Barack Obama

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Anyways, my guess is that Obama won't run in 2008. But I wish him luck if he does.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The nomination isn't his, but he would have a good chance at it if he ran.

He's surged to 3rd on TradeSports, up another 1.2% just today.

Clinton 49.3%
Gore 13.1%
Obama 10.7%
Edwards 10.3%
Kerry 4.0%
Bayh 3.3%
Feingold 2.5%
Richardson 2.5%
Vilsack 2.5%
Biden 1.8%
Clark 1.5%
Schweitzer 1.0%
Warner 0.9%
Others <= 0.5%

http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=22739&eventSelect=22739&updateList=true&showExpired=false#

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's got 5 books.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Barack%20Obama&page=1

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Approval rating:
Overall:69-25

Democrats: 89-10
Indys: 62-29
Republicans: 52-40

He's >=60% amoung every group except Republicans and conservatives.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8390707c-aab9-464a-9b0c-80524fbcd75e

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Except Bill Clinton's not eligible...

He can't be elected President, but he is still eligible to become President, and so can be elected VP (assuming that the partisan Republican majority on SCOTUS doesn't rule otherwise).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry peaked in March 2003 here: