I honestly don’t know whether to put this in religion or politics.  I honestly feel the passion for Senator Obama expressed by most of his followers has equal elements of both - even if they deny it.  But I suspect the moderators would move it here to politics if I put it in religion, so here it is in politics.  I know this will make many people angry (primarily Obama followers ), but I am not looking to debate.  I just wanted to display some of the images of Obama because I find the whole media’s marketing - in this case, just the visual elements- behind the man so fascinating. 

The Obama Mania and Mass Hysteria (because that’s exactly what it is) that swept Senator Barack Obama to where he currently is was greatly helped by a friendly media eager to see him President.  In that regard they have undertaken an effort to visually display Obama as a godlike messiah figure. 

Behold the Halos of Barack Obama:

Variations on a Theme

The Rare Vertical Halo – Stretching All the Way up to Heaven

The Obamamessiah Transfers his Magical Halo to Members of his Congregation

The Obamamessiah Ascending into Heaven

The Obamamessiah’s Wife Also has a Halo

No Comment Needed

The same media that captured Obama’s halo countless times on camera ran with this interesting picture of Hillary Clinton.  I wonder what they are trying to say?

Paraphrasing the fictional Auric Goldfinger, “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, dozens of times is media bias.”  Professional photographers know exactly what they are doing when they take such pictures and editors know exactly what they are doing when they choose to run with one picture over the other.  Some of it may be unconscious bias on their part, with some being deliberate.  But no matter what, it is there, as clear as the halo that surrounds The Obamamessiah! 

“...A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany…and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.”

—The Halo-Adorned Messiah Himself

Really no different than the many iconic images of Dubya that were propagated over the last several years, using “halo” and “cross” imagery.  I’d track down a representative sampling, but I gotta run.

Crosses are too prevalent in our society, which is why I focused only on halos.  Any two intersecting lines can become a cross even accidentally.  But you almost always have to go out of your way to photograph a person with a cool looking halo. 

I found far fewer Bush halos than Obama halos:

We can negate one or two of the Bush halo photos, rendering them null and void, due to far more pictures out there of Bush with incredibly stupid looks on his face:

(Just try to find a picture of Obama with a stupid look on his face.  We all make them.  And anyone photographed as much as a person running for President is bound to have had some photos taken.  But just try to find one of Obama.)

And just for good measure, we can add in the Bush with devil horns picture to effectively counter any remaining Bush halo pictures in the media:

The end net result still gives Obama far more halo photos than Bush.  It’s not even close.  Plus Bush has been President for 8 years while Obama has only been in the national spotlight for just a little over one year.  By that factor alone, Bush should have more halo photos than Obama.  But he doesn’t.  And that is because the media is biased to the left. 

The Project for Excellence in Journalism found that just 6% of the national press corps (reporters, editors and producers from major television and radio networks, daily newspapers, news wires and online sources) describe themselves as “conservative.” Twenty-four percent described themselves as “liberal” with an additional 8% describing themselves as “very liberal.” 

A 2003 study entitled, A Measure of Media Bias said:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABC’s World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives.

Specifically regarding Obama:   

CNN’s John Roberts said his interview with Barack Obama would be a “Rev. Wright-free zone.”  Oh really?  Way to help the Senator out Roberts! 

NBC’s Brian Williams, during his interview with the Senator, didn’t ask Obama a single hard question and he also never brought up Jeremiah Wright.  Once again, this only helps Obama. 

NBC’s Brian Williams said, “...it’s hard to stay objective covering [Senator Obama].”  Well at least he is honest. 

Chris Matthews said, after hearing an Obama speech, “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”  Do you think a McCain speech would give Matthews that thrill? 

Of the top 4 news stories (from Google) regarding Obama’s trip to Mount Rushmore, only one mentioned Obama’s incredibly stupid gaffe of thinking the actors in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest were actually up on the monument.    That type of bias of omission is just as powerful as any other kind of bias.  (How many Obama supporters know he smokes?  The media hasn’t latched onto that story with any gusto yet.  And by not covering it in depth, they only serve to help Obama.)  When the media doesn’t cover the stupid things a politician says, that politician can be made to appear better in the eyes of the voting public.  Had any Republican politician running for President made these exact same gaffes Obama made, the media would still be running stories about them!  But since Obama made them, these stories were buried.   

———————-

By the way, regarding the religious aspect of Obama’s campaign:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

—Senator Obama

So now he’s going to heal the sick and divert the flow of oceans?  Seems like I read about that somewhere before.  I didn’t believe it the first time so what makes Obama think it’s any more believable when he says it?

