Hate comes out of the closet

[Inanna]

This aspect of Obama's rhetorical capabilities being 'dangerous' have been alluded to before, here, and in the press. I agree that people who can blindly get crowds to follow them can be dangerous. To assess whether this following is dangerous or not, I think you have to look at what specific words / feelings are enticing the crowd.

To be specific, if crowds cheer when Obama says "Not Red States, Not blue states, but the United States", doesn't worry me. I think that's good, that's unifying. But when crowds cheer when Palin says "They are not Real America", is a bit worrying. Or when the crowd shouts "kill him", that kind of rhetoric is worrying.

[solicitr]

Well, Mahima, Saruman's words were about things like "peace" and other wonderful things. The problem with charismatic Voices is that often the crowd can be mesmerized into overlooking the underlying logic, and the Voice's true intentions. I think perhaps the applicable word is seduction.

(BTW, nobody shouted kill him. The Secret Service has categorically debunked that particular piece of propaganda.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, I don't think that the Obama and Palin phenomenoms can be compared. They are too different.

[Primula Baggins]

It's also possible for a well-written and well-delivered speech to have solid content as well. It's rare to get three for three, but I think we will on a regular basis now.

I agree that in the days after Iowa, Obama was using his rhetorical gifts to build excitement for his campaign, draw larger crowds, get more press attention—but this was all reasonable, in the position he was in at the time.

His race speech in March was what finally persuaded me that there was much more to this candidate than style. And as the campaign went on, he gave solid and specific speeches even at rallies. His acceptance speech at the convention was quite different from what a lot of people expected. His speech on election night soared again a bit—but there are times when that's entirely appropriate, and this was one of them.

I don't see a problem with having a president who can inspire, if he's inspiring people to do something worth doing.

[Inanna]

I shouldn't have given an example. Even though I think they are comparable.

Do you feel that the content of the speeches/rhetoric is relevant to analyzing whether its dangerous or not?

Edit: I just realized that Soli did answer part of the question. That's interesting - I never thought of it as just the quality of the voice. But that is what the Voice of Saruman is about, right?

But can you separate voice from the person's persona? And the well, the stature (for lack of a better word), that is granted to that person by society, by media (today)? And isn't that connected to the content.

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

BTW, nobody shouted kill him. The Secret Service has categorically debunked that particular piece of propaganda.)

The use of the word 'propaganda' is most interesting. You can go to several sites on Youtube and find both Palin and McCain rallies where the crowd shouts very negative things about Barack Obama. "Traitor" was one very clear thing shouted when Palin preached her nonsense about not funding troops - when McCain had also voted against bills funding troops. "Treason" was another word shouted at a Palin rally.

And then we have this: a talking head at FOX News joking about killing Obama, but then calls him "Osama" but then says "well both if we could"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxL ... re=related

It was out there Solicitr. And its not at all hard to document.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So far as I can tell, the "kill me" thing WAS propaganda by the left-wing blogs. The fact that there was other bad behavior of a similar (but less severe) nature at the Palin and McCain rallies does not negate that.

Edit: Cross-posted with sf's edit. What someone said at Fox News has nothing to do with what was said at a McCain/Palin rally. They are two separate things. You can't claim that the "kill me" thing at the rally was not propaganda by pointing out that someone made an offensive joke on Fox News. That is simply obfuscating the truth.

[sauronsfinger]

I never said that one proved the other. My point was that hate speech towards Obama was out there and not hard to document.

This stuff is not at all hard to come up with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVFWahLTdUo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw3o3y77 ... re=related

There were also several press reports of such hateful comments directed at Obama that were not captured on audio or video. They were reported in the press by responsible reporters. I would rather not have to dredge all this up --- and for what point I do not know - but will do so if challenged or asked.

[solicitr]

Well, Prim, I'm not sure what you mean by "solid." A tax cut for 95% of households sounds good- until one realizes that only 63% of households pay income taxes in the first place. To me, at least (YMMV) an Obama speech is like an infomercial.

And I have a notion that what you and I regard as "worth doing" are not the same.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

sf, no one is questioning that hate speech against Obama exists, least of all me. But you questioned solicitr's used of the word "propaganda" in regards to the specific instance of people being so worked up at a Palin rally that they shouted "kill him". That is an incident that did not happen, and that in fact was made up in order to inflame feelings against Palin. It was, in fact, propaganda. I condemn both the anti-Obama hate speech and the anti-Palin propaganda.

[sauronsfinger]

Well I disagree. Just because there was a specific incident that the FBI investigated and found no cause to prosecute does not negate all the other evidence that can be found both on Youtube and in print journalism.

