Final: Top 10 Obama Revelations: Obama sweeping the nation

Image courtesy of fotosearch.com

Revelation #1: obamastock (Obama's ability to draw thousands of people for rallies during his campaign)


Image courtesy of life.com

Throughout his campaign, Barack Obama commanded the attention of potential voters in a way that many recent candidates were unable to do. In fact, in mid-February of 2008, Obama held a speech that filled College Park, Maryland’s Comcast Center, which has a capacity of 17,500.

In the days leading to the event, CBS news posted an article with information concerning the rally and a clear bias indicating his almost celebrity status in the mainstream media, especially among college students, saying that Obama had achieved almost a "rock-star status."



People had started hailing to the auditorium four hours before the gates even opened. This is comparable to the attendance and perseverance of the audiences of the Lincoln/Douglas debates of the 1850’s, as they are discussed in Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death. He states that:

“Douglas delivered a three-hour address to which Lincoln, by agreement, was to respond. When Lincoln’s turn came, he reminded the audience that it was already 5 p.m., that he would probably require as much time as Douglas and that Douglas was still scheduled for a rebuttal. He proposed, therefore, that the audience go home, have dinner, and return refreshed for four more hours of talk.” (Postman 44)

This level of devotion to hearing a politician talk has been lost in recent history, and Obama’s ability to draw that large of a crowd for a speech was phenomenal.

Revelation #2: swimming in the bills
(Big money and in the Obama campaign)

Image courtesy of The Washington Post online.

One of Obama’s key points throughout his campaign was that he wanted to win without the aid of Political Action Committees (PACs). In fact, in a speech in Greenville, South Carolina, Obama said, “’Washington lobbyists haven’t funded my campaign, they won’t run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am President‘” (Street 13). The truth of the matter is, however, that Obama did accept support from big money companies. In fact, a large portion of the money he received for his campaign came from 14 contributors.

In addition to this, during his campaign, Obama became a millionaire. In fact, during this time, he purchased a Georgian Revival mansion at a price of $1.65 million.


Obama's house in Chicago, IL
Image courtesy of zillow.com

If this is not considered receiving corporate funding or money from PACs in his campaign, then what is?


Revelation #3: brand it!
(The Obama brand)



Image courtesy of rohitbhargava.typepad.com

The Obama Brand was a revolutionary tactic for Obama to gain support in the 2008 Presidential election. In addition to popularizing his name and image, the Obama Brand brought in a lot of money for the Obama campaign. His website both sold stickers, shirts, and other objects with the brand, and had a place to donate to the “cause.” In fact, the website caused “’money [to flow] through computers, [and provided] a steady infusion of cash in $10, $25, and 50 [dollar increments]’” (Street 61).



Image courtesy of theformofmoney.blogharhor.com


On top of the branding done by his own graphic design and marketing teams, Obama had the support of popular brands by a number of various artists. For example, the well-known street artist, Shepard Fairey, designed a three-toned depiction of Obama that not only made an appearance on t-shirts and magazine covers, but also was translated into a depiction of other celebrities. In fact, individuals could actually obamaicon-ize themselves. Every time that was done, people subconsciously were directed to the original depiction in that style, one that associated Obama with hope and progress.

Revelation #4: Good vs. Evil
(Big media’s support of Obama)



Magazine covers depicting Obama in 2008.
Image courtesy of foliomag.com

The big media plays a huge role in encouraging the support of a candidate nationwide. Who did they choose to support in the 2008 Presidential election? Barack Obama.

According to Paul Street’s Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, Obama received a “possibly unprecedented level of positive media attention [which] propelled him into overnight celebrity status and provided a critical defining aspect of ‘the Obama phenomenon’” (Street 59).



Image courtesy of mediabistro.com

In addition to creating his unbelievable popularity amongst voters, the media depicted Obama in an almost angelic light in comparison to the way they depicted the other major candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.



Image courtesy of bittenandbound.com

In addition, the "two Democratic candidates (Clinton and Obama) received more coverage than all of the Republican candidates combined" (Street 62). The attention Obama received from the media without a doubt had a huge impact on his successful campaign and his victory in the 2008 election.

Revelation #5: Tap tap tap
(Obama tapped into new reserves for support)



Image courtesy of thumbs.imagekind.com

The Obama campaign tapped into new groups of voters for support. The main voter pool that he gained the attention and support of was the group in the 18-25-age range, in other words, new voters. In fact, 66% of voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama (thesocietypages.org).



Image courtesy of newsrealblog.com

Obama did this in a number of ways. First was his use of new media as a marketing outlet. He focused heavily on an Internet campaign, posting videos on YouTube and other websites, which enabled him to reach the entire Internet population at a very low cost in comparison to TV ads. In addition, the social media network of the 18-25 age group, Facebook, had many groups in favor of Barack Obama, which enabled each person to outwardly support Obama.



Image courtesy of dailystab.com

In addition, the magazine Rolling Stone dedicated a number of covers, feature articles, and multiple page spreads to the support of Obama. These articles included praises like, “’a sense of dignity, even majesty’” (Street 64), “’flawless campaign” (Street 65), and “he has a quality of thinking and intellectual and emotional honesty that is extraordinary’” (Street 65).

Many of Rolling Stone’s subscribers are within the 18-25 year age group, and therefore, it is clear why so many in that range voted in favor of Obama in the 2008 election.

