Obama behind in polls

[Bern]

Hitler rose to power by keeping his message brainlessly simple and repeating it endlessly. That is the tactic of the Republicans and their media cheerleader Fox noise, not the Democrats and certainly not Obama.

Actually, Noam Chomsky is saying exactly that. Obama's message is is brainlessly simple (and it does repeat endlessly). And you can't accuse Chomsky of being part of the Republican cabal.

This is a business-run society: you market commodities, you market candidates. The public are the victims and they know it, and that’s why 80% think, more or less accurately, that the country is run by a few big interests looking after themselves. So people are not deluded, they just don’t really see any choices.

The Obama phenomenon is an interesting reaction to this. Obama’s handlers, the campaign managers, have created an image that is essentially a blank slate. In the Obama campaign the words are hope, change, unity - totally vacuous slogans said by a nice person, who looks good and talks nicely - what commentators call “soaring rhetoric” - and you can write anything you like on that blank slate. A lot of people are writing on it their hopes for progressive change.

But the similarity to fascist propaganda techniques is quite striking, and it’s not accidental. The Nazis explicitly, consciously, and openly adopted the techniques of American commercial advertising, and said so. They took a few simple ideas, stressed them over and over again, and made them look glamorous - that was the technique of American commercial advertising in the 1920s and it was the model that the Nazis explicitly adopted, and it’s the model of business propaganda today.

So, yes, the Obama phenomenon, I think, reflects the alienation of the population that you find in the polls: 80% say the country is run by a few big interests. While Obama says we are going to change that, there’s no indication of what the change is going to be. In fact, the financial institutions, which are his major contributors, think he’s fine, so there’s no indication of any change. But if you say “change,” people will grasp at it; you say “change” and “hope,” and people will grasp at this and say, OK, maybe this is the savior who will bring about what we want, even though there is no evidence for it.

[Bern]

"Very talented and patriotic leader"?? What??? Having spent 142 working days in the Senate, he has no experience any area of government. I haven't seen any talents on display nor have I seen any examples of patriotism. Your nonsensical babbling is typical of the Kool-Aid sideshow.

I find this swooning over, this infatuation of Obama by many of his supporters, quite frankly, disquieting and disgusting. It validates the assertion that many Obama supporters don't really look at the issues.

[Guest Guest]

"Very talented and patriotic leader"?? What??? Having spent 142 working days in the Senate, he has no experience any area of government. I haven't seen any talents on display nor have I seen any examples of patriotism. Your nonsensical babbling is typical of the Kool-Aid sideshow.

Considering where you have your head buried, it's amazing you can see your keyboard.

Hey! Maybe that explains why this moron can't type.

[Guest Guest]

Actually, Norm Chomski is saying exactly that. Obama's message is is brainlessly simple (and it does repeat endlessly). And you can't accuse Chomski of being part of the Republican cabal.

With all due respect to the brilliant Noam Chomsky (I write that sincerely, he is truly a brilliant man), Obama’s press people may have crafted an image, but Obama is quite specific about his policies. What the candidate actually says and writes day-to-day and what the press covers are two different things.

If you continue to read the interview you quoted from, you’ll see this (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080718.htm).

"NC: McCain is another example of very effective propaganda-creation imagery. I mean, suppose there was a Russian pilot who was bombing civilian targets in Afghanistan and was shot down and tortured by the American-run Islamic fanatic terrorists there. Would we say he’s a war hero? Would we say he’s an expert in strategic and security issues, because he was a bomber of civilian targets? We wouldn’t. But this is the image that’s been created of McCain. His heroism and his expertise and strategy are based on the fact that he was bombing people from 30,000 feet and he was shot down. It’s not nice that he was tortured, it shouldn’t have happened, it was a crime, and so on. But that doesn’t make him a war hero or a specialist in foreign policy. That’s all a public relations creation. The public relations industry is a huge industry, very sophisticated. Probably something like a sixth of the gross domestic product goes into marketing, advertising, and so on, and that’s a core element of society. It’s the way you keep people separated from one another, subdued, and focused on something else. And this is explicit and, as I say, it’s all discussed in public relations propaganda.

"VN: Would you foresee any difference between McCain and Obama administrations in terms of foreign policy?

"NC: Yes. McCain may be worse than Bush. He doesn’t say much, because you’re not supposed to say much about issues, but the few things he has said are pretty frightening. He could be a real loose cannon."

Furthermore, Chomsky has also recently said this: “SVEINSSON: Do you think that American foreign policy might change after the presidential elections in November, and does it matter in that respect whether McCain or Obama will be elected?

