You too can own some, well, propaganda:
Easy to photoshop that one, and someone already has--with effective results (via Michelle Malkin).
One correspondent and tipster JD had this to say about the wilting power of Obama's
The banality of modern politics never ceases to amaze me. As I have said several times already, this election, and especially the candidacy of Obama, has left me feeling as if I have completely lost touch with the American people. He speaks in nothing but empty platitudes, and the people love him for it. He makes empty promises he knows he cannot keep, and they adore him for it. He blows his nose, and they cheer him wildly. I read articles that use the word ‘messianic’ to describe his campaign, and no one is screaming “Blasphemy!”I know I've seen some "artwork" like this before . . .
To compare the two Democrat candidates, Clinton, without question, has better policy—especially in the areas of foreign affairs, economics, and the military. While I may disagree with her, it is mostly of the sort where reasonable minds can disagree based on different policy preferences and values. Obama, on the other hand, has made many statements that are simply wrong in all of those areas. People seem to know this, but they love him anyway. I don’t get it.
The other day, I spoke to an old acquaintance of mine who happens to be a Democrat supporting Obama. I asked him why. He said it was because Obama was against the war. After conceding that I was not terribly happy about the way the war has been handled either, I pointed out that the fact of the matter is that we did go to war and we are in Iraq. I asked him what he thought we should do about it now. He acknowledged that he does not believe Obama can pull the troops out right away as the region would go to hell. He even believes that the eighteen month withdrawal would be a bad idea. Nonetheless, he likes that Obama is saying it.
I then asked him about some of Obama’s other policy statements: his insane belief that free trade is bad, his willingness to treat publicly with our enemies, and his desire to impose additional regulations on securities trading. All of this was acknowledged to be quite terrible and possibly unfeasible. I was flummoxed. So I asked him how, knowing all this, could he still support Obama, when Clinton is at least calculating and self interested enough not to screw up the country too badly by making such mistakes. He shrugged, and said “Change. I know it probably doesn’t mean anything, but I’m just so sick of calculating and self interested politicians. I guess I don’t really care all that much about policy. I just like hearing ‘change,’ and I really want to believe it’s possible.”
People will believe anything they want to believe enough or fear to believe enough. I had almost forgotten that basic truism. I am terrified of where it may take us though. Politicians do tend to respond to what people want. Thus, it seems that people like us and Christopher Hitchens, people who care about policy and substance, are now in the minority. The majority really does just want to hear empty platitudes that make them feel good. They don’t care whether or not they are true or even possible. They just want to believe they are.
And that is how populists come to power. After their downfall, when it becomes abundantly clear that things didn’t work out just because people believed they would—even when those beliefs are enforced at the point of a gun-- they are called authoritarians or dictators. We spend a great deal of time learning that these people are evil. We don’t seem to do as well in learning how they come to power in the first place.
Here are two other world leaders known for bringing "hope and change":