Oprah Winfrey for President in 2020???

lpetrich · Post by **lpetrich** » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:57 pm

Oprah Winfrey's Golden Globes Speech Full Transcript - Oprah Winfrey Gave a Powerful Speech at the Golden Globes - Oprah Winfrey's Golden Globes speech, annotated - YouTube
From HB:

Oprah Winfrey was the recipient of the Golden Globes' annual Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement, and gave a powerful acceptance speech during Sunday night's ceremony.

Once Winfrey took the stage, she delivered an inspirational, uplifting speech which discussed race and gender and the fight for equality. She also told the story of Recy Taylor, a woman who fought for justice in the Jim Crow era after she was raped. "For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men," Winfrey said, bringing the audience to its feet. "But their time is up. Their time is up."

Great speech. But now this:

Sources: Oprah Winfrey 'actively thinking' about running for president - Jan. 8, 2018 According to two of her friends.

The two friends, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely, talked in the wake of Winfrey's extraordinary speech at the Golden Globes Sunday night, which spurred chatter about a 2020 run.

Some of Winfrey's confidants have been privately urging her to run, the sources said.

One of the sources said these conversations date back several months. The person emphasized that Winfrey has not made up her mind about running.

All I can say is: Oh, no!!!

PZ Myers: No, Oprah is not going to be a viable Democratic candidate

In some ways, they’re perfectly good representatives of the yin and yang of our two political parties. Donald Trump: xenophobic, angry, crude, white male. Oprah Winfrey: kind, sympathetic, open, black female. They’re almost caricatures of the right and left. All they need to do is open their mouths in a public forum and stand there like the apotheosis of their representative parties, and people start clamoring to make them our real political leaders.

In the case of Trump, they succeeded, with disastrous results. In the case of Winfrey…most of what I’m seeing is rejection.

Oprah Winfrey helped create our irrational pseudoscientific American fantasyland.

Perhaps more than any other single American, she is responsible for giving national platforms and legitimacy to all sorts of magical thinking, from pseudoscientific to purely mystical, fantasies about extraterrestrials, paranormal experience, satanic cults, and more.

Most of the best-known prophets and denominational leaders in the New Age realm owe their careers to Winfrey. Her man Eckhart Tolle, for instance, whose books The Power of Now and A New Earth sold millions of copies apiece, is a successful crusader against reason itself. “Thinking has become a disease,” he writes, to be supplanted by feeling “the inner energy field of your body.” The two of them conducted a series of web-based video seminars in 2008.

Oprah’s long history with junk science - Vox

Orac: Oprah Winfrey for President? Does anyone remember all the pseudoscience and quackery she's promoted? - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE For years, her guests had given Orac plenty to blog about. A continuous garish trainwreck of pseudoscience and quackery.

Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Jenny McCarthy, Deepak Chopra, Kim Tinkham, John of God, Christiane Northrup, Suzanne Somers, Eckert Tolle, Shirley Maclaine, lots of psychics, ...

She has promoted "The Secret" with its "Law of Attraction". Essentially, wishing will make it so. Except that it doesn't in the Universe that we live in.

Can you imagine what her in charge of the National Institutes of Health might be like? Clinical trials of "The Secret"? Her guests' favorite "therapies"?

To her credit, Oprah has a pleasant personality, and she does not seem very insistent on settling scores with people whom she thinks had wronged her. She also does much more charity work than Donald Trump family combined. Her life is a genuine rags-to-riches story, and she deserves credit for wanting to assist others rather than make life as difficult as possible for everybody but those at the top.

However, she has no experience in political leadership or military leadership, but she could brag about her success as a business leader, as Donald Trump has done.

Her religious beliefs will likely make lots of people scratch their heads. From (Wikipedia)

Oprah Winfrey,

Oprah was raised a Baptist. She was quoted as saying: "I have church with myself: I have church walking down the street. I believe in the God force that lives inside all of us, and once you tap into that, you can do anything."

"God is a feeling experience and not a believing experience. If your religion is a believing experience [...] then that's not truly God." Frank Pastore, a Christian radio talk show host on KKLA, was among the many Christian leaders who criticized Winfrey's views, saying "if she's a Christian, she's an ignorant one because Christianity is incompatible with New Age thought."

From the Slate article,

When a Christian questioner in her audience once described her as New Age, Winfrey was pissed. “I am not ‘New Age’ anything,” she said, “and I resent being called that. I don’t see spirits in the trees, and I don’t sit in the room with crystals.” Maybe not those two things specifically; she’s the respectable promoter of New Age belief and practice and nostrums, a member of the elite and friend to presidents, five of whom have appeared on her shows.

