Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
From No 1 Fan to Critic-in-Chief, Damon Takes Aim at Obama
The President has rolled over to Wall Street completely, the star tells Tom Teodorczuk
Few of Barack Obama's celebrity supporters at the 2008 US presidential election were as committed to his cause as the Oscar-winning actor Matt Damon. Rather than merely support Mr Obama in an online video, Damon, one of Hollywood's highest-profile liberal activists, campaigned for the Democratic nominee in Florida. Not content with that, he provided one of the most cutting insults of the campaign when he described the Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin as "really terrifying... like something out of a bad Disney movie".
Matt Damon on Obama: "I think he's rolled over to Wall Street completely. (photo: AP) Damon, 40, star of the Bourne spy trilogy and two new films, The Adjustment Bureau and True Grit, is scrupulously polite and mild-mannered when we meet in a Manhattan hotel. But laying bare his disenchantment with the Obama administration, he doesn't hide how let down he feels. President Obama's record on the economy particularly rankles. "I think he's rolled over to Wall Street completely. The economy has huge problems. We still have all these banks that are too big to fail. They're bigger and making more money than ever. Unemployment at 10 per cent? It's terrible."
What has proved to be a challenging time in office for President Obama culminated in significant Democratic reversals to the Republicans at last November's mid-term elections. Many of his star backers have either kept quiet about politics or, as in the case of George Clooney, Damon's close friend and co-star in the Ocean's trilogy, remained steadfastly loyal. Not Damon. He is upset that Mr Obama, who promised to "spread the wealth around", has extended the Bush tax cuts and that the inequality gap has widened.
"They had a chance that they don't have any more to stand up for things," he says. "They've probably squandered that at this point. They'll probably just make whatever deals they can to try to get elected again."
Damon appears so disillusioned that, playing devil's advocate, I ask whether he is considering voting Republican. "Good God, no! I just got a 3 per cent tax cut. Do you think I'm going to start a small business with that money? You're out of your mind if you think so. I'm going to put it in the bank. So is every other guy that makes the kind of money I make. I don't think that's what's best for the country. I think a stronger middle class makes for a stronger country."
As well as the economy, Mr Obama's record on education repels him. "They have to get people who actually know about educating kids in positions of power. Now they're trying to get business people to come and manage schools like they're factories. It's not going to work."
Damon says that he's excited to be playing a politician for the first time in The Adjustment Bureau, a sci-fi romance. But he has no intention of seeking office. "There's probably a problem with somebody who wants to be a politician in the first place."
That said, he does admire Bill Clinton. Damon based his portrayal of LaBoeuf, the loquacious ranger in True Grit, on the former president. "There's a little bit of Clinton's charm thrown in. I could listen to him talk forever."
A 2007 Forbes magazine study, linking actors' salaries to box office revenue, found Damon to be Hollywood's most profitable actor, but the most extraordinary thing about him in person is how ordinary he is. He brushes aside an attempt by a publicist to serve him coffee, insisting on pouring it himself. Instead of a celebrity actress or model spouse, he is married to Luciana Barroso whom he met while she was bartending in Miami. They live in New York with their four children.
How the big names turned against the President
Robert Redford
Actor and director
"I believe he's a really good person. He's smart. And he does represent what the country needs most now, which is change."
July 2008 "President Obama has certainly done more than any other president to advance clean energy, yet he never seemed to roll up his sleeves, bring lawmakers to the table and work to rally the American public behind it."
July 2010
Angelina Jolie
Actress
"Obama is fighting for international justice, he wants to intervene militarily in genocides abroad, and he wants to close down Guantanamo Bay."
November 2008
"How is Obama's approach to Sudan an evolution of justice? And when the administration says it intends to work to 'improve the lives of the people of Darfur', I would like to know what that means, besides the point that their lives could hardly get worse."
December 2009
Maria Shriver
Journalist
"He is about empowering women, African Americans, Latinos, older people, young people. He's about empowering all of us."
February 2008
"While I am confident that Obama never intended to offend anyone [with a joke about the Special Olympics], the response his comments have caused... demonstrates the need to continue to educate the non-disabled community."
March 2009
Spike Lee
Film director
"Everything's going to be affected by this seismic change in the universe."
June 2008
"Before this [Gulf of Mexico] catastrophe, our President was in favour of offshore drilling. And when this thing happened, he backtracked real quick."
August 2010
63 Comments so far
Show AllHey, I don't see Michael Moore's name on the list. (sarcasm)
And I don't agree with Redford saying Obama has done more for clean energy than any other president. President Carter did more.
Carter attempted more, perhaps....
