No mandate this election. Mandates are over for America, it is just hard grinding and change inch by inch.

No mandate this election. Mandates are over for America, it is just hard grinding and change inch by inch.

I disagree. Republican policies are overwhelmingly unpopular, and why not? The don't work as advertised.

Meanwhile, while the GOP's decades of propaganda has successfully demonized terms like "liberal," when given value-neutral descriptions of the parties' platforms, the american voters overwhelmingly support moderate New Deal liberalism, not the violently nihilistic corporate authoritarianism of the Republicans.

Rove's claimed aspirations of a "permanent Republican majority" and the method he used to achieve his narrow majorities -- energizing the fundamentalist base -- never did add up. And in the process, they laid the groundwork, along with Bush's eight-year record of mendacity, incompetence and corruption, for a wholesale rejection of Republicanism. That's why you see disingenuous news stories claiming McCain's positions are similar to Obama's.

The GOP had its chance with eight years of Bush rule, and the American people don't like the results at all. This election will be a mandate for change, all right, and even McCain's dishonest smear campaigning is a tacit admission that he doesn't offer any.

Well, practically speaking, Matt is right. It wouldn't be smooth sailing for President Obama; his agenda wouldn't be ushered in with the kind of speed a mandate implies. But I think the general point is correct: His campaign is deliberately running on the war of ideas. Therefore, once elected, his ideas carry more weight among the public and Congress because they've been the central argument.

It may be obvious, but I think the margin of victory will matter very much in this equation, though. Are media reports exaggerating the extent to which this race is "close." Maybe. I don't think it will be as close as 2004, or 2000, for that matter. As Pelosi pointed out, the polls don't include the many new voters Obama's attracted. So, if in fact this ends up being not very close at all, and Obama ends up winning close to a 10 percentage-point margin, there's your argument for a mandate: Landslide victory for a progressive agenda.

One last thing: The irony is that some (many?) Obama supporters -- most of the ones I know who are traditionally Republican voters -- will cast a ballot for Obama based on his likeable personality and general call for change and unity, and not the policy issues.

In considering this argument, I'm torn by two American icons: HL Mencken and Harry Truman.

HL Mencken said: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." - which is the basis on which Rove et al operate.

Harry Truman said something like: "Give the American people enough time, and they'll see through a phony."

They may both be right: Once you've got their money (or vote), it doesn't matter if they figure it out.

The Bush response to Katrina exposed the incompetence of his administration (can we please stop calling it a "government") in actually governing. Over and over again, the ideologically driven cronyism of the Bush administration failed to run the executive branch in an effective manner. And the voters know it. They expect their taxes to actually buy them something worth having, not incompetence. Whenever I hear "more of the same" from the Obama campaign, I think "incompetence," not policy I disagree with. I can respect a good policy well executed even when I disagree with it. At some point, governing is about governing. I don't believe McCain would be competent in governing.

This election is a chance to demonstrate to the American people that "supply-side economics" is a fraud that should be relegated to the scrap heap of historical bad ideas.

It's not that hard to do. Americans have seen what happened after Republicans had control for eight years of all three branches of government. Now an orator like Obama can explain to the voters how they were defrauded, like Gil Grissom summing up the crime in the last five minutes of a CSI episode.

For those of us who live and work in the reality-based world, creative people see a need in the economy that's not being met, or they invent a new product that people will want, or they simply perform a service better than their competitors. These people save until they have enough money to start their own business, or they convince other people that they will make money by inventing in their new business. If the creative person is right about their idea and works hard, they will be successful. This is called "demand-side economics."

Republicans have turned this idea on it's head. They believe that if the wealthy people and corporations who already have lots of money get even more money, then they'll do . . . something. And since, in the Republican reality, unregulated free enterprise is the cure for all the ills in the world, whatever the rich do with their extra money will cause benefits to trickle down to the rest of the people in society. That, of course, hasn't happened.

We have an opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of this Ponzi scheme called "supply-side economics" and move on to an economy that works for everyone.

The Republicans have long had this problem, which they've papered over with a mash of lies, ideology and character assassination. Their problem is that they are just plain wrong in their analysis of where we are, and also completely wrong in their ideas of where we should go. Anyone attempting to govern based on Republicanism would have produced a disaster.

Bush, due to his particular blend of arrogance and incompetence, gave the disaster its particular flavor. But even a far smarter GOP politician would inevitably have generated a failed presidency, due to the hard-right ideology all modern Republicans share.

The Republican era ushered in by Reagan in 1980 is drawing to an ignominious close. All I can say is good riddance.

The only thing I am thankful for about Bu$h's 8 year debacle is that, true to form, he ruins everything he touches. In this case, he has exposed modern republican conservatism for what it really is; a fraudulent ideology that thinks government's only purpose is to enrich the ruling elite and solidify their power.

Obama understands this and did very well in his speech last night tying not only McCain to the failure of Bu$h's policies, but also painting the larger picture of the inherently flawed ideology they serve.