I confess I look forward to watching the Religious Right get worked up over her.

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:43 pm

Dumb idea. We need someone with political experience. Right now we're seeing what someone with no experience can do (yes, he's also stupid and insane.)

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:02 pm

New maxim: Anyone who gives an articulate speech in our country will immediately be raised to Presidential status.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:12 pm

Truth! Howard Shultz is often mentioned as a Democratic candidate also, for similar reasons, and I have similar feelings of horror about that. When did we decide that actual political experience makes someone unelectable, and could we please change our minds about that? Like, pronto?

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:34 am

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]New maxim: Anyone who gives an articulate speech in our country will immediately be raised to Presidential status.[/quote]

Trump couldn't even do that...

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:54 pm

[quote=""MattShizzle""]

Koyaanisqatsi;682706 wrote:New maxim: Anyone who gives an articulate speech in our country will immediately be raised to Presidential status.

Trump couldn't even do that...[/QUOTE]

It is because of Trump the new maxim was created. He has lowered the bar so much that anyone who can get out a complete, coherent sentence is now considered presidential material by the Most High And Holy Interwebz, Judge Of All That Is Or Shall Be.

Jackrabbit · Post by **Jackrabbit** » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:26 pm

By current standards, they are. We need a better electorate even more than we need better candidates. Though voter suppression is also a factor in deteriorating said electorate.

lpetrich · Post by **lpetrich** » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:48 am

My Complaint About Oprah - OnFaith

Though an individual with no government experience might turn out to be a decent president, I have significant problems with Oprah. When I wrote about her seven years ago for the On Faith section at the Washington Post, I focused on her religious (and anti-scientific) views. She believes in a variety of paths to God, anathema to many Christians because they believe there is only one. (As an atheist, I think there are no paths to any gods.) To Oprahs credit, unlike with many politicians and televangelists, she doesnt try to impose her religious beliefs on others or support legislation to do so, but she has long promoted pseudoscience and New Age spirituality. And in a conversation with long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad, Oprah had trouble accepting that Nyad could be an atheist and still find awe and wonder in the universe.

Original at My Complaint About Oprah - OnFaith

Ajay0 · Post by **Ajay0** » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:24 pm

Most of the best-known prophets and denominational leaders in the New Age realm owe their careers to Winfrey. Her man Eckhart Tolle, for instance, whose books The Power of Now and A New Earth sold millions of copies apiece, is a successful crusader against reason itself. “Thinking has become a disease,” he writes, to be supplanted by feeling “the inner energy field of your body.” The two of them conducted a series of web-based video seminars in 2008.

This is very poor interpretation by the article’s author of what Eckhart Tolle stated, who has been quoted inappropriately and dishonestly out of context, without doing the prior due diligence or research on what he actually stated and why he stated it, thereby shattering the author’s own credibility like a pack of cards.

Tolle here has been erroneously termed as a crusader against reason. I have read Tolle’s works and I have never come across a point where he states that reason is unreasonable.

Most of these so-called critical writers operate out of the conceptual belief that all spiritual masters or philosophers has to be irrational, and then use sayings and words of theirs, edited out of context, to prove their own conditioned beliefs.

Apparently , as Thomas Jefferson stated, “The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.

Here the writer equates ‘thinking’ with ‘reason or rationalism.

But we must also confess that when a teenager thinks about how a beautiful woman looks without clothes , or when a car driver in a road rage incident thinks about the sadistic things he would do to the other driver (who got away) if he gets his hands on him, these are not exactly an exercise in reason or rational thinking. Same with the grandmother who drives herself anxious to the point of heart disease or high blood pressure, due to incessant thought and consequent worry about her grandchildren’s safety even if they are grownup adults capable of adequate self-care. ( talking about my elderly aunt)

It is in a similar context that Tolle here equates ‘thinking’ with. Thought is a valuable tool in practical matters, but when used incessantly for imaginary things non-stop, can deplete the person’s vitality, health and creativity. In extreme scenarios it can even result in delusion and madness.

It is in this context that Tolle urges people to put a brake on their thought process, and use it only for things that matter and not otherwise, highlighting the dangers of an incessant thought process out of control.

Here are Tolle’s actual sayings in context…

'Thinking has become a disease. Disease happens when things get out of balance. For example, there is nothing wrong with cells dividing and multiplying in the body, but when this process continues in disregard of the total organism, cells proliferate and we have disease.'

'If you have difficulty feeling your emotions, start by focusing attention on the inner energy field of your body. Feel the body from within. This will also put you in touch with your emotions.'

Tolle’s whole exposition of the above sayings can be found in this article….

