Star power

0

I had never seen this 1998 conversation between then-candidate Hugo Chávez and the formidable, recently deceased Oscar Yanes. I picked it up through my Facebook feed, from the page of one of my come-candela friends. Instead of being horrified, I watched in fascination as Chávez navigated the interview without a hitch.

We all hated him, but we have to admit … the guy oozed charisma. That right there is pure, unadulterated star power. What a waste of talent.

1 COMMENT

  1. Mesmerized by Lucifer himself?
    Is talent to lie to be praised in anyway?
    Waste of talent? Was that talent? That was malice pure from hell!

    • It’s just nice to imagine what could’ve been truly achieved if he hadn’t misused his almost endless political capital.

    • there is no doubt that chavez could have put his unique charm to the service of a real development plan for the country. However the question will remain forever unanswered: was he always the power hungry clown he turned out to be? or did he became corrupted after gaining power?
      The answer is probably in the middle, he probably wanted to build a radical regime by seizing power in 1992, (possibly a Perez Jimenez type dictatorship) but after failing he attempted to achieve his goal in disguise throught democratic means and then his power addiction took over and one thing led to another, probably his plan was to be so magnificent that the people would accept his eternal rule in a referendum of some sort, the thing he probably didn’t anticipate was that the people he chose for the actual execution of his project (if there is one) would be so amazingly corrupted and incompetent.

    • Chavez was just pretending to be listening!. I suspect that most of those who find him worth of admiration in any way did vote for him at some point! That was indeed a waste!!!

  2. As much as I hate him and would piss on his grave if I could, the man was easily one of the most charismatic people to ever become president in Latin America. If a speech of his is being run on TV I find myself forced to listen even if I disagree with what he’s saying. All good orators are like that, they can hold an audience enraptured even if the actual subject matter they’re discussing is beyond nuts. If his speeches can have that effect on someone who is an opponent I can only imagine how much the base hung on his every word.

    • “one of the most charismatic people to ever become president in Latin America”

      I don’t see pigs flying…

      See right there, that is what I’m talking about, Our problem can be rooted to our perception and our conceptions of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is not, to witness someone praising one of the most incompetent president of Venezuela in two centuries, regardless of his ability to keep the office for so long, is a sign that we will still dwelling the pit for a very long time. That is as long as there are people in Venezuela, at least a sizable group, refusing to accept reality as it is, admiring and promoting our vices, and rejecting good values and virtues, we will still dwelling the pits.

      Take Germany for example, you can not imagine them moving from their state of underdevelopment after WWII to what is now, by praising Hitler. Same as the Japanese. Is to move for us to move on.

      • Let me be clear: The cult of personality is a bad thing. Electing a president simply because he is charismatic yet incompetent is a bad thing. But the man had charisma and used every last drop of it to bilk the nation, that is undeniable. I’m not in Venezuela btw so maybe I’m just seeing it from the outside.

  3. That’s a man who could have been an awesome TV or radio personality, maybe a gameshow presenter or a comedic actor. We could have had him as the substitute of Gilberto Correa in “Sabado Sensacional” instead of Daniel Sarcos, the animator of a remake of “Cuanto Vale el Show” substituting Guillermo Fantástico Gonzalez. We could have had a populist and popular radio host competing with Fullchola and El Tigre Rafael. He coulld have been the shock jock counterpart to Renny Otolina.
    Instead, after a failed baseball career this man went into the army and got into politics, using his charisma to destroy a country instead of merely enretain them. A true waste of talent indeed.