I thought that having so many retired generals appear before the crowd of 80,000 and voice their support for Obama was a brilliant idea. How many retired military officers will be at the Republican convention? I'd say not many. I also thought the speeches by the ordinary Americans, especially the woman from North Carolina, were particularly poignant as well; demonstrating that even life long republicans have had enough of the failed policies and divisive wedge issues republicans are fixated on.

I would have liked for Obama in his speech, continuing on the personal and shared responsibility theme, to talk about the responsibility that corporations have to the country that gives them the opportunity to prosper. He did mention his work on getting people off welfare and to work. It would have been nice for him to point out that regardless of what one thinks about the cost of social welfare, it isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate welfare.

At any rate, let's just hope that Americans have evolved and matured enough now, in the 21st century, to understand that yes, we ARE a better country than what we have shown the last 8 years, we can once again rise to the challenges we face, and demonstrate to ourselves and the world that there is nothing we can't do when we unite in a common cause.

I suppose you could do it that way. Or, you could make up stuff about your opponent while remaining fuzzy on your own intentions, just enough to make it a very close race, and then have Diebold "help you" with the election. Then you could announce, "We just had an accountability moment, and the American people have spoken. They want to move on".

Fist fights are breaking out in KKK clubhouses. Try as they might, some members(obviously with undiscovered genetic flaws) can't help themselves...they like Obama.

Good post. The rise of the conservative movement has been fueled by the culture war backlash going back to the 1960s. Yet, while the familiar character types and backlash resentments from that era still resonate as exploitable material for political gain, the 60s are largely worthless as a source of issues upon which conservatives can govern. And on contemporary issues the voters by and large support liberals. That's why election after election Republicans run these character campaigns that have literally nothing to do with the problems that actually face us. The bottom line is that even if Republicans wanted to take the high road (as McCain said he would), they can't. That says a lot about the quality of the ideas and principles that unite today's Republican coalition.

I think this discussion is very insightful. But, unfortunately a combination of FUD and a corporate media complex create a much higher bar for any progressive candidate to achieve victory.

The GW administration and McCain will infame world tensions, crank up security concerns related to hot-spots across the world and terrorist activities, and simultaneously continue to tell blatant lies and distort Obama's record all in an effort to get just enough Americans to vote against our interests as a nation. Also, the corporate interests controlling our media are salivating over McCain's planned corporate tax cuts.

I just hope Obama has a strategy for dealing with this... one that includes a backup plan if the brains of our citizenry start shutting down again before election day.

I'm somewhat sick of this talk of Obama being a liberal, or at least his policies. Think about this: McCain will reduce the average tax bill by 2%, Obama by .3%. So the conservative agenda is 1.7% less liberal than that of Obama.

Spending money wisely is not liberal. One favorite saying of my own is that no matter how little you spend on something it will be too much if you don't get what you want out of it. But if you spend what appears to be too much on something, and it works, all is forgotten. The dividends you receive for making the right decision can't be made up with a little extra money.

How did the conservatives convince us to give up so much for a mere 2%?

What is the meaning of a mandate when the minority is willing to rule the Senate through obstruction?

tomj - Obama may not be a "Liberal" as you say, but he's the only presidential nominee in my lifetime who was unafraid to use the words "abortion" and "gay marriage" in his convention speech. While using those words does not in and of itself make him a "Liberal", it does signal a sea-change from Democratic tactics of the past 30 years, which have been "don't bring up the divisive issues and let's hope we fly under the radar."

We'll never have a more liberal governing ideology if those who are supposed to be its standard bearers are afraid to even publicly enunciate the ideals of that ideology. Having a nominee who isn't afraid to speak about these things is, IMO, a huge step forward.

MichMan:
Between Mencken and Truman, I'll take Truman any time. Mencken caught the tone of the Twenties, but when it counted, America showed it wasn't the 'booboisie' he'd expected. They chose Roosevelt, not a Huey Long, or a Lemke -- supported by the Long Lieutenant, Gerald L.K. Smith, and the other two rabble rousers who played on American fears, Father Coughlin and (the first 'voodoo economist') Francis Townsend. Even if they didn't want Roosevelt, they chose Landon, not the idiotic Lemke.

And where did Mencken end up, but an embittered racist and anti-Semite who did attack Hitler -- but only for being a 'buffoon' and opposed our entry in the war.

America saw through Hoover, Long and Mencken -- when it mattered -- they saw through Dewey, they saw through McCarthy, they saw through Nixon, and they've seen through Bush.

And they've also seen through the 'triangulators' and DLC types who pushed the 'liberals are losers' meme as strongly as any Republican -- when the American people supported liberal policies right along.

Oh, the American people do scare easily, at first. Blacks scared them, when Martin started preaching -- and before, when Jackie started stealing bases. But they faced their fears, and once the light shone on them, the fears dwindled. Gays scared them, but then Ellen and Elton, Neil Patrick and Judge Young, Tammy and Barney all appeared in the light, and they turned out to be just human beings, not scary monsters.

But the people who use those fears never realize that they've been seen through, and keep yelling "Boo!" and wonder why they stop being picked to fight against the shaodws they created.

