I don't know if that explains it. I see a bigger difference between the whole of Europe and the US. In Germany people generally have more vacation a better safety net and also pays a lot in taxes. So it 's not exclusive to Sweden or Scandinavia.

If you look at the income disparities as some kind of indicator on economic equality north western europe are pretty much the same. Link

I would have to agree, and when I was living in Canada for a short time it seemed much more similar to Europe than to the USA in many ways.

Back on topic, I think this election is concidered much more interesting by many (at least here in sweden) than the last one for example. There seems to be a definate change coming to the US, with interesting candidates on both sides. Personally I like Mike Huckabee on the republican side and Obama on the democrat side. Right now Obama seems to be in a good position to becoming the next US president, which seems a very interesting proposition indeed.

Whoever wins sure has a lot of work to do, both domestically and economically, but not least to try to regain some of the USAs lost ground in international politics, and reverse the increasing negativism towards the USA in most parts of the world.

 In general you are correct comparing Europe to the US, but it is more visible in Sweden and the Scandinavia than anywhere else.

"Since the late 1960s, Sweden has had the highest tax quota (as percentage of GDP) in the industrialized world, although today the difference between other high-tax countries such as France, Belgium and Denmark has narrowed."

From Wiki

On topic:
From what I have read, I feel the only democrat that has a plan is Edwards. Clinton and Obama are just talking, I have yet to see any specific plans (that is necassarily an improvement) from them.

While I am journalist and I agree to a point, the fact is the message is what's affecting voters. Obama's message of change is inspiring, and he is pushing folks to take active roles in government. He is urging the common folk to be a part of the process. Edwards is touting change, but is focusing on special interest groups and lobbyist. Paul's message of change also mirrors Obama's message as well.

As much as I love Bill Clinton, Hillary's message is 'I-I-I' - I will bring change, I will fight big business - like she's Super Girl or Wonder Woman. Obama is inspiring folks across racial and gender lines because he is including EVERY U.S. citizen in the process - 'We can be agents of change!'

Even though I still want Richardson to win, Obama is inspiring folks to a point politically I have never, in my 30-some odd years, ever seen. Folks are comparing him to the Kennedy's, and that's a very high compliment.

The other thing to consider is the funds the candidates have. Some of the best ones lack money and really, it is a marathon of sorts. The person with the most money has the best chance to go the distance. 

Too bad he wont have a chance to win

Im all disillusioned so I'll go for Huckabee from now on!

madskillz,
They should just have the primary on one day nationwide. No voter should be influenced by what others have voted for before but make up his own mind. That's I think is one of the requirements of a democratic election.

I think I'm going to be going on Huckabee on this one.

And I think Europeans and other foreigners seem to think things have been really bad here under Bush, but honestly you can't tell the difference between one president over another other than when its a Democrat the taxes are generally higher. A majority of foreigners were sure that John Kerry was going to win the last election but Bush beat him by 3 million votes and 35 Electoral votes. Bush's 62 million votes that election were also the most cast for a single person in history.

in holland we had something done like that aswell

Obama and edwards were the chosen ones from that