"CHOMSKY: The political spectrum is quite narrow, and it is of some significance that on a host of major issues, both political parties are well to the right of the general population. Nevertheless, there are differences, and in a system of huge power, small differences can have large effects. The Bush administration is far to the radical ultranationalist extreme of the spectrum, and it has caused so much damage to the interests of state-corporate power that there is likely to be a shift towards the center, less so with McCain than with Obama, who will probably be a Clinton-style centrist Democrat.”

(http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2008080102.htm)

Obviously, Obama’s positions aren’t so “vacuous” that Chomsky can’t figure out what they are.

If you really understood Chomsky’s position here, you’d recognize that he’s commenting on the state of American politics in our age of mass media. He’s not singling out Obama, or even McCain for criticism.

[Guest Guest]

This swooning over, this servile infatuation of Obama, is what one should beware of.

I see swooning, but I don't see any servile infatuation. There's a big difference. The last thing Obama said in his acceptance speech this evening is that his opponents don't get it: the election isn't about him. It's about us. If he fails us, he'll lose our support. I believe he is keenly aware of the fact.

Obama makes people believe the accomplishment of great ideals is possible again. After more than a generation of "me-me-me" politics, we need that desperately right now, and very few leaders have ever pulled it off. If he does, he could become a great and historic leader. I see no justification for comparing him to Hitler and Stalin, because what he will do with power is entirely different than what they did.

[Guest Guest]

I see swooning, but I don't see any servile infatuation. There's a big difference. The last thing Obama said in his acceptance speech this evening is that his opponents don't get it: the election isn't about him. It's about us. If he fails us, he'll lose our support. I believe he is keenly aware of the fact.

Obama makes people believe the accomplishment of great ideals is possible again. After more than a generation of "me-me-me" politics, we need that desperately right now, and very few leaders have ever pulled it off. If he does, he could become a great and historic leader. I see no justification for comparing him to Hitler and Stalin, because what he will do with power is entirely different than what they did.

"What he will do with power is entirely different" ????? Did your crystal ball tell you this, moron ?

[Guest Guest]

"What he will do with power is entirely different" ????? Did your crystal ball tell you this, moron ?

Let me get this straight--someone who would SERIOUSLY compare Barack Obama with Joseph STALIN is calling someone ELSE a moron? Am I in the Twilight Zone or something? Get real.

[Bern]

I see swooning, but I don't see any servile infatuation. There's a big difference. The last thing Obama said in his acceptance speech this evening is that his opponents don't get it: the election isn't about him. It's about us. If he fails us, he'll lose our support. I believe he is keenly aware of the fact.

What politician doesn't say they are here for us, to serve the people?

If he fails us, he'll lose our support. Lot of good that does after he is elected. Don't count on him then resigning.

[Guest Guest]

"What he will do with power is entirely different" ????? Did your crystal ball tell you this, moron ?

Common sense tells you that, jackass. There's nothing in Obama to suggest the qualities of a dictator or a murderer, let alone both.

[Guest Guest]

What politician doesn't say they are here for us, to serve the people?

If he fails us, he'll lose our support. Lot of good that does after he is elected. Don't count on him then resigning.

You could make all of the same arguments against McCain or anyone else. But you only make them against Obama. So all you're proving is that you're biased against Obama. There's no reason for anyone to be persuaded by that; the only thing it persuades me of is that I shouldn't take my guidance from you.

[Bern]

Common sense tells you that, jackass. There's nothing in Obama to suggest the qualities of a dictator or a murderer, let alone both.

There rarely is. Did you think before they got power, the Hilter's and the Stalin's of this world, ran on platforms announcing their less desirable traits? When Stalin started, he was known as jolly Joe, the nice guy everyone wants in their family. When some warned that Stalin may not be as he seems, they, like you, criticized the detractors with, "there's nothing to suggest that Stalin may be bad."

Stalin falls into the character of lovable Uncle Joe, a right jolly old fellow with a twinkle in his eye and a fondness for teasing.

I'm not saying Obama is really bad. But his actions compared to his campaign rhetoric, show us that he is an ambitious duplicitous politician, a "chameleon", who changes his position as needed to get votes. A graduate of the Democratic party machine of Chicago.

I previously documented his duplicity in many posts on this forum. For those of you who are intellectually challenged, I'll repeat this simple example

From the Chicago Sun-Times

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/635462,...sweet05.article

Living in a glass house

Sometimes Obama has come late to the game. He did not stop taking rides on subsidized corporate jets until the week he was tapped to be the Democrats' chief spokesman on ethics in January 2006. In 2005, Obama took 23 such private aircraft flights, some to attend fund-raisers he headlined. In 2006, Obama led the fight to ban lawmakers from taking cut-rate private air travel.

A convenient Obama change.

Does Obama have any values?

[Bern]

You could make all of the same arguments against McCain or anyone else. But you only make them against Obama. So all you're proving is that you're biased against Obama. There's no reason for anyone to be persuaded by that; the only thing it persuades me of is that I shouldn't take my guidance from you.

