The Truth About the Clinton Years and What's at Stake
I respectfully ask that everyone who is supporting Hillary Clinton in this primary watch this video. It is the fourth part of a film called The Century of the Self by filmmaker Adam Curtis. The documentary details how the nephew of Sigmud Freud, a man named Edward Bernays, pioneered the techniques of propaganda that he described as "engineering consent" which became the foundation of the PR industry and lead to the focus grouping of politics at large.
I highly recommend watching all four hour-long episodes, all of which are available on Google Video, but if you can only watch one, please make it the one that I have linked and pay special attention to the second half. You will see some familiar faces, including a man named Mark Penn. You will learn that it was in fact Bill Clinton that killed the liberal dream of Franklin Roosevelt and hopefully you will have some second thoughts about who, in fact, is drinking the Kool-Aid.
Make no mistake about it: Loyal Democrats with fond memories of the Clinton era have been hoodwinked by marketing. The fact that Mark Penn is still running the game for the Clintons should give you exceptional pause if you truly consider yourself liberal or progressive.
Your interests will not be represented by Senator Clinton unless your interests are maintaining the status quo.
I highly recommend watching all four hour-long episodes, all of which are available on Google Video, but if you can only watch one, please make it the one that I have linked and pay special attention to the second half. You will see some familiar faces, including a man named Mark Penn. You will learn that it was in fact Bill Clinton that killed the liberal dream of Franklin Roosevelt and hopefully you will have some second thoughts about who, in fact, is drinking the Kool-Aid.
Make no mistake about it: Loyal Democrats with fond memories of the Clinton era have been hoodwinked by marketing. The fact that Mark Penn is still running the game for the Clintons should give you exceptional pause if you truly consider yourself liberal or progressive.
Your interests will not be represented by Senator Clinton unless your interests are maintaining the status quo.
Advertisement
What are the major policy differences between Clinton and Obama as regards the economy? They're both basically of the "New" Democrat variety. If the choice were between either Clinton and Obama or Edwards, you might be able to talk about reclaiming FDR's vision. But it isn't. Both candidates are free marketers who are nicer than the Republicans.
I had issues with Bill Clinton during the 90s, as a lot of liberals did. But the notion that Obamas is any more progressive than Bill or Hillary doesn't hold water.
March 4, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a matter of Obama being starkly more progressive. It's that maybe, hopefully he might actually govern with principles in mind. That maybe he'll be able to get people to unite around him against the very, very tough issues that we'll be facing in the near future. It's not even about reclaiming FDR's vision. That's been destroyed and it's most likely never coming back.
When Clinton gets that 3AM phone call, she's going to have to tap Mark Penn to go find out how a sample group feels about it. That's what she's going to bring to the table.
March 4, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Egg. I'll never say you didn't warn me.
March 4, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we're just down to name calling now, huh? Why am I not surprised.
March 4, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The naivete on display in this post is truly remarkable.
March 4, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've already lost Veruca Salt - now I'm wondering if this is Mike TeeVee or Augustus Glump. I guess we'll go with the Glump-centric view - the problem with everything is we want too much. And please get away from the river, you're ruining my chocolate. Stop, help, police....
March 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty clear that no one that's commented here so far has watched any of this. You don't have to take my word for it. Take it from Dick Morris, Robert Reich and Mark Penn. Watch as they explain how the entire Clinton presidency became nothing but focus-grouped triangulation on the ever moving target of public opinion. It's all about getting and keeping power, there are no longer principles at play here. Watch as they discuss how decisions like bombing Bosnia were based on the opinions of focus groups. You think Bill Clinton was a leader, but he was basing everything he did on market research to get re-elected.
Why has the Clinton message changed so much this election cycle? It's because the message is that there is no message: it's whatever people tell them it should be today. There is no leadership. Everything that all of you claim is true about the Obama campaign is in fact true about the Clinton campaign.
But why watch a widely acclaimed BBC documentary when you can just keep calling people names? That's a hell of a lot easier, isn't it?
March 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad reality is politicians must play to the mob to get elected. Imo most of the votes of all 3 of the current candidates come from the unthinking tv addicts. Obama is the most slickly packaged product on the market now. He's got just as many pollsters and focus groups as Clinton. What I don't get is why you think Obama is different, why you engage in this partisan hackery when you've shown with your post on Israel as well as in the subsequent comments on peak oil and the energy crisis that you have a serious intellect and real insight.
Do you seriously think Obama wasn't pandering to homophobia with his so called gay bash tour? Do you seriously believe that he thinks America can afford the middle class tax cut he's promising or that he actually believes it's the best use of government funds? He's playing to the mob just as Clinton is.
What your video showed me, and what I already knew, was that Clinton, Stephanopoulos, Carville, and others were relatively progressive and truely idealistic who saw the devastation of the Reagan years as well as his deification that lead to Bush being elected and did what they had to to get elected. So they could advance progressive values. As your video stated, once elected, Clinton tried to appeal to American's better instincts and compassion by asking them to forgo the promised tax cuts and do just a little bit for the poor only to lose the congress in a landslide. What do you think will happen to Obama if he gets into office and says, "You know those tax cuts I promised? Well we really can't afford them."
Clinton's message to the mob has changed because she's searching for ones the mob will buy. Obama's message to the mob is working well, no need to change it.
It was not Bill Clinton who killed the dream of FDR it was Reagan with the willing collaboration of the American public. Bill did the best he could in very difficult circumstances, a right wing in asendancy and united with no limit on how dirty they were willing to fight to achieve their goals. The eight years of Bill's presidency were better than the eight years of Reagan or Bush. Would you rather he had stood up more for his principles and lost to a republican? Especially considering that all he would have accomplished was standing up for his principles, with a republican congress he couldn't have passes any meaningful progressive legislation anyway. We're a nation entertaining itself into a stupor. I sure don't have any solution for that problem and I'm sure politicians who need to be elected to accomplish anything are as puzzled about a solution to that fundamental problem as well.
March 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink