I can’t believe I spent 5 minutes reading this. So what? Ryan Seacrest of American Idol just copyrighted his name. It’s a legal thing mostly. It reduced boneheads from trying to impersonate you or make $ off your notoriety. Big deal. When are the Clintonites going to accept the fact that it’s Obama, or a war with Iran, paid for by your grandkids?

And here is my view. Obama is mulifaceted. He spins and turns and shows his other faces as needed.

He is therefore a blank slate with no acual stance and upon which dreamers can write their “dear Santa” lists and expect fulfilment.

He is an empty suit, the man behind the curtain, humpty dumpty, the sham of the century snake oil salesman and egotist extrodinaire but the one thing he is NOT is this - ELECTABLE in November.

I won’t click on the article btw, I do not watch TV due to desire to remain an unbrainwashed member of the masses who are divided into too many classes.

We’re people, we are people. And we ain’t no brand.

The pollsters divide the masses into classes but what they fail to see is we have the ability to move around on them and defy our classification.

Hey, I’m branded democrat due to my whole life as such but just recently found out it isn’t a permanent affliction. Go figure, Independent suits me way more.

But - and here’s the key: branding is not authenticity: It builds around something in a product that can be “exaggerated” in a positive way (for lack of a better word) and builds onto it in branches.

This also tells me something about the generation that supports Obama and that is not positive. We have a generation that is ignorant of our political history, our parties, and our processes, and they are also creating and adding onto their own “narrative” (for lack of a better word) about what democracy is. And, because they control the medium (Internet, web, technology), for the most part, the “rules” are exclusively theirs. And there is little remorse or concern about what harm these rules may do to harm others (45+ people, women, seniors, lower income/education, non-urban). Further, when they are challenged, they control and manage the narrative so that it - not them - changes.

I certainly wish that Hillary had used technology better than she did in this campaign - because I think it would have fundamentally changed the dynamics for her - in addition to a whole ‘nother article I could write about the ways in which men and women differ in how they perceive and utilize technologies). HINT: Women tend to be far more cooperation-oriented and inclusive; men, in spite of the spin that Obama is such a “feminist”, are frequently likely to be exclusive and competitive for competition’s sake.

For now, I would rather support a candidate (Clinton) and a system (Democracy 1.0) - flawed as it is - that recognizes the fundamentals of democracy and participation, rather than on a “user-created” technology-driven democracy that can and does change both the rules and the outcomes on a whim, with little regard for the “minority” views and opinions.

She has the popular vote and will go into the convention with the popular vote.

As people get to know the product they decide to reject snObama.

“Are we buying soap or buying a President?”

Marketing is using knowledge of human psychology to sell a product.

snObama is a product being sold as a candidate.

Selling is psychological manipulation — and most people don’t even realize that they are being manipulated — until it is too late. I can’t even bare to watch TV any longer because the psychological manipulation to sell products has gotten much worse.

However, I do believe that the good folks in WV saw through snObama’s advertising blitz and showed him what they thought of Axlerod’s manipulations.

And women have responded to Oprah — and she’s been dropping DOWN lately. It’s about time women get to see the “real” Oprah!

On another thread I liken snObama to an android — one that acts based on data input by mentors or programmers. He has no depth — and he changes his message to suit his audience.

He is also devoid of empathy — I just can’t find a trace of empathy in him.

Whereas the Clintons are flawed humans — as is the real human trait — to be flawed — or as one of my Professors called it “Normal neurotic”. The Clintons are both very empathetic individuals — I’d guess they both have a double dose of the empathy gene.

It appears the Saudis DISS Mr Bush, and Mr Cheney, at times, no longer the fathers conducting business, but the sons.

And given there are new girls in town, or boys, as the case may be, has the US lost it’s appeal?

Have the Saudis gone Hollywood, like a newly minted star, like the Madonna of old, will they leave behind the old and frumpy, for the new and glamorous, in the oil and business world?