Speak for youself, thinskin.
Okay, so I take it that the opening statement didn't insult your intelligence. Ah, well, maybe it's just me. These hyperbolic statements annoy the heck out of me. It's lazy writing, and it's a very weak way to begin arguing one's central thesis. Doesn't it seem that too many of today's political writers don't write to convince the skeptic but to reassure the same-thinking? A skeptical reader is going to challenge that opening line; the same-thinking reader is going to readily accept it. What's the point of being a political writer if you're not going to try to convince the skeptics?