Non-existent IMHO.

Barack Obama has never lead on any issue in his life - including Iraq where he voted with the middle every time.

Barack Obama has always been ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.

Unfortunately, now his talk is the kind that we don't want him to take action on.

with regards to the GE, "it's the economy, stupid", was the carville mantra, highlighting the seeming indifference of bush to the suffering of the middle and lower classes, resutling from the recession then ongoing.

clinton actually understood basic economics, obama seems either mystified, or intentionally ignorant. witness his comments regarding social security; totally, completely, 100% wrong factually.

now, to be fair, he has been consistent in his stated intention to repeal the bulk of the bush tax cuts, those on the wealthiest. in fact, so far, that would appear to be about his only consistent position.

for me, there's also a psychological difference: bill clinton seemed to truly represent a breath of fresh air and optimism, obama not so much. clinton's selection of gore as his running mate, and assertion that he would be more than merely a pen holder in the clinton administration, also signaled a new era.

Senator Obama does not have distinct plans, does not delve into the details of policy and how to get it done, does not seem to enjoy real work and all of his actions have been related to his career. (Makes me wonder what he'll think his next career move would be if he were Prez)

But compared to McCain, well, we're back to this depressing argumetn again.

The problem in this case may be that it might not matter to progressives and liberals.  Obama's FISA vote this week does not bode well.  It's triangulation in the wrong way, wrong time, wrong issue.

And for what?

If that vote is how Obama defines the center (and I don't know how else one can read it) then Obama is to the right of the public and will miss a rare opportunity to drive important policy if he is elected with a cooperative congress.

Who knows what the H_xx he really thinks, wants, believes (if anything) or what he'll do?

It's all a crapshoot IMHO...but this time 'what happens in Vegas' won't 'stay in Vegas.'  It will resonate worldwide...

Scary.  He may be a pol in the big-dog campaign mold but the real question is "how will he govern?"

He will come into office having no real mandate in terms of policy, because he will never have defined one. Yes, he'll have getting out of Iraq as a goal, and some compromised form of a health care plan. Talk about a low bar.

But the truth is, I don't think he even cares much about policy, in his heart of hearts. As best I can see, he only supports a health care plan because his hand was forced by Edwards and Hillary. His policies have always been perfunctory and boilerplate.

And yes today is 1994. The Republicans are not going to cede ground. In fact Obama is empowering them if you haven't noticed Armando. How can you have a Liberal mandate if the guy you think is in position to do it falls all over himself to reach out to and impress Republicans? How? Are you even paying attention?

It's like this. If Obama continues, and he will, his rightward ways then it will be governance by committee and everything will be split down the middle. Just watered down policies dominated by Blue Dogs and Republicans. I've been saying this for over a year now and anyone paying attention sees it unfolding right before their eyes.

Now if Obama grew a set and did a 180 and decided to become a Progressive then the Republicans are just going to stop him in his tracks via the Senate minority.

Those are your two realities.

And don't forget that Bill Clinton did not have to deal with the world we live in today with energy problems at their peak. With global warming. With a ramped up post-911 Terrorism. With the ME as fragile as ever. With an embolded Iran. With a national debt that no President could dig us out of in four years. With an economy not only suffering domestically but is also now tied to world economies. With a shrinking middle class, declining wages, and a falling American dollar. And on and on.

Mandate?!!! You got to be kidding.

So let's see here, Armando wants to try again to pump up Obama. "Great President" didn't work. "Pols are Pols" didn't work. So now he tries to sell us the silliest promotion of all - Obama will have a mandate!!!

No. It's more like Obama will have 4 and out because he is ill equipped to handle the the challenges that are already on his plate and need fixing, little on govern as if he had a mandate and introduce new exciting things.

You really jumped the shark on this one I'm afraid Armando. You talk mandate with no consideration at all of Blue Dogs, Republicans, and Obama and his actions themselves. Not to mention the partial list of just what a screwed up mess he would face which really is an insurmountable mess.

By aspiration, Bill Clinton was a populist. This made him the "first black president" and gave him tremendous support among the poor and blue collar workers, etc. Obama is much more of an elitist and has long ago thrown the lowest earners under the bus.

his Third Way/New Democrat approach

existed on the internets then the question would be worth discussing.

Words are nice.  Words are fine.  What has Obama done?  Oh, yeah, I remember now.  He has acted against every single reason I supported him to be the nominee in the first place.

Obama is in a political climate as favorable to Democrats and progressivism as I have ever seen since Watergate.

As I remember it, quite soon after he was elected Clinton took actions on a few subjects that turned out to provide effective red meat for the anti-clinton side.  Clinton acted as though he "owed" it to the various groups of people that voted for him to change some particular things. But as the "gays in the military" changes showed, if the majority of public opinion was not ready for a new change, that effort could become a tool that Clinton's opponents could use against any other change that was being proposed.

Since Obama doesn't seem to be making any specific promises to any particular groups, he isn't under any obligation to rock the boat in any particular way if he's elected.  He seems to be trying to let the voters assume a lot about his positions, but he's not signing off on any  contract with them.  This way, he can just say "I never specifically said that I'd do that anything like that" about a particular issue, and can then try to make incremental changes without worrying about having to fight for them if he doesn't want to.  

I do think Obama had at least a chance to transcend Clintonism but concluded at the last minute that he had to lurch center just like everyone else.  Of course this could have been the plan from the start, look at the typical suspects running his campaign, just clumsily executed.  Whether or not he can reclaim that chance is the $64 million question.  If, as I think, you think the Republicans are akin to bullies who when pushed at hard tend to melt away somewhat, I had hoped for a stronger position by Obama on more contrasts between he and McCain.  By opting to make many of their differences almost similarities for the general campaign, does Obama lose a percentage of the change vote to McCain?  Has he diminished the strength of his candidacy by diminishing the enthusiasm of his strongest young supporters?

And would Hillary have been the stronger candidate given that she had already moved to the center for the primaries?  Would her voters have remained just as passionate as they were in the primaries given that she would not have had to lurch center so quickly and clumsily?  Or does Clinton Derangement Syndrome all by itself motivate the press and the Repubs to rally with enthusiasm?  They are hitting Obama hard right now, sure, but would they have been hitting Clinton even more?