    • I’ve written this before , knew a relative of someone who for a time was his boss in the army and got to know him quite well . He was extremely obsequious and charming , really knew how to charm the socks off his superiors . brought their wives little gifts of things he bought on the road , always smiling and joking , very humble and cordial, would talk small gossip with everyone. He was part a seducer (because of how desperately he craved other peoples attention and admiration ) part a blowhard thug ,(because of his perverse megalomania) . he could be astute and cunning, also very violent . He suffered from various fully diagnosed personality disorders which made him hyperaware of others feelings allowing him to manipulate them . He is one classic example of the truth of Lord Actons dictum about the way “absolute power corrupts absolutely” . Now that we have Maduro as president , a very mediochre man in all respects, Chavez histrionic and manipulative abilities stand out all the more by contrast. He fooled a lot of people for a while , specially people who being ravaged by deep poverty, ignorance and cultural delusions might feel their hatreds and resentments mirrored by his bellicose drama queen personality. Intellectually he was an iliterate, you could see that he had read little and understood less of how modern economies worked , his hold on ideas was more visceral and rethorical and romantic than conceptual . Its a sorry reminder of our own flaws as a people that someone like him should have become for 13 years the absolute master of our fate.

      • That is a good description of the man.

        I will make a comment on the last part, though:

        Chávez read very randomly, without any system whatsoever, without any consistency and without any discipline. He seldom finished books. He also had no knowledge of economics or mathematics (which are two other topics).
        And YET:
        1) he read a zillion times more than the average Venezuelan and probably more than most opposition politicians. If you go through his tweets (and they were his) you could see punctuation was much better than Capriles, a million times better than that of Maduro. If you listened to him, you could see he had a good command of syntax. You have to read some to do that.
        2) he had excellent memory. Even if, as Rory Carroll said, he had a group of people reading for him and sending him little pieces of paper with the answers to what he had forgotten, his memory was very good. One thing in which you can see that is how he could almost effortlessly backtrack after inserting one story into another story: he would take back the upper layer and finish it and go on like that until he had retaken the initial story.
        3) he pretended to the ignorant not to be such a zero in mathematics by “conjuring” the importance of mathematics time after time. He mentioned it and people would repeat, even if he definitely had no clue.

        And yes, the guy was unstable. Not for nothing he left the head of that dead donkey in the front yard of the girl that had rejected him.

        He had also big racial complexes. He resented discrimination but after his first wife he only wanted very white, preferably blue or green-eyed women.

        • Kepler Yours are smart points about the man , he was a natural public speaker and entertaining raconteur , could structure his phrases with fluency and speed , had good natural command of sintaxis. Didnt read much but at least appreciated the value of proyecting himself as a well read man (which as you say is more than you can say about many oppo leaders ) . I hated his bombastic grand standing style but must recognize his gift for mesmerizing men of humble intelectual preparation with catchy phrases and cliches . His: the gift of easy loquacity ( and loquacity is the uneducated mens eloquence) . He did project the aura of a man of power and limitless self confidence (something poor Maduro will never be able to do) . I talked to psychiatrist friends and relatives and he definitely showed many traits of a deranged personality , he was emotionally speaking a wounded soul. but that only ,made him extremely phocused and adept at manipulation . His florid exhibitionism , histrionism and passion for the limelight revealed a man desperate for recognition which is always a sign of men who ‘are not at peace with their self image ” , with their natural identity. A man like him would never have stood a chance of becoming an outstanding political leader in any educationally developed country. His gestures were strambotic, and transparently farcical , !! I hope that Venezuela will one day become inmune to the allure of kitshy bloated charismatic leaders such as he was !!

        • Kepler, I need to comment on what your statement: “He had also big racial complexes. He resented discrimination but after his first wife he only wanted very white, preferably blue or green-eyed women.” I think that you have gone too far with your analysis.

          So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Chavez liked blue or green eyed catiras. Does this mean that he had racial complexes? I don’t think so! You are implying that liking women that are not of your own “race” means that you have racial complexes? if I happen to like Hindi women from Trinidad and Tobago, does this mean that I have racial complexes because I am not a Trinidadian Hindi?

          I am curious as you have stated that you are an “African-American”, is your significant other an “African American”. Or do you like catiras, too?

