Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
New Film Tells Unreported Story of Obama’s Election
“Barack Obama, People’s President” Describes Techniques That The Obama Administration Is Now Using To Win Support For Its Agenda, And Can Be Used To Hold Him Accountable
The election of Barack Obama may be long over, but the campaign for
change is still underway. For the first time in American history, a
president is using the techniques he deployed in running for office as
a candidate in calling for deeper change.
And, no surprise, this significant political development is barely being covered in a media that loves to punditize, poll public opinion, and debate policy options in a top-down way. By "covering" politics in this way, our mass media is missing the most innovative bottom -up grassroots effort in recent memory,
I know about this because as a journalist and filmmaker, I set out to document just how Obama won the election. That story, told in the film "Barack Obama, People's President" (slated for DVD release later this month by ChoiceMedia.net) documents the online and on the ground techniques that were used to win the highest office in the land.
The President is now using those same techniques, built around an impressive thirteen million name email list, to keep his organizers and supporters involved in backing his legislative agenda. This is the biggest mass lobbying effort of all time.
While his principal campaign advisor David Axelrod joined the White House staff at a high level, his campaign manager David Plouffe set about converting a campaign apparatus into a legislative army. As MoveOn.Org advisor David Fenton explains in our film, "It's an institutionalized mass level automated technological community organizing that has never existed before and it is a very, very powerful force."
They have converted the campaign website, BarackObama.com, and renamed it Organizing for America. It encouraged visitors to call Congress to support the President's budget. And like the campaign, it sends out emails, text messages and uses social networking technologies. It organizes volunteers to canvass door to door like they did in the campaign. The first time out, they garnered nearly a quarter million signatures.
Andrew Rasiej of the personal Democracy Forum elaborates:
"He knows who is giving him money, who's voted for him. He can now reach out to these people and ask them to help him to pass his legislative agenda. Those same people can call their congressmen and say we'll support you for reelection if you vote for Obama's legislation. We will give you money if you support Obama's legislation. It's a very powerful group that is actually the most powerful grassroots organization ever built in American history."
The film "People's President" shows how all of this - including use of Meet-up technologies like FaceBook, MySpace and Twitter were used as organizing tools by the campaign.
Rasiej cites the ongoing potential:
"It's a citizens lobby! And not only can Obama as president go over the heads of congress to speak to the American public, he can go now between their legs and go underneath Congress to the American public and the American public can do the same back and that's created a new power structure in the American politics, where the citizens can actually participate and not rely on the old (abstract) system of lobbyists, special interests and only those who have money."
There is also the possibility, as political theorist Benjamin Barber told us, the young people who backed Obama can use these same techniques and web platforms to challenge him to stay on track:
"There are websites of young people who are deeply involved in the campaign who talk to one another, and now it would be very interesting because now that Obama's President, they will find that websites and some horizontal campaigns of young people involved with him, now looking at him critically. And using the web to challenge him, to live up to what these young people believed he promised them and so on."
This is significant. The progressive critics of Obama, disappointed by his appointments and some of his cautious policies, have to go beyond railing in print or crying in their beer. They have to reach out to the grassroots army that assured his election. This means being willing to dialogue with liberals and younger people who don't label their politics. Reminding them of the role they played in a historic election may be one way to do that - to appeal to the instincts that led them to engage in the campaign for "change." There's no need to deify Obama - but there is a imperative to reenergize his base.
It is hard to remember that two years earlier Obama was barely known, registering on the radar screen for just 10% of voters. He was also hardly a brand name as a first term Senator who spent more time in state politics in Illinois than on the national stage. Moreover, he was young and a man of color - not qualities that usually prevail in a presidential arena which tends to draw far older, far whiter, and far more centrist candidates. The thought that he would beat frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the primaries was, quite frankly, unthinkable to most of the elite.
And yet he prevailed, as he used a phrase appropriated from labor organizer and Latino legend Caesar Chavez. Obama turned the farm workers Spanish language slogan "Si Se Puede" into "Yes We Can." Rather than focus on specific political issues, he built a campaign on the promise of "Hope." Rather than just rely on traditional fundraising - although by the end, he was plush with it - he reached out over the internet for smaller donations from millions of donors.
Few in the major media gave him a chance, but he was not discouraged because he had created his own grassroots media operation using sophisticated organizing and social networking techniques to build a bottom-up movement, not the usual top-down apparatus. While his campaign ran the show, he encouraged independent initiatives including citizen-generated media, music videos, personalized websites, twittering and texting, etc..
This is the new direction our politics has taken. It is a story that may be somewhat threatening to old media - and older activists - who prefer a one to many approach to communication, as opposed to forging a more interactive empowering platform. There is no question that young people - especially those mobilized by Obama - prefer online media and that choice is making it harder and harder for traditional outlets to sustain their influence and, in some cases, even their organizations. Old media may be on the way out.
This is why our film is, in my mind, so important, not just as a record of how Obama won and what happened in 2008, but in what will happen, can happen, and is happening in the future. This is why I believe its critical for Americans to see it - and others in the world as well - to recognize how Obama represents more than just another politician, but a whole new approach to politics. That old adage is worth remembering: "It's not the ship that makes the wave, it's the motion of the ocean."
Obama, for all his shortcomings, which are becoming more obvious by the day, has pioneered the way change must be won - not by people on the top, but by all of us. It remains for "us" to hold him accountable. We live in a culture of amnesia - it is important to learn the lessons of the recent past.



46 Comments so far
Show AllSchechter should rename his film "How Obama Co-opted and then Betrayed Us."
Yeah,
however Obama said during his campaign that he would bomb Pakistan, escalate in Afghanistan, give Israel 30BIL in extra military hardware, turn a blind eye to the abuses of the Bush regime.
I share Howard Zinn's opinion: I did not vote for Obama because I supported his policy platform, I voted for him because the corrupt two-party system left me no choice.
Just like always, we will be presented with another dilemma in 2012: Obama or someone like Gingrinch/Palin. What a great choice that will be eh?
You had a choice to vote for a third party....win or lose...you had the choice.
sure we did, those of us few that were aware of alternatives.
Unfortunately most people only see the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ads and the domination of the two Corporate-sponsored parties. Any other parties don't have a snowball's chance and we know it. The winner takes all, zero sum game also ensures that.
"I voted for him because the corrupt two-party system left me no choice. Just like always, we will be presented with another dilemma in 2012 . . ."
Already we have no chance in 2012? Four years from now? Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!! What do you tell a person who's been diagnosed with illness? Just die? You have no chance?
At the very least you could have the decency and common sense to keep your mouth shut. Or, is it your intention to undercut the efforts of those who will work hard to promote a more progressive candidate in 2012?
We must all realize that every voice claiming progressives have no chance is magnified 1000 times by corporate media and used to justify their non-coverage of progressive candidates.
Compare that to the hard right-wingers' approach. They organize web posts, radio call-ins, letters and emails to newspapers and TV news programs . . . all with the goal of amplifying their minority status and presenting themselves as a majority, when they are not. Yet, they get corporate media coverage! And, often with comments like "you won't believe the number of emails I've received (from the right) on this issue."
Progressives, on the other hand, ARE the majority. Remember the several "blind taste tests" on the web during the Democratic primary in 2007? They revealed that a majority of people chose positions on the issues that more closely resembled Dennis Kucinich's positions than those of any other presidential candidate! The people are already with us! So stop blocking the bandwagon before it even has a chance to get rolling!
btw, in 2008 I supported Kucinich, than Edwards, then Hillary (who's Senate voting record was far more progressive than Obama's). In November I voted for the best candidate on the ballot: Ralph Nader.
I supported Dennis K as well and look how far he got, he was smeared and blacklisted by the MSM and DNC. Buy ignoring the corruption of the winner takes all, corporate sponsored billion-dollar election system, we are setting ourselves up for a disappointment once again. Just like in 92 with Bush Sr. and Clinton.
Again, Howard Zinn and others explain this better than I do, please refer to People's History and interviews for details. If we naively believe our corrupt system can produce a progressive candidate, we will be sorely disappointed.
The cure? organization, mobilization and civil disobedience
So why don't you do that, instead of whining "we have no chance" in 2012 or ever? Tell me what you can do and will do, not what you can't do or won't do.
So, Zinn, Chomsky, Goodman et al. are just whining? That sounds like a right-wing slogan.
I explained what I have done and what needs to be done. Naively believing the corrupt system will produce a progressive candidate will not help.
No change will occur from the top down, rather the other way round, see you in the streets.
Step 1: Stop voting for lame, co-opted corporate candidates. You claim to be a radical but don't even have the guts to vote for a third-party candidate. Poser.
you obviosly did not bother to read what I said, If you can't play nice...
You said you voted for Obama. Then you said you're a radical revolutionary who believes that change will never come from the corrupt, two-party system. Putting those two things together, you believe there is no hope for change so that's why you vote for the same old corporate schlubs you always vote for.
That's self-defeating rhetoric worthy of a top-flight right-wing PR firm: here are your choices Progressives, either (1) vote for the least-worst candidate, or (2) drop out of the system entirely and "take to the streets." You should try to sell it. Call it the "No Hope/No Chance campaign that's guaranteed to neuter Progressives and give control of government to right-wingers by default."
If that's what Zinn is teaching, he's just as confused as you. I did not vote for Obama. I voted for Nader. That's something, which is more than nothing, which is apparently what you've done so far.
So true, naturally!
The President is now using those same techniques, built around an impressive thirteen million name email list, to keep his organizers and supporters involved in backing his legislative agenda. This is the biggest mass lobbying effort of all time.
Wow! Golly gee! Holy Cow! Include me out. That makes it 12,999,999 names.
Those 13 million should Twitter Obama they are going to impeach him if he does not clean up his act.
Impeachement! Yes, maybe it is time. Never has a President reached that level of misuse of office as quickly as Obama has. Sort of like an anti-one hundred days!
I am with glenn ford, perhaps it is time to start beating the impeachment drum.
I hear you all, but then Biden would be Pres. Next in line is Pelosi, Clinton. In my opinion all of these lying hypocrites are pretty much the same. This problem is much more deep-seated than one or a few individuals. The entire system is broken and corrupted. The only way out is massive mobilization: civil disobedience, general strikes, massive demonstration that the MSM and elite cannot ignore.
In the modern line of succession, the Speaker of the House is followed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, who is Robert Byrd (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html).
q
Very well then,
Byrd is just as bad or worse
Sioux Rose
This is a celebration of clever marketing! If the ultimate "product" means the same policies that have left America in an ecological, moral, and fiscal morass, then what is there to champion here? Sure, if these same organizing tactics sent TRUE messages to the 13 million to rouse them to go against Obama's policies of covering up torture, continuing unnecessary wars, stealing from workers to pay bankers (i.e. "the bailout"), and maintaining those darling insurance middlemen to thwart single payer universal health care... then I might applaud the effort, and the article!
But Sioux Rose I think we can learn from the Obama campaign. The left does not have the money to hire marketing experts, but we could learn something from expertise Obama paid for. Some of our materials are frankly long winded, unfocused and pathetic. Our demonstrations have little punch. We mill around without music or excitement. We look tired and dull. We do not have fun, and that keeps people away. We do not develop and use lists cleverly.
Why not study a master? We are good and sincere, but we have been outplayed again and again. I think we sometimes subconsciously equate virtue with failure. That is because we are so used to seeing opportunism lead to success.
We need to marry virtue and success. I am tired of Nader type campaigns that inspire few and go nowhere. They need a shot in the arm. I am for studying success, with the proviso that we do not let technique dominate over principles.
Joe
I'm with you, Joe!
Horsecrap....
BS!
Here is how people get elected to high office in the US:
They announce their candidacy, then they are called by the establishment to see what their views on various subjects are. If they are clever, they give the answers the establishment likes. Then they get support from various establishment groups to continue what might be a successful candidacy.If they don't give answers the establishment likes, they are quietly opposed by those establishmnet groups and they find that they are opposed for nomination and their political career is over before it can start.
The establshment works for both the Republican and Democratic candidate who passes the first test. They don't really care which it is as long as they are sure they have the candidate's ear on issues they care about.
Then after one is elected, they are heavily lobbied to be on the establishment side of all issues. Any wavering by a congressman or senator and word is given to him that the money to get re-elected will disappear if the member does not go along with what they want. Indeed the establishment will get their guys in the media to dump on any wavering or disagreeing member and get the bad word out on the member thus killing any hope of getting re-elected. Members know this and since the first goal of every member is to keep being a member (getting re-elected), he is either kept on track or his career ends. Most opt for going along to get along as Tip Oneal used to say.
So, Obama played their game perfectly up to getting elected. Now he wants more than anything else to get re-elected and knowing what will happen to his future if he doesn't continue to do the establishment's bidding, he chooses to go along to get along.
In other words all members are cleared by the establishment or the cease to be members. As Lou Dobbs says, "We have the best goverment money can buy".
That is why the present Democrats will be no different that the Republicans have been.
Those supporters who believe otherwise are naive.
When net neutraility is gone the big 5 media will drop anchor and take over. The clever techniques Obama used to communicate with his willing dupes will become slightly more difficult. Things will return much as they were before the internet existed. The elite realize they cannot let their representatives short-circuit their golden road and talk directly to the serfs. God forbid if an authentic progressive candidate with a backbone successfully Twittered his way to victory. Luckily the victor was Obama and they were able to get him under control in less than 100 days. What would they have done if Kucinich mastered these fundraising/communication methods first?
Hmm, I thought the new conventional wisdom was that he was bought by Wall Street....I don't think anyone is buying this song and dance anymore.
They must think we are fools indefinitely.
Oregoncharles
Take a look at where his campaign funds came from. Low and behold, The Financial Institutions! Who would-a thunk it?!
Obama's campaign made him a contender but he won because of the economic dip - a sad commentary on the state of the American electorate.
I am 60 years old and never wrote a president till e-mail. Obama has had three from me so far and they are suggestive and constructive but critical. The new technology, instant phone(e) trees, are transformative and will enhance democracy so I encourage everyone to embrace it. This movie sounds good and I will try to see it. Remember the warnings and dire debates during the early months, years, of wikipedia. Well, we all use and for the must part trust it today. A liberal democracy works because of the members in the crowd correcting each other. Democracy must have a Hyde Park speakers corner and boy we have a good one now. Obama is a basketball player, he knows baskets are made and games won by passing the ball around. The games underlying principle is teamwork, not hot shots.
How in the name of anything understandable can the same apparatus of soliciting "support" for Obama's "programs" be as well an instrument for holding him "accountable?" Those messages that go to 13 million Americans (for some reason I'm one of them, though I never voted for the man) don't ask me my opinion about this or that issue, they ask my money and my calls to members of Congress to promote passage of legislation favored by the President. These awesome new techniques are the ultimate expression of the dominance of mass communication in which messages pass in only one direction: from the producers of various branded products to the would-be consumers of them. If manufacturers routinely denigrate customers who make "complaints" and lobby successfully to prevent "frivolous" lawsuits, how can the consumer "say" anytning back to the producer, except by not buying their products; but if brand X is as bad as brand Y, what "accountability" do you gain by your consumer choices? If the Republicratic candidate A is as bad as Demopublican candidate B, how can your voting choice between them make either "accountable" to what you had hoped to gain by your vote? Of course, this brandification of our political choices has been going on for a long time, but only now with Obama's Magic List of 13 million people ready at the drop of an e-mail and a pay-pal response to offer "support" for his programs, has any candidate or party been able to carry its brand huckstering from a campaign to an administration. Scary stuff! (As one commenter suggested, maybe great if you're a Kucinich, not so great if you're an Obama.)
Election reform, anyone?
Severe spending cap?
Equal time for all candidates on central news media?
These things might be easier to pass as ballot measures in local elections first. With enough legislators actually beholden to voters as opposed to $$-that-buys-media-that-buys-voters, it might pass at higher levels.
I can't help thinking how lucky we would have been with McCain as President, Palin as VP and Phil Gramm as Secretary of the Treasury. Everything would be a bed of roses, doncha know. Jobs for everyone, maybe a war or two, nothing much, and no more social security, or medicare or medicade and voila! the budget would have been balanced by now. Not one peep of dissent would have surfaced with McCAin and the media would find trouble finding something to groan about. If only.......
Annabelle, I too have a dream: how "lucky" we would be if we had Dennis Kucinich as President, Barbara Lee as Vice-President and Michael Hudson as Secretary of Treasury. Now there is a "dream team" for you! And why not dream? What good thing ever happened in the world that was not impossible to happen before it did? So please stay away from the McCain/Palin/Gramm nightmare and dream something we could use after we wake up to inspire our efforts.
Well, it would have made no difference if Mccain/Palin or Obama/Biden were in power except for one thing. Since Palin would have most likely taken over Mccain in a month or two after his entering office, the electorate would have awakened faster in time for a revolution. I'm afraid Obama's bailing out the monster system and keeping us quietly in the dark just like his masters want him to. No point in dreaming as we're already soaked in the nightmare anyway.
"The election of Barack Obama may be long over, but the campaign for change is still underway."
ARRGGGH ! This is what makes me so sick of politics ! Everytime, I'd keep hearing "Change is coming, change is coming, blah-blah-blah, ..." but noooooooooo, change never comes except for the worse. For the most part, all we're getting is just pure status quo. If people wanted real change, Nader or Mckinney would have been the choice but noooooooooo, we the wise few who knew better than to support Mccain or Obama were told to shut up and kiss up to Obama's "hope and change" pixy dust. Well ? WHEN THE HELL WILL ALL THIS CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE MATERIALIZE ?!?!? WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE THE PEOPLE PAY TAXES UNTIL THE PROMISE FOR CHANGE IS ACTUALLY FULFILLED ?!?!?!?
"For the first time in American history, a president is using the techniques he deployed in running for office as a candidate in calling for deeper change."
Um, NO. This isn't the first time a president goes around the country in campaigning mode even when in office. Raygun and Dubya campaigned for their rotten tax breaks for the wealthy/corporate elite packages.
"Few in the major media gave him a chance, but he was not discouraged because he had created his own grassroots media operation using sophisticated organizing and social networking techniques to build a bottom-up movement, not the usual top-down apparatus."
What ?!?!? The media gave him plenty of chances and look how he SMEARED Hillary in the primaries, not that I would have voted for her in the general election either. Even in the general election, he was doing just fine and Mccain couldn't run a campaign anyway. The media didn't ask him to flip-flop. He chose to do so despite even the corporate polls appreciating his liberalism that he dusted off issue after issue which made me even angrier at Obama and made me a stronger supporter of Nader.
"We live in a culture of amnesia - it is important to learn the lessons of the recent past."
Hmmm, maybe most of the electorate but the few of us who knew better than to support Obama or Mccain knew a hell of a lot better and won't forget it ! Obama's the one with the most amnesia. Somebody please find a really well qualified brain surgeon who will restore Obama's thinking and mentality to pre-2005 levels or else let's just give 3rd parties a change !
Dear Mr Obomber,
Your promises of change are pure dogsh*t as evidenced by your actions. You work for the same bastards as the previous dullard, albeit with more eloquence and language skills. However, it is readily apparent to anyone who can pay attention for more than 10 seconds that your policies are really no more than more of the same. Please stop with the Disingenuousness and own up to the facts: You are a Corporate Puppet advancing the New World Order, nothing more, nothing less.
Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
"The progressive critics of Obama... have to reach out to the grassroots army that assured his election"
No Danny, we on the far left are defenders of the people's platform, the platform that O'Bamba's "grassroots army" abandoned when they threw their support behind O'Bamba. Given their willingness to abandon the people's platform we hope you understand why we remain here to defend it. We demand they do the reaching out to us. It's a highly rational demand, because it is supported by universal ethical principles, the same principles a great majority of USans embrace when polled. We told the Demok/O'Bamba crowd that to earn the far left vote they must use their 2006 electoral mandate & congressional majority to prosecute the top criminals and pull the troops by election day, and they failed. And you want us to reward that failure? Help fuel the elites' class war aggression? Abandon the people? Nothin doin.
Others have said similar things already, but it warrants repetition: If someone posts a sign and it says "come lobby me, I want to know what you think", in all probability, it really means "I have something I want YOU to believe". There's nothing wrong with the approach, but there is something disgusting when the Schecter's of the world ask us to embrace it as if it's a birth of a new kind of participatory democracy. As Schecter puts it, we are supposed to believe that Obama's supporters -- his grassroots -- now have to hold him accountable and that this new net-roots will help do that. Hold him accountable for what? The man ran one of the most feel-good, platitudinous campaigns in history. He never had to say "morning in America" because his logo said it for him. And guess what, I'm not complaining. But don't sell us this new democracy nonsense. That's cheese.
There is already a movie out about Obama. It is called "The Obama Deception". Although the movie drags on a bit in the middle, I highly recommend it. Not bad for a low budget movie.
Obamadeception.net
Schechter says, "The thought that he would beat frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the primaries was, quite frankly, unthinkable to most of the elite", about Obama, and I wonder what "elites" he's talking about. He should speak with some specifics, instead of writing as if he has Godly knowledge about what was on the minds of all of these "elites". Schechter and most of us don't have such real knowledge! And the following article speaks of financial industry elites likely having believed that Obama certainly had a serious chance of being nominated, instead of Hillary Clinton; and maybe they also had more than belief about this.
"Obama's Wall Street cabinet
by Tom Eley and Barry Grey
Global Research, April 15, 2009
wsws.org - 2009-04-06"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13208
Plenty of text is omitted from the following quote or excerpt.
QUOTE:
...
A series of articles published over the weekend, based on financial disclosure reports released by the Obama administration last Friday concerning top White House officials, documents the extent to which the administration, in both its personnel and policies, is a political instrument of Wall Street.
Policies that are extraordinarily favorable to the financial elite that were put in place over the past month by the Obama administration have fed a surge in share values on Wall Street. These include the scheme to ..., the ..., ... and the decision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to weaken “mark-to-market” accounting rules and permit banks to inflate the value of their toxic assets.
...
The new financial disclosures reveal that top Obama advisors directly involved in setting these policies have received millions from Wall Street firms, including those that have received huge taxpayer bailouts.
...
The presence of multi-millionaire Wall Street insiders extends to second- and third-tier positions in the Obama administration as well. ...
...
It is not new for leading figures from finance to be named to high posts in a US administration. However, there has traditionally been an effort to demonstrate a degree of independence from Wall Street in the selection of cabinet officials and high-ranking presidential aides, .... In previous decades, moreover, representatives of the corporate elite were more likely to come from industry than from finance.
In the Obama administration such considerations have largely been abandoned.
This will not come as a surprise to those who critically followed Obama’s election campaign. While he postured before the electorate as a critic of the war in Iraq and a quasi-populist force for “change,” he was from the first heavily dependent on the financial and political backing of powerful financiers in Chicago. Banks, hedge funds and other financial firms lavishly backed his presidential bid, giving him considerably more than they gave to his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.
Alongside Wall Street, the Obama cabinet is dominated by the military, including three recently retired four-star military officers: ....
These are the deeply reactionary political and class interests that are represented by the Obama administration.
Friday’s financial disclosures further expose the bankruptcy of American democracy. Elections have no real effect on government policy, which is determined by the interests of the financial aristocracy that dominates both political parties. ...
END QUOTE
We know about Big Oil and the MIC industries being very surely for wars, but we must not forget about Big Finance and it's through that industry, I believe anyway, that shareholders invest in the other industries, which, if accurate, means that Big Finance is very important to Big Oil and the MIC, all war-profiteering corporations. If all of that's accurate, then which of these three industries would be heaviest with the U.S. presidency? If Big Finance, then I doubt that its elites were particularly doubtful about Obama getting the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton and it's not unlikely that Big Finance made sure that the Dem. Party leadership would nominate Obama instead of Clinton. After all, the politicians, even the top-positioned and richest ones, are dependent, criminally, but dependent on Big Finance and other Big Industries for BIG MONEY, profit, luxury, ...; and staying alive, instead of being assassinated, too. The CIA works for who? The Big "E"lites; definitely not for The People of the USA and humanity! Similarly with the U.S. military, though most troops aren't aware of this.
I agree with Schechter saying Obama critics should avoid saying offensive things to Obama supporters and fans, but ... as per above about Schechter seeming overly self-certain about what the elites expected to happen between Obama and Clinton being selected for the nomination for the Dem. Party.
The elites also made sure that Dennis Kucinich was criminally, un-Constitutionally, anti-democratically, ... barred from participating in SIX Dem. Party candidate debates and made very sure that he couldn't get the nomination, as he should have!
And I wonder what the heck Danny Schechter's doing in using corrupt MoveOn.org for reference as if it's an honourable and good one to use. The organisation has repeatedly proven that it's full of BS; the leaders of the organisation, that is.
Obama's Jim Jones and the people who voted for him zombies.
The title and the contents of this documentary are a joke. The Obama campaign used methods no different from the ones used in Jonestown, of gradually subjecting followers to sophisticated mind control and brainwashing. Some of us saw through the scam, and we did try to warn you for at least 2 years before the election.
Basically Obama used grassroots community organizing and labor union devices to promote a corporate agenda. I have to hand it to Obama for his originality in perverting the use of methods utilized by genuine grassroots heroes such as Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King. Charisma was combined with intentional vagueness in policy exposition. The "Yes We Can" slogan of the Chavez labor movement was not paired by Obama with just what it was that we could do!
The tragedy of Obama's deceptive campaign is that it will create a suspicion of genuine community leaders who have the people's interests at heart when they try to use time-honored organizing skills themselves. Because Obama was basically a Judas Goat using social movement methodology to lead people into continued control by our oligarchy, genuine social movements may have suffered a severe setback.
sierra7
Anyone like more Kool-Aid?
Fast Video Indexer is a video capture software that can capture video frames automatically from a list of videos and create index web pages, index pictures or a list of images in http://www.fastvideoindexer.com/