Read this if you're interested in what happens during high level strategy sessions.... maybe this is real... maybe it came to me in a psychic vision... maybe it explains some of the "mystery" about why Obama became a "phenomenon" early in the year, and why he's looking more and more like an ordinary politician everyday. Let's just call it a "theory" for now...

Hmmm.... where to begin.... ok.... I guess the best place to start is to look at the entire process as an exercise in Influence.

One of the greatest tools of influence is to paint a picture for somebody and then let them fill in the missing pieces with EXACTLY what it is that THEY want. Then when the visual images are filled in, the influencer shows the person something that he claims will create the very images that were imagined.

Simple example:

A person walks into a car dealer and the salesman asks what they're looking for in a car. The person immediately creates a visual image in their head about all the EMOTIONS that they'll have when they drive the car of their dreams. The salesman then shows them his latest model car and says, "This is just the car for you!" The person then irrationally links the car to the emotions and believes the car will create those emotions in the future.

More importantly, the person could see the red Ferrari and then create the vision of driving down the highway, top down, hot babe beside him, etc., etc. The salesman doesn't have to create the picture, all he has to do is show him the car.

Sadly, it's same dynamic in romantic relationships, but I digress.

Obama's strategists recognized that after 8 years of Bush, people wanted to FEEL different. They knew people wanted to FEEL good about the future. This is the premise that started the entire campaign. They asked a quality question, "What positive emotions do people want to feel about their future?"

They immediately came up with a few emotions: change, certainty, love, making a difference, etc. The goal was to target specific emotional states, induce these states in people, and link Obama to these states.

There was an internal battle over "hope." Obama wanted hope. Others saw hope as a disempowering emotion. I.e., when you're hoping you are giving the power to succeed to an outside force. Obama won. They then picked "change" as the other emotion.

Now here's the problem that they understood from day 1, but never agreed on how to deal with it. Obama anchored "hope" and "change" to his own identity. He induced positive states in people and did what is called "future pacing," linking these states to people's visions into the future, and linking his persona to the future and the states.

However, Obama knew that there would be issues and actions he would be forced to take before the election that would be in conflict with the visions people imagined during his state inducing speeches. As a side note, he practiced the MLK intonations and cadences of the "dream" speech because people were already anchored to "hope" from that speech.

Now here's Obama's challenge, and where the strategists are conflicted in how to resolve the problem. The "hope" and "change' emotions are getting whittled away by Obama's actions. It was inevitable because they knew people's visions were individualized, and could never match Obama's real actions. The conflict is over how to proceed.

One school of thought is to assume "hope" and "change" will be diluted, but will still be sticky enough to have an impact. The other school of thought is that the "hope" and "change" anchors need to be reinforced again. The former school of thought is that Obama should now expand from "hope" and "change" to other emotions, most notably "certainty" and "significance." This was seen in his round of "tough" talk that's been on display in the last few weeks.

However, there is an internal disagreement about whether the abandonment of "hope" and "change", or even the diluting of the "hope" and "change" anchors will cause a collapse of the anchors. Some think that "hope" and "change" were what was needed to win the primaries, and that to win the GE there has to be a transition to "tough" and "certain".

In other words, to win the Dem nomination Obama had to be more of a mother archetype, but to beat McCain he has to become more of a father "archetype." A lot of the strategy is based on tapping into the feminine and masculine "energies" at strategic moments. And there's been a lot of internal debate about how Hillary as VP would provide the perfect compliment to Obama. Not just in terms of demographics, but in terms of what some call psychographics. Right now the smart money says Hillary is already the VP. The thought is that with Hillary as VP she will represent the "tough" and "certain" elements which will allow Obama to revive the "hope" and "change" elements.

Like I said, maybe I just had a "psychic" vision and the above scenario is just a figment of my imagination.... or maybe not.

no, no psychic stuff required. That is just sound psychology.
I am hoping you are wrong and Clinton will not be the VP.
I also think that even though you are right, it is not the sum of it.
Obama is not a hollow charleton. He has a law degree from Harvard. (I for one would like to know how he got in.)
Now, normally when people say that they mean it as a slam. I really don't know anything about him prior to that, I do, want to know how he got in.
Politics is a game. You know that. Polls are done so often now that they come off as looking like marinettes trying to make everyone happy. Their opponents of course use this to say that they are flip flopping on the issues.
I will tell you the real dangers of politics as far as "we" are concerned. It is when we think these candidates are speaking their real minds or "believe" that only a real candidate has the courage to do so. It doesn't and never has worked like that. The retards out number the rest of us and the candidates know this.
It isn't their fault. They have to play the game or they end up like Ron Paul.
I am and have always been non partisan. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. I liked Ross Perot and Ron Paul and McCain.
Right now Obama is my choice.