          • ElPeeps,

            I’m going to interject, here, realizing as I do that argumentativeness-for-the-sake-of-argument is your stock and trade. I don’t see why you have such difficulty understanding Kepler’s statement on Chávez’s racial complexes. Unless it’s a question of youth and inexperience. Allow me to explain, then. Kepler’s statements hinge on Chávez’s hypocrisy and inability to be true to his principles. To wit …

            When a man goes on and on and on to defend and promote his racial composition of A and B, shared with a majority…When that same man makes repeated acrid references to race C, its ‘mantuano’ factions and other aspects of a race that’s been an historic thorn in the side of A and B …. One would think that such a man, proud of his A and B racial heritage, would want his progeny to carry that glorious genetic material.

            But no. That same man turns around and marries someone of C race who just happens to be telegenic, and gasp! dyes her hair blonde in an attempt to underscore her C-ness.

            Still not getting it?

            I leave you with this. As one elderly Native woman said to me, about a mutual male friend who is so proud of his Native heritage: “Funny how they don’t end up marrying the race they uphold as so wonderful…”

            Maybe it just takes a lot of living to see through the sham of certain people’s performances.

            Hope that clarifies things for you.

          • Chama, estoy convencido que me estas escribiendo desde un manicomio! Re-read what you wrote and see if it makes any sense, especially in the context of Venezuela where, according to one of the writers of this blog, a large majority of second generation criollos are of mixed race.
            In so far as your comment regarding your Native American friends, I recall that in my college days in the states, I lived fairly close to the Onondaga Indian Reservation and I recall distinctively that many Onondagas had European phenotypes and when I asked about this, I was told that many had Canadian (read: French) heritage that dated way back in time.

          • ElPipo,

            Chávez had an obsession with this item. The attitude he showed towards Rory Carroll
            came over and over again:

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/05/a-highly-perplexing-figure.html

            from minute 1:40 to 2:10. But there are more of that: “porque somos indios, negros”. Verga! Give me a break!

            Chávez, who very likely had at least a third of European genes, kept telling a huge amount of Venezuelans there were on one side the good (native Americans, black and some mixed) and on the other the evil, who were mostly white and oppo.

            At the same time that guy, once he became well-known, married not only a woman who was particularly white and with green or blue eyes but EVERY SINGLE WOMAN he had after his first wife was European-looking. He kept telling Russians and Belorussians about how he fancied their women because of their light eyes. He didn’t say that in Venezuela.

            In Venezuela he said things like what he said to Aristóbulo Istúriz referring to Condoleeza Rice: “Aristóbulo, dale lo suyo”. Why? Because Istúriz is black as Rice.

            Obama didn’t do what he wanted and then he talked about how it was a shame that Obama, being black would do don’t-know-what.

            Let me be clear: being “African American” or “European” or “Native American” does not give neither privileges nor higher moral stance towards anything. As my dad used to say: nadie caga más arriba del culo.
            I am the typical Venezuelan: I am of European, native American and African ancestry and you probably are as well unless your parents came from Germany or Congo or Japan.

            The vast majority of Venezuelans are all those three things, sometimes with some other mixes, just like what we used to learn at school before Chávez.

            And Chávez was with esa joda de dividirnos más y más. Of course we had racism, but if you compare the levels to other countries things were getting improving (and when I talk about other countries I don’t mean European countries and North American countries only, or China or Arabia, I mean Congo, I mean Chad, I mean Nigeria as well).

            As for me, it doesn’t matter as I was not nagging about any supposed ethnicity, but if you care to know: my girlfriends have been of all colours.

          • Its funny how many people fail to noticed the kind of typical Venezuelan racism displayed by Chávez (not to mention misoginy) in his Condoleeza/Aristóbulo comment.
            . It’s clear that because he was mestizo and had a lighter skin, he considered himself superior to a black skinned man like Aristóbulo, in his ignorance not knowing that they probably have a similar genetic make-up,

          • I must have gotten your goat, chiflada syd, for you to respond the way that you did….must be something about the manicomio, LOL! You continuously attack other posters, remind them of previous posts, and when it is done to you, you don’t like it! What is the old Jamaican expression? Who the cap fit, let her wear it?
            And now you are intimating that you are an expert in the affairs of the First Nations! Say more about this new-found expertise….Is it academic or is it purely anecdotal because you once spoke with a Mohawk Indian?

