Am I alone in thinking that both Obama and Hillary are simply full of shit?

My political BS detector has usually worked very, very well, and from an early age -- I instinctively KNEW as a kid that Nixon was insane. Later, it was crystal clear from jump that Raygun had a screw loose. I had a headsup on Bush b/c we moved here to TX while he was the Governor -- never a doubt in my mind that he was a venal, capricious, amoral jerk.


Flame me to death, I'm sure I'll be compared to Limbaugh or worse, but the questions beg to be asked:

If Obama was a white guy, would he still be so "special"?

If Hil were a man, would we even give her/him the time of day?

(For what it's worth, I wonder about those things, too.)

Not disagreeing, just underscoring your point.

It's sad, and bad news for everyone, that the truth has become so politically inexpedient.

But you will get flamed nonetheless.

Not at all. But I can't say those things around here.

:hi:

bunch of centrist DLC demopublicans.

I think you're spot on.

were transferred to that a white guy...

Either one, or both, would have seriously kicked ass and been credible contenders for Presidency when either of them hit age 36, LOL.

However, they are who they are because of their experiences. I don't hold that against them and, in fact, identify with some of the resistance each must have encountered for their gender or race. MKJ

think hilary is full of shit and I see great potential for Obama..but then I've had hilary for my senator 7 years and see how they have both put their own ambitions above the country's needs over the last 8 years.

Mostly, all politicians are full of shit, but I concur with your points.

I wonder if Hillary would be where she is today if not married to Bill. She's not that great a speaker, IMO.

I do think Obama is a great speaker, and that combined with his brains have gotten him where he is. I don't think he's a token at all.

very contemplative. He will be a great leader for this country someday. I would say maybe it's best that he not get that opportunity for 8 years so he can fully find his wings, but I think he is the best choice from what we have right now. I still need to see Edwards practicing his newly found Populism before I would consider him as my first choice, perhaps he should run for Senate again or even Governor (not sure what the prospects are in SC for that, I'll admit). I've seen enough of Hillary to say she is my last resort only.

that my vote goes to Kucinich.

I'm sure Obama would still be the rising star cos he does speak well &look great on TV... even though (and maybe partially because?) there isn't much substance. (Kucinich/ Edwards - too wordy, don't condense well into sound bytes)

and yes, people would still be voting for Hillary bc they're herd animals and if a gazillion pundits tell them she's "inevitable," then by golly.... she is.

Well yes, he would. If Hillary were Bill would he still beat Edwards? Well yes.

Obviously.

The one who is full of shit might be the one who voted as a centrist for 6 years, ran as Mr Sunshine in 2003, and has suddenly been transformed into Mr Anti-Establishment.

:yourock:

better than anyone on the puke side, are not what we need to move this country back toward what it might have been. Their value as a "trailblazer" is minimal explicitly because of their moderation/compromising with the cons.

IMO, Edwards is a little better because he is, as least, talking the talk right now. But they are all too "centrist" for my taste.

Dennis Kucinich more closely represents what I think America needs. But we will not get it.

But we all should just say, "thank you, sir. I'd like another."

Enjoy comedian Lewis Black./

That guy always has my husband and me in stitches when he's on.

We laugh until the milk is coming out our noses.

He has very little use for the icons that either party has set us up with.

And like you, he claims to have a built in BS detecter.

I sincerely hope neither is the nominee. However, I'd vote for one of the dust balls under my bed if that would keep the GOP out.

Man, I dunno why people look for Messiahs in *politicians*.

since your question posits impossible things

If Edwards were a woman, would he be in the Top 2?

If Kucinich were six feet six, would he do better?

The problem with your BS detector is it's been assaulted nonstop since 1960.

You think Obama is too good to be true, because you've lost your way.
Stop reading the crap posted about him and go to the SOURCE
Then decide based on something you don't read at DU.

I hear just do not hear anything inspirational or enlightening coming out of his mouth. Sorry.

He's an underwhelming bore.

Maybe this is your first rodeo, toots, but the pros know it when we smell it, and he stinks.

That may seem like an incredibly tangential question, but bear with me.

Let's just, for argument's sake, grant that you're right about Obama and Clinton. My next question would be, so what? The policy of affirmative action was started because we recognize that there is racism in the world, and so we do our level best to ameliorate that through laws that give preferential treatment to traditionally socio-politically disadvantaged minorities. Affirmative action has long been a hallmark of American liberal thought.

So, given that one of the tenets of American liberalism is providing a leg-up to the socio-politically disadvantaged, is it not right that we should give special consideration to minority candidates, even for the highest office in the land?

a bore.

sorry 'bout that. ;)

I think that your B.S. detector is corrector.

like most posters to this thread seem to think, then what are we to do? Is there anyone out there who is not full of it, or are we all doomed?

No and no. They are both the candidates for cosmetic change, nothing more.

You don't even need your own homegrown political BS detector these days. The mainstream media's job - even if they don't know it - is to tell you the candidates *not* to vote for. Even though doing your homework on all of the candidates is always the best idea, you can bat pretty close to .1000 by just watching the media hype and voting the opposite way.

If the *right* black man or the *right* woman were one of the choices, I'd feel differently.

If you were born in the 1800's would you be posting on this forum?

If we had lost WWII would we have elections?

If this is all really just a dream, does it even matter?

We will probably be stuck with one of them anyway & thusly will not win the GE.

they're both full of it, IMO.

So its not that they are full of it, so much as that we are being led to it.

Anyone that would run for President has got to have an ego problem. And to be president after * is just plain LOCO!

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

some of these progressive groups are very cosmetic in nature themselves.. I notice when you put this list out there, you don't include who the actual group/ or non-profit organization. Corporate subsidies.. 100% that's an eyebrow raised. Fair taxation.. Huckster supports Fair tax...

Unless you put names to the subgroups, these numbers are meaningless to me. I'm fairly certain that some of these groups have some very interesting Directors on their boards. Some very wealthy individuals use these non-profits as a tax shelter for their wealth.

And what is the measure of progress? On individual issues, I'm sure they do quite well.. But they also have some absolutely terrible votes that are horrible for this country. They are senators.. they are playing I give you this, you give me that.. like a bunch of bartaring whores... that's why Senators don't do well as Pres. candidates.... because often times justifying votes due to some back door deal is hard to do in a 30 sec. commercial.


On Edit: I've read enough of these threads now and am on a lot.. You throw this into every "comparrison" thread like its supposed to mean a lot.. Its a spin.. Its like Doctors say, or Dentists agree, or economists think... exactly what doctors, dentists, scientists or specialist is agreeing with one or two view points. This is very misleading. You must have this post on your copy edit screen.

K&R

I'm stealing that "present". Watch for it!

She's the forum favorite, but he's full of shit too.

But he never walks the walk. He's full of shit too. His followers are like a bunch of rabid wolves, attacking anybody and everybody who disagrees with him.

John Edwards rhetoric does not match up with his voting record. As I said, he's full of shit.

We got all the Edwards fanatics insulting everybody who disagrees with him. There is a reason why he is in the low 10s in polls, people don't respond to his message and they feel he his full of shit because his rhetoric says one thing and his actions say another. He'll do anything to get a vote, he'll change my position at a whim, it really tells how how bad his support is among Democrats.

Over Edwards. I just think you can take none of them seriously at face value, especially Edwards, who spews so much crap it isn't even funny. I can't believe his supporters eat it up. His actions have never matched up with his rhetoric. He says what everybody wants to hear.

Figures. He is more full of shit than everyone else put together.

you are not.

NOOOO!!!

If Obama was a white guy, would he still be so "special"? YES

If Hil were a man, would we even give her/him the time of day? probably not unless "he" was local

If their mouths are open, chances are they're lying.

Politicians are like diapers, and should be changed regularly for the same reason.

Although it is rather appallingly unfair to diapers.

Edwards included. He talks a good game now, but I am not convinced of his sincerity.

Either one of these two will take us down to defeat in November.

.

bs in the white house. GAG.

A status quo that has crushed the Middle Class and threatened our democracy, the final nail in the coffin being "privatized" voting.

Ironic, isn't it? The White Guy is the only one REALLY talking about fighting for REAL change.

(whether he does it or not is a matter for after the election, but as he is the only one even talking about it, he's the only game in town)

To me Obama's rhetoric says "Im here to appease the crooks", and Hillary's record shows that she is willing to do the same. Strong supporters of either point this out regularly, they just aren't willing to recognize that the evidence suggests that Obama and Hillary are very similar politically.

I not only think both of them are full of shit, but that they are about as mature as First Graders. The show they put on at the last debate was over the top disgusting.

JMHO

them are entirely sincere. I'm not a big fan of Hillary and Obama because both of them are too self-righteous in their criticisms of each other and neither is completely honest about her/his own record and past mistakes.

It would also be simple to say that all politicians are full of shit.

Come on, by now you should know that race and gender and whatever does matter. Same thing with Edwards and his folksy southern charm. Would you care if he were from the north or anywhere else? What if he had Boston accent? Do you think any of them would be the people they are today, if their race or gender were different? Think about their life experiences.

I happen to think they are all full of shit to some degree because that's how it is with national politics. But I think out of the big three, Obama seems a bit more genuine. That's just my opinion of course.

I'm very much opposed to Hillary and it has nothing to do with her gender. There are better women out there. It's her politics. And she will rally the right like never before and hurt downticket Dem candidates. There is a strong anti-Hillary streak running through much of America. Obama would do the opposite and help downticket Dem candidates.

they wouldn't drag their ass every time they hop. He isn't and she isn't.