1 vote

Naomi Wolf disowns Obama

In a podcast interview, Naomi Wolf, the author of The End of Anerica who campaigned for Obama, admits that Obama is more of the same, maybe worse.

The interview begins around 4 minutes in.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

wow it only took her 3 years

wow it only took her 3 years to figure it out. Nystrom says give her a break, we need everyone.. Not this one.
She is either a fool or playing a game.

“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul

I think 3 years...

I think 3 years is pretty good - Wolf was coming ALL the way from radical feminism/collectivism, and it takes a while to break down the deeply-ingrained faith in big government's ability to reshape society for good.

Lew Rockwell interviewed her a while back, and it was a very educational conversation. We need people like Wolf in the movement, so that they can appeal to left-liberals: they know what issues and what arguments are likely to be appealing to "progressives."

she must be popular

she's even inspired a first post from a brand new member to defend her.

we are the Remnant

Rhodes scholar

Is Oathkeeper stewart rhodes, also a rhodes scholar?


I see nothing sinister about them, the real villain is not some society but a political movement attempting to start New World Orders.

Even Obama cannot get out of the kitchen to this dreadful reality....

no, having the last name Rhodes doesn't = Rhodes scholar

more info from another source:

Cecil Rhodes set up the Rhodes Scholarships to recruit and bring top men from several nations to Oxford to be initiated into the Illuminati and to learn about how to bring in a One-World-Government.

we are the Remnant

just so you know...

Naomi Wolf, like William Jefferson Clinton (Bilderberger, Trilateral, CFR), is a Rhodes Scholar.

Look into Cecil Rhodes sometime. Here are some bits:

from his will:

"In the present day I became a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end.

The idea gleaming and dancing before one's eyes like a will-of-the wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire."

Rhodes' secret society is called the Round Table; its American branch, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was set up just after World War I, as the headquarters moved, in effect, across the Atlantic, a move anticipated decades earlier.

from Wikipedia (just 'cause I'm doing this quickly):

He wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the white countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included Americans in the Rhodes scholarships and said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the United States rejoin the British Empire.

we are the Remnant

Anyone with talent is going to be approached by NWO

Through different organizations like these, all NWO organizations have an academic/educational aspect.

THe fact that she is a rhodes scholar means she's academically talented. That she took some opportunities to advance a career when she was young does not autoimatically make her part of any conspiracy, or even the NWO.

Lets look at what she says and does now.

You have to take people individually, otherwise you'll be left with yourself, Ron Paul, and Alex Jones, and you won't be too sure about AJ and Ron ( a mason I think).

I think your last line says it all.

But. . . individuals can be part of something and have no idea. I will tell you this though, you don't get to be a Rhodes Scholar without a firm belief that the ruling class is smarter and therefore more capable of and entitled to run the affairs of others. I personally stop paying attention to people as soon as they get on TV. Only reason, because they have been "approved". The truth is subversive, the tv isn't.

I take a different perspective

I don't think that the Potential Rhodes Scholars believe in the idea of a "ruling Class" - They view themselves as using their talents to help mankind. Most, I believe are the classic examples of the "humanitarian with a guillotine "

That said, many do have an arrogance taught to them at their elite universities. But How is that different than aspiring to be successful - and the NWO has its hand on the levers of those things that make people successful. In the end everyone sells out, some just more than others.

Unless, of course, people can change their definition of success.

well, she's 'right'--

we can like Dr. Paul, respect him and listen to him and support him, because he is fighting for liberty in congress--

but if we begin to see him as our 'rescuer', we are wrong.

That said, I think she is saving face a bit, but I have always heard truth in Naomi.

I spent most of my life being almost radically 'conservative', so liking what Naomi says means a lot coming from me.

If she's right, then she's right--

and putting some kind of label on her won't change it.

I am pleased.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

good post 1988 vote



First, anyone criticizing Naomi below hasn't listened to this (especially the first 4 minutes), and they really, really need to listen to the whole thing.

She's warning you about things you need to know.

She tells us how to win. She explains why Campaign for Liberty and YAL, etc. are a great idea, but more importantly how you can make a difference.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/


no, go back and listen more carefully. she is comparing "ron paul on the right, people think the right guy the right leader will solve problems. well people on the left thought the same about obama". her understanding of the ron paul liberty movement is so shallow that she actually thinks those individuals are as personality driven as she once was towards obama, and she dares compare the two. hilarious. and yes size and scope matters. devil's in the details. please no arguments such as "well a minority in rp's movement might think this way". 99% and 10% is a great disparity. and yes that's a random number please don't trap my words like the obvious emotional statement i made about boomers. i do take personal offense to the so called "left grassroots movement" which obama desperately tried to brag about during the campaign, but the movement didn't exist then, and they're not in existence now in the face of the expanding war in the middle east in any policy-changing significant ways. the anti war left is dead, and i've had enough of armchair critic talks that so often end with a final touch on how adorable gore's personality is-- how "he's actually an idealistic person". who the hell cares, look at his policies for f*** sake. i used a lot of offensive language in 3 of my posts. when i see any credible life energy coming out of the anti war left, i will apologize. until then, i continue to view them with the same belittlement and disdain, and i will give them the same amount of credibility when they come out every so often with a new found redemption--little to none.