          • Uhmmmmm…..Not to contradict you, but you may not have been in Venezuela when there were strong rumours that Chavez was having a relationship with Naomi Campbell?

          • oh brother. you don’t get it, Peeps. re-read what kepler and cacr210 said so that you can better understand what I began to say before you pulled your mysoginism with me. what a pathetic little narcissist. P.S. a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing. you clearly have no clue about the broad spectrum of First Nations in North America. As for your belief in *strong rumours* about Naomi Campbell (yawn), I’m delighted that the tabloids have you as an avid fan. The rumour is completely irrelevant to what we’re discussing.

          • Syd la chiflada! In a previous post you say that *all* women are bitches and you have the nerve to indicate that “…you pulled your [sic] mysoginism with me.” You are the one that does not get it! Vuelve al manicomio!

          • Stick to defending rumours on Naomi Campbell, clown name.

            Your inability to delve into context or perceive exaggerations tells me everything I need to know about the quality of your intellect. And you’re supposed to be some kind of academic? Good grief. Btw, I love how you contribute next to nothing to these posts, but never hesitate to make mental notes on commenters, only to pop up and manipulate, while jockeying to make yourself shine and hide your insecurities. Creepy.

            With your attitude and need to extrapolate (to pretend you know more than you do), it’s no wonder you have so little knowledge about First Nations. They can suss out arrogance and narcissism a mile away.

  4. I can hardly be classified as a come-candela, yet I realize that every single thing that Yanes said was the truth and sadly, everything that is written at the end, it is the truth as well.

    Yes, Yanes was too emotional whereas Chávez learned how to contain itself, how to be a good cheater.

    Sorry Juan, but I could not feel the fascination for the guy. In this interview he already showed the non-response technique that he used so much against journalists and opposition leaders over and over. I found him cynic.

    Thank you for putting the video, even though it made me quite sad, really sad. It reaffirms that people are easily convinced by snake-oil sellers, that three million people can be wrong and that the saddest part of Venezuela’s history repeats itself over and over again.

    Bad leaders, bad voters.

    • Not so. Every person has a range of talents that gives them potential in various areas.

      Chavez was a horrible manager and a poor planner. It could be arguable from various aspects that he was a good or bad leader. However, as a motivator and as a charismatic communicator who could speak to both heads of states or abuelas in the mercato as equals and in a cogent manner, he was immensely skilled. Its too bad that it turned out as it did. I have always wondered if 2002 was the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were.

      I think that saying anything positive about Chavez, as evidenced by some of the commentary already, is still too close since Venezuela is dealing with the ongoing/aftermath of El Chabe’s works.

      Just my further two cents: He did have some positive aspects, despite his actions, and until these can be seen as such, the polarity and divisiveness will remain. I think a sign of healing in Venezuela will be when some good things can be seen from the Chavez era. I’m sure MPJ had more than a few detractors at the time, but, decades later, some good is recognized from his “presidency”. Likewise, I remember the ichor-dripping woods for years after Pinochet, but in recent years, in personal conversation and elsewhere with Chileans, I’ve seen them mention some good things about that era.

  5. So was Sarah Palin. Who is the President of Switzerland? The Prime Minister of Norway? Are they charismatic? Precisely, the fetiche with charisma in Latin America politics is the reason that we waste presidencies with crazy “charismatic” people like Hugo Chávez and not the other way around.

  6. I agree that Chavez had charisma and charm. I stopped him after a speech in Washington, DC in 2001. He was leaving through a hallway and I was going the other way. No real security or Cuban bodyguards at that time. He was very cordial and quick on his complements. He said “Saludos a tu esposa” when i mentioned my Venezuelan wife.