I know what you were saying, and frankly only those that really give a sheet about politics will take the time to read your whole thread. You didn't need to use the "psychic vision" or the "mystery" to get our attention and the CT's that it would attract, lost interest shortly into it.

I think your thread is a great starting point for those that want to understand how the psychology works. Good job.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

I think your thread is a great starting point for those that want to understand how the psychology works. Good job.

Thanks! I agree that Obama is not a charlatan so much as he is the front person for the group. Even though all the media is about McCain, Clinton, and Obama, who's running for President is a group, not unlike a corporation.

Obama's group is very sophisticated in the psychology of influence. That's the only way they were able to overcome almost insurmountable odds and beat Hillary. They not only had a killer base plan, but they had a killer counter-punch plan. Simply put, every time Obama would take a hit, the plan was to absorb the hit, play the "victim", and turn around and make the hitters look like bullies. They know that the base psychology is to come to the defense of the victim and dislike the bully.

I love watching the Clintons become more and more frustrated and befuddled trying to deal with this strategy. The best was when Bill Clinton was defending himself about playing the race card and said on mic something like, "Do you think I should have to take this $hit?" or something like that.

Now Obama is at a crossroads. His psychographics are floundering. He seems much less comfortable taking on the masculine energy role than he did with the feminine energy role. Ironically, the talk about bringing Hillary on is to fill the void of masculine energy. Obama is having a hard time pulling that one off. His "don't mess with my wife" routine was almost laughable.

I agree with Res Ispa. Well Spoken!

I would add this, and it goes toward Res Ispa's question of how Obama got into Harvard. While I do not share the insight. I share a common question and can recognize the commonality of our perceptions.

Yes Obama is very much a media construct. All politicians are.

I also read him as much as can be done through the filters, as a genuine caring man with values. This is such a departure from norm as to provoke my curiosity.

I would sorely love to know who built him. Did someone fund the creation of one hundred Obama's, only to have one make it through the system and outshine the others? Were they so powerful that it only took one candidate and the right team to orchestrate his evolution.

Clearly he has an organization which is unparalleled behind him. Clearly he has been schooled, crafted, polished and designed perhaps before his debut at Harvard, to be "Obama". This is not to tarnish what I see before me, however I am not naive. I prefer to know what I am dealing with.

I give credit where it is due and I have no doubt that he is brilliant and capable. However I sincerely doubt that he is that brilliant and capable as to spontaneously generate his public persona independently. It is crafted so far beyond the norm. I have no doubt that his personality is not theater, which is not to say that its development was not without tailoring along the way. For we all started as one thing and became who we are.

Res Ispa, like you I would sorely like to know.



[edit on 20-6-2008 by Cyberbian]

It's marketing, pure and simple. The funny thing is that we haven't seen much of this from the McCain camp yet. Surely they're not going to just coast until the election...we'll see something similar from them before too long.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
If it were simply marketing, you would see the equivalent from McCain.

I don't think this is true at all. McCain's strategy was to just stay out of the way while Clinton and Obama pummeled eachother. Now that Clinton is out, it almost seems like he's standing back and seeing if Obama will impale himself. Every action of these politicians is weighed and calculated, there's a reason that McCain has been mostly quiet so far.

I will share a little insight of my own with you. The whole flap over Reverend Wright, was no accident, and it wasn't McCain who crafted it.

It was one of the most brilliantly crafted bits of slight of hand ever performed in public.

Most people thought that Obama was Muslim up until that flap.

But if This The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has said outrageous and clearly negative things, even the anti Obama media had no choice but to wave this in the publics face.

They shouted down with Obama he is a radical! All the while spreading the embedded message, "Obama is not Muslim". When he did not act radically, but instead responded conservatively. Which side benefited?

This technique has been used repeatedly by Obama. Next time Obama gets beaten up, look for it!

The only thing I fear from Obama, is the purpose for which he has been crafted. I do not know that purpose, and I pray it is a noble one. Because such competence in the hands of the ignoble would make the problems Bush has brought down upon the world look insignificant by comparison.

If he is noble, as I hope. Than perhaps mankind will survive and achieve a more positive destiny than we have demonstrated a capacity for.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
I am and have always been non partisan. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. I liked Ross Perot and Ron Paul and McCain.
Right now Obama is my choice.