I am more than willing to concede that the FBI found no firm evidence to warrant prosecution. I am not willing to concede that the absence of that constitutes the idea that the left wing invented "propaganda" to then falsely smear Palin. She more than did enough on her own without the help of any such nameless groups.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well I strongly disagree. Just because there was a specific incident that the FBI investigated and found no cause to prosecute does not negate all the other evidence that can be found both on Youtube and in print journalism.

I'm not saying that it does. I'm saying that this specific instance was invented and widely spread around as propaganda. Just as the claim that Sarah Palin was not really the mother of her son Trigg was widely spread as propaganda. And the claim that she tried to ban Harry Potter (before Harry Potter was actually written!) was spread as propaganda. I'm certainly no fan of Palin's, but to say that the left-wing blogs have not spread half-truths, distortions and outright lies about her is as untrue as saying that the right-wingers have not spread half-truths, distortions and outright lies about Barack Obama. I condemn both the right-wingers and the left-wingers equally.

[Primula Baggins]

To be fair, the "before Harry Potter was actually written" part was propaganda on Palin's part. She may or may not have thought about banning them, but certainly many of them had been published at the time.

[solicitr]

SF: it's not a question of the FBI investigating and 'failing to find evidence.' Palin's Secret Service detail stated affirmatively that no such incident occurred.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To be fair, the "before Harry Potter was actually written" part was propaganda on Palin's part. She may or may not have thought about banning them, but certainly many of them had been published at the time.

Um, the first Harry Potter book was published in the U.S. on September 1, 1998. The book banning was supposed to have happened when Palin first became mayor of Wasilla. She became mayor of Wasilla in 1996. From Wikipedia:

According to Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin inquired two or three times in October 1996 as to how Emmons would handle any request to remove books from the library.[35][36][37] John Stein, the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent, said in September 2008 that Palin's "religious beliefs," and the concerns of some voters about language in the books, motivated her inquiries.[38] In December 1996, Palin said she had no books or other material in mind for removal.[37] No books were removed from the library,[35][39] and Palin stated in 2006 that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.[40]

Palin fired Emmons and Police Chief Irl Stambaugh in January 1997, stating that she did not feel they fully supported her efforts to govern the city.[41] The next day, following expressions of public support for Emmons and a personal meeting, Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons, [35] stating that her concerns had been alleviated, and adding that Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.

This all happened before any Harry Potter books were published.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm sorry; I misremembered the date Palin became mayor, and was heading out on an errand so didn't double-check. I will behave better in future.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

An honest misunderstanding. But you know how anal I am about correcting the record.

[sauronsfinger]

If my understand of this is wrong, I stand available for correction. I too make mistakes.

It is my understanding that the Secret Service investigated a report that somebody yelled "kill him" at a rally. The Secret Service investigated and found no evidence to proceed any further. Is that correct?

The Secret Service - nor any other human, can state that nobody at a McCain or Palin rally did not yell "kill him" at another place or at another time. There are several such videos on Youtube and print reports of just such things.

The elimination of one such charge by the Secret Service doe not preclude other events from having occured as reported in several sources.

I have reporduced some above and could find more, but I question the point since the election is over and done with.

The raising of the issue of books in the Wasilla library was not that she had banned books, but that she had taken the first steps (as Voronwë's report indicates) to find out HOW to ban books. The town librarian was not sympathetic and no action was taken to ban books. People were concerned about this because they believed it demonstrated a willingness on the part of Palin to go down that road of book banning had she only had the cooperation of the towns librarian.

[Primula Baggins]

Voronwë, of course I don't want to let errors stand unchallenged, especially my own.

sf, I, too, have watched the videos in which some hateful things are shouted (and some, such as "He's a Muslim!" that are hateful because they're meant to be attacks). And it is true that the Secret Service has specifically blamed Palin's rhetoric for sparking an increase in death threats against Obama—just not the one instance that was spread around.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family last month that they had seen a dramatic surge in threats against the Democratic leader, coinciding with Palin's attacks.

Agents say Palin's demagogic tone encouraged white supremacists to plan attacks on the future president.

Link

[solicitr]

The raising of the issue of books in the Wasilla library was not that she had banned books, but that she had taken the first steps (as Voronwë's report indicates) to find out HOW to ban books.

That is simply incorrect, although various Palin opponents carefully phrased accounts of the affair to give that impression

If you examine the City Council minutes, it becomes clear that Palin asked Emmons how the librarian would respond to demonstrators outside the library demanding that a title be banned. Emmons responded that she would ignore them, or call the police if a breach of the peace seemed likely. That was it. Nothing more, and certainly nothing to support the image of "Palin the kook-Christian book-burner."