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_n ... apter1.htm

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:27 pm

Tolle’s whole exposition of the above sayings can be found in this article….

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_n ... apter1.htm

I think you were correct in that the previous author was taking certain aspects of what Tolle wrote out of context, but then we also have things like this to contend with:

Being is the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature. But don't seek to grasp it with your mind. Don't try to understand it. You can know it only when the mind is still. When you are present, when your attention is fully and intensely in the Now, Being can be felt, but it can never be understood mentally. To regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of "feeling-realization" is enlightenment.

Essentially, he’s saying that just being—without the running play-by-play “commentary” of the brain-generated “self”—is the “true nature” of existence and as such it somehow entails “enlightenment.”

While it is true that the brain generates analogue selves (aka, the “user illusion&#8221

, it is ironically subjective to simply declare a brain operating without such generation (if that’s even possible; generally we call that brain damage or psychosis) as its “true nature.” It’s like saying that to get at the “true nature” of a film projector, you have to remove the film reels and just turn on the projector.

Yes, that would be a part of its “true nature” but it would also be a largely meaningless revelation. It simply removes a function of the mechanics of the object which ironically is its primary function; to project film.

I am all in favor of meditation and seeking to clear the noise/clutter of a noisy/stochastic process that is inherent to the operating parameters of our brains, but I’m not sure subjectively and randomly declaring that this is the way to “enlightenment” is at all meaningful. Thought is a process; a function of brain. As someone once said (sub?), “mind is what brain’s do.”

So the meta feedback looping of trying to separate out a process from Process (which is what Tolle really means by Being) and then labeling that “the way to enlightenment” is just silly, imho. Clearing the clutter of the brain is just something that periodically needs to be done in the same way that you dust or clean your home or the like—or just periodically reboot your computer and for the exact same reason—but elevating it to some sort of mystic level (whether he intended to or not) is not warranted.

Nor is it physically possible for something that is itself the result of process to have a meta control over the process that generates it. It’s like the film is saying, “I need to remove myself from the projector in order to see the ‘true nature’ of the projector.” Or, perhaps more on point, it’s like the flow of photons the projector generates saying, “I need to turn the projector off—which would stop my the generation of my discrete existence—in order to see the ‘true nature’ of the projector.”

Ajay0 · Post by **Ajay0** » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:06 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

Tolle’s whole exposition of the above sayings can be found in this article….

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_n ... apter1.htm

I think you were correct in that the previous author was taking certain aspects of what Tolle wrote out of context, but then we also have things like this to contend with:

Being is the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature. But don't seek to grasp it with your mind. Don't try to understand it. You can know it only when the mind is still. When you are present, when your attention is fully and intensely in the Now, Being can be felt, but it can never be understood mentally. To regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of "feeling-realization" is enlightenment.

[/quote]

I have explained about this phenomenon in this earlier post of mine.

Enlightenment is an ancient tradition in the east with its corresponding philosophies like Advaita, Buddhism, Sufism and Taoism.

Tolle is one such person who attained enlightenment accidentally, and happens to see things from the vantage point of enlightenment and states it honestly. We can't just crucify the guy stating that it is totally incorrect and wrong just because we can't perceive the same with our limited senses or because he does not adhere to our conceptual understanding of reality. The dog hears sounds which is beyond our hearing range, and the rattlesnake can detect infrared thermal radiations which we cannot. But we don't go around trying to prove them wrong just because we can't do so.

There are many people all over the world who have given the same description and testimony of things after enlightenment or Nirvana, irrespective of nationality, culture or religion. This shows that it is a natural phenomenon, which needs to be studied as a part of understanding the human psyche and its potential, which can go a long way in psychiatry and healing of mental health issues, along with understanding the mechanics of the human mind, thought and consequent actions.

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Essentially, he’s saying that just being—without the running play-by-play “commentary” of the brain-generated “self”—is the “true nature” of existence and as such it somehow entails “enlightenment.”

While it is true that the brain generates analogue selves (aka, the “user illusion&#8221

, it is ironically subjective to simply declare a brain operating without such generation (if that’s even possible; generally we call that brain damage or psychosis) as its “true nature.” It’s like saying that to get at the “true nature” of a film projector, you have to remove the film reels and just turn on the projector.[/quote]

See, being without a state of thought is called samadhi in ancient and timetested eastern philosophies. It is not considered brain damage or psychosis by any stretch of imagination. I can create the experience of samadhi at will and get a great blissful high in the process, without the need for drugs, alcohol and other artificial aids. It has done wonders for my relaxation and health.

Imo, this can perhaps be stated as 'true nature' , because I find it easier to experience samadhi in the seashore or in the midst of nature , than in the midst of talkative or conditioned human society.

It has helped my thought process to become clearer, employ thought at will, and not to get dominated by my fears and worries due to uncontrolled thought, which has been a relief to me.

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Yes, that would be a part of its “true nature” but it would also be a largely meaningless revelation. It simply removes a function of the mechanics of the object which ironically is its primary function; to project film.

I am all in favor of meditation and seeking to clear the noise/clutter of a noisy/stochastic process that is inherent to the operating parameters of our brains, but I’m not sure subjectively and randomly declaring that this is the way to “enlightenment” is at all meaningful. Thought is a process; a function of brain. As someone once said (sub?), “mind is what brain’s do.”
[/quote]

Incessant employment of the mind is what is being criticized over here. Any machine wears out when used incessantly and so does the human mind. Meditation as extolled by Tolle, can ensure its longevity and efficiency.

In western psychiatry as well, research has pointed out the efficacy of meditation as in mindfulness in treating mental health issues over there, and it is now being used as a tool .

https://health.uconn.edu/psychiatry/min ... editation/

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

So the meta feedback looping of trying to separate out a process from Process (which is what Tolle really means by Being) and then labeling that “the way to enlightenment” is just silly, imho. Clearing the clutter of the brain is just something that periodically needs to be done in the same way that you dust or clean your home or the like—or just periodically reboot your computer and for the exact same reason—but elevating it to some sort of mystic level (whether he intended to or not) is not warranted.

Nor is it physically possible for something that is itself the result of process to have a meta control over the process that generates it. It’s like the film is saying, “I need to remove myself from the projector in order to see the ‘true nature’ of the projector.” Or, perhaps more on point, it’s like the flow of photons the projector generates saying, “I need to turn the projector off—which would stop my the generation of my discrete existence—in order to see the ‘true nature’ of the projector.”[/quote]

By Being, what Tolle means is the subjective state of Awareness, also depicted as mindfulness or emptiness in Buddhism. It is not some God or divine character, but one's own subjective self which is a constant in all experiences regardless of mental modifications caused by thoughts or emotions. He is just using the term Being in this sense.

By connecting with one's own Awareness or Being, one can exercise better mental equanimity and balance, without going into emotional extremes.

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:22 pm

You (and Tolle and Buddhism, for that matter) operate from a false assumption; that there can be any separation between mind and brain. There cannot, because mind is what brains do. It is analogous to saying that you can have the experience of a movie by just turning on the projector (i.e., without spooling up the actual film itself).

The brain generates the self, thus anything the self “feels” is a product of that generation. Anything “you” experience is second hand; indirect it just doesn’t seem that way to you (because “you” are generated/animated/whatever you want to call it). Every nano-second (or faster) your brain animates the self, redrawing it with slightly modified information exactly the same manner as an animated film. So, yes, absolutely, the self actually only lives in what I would call the “(just after) now.” But it also has the capacity to access past experiences and consider possible scenarios, etc., as that is its primary/initial purpose.

The brain/body is one big sensory input/output/processing “machine” and the “self” is the constantly updated embodiment of the certain necessary/functioning fraction of information the brain/body processes; an analogue of the brain/body that the brain uses—in a virtual sense—to plot/navigate/strategize its way through spacetime as optimally as it can manage in any given nano-second.

The brain is Pixar gone thermonuclear and the self (selves) is the constantly updated/animated product, but just like an animated film, the characters being animated have no “need” to know about how the actual film process is accomplished. They don’t “need” to know about the many trillions of ones and zeroes in the code; they don’t “need” to know that it takes hundreds of people to storyboard and write the script and plan out the angles and design the look of the end film; etc.,etc., etc.

In short, the character (aka, the “I&#8221

does not need to know what the brain is doing to generate the I. But what the I can do, however, is self-reflect; meta analyze not only itself but brains and bodies and everything it indirectly experiences much like (but not identical to) the “homunculus” idea or “soul” of more primitive/ignorant days.

Which is all to say that the “I”—the user illusion—is always the primary observer; always the main plate that the brain keeps spinning. It doesn’t matter how the brain keeps that plate spinning for the I to be generated; it just matters that the plate does in fact keep spinning.

And from that plate’s perspective is “our” perspective. Always. It’s always first person in the brain’s narrative. It cannot be other by the very nature of the process, just like the plate spinning is the entire focus and purpose of spinning a plate.

If the plate stops spinning, then so too does the entire focus and purpose of spinning a plate. Get it?

So whatever “you” experiences, it is always and forever “you”—the generated self—that is experiencing it. So whatever the experience is it is a generated self that experiences it. In any meaningful sense.

