wrong.
• Everyone you come in contact with agrees with you.

I will admit that whenever I hear people talk about bipartisanship it raises red flags for me, but not for the same reason it does for Limbaugh. I find that too often it means something along the lines of, "I'm happy to work with those I don't agree with, as long as I get exactly what I want and don't have to compromise at all."

It's a minor point (in terms of space) and I've raised this issue before but I'll continue raising until something happens (or until I get bored, whatever): Obama was not "accused" of being a Muslim. Being a Muslim is not a crime, so he cannot be "accused" of being a Muslim, any more than you can be "accused" of being a Jew. Every time you say "accused of being a Muslim" you are upholding the right-wing stereotype of Islam as a religion of murder. And I'm sure you don't want to do that. You're the poet, Mr. Grieve, find a better word.

I find that too often [bipartisanship] means something along the lines of, "I'm happy to work with those I don't agree with, as long as I get exactly what I want and don't have to compromise at all."

That's only what it means when Republicans say it. When Democrats say it, it means: "I'm happy to cave to those I don't agree with. I'll give them exactly what they want and forget about my constituents and what's best for America."

Obama's naive if he thinks the Republicans will respond to his pillow talk when he's elected. Now is not the time to extend the olive branch to the Conservatives. Like it or not, Rush is only articulating what most Conservatives believe with all their hard, black hearts. They will always behave as strong partisans because they truly believe they are morally right and that anyone not parroting the Conservative line is endangering the country and their children. The reality is that Conservatives love to declare war on everything and they view their (ab)use of power as the execution of a war on liberal ideals. And they will not be even close to negotiating in good faith until they have been beaten down in that war for a very long time.

Listen closely to John Edwards because he seems to be the only Democrat who understands the reality of this relationship with the Conservative zealots. He's ready to take the fight to them, which is exactly what we need to do. A sharp trial lawyer is equipped to beat the Cons on their own field.

I have to disagree with Freeproton. "Accused" of being Muslim is the right word because that's how Limbaugh & CO. mean it when they call Obama a Muslim. Some of them would make it a crime. It's no different than other times, when conservatives have accused fellow Christians of being secretly Catholic or atheist. They know the charge of being Muslim scares their target audience, so expect it for as long as Obama is a public figure. They'd probably accuse him of being Jewish is that charge still worked as well as in the past. Hating Muslims is the current fashion among bigots. What we have to do is always add "so what if he was?" when he point out Obama isn't Muslim.