President Bush won a stunning victory in Tuesday's midterm elections. On second thought, though, did he really? Clearly, his last two weeks of non-stop campaigning for Republican candidates proved his popularity and pushed some cliff-hanging races over the top. But not far enough over the top to let him ram through any legislation he wants.

That's because there are enough Democratic Senators to filibuster any legislation they find particularly onerous and keep it from coming to a vote where Republican Senators could prevail. The U.S. House of Representatives is solidly in the Republican camp, an outcome that no one, except perhaps ever-hopeful Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, doubted.

What the commentators have spent little time analyzing is the Democratic gain in governors' offices. Three large states which are key to a victory in the 2004 presidential election, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, turned to Democratic governors. Two solidly Republican states, Kansas and Arizona, now have Democratic governors, while staunchly Republican Hawaii elected a Republican to the State House.

These party changes are important for two reasons. First, they reflect the deep divisions in the country over which party can provide the best leadership in these turbulent times. Second, governors carry a lot of clout in their states and can be particularly helpful to presidential candidates. They could have a significant influence on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

What does this mean for the direction of the country over the next two years? For one, the president will still have to work with Democratic Senators to get what he wants on divisive issues. On the other hand, Democrats will need to choose their battles carefully, not blocking every bill or judicial nominee they dislike. In other words, both sides will need to compromise to move legislation, and the country, forward. This is just common political sense, but it has been in short supply for too many years.

From the state level, governors will be pushing their own agendas, claiming with considerable justification, that they represent the grassroots of America. And, this president is particularly attuned to the grassroots of America. Now those governors' voices will be more Democratic and less likely to follow the president's lead on such important issues as national security, health care and economic revival. They have their own states and their own personal political interests to look out for.

All this boils down to a major division of interests voters reflected as they picked their way down their ballots. On the one hand, it seems that voters want more unity and action in Washington. On the other, it looks like they wanted a different kind of leadership at home. What's a poor politician to do?

I think voters were demanding leadership with a plan, with a vision, with a clear message. While the president has been unambiguous about wanting to topple Saddam Hussein, he hasn't been willing or able to present a solid plan for returning the struggling economy to robust performance. Democrats running for Congress missed their best opportunity to gain voter confidence by failing to present their own economic plan and offering no alternatives to war with Iraq. Successful Democratic gubernatorial candidates provided voters with specifics about what they would do to improve the lives of citizens.

The lessons are obvious. Voters want thoughtful proposals to fix the country's ills. They want their political leaders to put aside partisan slugfests and act in the best interests of the people. They want their problems solved. They want honest and complete information on the critical choices this country must make over the next few years. In short, they want action, not squabbling. And, they don't believe either party has fully stepped up to these challenges.

The Democrats don't have much to be happy about with this recent election. But, Republicans don't have so much to crow about either. Voters didn't give a clear mandate to either party. Instead, they told both sides to get on with leading the country effectively and to forget about just fulfilling their own partisan political goals.