Yes, there can be multiple selves and the brain/body as a whole obviously also experiences things in the objective sense, but for the most part and for the sake of this discussion, the “I” is always the center perpective on the journey, including during meditation. All that is happening is the I is experiencing another form of “state.”

AGAIN, I’m all for it. It’s a state of calm (as much as possible), but it is still just another form of state. Exalting that by calling it “enlightenment” is unwarranted aggrandizement imho.

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:52 pm

Post Editing Time Addendum: Instead of enlightenment, we should modernize the term/process and just call it defragging or rebooting because thats far more analogous to what meditation does for the brain/body/self.

Its spring cleaning, but it holds no more mysticism or enchantment than any other brain state.

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:15 pm

It dawned on me that the above couple of posts should probably be moved to their own thread.

praxis · Post by **praxis** » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:38 pm

I'd say anyone who will pull us out of these wars is worth voting for. I couldn't care less what they believe otherwise.

First things first, and that means resisting Israel and Saudi Arabia and then keeping the Intelligence agencies in check somehow. No person raised in the system, political or not, can accomplish any of that.

A person such as Winfrey is capable of running large operations. She has more experience in that area than Obama did and did it better than Bush ever did in either the public or private sector.

She certainly won't be waving her genitals in the face of every semi-attractive member of the opposite sex or kiss the ass of people like Mickey Cantor as Clinton did.

Who's next: ass-slapping old man Bush? Reagan? Nixon? Some of you'd prefer any of them back over Winfrey? Really? I'd take my chances - it couldn't get any worse.

Shake · Post by **Shake** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:23 pm

Just say NOprah!

lpetrich · Post by **lpetrich** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:41 pm

Oprah: If I'm supposed to run for president, God has to tell me | TheHill

Oprah Winfrey said shes had billionaires offer to fund her presidential campaign if she runs for the White House, but said shes waiting for a sign from God.

I went into prayer, she said of calls for her to run for president.

God, if you think Im supposed to run, you gotta tell me, and it has to be so clear that not even I can miss it. And I havent gotten that yet, Winfrey told People Magazine in an interview published Wednesday.

Rome · Post by **Rome** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:47 pm

Oprah doesn't have political experience. She had some good qualities. She could perhaps do well in Congress, but she is not adequately prepared for all the responsibilities of the Oval Office.

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:52 pm

[quote=""Rome""]Oprah doesn't have political experience. She had some good qualities. She could perhaps do well in Congress, but she is not adequately prepared for all the responsibilities of the Oval Office.[/quote]

That didn't stop Trump. Except he didn't have any good qualities.

Rome · Post by **Rome** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:28 pm

[quote=""MattShizzle""]

Rome;683977 wrote:Oprah doesn't have political experience. She had some good qualities. She could perhaps do well in Congress, but she is not adequately prepared for all the responsibilities of the Oval Office.

That didn't stop Trump. Except he didn't have any good qualities.[/QUOTE]
And this is largely why Trump is terrible at his job.

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:09 am

Well, the not having any good qualities might have a lot to do with it, too.

praxis · Post by **praxis** » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:46 pm

Oprah took on the beef industry, which a lot of people thought would be career ending suicide. She won, and she did so with grace and dignity. It cost her quite a bit financially and it took her off her show for a bit too. The beef industry legal teams did everything they could to ruin her and her career but failed.

The beef industry is no slouch either, they're up there with heavyweights like the NRA. (Come to think of it, perhaps that's exactly why official democrats don't like the idea of a Winfrey candidacy? No Balls in the dem party! Or perhaps not enough (black) vaginas)

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:36 pm

[quote=""Rome""]Oprah doesn't have political experience. She had some good qualities. She could perhaps do well in Congress, but she is not adequately prepared for all the responsibilities of the Oval Office.[/quote]

I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:40 pm

Man, if Oprah runs, expect all of the attack adds to include the clip of her going "YOU get a car, and YOU get a car, EVERYBODY GETS A CAR!" A more perfect visual metaphor for the conservative position on what liberals think and want could not be crafted.

I do like her, though!

praxis · Post by **praxis** » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:32 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]Man, if Oprah runs, expect all of the attack adds to include the clip of her going "YOU get a car, and YOU get a car, EVERYBODY GETS A CAR!" A more perfect visual metaphor for the conservative position on what liberals think and want could not be crafted.

I do like her, though![/quote]

1928 Presidential Campaign Slogans
"A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" - Herbert Hoover
Claims that everyone will be prosperous under a Hoover presidency

Not that anyone would want to be compared to Hoover.