Barack Obama was wrong in 2004 when he said there aren't red states and blue states.  Wrong. There are. This isn't one country-it's two.  Both are fallible-It could be argued there are virtues to each, but they are not two halves of a cogent whole.  Rather, an ex husband and wife dividing their once collected belongings by throwing them at each other's heads with all their might.  I am obviously a partisan.  I am obviously a liberal or a radical liberal, and I am proud of it-as proud as these backwards hateful mindless conservatives are within 200 yards of a flag on the lawn of a wounded veteran. I get the same tingles they do next to an abortion clinic run by mixed raced gay doctors who ride public transportation.  We both enjoy our foibles.  That's where I want to begin.

And so my point is simple-sometimes you gotta pack your things and go. All relationships end. Just ask anyone I've ever loved if you don't believe me.  I think America is over. The honeymoon certainly has been for a long time. The bridge to nowhere might as well be a bridge to this make believe middle fakey concept of United States. Not Barack nor John, no, I don't believe anything or anyone can unite us-because there is nothing to unite. The divisions are too severe, too too black and white. For abortion, or against it. There is no half, there is no middle. For gay marriage or against it. Again where is the middle? Pro date night? More war, no war. Institutionalized God, secular civilized society.

Why are we trying so hard to make it work?  Are we that prideful? Can we not admit our mistakes?  It's been bad for years and it's worse than ever.  Why are we in it for the children?  Forget the children, they'll do fine, they'll be better when mommy and daddy aren't fighting all the time.  It's time to dissolve the union.  The Divided States of America sounds pretty exciting to me.  

There's more...

The Every Child Matters Education Fund has released a report called "Geography Matters: Child Well-Being in the States." It assesses the vulnerability of children in all 50 states according to a dozen metrics.

As the mother of two small children in the Des Moines area, I had a particular interest in Iowa's ranking (seventh overall, mixed bag on the individual metrics).

But when I clicked on the page ranking all states in terms of "overall child vulnerability," one thing jumped out at me: the bottom 20 states all voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Of the top 20 states, only three voted for Bush (including Iowa, which he won by a very slim margin).

Follow me after the jump to learn the specific reasons that blue states are better places for children to be born and grow up.

There's more...

In another thread, lambros wrote:

>> Obama hasn't persuaded another blue state to support him but his own [Lambros did not specify, but usually IL and HI are considered "home states" for Obama. In the full text of his comment, lambros also mentioned MO, which he characterized as a "near tie".]

To which politcsmatters unhelpfully replied:

> What reality do you live in? [Although s/he does not say so directly, I am assuming that politicsmatters used this nasty rhetorical question to assert that lambros is incorrect.]

I like to think I live in the real reality, so I decided to find out who is right. To see who is right, I just needed to answer two questions:

1. Which states are the blue ones?
   
2. Which states has Obama won?
   

There's more...

As noted by Adam Conner on Breaking Blue, the DNC has posted the state-by-state costs to pay for Bush's War. Through the magic of Excel, it is made clear that the states that supported Kerry in 2004 - hereafter called "so-called Blue States" - shouldered a significantly greater amount of Bush's War than those who went for Bush - hereafter called "so-called Red States."

By my calculations, 19 so-called Blue States have paid $207.1496 (55.18% of total), while 31 so-called Red States have paid $168.2247 (44.82% of total). That's a difference of $38.9249 Billion (10.37%), or almost $40 Billion. I could list a slew of reasons why this is unfair - exacerbated by rampant fraud and fatcatting of, shall we say, otherwise illiberal individuals - but my guess is that you by and large don't need me to tell you. State-by-state numbers below the jump...

Note: I think "Bush's War" might be a nice way for Dems across the nation to frame the war in Iraq. I know it's not precise enough - no credit given to Cheney et al. - but that's message framing for you.

There's more...

The Loony Right is excited this evening by the claim by Congressman Steven King, R-IA (no, not that Stephen King) that several U.S. cities are more dangerous than Iraq.

I cannot fathom how King calculated an Iraqi violent death rate of 25.7. I don't have his data, but the median for U.S. states is double that, and we don't even have a war.  More important, one should not compare nations or states to cities, or vice versa.  Nations to states, probably valid.  Nations to cities, not.  All those unmolested people out in the country dilute the bad stuff happening in, say, Baghdad.

Fun fact:  you are immensely more likely to die a violent death in a Red state than you are in a Blue state -- whether by accident, suicide, or homicide.  Go to www.pollkatz.com and click the link in the garish orange box.

There's more...