    Of course, if I knew how bad he would become, I would have kicked him in balls and then kicked his brain loose in his head when he bent over. In hindsight, I wish I could have been more critical of Chavez to his face. People were just starting to say he would be a dictator. Missed my chance.

  7. Chavez was the best example of the total collapse of the Presidential System in Venezuela. In a Presidential System, Presidents are elected by popularity surveys, so it’s not surprising that someone as charismatic as Chavez won Presidential System elections. Is also well studied, that Presidential Systems are a “Single Point of failure” systems, which mean all power is concentrated in just 1 person, making it easy to be corrupted and influenced by vested interests, including foreign countries interests.

    Simon Bolivar in the Congress of Angostura, already warned Venezuelans from those problems inherent to the Presidential System, and recommended instead to study the British Parliamentary System and adapt it to Venezuela. But his proposal was rejected, because U.S.A was the model to follow that time, and Venezuela and all Latin America adopted a modified version of the U.S.A Presidential system, removing even the features like the Electoral College, which makes U.S.A less prone to have a Chavez-like to win elections.

    Its time to review the history, and follow Bolivar’s recommendations. Let’s all learn about the benefits of Parliamentary Systems:

    http://democraciaparlamentaria.wordpress.com/tag/democracia-parlamentaria/

    • Oh God! Praising Bolivar for his critical view on Presidential Systems is something only Venezuelans can do. I think the reason for this rests between the perception of Bolívar as a second Christ and the need to root all public policy in a Bolívar quote (á la “Moral y luces …” for investment in Education, or “Maldito sea el soldado …” for inducing the army to respect human rights)

      Bolívar had a chance to build a country to his liking, and that country was Bolivia. The first Bolivian constitution had a lifetime presidential term (presidencia vitalicia) and the president named his own heir (o successor).

      He even said “that the President of the Republic is like the Sun that, firm in its center, gives life to the Universe” (el Presidente de la República viene a ser como el Sol que, firme en su centro, da vida al Universo).

      • J.Navarro.

        The Presidente Vitalicio that Bolivar mentioned in Congreso de Angostura was more a ceremonial type, without real power. Bolivar wanted to set up a Constitution which prescribed a Republic which was based on a British-style Parliamentary System in which the King would be replaced by a President-for-Life who would be Head of State, but day-to-day governance would fall upon the Ministers (headed by the Prime Minister, of course).

        That’s the key difference between Parliamentary Systems and Presidential Systems. In Presidential Systems, the Head of the State and the Head of Government are concentrated in only one person: The President. That person alone concentrates all the power, and in Venezuela is elected through a popularity survey!. No wonder our country is so vulnerable. But in Parliamentary Systems the real power is not concentrated in just one person, but distributed among the Members of Parliament who are headed by the Prime Minister. The President or King or Emperor, in Parliamentary Systems, is just the Head of State, and has purely ceremonial functions (think of it as the Ambassador of the Country).

        • I know the difference between a Presidential and a Parliamentary system. Moreover, I agree that it is a more desirable form of governance, for the reasons you state and then some more.

          But I don’t think Bolívar was a champion of the Westminster system at all. I wasn’t talking about Bolívar’s words in the Congress of Angostura. I was talking about his actions later on (around 1825-1826) when “Alto Perú” was split off and Bolivia was born. The name comes in homage to Bolívar and he deeply influenced their first constitution. To my knowledge there was no prime minister in the Bolivian system and the constitutional power of the president was more equivalent to that of the Spanish King than the British one.

          Bolivar’s administration of (Greater) Colombia doesn’t give the impression that he wanted the President to have less power, and become ceremonial, au contraire.

          • There were two sides to Bolivar , he was a man of intellectual imagination , a consumate and elegant dreamer , whose mind could soar to the loftiest ideals , including those of parlaimentary democracy , at the same time circumstances made him into a practical ruler , having to contend with the daunting task of maintaining order in a period of chaotic factional strife , a time in which a throng of political cannibals wildly jockeyed for the largest possible parcel of power , the second bolivar wanted a very strong head of state , one able to contend with the savage political climate of his day and impose social order where none existed . a kind of institutionalized autocrat. Bolivar was both men . History makes people have to embrace incongrous positions because circumstances demand it.!!

