My mind's ears perked up here:
[blockquote]"Liberals came to consider Obama's even-tempered commitment to post-partisanship, however admirable in the abstract, a betrayal of their cause in the circumstances following the 2008 election, because it meant capitulating to the Tea Party and scorched-earth congressional Republicans..."[/blockquote]
and here:
[blockquote]"Congressional Republicans had so much success in diluting, delaying, and impeding the Democrats' agenda after the 2008 election, many liberals concluded, not just because Obama was feckless and the GOP reckless, but because our Constitution is fundamentally flawed..."[/blockquote]
Both completely assume the liberal narrative as a given, and work off that narrative. Needless to say, "Obama's even-tempered commitment to post-partisanship" cannot be the cause of anything, since it does not exist. The Democrats know it does not exist, and promulgate the lie to serve their own ends. And the latter statement assumes that it was Republican obstructionism that led to the Democrats frustration with the constitution, when the reality is that their frustration is first and foremost with the inconvenience of the constitution itself, regardless of the actions of Republicans.