Actually, any truly effective orator has a strong hypnotic effect on the great majority of his listeners. That's perfectly normal, but really good orators are quite rare. Some of them possess a natural gift to "entrance" their listeners...while others learn such techniques through trial and error or possibly from an instructor.

So?

The vital thing is....is the orator having a hypnotic effect on his audience in a way that leads to something positive or something negative? In other words what is his longterm gameplan and what are his real intentions?

A good musical performer also has a hypnotic effect on his audience. That again is perfectly normal, and it's desirable too. It's one of the marks of a truly great speaker, storyteller, or entertainer of any kind.

That doesn't mean that it is, by definition, evil...or being done for any evil purpose.

Agreed, Ichmael? I'm not trying to get you to agree with Obama's purposes necessarily (as you clearly don't)...but what I am trying to get you to agree with is that the hypnotic effect of any good speech or public performance is not, in itself, any proof of evil intention.

ALL politicians try very hard to hypnotize their audiences, for gosh sakes! Some are much better at it than others. Sarah Palin and McCain were both pretty good at hypnotizing their more fervent followers. In fact, Sarah Palin is VERY good at it. She had the look, the gestures, the body language, the catchphrases...all down pat...but they would only work on the right subjects. The same goes for Obama.

Ronald Reagan was fantastic at it. Nixon wasn't too good at it, because he was too shifty-eyed and nervous of possible criticism. Hubert Humphery was useless at it...the man's hypnotic abilities were absolutely nil. ;-)

John Kennedy and Bill Clinton were both very good at it. George Bush Sr. was not. Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Winston Churchill were all superb hypnotic orators...for the right audience...no good at all for the opposing audience, but that's normal.

The ability to mesmerize an audience is something every politician aims for! It's an essential part of the craft of getting elected, for heaven's sake.

Supporters of Obama should be able to see this too. Of COURSE Obama uses certain gestures, tones of voice, repetitious phrases, and other signals to mesmerize an audience and get them on his side. They ALL try to do that. It's part of the job of getting elected and staying popular. Obama's just a lot better at it than most. If he turns out to be as good at it as Reagan or Clinton were, he'll be in for a whole 8 years.

As for Mr G.W. Bush...I'd say he was moderately good at it, in a pretty primitive way...a way that would appeal to a certain constituency...but there was so much stupidity evident in both his performance and his policy decisions that he aroused more opposition than support as time went by.

John Kerry on the other hand was not very good at it, in my opinion. He wasn't really bad at it either...just sort of mediocre.