Barack Obama

[dazzleman]

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.

People love the idea of Obama, a black (really, half-black) man who can appeal to whites and blacks, and doesn't frighten off whites with the politics of resentment and entitlement that is practiced by most other liberal black politicians.

Before they know better, they therefore give him the benefit of the doubt, and paint him in their own minds the way they want him to be.

Candidates like that are very vulnerable to having their real views exposed, however.  Michael Dukakis was thought of as a moderate until the Bush campaign went after him in 1988.

I think all this early hype is doing Obama a huge disservice.  It's thrusting him out there before he's ready, and it could end up ruining his longer term prospects.  Not that that would bother me, since I think he's way too liberal, but if you really want to see Obama reach the White House, you shouldn't be hyping him up at this early date, when he doesn't even have 2 years in the Senate. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[dazzleman]

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.

Kerry's problem was that he couldn't keep to a consistent position on a major issue.

[dazzleman]

experience is a crock.  how exactly does 4 more years in the senate make one more able to perform as president.  we don't elect experience.  we elect people.  The person is who is the president.  I hope he runs.  I think he'll run.  I hope he wins.  I think he'll win.  I also believe he'll be a good president if he gets that far.  I hope he's not at the back of the ticket.  I think he's wasted there.

I think actually that high-level executive experience is pretty important, which is part of the reason why governors are elected a lot more than senators.

There is really no accountability for senators.  What makes a good senator?  A good senator is one who votes the way you want, but he/she is only one in 100, and can't really be held accountable for the results of the senate's actions.

Can you say what you think is so great about Obama?  I agree he's attractive personally, but for me, more than that is required.

[dazzleman]

The problem, for me, with Obama is not that fact that he has less than one term but the fact that he doesn't have any noteworthy accomplishments.

There's that, plus his very liberal views.

People love the idea of this man.  He's a (half) black politician who doesn't frighten away white voters.  Pretty much a novelty.

But he hasn't done enough for there to be a serious conversation at this time about his running for president.

And once his views are known, much of the bloom is sure to go off this rose.

[dazzleman]

I wonder who he'd pick for his running mate.
I think Gore would make the most sense

Other posibilities:
Clinton
Edwards
Clark
Feingold
Richardson
Warner

I don't see anybody who already ran for president and almost won accepting the VP nomination.  I sure don't see Hillary accepting the VP nomination.  She was already co-president; why would she settle for VP?

[dazzleman]

I wonder who he'd pick for his running mate.
I think Gore would make the most sense

Other posibilities:
Clinton
Edwards
Clark
Feingold
Richardson
Warner

I don't see anybody who already ran for president and almost won accepting the VP nomination.  I sure don't see Hillary accepting the VP nomination.  She was already co-president; why would she settle for VP?

Well, Hillary isn't as likely, for one thing the 2 Senator thing, but I figured I'd mention her, anyways. What about Obama/ Bill Clinton, though?

Gerald Ford did almost become VP in 1980.

That was an interesting case.  I doubt that it was as close as people thought.

Ford considered Reagan's VP offer because Henry Kissinger had impressed upon him that given the country's national security position, it was imperative to defeat the Democrats, and it was his patriotic duty to do what he could to help.

But Ford put conditions on joining the ticket that were unacceptable to Reagan -- he wanted day-to-day responsibility for foreign policy and fiscal policy.  Plus he demanded that Reagan appoint Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State.

I'm guessing that Ford didn't really want to be VP at that point, but rather than say no, he put impossible conditions on his acceptance.  That's a tactic I've used in many situations.

Both wives were firmly against it.  Nancy Reagan didn't want to see Reagan compromise the powers of the presidency to get Ford on the ticket (she was right), and Betty Ford was in the early stages of recovery from alcoholism and pill addiction, and needed another stint back in Washington like a hole in the head.

[dazzleman]

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.

It takes a different kind of experience to be a successful candidate than it does to be a successful president, at least to some degree.  So I wouldn't really say that experience is irreleavant to getting elected.

And there is a great deal of overlap in the type of experience.  A candidate who is good at selling himself to the voters to get elected may also be good at selling his legislative program to the voters.  This type of experience won't necessarily help on the executive side, or in deriving good programs, though.