Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
July 30, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Truthdig Bazaar
Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez

by Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka

more items

Print this item

Live Chat: Robert Scheer on the Election

Posted on Nov 4, 2010

(Page 3)

Scheer: I’m the guy who debated Ralph Nader on the [ocean liner] cruise of the most important liberal publication for 144 years, The Nation magazine, and it’s on our site. I debated Ralph Nader a few years back on a cruise, saying he was wrong, Obama was going to be a great hope, things were going to change, the Democratic Party was the only party up … let me here and now apologize to Ralph Nader, and to Chris Hedges, who didn’t take that position. I think I vastly underestimated the deceptiveness and chicanery of the Democratic Party leadership. I think what Rahm Emanuel and these people around Obama—and I guess you have to blame Obama, he’s not some innocent—did to the economy, to the people here, is outrageous. And everybody talks about, well, there’ll be a good Supreme Court—even the Supreme Court appointees aren’t so flamingly wonderful. But the reality is that he threw in with the Wall Street bandits, and made them whole. They’re doing great. And he screwed the average person. And so—who are these people around him? How do they sleep at night? I don’t get it, frankly. And yes, to answer your question, I think Chris Hedges has been a prophet. He’s a prophetic voice, and unfortunately he’s been right—I would prefer that he’d been wrong, and things had worked out splendidly, but I see a big mess out there, and I see the Democratic leadership being up to its eyeballs in it. And I think the voters were right to punish him [Obama] this time. Right to punish him. Unfortunately, it would have been better if they’d punished him with some sort of progressive alternative. But really, as Chris Hedges points out in his current Truthdig article, it really doesn’t exist.

Anderson: OK. We have a follow-up question. …

Scheer: Let me ask you something, “voice off-camera.” You said you don’t agree; what is your position?

Anderson: I didn’t say I didn’t agree. I said I had my ideas.


Square, Site wide

Scheer: So what are your ideas? Let’s make this democratic. Get on camera.

Anderson: No, I will be the disembodied voice. I was thinking that …

Scheer: This is how Truthdig operates. This is our editor Kasia Anderson, one of our editors. And so we have disagreement. Our managing editor, Peter Scheer, most often disagrees with me on these; he’s much more sympathetic to Obama. So what is your position, Kasia? We have lively debates in the office, why not let people in on it?

Anderson: Well, this won’t be a debate, because my position is that I do think that he [Hedges] called this way ahead of time—at least two years ago. And I was reluctant, as you were, to believe that. But I’ve since realized the wisdom of his words, in terms of the right mobilizing and the sort of radical movement that’s popping up.

Scheer: Let me ask you a question, because I was challenged on—we also have this tape on our site—on GritTV by Laura Flanders, who I respect. And she said “You’re only taking this position because you’re a white male.” And, you know, “You don’t care about Supreme Court appointees, you don’t care about what the right wing is going to do to civil rights and to women’s rights,” and so forth. So, you’re a woman. What do you think? I mean, am I betraying … I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I mean … I argue … I gave a talk in New York last week, and I was booed by some women because I said, you know, choice [the right to choose whether to have an abortion] doesn’t trump everything else. Getting judges on the Supreme Court who will back Roe vs. Wade—all my life I’ve been told that’s the issue. No! People putting food on the table, people having jobs, people being able to clothe their kids, people being able to send their kids to school. When you have 44 million Americans living in poverty—that means a family of four living under $21,000—that’s the issue. That’s the issue! And I don’t think choice trumps everything else, and I don’t think the fact that this guy might give us a better Supreme Court appointee trumps everything else.

I think, you know, there’s a real issue here of whether people who call themselves liberals and progressive and Democrats really care about the ordinary people. And ordinary people in America are hurting now, big, big time. You know? And this guy—I’m really confused by Obama, because I watched his press conference; the guy is incredibly appealing, he has all the right moves, you know, he’s logical, he’s smart. I wonder, where is his soul? You know, where is his feeling? Is he in touch with this? Did he learn anything as a community organizer in Chicago—which was really a brief time in his life, you know. I mean, Honolulu doesn’t have that kind of visible poverty, but it does have poor people. And, you know, is he in touch at all with the reality of the American experience now, which is quite painful for many people? They’re scared.

Anderson: OK, we have two more questions from readers, so I don’t want to take up time …

Scheer: OK …

Anderson: … defending the feminist position on choice, right at this particular chat …

Scheer: I consider myself a feminist. I don’t want [the situation to be what it was before the ruling in]  Roe vs. Wade. … I was alive when people died from coat-hanger abortions. I’m not trying to minimize that issue. I think it’s a basic human rights issue that women should have control of their bodies. I’m not dismissing it. What I am saying is that it cannot trump every other concern on the political landscape.

1   2   3   4   NEXT PAGE >>>
They Know Everything About You -- A new book by Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer. Order an autographed copy now!