er understanding of the ron paul liberty movement is so shallow that she actually thinks those individuals are as personality driven as she once was towards obama, and she dares compare the two. hilarious

GOod point.

she is comparing "ron paul on the right, people think the right guy the right leader will solve problems. well people on the left thought the same about obama".

I agree with her here tho. Having the right leader isn't the solution. The solution is to convince people that we don't need "leaders". And the term "leader" is just a mask for what they really are--rulers. And having masters is incompatible with a free people.
The solution is liberty. Not archism.


action speaks louder than words, i doubt they plan to execute any planned and more aggressive action in the opposite way to compensate for their misled beliefs and the audiences they brought together with them. most of the time they issue a statement and go on hermit mode like michael moore. whatever, i don't lump people in groups but i seriously just had about enough of the boomer generation mentality and their particular brand of cowardice when it comes to redemption. "i worked with gore's campaign and he is actually an idealistic guy trying to do the right thing". the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.. whose money is he being idealistic with? from which document is the authority he seeks derived? intellectual oblivion and idealism is not a functioning combo and as far as i can tell she is just about as bad. she is just now beginning to realize candidates are only vehicles for change and it comes down to grassroots movements to actually change a nation? how many years has she been an activist, that now she just saw this elementary error she made in worshiping obama when his voting record among many things clearly indicated otherwise to any reasonable person? and she still has trouble understanding how ron paul movement is a genuine grassroots movement and not of the same personality adulation driven type of movement obama enjoyed, and out of her ignorance she dared to compare the two. how fucking stupid can she get?

I've sent the link to my 3 boomer siblings

Her mistake is your mistake: some Ron Paul supporters did have their hopes pinned on one man. That's the problem with generalizing to the whole group.

Some still think he could change the country if only he were elected. Yes, he is a regular citizen, but he's been in Congress for years, and didn't have a bit of influence until we got behind him.

That's her point. It isn't the man, it's the message. (where have I heard that before?)

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

There is no comparison here.

You are defending Naomi Wolf lumping Ron Paul, (who is all bout "message") in with Barack Obama, and his persuasion.

Ron Paul has made a huge impact with his message. You know that. So why do you defend Ms. Wolf's willful distortion?

Small Correction

I should have said, anyone saying that this interview is not worth listening to, has not listened to it. I don't know anything about Naomi, and I certainly realize that Ron Paul is a citizen statesman of the type she thinks we need, and not a politician. She doesn't know him like we do.

Her summary of our situation is masterful and this interview is well worth the time to listen.

This statement "You are defending Naomi Wolf lumping Ron Paul, (who is all bout "message") in with Barack Obama, and his persuasion." is just flat out false. I haven't defended any wilful distortion, since I did not even address that issue.

I do find it interesting that she and others contrast Ron Paul with the POTUS! Can you imagine how much more press the campaign would have gotten if they'd started doing that sooner?

I'm talking about how worthwhile this interview is. Freedom brings us together, and fighting about the one "distortion" in the interview is exactly what the enemies of freedom want us to do.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I guess you hadn't seen her on TV cheerleading for Obama

(and Clinton and Gore) as often as I had. Actually, I have seen her opining in the public eye for many years on many subjects, and I have read some of her books and essays. She has a habit of jumping on a new (to her) bandwagon, presenting herself as a newly-minted expert on the subject, and using it to garner media attention for whatever her latest book is.

You like her, you learned something from her - good for you.

However, I don't need to be schooled by her (or you) that it's not about one man, or one leader. I am not looking to be "saved". She is the one who needed to learn not to seek "the One". I don't find that a problem with most Ron Paul supporters.

>some Ron Paul supporters did

>some Ron Paul supporters did have their hopes pinned on one man.<

Very good point IMissLiberty.

And some still do. Maybe it is good that RP did not get elected ... he would not be able deliver as much as most his supporters would expect without compromising and working with liberals and treehuggers...nothing can be changed by president alone...

...unless your elected president would be ready to discard constitution and become another "free market" dictator.

Are RP fundamentalist ready for our version of Franco or Pinochet?

"Maybe it is good that RP did

"Maybe it is good that RP did not get elected "

Maybe we shouldn't say asinine things to make a point on a message board.

