Chomsky on Liberal Disillusionment with Obama.

[mother earth]

[zeemike]

1. Similarities are not insignificant.

That is surely true...

[SamKnause]

2. Chomsky

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:55 PM - Edit history (2)

We need to start a citizen's funded cloning program.

Alan Grayson
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Noam Chomsky
Michael Moore
Naomi Kline
Naomi Wolf
Dennis Kucinich
Amy Goodman
Juan Gonzalez
Tom Hartmann
Tavis Smiley
Dr. Cornel West
Rachel Maddow
Cenk Uygur
Glen Greenwald
Greg Palast
Matt Tahibi
Robert Greenwald
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Bill Nye
John Pilger
Chris Hedges
Richard D. Wolff
Julian Assange
Bradley Manning
Daniel Ellsberg

[gateley]

5. Al Franken.

[Newest Reality]

9. Good list!

Clone away!

Well, why don't we just EMULATE them, learn more and change our own views and behavior to act in harmony with that?

Wouldn't hurt, and our internalized version of the system can then change with potential insights we glean by committing to our own transformation and influence.

[antigop]

12. How about Russ Feingold? nt

[Fuddnik]

22. Don't forget Chris Hedges

And Daniel Ellsberg.

[daggahead]

23. I would add ...

Dr. Gary Null to that list.

[AverageJoe90]

34. I'd like to add:

The Obama family
Andrew Revkin
Bill McKibben
Peter Sinclair(greenman3610)
Joe Biden
Sheldon Whitehouse
Markos Moulitsas
The DU Admins
Jimmy Carter

[antigop]

3. Thanks for posting. K&R nt

[Beacool]

4. Thanks for posting this video.

Chomsky's rhetorical question about what "hope & change" meant was the exact same question many of us who supported a different candidate were wondering. Hope for what and what change? It was all campaign rhetoric B.S.

What I saw in 2008 was a center-left candidate. I never understood why the Left ran to support him. Aside from the race factor, which made his candidacy historical, what was so different about him than any other centrist?

Yes, he didn't vote for the IWR, but he wasn't in the Senate at the time. I'm aware that he spoke against it, but then again, he told Tim Russert in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate. Years alter, the excuse for that comment was that he was trying to be supportive of Kerry.

Chomsky is also right as to how Axelrod, Plouffe, et al. marketed Obama. His speeches were like cotton candy. They sounded good, but didn't mean much. Listen to one of his soaring speeches and then read the transcript. Many of his speeches were vague, no specifics, just feel good promises.

[awoke_in_2003]

8. I started at Kucinich...

then Roberts, Biden, then Obama. Obama and Clinton are political equals, IMO, so O got the nod, as I don't care for nepotism.

[Beacool]

10. Yes, but with Hillary what you saw is what you got.

Also, her speeches were pretty specific and included how she was going to pay for what she was proposing. Obama was the amorphous candidate. A lot of generalities and B.S. (IMO).

[JDPriestly]

25. Hillary voted for the Iraq War and has never apologized.

She is a war monger for the sake of it.

Hillary is more corporate than Obama. She is not progressive.

What's more she does not have Obama's relaxed way with people. I don't want to have Hillary as our candidate in 2016.

[mother earth]

30. Unfortunately, we sucker into the corporate candidates, our system is set up to do exactly that.

Which is why we need serious campaign finance reform. We all know this here.

[JDPriestly]

36. As Chomsky points out, the campaigns are run by the same people who

make the ads that sell cigarettes and get kids to eat breakfast cereal laced with sugar.

So, what can we expect?

[mother earth]

39. Yes, they sold us, they know exactly what we need & want, what we get is quite another thing. nt

[Beacool]

32. Well, you just might.

It all depends whether she wants it or not.

As for the IWR, it was not meant to give Bush carte blanche. It was meant to be used as a last resort. There were supposed to be more negotiations and UN inspections before any force was to be used. Obviously, that is not how it turned out.

[JDPriestly]

35. There is a video of an encounter between Hillary and Code Pink.

It used to be on YouTube. Somebody has a copy. It will come back to haunt Hillary if she decides to run. It really shows her nasty side. I'm sure it isn't the only video like that out there. Short-tempered. That's Hillary. And her temper is not cute like those of some.

[Carolina]

46. Exactly!

Add all that you said to the fact that she and Bill were founders/founding members of the DLC and she ran(mismanaged) an awful campaign in 2008. We don't need or want her in 2016.

[awoke_in_2003]

37. I am at the point now...

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

that if any politician says something they are either going to forget or do the exact opposite. They are all bought and paid for (as Hillary would have been, too- just look at Bill).

[Beacool]

38. My point is not whether one is more liberal than the other.

IMO, they are both center-left politicians. What I never understood is why the Left thought that in Obama they would find someone more progressive than Hillary. To me he always sounded like a snake oil salesman. Lots of feel good speeches to adoring crowds. It sounded like B.S. then and it still sounds like B.S. now. For example, not only is Guantanamo still open, they are renovating the facilities. Remember when he was taking ads against Hillary's health care proposals? Well, he adopted as his own most of what she had proposed. How about the proposed chained CPI? No liberal would have made such a proposal.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. Unfortunately, "democratic" politicians...

not only do not embrace, but actively reject liberal ideas. That is, at least, until it is time to ask for donations. DC is dominated by two parties- the far right wing republican party and republican party lite.