Once a very bad VP took lines from a very good speech writer, and spoke of a 'silent majority.' But we've been listening too long to a 'noisy minority' and we're beginning to see how small that minority is.

I've been saying for months this won't be a close election, won't be a Bush-Rove squeaker. We're seeing that now. Enthusiasm IS important, and it is on our side. Curiosity -- even dubious curiosity -- is on our side, as it drew 18 million people to watch Michelle live, and even more to watch Hillary -- haven't see the latest ratings.

And it was the older generation who watched Michelle -- on the stations the ratings covered. The ones who WERE afraid -- and aren't any more.

We'll win, and the mandate that the American people have been waiting to give a President -- but found no takers for -- will be taken by Obama, and yes,

THIS COUNTRY IS BETTER THAN YOU THINK, MR. BUSH, SENATOR McCAIN. YOU'RE GOING TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH BETTER IN NOVEMBER

One of the most powerful elements of Obama's speech was its thorough rejection of the right-wing assertions about societal responsibility that got rooted in our discourse in the era of Ronald Reagan and the 80's 'greed is good' period. The message then was that it was not only OK, but preferred, to look out for yourself and screw anyone else. It was part-and-parcel with the transformation of 'government' into an enemy who steals 'your' money, and fracturing the sense that we each contribute to something larger than ourselves. Years later, people are tired of feeling afraid because they've been isolated and are vulnerable to the powerful sharks that prowl these unregulated waters.

Obama is liberal in the Lockean sense: he believes that Government is a tool the people can use to make their society better, not a thief that should be drowned in the bathtub.

We're not going to face Republican obstructionism after November. We should have more than 60 Democratic Senators -- easily -- but more, the ones that survive will be the 'moderate Eisenhower Republicans' (or those who see it is to their advantage to seem so). And they won't join with the bitter-enders, the DeMints and the other fools any more.

Maybe even that Senator from Arizona, the totally empty man, devoid of any principles, even bad ones, will see the 'open slot' as being once again a 'maverick.'

And the scared democrats "Don't dare call me a liberal" won't need that fear any more.

We'll have a mandate, and it will not just be for President. The wind is finally blowing our way, and we finally have people who realize the other wind they've been feeling is nothing more than hot air.

"As Kevin concluded, Obama's not only in a position to win, he can win "with a public behind him that's actively sold on a genuinely liberal agenda. This is why conservatives have so far been apoplectic about his speech tonight: if he continues down this road, and wins, they know that he'll leave movement conservatism in tatters. He is, at least potentially, the most dangerous politician they've ever faced."

Absolutely agree. Obama is truly a threat to the right-wing dominated conservative agenda as it exists today. The key for him is to stay on track and simply continue what he's doing and watch it build.

The right-wing, the Republican Party, movement conservatives, their corporate media allies, none of them will be able to stop this movement.

"As Kevin concluded, Obama's not only in a position to win, he can win "with a public behind him that's actively sold on a genuinely liberal agenda. This is why conservatives have so far been apoplectic about his speech tonight: if he continues down this road, and wins, they know that he'll leave movement conservatism in tatters. He is, at least potentially, the most dangerous politician they've ever faced."

Absolutely agree. Obama is truly a threat to the right-wing dominated conservative agenda as it exists today. The key for him is to stay on track and simply continue what he's doing and watch it build.

The right-wing, the Republican Party, movement conservatives, their corporate media allies, none of them will be able to stop this movement.

Doesn't it make you feel GOOD

Very, very good, analysis, but off by the slightest margin: your mandate is initially defined by what you run on, but it's ultimately defined by two other factors:

1) The mandate you *claim*, and

2) The mandate you *defend*.

Republicans most certainly do run on their policy goals. Ask any Republican, "what do Republicans stand for?" The universal answers are... "less government, traditional values". To most of them, that means tax cuts and character issues.

Republican candidates don't run on policies about health care, the environment, poverty, etc. because those are "liberal issues".

We think they're not running on policy issues because we misunderstand their policy issues.

I remember Bush strutting around after the 2004 election idiotically calming, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."

I remember thinking, "he's actually dumb enough to believe Rove's nonsense.

God help us if McLame is selected presnit.

It remains to be seen whether Obama, as president, will govern with the same progressive/populist agenda that he seems to be promising on the campaign trail. Many a president has entered office with the best of intentions, only to be steamrolled by the political establishment and their real master--the military-industrial complex. The pressure to comply with long established priorities is enormous, and few presidents have even attempted to resist.

There is never a "mandate" with the 2 the DC Mafia parties; it's the lessor of 2 evils every time. The Right wing Mafia Dons will get replaced by their corporate owned lefty brethren in crime, after the left screws up, the right gets another chance, then the left again after that. Garbage in, garbage out.

Much of the world sees DC Mafias illegal actions in Iraq as an insult to humanity, if we the people don't vote 3rd party to punish BOTH responsible parties.. so called "terrorists" and US "enemies" won't feel the least bit sorry for the common US citizen. And why should they?, we are REWARDING the Dems for being complicit sock puppets during which millions suffered by their inaction, and to an extent rewarding the GOP by letting them stay in power at all.