          • Venezuela needs to take a more balanced view on Bolívar and many other leaders. Kind of like north americans reconcile Jefferson’s idealist side and his slaver side.

    • I don’t think the solution to our current problems ought to come from a guy born in the XVIII century whose political views were based on classical Roman concepts mixed up with XIX century Britain.

      This is what very few realize: since we couldn’t supposedly enjoy the liberty he had won for us, we could supposedly only be saved by his example and his guidance. I for one refuse to be rendered incapable of improving my country because Bolivar’s words solely count.

      However, if you like to learn from national heroes, try Andres Bello, who excelled Bolivar politics-wise by far.

      • I would prefer we did not depend on any epic or super human heroes to take control our lives and build a country we can all live in . My ideal Leadership would be composed of a clique of , bald , reedy voiced, spectacled , dry tempered , no nonsense , hard working elderly men , going around with heavy attache cases and sheafs of numbers , with good knowledge of economics and proven managerial skills wholly indifferent to media appearances and popularity figures . I would prefer that they be unlovable and yet capable of elliciting the respect of any sane balanced mind . Go figure for funny tastes !!

  8. I’ve started to think that we as Venezuelans are suffering a collective case of cognitive dissonance. When we look at these last 15 years and see that a good part of our country has embraced an inept, backwards, authoritarian regime like this, we find ourselves incapabable of explaining that choice, so we end up justifying it in terms of “well, the guy was so incredibly charismatic, anybody would’ve fell for him”. I used to watch a lot of his speeches and, though he was certainly good at creating anger and resentment among crowds and then using that for electoral purposes, the guy was actually pretty boring and repetitive. Very seldom did he say something new that was worth listening. So, yes, he was somewhat good at ranting, but aside from that, I didn’t find him so captivating. I think he was mainly lucky. When trying to explain his popularity, it is very hard to disentangle the “charm effect” from the “lots of oil money effect”. Would’ve liked to see how would his charming manners have worked under a much tighter budget constrain.

    I have imagined him as a TV personality, bou not as a variety shows’ frontman, not even a talk show host (those people need o listen at some point), but more like the presenter of a sunday morning “history plus random anecdotes” show, where he would just sit down in his guayabera and let his mind wander about. (I don’t even think his rating numbers would’ve been any good).

    • Gustavo, I subscribe every word in your post. I cannot believe people don’t see the obvious here: the guy spend USD 100 000 000 000 creating the chavista disease. That was his real charm…

    • He was quite dishonest. You could watch as he said exactly what his audience wanted to hear. Regardless of the audience and regardless if what he said contradicted what he said to another audience. Never trusted the guy.

  9. There are a couple of things that have called my attention for years now.

    1) the lack of anyone among the opposition who does NOT belong to the top 2% better off AND who can speak well to the masses about different topics
    2) the absolute absence of debate culture or desire to get a debate culture started.

    Our Spanish cousins do not have much of a debate culture either but what they have is at least a lot better than what we have. We have seen how neighbouring Latin American countries have introduced debates at least for presidential candidates, like in the USA. Obviously, no autocratic government will want that. Putin doesn’t go to debates either.
    But in Venezuela you have little desire to start a grass-root movement informing about such things as what a real debate is, what pluralism is.

    I do not believe these are things only “illuminati” and political scientists can comprehend.

    Chávez was ignorant on economic matters but like all the autocrats who had “charm”, he could tell stories. Those were stories to foment resentment. Stories are composed of statements, of recurring themes. Stories go somewhere. They are not isolated slogans.

    I still don’t see oppo politicians presenting something like this. The closest I have heard is María Corina Machado in some of her speeches…but then she really screwed it up when she used the only time we had to talk in front of Chávez by focusing on the 2% of empresarios. What she said was correct but not top in the long priority list of 98% of Venezuelans.