That's quite a spread, there. Unfortunately, Obama (as McCain) is a product of American Fascism (Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.).

Based on what has come up in the six months, here on ATS and other non-fascist media outlets, it becomes obvious that if you have become the chosen one for the Democrat or Republican party, you have already "sold your soul", so to speak.

I am even reminded of a passage in a book by the Pledians (this is ATS, by the way) where they talk of the need to raise your vibrational energy to become "enlightened", and mention that even candidates with "good intent" get so hammered with the low vibrations of politics, they end up becoming part of the negative energy of politics in the long haul.

This is why I think that only third party candidates (for me, specifically, the Constitutional Party candidates) can make any real changes. This is why term limits are probably a very good thing, and that maybe politics should be like getting called to Jury Duty: whether we like it or not, every US citizen needs to serve their time. Heck, based on what has happened so far, it probably would have worked out better to have selected random US citizens for public offices and have had very short term limits. Maybe like having to take time off of work for Jury Duty or the National Guard, we need to take time out for Political Leadership.

So for me, I am choosing curtain number "three"!

Good post and is Tony Robbins 101. Obama's team has tried to anchor him to the Hope/Change Mantra.

I don't think Hillary will be his VP, she would have been picked already. Obama's wife can't stand Hillary, so we know this will play into his decision too.

Obama is egotistical enough to think he can win without her.

Obama just keeps screwing up, shows his inexperience. It's just a matter of time before he does something really bad to upset his supporters. This last incident about withdrawing from his Public Funding *committment* is just the beginning.

From disowning Rev. Wright (though said he would never do this) to 57 states to going back on his word about a signed comittment to public funding is some serious shortcomings.

Jamie - I am back !!! with shinny new shoes... ( I was kicked off for creating chaos,,,I am reformed now )

Anyways on a human to human level -
What do you have against Obama? Straight up, all your posts are directed at the guy, so maybe you let us in your head a bit... Frankly I am more interested with your fascination
and total dislike for O, more so than the topics you post.
So what is with you, are you "very" Republican, traditional, gun shy of colored folks or do you just hate O's politics...? I say this because you have come from every angle, family, identity, so on .... sounds like a deep hate to me .It's not like anyone here is gonna punch you for letting it out!???

You see this T on its own merit is potent.However. looking at the bulk sum of your recent threads a larger, more complex picture of motivation seems obvious. You have thrown the whole kitchen at the guy .

Pure curiosity thats all- good luck

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mental modulator]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mental modulator]

I have long been reading about those that want an explanation as to what "change" Obama is after..

I believe I have it.

Obama wants...

1. Higher Taxes.
That means less take home money for those of us that pay taxes. For those on state subsistence or that pay no taxes, Obama is your man.

2. Windfall Corporate Profit Taxes.
That means HIGHER PRICES specifically at the gas pumps. "OUCH" that even hurts the welfare crowd....

3. NO OIL Exploration.
Again, Higher gas prices.. (Face it we are YEARS away from alternative energy. Higher gas prices means a shifting in our national economy as well as tourist destinations begin to suffer and must find other means of revenue.

4. Ultimately More Dependence on the Government
The ultimate goal for Democrats/Liberals/Socialists

Oh Yeah.. CHANGE

Semper

Originally posted by mental modulator
Anyways on a human to human level -
What do you have against Obama? Straight up, all your posts are directed at the guy, so maybe you let us in your head a bit... Frankly I am more interested with your fascination

My fascination? I feel it's more of a moral obligation to pull back the curtain. I am not partisan although it may appear that way. I have relationships that run very deep into the inner circle. I was witnessing a 'coup' of sorts that was well funded, and more importantly, as well planned as any marketing or psyops program could have been planned.

The desire to shine light on this came from being conflicted. I couldn't burn my sources and I couldn't sleep at night either. So what better venue to drip information than posting on ATS from Starbuck's and other internet enabled coffee houses.

.... sounds like a deep hate to me .It's not like anyone here is gonna punch you for letting it out!???

No hate, just love. Love for my kids, love for everyday people who are sincere and who are genuine and who are being mind-f&$ed by a group of people who think of people as nothing more than a natural resource like oil or water.

You see this T on its own merit is potent.However. looking at the bulk sum of your recent threads a larger, more complex picture of motivation seems obvious. You have thrown the whole kitchen at the guy .

I started out with more fear and paranoia. It's been a few weeks, and nobody seems to have taken interest. I am careful not take any poison back to the colony (that's the term they use for setting somebody up with false information so they can see where it leaked from).

My motivation is 1 part trying to do the right thing and 1 part catharsis.