Matt Damon was one of the more vocal celebrities to back Barack Obama when he was campaigning in 2008. Now, almost four years later, the We Bought a Zoo star is kinda ticked off with the Prez. Damon spoke with Elle magazine (really?) about Obama's performance in his first term and about the Occupy Wall Street movement, and I'll be darned if he didn't take the words out of my much less famous mouth.
Damon basically says that he wishes Obama had more balls. How about dem apples. Here are Matt's exact words:
You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better. If the Democrats think that they didn’t have a mandate—people are literally without any focus or leadership, just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off ... Imagine if they had a leader.
Agreed and agreed. Obama's first term has let a lot of people down, if only because their expectations were crazy high. Damon may feel extra peeved because he spent so much time lending his support to the Obama campaign a few years ago and now feels like he had the wool pulled over his eyes.
And I think a lot of us feel that way. Yes, Obama has faced a ton of opposition when it comes to the House and Senate, but I don't know if that's really an excuse. His term has been plagued with ginormous national problems; unemployment, health care, and tax debates are ongoing issues without an end in sight. That doesn't necessarily make him any different than any other president -- everyone's had major difficulties to confront during their terms -- but what does make it different is the fact that many of us strongly believed Obama would be able to do more with his time in the White House. That he'd effect change.
No one wants to have been played the fool, and no one, of course, wants the nation to be in the state it's in. This is pretty much the opposite of "winning." Who knows, though. Maybe Damon will put his interest in politics to work and run for office. What do you think: Damon/Affleck for 2012?
What do you think of Matt Damon's comments?
Photo via jurvetson/Flickr
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (21)
Let's describe the situation in a way you - and Matt Damon - might be able to understand.
Your editors are hell bent and determined to get you fired so they can find a replacement who will write exactly what they want written. Because of this goal, they shoot down LITERALLY every single story idea you have so you are unable to get anything published - not because your stories have no merit, simply because they don't like you. So...the reason you are unsuccessful at publishing is because you have no balls? Or is it because the individuals who are supposed to be helping you get things done are hindering you every step of the way?
Matt Damon's director is pissed that he was cast in a certain role for a movie. As a result, he refuses to let Matt make any decisions as to how the character is played - despite the fact that Matt is a very talented actor with good ideas. The movie flops because Matt's performance is flat. Is that because he didn't have any balls to stand up to the director - or is it because the director refused to let him do his damned job?
Do the past 3 years make a little more sense to you now?
Lindsay, this is for you. You just keep telling the truth and being a voice of reason in a sea of blind trust. They will disagree now, but in a few years the Obama supporters will pretend they were on your side the whole time.
^^^ agreed!
No one wants to have been played the fool, and no one, of course, wants the nation to be in the state it's in. This is pretty much the opposite of "winning."
That right there is the reason so many people still insist that Obama has not only done a good job, but is viable in 2012. Nobody wants to admit they hitched their cart to a lame horse, and would rather look around blaming everyone else for the fact that the cart isn't moving forward. Props to you for being honest with yourself and your readers.
OBAMA SUCKS.
I don't think there is a problem with having a moderate president. I think people had too high of expectations for what Obama could possible accomplish, pair that with legislators that don't cooperate on anything and you get no action.
I saw an interview with President Clinton yesterday and it reminded me of why I voted for him. He is also a very left leaning president who when faced with opposition, learned to work with them as opposed to fighting them and was able to actually accomplish much more that way. My problem with President Obama is that everything with him seems to be his way or no way and that just doesn't work.
OBAMA SUCKS.
MATT DAMON SUCKS.
I absolutely agree with Matt Damon. Democrats who voted for him and don't see what has been happening are the only people I can see not being unhappy with him. He campaigned on getting rid of Guantanamo Bay and yet instead of getting rid of it we are now seeing him try to make detaining potential terrorists (ANYONE, really) indefinitely without legal processes, well, legal. He definitely pulled the wool over our eyes.