I was mentioning what a creep Paul Street was last week and he proved it with another bad ZNet post which includes:
Good for me, but here’s something I did not and should have predicted: the significant extent to which President Obama’s “liberal” intellectual defenders would agree with my sense of Obama as a center-right imperial corporatist and embrace that sense to defend him. That ugly American liberal I mentioned at the beginning of this essay does not actually take exception to my discussion of Obama and his administration as deeply conservative and reflexively loyal to dominant domestic and imperial hierarchies, strategies, and doctrines. He has no childish, populist, or pie-in-the-sky illusions about Obama being anything other than what the president really is – a cold and calculating ruling class politician who is emotionally and philosophically opposed to confronting concentrated wealth and power. He thinks I’ve got Obama just right: “the empire’s new clothes” in the “real world of power.” And – this is the difference – he likes those hierarchies and doctrines very much. Hs loyalty to them has served him well, with a light teaching load, non-onerously attained tenure(which required five peer-reviewed essays, a set of mediocre teaching evaluations, and a promise not to make his also under-producing colleagues look bad), frequent sabbaticals, supine graduate students, and a very comfortable salary (well into the six figures). His objections are not to my depiction of Obama as an imperial corporatist but to my moral criticism of the president from the “unrealistic,” “fantastic,” and “ultra radical” Left and to the notion that one might hope and work for anything more progressive than the periodic election of outwardly sophisticated, eloquent, and “pragmatic” Democrats. He thinks the radical-democratic ideas of Noam Chomsky and other “hard leftists” like me are amusing and quaint, bearing no credible relationship to reality. He knows there no serious chance or even need for genuine popular governance in Egypt , Honduras , or, for that matter, Chicago (where he thinks that “Rahm Emmanuel is going to do a fine job”) or Washington. He has no imagination beyond the existing imperial state of capitalist affairs and little incentive to develop such vision.
Really? He couldn't see it coming? Because C.I. and Ava did. And they pointed that out over and over, how Barack wouldn't be held accountable, how if his Cult wouldn't hold him accountable in the primaries, they never would.
That his Cult disrespects Noam Chomsky?
Who could have guessed?
Uh, I believe it was C.I. who wrote the following in April 2008 about Barack's official campaign blogger (and former Katrina van-van hovel's former coffee fetcher):
Sam once felt he was all grown up enough to tackle Noam Chomsky and offer this tidbit of 'wisdom': "And if he wants to convince Americans, he's simply got to tone it down." The still wet behind his ears offered, "Chomsky is almost 75 years old and he has a choice to make: he can continue to radically dissent to his heart's delight, or he can try to win a broader audience and actually change things." Now, yes, it is laughable that Sam, who has still accomplished nothing in his life, wants to lecture Noam Chomsky about Chomsky's lifetime of work but grasp the message Sam's sending which is "Tone it down, trick people a little, and you can get them over to your side." Isn't that the same problem he had at MyDD when pressed on actual plans by Obama?
Again, everywhere Paul Street thinks he's found a new path to explore, turns out C.I. was there four years before. Poor tired Paul Street.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"