Obama should pick Bill Nelson as VP

So says some guy in Massachusetts: "...Nelson has shown his electoral prowess in Florida, having been re-elected in 2006 with 60 percent of the vote. In addition, he won five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from a district that includes Brevard County, not known as a citadel of liberalism, and where President Bush garnered 57 percent of the vote in 2004..."

Comments

Obama - pick Nelson. McCain - pick Cristi. Get them both out of here.

That.
Is.
Laughable.

So let it be written . . . so let it be done!

Florida is ground zero in this campaign. Ohio has a D Governor, Pennsylvania has a D Governor, and Michigan has a D Governor....Republicans MUST win Florida....

Oh you mean the Sen. Nelson who wants to flout the US Constitution and do away with the Electoral College so that New York and California essentially elect the President?

That Sen. Nelson?

If Nelson becomes VP then Crist appoints his replacement...no way the D's can afford to have that take place....and who would Crist pick to be Senator?

[Urbane Development]

Poor guy, staking his consultancy career on Bill "When I Was in Space" Nelson... I don't trust Massachusetts political wind-gauges... the hoopla behind their Governor was almost messianic, and two months after the swear-in, hmm... not so much.

But this pick, citing Nelson bringing much needed gravitas to the Obama camp, had me chuckling.

10:32 - thing is that Crist has shown over and over he has NO problem appointing democrats to statewide offices - he's their biggest party builder right now

HILARIOUS!!! Yeah, pick Nelson. He did a bang up job as Insurance Commissioner. And McCain would be guaranteed a win! Unless he picks Crist and then Ralph Nader would probably accomplish the unimaginable!

10:32: Cristi would obviously pick a Democrat to show that he's the "People's Governor."

Hasn't Nelson already endorsed Shrillary?

McCain's playing Cristi, using him for fundraising while making him think he has a shot at the VP nod. There's no way in hell a Log Cabin Republican would be picked as VP. The evangelicals would simply not show up at the polls.

[Crabby Bill]

Yes, 11:03, Nelson is backing Hillary, which makes his appointment as Obama's VP about as probable as the Legislature fixing property taxes and insurance.

Not bloody likely.

And ST. Pete Times, I've mistakenly clicked on that (#$#*$%* "2008 Chasco Fiesta" banner about four times now. I will NEVER PATRONIZE ANY OF THESE ADVERTISERS. THE BOTTOM BANNER IS INVASIVE AND A ROYAL PAIN IN THE BUTT!!!!!!

RE: 10:31...

The electoral college is an outdated system based on the days of horse travel. A system in which every american who wished to vote had their vote counted the same is a true democracy.

Let me guess... You are a Repub who realizes that if every persons vote counted your man GWB would never have been elected! It also would make it a whole lot harder for the R's to cheat. Now I see why you don't like the idea!

[Shirley]

LAUGHABLE. Barack Obama is a genius and I'm sure he'd get a chuckle out of the idea - yeah, right. When pigs fly.

11:27 - the R's cheat? Give me a break. The D's cheat just as much. It's called career politicians and they all are cheats on some level. Until $$$$$ is taken out of this whole process, there will ALWAYS be cheating. Why do you think no honest people or independents have a rat's chance? LAUGHABLE. You're probably a die hard Clinton supporter. The epitomy of honest - hahahahahahahahahahaha

11:27

The Clinton's and their supporters seem to be pretty big fans of the Electoral College.

Al Gore was too, 3 nights before the 2000 Elections when he thought he'd won the college and not the popular.

And even the Democratic Party in general doesn't seem to want a popular vote in their own ranks, hence the superdelegate system.

Maybe that is less the likeability of the electoral college and more typical Democratic Party hypocrisy.

[STOP ADDs]

Crabby Bill, I agree about these adds. Put them somewhere else, but the current placement is obtrusive.

[Luke]

Wow, I wish there was this might discussion on, well, any other issue, since all other issues are more important than this load. But then again, all us loud-mouth, wanna-be political consultants wouldn't be able to sound so intelligent!

Check out the MoveOn.org petition to refute the attempted strongarm tactics of Hillary's billionaire supporters to overcome her impending defeat. 2008 is nothing less than a people's prising against Bush fascists and all others who want to use their excessive wealth to buy political power. We The People are going to win this election!

