Naomi Klein denounces Obama as neocon wrapped in branding of transformative politics

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/the-revenge-of-the-brands/1

The Revenge of the Brands
How corporate America turned Naomi Klein’s anti-branding manifesto on its head

<edit>

That is why Klein is so unappreciative of what would appear to be a great triumph for her side. Her goal was never merely to change corporate behavior. It was to change the entire economic system. As she sees it, the newfound emphasis on selling authenticity is just further evidence of capitalism’s ability to co-opt dissent and exploit seemingly subversive niches. Reform is always the enemy of revolution, and any change that maintains the overall status quo is to be viewed with suspicion. Writing about branding was only an excuse to talk about politics, and what led Klein to re-engage with the discourse of marketing after 10 years was the emergence of Barack Obama, the first U.S. president who is also a “superbrand.”

In the new introduction to No Logo, Klein denounces Obama as little more than a neocon who has wrapped himself in the branding of truly transformative political movements. Shamelessly helping itself to the iconography of Che Guevara, the rhetorical cadences of Martin Luther King, and the “Yes We Can” slogan of Latin American migrant workers, the Obama brand is just as hollow and inauthentic, as far as Klein is concerned, as the corporate brands she X-rayed a decade before. Whenever possible, she alleges, Obama “favors the grand symbolic gesture over deep structural change.” He was happy to play the role of the “anti-war, anti–Wall Street party crasher” when running for the Democratic nomination, but promptly cut bipartisan deals “with crazed Republicans once in the White House.”

You can see where Klein is going with this. In No Logo, she argued that it is simply not enough for anti-brand activists to persuade Nike to improve its production methods or for McDonald’s to fix its environmental problems. Similarly, today it is not good enough for the most liberal president in ages to settle for half a loaf when the alternative is going hungry. In both cases, she argues, a profoundly corrupt system is left intact. Any suggestion that things might have changed, if marginally, for the better is dismissed as just more marketing spin.

Still, Klein claims to spy an ironic sort of hope in Obama’s victory. Just as the success of socially conscious branding is a sign that there is a longing out there for equality, diversity, and public space, she writes, the well of hope and expectation that Obama was able to plumb is decisive proof that there is still a tremendous appetite for social justice. That he has failed to deliver is almost beside the point: The market research is done, and all that is left is for genuine transformative social movements to exploit the niche.

This gets the order of exploitation exactly backward. A more likely consequence is something roughly parallel to what happened during the last decade in the consumer realm, where the very brand-driven corporate hegemony that No Logo so forcefully critiqued came back stronger than ever.

more...

:rofl: :rofl:

it is labeled, but the BHO-brand mosaic is taking form, shape, and substance. :-)

:patriot:

agreed or not

Fuck her.

or do you believe everything the libertarians tell you?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where she supposedly called Obama a neocon?

If so, I'd like to read it, can you link to it?

It's his supporters who need to wake up and smell the coffee. Neoliberalism is a cancer which has infected BOTH political parties.

Guantanamo=open
Iraq=not de-escalated
Afghanistan=escalated
Iran=status quo
:shrug:

Guantanamo would be closed if the Republican had not been such pusses and allowed the prisoners to be moved. The Media got involved and here we are.

Our soldiars are outside of the Green Zone and are being rotated out.

Obama said that he would focus on Afghanistan when he was running not why people are surprised.

Iran-What do you want done about Iran, there are sanctions on Iran. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have reached out to Iran many times, they are working with Russia and China to attempt to reign in Iran. What else do you want them to do? Go to War? Over what?

Going to war? No, that'd be positively Cheney like. How about normalizing relations and lifting all sanctions...maybe even build them some nuclear plants in exchange for open inspection of all their enrichment activities? You know, positive engagement?

Why don't you put the onus on Iran's leader to actively reach out his hand? They have to want to normalize relations too.

The U.S had inspectors there and the previous administration fucked up and declared Iran part of the triad of terrorist (don't remember the exact term) but that was the beginning.

I am confident that there is more going on behind the scenes.

All I see is the continuation of hard line sanctions (you know, like the neo-cons?) from our side.

That speech destroyed all intelligence links with Iran in one fell swoop. It was one of, if not the most damaging speeches given in the history of Middle East talks.

There are some that think that President Obama can snap his fingers and make this okay over night.

