Obama's fainting fans: dispicable

[JesseNYC]

Exhibit A

People voting for Obama are more fans than supporters.

 

[gaybot9000]

I have Obama posters all over my walls, windows, and door, and I masturbate onto a picture of his face every night :3
HE'LL BE THE BEST PRESIDANT EVAR

 

[tmb1]

^The intelligence level of some posters shines brightly in this thread.

 

[iman]

The rhetoric of JFK had content, they meant something: "Ich bin ein Berliner" or "Ask not what your country ca do for you, etc". The rhetoric of Obama is as empty as the heads of his devotees. JFK and FDR challenged their audiences, Obama does the opposite, he asked only that his audience should "hope" and "believe" as they chant "YES WE CAN". Audiences would leave a JFK speech inspired to do something for the country, Obama audiences simply leave in a daze.

 

[tmb1]

The rhetoric of JFK had content, they meant something: "Ich bin ein Berliner" or "Ask not what your country ca do for you, etc". The rhetoric of Obama is as empty as the heads of his devotees. JFK and FDR challenged their audiences, Obama does the opposite, he asked only that his audience should "hope" and "believe" as they chant "YES WE CAN". Audiences would leave a JFK speech inspired to do something for the country, Obama audiences simply leave in a daze.

Your HOPEless. You obviously havent LISTENED to any of his speeches.

 

[gaybot9000]

Your HOPEless. You obviously havent LISTENED to any of his speeches.

I have. They're elating, but forgettable.

 

[Zingerific]

JFK and FDR challenged their audiences, Obama does the opposite, he asked only that his audience should "hope" and "believe" as they chant "YES WE CAN".

I don't think its a sin to be a good speaker. I am a bit disturbed by the automatic assumption around here that eloquent = shallow. They are not mutually exclusive.

But if Obama is being accused of demagogue, I would like to introduce you to Franklin Roosevelt. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Really? To me, that is encouraging baseless optimism -- blind faith, even -- much more than anything Obama has said. When it comes to beguiling voters with eloquence and charm (and pretty thin policy proposals, at least in the 1932 campaign), Roosevelt has Obama beat hands down.

 

[frankfrank]

Voting for an elected official because you see his "positive greatness" when he hasn't yet accomplished anything is just weak and irresponsible. We need a president to get some difficult things accomplished. Greatness comes after accomplishment, not before.

And, furthermore, a President shouldn't be elected just because of the appearance of being more friendly, or somebody cool to sit down and drink a couple beers with. After all, the fantasy of having time to hang out with the President simply isn't going to happen - and even if it did happen, it wouldn't solve any of the important social or political issues that face us and/or others.

It is said that, Chicago votes notwithstanding, the biggest reason that John F. Kennedy won in 1960 was because he was a rather good-looking hunk running against the stiff and frowning Richard Nixon. So, superficial factors are nothing new.

I've even found myself falling into this trap before - and I think this goes part of the way to explain the huge Ronald Reagan landslide in 1980 (even with third-party John Anderson in the race taking away mostly, I think, Republican votes). But in the end it's not "nice" that gets stuff done.

 

[gaybot9000]

And, furthermore, a President shouldn't be elected just because of the appearance of being more friendly, or somebody cool to sit down and drink a couple beers with.

Hmmm.... sounds familiar. Haven't we already tried this once before???

 

[Zingerific]

prairielooner: John Anderson was a Republican congressman, but from what I understand he nonetheless drew more votes from Carter (unfortunately, I can't find anything to corroborate that).

So, superficial factors are nothing new.

Indeed. I think the log cabin campaign of 1840 probably has to take the cake for superficiality. In any event, campaigns short on substance are as old as the Republic.

 

[Sausy]

prairielooner: John Anderson was a Republican congressman, but from what I understand he nonetheless drew more votes from Carter (unfortunately, I can't find anything to corroborate that). Indeed. I think the log cabin campaign of 1840 probably has to take the cake for superficiality. In any event, campaigns short on substance are as old as the Republic.

If they had the internet and mass media from the days of the Revolution,agendas and dirty pool would have made very interesting reading from day 1.We don't have the statesmen today,alas,to balance the mere political shenanigans and opportunism that will not be avoidable even in the best of times.

 

[ChrisW]

Sigh... I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole.

And despicable has an "e"

thanks haha. I was going to spell check it but then I got tired and went to bed.

Interesting difference in opinions here. I still beleive these events are staged. There was one in the video that is in a huge hall and the person happens to be in the front few rows. And that comparison of people fainting at a funeral is irrelevant. These are Obama events! Not really fainting material I'm sure.

 

[tmb1]

Hmmm.... sounds familiar. Haven't we already tried this once before???

It is idiotic to compare Obama to a republican, especially Bush. But what else should we expect from a support of Hillary, who has thrown Obama under the bus in her scorched earth campaign.

 

[tmb1]

You know what they say about if you can't take a joke. Get over it.

You're not funny.

 

[gaybot9000]

And you're unsmart. (That courteous enough?)

