We have some of Barrack Obamas speaches up on our little forum here as an example of good communication and presentation skills, to which Obama clearly excels - Even his harshest critics refer to him as 'Eloquent', which I've heard bitterly spat out of so many Fox anchors mouths that it almost sounds like a nasty word rather than a compliment.

In NLP we're always interested in archetypal, role model types, to demonstrate effectively the characteristics needed needed different areas of success. Obama's self-assured, concise way of talking is a very good example of very good communication - We are not in any way suggesting that he formally studies NLP or hypnosis techniques.

But it's been suggested to me that some people are referencing this site as a tenuous link to support the idea that Barack Obama is using hypnosis in his speeches to effect the American public - A popular word appearing in extreme Right-Wing media being 'Brainwashed'

'Obama has brainwashed the public.' etc

This is, frankly, both untrue and impossible.

All politicians and public speakers have to conform to a certain standard in order to effectively present a message and command attention. This includes Republican speakers, as well as sales people, actors - and any occupation that has an emphasis on speech. They all have certain characteristics, tactics, wordplays, and trends.

All NLP does is notice those good communication skills, structure them, and teach people to emulate them. Hypnosis is something completely different.

Hypnosis is just a arbitary tag thrown at the higher ends of the scale influence. In some senses you could accuse any influencial person as using hypnosis - as hypnosis and influence are something people don't truly understand, and conveniently can't be easily disproven. It has the same integrity and maturity of claiming that a comedian uses invisible hands to tickle his audience into laughing.

Whether hypnosis even works over television or throughout large audiences through speach alone is arguable . If anything, flat, verbal communication in the form of a speach is one of the least hypnotic aspects of modern television - No uplifting music, interspersed with images elluding to sex, success and happiness - The type that feature heavily on television adverts, that are precisely timed and planned, that we have become accustomed to switch off to and allow into our senses and consciousness again and again and again.

That has to be one of the most worrying aspects of television - repetition. It isn't sophisticated enough to be labeled hypnosis, in my view - In the same way that an alcoholic would be missing the point in calling himself a 'Wine coniseur' - It's quantiy over quality, the same unconvincingly disguised images and associations, repeated over and over for months on end.

But as I say - This is suggestion and influence, not hypnosis. Suggestion and influence are fair game in modern society - They're a big part of freedom of speech and capitalist ideas. We have a social competition as to who can get thier message and ideas out into the public consciousness - But ultimately the public still have a choice in the matter, despite the innevitable influence of advertising campaigns - But even this is limitted.

I can't help but neurologically branching from the Pizza Hut slogan 'Great Pizza, great time' into 'Great times, sub-par, sweaty pizza.' just because after a while common sense builds us a resiliance to this droning, grinding form of suggestion - Truth speaks louder than other peoples messages. One of the fundemental facts of hypnosis is that it can only be used to influence gradually, in a way that has both feet grounded on truth, and is in the best interest of the subject.

Otherwise is just wouldn't work. People's resilience to negative suggestion would break any trance instantly.

And this is the important negative in the word 'Hypnotism' that people often have, and of which this particular smear of Obama relies upon. To some people 'Hypnotism' implies that the subject (or victim) of hypnosis has no control or choice over the suggestion that is being given.

This would be true if not for one solid, objective fact:

-We don't live in a tedious, long running American soap opera or a Naked Gun movie.

I don't know if conspricay theorists or Right-wing propagandanauts watch Days of Our Lives, or Passions - But I suspect they do, because it requires that leap of such logical-less blunder to arrive in crazy town and assume that the president of the United States of America is has powers of mind control. I wonder if to these people Days of Our Lives seems like a hard-hitting fly on the wall documentary - An expos? into the political world.

*To pre-empt any unfair counter-criticism let it be known that I am not liberal or left-wing. These words don't really mean much outside of America. I am just opposed to fallacy in all it's shapes and sizes - American politics and the media bias in reporting it seems to be a dismal lesson in 'how not to argue.'. There are genuine criticisms of Obama to be made, but so far the Right seems to be more interested in non-citicims like how he bowls or what kind of mayonaise he likes - or not-so-subtley tugging on fearful heartstrings by implying that he's a terrorist because his name sounds like Osama.