That is the difference between President Obama and the other one, he knows that there is protocal in communicating with different communties and countries.

The previous adminsitration was callous and careless in the words they spoke and their actions. Not really understanding Iran led to this situation.

Diplomacy will go along way if it is used properly.

to blithely now dismiss Iraq as done, over, we don't have to think or care about it anymore, is somewhat disingenuous and done for political expediency, don't you think?


Saturday, May 1, 2010
War News for Saturday, May 01, 2010
Four Turkish soldiers killed in Kurd rebel attack:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6400B420100501

Iraq: Sadr City Shaken by Bombings:http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MUMA-8529EA?OpenDocument

Iraq civilian death toll rises sharply in April:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/01/AR2010050100571.html

Officials say soldier died of heart attack:http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100501/NEWS/5010324/-1/ENT05/Officials-say-soldier-died-of-heart-attack


Reported security incidents

Baghdad:
#1: A roadside bomb wounded two civilians in the New Baghdad district, in the east of the capital, police said: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE640013.htm (Most of the below news is linked and detailed at this first link)

#2: A roadside bomb wounded a civilian in the Doura district of southern Baghdad, police said.

#3: Three policemen were killed and three people wounded in a car bomb explosions at a checkpoint in northern Baghdad on Saturday, an Interior Ministry source said. A car planted with explosive devices detonated in the afternoon while policemen were checking it at a checkpoint in the mostly Shiite neighborhood of al-Qahira, killing three policemen and wounding two others, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity. A civilian was also wounded by the blast that damaged several nearby civilian cars, the source said.


Mussayab:
#1: A roadside bomb exploded in a market and wounded three people on Friday in Mussayab, 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad, police said


Hawija:
#1: A civilian man was wounded in a hand-grenade attack by gunmen targeting a U.S. patrol southwest of Kirkuk on Friday, according to a source from the city’s Joint Coordination Center (JCC). “Unidentified gunmen hurled a hand-grenade on a U.S. patrol in al-Askari neighborhood, al-Huweija district, (65 km) southwest of Kirkuk, wounding only a civilian man who happened to be near the blast scene,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.


Mosul:
#1: Three mortar shells landed near a police headquarters in western Mosul city on Friday but left no casualties, a local security source in Ninewa said. “The mortars landed near the headquarters of an emergency police company in Nablus neighborhood, western Mosul.

#2: A police officer was killed in an improvised explosive device (IED) blast in western Mosul city on Friday, a local police source in Ninewa said. “The IED blast targeted a federal police patrol in the area of Tal al-Rimman, western Mosul, leaving an officer in the rank of captain killed,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.

#3: A civilian man was wounded in an attack with a mortar shell that landed in western Mosul city on Saturday, a local police source in Ninewa said. “The mortar landed on a house in the area of Rajm Hadeed, western Mosul, leaving the house owner wounded and the house severely damaged,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.

#4: A gunman killed a teacher as he was leaving a mosque on Friday in northern Mosul, police said.


Al Anbar Prv:
#1: Two gunmen were killed while planting an improvised explosive device (IED) in eastern al-Falluja city on Saturday, a local police source said. “The IED went off while being emplaced by gunmen on a roadside in al-Karma district, eastern Falluja, killing them instantly,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.



So, are we ahead? Did we win? Are we done? When will this end? What have we accompmlished? Is Iraq better off now 7 years later? Is the USA better off now 7 years later?

Will we ever learn?


Does anyone care?





Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

The writer offers the following:
"Similarly, today it is not good enough for the most liberal president in ages to settle for half a loaf when the alternative is going hungry. In both cases, she argues, a profoundly corrupt system is left intact."

The author should be compelled to offer some specific examples where this statement is true. I believe that a very strong argument could be made that Klein is correct when our Congress and this President can capitulate to the interests of big business in regard to healthcare when the VAST majoriy of Americans expressed a desire for something different.

The fact is that the onus is on those that trumpet Obama as a being a "liberal" to specifically offer examples of where Obama has taken a liberal path in regard to supporting and passing legislation. Further, a strong argument can also be made that in regard to the wars, Constitutional abuses and torture, we are, in fact, living through the 3rd term of GW Bush.

While wishing, hoping and praying that Obama will be a "liberal/progressive" President is all fine and good, it is simply not a reality at this point in his Presidency.

