Answer: Because 55+ million people voted against Obama

[cali]

Question: Why should Obama work to bridge the partisan divide?

It's not because the repukes in Congress wield such great power; it's because Obama wants the Amercian public at his back. And appearing to be someone who's not wholly driven by partisanship is a potent tool. And no, it doesn't neccessarily portend caving in to the repukes.

[NJmaverick]

1. Question: Why should Obama work to bridge the partisan divide?

Answer: Because it's the RIGHT thing to do!

[LiberalFighter]

9. Because he was elected to represent all of the people.

Not just those who voted for them as some in Congress on the Republican side believe.

[NJmaverick]

13. yes this is also what the current man child in the White House believed

and I felt that was one of the worse things he did, bring that toxic and destructive attitude to the White House.

[Alter Ego]

24. Cause it's exactly the opposite of what the Republicans did.

I'm tired of hearing about bipartisanship only to have vicious, long, drawn-out fights across the aisles in Congress.

[Lerkfish]

2. well, as I recall, Bush had an even lower margin, and he took it as a mandate

to become insanely partisan.

:shrug:

[lisa58]

3. and we all laughed at him - let's pull together and fix this mess

[atreides1]

8. It's great in theory

But those die hard Repukes who would cut of their noses to spite their faces will never cross that bridge. Obama can work on those who are open minded and pull together, but that sector which includes right wing religious nuts and racists will never work to make things better for all.

So, Obama needs to seperate the wheat from the chaff and work with those who will work for the betterment of all Americans, and bypass those who would rather drown then to take a life preserver.

[Lerkfish]

15. I'm not saying he was correct, just saying he used the exact same math

to justify extreme partisanship.

IN other words, I don't see why it necessarily HAS to follow that having opposing voters means you have to automatically become bipartisan.

In fact, in this reality, some republicans will bite your hand if you stretch it across the aisle, so some thoughtful caution should be in play here, instead of kneejerking into a cum by yah campfire singalong.
Don't forget what these assholes did to us for the last eight years.

If you stretch your democratic hand out, you'd be wise to have a knife in your other hand, just in case.

[mondo joe]

21. If you use Bush's approach to mandate as an example of what a President could do,

it seems reasonable to pay attention to the outcomes of that model as well.

But I agree about the approach to Republicans - one hand open, the other holding a club.

[cali]

4. actually, initially, bush shoveled bipartisanship heavily

and in later years, his naked partisanship left him with the lowest approval ratings in history. Furthermore, that little incident known as 9/11 gave him a gift of
bi-partisan support that lasted for a couple of years.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Yep... I figured that Obama received 2.97 TIMES the the difference Bush received in 2004.

Obama received nearly 9 million votes than McCain.

Bush received just over 3 million votes than Kerry. And he was in the hole in 2000.

[mondo joe]

17. And he was wrong. And his approval ratings confirm it. NT

[Lerkfish]

18. not arguing that. is anything I stated incorrect?

[mondo joe]

20. Not at all. NT

[Aviation Pro]

5. Smart mofo....

...that he is

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA _{I love doing that to the lurking Freeptards, but I digress.}

knows that a lot of those 55 million voted for Senator McCain and that is the reason he reached out to McCain after the election. He won't get all of them - he'll never get the batshit crazy, loser, beauty queen's lunatic followers - but if he's able to get 30% of them then he'll have a clear mandate to forge ahead with some very bold programs.

As I said, smart mofo.

[madokie]

6. Its the tone he's setting that I like

and encourage him to continue to do. I love my fellow Americans no matter if they be republicans or democratic voters.

[Justice]

7. Of that 55 million, a good number are taking a new look at Obama because of

his appointments. I've talked to 3 McCain voters in the last week who said they are happy with Obama and support him.

[LiberalFighter]

11. They were saying that 67% (I think) approved what Obama is doing.

[pipi_k]

12. There are probably a whole lot of people who think

that Obama is stepping on W's toes by taking charge the way he has, but I think he's showing us, and the world, that he's in this to actually DO something...unlike W, who, by his behavior, appeared to think it was going to be a four or eight year long party with himself at the head of the Conga Line.

And that's the difference between a real man and a spoiled, middle-aged Frat Boy who claimed to be a "uniter, not a divider" but in truth presided over some of the biggest divisions between Americans in over a generation.

[Lost4words]

16. W dosent care he has been bored to tears with all his hard work

[Pale Blue Dot]

14. That's a false meme. A good leader does the right thing and then

convinces people it was the right thing to do. A weak leader tries to please everyone.

[cali]

23. bwahaha. never read the Art Of War, have you?

And of course it's about convincing people to support "the right thing"- such as shutting down Gitmo and restoring Habeas, to mention just two. He's not trying to please everyone. He's trying to attain the power to push his agenca successfully.

[mondo joe]

19. He's just doing exactly what he said he would do if elected.

I don't know if people thought he was lying or what.

[ThomWV]

22. In a country of 300 million people only 1 out of 6 voted for the loser

Pretty simple arithmetic if you ask me, 300 million people, 50 million votes, means one out of 6 people in the country voted for the loser. So how does one out of six become a number of people who require constant appeasement?