I was going to deduct a star for the commentary and final logo until I watched the whole movie and realized that really was how it ended.

"I have no idea what they said, but whatever it is, it's not true!"

Except that, historically, liberals have actually moved the country forward while the right has almost constantly impeded that progress. So, yes, politics is politics and both sides are part of the same beast, but they are not "equal."

There needs to be new words. Democrat, Republican, liberal, and conservative all mean "corporate slave whore" now. Those "liberals" were who moved the country forward did it in spite of their political affiliations, not because of them. A political career has never once made a good person a better person, or a bad person good at all.

No no no stop this "corporate slave whore" shit. It's the single most tired, lazy, oversimplified opinion anyone can have about politics.

In a democracy, politicians are paid to represent their constituents. This is their job. To better mobilize themselves politically, citizens organize themselves into interest groups. The purpose of these groups can range from ensuring the elderly have access to medical care to giving billionaires tax breaks. Believe it or not, there is a ton of overlap between the former and the latter. It's not just a clean break between "give parasitic bankers all our money" and "do right by the people."

My political interest extends beyond this election cycle. If Obama is your first president, kudos, in about three more cycles you'll see this is bullshit. If you are actually interested in history, you'll see it's always been bullshit.

Well, if it's ok for your representatives to actually be representing blocs of capital, then fine.

It's funny how you compare "conservatives" and "liberals" as if they are equally prevalent in society and in political influence.

I'm probably a "liberal" by most standards, but even I can recognize that I'm grossly outnumbered and my views and ideals are basically not represented at all in our government or mainstream political discourse.

Also, please provide an example of a "liberal" doing this without mentioning Al Gore:

"Proclaiming issues they won't budge on and strengths of conviction; all the while lying and cheating on the other side, and being willing to sell out their beliefs to look good, get promoted, or whatever. With a good dose of histrionics and self-centered persona."

I didn't mean to imply that conservatives and liberals are equally prevalent in society or even the political sphere. In fact I think that there are more liberals than there are conservatives - meaning more people that hold beliefs in line with liberalism, classical or otherwise, although they may not want to be identified as either.

But there's generally a difference between liberals which are members of different classes. Political or powerful liberals tend to be more textbook liberal and use all of the egalitarianism and enlightenment idealism as rhetorical tools but don't really take it seriously. Could I call myself a liberal? I have to remind myself that I'm only liberal to a point, there's a lot I don't agree with, like the globalization stuff, and I think I take equality and liberty etc... pretty seriously.

Which leads me to think there's not a huge margin of difference between conservatives and liberals and I don't think there ever really was. Conservatives and liberals both hold a lot of the same ideas. There's a few social, use-of-force and organization of government issues, but everything else is basically still there. Especially since politics has taken a shift to the right. Social liberalism is quickly becoming the most noticeable difference between the two, if it isn't the only difference.

In my opinion StanleyPain has a point about liberals, but not powerful liberals or political liberals.

I'll cite two others arguably worse than Al Gore: Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton.

I still think the thing people get most hung up on these days is how effective the Southern Strategy has been in derailing liberal progress. Since the Republicans have made race-baiting their number one strategy, they've had the numbers to drag the country to the right just by saying, "do you support [odious ill-conceived right-wing policy], or are you some sort of nigger-lover?" Not that they would use those exact words, of course, but that's the gist of it.

There are times I say the Civil Rights Act was the worst political mistake the Democrats ever made, because that's the only way I can begin to express how powerful the backlash has been. I'm all for the Civil Rights Act, mind you, but it breathed all sorts of unholy new life into the Republicans and stripped the Democrats of the ability to get anything done. Demographics are finally, finally starting to turn it around, and not a moment too soon, with Jim Crow 2.0 being implemented by the Republicans. "Not a huge margin of difference" my ass.

Just a reminder, the ACA would have included a public option except for the GOP and Lieberman (an Independent). I'm pleased we're getting any sort of ACA at all -- regulating the insurance industry is an awfully good start -- but a great many Democrats wanted to provide quite a bit more. And the House version even included a public option, and managed to pass in the House despite the opposition of dumbfucks like Kucinich. I love the little guy, but when you oppose the only chance at reform we're likely to see because it's not as liberal as you like, you're part of the problem as much as the ideologues on the right.

Don't think it's great acting convincing anyone so much as always going along with whatever their team's pep rally coach tells them.

"I see her as a very sad example of how anyone spouting the same lines can make it in the GOP. "

Remember JOE THE PLUMBER?

Excellent points ROUS, but I don't think her rapid ascent had as much to do with her charisma and talent so much as a combination of blind luck and good timing. (Much like Hitler.)

Remember, McCain rolled the dice when he picked her by, literally, doing about 15 minutes of research on Google and deciding that he liked her moxie. Once he'd made his selection, she was pretty much locked in as the VP pick, and everything that followed--including the catastrophic backlash--was just a natural consequence of picking a narcissistic, paranoid, ignorant, xenophobic running mate.

At the same time, she was well-positioned to appeal to (and it's okay, we can say this) racist white trash as a counterpoint to the fancy-pants black guy with the lofty cityboy talk. It was cute for a little while. She had a few speeches and got some applause. But it never amounted to anything, and shouldn't be treated like it did. Palin is a niche product, pure and simple.