No, Obama, his wife and reverend just about offended everybody. The reverend, his mentor of 20 years, not only hates whites and G_d damn America.
He now hates jews and Italians. Who is next? Chinese? What names will he call them? Does he feel his community is above all others? Wasn't MLK's dream one of equality?
Obamba should not pick Nelson, he should move to another country or dump this radical mean reverend. If a white person were to say similar words like the mentor Reverend said about Jews and Italians toward the black community with , that white person would have hell to pay. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be rallying up for marches and what have you. Martin Luther King a great man was not for special treatment he was for EQUAL RIGHTS. The law gives equal rights. Why does this particular reverend teach his church to hate? Teach his church to segregate? Why has the media not really looked into Obama and his wifes past? That reverend wants to start a civil war. He is no one I would ever associate with. Scares me as does Al Quiaeda.

The electoral college still protects the small states, regarldess of whether or not we travel on horseback now or not. The stupidity on this blog is amazing!

Bill Nelson is an empty suit. He has been fortunate to run against bad candidates.

12:25 I disagree with what you're saying, but I support your right to say it. I just hope you don't own any weapons, or even a moderately sharp pencil.

12:25 (a) I mean.

Bob Graham is by far a better choice than Nelson that seems to be suffering form dimesia lately. He just seems odd and quirky with all the last minute brain storm ideas to help Clinton "steal" the primary. Bob Graham has all the qualifications to be a perfect VP along with the Executive experience of being a Governor for Florida and the foreing policy leadership experience.

12:34 You must be an Obama supporter. What is it you are disagrreeing with? I did not make up the hate comments that the Mentor Reverend of Obama made. You can tell me that doesn't concern you? You think that I should not be concerned that a Presidental candidate has a close 20 year relationship with a hateful separationist? One who hates whites, this country, now jews and Italians. He is clearly teaching his church to hate people. He is not teaching them what Martin Luther died for. He is dangerous and he is causing much harm. You are the one I am worried about having a voters card.

12:42 You are right. I am very concerned. I was undecided and still am on who to vote for. I am of no party affiliation and was seriously looking at Obama. But I have great concern now that more and more information comes out. I have been doing some research on all candidates and have found some interesting information on Michele his wife that disturbs me also. You do have a right to be concerned. Many people I am talking with are concerned also.

12:42 Sen Obama answered his critics, disagreeing with the extremist positions sometimes adopted by Reverend Wright. His speech was a complete refutation of what you're spewing.

The worst person to hold a voters card is an ignoramous; exactly the kind who have given our country 8 years of hateful and heartless Bush policies. Do you think that MLK would be in Iraq killing people in the name of (cough cough) freedom and democracy? Get a clue.

12:52 You miss the point. MLK would never spew that kind of hatred, that kind of venom.

I am not and never have been a Bush Supporter, so stop the partisan crap. I am a no party affiliation for a good reason. Both parties stink.

Obamas speech may have answered something for you, but it doesn't cut it for me. He knows this reverend for 20 years at least. This reverend married him and his wife. Baptized his children and you think that doesn't raise the question of how could he not know the hate and prejudice this reverend stood for. You may be the ignoramous. There are many people out here who don't drink the Kool Aid. Why just imagine if a white candidate, lets say McCain were to have a close association with a jerk like David Duke. I bet you would be screaming and making sure he denounced Duke. I would. You can use his speech all ypou want, it doesnt squash the concerns about Obambas support of a complete radical nutjob that would insight hatred between the races instead of good. And what is worse is he does it from the pulpit.

Right on target!

MLK and Jesse Jackson would be kickin' it with their hos

1:03 You're not non-partisan? You sound like a typical bigoted GOP political hack to me. Trying to portray Obama as a racist is the last resort of a desperate political party trying to derail a candidate who is popular across the racial spectrum. I guess the old "Barack Hussein" thing didn't grab the market share your stategists claimed it would, eh? First he was a radical Islamist, then a radical Christian, and now he's a racist.

Well good luck. Maybe you guys can cook up another terror scheme or something to get elected and continue your reign of hate and heartlessness over the poor and middle class of the US. But I think people see through your crap. Obama's going to happen.

The Inequality Myth
By BRAD SCHILLER
March 10, 2008; Page A15

Class warfare is once again a campaign theme. The Democratic candidates are railing against the "tax cuts for the rich," lamenting the stagnation of middle-class incomes, and decrying the deepening woes of the poor. In her January response to President Bush's State of the Union address, Hillary Clinton cited "seven years of stagnant wages, declining incomes and increasing inequality." Barack Obama echoes this theme by referring repeatedly to the "middle-class squeeze."

Both candidates portray America as a nation where the fruits of economic progress have been usurped by corporate CEOs, equity-fund managers, inside traders and international speculators. Main Street has floundered, while Wall Street has flourished.

The annual release of census data on household incomes provides the foundation for the "two Americas" thesis. The latest figures tracked changes in incomes all the way back to 1967. Two observations grabbed the headlines. First, the data indicate that the top-earning 20% of households get half of all the income generated in the country, while the lowest-earning 20% of households get a meager 3.4%. That disparity has widened over time: In 1970, their respective shares were 43.3% and 4.1%. These income-share numbers buttress the popular notion that the "rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer."

The second observation in the Census reports relates to the well-being of the middle class. The median household income in 2006 was $48,201, just a trifle ahead of its 1998 level ($48,034). That seems to confirm middle-class stagnation.

While there is some substance to these fears of widening inequality and middle-class stagnation, the situation is not nearly as clear-cut. Demographic changes in the size and composition of U.S. households have distorted the statistics in important ways.

First, we can easily dismiss the notion that the poor are getting poorer. All the Census Bureau tells us is that the share of the pie consumed by the poor has been shrinking (to 3.4% in 2006 from 4.1% in 1970). But the "pie" has grown enormously. This year's real GDP of $14 trillion is three times that of 1970. So the absolute size of the slice received by the bottom 20% has increased to $476 billion from $181 billion. Allowing for population growth shows that the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%.

They're not rich, but they're certainly not poorer. In reality, economic growth has raised incomes across the board.

The Census data originate from an annual survey of households. The data don't track individual households from year to year, but instead just take a snapshot of the households in existence in March of each year. From these annual snapshots, we try to infer what's happening to the typical household over time.

The "typical" household, however, keeps changing. Since 1970 there has been a dramatic rise in divorced, never-married and single-person households. Back in 1970, the married Ozzie and Harriet family was the norm: 71% of all U.S. households were two-parent families. Now the ratio is only 51%. In the process of this social revolution, the average household size has shrunk to 2.57 persons from 3.14 -- a drop of 18%. The meaning? Even a "stagnant" average household income implies a higher standard of living for the average household member.

Last year, the Census Bureau published a new set of income statistics that adjusted for changing household size and composition. In a single year (2006), this "equivalence-adjusted" computation increased the income share of the poor by 8% and reduced the standard measure of inequality (Gini coefficient) by 4%. Such "equivalency" adjustments would mute unadjusted inequality trends even more.

A closer look at household trends reveals that the percentage of one-person households has jumped to 27% from 17%. That's right: More than one out of four U.S. households now has only one occupant. Who are these people? Overwhelmingly, they are Generation Xers whose good jobs and high pay have permitted them to move out of their parental homes and establish their own residences. The rest are largely seniors who have enough savings and income to escape from their grandchildren and enjoy the serenity of an independent household. Both transitions are evidence of rising affluence, not increasing hardship. Yet this splintering of the extended family exerts strong downward statistical pressure on the average income of U.S. households. Had the Generation Xers and their affluent grandparents all stayed under the same roof the average household income would be higher, but most of us would be worse off.

The supposed decline of the poor and middle class is exaggerated even more by the dynamics of population growth. When people look at the "poor" in any two years, they think they're looking at the same people. That's rarely true, especially over longer periods of time.

Since 1998, the U.S. population has increased by over 20 million. Nearly half of that growth has come from immigration, legal and illegal. Overwhelmingly, these immigrants enter at the lowest rungs on the income ladder. Statistically, this immigrant surge not only reduces the income of the "average" household, but also changes the occupants of the lowest income classes.

