Really?

I’d say Bush had a mandate in that pretty much all who voted for him were voting for the platform he ran on, ie reforming govt via taxes, SS etc. Compassionate conservativism wasn’t the selling point, so much as the moderating point to sway the independents who might otherwise hesitate on fiscal conservatism issues while swaying the far right on social conservatism.

Dubya also had to overcome the stigma of Bush the Elder. Many conservatives, burned by ‘read my lips’, ‘voodoo economics’ and realpolitik psycho-babble (See Jim Baker) were concerned that Dubya was a chip off the old blockhead, rather than his own man. Bush managed to allay those fears on two points; his governorship of Texas (poor Ann Richards…) and his faith.

So if the majority of those who voted for Bush in 2000 were voting actually for his platform and not the man, or even in spite of the man, then I’d say that ranks as a mandate. Just look at the competition, McCain? Hostile to the faith based set and hostile, even then to constitutionalist corner.

Contrast that with Gore, a majority voted for him because a) incumbent vice-POTUS, b) democrat. I don’t think they were voting explicitly for an ‘earth in balance’ or any of the other issues which at times were diametrically opposed. So even if Gore won, there’s no mandate. Do you really believe that the automanufacturing unions were supporting Gore for Kyoto AND more clout/protectionism?

Compared to what Gore was calling for, Bush did more for the auto/steel industry than what a real man of pro-environemental principles would countance. Rather, if Gore had won, he’d have his cake & try to eat it by ragging on the big 3 while ensuring they floated. Not saying Bush is innocent of the cake charge, because he sure raised our hackles with that protectionist crap back in the early days.

Based on everything that Obama has espoused to date, it appears he’s gonna say whatever you want to hear while wrapping it in a message of non/bi-partisanship and ‘why can’t we jist git along’ pablum.

I’d dare say even if Obama pulls a Reagan landslide, it won’t constitute a mandate for his principles, rather it’d be for a)the cult of personality, b) making history as the 1st black mulatto/bi-racial POTUS (actually wasn’t Slick our first? Does that mean we won’t get a true black until the 3rd or 4th go around?) & c) to turn down the temperature on rheotoric & divisiveness — this notion does NOT equal what Obama wants, Obama gets.

Ask cHillary, back when the couple thot they were co-presidents and she assumed there was a mandate for pushing National Healthcare & ‘taking a village to raise a child’. If the latter were true, explain the decline of welfare via conservative principles over the oft-touted liberal stance of mo’ money?

All things being equal, I would view a cHillary win as more significant than Obama’s with regards to a mandate. As noted by others, she will have been in the national spotlight for over 15 years. If in spite of all that, we the people buy what she’s selling, then that’s a mandate.

Finally, if you will note what I actually said was this: If Obama was to win, I imagine, at least hope, he won’t have a mandate, thus couldn’t do much damage..

That means, based on what I already know, I ain’t swallowing his jive — not now, not ever. But things could change within two years to sway enough people for a win. And when you tie in the previous sentence, you will see that I’m saying I ‘fear’ a cHillary win more than an Obama win. All the same, both are distasteful to me.

Inject Lieberman into the debate and now we’re talking something totally different. I could vote for him over half the GOP field To me POTUS’ responsibility is national security/foreign policy and that trumps domestic issues any day for which Congress needs to concern themselves more on that front. Where’s Scoop Jackson when you need him? Reckon Putin shot him down on KAL 007?

I do agree that he looks more and more likely to run for President. I remember when I first heard his speech at the DNC in 2004, I said to myself, he is going to run for President some day, but I did not want it to be this soon.

Hey, if he decides not to run and a Democrat wins in 2008, he should run for Governor in 2010 (only if the Democrat retires), and run for reelection in 2014 and run for President in 2016. Of course he could always stay in the Senate, but when was the last time a Senator was directly elected to the Presidency?

See? We can both misread.

I did not misread anything and if you are to be a literate poster by all means explain the pathetic quote you utilized.

What exactly has Obama done, minus being in the right place at the right time (competitionless Senate race, speaking at the DNC primary) yet I’ll grant better than cHillary. If Obama was to win, I imagine, at least hope, he won’t have a mandate, thus couldn’t do much damage.

I really enjoyed how he told the blacks in MD not to vote by the color of the skin of the candidate then goes to TN and tells them the opposite, he is a race hustler.

So you’re saying that you’re 100% in favor of killing puppies and feeding the meat to our prison population.

See? We can both misread.