[DonCoquixote]

48. What I saw in 2008 was a center-left candidate.

And I saw the only other candidate was to the right of him. Obama did not fail because he was not like Clinton, Obama failed because he did not throw out the DLC recipes.

[KG]

6. AutoChomskyDURec

[antigop]

7. Anyone paying attention KNEW what DLC Hillary stood for. nt

[Beacool]

13. And pray tell, what did Obama stand for?

[antigop]

14. Geez...you missed the whole point of the video, didn't you? nt

[Beacool]

15. Gee, I think you missed it.

But don't let your perpetual CDS get in the way. Obama is the current president.

[antigop]

17. Some of us know how much damage the DLC and the Clintons have done to the country. nt

[Beacool]

40. If they hadn't reorganized the party, there wouldn't have been a Democratic president in 1993.

Different times, different needs.

[antigop]

41. As I said, the DLC and the Clintons damaged the country and a lot of us know that. nt

[antigop]

42. The DLC sycophants will never admit the damage they caused. nt

[Beacool]

43. Still responding to yourself, I see..............

[antigop]

45. Still defending the DLC, I see.... nt

[Newest Reality]

11. This is a very

opportune time to bring THE Dr. Chomsky in.

I think people are really ready, (in a larger context) to consider his omnibus of insights and information which can be taken as fuel for more investigation, influence, action and personal changes in behavior and reaction.

Thanks! Good to see all the recs. That's encouraging.

[antigop]

16. 1:40 the financial institutions have enormous power thanks to Reagan and Clinton nt

[magic59]

27. Clinton was a damn good republican president

that is why I cringe when another Clinton wants to run. The only problem is Biden is no better.

[DeSwiss]

18. K&R

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." ~Edward R. Murrow

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. People voted for Obama based on Republican screaming....

We might as well run an actual Liberal.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. He's dead on...

The Nazis sprung out of rural Germany. A bunch of chicken farmers pissed off over what they saw as rich Liberals (and Jews) in Berlin stabbing them in the back by surrendering during WWI.

[magic59]

28. German banksters pressuring for repayment of war, WWI, debt

demanding austerity. I think Europe will see history repeating itself.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. They've been telling Americans war is GOOD for the economy....

They can't blame the wars on hard times.

[hfojvt]

21. seems like a silly point

"Obama won because he was not specific about what he stood for"

Uhm, so Chomsky thinks McCain should have won? Or Hillary?

Obama won because the voters didn't want McCain. Obama won because the voters didn't want Clinton.

In the Clinton campaign, she was not standing for anything any more than Obama was. If you went to her website, she didn't talk about policy there at all. Her campaign was based on "Another bigshot has endorsed Hillary, so get on the bandwagon, because Hillary is 44!"

Obama won the primary because a majority of Democratic Primary voters and caucus goers rejected Hillary - with a huge assist from the black community who came out strong, for some reason, to support the black candidate, and opposing Hillary's bigshot endorsements, Obama picked up Kennedy, and Oprah.

Probably a fair number of moderate conservatives got behind Obama because 1) he campaigned as a moderate uniter, 2) the media was generally behind him, 3) he spoke well, and 4) they wanted to be a part of history - the first black President.

Obama was specific about many things as well. He specifically promised to not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 - a very Bush Sr. like promise. He specifically promised to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. He specifically proposed the making work pay tax credit. And so on. No voter should expect to micromanage a candidate, all you are gonna get are general principles.

[mother earth]

29. Oh Chomsky gets very specific on Obama's stances, promises & contrary actions. I don't need to

answer for Chomsky, he points out in a very significant way why he is worst.

[Beacool]

33. No, they didn't.

Hillary won almost as many votes as Obama. The campaign mismanaged the caucuses terribly, that's why Obama ended with a small pledged delegate advantage (if my memory serves me right, it was about 124). If the Democrats had the same rules as the Republicans (winner takes all), she would have been the nominee after Super Tuesday. Obama won most caucuses, but Hillary won most large state primaries.

There was no massive Democratic rejection. Furthermore, more registered Democrats voted for Hillary than for Obama. Remember that some of the states have open primaries and people crossed party lines to vote.

So yes, Obama won the nomination, but it was a very close race until the end.

You're right about the media being behind him. it wasn't just Matthews who had tingling legs.

[hfojvt]

47. oh, Obama basically became the nominee in February

winning every contest in that month.

Then the media decided they wanted to give the Democratic nominee a bad time, especially since the Republican nomination was over.

But the strange thing was that much of the M$M stayed with Obama even against the Republican nominee.

But gosh, isn't it too bad Democrats don't have the same rules as Republicans and disenfranchise large numbers of primary voters.

[DhhD]

24. Chomsky also gave us a warning of who will we allow to come to power. To me, he was saying

that we were under the false movement platforms of previous presidents. To me that goes for candidates in the Primaries and all other offices too.

I hope the internet can help the middle class clarify exactly what platform and therefore representative that we want running for political office.

People certainly woke up to the Movement of Hitler. We need a Movement of Talk, to start out with.

Edited to add.

[just1voice]

26. "a facade like toothpaste and lifestyle drugs", well said!

It's pure propaganda and tens of millions of people still can't see it or even begin to comprehend it.