Ventura 2012

he's a 911 truther

and like so many of them (not all), they can find some of the most irrelevant topics and somehow turn them into an argument that ron paul is unfit for something, while many of them simply do it because they feel bitter toward ron for not taking an eager initiative to talk 911 on tv, even when he's actually seldom asked by interviewers to do so and on the occasions he was asked, he never avoided speaking his mind. this is the second time in one week's time i've seen these imaginative and "ingenious" suggestions coming out of truthers. the first actually suggested he can be a closet coward for not chanting about 911 on tv, and here's the suggestion it can somehow be healthy for the movement if a liberty spokesperson for 30 years is not elected. honestly i don't know why they're here. hey if dividing truthers from paulers is your goal, you did it. have a raise. and actually in ayn rand's philosophy this could be a long term "win-win" situation, and i might not be totally against the backstabbing job you're having a heck of an accomplishment at.

>he's a 911 truther and like

>he's a 911 truther
and like so many of them (not all), they can find some of the most irrelevant topics and somehow turn them into an argument that ron paul is unfit for something<

You are completely wrong. I never claimed that Ron Paul is unfit for anything. What I claim is that many of his supporters put too much hope in single man. Even if we would be able to elect RP as our president there would be small chance for meaningful change without support of vast majority of Americans. You have to gain support from all social groups that currently are followers of Rush Limbaugh, Obama, Palin, Kucinich, Nader and many others.

International Banking Cartel, Corporate Lobby and Military Industrial Complex is too powerful for any single social group movement. In other words all "tribes" instead fighting each other should unite their "forces to fight COMMON ENEMY. Our enemy is not issue of universal healthcare, gay marriage, racism,antisemitism, illegal immigration, environment protection. Our enemy is policy of foreign intervention, fiscal irresponsibility, fractional banking system, corporate globalization and corruption and loss of personal liberties.

So instead loathing and spitting on all those that fight common enemy but do not share all our views we should become friends. I have a dream Naomi, Nader, Kucinich, Moore and RP supporters marching to Washington with banners END THE FED and END THE WARS... war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, war on "terror" war on drugs...

>and here's the suggestion it can somehow be healthy for the movement if a liberty spokesperson for 30 years is not elected. honestly i don't know why they're here<

Very often in history not elected liberty spokesman can do more for their case than elected one. Did you noticed how Obamas support shrinked? RP would have a lot enemies if he defeated beloved liberal messiah.... and neocons on the right would not love him either... audit the fed would have much smaller number of cosponsors and as I said before president do not have dictatorial power.

And I am here because I like RP as a person, I support most of his political views and I think most of participants are open minded and censorship on this forum is minimal. I am here to share my thoughts and experience and I am here to get education. It is DP site that made me 911 truther... before I investigated all materials linked/posted on this forum I mocked 911 truthers and viewed them as kooks... I am sorry I did this I was ignorant and brainwashed by MSM official false conspiracy theory.

well i admit

i do get bitter at times and if i misread your intentions i apologize.

You like to lecture.

And you like to make generalizations - about Ron Paul supporters - and about people who express dislike for people you are fond of.

You have gained a little education and you have decided to lecture us. Just like... Naomi. You two have a lot in common.

>You have gained a little

>You have gained a little education and you have decided to lecture us. Just like... Naomi. You two have a lot in common..<

You are right. Both Naomi and me dislike American foreign policy, fascism, patriotic act, war on terror, Bush doctrine, Rumsfeld, Cheney...

I wish you and Naomi had a lot in common...

Anyway thank you for lecturing me about danger of generalization and inappropriateness of lecturing on DP forums


Yeah, the alternative is just a "free market dictator" (Ron Paul

or a socialist dictator (Barack Obama) - who daily throws out the constitution.

You are lost in a distorted left/right paradigm.

no, because we have to stop thinking "leader" and . . .

start realizing that we are the people--

as much as we love Dr. Paul (and I really admire the man!), we have to get out of the 'leader' mindset. We don't need a savior; we need teachers.

Dr. Paul says that OVER and over again; it's time we listen!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I was quoting the previous post,

which is based upon a false choice.

Why are you preaching to the choir about the false "savior" idea?

good for you to squeeze that bit of good message out of her rant

what some took offense to was her ignorance in generalizing the two movement (there's really only one) as being driven by the similar kind of blind support. i don't take offense to some creative message that free and intelligent individuals determined on receiving only positive messages can get by listening to her. she didn't just deliver a good message without having it bundled in a convoluted mess of over-generalization while never missing a chance to throw in a couple partisan praise on useless cult personalities like al gore. she has a long way to go if she wants to be taken seriously.