[Congressman Billybob]

Odds are, a bunch of FReepers have considered the Obama/Rorchach connection. I think you'll appreciate this take on that connection.

John / Billybob

[NativeNewYorker]

[GOPJ]

People who genuinely want “change” to occur, ought to be concerned with what change should happen? How it should be done? Who will benefit from it? Who will pay for it? These are logical questions about any public policy issue, from elementary school education to global thermonuclear war. Do the favorable responses to Obama indicate people who are too impatient to ask such obvious questions such as who, what, when, where, why and how?

Great post Bilybob. Thanks.

[I see my hands]

"Run a Google search for the combination of Rorschach and Barack Obama. You’ll get about 49,000 hits"

I never thought Google hits proved much of anything.

[Gondring]

Very good job, John. I like that you've taken the Rorchach idea beyond the superficial of "see what they want to see" into the subconcious aspect. Many people miss that, I think.

Also, I believe that excluding Federalist from the public school curricula has been one of the most effective methods of liberal takeover of this country.

Though I would not likely support Hamilton on many things, if he were taken out of historical context, his point about the Electoral College is being demonstrated so well. Why we discard wisdom is beyond me.

[DuncanWaring]

Give any thought to forwarding this to Charles Krauthammer?

[Moose4]

Like cotton candy at a carnival, they are spun with energy and heat from a teaspoon of sugar into a quart of confection. But, the candy melts down to nothing when one delves for factual content.

That is an AWESOME piece of writing, and spot on about the Obamessiah!

}:-)4

[FrdmLvr]

What results from the use of the Rorschach Test in psychiatry? The paradox of the ink blots is that people with specific emotional states will “see” similar results in the same blot. Others, who do not share that emotional state, will not “see” that. What the test reveals is not the fact of what’s really on the paper. It reveals, instead, the emotional predilection of the patient. Now, with an understanding of what a Rorschach test is, we can judge the common use of that phrase with respect to Barack Obama and certain of his speeches.

First, the phrase applies because there is no content in Barack Obama’s speeches. Like cotton candy at a carnival, they are spun with energy and heat from a teaspoon of sugar into a quart of confection. But, the candy melts down to nothing when one delves for factual content. Like Rorschach’s blots, the candidate and his speeches have no objective meaning. The viewer’s conclusions come from the viewer, and nowhere else.

Second, because there’s no real content, there are no “right” or “wrong” responses. The only reason to track the viewers’ responses is to look for patterns. Do certain people with certain emotional predilections have common responses? If so, who are they, and what are their psychiatric states?

This is a very good explaination of the Obama worshipers vs. Obama phobes. Love that cotton candy analogy. Can I use it?

[Bahbah]

That is a great quote from Hamilton. I did not remember that.

[upchuck]

Good post John. Thanks!

[neverdem]

BTTT!

BTW, what’s with the double “- 30 -”?

[PGalt]

WOW! OUTSTANDING article John! Thanks for writing/posting.

The comparison is actually more apt than all these tens of thousands of reporters and pundits think.

Propagandists have an easier time creating a candidate from a tabula rasa.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Nice writing, John.

Where do you link to older articles?

[Redhd2]

Very interesting insight.
Thanks for sharing.