You're making broad statements about Obama not making progress.
Yet, he is closing down Guantanamo and Congress is to blame for slowing that. A majority of the prisoners have been released or are receiving a trial. He did improve standards regarding interrogations, civil liberties, and domestic suppression of dissent. He has already done more for clean energy that Clinton and Carter combined. He stopped mountaintop removal coal mining, which I would argue is the worst environmental disaster of the century. For all its flaws, he succeeded at making national health care the law of the land after many previous Presidents failed.

It's the habit of highlighting only the negative while ignoring the positive that I find irritating. It's just as ideologically disconnected as the conservative talk radio crowd. It's a counterproductive approach that only spreads cynicism. I don't believe it makes people embrace left alternatives. It makes people give up and do nothing because it promotes fatigue and the feeling that change is impossible.

I don't think it should be that difficult to criticize Obama for what he isn't doing while still acknowledging the good things that he is doing. After 30 years of criticizing worthless Presidents, I think much of the left is stuck in a rut and unable to do anything more sophisticated than always complain about the President.

but then I've always thought she was full to overflowing with shit.

think it is a mixed bag.

Wall Street and Monsanto=mostly she's right there.

what is provided here is a summary of her writing about someone else's writing written by yet another third party, so it's an opinion of an opinion written by someone with their opinion.

Seems Naomi is employing the tenets of marketing to me... :shrug:

anyone have a link to the actual introduction to "No Logo"?

I think Naomi Klein deserves that her actual words be read before we discuss it.

of checking out their site and also their "org" site and asking myself the same questions.

http://reason.org/about/faq/

I have a lot of trouble believing she would use "neocon" in her characterization.
I suspect them's "Reason's" ad libbing.

"Government and taxis ur bAD!"

That would be a great name for a band. Hell, they could even do a cover version of "Cleveland Rocks" :headbang: :evilgrin:

Their album could be titled Atlas Shat.

They could have songs titled "50s Science Professor", "Forever Stuck In The Smallbox", "I Would Have Had a Chance With Christa Miller if I Wasn't Such an Unfunny Douchenozzle", "750k and I'm a Terrible Actor" and "We'd Have a Hell of A Lot More Freedom If Everyone In the House and Senate would Drink Some Jim Jones Grape Death".

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

He is effective due to his personal skills, clever (albeit misleading) marketing of himself as transformational, a surfeit of political villains far more obvious than himself in DC, and an opposition party in full absurd cartoon-like meltdown.

He is not a full-blown neocon in my estimation, but he is a profoundly pro-corporate guardian of the status quo.

Naomi Klein (and most of the honest intellectuals of the country) recognize the utter failure and corruption of the status quo. This makes its defenders villains.

"Reform is always the enemy of revolution"

I think it's important to recognize that this perspective is where the most dogmatic critics of Obama on the left are coming from. Obama's positive actions will always be ignored or downplayed because his success is also a failure of their ideological commitment to the coming revolution, or it challenges their view that no Democratic President can ever be anything but a corporate tool. It's difficult for some people to acknowledge any positive achievement by Obama that challenges their hardened view of Democrats.

On the other hand, we can consider that all the factors that should have lead to a revolutionary upheaval were present during the Bush Presidency. It didn't happen. Progress is more likely to happen as a continuing process, as it always has throughout American history.

Asking people to suffer by rejecting health care reform, job creation, financial regulation, and climate change legislation for the sake of ideological rigidity is what I would expect from upper-middle class Marxists intellectuals. It's an easy sacrifice to make for University professors and published authors who live comfortably, but that sort prioritization of ideology over more immediate economic concerns is a primary reason why socialism has never been a successful political movement in the United States.

Obama is busy encouraging people to make change themselves and creating an environment where people's movements can flourish. My only worry is whether the left will respond with effective organizing that's more sophisticated than telling people to be unhappy with Obama.

• On his foot-dragging on not just ending DADT and DOMA but the appearance of his complete unwillingness to end them,
• Obama's continuation of the previous criminal administration's mindless, ineffective "war on terror,"" along with the seizure of ever more presidential power to justify the treatment of so-called prisoners of war,"
• Obama's health care reform that forces people to buy overpriced, inadequate health insurance from corporations dedicated to maximizing profits at the expense of sick, desperate people (a system Obama lied during the presidential campaign about wanting to change),
• Obama's disdain for public schools and public school teachers,
• Obama's continuation of Bush's repellent Office of Faith Based Initiatives and continuation of funding for ineffective abstinence "education" despite Congress's removal of it,
• Obama's coziness with rightwing, anti-gay, anti-woman evangelists,
• Obama's ever-readiness to belittle and disdain the progressives and liberals who got the vote out for him and contributed so many hours and dollars to his campaign (only to learn that corporations and Wall Street made up the bulk of Obama's campaign contributions),
• Obama's willingness to continue to despoil the environment through offshore drilling after campaigning against it...etc., etc., etc.

And Emmanuel Rahm, as noted above, Obama's choice for his Chief of Staff...big time. How deliciously ironic that after all the pummeling old-school Hillary Clinton received here during primary season, exceeded only by the deafening chorus of praise for new-school Obama, Obama chose as his COS a Bill Clinton relic.

This Democrat voted for Obama in 2008...but after the shameless backpedaling or outright reversal on so many promises, except the most troublesome ones (i.e. the deliberate ignoring of the Bush/Cheney crimes -- THAT has been strictly adhered to), I am utterly disillusioned and disgusted, and my hopes really weren't all that high. But even I didn't expect for Obama to publicly abhor his number one supporters, i.e. liberals and progressives, as he has, and to frighteningly imitate his predecessor in so many ways. I feel like I've been totally had.

while ignoring the good, as I mentioned in my comment? Some of your list is simply untrue.

Obama and Gibbs have given no indication that they're even considering backing off the repeal of DADT. I realize that some people don't like the timetable laid out, but that's no reason to lie about Obama reversing his position.

The Health Care Reform bill lays the groundwork for improvement, including allowing states to enact a single payer system. Why does Obama get all of your anger over the compromise rather than the US Senators who made it impossible to pass his original proposal?

Obama did support limited offshore drilling during the general election. Yes, he flip-flopped but it's a change he made during the election. He has made tremendous progress on the environment including stopping mountaintop removal coal mining, passing new CAFE standards, and doing more for renewable energy than Clinton and Carter combined. And I'm willing to bet he's able to reverse his support for offshore after the big accident. Don't you agree or are you convinced Obama is just an evil monster who will still support offshore because he hates the environment?

You think Obama "disdains" an awful lot of people. I suppose that's an easy claim since no one can prove or disprove what Obama's personal emotions are. I think the statement says more about you than it says about Obama.

This really doesn't have a lot to do with Obama. What if we have a system that just functions in certain ways and one man cannot do very much to change it? It is undeniable we can see a number of trends since the age of neoliberalism was ushered in during the 1970s. The last three decades have been marked by periods of stagnation and crisis, falling wages, and the immiseration of unions and working people in general. Our response to all this has been a massive increase in the availability of consumer credit, more military spending, and placing the health of our economy in the hands of Wall St entities that must play very dangerous games to maintain profitability. The idea that we must make drastic changes in the face of looming ecological crises is never entertained in national politics. So how can this system be maintained? How could it possibly be reformed in any meaningful sense? The idea that the Obama administration is even looking for incremental reforms seems wrong, in my view. On the contrary, they are desperately trying to prop this system up! Keep in mind, it's widely acknowledged that in order to have a healthy economy, we need to see 3% annual compound growth. Is that sustainable? What would it mean if we had to desperately keep this system growing 3% per year for the next 20 years? What are the ecological ramifications of that? Can you see how a 'grow or die' model might lead to a more authoritarian state?

No one is saying the revolution is imminent, just that Americans on the left need to be seriously talking about alternatives. The idea that socialist movement was never successful in the US is wrong, unless you take a very narrow view of success (ie, electoral victories). We would not have gotten the New Deal without the agitation from radicals in labor movement.

That we can't make change through the current system (like we did during the New Deal) is a reasonable argument. But when that philosophy manifests itself as always downplaying or twisting Obama's actions with a negative spin, I don't see the point. I don't believe that encourages people to take some other form of action. It makes people feel that any kind of change is impossible and hopeless, which leads to cynicism, apathy, and politically irrelevant people who don't participate at all.
Conservative talk radio hosts understand the role cynicism plays in politically immobilizing people. They use that tool often. Why doesn't the left see that? I saw many on the left ridicule Obama's theme of hope and change but Obama understands some essential principles about organizing that the cynics obviously missed.

