During the US Presidential campaign it struck me that BO's emphasis on bipartisanship was a noble ideal, but perhaps impractical. It seems that is so.

Rush Limbaugh got a lot of "tsk, tsk" when he said that wished Obama would fail, but events have proved that this is the Republican strategy. Even I, an outsider, am not too surprised given that world-wide, opposition parties would rather bugger the electorate than concede anything to the governing party. Obama was a fool not talking about bipartisanship but for actually believing might work. Why did he thing that?

Somebody can tell me, but I think it has to do with the "two-party" character of US politics. Two parties is really too few for any country: all opinions cannot simply be classified as black or white, (or Blue or Red). Consequently there is excessive diversity in both parties which in turn ensures that the President cannot rely on all the members of his own party to support him in Congress. In fact this is the biggest problem with a "two-part" system. Ridiculous rules such as 60% vote required in the Senate only make a bad situation worse.

In basically every other democracy there are at least three, and often many more, parties struggling for power. If "bi-" is tough, "multi-" partisanship is absurd. Granted, presidents and prime ministers talk about multi-party cooperation but few of them believe in it and fewer still count on it. But then virtually every where else in the world 50%+1 vote means bills pass. E.g. in Canada filibusters are attempted but it they go on too long the government calls for a vote of "closure" which if it passes (with 50%+1), debate is ended and the bill goes to a vote. There is no bullsh!t about 60%. There is no need for machinations such as "Reconciliation".