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By eir, November 8, 2010 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

Gonewest, Here’s an interesting little story from Jeff Steinberg of LaRouche PAC:

“Beginning in early 1998, Clinton and Rubin launched an international campaign to formulate a “new global financial architecture.” A combination of G-7 advanced sector and G-15 emerging economy nations formed the G-22, to study alternatives to the current, unregulated global system. Representatives of the 22 nations met in Washington, D.C. in the Spring of 1998, and established a series of ongoing working groups, to come up with plans for a new, more regulated international financial system.

These moves by Clinton and Rubin stood in stark opposition to the Greenspan-JP Morgan-Sandy Weill drive to bust up the last vestiges of restrictive bank regulation in the U.S.A.

When, in Sept. 1998, President Clinton traveled to New York City, to deliver a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, pressing for a “new global financial architecture” with far greater regulation and restriction of shortterm capital flows, all hell broke loose. Clinton was targeted for impeachment. Wall Street Democrats, led by Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.), joined with Britain’s Daily Telegraph propaganda mill, to press for Clinton’s resignation. The House of Representatives voted a bill of impeachment.

The issue was never the Monica Lewinsky affair. The issue was President Clinton’s publicly announced commitment to overhaul the global financial system, to the detriment of speculators.

And the punishment was swift. From the time that President Clinton delivered his statement of intent to overhaul the global financial architecture at the CFR in late September, to the time that the House of Representatives voted for his impeachment, took less than 90 days. The City of London’s demands for Clinton’s scalp over his threat to reregulate the global financial system—in cooperation with developing sector countries that had been viciously looted by speculators—was delivered.

There was never a serious question about the outcome of the impeachment trial of President Clinton in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic majority was never about to vote up the articles of impeachment, despite the Gore-Lieberman efforts to seize the Oval Office. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton.

But the die had already been cast, and the drive for the repeal of Glass-Steagall benefited enormously from the Clinton impeachment distraction, which killed off any efforts at the new global financial architecture. On May 12, 1999, Robert Rubin resigned as Treasury Secretary, effective July 1 of that year. His replacement, Larry Summers, was fanatically committed to “Sandy’s law,” repealing Glass-Steagall. On Nov. 4, 1999, both the House and the Senate passed the Glass-Steagall repeal. A broken and distracted President Clinton signed it into law days later.”

In essence, Monica Lewinsky was a treasure that would prove to be worth trillions to the financial oligarchs.
Related Updates
Asia Denounces Federal Reserve’s QE2 as “the Biggest Risk” To World

Report this

By bernard mauge, November 7, 2010 at 1:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

the whole thing about the president reaching out to the republicans first once he rode to power and again after his recent humiliating defeat is nothing more than the obvious reality of uniparty politics in America. There is no ideological divide between the two, just two entities reaching out to corporate power and money. With 96% reelection rate, the soviet communist party was 94%, we are living in a strange form of democracy where pretty soon riot police will escort us to the mall and make sure we spend it all on maxed out credit cards. Freedom to drown in your own debt poisoned by toxic food and toxic medias. And you call this demcracy! The middle class reminds me of the well off jews sent to the extermination camps. They were allowed to travel first class waited on respectfully until the trains reached their final destination. And then they saw the dogs, the hudge lights and they kew.

Report this

By Gonewest, November 6, 2010 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You would lay Gramm-Leach-Bliley at Clinton’s feet? 

That bill passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House.

In the Senate 98% of the Republicans and 84% of Democrats voted yea.  In the House 98% of the Republicans and 75% of the Democrats voted yea.

Or are you suggesting Clinton should have vetoed that bill?

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, November 6, 2010 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With access to a gold mine like Lyndon Larouche why would Dr Vaknin waste his time psychoanalyzing Barack Obama?  He fails to show how anything he says about narcissism applies to Obama.  Incidentally, Vaknin used the first person pronoun about two thousand nine hundred times in a one hour interview.  Physician, heal thyself.

To anyone who wants to understand Obama I would recommend THE BRIDGE, by David Remnick.  He doesn’t psychologize but from the way he presents Obama in a thousand different circumstances and in many different environments, one can easily draw one’s own conclusions about his personal psychology.

Report this

By eir, November 6, 2010 at 5:35 am Link to this comment

“And this guy—I’m really confused by Obama, because I watched his press conference; the guy is incredibly appealing, he has all the right moves, you know, he’s logical, he’s smart. I wonder, where is his soul? You know, where is his feeling? Is he in touch with this? Did he learn anything as a community organizer in Chicago—which was really a brief time in his life, you know. I mean, Honolulu doesn’t have that kind of visible poverty, but it does have poor people. And, you know, is he in touch at all with the reality of the American experience now, which is quite painful for many people? They’re scared.”

This analysis of Obama by Dr. Sam Vaknin, author of the best seller, Malignant Self-Love, is illuminating, and I would imagine would be especially so for people who find his type of personality confusing.  It’s fascinating:

Dr. Sam Vaknin on Obama’s Narcissism

Report this

By SoTexGuy, November 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment

The ‘making nice with crocodiles’ remark is priceless.. and poignant.


Report this

By smitty8, November 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Excellent and important article, although I
think RS is clearly wrong when he says, “You
can’t fool the American people.” A central
problem is how easy it is for Fox, Clinton,
Obama, et al,  to do just that, as confirmed
by the vote and such things as the perception
of the 2000 page insurance company sponsored
Obama health scheme as “socialized medicine.”

Instead of an energized left capitalizing on
the anger out there, we get the right doing
the same thing, to their advantage and to the
detriment of the suckers. And what do us
liberals get - insipid, boring, non-newsworthy
“marches” such as the two recently in DC. I
was at the first and felt like I had heard the
same speeches, delivered in the same tired
fashion 40 years ago. No wonder it was
relegated to the bottom of page 18 in the NY

The challenge to the left is to try to stop
doing what does not work - to wake up and look
around at what DOES work and to try to stop
doing the same old thing and expecting
different results.

It is especially sad how many pathetic
liberals continue to blame Nader for Gore’s
loss when it was Gore and his advisors who
chose to pander to the middle/right, including
picking the ‘stick-in-your-eye’ Joe Lieberman
for a running mate, rather that respecting the
importance of Nader’s message and seeking his
support. Gore ran a weak, tepid, cautious
campaign rejecting the support of Nader’s
ideas which, as history proves, were

If Obama had shown real leadership, fulfilling
his promise of ‘hope’ instead of betraying his
base and foolishly thinking that he could make
nice with crocodiles he should have been able
to make real change or to see Republicans take
the hit for blocking it. What to do now? Major
opportunity was lost. Now we are faced with
coping. If only the left would get together
and speak with one voice where we agree
instead of dividing into factions over
disagreement of details.

Report this
DavidByron's avatar

By DavidByron, November 5, 2010 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

He says he was wrong and Nader / Hedges were right but then goes right on and disagrees with them again and for the same reasons and to the same effect.  Doesn’t he get tired of being wrong?

As for US feminism they are basically just right wingers these days and Obama moved the SC to the right like every single other president in living memory.

Report this
BarbieQue's avatar

By BarbieQue, November 5, 2010 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

A Most excellent read. It takes a real giant to not only change ones thinking but apologize as Mr. Scheer did to Nader and Hedges.

I would, respectfully, like to add regarding the following:

“...The tea party movement is wrong, in that they talk about big government, but they don’t attack the big military, which is at Cold War levels…”

The (real) Tea Parties earliest roots are from the Ron Paul campaign, the money bombs, the blimp (oh the back and forth that went on about that on those forums…yeesh) the massive response to every internet poll (hannity still hasn’t closed his right eye fully).

One of the reasons Ron Paul had such massive support was because all he talked about was shrinking government and bringing our Soldiers home and getting out of everywhere we’re in. Which no one but Mike Gravel was doing, maybe Kucinich a bit but not enough to make a crowd send blimps up over cities.

The current day tea party has been corrupted by the likes of that dufus Glennnnnnn Beck and that sly lying sob Huckleberry Finn.

But: The Roots were as anti war as it gets

Tea Party Roots:

please note the date

Report this

By Wikileaks for Nobel, November 5, 2010 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

Excellent analysis by Mr. Scheer.  If I could have asked him one question, it would have been why it is that so many self-styled progressives—himself included—continue to view the so-called Democratic Party as some sort of vehicle for desirable change in this country?  Yes, the more local you become, the more plausible that perspective appears; however, at the highest levels, nationally, the Dems have never delivered.  Never.  Even during the Sixties, it was only the real fear of complete social breakdown that drove the legislative victories we saw.  And we are so far from that level or perspective now, that I can’t see chasing the Dems as anything other than analogous to what Obama did by stuffing his cabinet full of the very characters who manufactured our current disaster. 

In short, the Democratic Party is to progress what Geithner, Rubin, and the lot were to Obama’s policies.  It makes no sense to try relieving your headache by pickup up a pistol and putting it to your head.  That’s what the Dem Party—along with its close relation, the GOP—is:  a loaded gun that won’t solve anything for us.

Report this

By eir, November 5, 2010 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

No Bob, “choice” trumps everything else in the world.  It was voted on by the Committee of Over-Privileged, Self-Absorbed People (CO-PS-AP).  Right now, they’re taking up the fight for “Nerdy Apple Bottom.”  You can suggest they take up the cause for addressing imminent hyper-inflation and economic collapse but they don’t see how this concerns them, anyway they’ve got a full calendar.  Await further instructions.

Had to break your balls (ovaries for Ruth Marcus) on this, otherwise good post. 

Dignified and graceful of you to apologize to Nader.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, November 5, 2010 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Take note Mr. Chris Hedges! Having been widely and officially recognized as a most prominent prophet, among prophets and prognosticators and even a few souls in the wilds of Texas .. be very wary!

Congregations and mobs (and political movements) are historically harsh with their prophets and leaders when they aren’t quickly gratified and then go looking for someone to blame!

Luck to you good sir!

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network