Seriously... you worry me old man. I have to doubt your judgements from here on out :)

But how is my Southern showing? The South is almost entirely 'Red'. I go against the beaten path and vote Democratic. Have so since I was able to vote in 2001. (I voted for Edwards in 2004, then again for Kerry/Edwards for the presidential)

Now, if Hillabeast wins the nomination... I'll still vote Democratic... but I will grimace when I hit that button. She's a better vote IMO than any Republican not name Giuliani but she is far from the best Democratic candidate in my book.

I hope Obama wins the nom. And Edwards gets on his ticket.

I enjoyed what pieces of his environmental rhetoric I have heard. Seems like an interesting fellow, but I thought it may be wise to check with someone who has a front row seat.

Decline of the Angry Left
By DAN GERSTEIN
February 2, 2008; Page A11

Last Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary will probably be remembered as the day when the party's emotional dam burst and many of the personal grievances and tensions that have built up over the past generation spilled out into the open -- unleashing a cascading series of freighted squabbles starring a who's who of post-Reagan Democrats (Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry and of course Bill Clinton).

That's a shame, not just because it undermined the feel-good storyline of party unity, but more because it overshadowed a fateful statement South Carolina's Democrats made by embracing Barack Obama and exiting John Edwards out of the race. Indeed, at the exact moment their party leaders were loudly replaying the psychodramas of the 1990s (and to some extent the '60s), voters of both races were quietly resolving the pre-eminent conflict of the party's present -- between the politics of hope and the politics of Kos. (That being the Daily Kos, the nation's most influential liberal blog and the left's poster child for partisan pugnacity.)

This conflict is not about ideology but about style. The truth is, over the past several years Democrats have bridged or buried most of the major issue splits that hobbled the party in the past, as evidenced by the absence of big policy debates in this campaign. That's left us to stew, particularly in the wake of John Kerry's embittering loss in 2004, over how we fight the other side. There is a clear generational split.

The Kossacks and their activist allies -- who skew toward the Boomers -- believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove's divisive, bare-knuckled tactics. Their opponents within the party -- who skew younger and freer of culture war wounds -- believe that the way to win is offer voters a break from this poisonous tribal warfare and a compelling, inclusive vision for where we want to take the country.

The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national -- and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman's communications director).

With a discredited Republican candidate in the race, the choice came down to two Democrats who actually agreed on most issues outside of Iraq, but differed on the kind of change we need in Washington. Mr. Lieberman called for a new politics of unity and purpose; Mr. Lamont mostly called for Messrs. Bush's and Lieberman's heads.

The hope candidate soundly beat the Kos candidate -- Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont -- by 10 points. More importantly, Mr. Lieberman won independents (the biggest voting bloc in the state) by 19 points, which is all the more remarkable because they opposed the war by a margin of 65%-29%.

This year's Democratic nominating battle is a far better barometer of the respective generational approaches within the party. That's because it is happening within the context of a true intra-party competition, there is no real disagreement on Iraq or any other core issue, and there is no incumbent. Not least of all, the two young attractive change candidates (Edwards and Obama) running against the establishment candidate (Hillary Clinton) have been offering opposite conceptions of change.

Mr. Edwards, after running as the sunny son of a mill worker in 2004, returned last year as the angry spear carrier of the hard-line left, running on a dark, conspiratorial form of populism and swapping in corporations for Republicans as the villain in his us-versus-them construct. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has not just been selling possibilities and opportunities, but reconciliation and unity -- and, god forbid, promising to work with Republicans to meet the country's challenges. (Not surprisingly, throughout 2007, Mr. Edwards was the runaway favorite in the regular Kos reader straw poll -- besting Mr. Obama by 21 points as late as Jan. 2, 2008.)

Now that Mr. Edwards has formally dropped out of the race, we can say it's official -- hope and unity crushed resentment and division.

Iowa was perfectly set up for Mr. Edwards -- caucus format instead of primary, tilted heavily left, overwhelming white and rural, and a two-year head start in building an organization. But he lost by a healthy eight points to a black candidate, who, despite his rhetorical gifts and Oprah endorsement, came in less tested and less known. In New Hampshire, another overwhelmingly white state, he lost to Mr. Obama by 20 points.

The outcome in South Carolina was the most telling -- and arguably put the last nail in the coffin of Kos-ism. This was the state where Mr. Edwards and his drawl were born. This was the state he won by 15 points in 2004, even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire to John Kerry. And this was a state that was ostensibly most amenable to his arguments about being the most electable Democrat in red states. Yet Mr. Edwards was rejected by voters across the board, failing to win even a majority of the white vote (40%).

There is no question that Mr. Obama's margin in South Carolina was due in part to the racial makeup of the electorate. But to judge the relative strength of their respective messages, it pays to look at how the candidates did with voters of the other race.

Mr. Obama won 24% of white voters in this former bastion of the Confederacy -- 12 times the 2% share of black voters Mr. Edwards claimed. And the clear majority of those white Obama voters were under 30, a sign that the tide is turning toward Mr. Obama's cross-cultural politics even in the Old South.

Moreover, it bears noting that as late as mid-December, Mr. Obama was running even with Mrs. Clinton among black voters in South Carolina. He ended up beating her 78%-19%. That kind of seismic shift does not happen because of a few off-putting remarks by Bill Clinton or because Mr. Obama is a "celebrity" (Mr. Edwards's favored rationalization). Mr. Obama had to affirmatively sway a good chunk of that vote.

This analysis will likely be seen as a bit of grave-dancing on my part, given that I have been an occasional target of the wrath of Kos. But while I am troubled by their hostile, hyper-partisan tendencies, I think the Kossacks have at their best made enormous contributions to the party over the last few years -- most noticeably by stiffening the Washington establishment's spine in confronting President Bush and energizing and organizing the base. One could credibly argue, in fact, that Mr. Obama would not be in the position to inspire the base if Kos and his allies had not first helped to get them "fired up, ready to go."

In this, you might say that Mr. Obama did not kill Kos-ism so much as co-opt it -- by harnessing its most powerful forces and channeling it in a more constructive, convincing direction for a new political moment. He recognized early on that the primary electorate was changing in the wake of Mr. Bush's departure, and that it was hungry (post-Boomer voters in particular) for something bigger and better than the same polarization wrapped in a blue ribbon.

The signs of change are unmistakable. Over the last year, the Kossacks themselves seemed to be waning -- the number of monthly page views on the site is down dramatically.

Moreover, in the last few weeks they and their avatars have been flocking to the great reconciler. First Ned Lamont endorsed Mr. Obama, a mentee of Mr. Lieberman in the Senate. Then on Wednesday, in the first Daily Kos straw poll after Mr. Edwards left the race, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by 76%-11% (a result inflated by the Netroots' unbreakable contempt for Hillary). Just yesterday, MoveOn.org gave its formal blessing to the "post-partisan" candidate.

The best evidence that Kos-ism is about kaput, though, comes from Kos's mouth himself. Yes, the most delicious irony of this campaign is that the supposed hatemonger is supporting the hopemonger.

Seeing the writing on the wall, as well as on his own blog, Markos Moulitsas -- Kos himself -- rejected the candidacy he himself helped spawn and announced (albeit grudgingly) on Dec. 12 that he would be voting for Mr. Obama via "a process of elimination."

Not exactly the most graceful concession, but the import is undeniable: Hope trumped Kos for Democrats. Now let's see what it will do for the rest of the country.

Mr. Gerstein, a senior adviser on Sen. Joe Lieberman's vice presidential and presidential campaigns, is a Democratic strategist and political commentator based in New York.

most sane and nonpartisan economists will tell you the above is likely true to a point. there is, of course, some point where lowering taxes will no longer serve to increase revenues. the true problem with the tax cuts - the recent ones are a perfect example - is that the government doesn't freeze or cut spending. they just go on spending. we don't have any particular problem with raising enough revenue.

