Revelation #1: Brand Obama. "Blogging the Barack Brand".
- Paul Street writes in, Barack Obama & the Future of American Politics, that one evening in February 2005, a four hour meeting with Barack Obama and his senior advisors from his Senate staff crafted a strategy to create the Obama “brand”. Just weeks after Obama was sworn into the US senate they decided to carefully build a record that matched the brand identity of Obama as a unifier, consensus builder, and a “post political” leader. This reflects cynicism, manipulation, and selfish ambition that fails to fit with the progressive and hopeful image that the Obama campaign projected. It calls to mind a tension between virtuous public claims and selfish goals behind the scenes. Street labeled a “market democracy” as anywhere, where the masters of the capitalist economy produce elections and related policy outcomes, meant to further their own wealth and powers (Street 66).
-Chapter 1 from Paul Street's book suggests that Obama advisors were thinking ahead, as the "2010-2012-2016" election plan. A potential bid for governor or reelection to the Senate in 2010, followed by a bid for the White house as soon as 2012, The way to get there was by carefully building a record that matched the brand identity. The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most orchestrated marketing machine in history…Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy of civil empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience” (Street 59).
-Obama scored very high among voters on questions of personal character and attractiveness, which seem to have more impact on voters decisions then policy and issues. This is based on our image centered election system, which can be related to Postman’s book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” which discusses our shift from word to image and how it affects our thoughts and actions in the world. Selling politicians as images is more important to media outlets than selling their ideologies and policies to the public. (Street 166/167)
Revelation #2: Campaign Financing. "Where did Obama get his loot"?
-By the time Obama was employing his political language throughout the entire 2008 election to denounce "big money" influence, Obama had however become a millionaire. He had recently bought an opulent Georgian Revival mansion below price at $1.65 million. He had raked in impressive financial generosity from his campaign from very rich and powerful interests, from a roster of top contributors. He received money from corporations, government officials, banks, and several other companies. Obama’s initial rise to national prominence and presidential viability depended significantly from contributions from lobbyists. This is troubling with the 2008 Obama campaign claiming recurring references to his refusal to take money from lobbyists. He insists that he ‘refused’ to take money from registered federal corporate lobbyists (Street 13).
-Did he lie to us? What politicians aren’t ‘puppets’? That is, who in power actually moves away from following the structure of declaring ‘virtuous’ public claims, while maintaining selfish goals behind the scenes? Obama claimed that he was going to put the people first and above corporate interest. This was not the case when he came into power and put Wall Street in charge of economic strategy.
-When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, “Nearly two-thirds of the money he raised, $296,000 out of $461,000, came from Political Action Committees or (PACs), corporations, and unions” (Street 54). Obama claimed "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks" (Street 13).
-Obama spent $52 million on media, consultants, image, marketing, and telemarketing (Street 61). Nearly half, of the more than $5 million Obama raised for his 2004 Senate Primary came from just 300 donors (Street 15). These donors included owners of the Hyatt hotel chain, and the military contracting company General Dynamics. Obama received $13.2 million from 'lawyers and law firms' between January '07 and January '08. The majority of these are massive, global corporate law firms enforcing capitalism across the planet. Obama created his own group called the Political Action Committee (PAC) that spent tens of thousands of dollars in supporting the 2006 congressional elections. Many of the "lawyers" that were donating money to his campaign were registered lobbyists for large corporations. The entire Obama campaign and administration is contradictory and hypocritical seeing how big business and barack coincide with all the bailout money that was given back that corporate lobbyists funded in his campaign.
Revelation #3: Conservative vs. Liberal. "Obama is a conservative in disguise"?
-Obama's critical identity factors, helped voters see him as "brand new," as a new figure, a new slogan, a new idea to support. As Richard Dawkins and perhaps Neil postman would say, voters saw Obama as a massive 'meme,' or a thought, or belief to support Obama, that was planted in millions of Americans heads. This made it tremendously easier to accept Obama to advance his traditional and conservative agendas and beliefs, under the guise of originality and progressivism, packaged and hammered to the masses through trademarks and marketing. This has enhanced his attractiveness to US economic, political, and policy elites and power brokers, who sensed a need for change in regard to Bush's damage in his presidency.
