Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaning.--Benjamin Franklin

Use of emotional appeals is widely used in propaganda, both then, and now. I think a more apropos comparison would be Goebbels the propagandist with Axelrod the propagandist, image-maker, astro-turfer extraordinnaire. Axelrod is a master at manipulation of image, at sowing the seeds of perception to market candidates, just as Goebbels was clearly doing in the quotes you used above. It isn't the comparison of Obama to Hitler; it's the disturbing sense that masses of people are not using their critical thinking capabilities, but are perceiving only romaticized images through subtle appeals to their emotion.

Romanticizing is sort of like saying, "don't trust your eyes, listen to what I'm saying." Isn't that why they say "love is blind?"

You have romanticized Obama to a large degree in your own remarks here. Do you really know that Obama is "guided and humbled by faith?" He says he is; but the church he attended doesn't really epitomize Christian love.

I think you know the image that has been created for you by a master propagandist and marketing guru, don't you?

What "unnerves" some people is not Obama's alleged "faith" but his actions, which often seem contrary to that proclaimed "faith."

To state that Obama is "humbled" by that faith, is definitely a stretch; Obama is not "humbled" in the least by anything. His note at the Wailing Wall was pre-released to the media before he placed it at the wall, according to the Israeli mainstream media. A brilliant propaganda ploy to make sure the world knew that he prayed for help on the sin of pride, albeit in a Freudian sort of way.

Lastly, pictures of huge crowds in Germany--at a symbol associated with Hitler--listening to a charismatic speaker rousing the masses with emotional rhetoric was Axelrod's choice. What message do you think he wanted to impart to the viewers with those images? It was perceived by the press as glorious; but others perceived it as grandiose.

Posted at July 30, 2008 3:07 PM in response to Obama = Hitler?

Thank you so much for saying it, MJ. Your point should be amplified much more on progressive blogs, most of which are as confused as wingnuts on this issue, and as afraid to deviate from the "party line" of pro-Israel talking points. It's frustrating to watch.

In that vein, I did read this today about Obama, which I thought was a subtle change to some of the talking points. It is an issue on which I find Obama compelling, though I am not an Obama supporter.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3573954,00.html

Posted at July 28, 2008 11:28 AM in response to When Pro-Israel Means Not Giving A Damn About Israel

What you will accept from your nominee during the election is only a taste of what you will be forced to accept during his term as President.

If you believe that amnesty--at the word of the executive, mind you, and all done in complete secrecy--for corporations that violate the law and the Constitution is not a position that I will accept, either during the campaign or afterward.

If you think that governments give BACK rights they've taken from you, then you deserve to be taken. You're a fool.

I believe it is the responsibility of every American, and indeed, the responsibility of Democrats who choose a representative of THEIR party, to hold that representative accountable. If you do not, then you are colluding in the destruction of your own principles, values and ideals.

If that sits well with you, then be prepared to be willing to accept responsibility for your own irrelevance when the newly installed President ignores your voices in the future.

Posted at June 28, 2008 9:10 AM in response to The Strategic Value of Lambasting our Candidate

Not surprised at all by Sen. Clinton's classy speech in Unity NH. Hillary Clinton is a woman with class, a former candidate with grace, and an experienced and mature politician.

That people would be at all surprised is what surprises me. I have friends who are diehard Republicans, conservatives from Chicago. They were disappointed that Clinton wasn't the Democratic nominee; they planned to vote for her in November. They know Obama all to well. They won't vote for him.

Posted at June 28, 2008 9:04 AM in response to She Rocks Alright: Hillary Knocks It Out of the Park

Yes, I remember it well. Barack Obama refused to be photographed shaking Gavin Newsom's hand at a fundraiser organized by Willie Brown. So, this court ruling is probably sweet for Newsom on many levels. It shows Newsome was on the moral and the legal high ground; and it shows Obama, a Constitutional lawyer, was cowardly.

Obama Snub Still Rankles Newsom

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."

"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."

But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either.

"He was pissed," said one former staffer.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

Posted at May 16, 2008 11:26 AM in response to We're Already Married