Maybe he is appealing to the religious right?  Either way I don’t care.  Lets remember that most newspapers were founded as mouthpieces for political parties.  People flock to Obama becase he is a good speaker.  This isn’t good for the GOP because now there’s someone who energizes people better than Gore or Kerry could.  And lets face it, putting on a good show is better than having policy that people can understand.  The GOP fears his fundraising http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10868.html  especially since he won’t take money from lobbyists and PAC’s and is going to hammer McCain on this.  Should be an interesting election to watch.  I’ve voted for McCain a couple of times, so we’ll see what happens.

Just a quick follow up on the whole religious component of the Obama Mania:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

[Emphasis in original.]

The first thing that happened after I read the part about Obama helping us evolve was this:

Looks like Obama was 7 years too late. 

The second thing I thought of was the writer needs to read this book to get an understanding that phenomena such as this happen from time to time.

Oh, but wasn’t Jesus a Black man? 

I often thought, the dude who played Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, would have made a better Jesus than the man who did play Jesus in that movie. 

I must say though, the painter of this picture, REALLY made Obama look good and sexy.

Do you think that you might be exagerating?  Obviously people want hope and change after 8 years of Bush.  Obama is appealing to that desire.  I think that the Messianic comparisons are a stretch.

Geodesic - 07 June 2008 04:53 PM

Do you think that you might be exagerating?  Obviously people want hope and change after 8 years of Bush.  Obama is appealing to that desire.  I think that the Messianic comparisons are a stretch.

Absolutely not. 

Despite the fact that he never really tells us exactly what type of “change” he will bring about, it is change he says people can believe in.  Believe!  Belief is an inherently religious aspect.  One believes in their religion in the exact same manner that Obama supporters believe in him. 

“What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history…The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”
—Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

”Biblical hope is similar. Like Obamian hope, it speaks to the matter of the future being pulled into the present in the Kingdom of God.”
—Rev. Earlmont Williams, Jamaican Gleaner

“The Obama campaign uses a religious calling as its central rhetorical trope: ‘I’m asking you to believe,’ reads the banner across the top of barackobama.com. His appeal to voters is an archetype of religious conversion: instead of being asked for support, Americans are exhorted to “join the movement”.  In Georgia, he directly equated his supporters with God’s people...
—‘We Are The Chosen Ones’: A new hymn to Obama Telegraph [UK]

“The book [Dreams From My Father] was a revelation.” [Emphasis added.]
—Jann S. Wenner, Rolling Stone Official Endorsement.

“...Barack’s appeal is actually messianic, it’s something about his aura, his spirit, his soul, that exudes enlightenment in the making…he is one of those individuals who communicates God-like energy (metaphorically speaking), in whom you can ‘feel’ God…he’s a lot closer to a Jesus-type than the other candidates…”
—Steve Davis, Charleston, SC

“He appeals to all that is innate and created in us in a longing for that ‘better country, that is a heavenly one’ discussed in Hebrews 11’‘'Thus he offers a messianic hope with the full weight and force of the U.S. government to back him up…Heaven on earth is indeed appealing rather than having to wait.”
—Peter Wierenga, World

There are plenty more quotes just like that from all sorts of glassy-eyed, sheep-like followers of Barack Obama.  Despite their belief, we are seeing in Obama’s appeal, not a messiah, but mass hysteria.

The Chosen One has been spotted with yet another halo! 

I think some of it has to do with photographers who want the greatest contrast between the subject and the background.  For example, they would never photograph McCain against a pinky-beige background, which would make his face disappear, or a white background so the top of his head would appear cut off.  Another, is the ease with which things can be Photoshopped.  Editors want photos to be dramatic, so they diddle with the background.  Third, I’m sure the conservative press loves to do just that, then after enough photos have been published, they start claiming a subliminal campaign by the Obama supporters. 

It appears that most of the examples shown came from news sources (usually conservative ones).  I didn’t see any that came from the Obama campaign.

Occam

Occam - 13 July 2008 02:44 PM

Third, I’m sure the conservative press loves to do just that…

“Conservative press”?  Whenever I hear someone say that, I actually feel embarrassed for them in the same way I feel embarrassed for people who actually believe in things like Noah’s Ark.  Neither one exists. 

Ok, so there is Fox News.  I’ll give you that one.  Their opinion commentators are conservative.   

But then there is the vast majority of the media.  The Liberal Media:

The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, AP just to name a few.  In fact, “almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.”

Occam - 13 July 2008 02:44 PM

...then after enough photos have been published, they [the alleged “conservative press”] start claiming a subliminal campaign by the Obama supporters.

So instead of portraying him in a bad light, this mythical “conservative press” portrays him in a good light, and this somehow makes Obama look bad? 