 

[wundersteve]

People are falling over themselves in their support for 'Dr.' Obama


John Martin, The Province

Published: Wednesday, March 05, 2008
One of the most viewed videos on various Internet video sites may go a long way to determining who becomes the next U.S. President.
It's a compilation of footage showing people fainting at six different rallies in support of Barack Obama.
Each time a woman, coincidentally in the fifth or sixth row, collapses during a coincidentally similar point in Obama's speech.



Two coincidences in a row --- what a coincidence! And if that wasn't enough, it's always Obama himself who takes charge of the situation. Not security. Not emergency crews. Not even his handlers.
No, Obama personally deals with the situation each and every time. He halts his speech and asks if the person is OK. He requests medical assistance and urges calm. He calls out for people to give the fallen supporter some space and each time the woman recovers none the worse for wear. Then a relaxed and ever-confident Dr. Obama offers his diagnosis without even having to get near the patient, "She's OK -- just a little overheated!"
The crowd erupts in applause and the presidential hopeful, who once again saved the day, continues his address.
Obama's body language, mannerisms and inflection are identical in every case. In the most blatantly contrived instance it's Obama himself who tosses his bottle of water to the collapsed supporter. Could this be the start of Waterbottlegate?
The video has been circulating on the Web for the past couple weeks and is prompting some serious questions about Obama's genuineness.
Staging shills to faint on cue certainly wouldn't be the dirtiest trick ever pulled. But this might be the first time the lowbrow tactic has been employed during a high-stakes political campaign.
This stunt was routinely scripted at Beatles and Elvis Presley appearances to create excitement. As far back as 1945, Frank Sinatra's publicity people paid his young female fans, affectionately known as Bobby Soxers, to faint during his performances.
It soon became as common a part of the production as the lights and sound system. You could set your watch by the falling female fans at Donny Osmond, David Cassidy and, God help us all, Bay City Rollers concerts, especially while the cameras panned the crowd.
But using plants to generate a buzz to sell records and tacky merchandise is a world removed from trying to sell a first-term senator as the right person for the most powerful position on the planet.
It's unlikely anyone from the Obama team is going to confirm that the fainting ladies were part of the script anytime soon.
But coincidentally, not a single female supporter has reportedly collapsed since the compilation video began circulating and people started questioning the authenticity of all this curious fainting activity.
Another coincidence! Well, I'll be darned!
Contact criminologist John Martin of the University College of the Fraser Valley at John.Martin@ucfv.ca

 

[Raincoat Massacre]

Your HOPEless. You obviously havent LISTENED to any of his speeches.

Im suprised Obama hasn't tried to copyright the word "HOPE". I've listened to his speeches...they all sound the same. I don't want to vote for someone because I'm HOPING he's going to change the country. Why doesn't he try the word "WILL"
"I WILL change this country." not "HOPE we can change this country."

We have HOPE. We HOPE Hillary gets the nomination and Obama doesn't.

 

[seamusnewwest]

He seems to have a pretty standard response, which is somewhat suspect:
"Wait! Somebody fainted! Stop everything! Medic! Watch me take control of the situation! Do this! Do that! Make some space! We need some water/have some water! Are you OK?!"
And the crowd goes wild:
"NANANANANANANANA LEADER! NANANANANANANANA LEADER! WE LOVE THE LEADER!"
If he isn't anticipating it happening, he's certainly taking advantage of it, which in itself is pretty sick.

In one of these, he actually stopes his speech, turns around and is looking for the person in the audience before it actually happens. In two others, he has full bottles of water ready under the podium. And these are just a handful, the few caught by the OP on video.

Nobody seems to faint for him, though, anywhere other than his planned campaign events.

Gimme' some 'o that old time religion!

 

[seamusnewwest]

That's two events, one each for Bill and Hillary, that you posted four YouTube links to.

The same thing happened a month or so ago at an Obama rally and nobody questioned the validity of it -- only the contention by Obama supporters that it was a YouTube of Obama saving someone's life.

I notice a difference between the Clinton's and Obama's response. Obama's is almost identical each time and he doesn't seem surprised, and it becomes a little show within the show. They look staged. Clearly both Hillary and Bill were surprised by the fainting, though both saw to it the ill person was taken care of.

Obama's a fake, a trickster. We're just getting rid of one of those in the White House; we don't need another. We don't need to go from Bush's Mission Impossible staged events to Obama's staged events.

How about a President with some substance, some experience, someone who'll actually solve problems and put progressive programs into motion for a change.

I really find this Obama the faith-healer tactic very offensive. And I find the staged reassurance to be particularly disturbing, the, oh, there's a crisis, but Obama got people to lay her down and gave her water. And now he's sure that it's all okay, it's all good, and so the show goes on, don't worry about it folks, Obama took care of it.

The reason it offends me? I'm a first aider, and I have given first aid many times at events and what not. And I have to tell you, in real life, the first aid team doesn't wait for the cue from on stage. Nor is it all over after the cue from on stage. Fainting can indicate something serious - an aneurysm, a stroke, etc. So to me, this little show is very offensive.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Well said Nick!

I would add that when the American people had to judge the faults of the Clintons (because people mysoginistically insist on treating them as a pair), they continued to support the Clintons with strong approval ratings, despite the Republican attacks. Why? Because the American people knew what the Clintons stoof for, they knew what their policies were, and that carried them through.