The Wall Street Journal : Not Fair and Not Balanced

I read an interesting comparison of the editorial policy of the venerable Wall Street Journal recently that took the time to compare some editorials at the time of George W Bush's reelection in 2004 and the recent reelection of President Barack Obama.

The point that is easy to discern is that the Conservative Wall Street Journal is, upon comparison of the statements, evidently not anymore than a branch of the right. What is the point to be made?

When George Bush defeated John Kerry the paper advised that he had received a mandate unlike any President in decades. To be clear they were stating that he had a severe mandate from the voters.

With Mr. Obama's election this fall the paper was a bit more restricted in it's praise. About Mr. Obama the paper said that he had won election by the barest of majorities and had a mandate of slimness that was only in the amount of votes received and not a clear endorsement from the people.

The problem with this analysis. President Obama won a significantly larger portion of the electoral college, he also in raw numbers defeated Romney by more votes than did Bush gain victory over Kerry. One might expect than the paper would recognize the President's clear mandate as well. Mysteriously however it would seem that the margin of victory needed for a mandate was much less in 2004 than it is today with a Democrat victorious.

It would be welcome to understand how this might be the caes.