Mandates are tricky, and for it to go well, the safety net -- especially for the working poor and the lower middle class -- will need to be well thought-out.  If Obama goes kicking and screaming into a full-coverage mandate plan, I would worry that he wouldn't be careful about such details.

As to whether the motivation matters-- it does to a certain extent because it speaks to trust.

You're of course totally right we should focus on issues more than pols, but you can't take pols out of the equation.  You're fond of saying "Pols are pols," and I can't argue with that, but some are moreso than others.

Before I vote, I want to have some sense of what the bedrock principles are that a pol will fight for and be willing to risk major political capital for.

It's the reason I want Hillary to be president, because she's been working on it for her entire career. It's her issue, too.

So I don't care HOW or WHY Obama changes his mind on it - if he decides that universal health care with mandates is the right way to go, that's great. If I though he was sincere (that's a big if) I'd be thrilled. If he actually followed through on it, I'd be a fan and take back some of the bad but perfectly true things I've said about him. I'd even vote for him.

What a nice daydream ... if only.

At this point, I don't consider him principled enough that he won't sell himself or say anything that stands in the way of getting himself elected.

I realize saying so is not saying much anything because I don't trust he will keep his promises on important issues that matter to me and subject to change without notice.

Obama appalls me because his positions are grounded in nothing except what's best for him at this moment. He has never fought hard for anything and has never stuck his neck out for any cause. He's right when he refers to himself as a blank screen upon which people project all manner of hope. He is the ultimate empty suit.

I don't want a candidate who's so practiced at "nuance" that he can shift here, there, and everywhere, yet still claim that he represents the people who gave him a mandate, rather than the demographic that he happens to need this week.

Honestly, I don't know what to do about Obama running scared and running to the right, but I know that our primary, the point when these issues are supposed to be hammered out, did not serve its purpose. The OFB cultists drowned everyone else out, especially on blogosphere 1.0.

 It is naive to believe solely in  what politicians  say or what you think they say during a campaign. So you look to their record (and I don't mean just legislative or governmental experience) to see what their record shows about their core values.  And you look to who they surround themselves with as advisors.

The progressive blogs, in general, just accepted the words and dismissed what should have been alarm bells.

Suppose for a moment that Barack Obama changed his position (aka flip flopped) on the issue and embraced mandates. Would you consider that a good thing?

Actually "universal" is the magic word Obama has not embraced yet, not "mandate" which he wants for children. I like the concept of "universal," of course, but universal non-commercial (not commercial) policies. I don't see being forced buy a corporate health insurance policy without strong consumer protections; cost controls to make premiums, deductibles and co-pays affordable; guaranteed benefit quality; no dropped policies; and all sorts of "policing" of the corporate insurance industry which is nearly impossible.

Here's a point that could save the situation I just described and I don't see raised much.  A universal mandate to require everyone in America to buy commercial insurance policies would allow  insurance companies to reap an enormous windfall profit when they sell millions of insurance policies to relatively young/well consumers. I'd like to see Obama (or some president or Congressional leader like Hillary with guts and smarts) stand up to the insurance companies and say, "Okay, if you want to have this gigantic windfall, you'll have to use the lion's share to cover the low-income margins and those who are uninsured due to physical or mental handicap; cap your premium costs, co-pays and deductibles at an affordable level for everyone; guarantee benefit quality; no discrimination for pre-existing or age. You'll amicably agree to regulatory oversight like a public utility -- and you'll still make a huge fortune by expanding your sales to millions of Americans. Oh? You can't do that? Then we'll just mosey over toward single payer and let you wither on the vine."

In other words, use the "mandate windfall" as a bargaining chip for a negotiation carried out before the public which the insurance companies will be expected to reject but the deal will be so fair in most consumers' eyes that they will start taking single-payer very seriously and we might get some wind in the sails of single-payer.

Among all the elements I mentioned above for negotiation, at the very least insurers should be required to cover the low-income margins themselves rather than our forcing the federal government to use tax dollars to underwrite commercial premiums for them which is outrageous given the enormous profits of a "mandate windfall" just sitting there collecting interest for the commercial insurance industry.

Credibility isn't needed just in the bloggers and their blogs... but in the candidates.  If you are the type of person to move away from bloggers that lack consistency and integrity, you are most likely the type of person that will move away from a politician that displays the same traits (what is his motivation.)

Hmm--it's a tough one. Generally, I think I'd go with the latter, if I had to. A similar question would be whether I'd be happy if George W. Bush passed universal health care because of political pressure. Yes, I definitely would be. So I would be if Obama did the same.

Obama risks appealing to no one.

FISA, Iraq, Public Financing,gun regulations, now he appears to be even tacking towards the center on abortion.

What's next ?

Does he stand firm on anything ?

Will he be appearing at NASCAR races, have a photo op hunting ?

We are assuming he follows through on it, right?  That is a whole other issue.  If he flopped back once he got elected I'd be mad.

No.  It would not matter in the least what the reason was.  Obviously, if it was political pressure, that would be a good thing.  

Anything else would be pandering, and I don't like pandering no matter which "side" is the beneficiary.