"That said, he does admire Bill Clinton. Damon based his portrayal of LaBoeuf, the loquacious ranger in True Grit, on the former president. "There's a little bit of Clinton's charm thrown in. I could listen to him talk forever."
Good God, Matt. Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal which allowed the too big to fail banks and insurance companies rape the economy and the working people. He gave us NAFTA and GATT which helped business export our jobs. Sure, he's glib and charming, which assisted him in his rape of the country.
Yes, this is pathetic! This is the best the power liberals can do as this country is destroyed by the plutocracy? F*** all of you - if you cannot get more radical than this - with all the freakin money and media access you have - then you are all a joke!
Is this comment the most constructive thing you can come up with?
Pretty infectious and inspiring vibe you're broadcasting.
I think that it IS constructive, because it encouraged the reader to quit getting their inspiration from stupid rich Hollywood liberals, and start doing the inspiring themselves - starting with their neighbors.
I fnd the comments of Mr. Damon to be encouraging. I also find the continual tearing down of all potential allies a trademark of leftists. Self destruction seems to be built in.
Your potential allies are your neighbors. Not some clueless Hollywood star.
Think globally act locally for sure. But is one to refuse to listen to a person because he lives a thousand miles away? Five hundred? Fifty? So silly, really.
Damon seems to me to be far,far less clueless than do you, at least on this topic.
I think he's purely talking about communication style. He's an actor, and he used some aspect of Clinton's communication style to portray a character.
You can't really use "He signed NAFTA and GATT" to portray a character. You can use "glib and charming."
Matt can only make $23 million a year because he doesn't criticize Clinton.
Actors, schmactors! Hollywood, schmollywood!
Yawn, yawn, yawn...
Why don't those of us *who don't consider ourselves right-wingers* understand that celebrity is the megaphone that the masses of Americans listen to?
Who cares that the messenger isn't who we the intelligentsia listen to? It's who the rest of America will listen to, because the rest of America..
*sure as shellac doesn't listen to the anti-right intelligentsia*.
* * *
This is good news folks. The message is spreading to areas outside CD and Truthout.
Isn't that a good thing?
Pretty weak though, don't you think Salusa?
Ya, it's a start I guess but it's starting like a snail going uphill.
And what about this:
"I just got a 3 per cent tax cut... I'm going to put it in the bank."
Ya, good for you Matt, way to share the wealth.
Actually, when the Hollywood Liberals open their mouths, all they do is further the "rich liberal" stereotype. They only damage the reputation of the US left.
They do? Is the image and reputation of the left so tentative and fragile? I've been quite proud of the message and words of a number of 'Hollywood Liberals', probably about as often as I've been embarrassed by their declarations. They are human beings after all, and acting is not such a wretched occupation as history would make it. We owe much to actors and story tellers imho.
Penn, Robbins, Clooney, Sarandon, DiCaprio, Hannah, and many more names I could list, have stood up for things I believe in on a number of occasions, and each time I thank them for it.
Do I blame *them* for not successfully ending the destruction and insanity? Of course not.
I think you are attempting to wade upstream, against a tide of supposed leftists who think political action means shooting themselves in the foot by alienating everyone not themselves.
re: "Pretty weak though, don't you think Salusa?"
Times like these certainly deserve more resounding indictments and demands for justice. Weak, but not nothing.
re: "it's a start I guess but it's starting like a snail going uphill."
I wish I could say there was more of a groundswell of actual public involvement and activist spirit. Ultimately stars and 'leaders' can take us only so far. So again, where is the general public that is supposedly feeling so pinched by the contemporary predicament? Why are *they* being so passive?
While I will only endure so much adulation of public figures and celebrities, I likewise will only accept so much criticism and condemnation of them as well. They are neither the collective embodiment of our victories, or our failures as a nation.
So, better Damon does something, than nothing.
Is it big news? Not really.
Cheers
"So again, where is the general public that is supposedly feeling so pinched by the contemporary predicament? Why are *they* being so passive?"
I can see that. Yes some of the general public are ignorant and passive but others are scared. Scared of losing their jobs and ability to support their families, scared of what real change may bring. Some of these may be irrational fears but they are no less real for the people feeling them. Celebrities are insulated from some of that... Matt Damon doesn't have to fear for his livelihood and even if he did say something to attract the ire of his industry (short of a racist slur I don't know what that would be) he is still a multimillionaire.
But it is something, I'll give you that.
His noting of that tax cut and the lack of use to which it will be put is an example of why tax cuts for the rich are a fraud. You really should think harder and post slower..
How do we find out what America's thinking?
That's right, it's time for Ask A Celebrity!
Today we're talking with Charlie Sheen!!!!
Charlie, what do you think of Obama?
He's still covering up 9/11 man. He should get off the coverup the way I've gotten off coke.
But Charlie, I saw you snorting just before we started taping.
I'm sick of being attacked in the press!!!
Help...
And that's all for today's Ask A Celebrity!
This is one of the most pathetic things I've read.
I was stupid to think some of these actors might have to ability to keenly assess the inner workings of anyone.
Apparently, being blatant tools like Obama and Clinton cannot be deciphered by these performers of the typical.
Utterly unbelievable utterings.
Arrest the CEOs, VPs, Majority Shareholders of Halliburton, Raytheon, KBR, BlackWAter, and all the Military Industrial Complex/Conflict Zone Reconstruction Corporate Pirates and all their Lapdog Politicians, ie Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove,... Perle, Wolfowitz, etc and now Obama, Clinton, etc before they destroy and fully sell out America and continue desecrating the Office of the President of the United States of America and colluding with their NWO buddies and destroy our world.
Then we will start to see true prosperity and protection of our world. This would set the precedent to charge and arrest all dictators around the world and we could move to a truly cooperatively organized and prosperous world.
U.S., I do agree with you but fear it will never happen.
I must say thanks to Mat for standing up.
These statements that have come from these celebrities regarding what Obama has done are quite tepid especially compared to what so many entertainers had said about G. W. Bush when he was in office.
Damon has finally come to his senses, although he should have known better after authoring that great screed in Good Will Hunting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOtVg05JLPc) and name-dropping Zinn and Chomsky. I guess the Hollywood system completely captures you in short order. He did narrate "Inside Job" where the greatest financial crimes in history as well as Obama's continuity with Bush were laid bare.
Celebrities are all about the world of celebrity, because they really don't know anything else. A few of the more "socially conscious" ones like Damon, Redford, Jolie, Spike Lee, Brad Pitt (who has helped a lot of the Katrina victims in N.O. with housing issues in particular), are able to get outside the celebrity box now and then to show some compassion for victims of hideous injustice everywhere. But they can't completely remove themselves from that coccooned world of luxury and media power enough to do any more than bring some sympathy to the table for the rest of us. They can't possibly risk their positions of power within the big corrupt scheme of things, since that would mean risking their careers, wealth, notoriety and celebrity itself.
They're as trapped by their celebrity as we are by the duopolistic electoral system. In a culture ruled by nothing but money, there's no way out for anyone except amassing a lot of money, where we can then look out on the powerless toiling majority and show some . . . compassion.
But neither Damon, Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon will save us any more than Oprah will. It's nice that Damon is capable of being as honest as his fame will allow, but we must learn how to organize ourselves to combat the monster of capitalism that lies behind all of Obama's betrayals and lies, and all the lies and corruption of this whole rotten system imprisoning us all.
Explain to me how someone worth tens of millions of dollars is risking their wealth?
If they can make 3% interest a year on 10 million their money is making $300K a year and they don't even need to get off the couch. No, they are not risking their wealth.
I never said they were risking their wealth, so I don't need to explain anything. Maybe you need to read more carefully?
While it's nice to hear Damon be public about this, this is the truest thing he said:
"They had a chance that they don't have any more to stand up for things," he says. "They've probably squandered that at this point. They'll probably just make whatever deals they can to try to get elected again."
Of course, I would argue most strenuously that both good ol' Bill in his day, and definitely Barack made deals to get elected long before they actually campaigned. Matt needs to read Paul Street's excellent article and all the footnotes and links provided, and then pass it on to his friend George. Maybe then they'll get the picture and not be besot after some neatly-package candidate in the future. And let's face it, when it came to packaging Barack has to be our owners' proudest achievement. Clinton had a few issues with his libido that screwed the pooch more than enough times, although it did work out in the end for them, and it led us down the rosy path to GW.
Can you give the link to the Paul Street article.
Thanks
I wouldn't call this quote from Spike Lee that sharp, but I do wonder what he would say today now that Barack is giving the green light to offshore drilling once again in a big way, and by the time August of 2010 Obama's deference to BP was beyond sickening.
"Before this [Gulf of Mexico] catastrophe, our President was in favour of offshore drilling. And when this thing happened, he backtracked real quick."
The Hollywood contingent is still pretty mild, although I can't imagine the left of disgust Redford must feel. He hit the nail on the head with his comment. Yep, Barack does talk a good line, but when it comes to action ... let's put it this way -- if he's not struck dumb all of a sudden he does exactly the opposite.
He lived next to Howard Zinn in Cambridge. Matt and Ben Affleck reflect the thinking of this great humanist.
Howard Zinn didn't live in Cambridge.
Academic career
Zinn was Professor of History at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia from 1956 to 1963, and Visiting Professor at both the University of Paris and University of Bologna.
Fresh from writing two books about his research, observations, and participation in the Civil Rights movement in the South, Zinn accepted a position at Boston University in 1964. His classes in civil liberties were among the most popular at the university with as many as 400 students subscribing each semester to the non-required class. A Professor of Political Science, he taught at BU for 24 years and retired in 1988.
"He had a deep sense of fairness and justice for the underdog. But he always kept his sense of humor. He was a happy warrior," said Caryl Rivers, journalism professor at Boston University. Rivers and Zinn were among a group of faculty members who in 1979 defended the right of the school's clerical workers to strike and were threatened with dismissal after refusing to cross a picket line.
from Wiki
I do not know whether Zinn lived in Cambridge, or who lived next door. But is it not possible that he did live there considering his 24 years at BU?
I really think we should push for a new kind of election supporting less corruptible leaderless democracy ... very high turnout with reticent, selective voting. We plainly see that people all through the middle east want democracy, those of us in the US have watched our democracy perverted by plutocracy but we have the seed of what others are willing to die for.
The media and most of its beautiful faces are obviously not communicating real answers to pressing problems, so let's take a page from Gandhi's book and weave our own election. While Obama and that ilk spend billions of free-speech corporatist dollars convincing us endless war and environmental destruction are good for biz and our jobs, clear thinking people hijack the system and evolve toward real democracy, for free.
How?
Selective, reticent voting with huge turnout of voting age people, that means most everybody registers to vote and goes to their polling place on voting day.
We do not vote for Obama or other war plutocrats ... only vote for clear thinkers who are more interested in survival of humanity than scamming a fast buck. Also vote on specific ballot issues.
What does this accomplish?
After the next election, either Sarah or the demorat wins with say 24.1 to 23.9 percent of the vote. Now the plutocrat emperor really does have no clothes, and it's plain for all to see; if we had used the election to focus 100 trillion gazillion gigahertz human intelligence, we could have used our democracy to evolve a step or two, and perhaps extend human survival a couple of extra decades. When the next election rolls around, we can work out who we should write in for free, or whatever the mega gazillion gigahertz figures out is necessary for human evolution to proceed to the next level.
Interesting post synthesizing many ideas. But how do you persuade most voters to do this? Most of them are intoxicated by the idea of "betting on the winning horse" or, at least, losing in the company of a large group. Personally, I voted for Obama/Biden because of the fear of McCain/Palin coupled with the absence of Cynthia McKinney on my state's ballot.
Clearly spoken. I also voted for the current president, for the same reason you did.
Yet, take a breath, look in honest retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight; maybe a few less have died than under republicans, but if you are a college student in Honduras or a wolf in the Rocky Mountains, is there really that much difference? If you are middle class with an income falling in real dollars since 1970, has there been an iota of difference? If you are on social security and the smiling president tells you cost of living has not increased so you won't get a cost of living increase, will you believe the lying cheating smile and vote for war, snake oil, smoke and mirrors?
There are millions of voters out of the less than half who do vote who will have the courage to let whichever backroom candidate has the most ad money win, without their vote, if they believe they are building the next step in democracy, and they are not alone. The more than half of the population who don't even bother to vote, these are the people who are spurned for being lazy but are in fact mostly not interested in a game of false democracy paid for by plutocrats. This is a gigantic body of people who worry about their family's future as much as anyone else, it is not welfare queens driving pink cadillacs - not one whit.
If one fourth of those who don't usually vote are convinced to vote reticently and selectively, and one or two percent of regular voters are moved to join them, then there will be numerically greater number voting none of the above. This is how we progress toward the next level. Let the chips fall wherever they may, the tally will be 23.9, 24.1 and at least 26+ for none of the above. From that day forward the world will be a different place, the US will have helped humanity evolve to the next level.
"...the tally will be 23.9, 24.1 and at least 26+ for none of the above. From that day forward the world will be a different place, the US will have helped humanity evolve to the next level."
Well, not exactly, though I agree with your overall viewpoint, which is well stated. But in the voting scenario you project, whoever wins that 24.1 % WINS the election. It's the fatal flaw of this winner-take-all system. The 26%+ were merely abstainers, unless they were able to vote for a third party candidate, which they never will be because the duopoly consistently locks out any such possibility, with indispensable assistance from the MSM. That 26% have caught on that money and nothing else drives this system, so they refuse to participate in the ongoing fraud. If only 3% vote for either wing of the Business Party, one or the other still takes office and commences governing solely in the interests of the corporations who funded and own them.
Yes, you are correct, one of the backroom parties will win by the slim margin they always do, and both will continue to serve their immortal corporate masters.
The 26%+, however, are much more than mere abstainers; they have established that leaderless democracy could have won and can win in the future, without a talking head, or any money.
Even though we don't have much time before severe ecological disruption reaches a possible irreversible tipping point, we need to remain calm enough to take a longer view. The current president is a perfect example of the problem of voting for a leader when what the nation really needs is someone to keep the potholes filled and the schools painted. The first US revolution was accompanied by the printing press, now we have the internet, an improved method of disseminating information and distilling human intelligence so that problems can be identified and solutions agreed upon in cyberspace. We cannot yet know what the form of leaderless democracy is because humanity has not yet given birth to it; even so, we know that leaders are perverted by the corporatist system and we can work on evolution of democracy to a new level knowing without doubt that most mammals will soon be extinct if we do not succeed.
My vote is for Matt. I think he was very brave to say what he felt he needed to say. How many of us could or can do that…especially if our employers might over hear what we had to say. In this climate, he could be jeopardizing his career.
Just because some celebrities have become wealthy by their own “works”, it is NOT for them to bail US out with their “earnings”. We have to do that ourselves for ourselves and that means we go after the crooks that got us here. We don't punish those who also work for a living. Haven't you learned that lesson yet?
Divide and conquer. It works everytime...but hey trolls ...when they get through with you they'll toss you aside just like used ass wipe.
Divide and conquer? Uhm sorry I only buy that when they're dividing poor and middle class working stiffs. They don't need to divide us from the rich and famous, the chasm is already there.
F*ck Hollywood and its trash culture!
And f*ck the celebrity cults.
It is a sad state of affairs that so many people are all wrapped up with the likes of Charlies Sheen.
Just because so many folks read People magazine and the like does not require one's giving in to this toxic culture. As we know from Nazi Germany, millions of people can be wrong.
I reject the lowest common denominator approach to political matters, or to anything at all, for that matter.
I suppose I give people more credit than some of the commentators above in the thread.
Odd that you claim to "give people more credit" yet leap savagely upon someone because he lives and works in Hollywood. Damon seems committed and an ally. You, not so much I fear.
Obama: Change...that I can put in my re-election fund, buddy, can you spare some?
"How the big names turned against the President:"
"Turn against??? The criticism of these Hollywood liberals is barely perceptible - and still revolve around utterly petty issues compared to the brutal wars on the Afghan and Pakistani people, and the repeal of the 20th century underway.
What people should have paid attention to, celebrities or not, was who o pledged american support for in his 2008 campaign. I heard him do that for american corporations and the izraeli public affairs committee. That was enough to make me realize that there would be no 'change' for the people and no change in the previous administrations. I voted nader.
What I came to realize is that from the previous 2 fuck ups of the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 was that instead of another openly flagrant fraudulent election of 2008, it would be easier to get a person who would attract the most votes and being a black mulatto, o fit the bill. I don't know how he was picked or who picked him but certainly he fit or agreed to whatever was put to him. And if that isn't enough, o's actions, to me, have certainly proven his complicity in carrying out the previous administration's agenda going as far back as reagan's. Meaning he had no intentions of 'changes to believe in'.
To me another hint as to what the 2008 election was about was the quick paring down of the candidates to just 3 for either party while the other were 'de-selected' by the msm who ran and controlled all the debates and/or interviews and pronouncements of those remaining candidates. The closer to 2008 the more the people running were ever more quickly culled out.
Be that as it may, since we have been in presidential campaign mode now since the end of the 2010 election, it will not be surprising to me to see the same thing happen again going into 2012. And as I put it before elsewhere, I am not sure how the department of voter fraud will handle this but somehow they will get the person they want as president elected and it could just as well be the 2000 supreme court appointment or the 2004 Ohio fraud or some other state voter fraud but it will happen.
"To me another hint as to what the 2008 election was about was the quick paring down of the candidates to just 3 for either party while the other were 'de-selected' by the msm who ran and controlled all the debates and/or interviews and pronouncements of those remaining candidates. The closer to 2008 the more the people running were ever more quickly culled out."
Just another "reality show". At least that's how it struck me.
I know, only it is played out as a detriment to the country when a subverted msm does not promote and broadcast what would help people to make better decisions but instead leaves people feeling razzle-dazzled.