I wrote that socialism was never politically successful. You're correct that marxists were most effective in the U.S. when they worked with others in popular movements such as labor and civil rights. Looking at it another way, they had the largest impact when they worked on the immediate concerns of working class people rather than making ideological arguments about changing the system.

while in office.

Willful ignorance? :(

Except this:

Barack Obama is the closest thing you're going to get to a progressive in the White House. I know us folks on the left don't want to hear that or believe that, but there it is. And unlike many on the left (which I'm firmly a part of), I'm still willing to give him a chance.

This doesn't mean I have to agree with President Obama on everything, because I don't. I need to start seeing some troop withdrawl from Iraq. I need to see the torture houses shuttered. I want to see the damaging Bewsh II tax cuts sunset, without fight or hem or haw. I want to see more financial regulation and less crying from bitch-ass old men with their own planes telling me how much they and their businesses will be hurt by these new rules.

It's just that people who insist that everything . . . EVERY SINGLE THING Obama DOES is wrong, regressive, corporate, "a continuation of George W" . . . it gets old. I feel these people are not living in America's present reality; or they are, and it just feels great to vent.

The likelihood of America having a progressive president (a la Dennis Kucinich or, let's be more realistic, Sherrod Brown) is slim to NONE.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the 1 . . . 2 Democratic Presidents we've had prior to Obama in 43 YEARS. Southern Christian males, both semi moderates; socially moderate but very much in line with "TEH FREE MARKETZ" dogma. This especially holds true for Clinton; while lots of jobs were created on his watch, lots of "Free Traitor" agreements also occurred under his signage. Lots of deregulation ALSO happened on his watch. You gotta wonder how many of those jobs were either very low paying that adults and students had to have two to survive or were had as a result of economic bubbles. Either way, the blue collar exodus was well underway, and the white collar job exodus began during the second Clinton term.

While Carter was never in favor of soaking the rich, at least he knew ahead of time that this hyper-consumerist push combined with cheap abundant energy and wasteful suburban pollution would never be sustainable. Any sort of progress he wanted to implement would be, of course, destroyed once the three-decade Dark Ages began.

I knew exactly what I was getting when I voted for Obama in the primaries and general, because I knew the alternative (stay at home or vote Green; yeah, thanks for the big menu, UHmericUH) was far less efficient and far more disastrous. You can go on and on all day about how no vote is a wasted vote, but when it comes right down to it, numbers matter. America cannot afford another Arch-Rightist, corpro-religious-addled Republican presidency. We've had 28 years of that already, it damn near killed us, and it's going to take at least 2 to 3 more Democratic presidents to fix it.

Progress, even an INCH, is achieved through small victories. That's all we can hope for in this country anymore. With a Democrat, you at least have a glimmer of hope that something will improve for the middle/working/poor, whether it be the job situation, their retirement, their health or their futures. With a sociopathic Republican gatekeeper, it's every sumbitch for themselves, no hope. And that party is only going to get worse and far more arch-rightist extreme as time goes on, not more moderate. These aren't your great-grandpa's Republicans.

We're never going to be wrested from corporate rule. No one is willing to get up off their asses in the millions (and that's what it will take . . . MILLIONS) and revolt against the old man cabal that runs this country. Of course, in the unlikely event we would do that, the state police and the federal military would blood-dust us. If they didn't, the mercenaries would shoot them. Local police and the National Guard . .. see, they'll SAY "we would never murder our neighbors. We are the people", but I still tend to be skeptical. How many of them would REALLY defy direct orders if millions of us gathered, shut down streets and corporate board rooms? He who hath all the gold not only maketh all the rules, they wield a hell of a lot of influence, whether it be cash or a gun to the head. Oh yeah, society and the economy would likely collapse worldwide, since so many nations are tethered to our progress and markets.

We're never going to employ the more beneficial aspects of Democratic Socialist nations like Scandanavia or much of Europe. And it's a shame, really, because all it requires are three simple items: Universal Health Care, Universal Education and a drastic improvement to our vastly inadequate Social Safety Net.

