Barack Obama

[Colin]

Obama is VERY liberal.

correct.  and completely unacceptable to mainstream america.

if illinois had a republican party, he wouldnt be in the senate today.

They have a Republican party. They just lost the race by 43 points.

Yeah I wouldn't call having Alan Keyes as your candidate a functioning party by any logical definition.

[YRABNNRM]

More and more I believe that Obama will run. He'll be the John Edwards of 2008.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

More and more I believe that Obama will run. He'll be the John Edwards of 2008.

Mentioned Edwards.  Something people need to realize: he's a hardcore liberal.  Anyone who talks about two Americas - a rich one and a poor one - is bordering on socialism.

[Nym90]

More and more I believe that Obama will run. He'll be the John Edwards of 2008.

Mentioned Edwards.  Something people need to realize: he's a hardcore liberal.  Anyone who talks about two Americas - a rich one and a poor one - is bordering on socialism.

One doesn't have to be a socialist to realize there is a different set of rules for different people. Do you honestly believe everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead in life and success is determined by strictly by how smart you are or how hard you work? If not, then you at least partially agree with Edwards.

It's not hard to see this in practice either. In most big cities a drive from the inner city out into the suburbs will quickly reveal these two Americas within about 10 minutes time.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

More and more I believe that Obama will run. He'll be the John Edwards of 2008.

Mentioned Edwards.  Something people need to realize: he's a hardcore liberal.  Anyone who talks about two Americas - a rich one and a poor one - is bordering on socialism.

One doesn't have to be a socialist to realize there is a different set of rules for different people. Do you honestly believe everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead in life and success is determined by strictly by how smart you are or how hard you work? If not, then you at least partially agree with Edwards.

It's not hard to see this in practice either. In most big cities a drive from the inner city out into the suburbs will quickly reveal these two Americas within about 10 minutes time.

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

[dazzleman]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

[Conan]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This is so stupid and one of the reasons why so many people who shouldnt be republican are. Republican leaders are so great at lying and spin that they have duped half the country.

[© tweed]

For what it's worth his TradeSports stock has basically doubled since Warner said he isn't running.  He's now fourth behind Clinton, Gore, and Edwards.

[dazzleman]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This is so stupid and one of the reasons why so many people who shouldnt be republican are. Republican leaders are so great at lying and spin that they have duped half the country.

No, it's quite true.  I've seen it with own eyes.

[Soaring Eagle]

a horribly overrated politician.

Definitely. He thinks hes moderate too but he isnt. He wouldnt have been elected if he had a challenger.

Keep dreaming. Obama was going to win anyway, just not in a landslide that embarassed the Illinois GOP.

[Conan]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This is so stupid and one of the reasons why so many people who shouldnt be republican are. Republican leaders are so great at lying and spin that they have duped half the country.

No, it's quite true.  I've seen it with own eyes.

Yea and I've seen the opposite. It just so happens that economically too, these rich liberals benefit the poor and middle class the most.

[Nym90]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

I do agree that the four would make more sense than the two as an overall way of characterizing the country, but the gap between two and three is still a lot bigger than it is between one and two or between three and four.

And I completely disagree about the idea that liberals are mostly in group one and want to hurt group three. First of all, those in group one are overwhelmingly Republican overall, and it's the Republicans who support tax cuts and corporate giveaways for those in group one, while the Democrats are supporting instead using that money in ways that would help group three.

I think the idea that the Democrats are somehow the party of the rich and the Republicans the party of the middle class is pretty ridiculous. One can certainly have a healthy debate about which party's policies are best overall for any group of Americans and for the country as a whole, but that's just flat out wrong in my opinion to argue that Democrats somehow benefit the wealthy more than the poor.

[Rob]

And I completely disagree about the idea that liberals are mostly in group one and want to hurt group three. First of all, those in group one are overwhelmingly Republican overall, and it's the Republicans who support tax cuts and corporate giveaways for those in group one, while the Democrats are supporting instead using that money in ways that would help group three.

That's conservative logic for you. Cutting taxes for the top 1 percent isn't elitist, but raising the minimum wage is.

I love it when Republicans talk "populist."  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This member of group #3 calls bullsh**t on your lies.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This member of group #3 calls bullsh**t on your lies.

Let's use me as an example.  I work hard for my money.  When I was at Harvard, I made more than I make now.  I make about $145,000 per year.  In John Edwards' world, I'm in the same group as Bill Gates.  His two Americas isolates the vast socioeconomic majority of America.

[dazzleman]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This member of group #3 calls bullsh**t on your lies.

I don't believe you're even in group #3.

In the more expensive parts of the country, people in group #3 would qualify as 'rich' under common Democratic thinking about who should pay more taxes.

Group #3 has always borne the brunt of liberal social engineering that hasn't worked out.  Group #1, and to a lesser extent, members of group #2, always had the money to exempt themselves from that which the liberals forced onto group #3.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

This member of group #3 calls bullsh**t on your lies.

I don't believe you're even in group #3.

In the more expensive parts of the country, people in group #3 would qualify as 'rich' under common Democratic thinking about who should pay more taxes.

Group #3 has always borne the brunt of liberal social engineering that hasn't worked out.  Group #1, and to a lesser extent, members of group #2, always had the money to exempt themselves from that which the liberals forced onto group #3.

Well, Group #4 doesn't apply to me, either, so maybe your whole idea of groups is garbage.

[dazzleman]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

I do agree that the four would make more sense than the two as an overall way of characterizing the country, but the gap between two and three is still a lot bigger than it is between one and two or between three and four.

And I completely disagree about the idea that liberals are mostly in group one and want to hurt group three. First of all, those in group one are overwhelmingly Republican overall, and it's the Republicans who support tax cuts and corporate giveaways for those in group one, while the Democrats are supporting instead using that money in ways that would help group three.

I think the idea that the Democrats are somehow the party of the rich and the Republicans the party of the middle class is pretty ridiculous. One can certainly have a healthy debate about which party's policies are best overall for any group of Americans and for the country as a whole, but that's just flat out wrong in my opinion to argue that Democrats somehow benefit the wealthy more than the poor.

Eric, I think you need to update your conception of who votes conservative vs. liberal.

If your perception of political alignment were correct, Connecticut would be the most Republican state in the country, and Mississippi the most Democratic.

Clearly, the old rich=conservative Republican and poor=liberal Democrat is not the same anymore.

People at the very bottom economically continue to vote heavily Democratic.  But so do a lot of people at the very top.  It is the middle class and upper middle class that trend more Republican, not the wealthy.

Many people don't know the difference between upper middle class and wealthy, but the true difference is that the upper middle class still work for their money, while the wealthy's money works for them.  Big difference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's sad how much dazzleman bought into this "liberal elites are destroying you" propaganda.

[Nym90]

Edwards divided people into two groups: rich people who can afford everything, and poor people who can afford nothing.  What about those in between? 

In reality, there is one America, but if you had to make an argument, it would be at least partially true to say that there were four Americas:

1) Rich America.  Can afford everything they need or want.  Never have financial difficulties.

2) Comfortable America.  Can afford everything they need plus a few extras for pleasure.  People like me, doctors, and lawyers.

3) Working America.  Can afford what they need, but rarely can afford extra.  Often have financial troubles, but are never in a serious risk of being thrown out onto the streets.  Teachers, policemen, etc.

4) Poor America.  Homeless, on welfare, etc.  Can't afford the necessities.

Joel, your four Americas make a lot more sense than Edwards' two Americas.

The problem with most liberals is that they want group #3 to suffer in order to help group #4.  Many liberals are in group #1, and they're sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices to help group #4.

I do agree that the four would make more sense than the two as an overall way of characterizing the country, but the gap between two and three is still a lot bigger than it is between one and two or between three and four.

And I completely disagree about the idea that liberals are mostly in group one and want to hurt group three. First of all, those in group one are overwhelmingly Republican overall, and it's the Republicans who support tax cuts and corporate giveaways for those in group one, while the Democrats are supporting instead using that money in ways that would help group three.

I think the idea that the Democrats are somehow the party of the rich and the Republicans the party of the middle class is pretty ridiculous. One can certainly have a healthy debate about which party's policies are best overall for any group of Americans and for the country as a whole, but that's just flat out wrong in my opinion to argue that Democrats somehow benefit the wealthy more than the poor.

Eric, I think you need to update your conception of who votes conservative vs. liberal.

If your perception of political alignment were correct, Connecticut would be the most Republican state in the country, and Mississippi the most Democratic.

Clearly, the old rich=conservative Republican and poor=liberal Democrat is not the same anymore.

People at the very bottom economically continue to vote heavily Democratic.  But so do a lot of people at the very top.  It is the middle class and upper middle class that trend more Republican, not the wealthy.

Many people don't know the difference between upper middle class and wealthy, but the true difference is that the upper middle class still work for their money, while the wealthy's money works for them.  Big difference.

I agree that the rich are less Republican than they used to be, but exit polls still show a clear correlation between income and voting behavior, all the way up to the very wealthiest. Hollywood celebrities and the like may create the misperception that the wealthy elite are now solidly Democratic, but I don't think that's borne out by the facts.

[elcorazon]

So, it's looking more and more like Obama's running.  I think he's got a legit shot at the nomination.  If he gets it, who's his veep.  Bayh? Richardson? Biden?  I think he should pick someone who hasn't got the "liberal" tag tied to them, and who has some gravitas from a foreign policy perspective.  thoughts?

[Lincoln Republican]

There is no way Obama runs for President in 2008.

But in the impossible event he is the Democratic nominee in 2008, how about Senator Bill Nelson of Florida as VP?

[Keystone Phil]

His Majesty Barack will actually be at my college (Temple University) this Saturday for Casey and Rendell. I wonder if he'll announce his candidacy. 

[MasterJedi]

He won't run because he probably wouldn't win the nomination this time around.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Obama is no idiot, and he would be an idiot to run for the Democratic nomination unless it were part of a bigger strategy to get the Vice Presidential nod.  By doing so he would have to run and win in only a couple of states rather than run a nationwide campaign.