Similarly, I smile when I hear people parroting back the myth that the press is liberal.  Essentially all of the communication outlets, written, radio, and television are owned by major corporations which are run, in the main by very conservative executives.  They’ve done a great job of making their conservative ideas more acceptable to the general public by constently accusing each other of being “liberal”.  Consider the number of radio stations with Rush Limbaugh versus with, say, Rachel Maddow; it’s over twenty to one.  That’s certainly not a liberal bias.

Showing photos of Obama obviously looking like the messiah for a while, then pointing this out so it makes him look manipulative is a quite effective conservative tactic.  Somehow, I doubt that you did the research on all those photos yourself.  Rather, you probably saw them put together on a conservative site, and you lifted them to post them here.  You’ve been a good example of a pawn manipulated by the conservatives to spread their propaganda, rather than showing that Obama is trying to slip in subliminal messages.

Occam

edited to correct a typo

The popularity of Rush Limbaugh is a direct result of the clear liberal bias in the mainstream media.  When conservatives couldn’t get their message out in other forms of media, talk radio was born.  And when a liberal talk radio show host isn’t as popular as a Rush Limbaugh, it is because the liberal side already has enough mouthpieces in countless other forms of media. 

And just because you claim conservatives own some mainstream media outlets, the liberal editors and producers in the newsrooms and control rooms make the final decision (conscious or otherwise) to put the final spin on the way stories are presented.  And as pointed out int he link, liberal bias is real and documented.  No rational person can deny that.  Even Saturday Night Live was able to see the media’s head-over-heels love-fest with Obama.

Rocinante - 13 July 2008 04:25 PM

The popularity of Rush Limbaugh is a direct result of the clear liberal bias in the mainstream media.

The only bias is the bias of the owners - and they aren’t progressives.

Rocinante - 13 July 2008 04:25 PM

When conservatives couldn’t get their message out in other forms of media, talk radio was born.

Cheaper stores operate out of strip malls. Radio is the strip mall of media.

Rocinante - 13 July 2008 04:25 PM

And just because you claim conservatives own some mainstream media outlets, the liberal editors and producers in the newsrooms and control rooms make the final decision (conscious or otherwise) to put the final spin on the way stories are presented.  And as pointed out int he link, liberal bias is real and documented.  No rational person can deny that.

I am rational and I disagree. McCain has been getting a free ride throughout the campaign - just as Bush did for several years.

Rocinante - 13 July 2008 04:25 PM

Even Saturday Night Live was able to see the media’s head-over-heels love-fest with Obama.

No, you missed the irony.

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 04:31 PM

The only bias is the bias of the owners - and they aren’t progressives.

“The only bias…”?  So “progressives” (read “leftists”) can’t be biased?

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 04:31 PM

Cheaper stores operate out of strip malls. Radio is the strip mall of media.

When you can’t debate them, insult them, huh?

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 04:31 PM

I am rational and I disagree.

I disagree that you are rational too!    Just kidding!
 

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 04:31 PM

McCain has been getting a free ride throughout the campaign - just as Bush did for several years.

The media has painted Bush as stupid for years.  Yet Obama, aka the gaffe machine, has given us so many incredibly stupid comments but the mainstream media has refused to touch him because he is - generally speaking - their chosen candidate. 

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 04:31 PM

No, you missed the irony.

They weren’t using irony.  They were using satire.  And they were dead on. 

—-

If the media has a conservative bias I guess that’s why, once the surge in Iraq started succeeding, those crafty conservatives in the media dropped their Iraq coverage 92% in the network news compared to last year.  And in cable news Iraq coverage dropped from 24% to 1% compared to last year, with print news dedicated to Iraq dropping 70% over last year.  This is all part of the conservatives master plan to…wait.  How does not reporting the good news in Iraq help the conservatives?  Oh that’s right!  There is no conservative media bias! 

Rocinante - 13 July 2008 07:23 PM

If the media has a conservative bias I guess that’s why, once the surge in Iraq started succeeding, those crafty conservatives in the media dropped their Iraq coverage 92% in the network news compared to last year.  And in cable news Iraq coverage dropped from 24% to 1% compared to last year, with print news dedicated to Iraq dropping 70% over last year.

That’s because the public won’t watch even the stuff the MSM shows now. That isn’t because of any secret cabal of international liberals - it’s because the US media does such a lousy job of analyzing the news. The story is too complex - Christie Brinkley getting a divorce from her latest dumb ass husband is easier to understand. The public is reduced to gestures which “support the troops” - understanding the war is only possible if you watch foreign news - and maybe not even then. It just isn’t sellable.
Blaming the liberals is the last resort of the truly desperate - that dog won’t hunt.