But it's not going to happen. We don't want it bad enough. We're also fighting the current and ubiquitous brainwashing of our relatives, friends, enemies and fellow citizens; most of whom believe that anything Republican is associated with strength, power, asskickery and resilience, anything Democratic is equivalent to the old Soviet Union, and anything progressive or helpful is a sign of weakness. Their numbers are great, but they're also dwindling. That's hopeful. However, "Socialism" is still a bad word even among some Democrats. "Liberal" is still a bad word. GLBT rights are still not accepted. Racism still flourishes among a slowly dying gaggle pining for the '50s and '80s. Some people still get hung up over female breasts. For all of this talk about how children are our future, we sure have left them an awful shitpile to deal with in terms of jobs and education.

We could be incredibly dangerous if we joined forces. I think it's because America allowed itself to get this bad in the first place that such a notion of true American benevolence and progression can either be achieved through decades and decades of weeding out, or an all-at-once teardown of this rotted system that would result in collapse and massive rebuild.

That is, if the ones that come out of the rubble aren't as greedy and self serving as the ones who were destroyed in it.

And especially right here:



Everything you just wrote is a very compelling reality-based OP all in its own right.

cover to this process via bipartisan consensus

imagine if, in 1999, you told the average non-goosestepping American that the GOP would endorse torture and spying on Americans, and the Dems would defend amnesty for those torturers and spies and run two Senators who think that wars of aggression are ok in '04? Or if, in 2007-08, you told the average (non-cognitively-dissonancing) voter that "The One" would give us McCaincare, nuke power, offshore drilling, continue the wars, let criminals against humanity go, and hire banksters and sworn enemies of Social Security. Hypothetically, will we see Dems endorse a national version of the AZ bill in '12 and the GOP something even worse? Will we be seeing arguments that we should support the bill's 2012 Dem writers because ZOMG, the 2012 GOP is so much worse? An attitude of blissful gratitude is no way to halt this decades-long slide.

after 9 or 22 years of being told to be pragmatic and that this is the best we've got--well, those of us to the left of Tony Blair are tired of being told to sit down and STFU

but I didn't get "blissful gratitude as a prescription" in what he wrote at all.

:shrug:

The neolibs, at least, say they feel bad about killing people to spread capitalism.

Learn what the term 'neo-con' means then get back with me... :eyes:

does that matter to you?

does it matter to you?

it sounds like you believe this article's characterization. Should you, do you think? I don't believe it for a second, it doesn't sound like something Klein would write.

:yourock:

to say this? Exactly none. duh.

I don't sup on hate and ugly bitterness.

I'm perfectly aware that Obama isn't perfect. He's a mixed bag. You simply hate him as much as slobbered over the perfect johhny hedgefund- even after all his sleazy shit was exposed.

pathetic as always. and I do mean always, earth mommy.

by the people and the country and stopped his ass kissing of corporate america.

But Obama is NOT doing the right thing. He cares only about corporate america and how much money they can throw his way.

Obviously you are too starry eyed and drooling over him to acknowledge the truth.


FYI-My first choice was Gore back in '08, but he didn't run.

I came to support Edwards reluctantly because he wasn't who I really wanted. I actually liked Elizabeth a helluva lot more than I ever liked John and that's who I was really supporting all along.

When the truth came out about Edwards and Hunter, and he chose that skanky beeotch over Elizabeth, I was done with him because I saw him for who and what he really is.



At least I admit when I'm wrong-unlike egotistical and pompous you.

sure you would.

you even attack the man for crying at the funeral of a civil rights legend.

and I have never seen even an iota of evidence that you support him when he does the right thing. Ever.

You simply froth with ugly hate, earth mommy.

pharma giants, insurance companies, the military industrial complex, monsanto, big oil and big coal?

Who the fuck have I screwed over like that? Answer: NO ONE.

But it's ALL GOOD when Obama does it because YOU like him.

What a crock of shit you spew!


Your disgusting, vile and pathetic attacks on me show who you really are Cali: someone who hates humanity and the good people on this country who have been shit upon repeatedly by the powers that be and are told to like it or else.

And you call me the hater, what a fucking joke!

Look in the mirror.

I oppose some of Obama's policies and support others.

