What I don't get...is how we can take a topic about the man who is supposed to usher in a new era of hope, peace, and change, and turn it into a topic about Hitler :/
Mostly because some self righteous person with a complete lack of respect and empathy will make an analogy to Hitler one way or another when things aren't going to their way because, in their mind, anyone disagreeing with them is either in league with Hitler or should have been among the people he slaughtered. I'd say Mister O'Reilly is the text book example of the first, and we have seen a very good demonstration of the latter in this very thread.
I guess the argument is supposed to make the "target" feel regret and self blame, but in this day and age, I'd it's the quickest and most effective way to blow all your credibility out the window as it shows that you can't make a good argument without trying to link the person in question to one of the most hated and feared figures in history.
What I find mighty ironic is that when you decide to play the latter and say anyone who disagrees with them should be "purged", you basically align yourself with the one you are trying to demonize, thus removing all doubt that you A) think genocide is a pretty neat idea, B) think of yourself as a superior human being, and C) think that certain opinions should be punishable with the death penalty.
Am I demonizing the ones playing the second version of the "Hitler-card"? Not really, what I'm doing is a basic analysis of what such an act implies of the person using it.