He’s an opportunist, mostly supported by the financial institutions. He had no positions on anything. He’s very intelligent. If you look at his program, almost no substance.Change, hope, what’s that? I mean, he had some policies, but it was almost certain that he would give them up instantly, which he did. On the health programs he did say some words about national health care, and so on, but as soon as he had a chance to get in and give it all to insurance companies, okay. (via)
For the record, Chomsky voted Green but if he lived in a swing state would have “held his nose” and voted for Obama rather than “the alternative, which was worse.”
What I love reading about now is how the Republicans – that is, the governmental arm of business interests – are searching for the correct narrative to embrace in the upcoming election, the angle that will give them an edge and possibly return them to the executive branch. For example, Republicans seem to be dismissive of Huckabee’s late “misspeaking” about Obama’s childhood in Kenya, which never happened. They have decided that attacking him as a foreign “other” with an anti-Americanism born of anti-Colonialism is perhaps too rife with holes, and that they must attack from a different perspective. The entire election is theater, they understand, and they must discover the correct emotional resonance that will attract the largest number of supporters. The issues are immaterial – jobs? Education? One minute teachers are the most undervalued heroes in the country, and the next they’re overpaid layabouts. What Chomsky’s saying here, I think, is that the Democrats are in the same business.