In response to sweetnothing: Sad thing is, they never will. Everything that ever happens to them is because there black. (in their mind) George Bush could walk across water, and their responce would be that he was to stupid and racist to take a black man on the walk with him.

In response to dasuit:No, I think you're right. Obama didn't have much of a problem with it. For him it was a compliment. For all the black candidates before him, it was pretty much an insult. Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." That means that the ones before him either 1. weren't mainstream or 2. were inarticulate, dumb, dirty or ugly. Neither option is very complimentary.

Please.. he is a liberal at heart and is just trying to get elected! Nothing wrong with that, right?

Speaking of being judged on something other than talent. Idol was a perfect example tonight. I hope we are smarter than that when we select a new President.

In response to sharbear:Usually conservative politicians help the rich first, then the upper middle class, the middle classs and then the working poor. The working man (manual laborers, factory workers, tradesmen) typically falls toward the bottom end of this scale. That's why it's nice that it looks like Obama will help out the working man for a change.

In response to Cass:Oh please. It seems naive to classify conservatives as "out to help the rich" and liberals as "out to help the working man". Does it help the working man to levy confiscatory taxes and fees on his employer (i.e., "the rich") which results in laying off the very working man you were supposed to help? How many poor people employ others? Obviously there are legitimate differences in the approach of conservatives to governing vs. that taken by the liberals (such as less government interference vs. more such interference) and serious intelligent discussion can be had in comparing the benefits and flaws in both appproaches. But it is clear that both conservatives and liberals desire to help all Americans to achieve a better life, whether poor, working, entrepreneur,retired or whatever; they just have different ways to get there.

In response to trainboy:Say what you may. I typically fare better financially when there's a democrat in the White House -- all the way back to Carter.

In response to Cass:You may have done well under Carter...but wasn't there a financial disaster during his 4 short years...like interest rates over 20%? That hurt alot of people...even the "working man". I acknowledge that this was in great part due to the international oil embargo, but until Reagan, the administration under Carter appeared impotent to do anything about it.

In response to trainboy:It's not as if Bush is batting a thousand either. Get ready for the housing market crash. It's just around the corner for most areas.

In response to Cass:Working man: n : worker; Worker: one that works, esp a person who works for wages. (source: Merriam Webster Dictionary). I guess that includes most of us, right?

In response to BigD:To me, the fact that he is Muslim doesn't make too much of a difference. I think that much like most Christian and Jewish politicians, he will be able to keep his religion and politics separate.

Sadly, Hillary kicked his butt at fundraising. Hillary Clinton tallied up close to $36 million, Obama closer to $22 million.

In response to corinthians:I think it's kind of sad that presidential outcomes seem to be tied to how good a fundraiser a candidate is. It's a good skill to have, but to me it just doesn't seem like it should be the defining skillset of a president.

In response to trainboy:Ummm... You seem to have cut the definition short. The online edition of Merriams says:
Main Entry: work·ing·man
Pronunciation: 'w&r-ki[ng]-"man
Function: noun
: one who works for wages USUALLY AT MANUAL LABOR

One thing I like about Obama is that he is able to defend himself and his ideas... At one point, Obama proposed legislation to remove all U.S. soldiers from Iraq by March 2008. Within a day of Obama's campaign announcement, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said this would encourage terrorists, -- something along the lines of: al-Qaeda in Iraq should circle March 2008 on their calendar and pray for victory by Obama and the Democratic Party.

Obama responded by saying “I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced (my candidacy), I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400. If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Even with all the taxes he would levy, having a president who could actually put together a well constructed argument might be a trade up.