To understand what's happening here, envision a line of people queued up for March Madness tickets. Individuals move up the line as tickets are purchased. But new people keep coming. So the line never gets shorter, even though individuals are advancing.

Something similar happens with the distribution of income. People keep entering the distribution line from the bottom. Even though individuals are moving up the line, the middle of the line never seems to move. Hence, an unchanged -- or even receding -- median marker could co-exist with individual advancement. The people who were at the middle marker before have moved up the distribution line. This is the kind of income mobility that has long characterized U.S. income dynamics.

When you look at the really big picture, it's apparent that living standards are rising across the entire spectrum of incomes. Just since 2000, GDP has risen by 18% while the population has grown by 6%. So per capita incomes have clearly been rising. The growth of per capita income since 1980 or 1970 has simply been spectacular.

Some people would have you believe that all of this added income was funneled to the rich. But the math doesn't work out.

The increase in nominal GDP since 2000 amounts to over $4 trillion annually. If you assume that all that money went to the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households, that bonanza would come to a whopping $350,000 per household. Yet according to the Census Bureau, the top 10% of households has an average income of $200,000 or so. The implied bonanza is so absurd that the notion that only the rich have gained from the economic growth can be dismissed out of hand. Clearly, there is a lot of economic advancement across a broad swath of population. Dramatic changes in household composition, household size and immigration tend to obscure this reality.

That broad swath of economic advancement shows up in personal consumption. According to the Labor Department, personal consumption spending has risen by $2.5 trillion since 2000. More Americans own homes and new cars today than ever before, despite slowdowns in both industries. Laptop computers, iPhones and flat-panel TVs are fast becoming necessities rather than luxury items.

The average American household is doing pretty well. The evident gap between income realities and political rhetoric may help explain why the "two Americas" theme, first asserted by John Edwards and since echoed by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, may ultimately fail to resonate with voters. On Election Day, voters may well turn to the candidate with the greater focus on a strong economy that increases everyone's income.

2:40 Thanks and pass the Kool Aid.

2:45

Facts are stubborn things. Never let them get in the way of a good liberal argument.

Spin is a useful tool. Never pass up the opportunity to piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

so 2:51 care to refute any of the above facts with facts?

2:59 I'll let this guy do it for me. (Also from the WSJ):

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: The Inequality Myth

To the Editor:

Brad Schiller’s piece, “The Inequality Myth” (WSJ March 10) is a classic case of lying with statistics. Here are a few examples among many in his piece:

1) He dismisses the notion that the poor are getting poorer by noting that, “allowing for population growth, the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%” But that’s over 38 years! – or about 1% a year. When you adjust for inflation over those 38 years, the reality is clear—the average income of poor people has gone down in real terms.

2) He argues that because the average household size has shrunk from 3.14 persons in 1970 to 2.57 now, then even if household income had remained stagnant over this period, doing the math shows there must now be a higher standard of living for the average household member. I choked on this one. Average household size has gone down for the simple reason that the two-parent family is now an Ozzie and Harriet myth. Dad isn't there any more and his absence--especially in low-income households—is causing a host of very-well-defined social ills. Schiller is saying that single parent families are better off because Dad isn’t there to soak up a share of the family income.

3) Schiller argues that even if the poor are really poor, it’s like the line of people queued up to buy tickets for a basketball game. Sure the people at the end of line, many of whom are new arrivals, may be really poor, but everybody in that line keeps moving up and eventually graduates into the middle class. But he presents no evidence that the people in his queue ever do graduate -- because the evidence points sharply in the opposite direction (even Schiller opens his piece by admitting that household income for the bottom 20% (his line of ticket seekers) has now fallen to a meager 3.4% of total household income).

4) He argues that the fact that personal consumption has risen by $2.5 trillion since 2000 shows that “the average American household is doing pretty well.” Rubbish. It means that the top few percent of very rich people in this country are buying a lot of expensive houses, cars, clothes, parties and travel. Not much of that $2.5 trillion has gone for Mac-and -Cheese.

Throughout, Schiller argues that Americans really are well-off because GDP per capita has been rising. This is the standard “per capita myth” that supply-siders are always forced to use to reinforce their big lie that a rising tide is raising all the boats in this country. It is not. Income growth in this country has been heavily skewed to the top 20% and overwhelmingly skewed to the top 2%. And that trend has gotten dramatically worse.