So you're saying, if I lived in 1930's Germany and I criticized Hitler but not Himmler, you would then reply that I'm biased against Hitler because I did not criticize Himmler.

Brilliant logic.

I also criticized McCain. But it is the common, constant, infantile swooning over Obama really got me started on Obama.

And what's this biased against Obama nonsense? I see that in many forums, where those who do not swoon over and actually have the temerity to criticize Obama are often called biased and racist.

Do really you think the labeling of others as biased or racist, this thuggish behavior by so many Obama supporters, will actually silence or intimidate those who do not support Obama?

[WilliamK]

Do really you think the labeling of others as biased or racist, this thuggish behavior by so many Obama supporters, will actually silence or intimidate those who do not support Obama?

It will accomplish about as much as you labeling Palin critics as sexist. Since when is "hairstyle" a uniquely feminine attribute? It was petty and lame, but it wasn't necessarily sexist.

[WilliamK]

And what's this biased against Obama nonsense? I see that in many forums, where those who do not swoon over and actually have the temerity to criticize Obama are often called biased and racist.

What does racism have to do with the present discussion? He said you were biased, not racist. And I believe it was a pretty fair accusation. Can you, in complete honesty, say that there isn't some truth to it? I rather think your own stated ire at the Obama "swooning" can legitimately be considered a bias. That it is a reaction to something external doesn't make it any less so.

Bias really isn't such a terrible accusation all by itself. The question is whether it has overwhelmed one's ability to reason.

[Guest Guest]

Let me get this straight--someone who would SERIOUSLY compare Barack Obama with Joseph STALIN is calling someone ELSE a moron? Am I in the Twilight Zone or something? Get real.

No, you're just living in a country that has Republicans in it.

[Guest Guest]

There rarely is. Did you think before they got power, the Hilter's and the Stalin's of this world, ran on platforms announcing their less desirable traits? When Stalin started, he was known as jolly Joe, the nice guy everyone wants in their family. When some warned that Stalin may not be as he seems, they, like you, criticized the detractors with, "there's nothing to suggest that Stalin may be bad."

I'm not saying Obama is really bad. But his actions compared to his campaign rhetoric, show us that he is an ambitious duplicitous politician, a "chameleon", who changes his position as needed to get votes. A graduate of the Democratic party machine of Chicago.

I previously documented his duplicity in many posts on this forum. For those of you who are intellectually challenged, I'll repeat this simple example

A convenient Obama change.

Does Obama have any values?

Yes he does. He hasn't changed his ideology. It has been consistent throughout.

Does McCain have any values? It would seem not. On issue after issue he has pandered to the Republican right wing base to win the nomination.

And you're being a jerk. If you're not saying Obama is really bad, then you shouldn't be comparing him to Stalin.

[Guest Guest]

So you're saying, if I lived in 1930's Germany and I criticized Hitler but not Himmler, you would then reply that I'm biased against Hitler because I did not criticize Himmler.

Brilliant logic.

I also criticized McCain. But it is the common, constant, infantile swooning over Obama really got me started on Obama.

And what's this biased against Obama nonsense? I see that in many forums, where those who do not swoon over and actually have the temerity to criticize Obama are often called biased and racist.

Do really you think the labeling of others as biased or racist, this thuggish behavior by so many Obama supporters, will actually silence or intimidate those who do not support Obama?

No. Hitler and Himmler were both Nazis, so right there your analogy makes zero sense. You're criticizing people on opposite sides of politics for ideological reasons, trying to argue that it's really about their personal merits. But just keep saying it, so you can remind everyone how far out of touch you Repubicans are.

If you want to talk about constant infantile swooning, just watch the Republican convention. They do it every four years. Republicans sloganize constantly and say nothing. They make the stupidest arguments known to man. During the 2004 convention, after it was clear there were no WMDs in Iraq, one of their speakers said "on an airplane a box-cutter is a weapon of mass destruction." Loud roars from the ditto-heads at the convention. As though we're going to invade every country where someone has a box cutter. If they were thinking, there was no evidence of it.

As for taking criticism, Obama took plenty of it from his rivals during an extremely intense primary campaign. He didn't whine about it, and because he didn't he won the respect of tens of millions of thoughtful Americans. Obviously you're not one of them.

[Guest Guest]

It will accomplish about as much as you labeling Palin critics as sexist. Since when is "hairstyle" a uniquely feminine attribute? It was petty and lame, but it wasn't necessarily sexist.

Good point. It was fair game with Edwards, so why not with Palin?

Amazing how much bigoted people project their bigotry onto others.

[Guest Guest]

Good point. It was fair game with Edwards, so why not with Palin?

Amazing how much bigoted people project their bigotry onto others.

And whine about the bigotry of others while embracing their own.