    • Exactly! That’s why Presidential System is really flawed!. A person with so much power is elected through a Popularity Survey and then given YEARS to make our lives miserable.

      • I think it’s more to do with citizens paying taxes than a presidential system although I am all for a prime minister and a parliament, look Iceland, everybody pay taxes… so… people really see their government as it belong to them not like they are doing the citizens a favor. Until that day…

  10. I am flabbergasted at the fact that anyone in this solar system can find the man in that video even remotely charming, I see someone slippery as an oiled eel, and an incredibly shameless liar. Someone willing to kink the rules 180 degrees to make his will. In a word, he was Chavez from the very beginning.

    • Santiago,

      I rejected Chávez even before I knew who he was.
      I have always felt disgust about him.

      And yet: I can understand why millions would fall for him. To do that you need to understand the frame of mind, the educational background, the bitterness, the condition of other people.

      I think we need to do that, just like a good detective needs to try to get into the frame of mind of mad criminals.

      As Gustavo said: without oil Chávez wouldn’t have made it at all. Still, two things should come to mind: 1) without his talking rhetoric -as rough and coarse as they are for you and me – and 2) with no one from our side with a similar rhetoric arsenal and identity-promoting skills we wouldn’t have the situation we have now.

      To others: is it me or Chávez had a deeper voice here than usual?
      I once heard in Europe a girl who said she was one of Chávez’s cousins or so. She had a very particular Barinas accent. I wonder who might have been Chávez’s Paul Devrient.

      • Kepler,

        I seem to be disconnected from those millions, for even after all these years of trying I never understood. The only part that I “get” is that hate mongering is a very powerful thing in a frustrated society.
        But (maybe because I am disconnected) even assuming the fact that the guy had a whole lot of charm for many people, I just don’t see it in that video.

    • Chavez was very astute at calculating what acts and statements would be acceptable to the majority at a given time. At the time of the interview, he knew that a failed coupster needed to appear “reasonable” and “moderate” in order to be considered an acceptable candiate for President.
      Yes,“he was Chavez from the very beginning:” a master politician who was an expert at acquiring and maintaining power, but not so astute at using that power for anything other than getting more powerful.

  11. No sense in dwelling in the past, there is nothing to find there anymore. If by now you haven’t learned anything, then its too late.
    The minds of the pueblo have been thoroughly washed and melted.The pueblo is a drooling sheep with a replay button. Only hate fills their minds

  12. Yo, al contrario, and forgive I am talking in Spanish but I have to, al contrario de admirar ningun charisma sino los ojitos pequeñitos y coño de madre del que les conte, lo que vi fue un reconcomio desgarrador y patologico tipico de la personalidad del psicopata, dirigido al que lo estaba confrontando, desenmascarando en ese momento, yo creo que ni Chavez sabia en ese entonces lo que hiba a hacer, pero les aseguro que lo que habia por dentro estaba ya cocinado. Y también lo que vi fue la inocencia de un hombre de su generación, o sea, otro tipo de gente con un poquito mas de cultura y etica, en este caso Oscar Yanes, que nunca penso que sus compatriotas Venezolanos, vivisimos y coleando, fueran tan estupidos por haberse dejado engañar por la astucia patetica de un personaje como Chavez, que hubiera podido ser cualquier otro. Pero la ignorancia es bárbara, no solamente en Venezuela, en todos lados. Chavez en particular no tiene nada de especial, sino que fue la persona en ese momento que agarro la ola, pero igual hubiera podido haber sido otro, descontento como todos con el país. Pero Bolivar en cambio no se hubiera dejado hechar ese carro sino lo hubiera parado en seco.

    El video tiene razon al final por decirle traidor a todos los que se dejaron engañar por el tipo ese. Incluyendo a una gran majoria de gente major, de esa generacion, que decia, no vale, Chavez es Venezolano, y como Venezolano no se va a dejar poner la pata encima por Castro ni se va a meter a comunista por el amor de Dios. Muy triste este video.

Leave a Reply