Revelation #6: Jumping on the Obamwagon
(Obama as one of the biggest trends of 2008)



Image courtesy of rdr.razzle.com

In 2008, supporting Obama was the “cool” thing to do, especially on college campuses. For college students, Obama represented the “hope” and “change” that Bush’s presidency lacked.



Image courtesy of coochincoos.com

This is extremely evident in Paul Street’s book, Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics. Street conducted an interview with a number of students at the University of Iowa regarding Obama’s candidacy. Students were quoted saying things like, “’we love Barack. Everybody in my dorm is going to vote for him,’” “’he’s just so cool,’” and “’he’s really handsome’” (Street 168). If this is not enough to demonstrate the overwhelming bandwagon effect that Obama’s marketing had on college students, then I don’t know what is.



Additionally, many college towns, like Burlington were home to massive parades and celebrations upon Obama’s election.

This is not dissimilar to an example of bandwagon support in M. T. Anderson’s Feed. In the beginning of the book, growths called “lesions” were seen as a bad thing, and one of the main characters is very upset when she has one on the group’s trip to the moon. By the end of the book, however, they are the new “hot” thing. “Calista got it done yesterday. Quendy made this face. Now that lesions are ‘brag.’ Now that they’re the spit” (Anderson 183).

Revelation #7: over and over and over and over….
(Repetition in the Obama campaign)



Image courtesy of peasantswithpitchforks.com

In Obama’s campaign, repetition was a key persuasive technique. Consumers were bombarded with associations between the words “hope” and “change” and Obama. This was a definitive aspect to his victory both because of the repetition and because that is exactly what people were looking for after 8 years of President Bush.



Image courtesy of hyscience.com

Additionally, this repetition and association was so prevalent that it convinced American citizens that it was true, that Obama was the face of the change that they wanted to see happen in America.

This is similar to a part in M. T. Anderson’s book, Feed. In the book, there was a contest sponsored by Coca-Cola, in which participants had to “talk” on their feeds and mention Coke or Coke products a number of times in order to win a free six-pack. After about 20 minutes of talking about Coke, one of the main characters, Marty, says, “’Aren’t you getting like meg thirsty? With all this talking about the great taste of Coke?’” To this, another character, Link, says, “’Let’s go out and get some’” (Anderson 162).



Image courtesy of americandigest.org

This shows the power of repetition in a relatively unimportant matter, but translates perfectly to Obama’s campaign and means of convincing the American public that he represented the change that they needed.

Revelation #8: defeat by deceit
(Obama’s deceitful campaign)



Image courtesy of quinnsquantumtechnologies.com

Overall, there was a lot of deceit in Obama’s campaign. This was not necessarily entirely his fault, as the media helped to create their ideal image of Obama, but he did little to stop it.

In addition, he was careful to portray himself as a radical candidate in many elements. As Paul Street says in Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, “His real positions on Iraq, empire (more broadly), health care, energy, and trade might actually be centrist and in some cases quite conservative, but his rhetoric and image (like those of Hillary Clinton) have been ‘carefully crafted’ to tell progressively inclinded primary voters that he is one of them” (Street 167).



Image courtesy of longislandpress.com

Ultimately it is the voters’ responsibility to make sure that the candidate that they vote for supports their beliefs, but the majority of the media only promoted these deceptions, which acted as confirmation of the myths.

Revelation #9: The sex race
(The 2008 election’s focus on sex and race)



Image courtesy of slog.thestranger.com

The 2008 Democratic primaries were based largely on breaking ground by electing a president based on two elements that have never been seen in an election thus far; race and gender. Barack Obama’s calling card was that he was African American, and Hillary Clinton’s was that she was a female.

In actuality, “neither on domestic nor…foreign policy did Obama represent and particularly graphic practical or philosophical alternative to Mrs. Clinton” (Street 71).

So why did Obama win the primaries? Exit poll data shows that, “the two leading and most reliable sections of the Obama coalition during the Democratic primary season were black Americans and affluent, highly educated whites” (Street 171). Hillary on the other hand, did not have the overwhelming support of females in the same election.



Image courtesy of sodahead.com

The race card was a key factor in Obama’s victory because “racial distinctions have powerful social meaning with profound real-world consequences” (Croteau & Hoynes 201). In other words, not voting for Obama could have implied that a voter was, in some regard, racist.


Revelation #10: Mindless America
(The American tendency to vote without thinking)



Image courtesy of brainbasedbusiness.com

One of the sections in Paul Street’s book, Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics is titled, “No Correlation…Between the Issues People Think Are Important and the Candidate They Vote For” (Street 65).

The American public has been conditioned by endless advertisement to hardly ever have to think for themselves, which is apparently evident even in our Presidential elections. In fact, leading up to the Democratic primaries of 2008, advertisements for candidates were not focused on their beliefs, but on their personal character (Street 66).

Essentially, the depiction of each candidate on the television determined who would win, not unlike the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon. In this televised debate, Nixon refused to wear makeup or be dolled up, whereas Kennedy had the advantage of youth and good looks. After the debate, “polls showed that a slim majority of those who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had won, while an equally slim majority of those who had watched the debate on television gave the edge to Kennedy” (Croteau & Hoynes 233).



This snapshot from a debate in Las Vegas depicts Clinton as slightly frazzled and Obama as poised and collected.
Image courtesy of nytimes.com

Clearly, image and presentation play a significant role in gaining the support of American voters, which played to the advantage of Obama in the 2008 election.