-Whether or not Obama would conduct a progressive presidency, it's notable that based on Obama's record and on the deeper history, structure, and culture of US politics, is that an Obama administration would be likely to move in a relatively conservative direction unless and until it was pushed to the left from below or by a organized populace.
-In March of 2008 Obama began to develop a much more conservative approach to the issue of the Iraq war policy. Obama’s campaign "could not rule out using private military corporations like Blackwater Worldwide, Dyncorp, and Triangle Canopy in Iraq” (Street 145).
- In the beginning of Obama’s emergence as presidential candidate he was far more “reckless and outwardly racial” because he had not yet been inducted into the ‘National Power Elite’ that support the funding of private military companies.
-The failure of the war in Iraq led to a sweepingly decline of popularity of the war, and of Bush in the US, making Obama's 2002 speech against the war a critical asset for building his national political profile, and a pivotal campaign asset he was able to refer to leading him into the 07-08 presidential campaign. People were sick of the conservative Bush/Cheney administration, they wanted a liberal Obama, which was already being implemented and displayed. Bush's screw up's and almost hatred against him, lead to a much easier adoption of Obama's views and campaign. The media showed him as a liberal and a proponent for change, and we wanted anything but Bush, McCain or Palin. Obama's conservative beliefs went under the radar as they were virtually ignored, and are only seen after he was elected. Although we all now know, he contradicts his beliefs with the current state of the military still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that Obama built a political campaign profile prior to, and during the 2008 election, against the war pushing liberal agendas to remove military occupation. However now that he is in power, we are seeing him carry out conservative agendas and decisions as both expensive wars persist.
Revelation #4: Black Card. "We have a black president now and he's no different from the white guys".
- "Obama's rise to national celebrity and viable presidential candidate status has tended to feed white America's exaggerated sense that racism is no longer a problem for black Americans. Like its cultural cousin, 'the Oprah/Obama phenomenon," has threatened to strongly entrench the deep institutional racism that lives on beneath the fading and partial victories and memory of the Civil Rights Movement" (Street XXXVI).
-Support was garnered a lot for the fact that he was black, rather that paying critical attention or analysis on his political viewpoints. His skin color played a huge role in his support that was achieved during the elections. People from various cultures took off on the idea of the first black American president, which was a huge idea to me at the time. Street is quoted “ A large number of Americans would like to feel they’re in a country where someone like that could be President.” (Street XXVI)
- After all the hype and support for Obama from black Americans, he ends up not even being that concerned about black racial injustice or inequality in our country. It just goes to show that the color of his skin was one of the main reasons he got elected, thus creating a racially unjust situation, which is the opposite of his campaign. Rev. Jesse Jackson accused Obama of “acting like he’s white” because of Obama’s lack of support for issues.
- Obama was presented to the American public as a “cure-all” for racial inequality and injustice, yet his actual presidency has not really done that much to end this problem. “Obama has been noticeably reluctant to explicitly align himself with the historical struggle for black equality or to confront the continuing problems of race and racism in America and Global Affairs” (Street 80). This means to me that he’s aware of the risk in taking the predicable side of pro-equality which some racists might see as pro-black.
Revelation #5: False Hope. "Hope and change were sold into slogans such as, 'Hope for Change,' and 'Yes We Can."
Those slogans were part of one of the largest marketing campaigns ever. I saw and heard them everywhere in almost all mediums and discourses. Obama is an epitome of a deeper problem with US elections, the American political tradition, and late-capitalist political culture, the inherent conflict between the popular democratic promise and authoritarian, corporate imperial reality. What sort of "hope" or "change" does the self proclaimed "progressive" Obama represent specifically? Does this depend on which Obama supporter that may be encountered in various locations?