Two Americas, or One?
A new study of income in America shows it's still a land of opportunity
By J.T. YOUNG

THERE'S NEWS FROM THE FRONT IN THE CLASS WAR. The Department of Treasury recently released an important study on economic mobility and income growth that refutes a great deal of conventional wisdom about America being two unequal countries.

The study shows that there's been a great and continuing degree of income mobility and income growth over the last two decades. By undercutting the case for progressive taxation and interventionist spending, it argues strongly for the free-market policies needed to sustain America's economic vibrancy.

The Treasury study examined the cash-income changes reported on almost 100,000 income tax returns covering people aged 25 to 64 who filed for tax years 1996 and 2005. The study excluded those just entering or exiting the workforce, when income would dramatically increase or decrease, and adjusted for inflation, so that it reflected only real income changes.

The study is available on the Treasury Department's Website (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/incomemobilitystudyfinal.pdf), but here are some highlights:

Almost 58% of those in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20% of returns) in 1996 were in a higher quintile by 2005. Almost half of them had moved up two or more quintiles, and 5% had moved into the top quintile.

The middle quintile also did well. One-third stayed there, and 42% moved up, almost 13% to the top quintile. Just 7% moved to the bottom.

The top quintile from 1995 saw almost one-third of its members drop to a lower income group. (And 58% of those in the top one percent had fallen to a lower income quintile in 2005.)

Overall, 56% of the studied returns changed income quintiles in 10 years.

Absolute and Relative Gains

Households didn't just move relative to each other. Incomes increased 24% overall and increased across the income spectrum -- except at the very top end. The increases were most dramatic in the lowest quintile. Their median real income increased by 90%, almost doubling in ten years. In the top quintile, median real income increased by 10% and decreased by almost 26% for the top one percent.

We might ask how this most recent period compared with the previous 10-year period:

"The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same..."

What did not stay the same was median real-income increases between the two periods. Every group's median income increased more than in the previous decade -- going up 30.2% from 1996-2005 versus a gain of 11.1% from 1987-1996.

As welcome as the income statistics are, they actually understate the improvements in the lower income ranges. This is because the study doesn't include tax-exempt income and the refundable earned-income tax credit, which are aimed at lower-income earners.

Even without these, the U.S. has been and continues to be very income-mobile and has experienced better income growth across the income spectrum over the last decade.

Economic Prescriptions

Important conclusions for the U.S. economy arise from the Treasury study.

There is no need for a redistributive tax system. Income redistribution is already being accomplished -- not by government, but by earners' own mobility.

America is not a nation in stasis. Individuals are not permanently placed on the income ladder as a matter of luck, justifying high taxes on the luckiest. The movement of individuals between income classes is not the exception but the rule.

Higher taxes discourage the natural and necessary movement of individuals on the income ladder. Earnings naturally rise, peak, and decline over the course of an individual's lifetime, following the worker's productivity. Attempts to manipulate these natural changes misallocate resources.

Income inevitably follows productivity. There are no jobs that command high wages; there are jobs that require high productivity, from which high wages follow.

Society benefits most when people maximize their productivity, which they will do if the economic system encourages them to do so. Societies with manipulative economies, ignoring productivity, press individuals to maximize nonproductive opportunities-seeking additional leisure, early retirement, delayed workforce entry, and tax-favored forms of remuneration.

Today, the top 50% of income earners pay all the total federal income-tax burden, and pay some more besides to offset the cost of refundable tax credits for low-income people. We have been conditioned to be comfortable with this because we accept the argument that the more stratified and ossified the wealth, the more justified the burden of progressive taxation.

There is thus a loudly articulated sentiment for our most productive people to "give back" to society. But the Treasury study shows that what they received from society was opportunity, despite the best efforts of those seeking a redistributive tax system. The individual pays back society by taking advantage of opportunity.

America remains a land of opportunity. Treasury's recent study indicates great economic mobility and growing income across all income groups.

There are indeed two Americas, but not the two we often hear about. One America is the land of opportunity, the other is a land of unequal taxation. Fortunately, the first is still stronger than the second.