Two final points: Even if middle and lower class incomes have crawled up a bit, Schiller ignores the point that it is the growing gap between those incomes and the rising incomes of the rich that is causing the problem. He tries to soften the disparities by comparing the bottom 20% to the top 20%. That disparity is bad enough, but the real comparison--the one that’s causing the unrest--should be made between the bottom 20% and the top 2%--whose wealth has increased by amounts that not even their accountants probably thought possible.

Bottom line: There is a huge and rapidly growing gap between rich and poor in this country and it cannot be spun away. Unbridged, this wealth gap will gut the middle class, undermining the hopes of an entire generation. And it has already started a class war, one that will make the uproar over the excesses of the 1890’s look like a skirmish.

John Graham, President
The Giraffe Heroes Project and author

[Ben Keeler]

I dont think McCain needs a Democrat to win in Florida...or any other state for that matter.

A geologist challenges an economist

rrriggghhhhttt

2:59 My guess is the reality of the terrible conditions in this country will trump your FOX and talk radio spin when it comes to the election. The GOP was pretty successful in fooling the people (especially the upper middle class) into thinking that they were still a part of the American Dream while you were tax cutting and war spending us into a hole. But the current conditions have made it obvious to everyone that conservative policies are a failure, and your boy McCain so far hasn't raised the spin dollars he's going to need to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for another election cycle. You better dust of the terror alert flags or create some other diversion, otherwise I think your day is done.

3:22 Care to refute his facts with some facts of your own?

Going back to the original point of this blog...Obama picks Nelson. Got to be kidding. An empty resume picks an empty suit...Is this a great country or what?

3:29 doesn't take much work to find the bios of both authors...next

3:27 are they so terrible that you cannot find time to feed your family whilst you blog online?

4:04 You're the one who was pissing on my leg.

4:16 No, we're good. We got a whole bunch of Enron stock I'm going to cash in soon. Just let me check the share price...

Sorry, I meant 4:05 All that cake I've been eating lately must be giving me a sugar high.

4:23

If you are truly so poor you cannot afford bread and must eat cake, perhaps you should sell your PC?

4:34 Ouch??? No I'm going to hang on to this one. It's still got a few genuine Made IN USA parts in it. But if you like, I can go drink a loaf of biofuel.

Barack Obama is going to get clobbered by 527 swiftboaters in Oct. even though McCain may not want them to run it. It's out of his hands.
There will be a lot of Pro-American groups nailing Obama.

Can you imagine Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama, Flag-pin-puting hand on heart during American anthem all in a 1 minute ad? You think his polls are bad now, just wait.

[alison]

as a Florida democrat - if Obama selected Sen Nelson as a running mate -THAT would make me seriously question Sen Obama's judgement

Sen Nelson has done nothing but at least hold onto one democratic senatorial seat in Florida - any good democratic candidate for Senator would beat him in a primary in a walk

Sen Nelson is a borderline embarrassment -

Question Obama's judgement? He has a very close relationship with a bigoted hate monger reverend, and you still question his judgment???

2:35 I am non patisan. How typical of an insider partisan hack,that you most cetainly are, to assume anything that may suits your opinion. You can try but will never convince me or many other people that Obama's long time relationship with a bigot, (funny how you call me a bigot when you have no clue who I am, and just because I am concerned over the Archie Bunker on hate steroids comments that the "mentor Reverend" has made) yet you see no bigotry in the reverends comments. The only one that de-railed him was an continues to be his mentor. I made the comment tht I think both parties stink, you choose not to see because you are most likely a Democrat Kool Aid Dinker. God know the Republicans have enough of those also.

[Bill Bangdmie]

Bill Nelson? Who voted for this talking forehead anyway? They should have left him in space when he went up there. He is about as articulate as Bill O'Rielly. Sure they can use a big word every now and then, but it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. If he is the yin to Obama's yang, I'll be laughing for the next 1.5 years until Obama is recalled for being the fraud that he is. But Obama should choose him because he needs somebody to absorb all the jokes about leadership in the White(?) house.
For such a big head, it's a shame there isn't much bouncing around up there.