Revelation #6: Media Bias. "Stone's Rolling Bias"
-Obama received by far the most favorable press coverage of any presidential candidate in the first five months of the presidential primary campaign (Street 62). Only 16% of Obama coverage carried a negative tone, compared to 35% for Edwards and 38% for Clinton" (Street 62). The process of selecting elected officials in the United States is largely controlled by those who have the money to fund expensive campaigns” (Street 65). The democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton received more media attention than the Republican candidates combined. Clinton received more media attention than Obama on talk radio shows.
Clinton was presented as “harsh, dark, old and depressing” compared to Obama who was “new and optimistic.” "The public has a childish tendency to vote for politicians based on appearance as opposed to strategy" (Street 67). The dominant media, “are part of the same corporate community as the election investor-funders: their owners rich, their advertisers have strong pro-business political interests…and they work on the basis of establishment ideology" (Street 60).
Out of the candidates in the 2008 campaign, in many publications Obama was put in overwhelming light. Magazines such as Rolling Stone and Newsweek featured articles called “The Machinery of Hope” and “Our Time of Change Has Come”. Time magazine compared photos of Clinton and Obama, where Obama’s photographs are bright, and graphically appealing, and Clinton's were flat and dull. More examples can be seen throughout the mass media during the campaign.
Revelation #7: Military Occupation. "Obama's Mighty Army"
-Like other Americans who thought Obama was going to do more about stopping the Wars in the Middle-East. As Obama came nearer to his presidency, he began shying away from the topic of war completely. Once he was outspokenly anti-war, then he became president and things changed. He has made promises about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Why must we always invade Arab states?
Here is a video about increasing war in the middle east from Obama. Shows contradiction from his original campaign statements:
-Obama didn’t even make a floor speech on the war until a full year after his election. In it he called for a reduction in the number of US troops but no timetable for their withdrawal (Street 141). However while Obama previously supported unconditional funding for Iraq in 2005 and 2006 (Street 140).
To quote Barack himself, “There’s not that much difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s” (Street 143). It always appeared to me through media that Obama tried to steer clear of Bush/Cheney policies, especially on the War on Terror, looks like that was mistaken when Obama instead signed the $106 billion war-spending bill into law.
Revelation #8: Convergent Digital Media. "Obama's use of technology for politics."
-Obama's use of marketing is seen brilliantly with communications technology. Convergent digital media and modern technology enables online use to change politics, which is far more advanced than television advertising, as mentioned in Media/Society on p. 237.
YouTube
Obama: 1792 videos uploaded since Nov 2006, Subscribers: 114,559 (uploads about 4 a day), Channel Views: 18,413,110
McCain: 329 videos uploaded since Feb 2007 (uploads about 2 a day), Subscribers: 28,419, Channel Views: 2,032,993
Obama has 403% more subscribers than McCain. Obama has 905% more viewers than McCain
Obama: 1792 videos uploaded since Nov 2006, Subscribers: 114,559 (uploads about 4 a day), Channel Views: 18,413,110
McCain: 329 videos uploaded since Feb 2007 (uploads about 2 a day), Subscribers: 28,419, Channel Views: 2,032,993
Obama has 403% more subscribers than McCain. Obama has 905% more viewers than McCain
Facebook
Obama: 2,379,102 supporters
McCain: 620,359 supporters
Obama has 380% more supporters than McCain
Obama: 2,379,102 supporters
McCain: 620,359 supporters
Obama has 380% more supporters than McCain
-Television is starting to become not as effective as internet marketing for politics. Internet videos are chosen and viewed from friends, instead of on TV where audiences content is interrupted and not well received. Internet use of marketing and communication is cheaper than TV broadcasting, as seen with the revolutions of Facebook, online embed videos, and other social networking utilities and websites. Obama's online videos were watched with over 14.5 million hours of footage. To buy that much time on broadcast TV would cost $47 million. The medium is the message. Obama's team of supporters and online marketers knew where to put the attention and focus of media penetration. However as I'll recall I saw plenty of television advertisements for Obama in 2008, as well as tremendous internet and social network attention. His marketing and technological communication platforms extended to all mediums.
Revelation #9: Global Economies. "Obama's down with the IMF."
-The ideology and the structures of the World Bank and the IMF have failed. There is enormous economic instability. The system has failed to create equity, and eradicate poverty. It perpetuates poverty and debt in developing countries, while maintaining the global financial system keeping the rich richer, and the poor poorer. These economic powers control a global capitalist market, making their economic policies a global system to maintain this gap of wealth, keeping it in place. These systems fail to ensure that human rights are protected. They have failed to address environmental issues, all in the name to enforce financial systems around the world on developing nations. They enforce with trade agreements, and continuous amounts of money loaned to poor nations. The money comes with conditions and requirements to meet, locking them into a life of debt. Examples are Jamaica, Haiti, or Argentina.
-According to Story # 19 in Project Censored 2011, titled "Obama Administration Assures World Bank and International Monetary Fund a Free Reign of Abuse," that despite these failures from these global economic structures, they have not prevented President Obama from stopping their free reign. In June 2009, Obama negated provisions of US legislation that would have compelled the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards. He actually included a statement in which he refused to require the Treasury Department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and the IMF.
-The sections rejected by Obama would have required his administration to direct pressure on the World Bank to fairly represent the value of internationally recognized workers rights, which organized labor groups have pushed for a revision of these standards. Another section rejected by Obama would have pushed the World Bank to account for the cost of greenhouse gas and to fully disclose operating budgets. Also a section rejected by Obama in his signing statement would have required the head of the G20 meetings to develop a report with the heads of the World Bank and IMF, detailing the steps taken to coordinate the activities of the two financial institutions, to eliminate overlap between the two.
-Obama actually said in a statement that "provisions of this bill...would interfere with my constitutional ability to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiating or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments...I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations." Obama is using the excuse that he needs the ability to negotiate with foreign governments, to protect the economic policies and enforceable structures of the IMF and World Bank, keeping these destructive and unstable global economic capitalist systems in place. The media can choose to ignore facts, such as that Obama allows the worlds economic systems a free reign of abuse by ignoring policies to regulate these economic institutions. This story is underreported, and information is used or misled to satisfy the government's and media's intentions.
Revelation #10: Debased 2008 Political Elections. "The Postman and Huxley Warnings about worthless issues."
-In Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman, he argues that the sole purpose of television is purely for entertainment. Television news exists only to amuse us, and not to truly inform. “’Giving off’ impressions is what television does best (Postman 97).” He continues, “Our priests and presidents, our surgeons and lawyers, our educators and news casters need worry less about satisfying the demands of their discipline than the demands of good showmanship (98).” Postman believed that all politicians on television behave like actors. Politics is a spectator sport, with the constant "news" of: whose winning?
-Obama's phenomenon of his uplift to celebrity status proves how our inane, debased, and invaluable our political news culture is. We vote based on how likable a candidate is, or how they appear through a media lens. Postman makes the comparison in his book about how people would be involved and care about political issues in their community. People would go to the Lincoln-Douglas debates and sit for hours listening to intellectuals of the time debate about hard, serious, and important issues. Now we don't care about the issues, nor truly care about what the candidates stand for, and we definitely don't spend more than 30 minutes paying attention to modern debates, which are broadcasted on television with commercials; how ironic. How can we pay attention to a debate with a commercial for the US army, or for McDonald's that whizzes by our minds?
-We're in the age of show business, and politics is show business to quote Postman. He states, "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as perpetual round of entertainments, when serious conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, than a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility (Postman 136)."
-Postman makes the point that we are moving into a culture where society won't regard if its held under power. That we are losing our value, importance, and any critical analysis or concern at all about any important topics in life, approaching a "culture death" as Postman says. This phenomenon has been clearly seen with the Obama elections, how during the majority of 2008, news media was focused on bringing Obama to a celebrity level, ignoring his true policies. The final point is that it's not the fact that the government will regulate our content, it's the fact that we won't care enough to even look at it. Proving that we already didn't care about Obama's true conservative policies in 2008, letting them sneak in as they continue to control and influence the US and world.