I don't buy some simplistic narrative. earth mom.

oh and your post is just more sicko frothing at the mouth, earth mom.

after bushco but a zero when she criticizes President Obama?

but at the same time realize that what he's DOING right now (gay rights, healthcare, energy policy) is setting the foundation for all the transformative movements to come. Change, as it happens in increments, is in the long run more effective and lasting. Look at the civil rights movement. That being said, I think it's hard to deny the big money (corporate) influences that guide agendas and select our Presidents.

Both are from months ago and this was covered extensively here at the time I believe.

Probably not among the content there, although I am still reading it.

More likely in reference to one of these:


For Obama, No Opportunity Too Big To Blow
By Naomi Klein - December 21st, 2009

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/07/naomi-klein-oppose-state-not-people


Naomi Klein nails brand "Obama"
by: Paul Rosenberg
Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 08:00

http://openleft.com/diary/16231/naomi-klein-nails-brand-obama



But it almost assuredly is in refernce to this article by her and I did not find the word 'neocon,' anywhere in it.

Naomi Klein on how corporate branding has taken over AmericaTen years after the publication of No Logo, Naomi Klein switches her attention from the mall to Barack Obama and discovers that corporate culture has taken over the US government

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/16/naomi-klein-branding-obama-america



I like to read that actual content, not some third or fourth hand that takes liberties with the actual text.

So can someone tell me what is wrong with her analysis, and please try to do so without using slurs.




Thanks in advance

rdb

On this point, I truly disagree. Obama's not a neocon.

However, I feel that he must stop trying to kiss up to the Republicans. The Republicans cannot be negotiated with. All they do is ruin the American landscape with their draconian measures. Stop praising Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Talk about the virtues of FDR and start talking about New Deal policies. This is the time of "Fireside Chats" and getting a government for the people and by the people.

He's got to realize this. And start to govern not from the right of center, but more of the left.

I believe that there is still too much of a cult of personality in this country when it has to do with rightist figures and it has to stop.

Or else, it will seem to the American citizenry that rightist values are best. After eight years of Bush, these "values" nearly destroyed the country. Mr. Obama must know that.

she didn't call him a neocon.

Can a journalist call things as she sees them, or must she be subject to abject ridicule, lies, misrepresentations, all the trappings of what occurs when the real neocons focus their attention on a perceived enemy.

And why are there so many DLC types not seeing that much of what she lists are facts?




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

However, her articles about him contained some really strong words about squandered opportunities. I think then, she presents a valid point that doesn't only deal with the power of the POTUS; it is a polemic that we as a party must discuss if we are to find a vision that will carry us into the the 21st century.

It's not so much about whether the presidency is wedged between corporate entities.

It is whether we the people (and more closely, the people who are members of the Democratic party), are going to fight for leadership that truly deals with our interests instead of placeholders who turn into loudmouths on cable television.

Although I think that Mr. Obama is a tactical, deliberate and meticulous thinker who holds his cards close to the vest in a very caustic period in American history, I believe that he is held back by too much caution. Despite the great pressure that he has on his shoulders, he must stop at least one time in his tenure as the leader of this country and put his foot down.

Frankly, I don't know when that day will be, but it certainly gets tiresome with all the praise going to Republicans while Democrats continue to be put on the back burner.

Something has to give.

Other than that, I believe that Mr. Obama is doing a great job in rather dire circumstances. He is the type of person we need at this time. He just has to be a bit bolder.

We'd be so much closer to revolution without the "enemy reformists" who fought for Black civil rights.

And we're so much closer to revolution than European nations with those "enemy reformist" labor laws.

--Reform and revolution have a much more complicated relationship than "always" or "never". Sometimes reformist victories give confidence to the working class, sometimes complacency. Working for reforms brings experience to organizers and helps build solidarity. You have to do something when revolution ain't around the corner (and molotov cocktails just get you put in prison for a decade or so....)

People seem not to notice who published this, and what their agenda is.

karmadillo, is your headline something Klein actually said, or is it the way that "Reason" paraphrases her? Because it's not in quotes, and your headline makes it look like a quote.

Sadly too many people have gotten caught up in Brand Obama to truly see what his actions are doing to us as a country.

Clinton was another one who was branded as the Democratic, liberal savior, but who turned out to simply be one more corporatist instead.

There are two opinions in the OP: Klein's opinion and the critique of Klein's opinion. Everyone is agreeing or disagreeing without specifying which one they are agreeing or disagreeing with!

She's a Canadian.

:applause: