Chomsky thinks McCain is gonna take it.

[arcadian]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/101530/chomsky%3A_%22if_the_u.s._carries_out_terrorism%2C_it_did_not_happen%22/?page=4

SG: One question on the elections: If Obama wins, will that bring any changes in U.S. foreign policy?

NC: The prior question is whether he will win; my assumption all along is that McCain will probably win. Now that he has picked Sarah Palin as his vice president, I think those probabilities have increased, for reasons that are understood by party managers and have been expressed very well by McCain's campaign manager. He said the election is not about issues, it is about character and personality, and so on. Meaning, it is not a serious election. That is the way U.S. elections are run. Issues are marginalized. They don't talk about them and the media coverage is about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons or Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter.

McCain is supposed to be a specialist on national security issues. Why? Suppose that some Russian pilot was shot down bombing heavily populated areas in Kabul and tortured by Reagan's freedom fighters in the l980's. Well, we might feel sorry for him, but does that make him an expert on National Security? But McCain is an expert on national security because he was shot down bombing heavily populated urban areas in Hanoi and he was tortured by the Vietnamese. Well, we feel sorry for him, but he is no expert on National Security. But you can't say that. These elections are run by the public relations industry. The intellectual community goes along. Issues are marginalized. The focus is on personalities, on Jeremiah Wright's sermons, Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter, or whatever it may be. In that terrain, the Republicans have a big advantage. They also have a formidable slander and vilification machine which has yet to go into full operation. They can appeal to latent racism, as they are already doing. They can construct a class issue. Obama is the elite Harvard liberal; McCain is the down to earth ordinary American, and it so happens that he is one of the richest people in the Senate. Same thing they pulled for Bush. You have to vote for Bush because he is the kind of guy you would like to meet in a bar and have a beer with; he wants to go back to his Ranch in Texas and cut brush. In reality he was a spoiled fraternity boy who went to an elite university and joined a secret society where the future rulers of the world are trained, and was able to succeed in politics because his family had wealthy friends. I am convinced, personally, that Bush was trained to mispronounce words to say things like "mis-underestimate" or "nu-cu-ler", so liberal intellectuals would make jokes about it; then the Republican propaganda machine could say see these elitist liberals who run the world are making fun of us ordinary guys who did not go to Harvard (but he did go to Yale, but forget it).

These are games run by the public relations industry, which is a huge industry. It spends enormous resources manipulating attitudes and opinions. They design and control elections so that public in effect is marginalized. They keep away from issues for a very good reason. We know a lot about American public opinion. It is a very heavily polled country, mainly because business wants to keep its finger on the public pulse. So there is a ton of information, valid information. On a host of major issues, domestic and international, both political parties are well to the right of the population. So therefore, you don't want to talk about issues, not if you want to keep the business parties in power. Further, the population is aware of this, but the press won't publish it; 80 percent of the population says the country is run by a few big interests, looking out for themselves, not the benefit of the people, By about 3 to one, people object to the fact that issues are not at the center of the campaigns. They want issues to be discussed, not personalities. Party managers know that, but they won't go along with it; it is too dangerous. They have got to make sure that the two factions of the business party, Republicans and Democrats, stay in power. So you don't deal with public concerns.

[Zynx]

1. I really don't give a shit what Noam Chomsky thinks about much.

[Sal Minella]

10. Betcha Chomsky doesn't care much what you think, either. Some of us think he makes sense, you know?

[question everything]

35. "Betcha"? Is this now Palin speak that we are going to hear all around

please say it ain't so.

[Sal Minella]

40. It ain't so. I was using that word fifty+ years ago -- it was/is commonly used in the Midwest.

But now that you mentioned it, I'll try to stop using it until the flurry with the Alaska Disasta has passed.

[ixion]

13. my, how very incurious of you

Chomsky is one of the best thinkers to come along since Einstein. While he may not always be precisely on the mark, to dismiss him entirely is a mistake.

Just sayin'. ;)

[Zynx]

14. He may be a great mind, but he doesn't understand politics.

[bean fidhleir]

19. That has to take the Laughable Statement Of The Month Award

considering that he's recognized all over the world as someone who understands politics all too well.

[27inCali]

57. We all distrust the powerful and elite

but intellectuals like Chomsky get off a little too much on their certitude concerning the stupidity of the general population, it scews their caculations.

there are a lot of stupid people, but even they can tell when they are getting fucked in the ass and being told to like it from time to time.

I just think this is one of those times.


To me, Chomsky is an intellectual version of Alex Jones, all doom and gloom.

Why bother writing and reaching out to people if it's all so fucking hopeless?

[Subdivisions]

23. Duzy nom. n/t

[TransitJohn]

34. Seconded! n/t

[DoctorMyEyes]

64. Thirded!

If there is such a word

[LynnTheDem]

44. Well that remark's a

:wow:

[DeltaLitProf]

46. My word

Chomsky doesn't understand politics?

I guess Wolfgang Puck doesn't understand food either. It depends on your point of view.

[tom_paine]

61. Einstein doesn't understand physics?

Moses doesn't understand Judaism?

Cheney doesn't understand fraud?

OK, then...

Thanks for this line of thinking, DLP. I could sit here all morning making these little gems up.

Bill Gates doesn't understand software?

Louis Pastuer didn't understand biology?

John Negroponte doesn't understand how to coordinate terrorist acts?

Karl Rove doesn't understand propaganda?

And so forth.

:rofl:

Thanks again, DeltaLitProf. Most enjoyable way of putting it.

[warren pease]

48. So... do you shoot yourself in the foot often? Suffering from foot in mouth disease?

It's tough to grasp just how abysmally dumb that line was. However, if you've actually read him lately -- and I just know you've been through his greatest hits several times each, like "Manufacturing Consent" and "The Managua Lectures" -- you've no doubt noticed that he's become a bit of a leftist gatekeeper.

I'd think his readers would expect a more radical critique of the past eight years from a true genius and tireless radical left thinker, writer, speaker and organizer.

Chomsky refuses to even acknowledge the mountain of evidence available to indict, try and convict the Bushies of mass murder, torture and treason, to name just a few of their more outrageous capital crimes. Even though the official conspiracy theory insults the intelligence of anyone still eqipped with a functional brain, Chomsky doesn't seem particularly insulted or outraged.

Same with election theft, I suppose. Here, he says McCorpse will probably win. But not because there's already rock solid proof that the Bushies stole the previous two presidential elections, first by sabotaging the Florida vote and then by rigging the Ohio vote. Nor has he heard of the growing body of evidence that they're going to try and steal this one, too.

In this interview, Stephen Spoonamore -- former GOP network architect, former member of the McCorpse electronic vote-flipping team and internationally recognized IT security expert -- tells interviewers that McBush’s team, i.e., Karl Rove and his henchmen, have their plan in place to steal the presidency for McCain with 51.2% of the popular vote and a margin of three electoral votes.

Sounds about right, as does the standard democratic silence on anything that would constitute an issue rather than some uncontroversial personal revelation -- meaningless and lacking all importance -- to fire up the cult of personality that appeals to the scary numbers of gullible fools who pass for humans around here and wouldn't know an issue from a zucchini if you smacked them in the ear with it.


wp

[endthewar]

51. He probably also didn't think that Obama would go after the Keating 5.

I think that a better way to phrase what Noam Chomsky is saying is that McCain is going to do better than he should because the Republican Party is better at manufacturing distractions and the corporate media loves these types of distractions because their market shares go up. Also, intellectual debate is rejected in favor of ignorance. Look at Wesley Clark for a great example of this. He makes the obvious point that just because McCain was shot down, that doesn't make him a military strategic genius. The MSM rolled out their stock footage of McCain as a POW and refused to discuss Clark's points on their merits.

[tavalon]

54. Oh, that was laugh out loud funny

You did NOT say that!!!:rofl:

I would nominate you for a DUzy but that wasn't intentional.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Hopefully, he's wrong on the outcome, but his view of American politics is right.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[dailykoff]

33. His view is simplistic and pernicious,

much like Nader's. They both have valuable contributions to make in their respective fields, but their effects on electoral politics are dangerous. They are not to be trusted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Dangerous to self serving politicians.

[dailykoff]

56. Dangerous to us.

Neocons have done just fine by both these clowns. If Chomsky's not a fool, then he's a snake, one of the worst in my opinion.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. He will.

He'll take it back to AZ.

[still_one]

3. Chomsky is wrong, and it is because of the economic meltdown that we

are talking about issues

the mccain camp is desperate to try and distract, but when jobs are being lost in record numbers, and people are directly being affected by the policies of the last eight years in a negative way, it won't be ignored

[Democat]

4. At least he didn't predict Nader will win!

That would be funny.

[saltpoint]

5. Noam will look like a true visionary if what he predicts actually

materializes.

But I think this November 4th, the Democrats will carry the evening.

[Democat]

8. A visionary? He's got a 50/50 shot at it!

Either McCain or Obama will win, so he's got a 50% chance no matter which was he calls it.

[saltpoint]

9. Well, yeah. In the face of recent polling, including what I'm

guessing was a GOP internal poll in Michigan prompting McCain to abandon that state, I think Noam is off-target.

[WheelWalker]

36. As it's been turning out, we have to carry the next morning, too.

[Myrina]

6. While Chomsky's outcome is in error, his analysis is spot-on.

n/t

[MadHound]

7. This interview took place early last month

Back when Palin was still a positive for McCain. Hell, I thought that Palin was the clincher for McCain after she announced also. But now that the new factor has worn off, after she has shown the world how utterly clueless and unfit for office she is, Palin is a drag on the ticket, and McCain's numbers have gone down as a consequence.

This election has been a tough one for anyone to call, so it's understandable that Chomsky gets this wrong.

[Sal Minella]

11. I don't think Chomsky is "getting it wrong;" I think he's trying to make us visualize, imagine,

a hypothetical, and get off our butts.

[riverdeep]

21. I was about to say, when was this interview conducted?

Right after the Palin nod, it's understandable to think that McCain might has a possibility of taking it.

The rest of what he says in that quote I can't really disagree with, although it's pretty much obvious. Still, it doesn't really get mentioned often enough by 'serious people'.

[dkofos]

12. He may take it, but he will never win it!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. The ONLY way McCain's going to "take" it...

...is with the help of companies like Premier Election Solutions using their election theft software to switch Obama votes to McCain.

Unfortunately, we know this was done on a massive scale in '04, and there just isn't any reason to believe it won't happen again. The FBI has hardly batted an eye at what happened in Ohio in '04.

Chomsky may not choose to speak honestly of such things as stolen elections in '04, or demolished buildings on 9-11-01, but I cannot imagine these realities have escaped his notice.

[leeroysphitz]

16. Chomsky is right about one thing, the right wing HATE machine hasn't been shifted into overdrive yet

The next few weeks are going to UGLY.

[snappyturtle]

17. As much as I typically agree with Chomsky, I think he's missed the boat

on this. His supposition is that this is not an issue centric campaign. Two weeks ago that might have been the case. I looked at Alternet but still couldn't tell when the interview took place. That may be the reason his viewpoint. I understand he says the repukes are emphasizing non-issues, which they are; he also says that most people 3:1 are opposed to this so how does he come to the conclusion that mcsame wins? I don't get it but I have a headache and maybe I'm not thinking right.

[tjwash]

18. That you have reduced a brilliant interview down to a bumper sticker actually proves his point.

He actually has the same attitude that I have on the matter...that by squabbling on the little issues, and majoring the the minors and minoring in the majors; we are actually playing right in to the McCain camps hands. Not that that matters to him...Chomsky has never seen anything but the slightest ideological differences in either of the parties.

NC: The prior question is whether he will win; my assumption all along is that McCain will probably win. Now that he has picked Sarah Palin as his vice president, I think those probabilities have increased, for reasons that are understood by party managers and have been expressed very well by McCain's campaign manager. He said the election is not about issues, it is about character and personality, and so on. Meaning, it is not a serious election. That is the way U.S. elections are run. Issues are marginalized. They don't talk about them and the media coverage is about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons or Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter.

Try actually reading what Chomsky says, and get beyond the first sentence. He is actually saying that no matter who wins-Obama or McCain; that the status-quo will be maintained, and that regular people will get screwed no matter what. That the corporate owned media has us arguing and squabbling about non-issues, distractions, and the little things that actually make us different. That we are completely ignoring the real issues that are going to need to be addressed. Just look at the massive amount of "Sarah Palin" threads that have flooded this website, or threads where the rabid finger pointing and attacks on things like "values voters" are as nasty and terrible as those that the DU'ers say that they are against.

Sure-there is the occasional well thought out and debated thread about real issues occasionally; but those are outnumbered 10 to 1 by the distracting horse-shit threads about Sarah Palin's glasses, or John McCain mispronouncing a couple of words.

McCain is supposed to be a specialist on national security issues. Why? Suppose that some Russian pilot was shot down bombing heavily populated areas in Kabul and tortured by Reagan's freedom fighters in the l980's. Well, we might feel sorry for him, but does that make him an expert on National Security? But McCain is an expert on national security because he was shot down bombing heavily populated urban areas in Hanoi and he was tortured by the Vietnamese. Well, we feel sorry for him, but he is no expert on National Security. But you can't say that. These elections are run by the public relations industry. The intellectual community goes along. Issues are marginalized. The focus is on personalities, on Jeremiah Wright's sermons, Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter, or whatever it may be. In that terrain, the Republicans have a big advantage. They also have a formidable slander and vilification machine which has yet to go into full operation. They can appeal to latent racism, as they are already doing. They can construct a class issue. Obama is the elite Harvard liberal; McCain is the down to earth ordinary American, and it so happens that he is one of the richest people in the Senate. Same thing they pulled for Bush. You have to vote for Bush because he is the kind of guy you would like to meet in a bar and have a beer with; he wants to go back to his Ranch in Texas and cut brush. In reality he was a spoiled fraternity boy who went to an elite university and joined a secret society where the future rulers of the world are trained, and was able to succeed in politics because his family had wealthy friends. I am convinced, personally, that Bush was trained to mispronounce words to say things like "mis-underestimate" or "nu-cu-ler", so liberal intellectuals would make jokes about it; then the Republican propaganda machine could say see these elitist liberals who run the world are making fun of us ordinary guys who did not go to Harvard (but he did go to Yale, but forget it).

Again Chomsky is merely pointing out the obvious; how the corporate owned media merely has the candidates packed up, and marketed as if they were selling you a car or a box of detergent. The sad thing is...that it not only works, it works extremely well.

These are games run by the public relations industry, which is a huge industry. It spends enormous resources manipulating attitudes and opinions. They design and control elections so that public in effect is marginalized. They keep away from issues for a very good reason. We know a lot about American public opinion. It is a very heavily polled country, mainly because business wants to keep its finger on the public pulse. So there is a ton of information, valid information. On a host of major issues, domestic and international, both political parties are well to the right of the population. So therefore, you don't want to talk about issues, not if you want to keep the business parties in power.

Chomsky has always been a big "both parties are one and the same" advocate. What he is saying, is that both parties are bought and paid for by the corporations and banks, and that the will always have one of their own in power. That we have no real choice in who gets elected; that the only real commodity that politicians provides are votes for their corporate masters, and that the politicians really only exist to give the mass of people in the U.S. the illusion that they actually have a choice about what is going on. I agree with him here, and have been cussed out, flamed, and told to go Cheney myself on many occasions here because of that, by the way. That one can come in to a Liberal website such as DU, and actually post about Liberal candidates and ideals and get response after response of being told to leave, go fuck yourself, or that "you have been placed on ignore" shows how well it actually works. Look how Cindy Sheehan went from a DU Darling to any posts about her consistently getting locked because of the flame wars that they inevitably start.

t

[arcadian]

38. I read the entire interview.

I know exactly what he's saying.

[BlooInBloo]

20. We shall see.

[Juche]

22. That was interesting

I disagree with his conclusion that McCain will win (polling shows about 8 paths to victory for Obama vs about 1 for McCain, and Obama has a better ground game and higher support among voters) but his statements about the powers that be keeping elections about meaningless traits and horseraces is spot on. I had no idea such a huge % of hte population wanted serious issues discussed rather than personality. I figured alot of people wanted to see more issues, but didn't think it would be a 3:1 ratio.

[upi402]

24. Chomsky is always right.

Worrisome.

Ever wonder why the elected "Democratic" majority has had their thumbs in their asses regarding election fraud and media propaganda?

Corporate Dems;
Mute. Tacit. Compliant... Traitors and betrayers of democracy. Our Republic is toast folks. All you corporate dem supporters are right up there with the religious rightards in enabling this crap.

Vote ALL corporatists out! Either party. It is no longer Democrats vs. Republicans!!!


WAKE UP

[lib2DaBone]

25. Chomsky talks alot...but what does he say?

When I listen to Chomsky.. after 10 minutes.. I have to say, "Huh?" He talks and talks..but somehow the words don't go anywhere? It's a word salad. The other person that used to do that was William F. Buckley Jr.. That man could talk for an hour... and you never knew what the hell he said?

[bean fidhleir]

28. Something for you to ponder, perhaps:

'A European says: "I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?" An American says: "I can't understand this, what's wrong with him?"'

[upi402]

41. lol, so true. And I'm very guilty of it too. n/t

[davekriss]

43. Sounds like a verbal comprehension problem

:) ...I find Chomsky chillingly clear. However, I recall thinking when reading Deterring Democracy years ago that his rhetorical style is unlikely to win minds grounded on the other side of the political fence. Chomsky, I believe, can be infuriatingly off-putting to those disinclined to hear him, despite the clarity of his conceptions and logic.

[spelldmilk]

27. I'm a big fan of Chomsky, think he is one of the most interesting

modern thinkers, but his reasoning, in this interview, doesn't include the internets.
Pulling two quotes from p.4:
"These are games run by the public relations industry, which is a huge industry. It spends enormous resources manipulating attitudes and opinions. They design and control elections so that public in effect is marginalized. They keep away from issues for a very good reason."

"(Y)ou don't want to talk about issues, not if you want to keep the business parties in power. Further, the population is aware of this, but the press won't publish it; 80 percent of the population says the country is run by a few big interests, looking out for themselves, not the benefit of the people, By about 3 to one, people object to the fact that issues are not at the center of the campaigns. They want issues to be discussed, not personalities. Party managers know that, but they won't go along with it; it is too dangerous."

Chomsky has followed mass media, the "traditional" media. The internet, or "alternate" media, has yet to be understood, really, has yet to be fully respected for what it is. What is happening right now is new. There is no understanding of the effect that this new medium is actually achieving in traditional social parameters established through information presentation, dissemination, and synthesis.
In any revolution, the key is communication. Think of our national myths developed from Paul Revere, and the Underground Railroad. Progressives and Libruls are tech savy, we need to be to keep up with our own curiosity, and we are utilizing and controlling this new method of digital communication. McCain doesn't even understand e-mail, and while his team and handlers may, their target audience doesn't.
Obama/Biden are going to win, and it is going to be because of us. We want it to be about issues, and it will be about issues, because we will keep it about issues. We Own the Media. Say it, Believe it.
But, quite frankly, even if it IS about personalities, come on, seriously, McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden? Dude, Puh-Leeese! Our guys Rock.

[davekriss]

45. I think there's something to be said...

...for the fact that Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions, two vital Chomsky books, preceded the internet. The Propaganda Model still rings true (for me). The vast majority of the politically casual-minded still have their opinions shaped by the major media and other institutions of power. However, this "new" thing, the internet, may be paradigm-changing.

The low cost of entry and operation have in effect disintermediated the message from the tentacles of Capitalism and Finance; the writer now can get to his audience directly (at least as a possibility). The Propaganda Model filters seem to have less weight. However we are still a long way off from a unfettered flow of free ideas. As said above, the major media continue to dominate the vast majority of politically casual-minded.

Places like DU and Daily KOS and Alternet and more serve as free speech zones. Like minded peoples can congregate in corners of the net and talk to themselves to the point of exhaustion. As long as that talk is not heard by the rascal multitudes, we are permitted our space. Day in and day out what we say is drowned out by the propaganda spewed forth daily from the major media. The well-funded and carefully sourced media, governed by a narrowed agenda systemically set by near-monopolized ownership and their strong need not to challenge the world via of any board room -- that of the media companies and its advertisers -- simply crowd out progressive messages to the point of invisibility. The situation is akin to someone walking around with a no. 2 pencil and a pocket memo pad as the means to spread a message antithetical to the giant consumerist visual megaphones blaring continuously 24/7 in the new Times Square. The antithetical message just does not get heard.

Having said that, I think the internet is making its way into the collective conscience of our age. One of the reasons is people (much like us reading this now) drop out of the visual/aural nexus of the major media and instead patch into disintermediated media such as here. (Who among us who spend time here and at other similar sites also spend any real time in front of a televsion set?) Kind of like unplugging from the Matrix. Once unplugged, whole new possibilities arise. (Like hearing about then reading the recent books from the two Naomi's.) And this, I think, is underappreciated by Chomsky. However, we are still just a few drops in a vast sea of brains that make up the American mind. Many brothers and sisters are still not unplugged from the chains of the ABC-NBC-CBS-PBS-CNN-MSNBC-CNBC-FOX News-NY Times-Washington Post-Clear Channel-etcetera interlocking behemoth, that elephant in the room owned by 5 transnational mega-corporations, each with like interests and each systemically conformist to the Propaganda Model.

The internet offers hope for a better tomorrow, but that day is not here yet.

[apocalypsehow]

29. The Oracle has spoken. Guess we might as well all stay home on election day...

( :eyes: )

[dailykoff]

31. I've long suspected that that is exactly the intended effect

of Chomsky's "analyses" -- self-inflicted disenfranchisement. I totally distrust him. Whether or not he's actually on some RW or intel payroll, he might as well be.

[bigtree]

30. He's right about the media, wrong about Obama's prospects

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

32. "games run by the public relations industry"

Several Europeans with whom I have spoken have expressed to me that the one single thing Americans can do better than any other country is marketing and advertising. They are the kings of the world at it and could sell snow to an Eskimo. And PR and advertising has its hooks sunk very deeply in the selling of political candidates, especially the Republicans, and in the selling of policy to the American people, once those candidates assume office.

Look at who the Bush Administration picked as their Pentagon spokesperson: Victoria Clarke. Clarke was the architect of the Pentagon's embedding program for journalists at the start of the Iraq war. She was one of the principal spokesperson's for Bush's war on terror program. Clarke was selected right out of the ranks of advertising and PR: past President of Bozell Eskew advertising and head of the Washington office of the internationally known public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton.

[northernlights]

37. it's the ECONOMY stupid!!!!!

Elections are frivolous when good times are rollin'.

When you're afraid for, or have already lost, your job...not so much.

When you're afraid for, or have already lost, your home...not so much.

When you're watching people lose everything all around you, and you know you could be next...not so much.

When your son/daughter/husband/wife/sister/brother is on his or her 3rd, 4th, 5th tour of duty on an unecessary war...not so much.

When you run out of gas on your way to work, not because you forgot to fill up, but because you couldn't afford to...not so much.

Chomsky must be living a pretty comfie life right now, compared to the rest of us. The economy is, from my perspective, 10 times worse than when Clinton, with all his personal character "foibles" beat poppy.

As one pundit put it this a.m., when you're drowning in the middle of a lake and there's somebody at the edge of the lake with a big rope, you don't care if that somebody is black, white, green, purple, whatever.

I'd add, you don't care if an associate at work --whom he didn't hire, btw, just has to get along with -- was in the weather underground.

All you care about is if he has a good, strong arm to throw you that rope.

And as far as the character issue goes, well McShame has already called his own character into question. And if he keeps up with his attempted character assassination of Obama, how long before we start chanting, "Keating 5 Keating 5 Keating 5 Keating 5?"

[Greyhound]

39. Well that certainly fucked up my Sunday.

Shit, I have been successfully ignoring the nagging feeling at the back of my head for a month, it's the same feeling I got in 1999/2000. I told myself, "Nah, even Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for this blatant charlatan, I can't even believe the Republiks nominated this moron".

Shit.
;(:scared:;(

[DeltaLitProf]

47. He's dealing in likelihoods, not certainties

. . . and he would tell you that. But he does not account for the fact that one of the public relations campaigns members might actually USE rather than deny the polling data he cites and in so doing win the day.

[Waiting For Everyman]

49. Does he think we don't know this? I think the naysayers on Obama are wrong.

Frankly, I think the first debate with Obama started tanking McCain. Then, the bailout boosted it. The economy is not going to get any better in a couple of weeks. Independents have been very turned off by McCain's usual lies. It's backfiring on him.

It isn't about being "negative". It's about truth vs. lies. A negative truth is still truth, and needs to be known. As Biden put it, "facts matter". He's the one who is reading the public right IMO.

I think Obama is respected for running a factual campaign. And he has, for the most part. The "corrections" I've heard about his statements were either very trivial or ignored some of the relevant background.

The RW voters are dumb as rocks or brainwashed, but Independents are more intelligent and they are seeing through this stuff.

[JeffR]

50. Noam Chomsky no longer speaks for me.

And I won't miss him.

[tavalon]

55. Jeff, tell me you forgot your sarcasm smiley

I don't agree with this one article but even Nance occasionally (very occasionally) hits a dud. No one can be right 100% but Chomsky, damn, he's in the low nineties, at least. That man is just amazing with his understanding of how things work. I'll stop short of calling him a God, but only just barely.

[ColbertWatcher]

52. "These elections are run by the public relations industry." Ain't that the truth!

Don't know if I want to believe him about who's going to win.

I'm voting Obama and I hope Obama wins, but the GOP have 29 days to lie, reject legitimate voter registrations, fear-monger and pretty much steal another election.

And if Chomsky is correct about who's running out elections, we can expect the low information voters to be manipulated into voting for who ever the GOP tells them to.

I cannot wait for the Rushes and O'Reillys to be permanently off the air.

[depakid]

53. A month or so ago, I might have agreed

but since then, the McCain campaign has melted down worse than the financial industry.

[eridani]

58. His opinion is about a month out of date IMO n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

59. Chomsky thinks Republicans and Dems are two sides of same corporate coin.

Take a good look at our Congress and the way it has acted this last two years, and you can see why he and people like Gore Vidal and the Socialist Workers Party of America think this way.

However, John McCain is a loony and Sarah Palin is worse.

Plus, the economy changes all the usual election dynamics. Voters will not sit still for the usual election bullshit when their economy is teetering on the verge of collapse. They will demand issues oriented coverage and issues oriented candidates and the issue they want covered is their pocketbook.

[d_b]

60. I hope he's wrong n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

62. So if these people pick whoever they want for the WH

whats with the big fucking show?! Why they fuck not just come out and say it "Superise! it is not a Democracy after all, welcome to the Fascist States Of Amerika suckers!"

If these industries have it all wrapped up they way they want it, why do they waste the resources on manipulation when they could just take complete and unhidden control of the who fucking process!? Why the horse and pony show?

[bean fidhleir]

63. Rall seems to agree with Chomsky

[IsItJustMe]

65. Fuck Chomsky, and I have great respect for him. Self fulfilling prophesies are not the way to go.

Time to transcend this type of thinking and take back our country.

[harun]

66. He is giving this opinion as a call for people to wake the F up, not to try to

be some sort of visionary if he gets it right.