Barack Obama

[Nym90]

Is it just me or has Time Magazine's bias completely shifted? They went from naming Bush the man of the year to hyping Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

Time magazine is completely commercial. It has no stance beyond what it believes its readers want to hear.

Absolutely, and the same is true for the rest of the media, too.

[Nym90]

Obama is VERY liberal.

correct.  and completely unacceptable to mainstream america.

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

Yep. I think Jack Ryan would have given him a very good run if his wasn't surrounded by scandal.

I remember thinking Obama was very liberal two years ago but if you say the same thing today, people will laugh at you. Everyone thinks he is a moderate just as they think John Edwards is, too.

The thing is though that in politics perception is reality.

It doesn't matter whether Obama is liberal or not, the only thing that matters is what people think he is. Someone who is charismatic and personable can make themsevles seem more moderate than they really are (look at Ronald Reagan as the best example of that).

Hillary Clinton has the opposite problem, in that she is perceived as being far to the left when in reality she isn't. But again, it doesn't matter, she's still just as unelectable.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nym90]

I hope that the Democratic primary voters have sense enough to put experience before good looks and charisma.

Yeah, that worked so well with John Kerry. Charisma/communication skills are much more important than experience when it comes to getting elected.

Exactly. I initially supported Kerry over Edwards in 2004 for the nomination because I figured experience mattered more, especially post 9/11, but in the end Kerry got absolutely no advantage from his more capable resume, and I think Edwards would've been the far stronger nominee.

A lack of experience only matters if it can be clearly shown that the candidate is unprepared to be commander-in-chief. So long as Obama can clearly articulate what he'd do as President, and sound reasonable and intelligent, a lack of experience won't matter.  He'd have to be caught saying something stupid that made it look like he wasn't ready for primetime.

[Nym90]

Actually Carter only had 4 years as Governor of Georgia, and I'd argue that his inexperience showed when he got into office.

Experience is important in being a succesful President, although I'd argue it is nearly irrelevant in terms of being a succesful candidate.

[Nym90]

Obama's major problem is that he's peaking now.  If he sits in the senate for another 4 years, he won't have the momentum to win the nomination.  Add to that the fact that Democrats will (knock on wood) probably win the White House in '08.

There's no better time than now for Obama.

There's no other time than now for Obama.

That said, if Obama enters the race, barring Gore running, Obama becomes a big contender for the status of "anti-hillary."  Kerry, Biden, and Dodd at this point have no chance.

The race comes down to Richardson, Bayh, Obama, Edwards, maybe Clark, and Hillary.  One will be the nominee, and odds are one will be VP.

How it shakes out depends on what happens this November.

Democrats win back both houses, Hillary and Obama gain.

Democrats fail miserably, Bayh, Richardson and Edwards gain.

I hope Obama runs, if only to make it more dramatic

You think the Democrats are going to win the White House in 2008?

I'd say it's 60-40 in the dems favor right now.  But who can say?

At this point, given Bush's approval ratings, the Democrats have to be considered favored. However, a lot can change in two years. But looking at things as they stand now, the Democrats would have to be considered more likely than not just due to the political environment, which could just as easily get worse for the Republicans as it could get better.

I truly believe that Bush's approval ratings and the general sense of whether we are on the right track or wrong track is what will most likely decide the 2008 election, not the views or ideologies of the individual candidates. The candidates and their campaigns will make some difference, but not more than say 3-5 percentage points either way (assuming obviously that someone like Sharpton or Tancredo isn't nominated, which obviously they won't be).