.JPG)
Something which appears to have eluded most supporters of Barack Obama worries me more and more.
That he suffers from an unfortunate recurring syndrome of "foot-in-mouth" is fairly obvious and has not eluded his critics. Apologists across the internet, TV and newspaper articles must continually translate "what Obama really meant", also known to some political bloggers as WORM.
There was the remark about his grandmother in his speech after the Rev. Wright debacle. There was the "typical white person" remark soon after, and in the last few days the syndrome recurred. Obama's description of the good folk of Pennsylvania, given to a group of millionaires in California, whose financial backing he sought, has offended the said good folk of PA - and rightly so in my opinion.
What I believe has eluded most onlookers is the possibility that, should the USA find itself with "President" Obama in January 2009, and if at sometime during his first term he should become involved in public discussions which arise from an international crisis, the recurring "foot-in-mouth" syndrome could represent a real danger. Its recurrence could mean a lot more than causing offense to some of his countrymen. It could be the cause of an international incident of huge proportions. There would be no chance to do a WORM in those circumstances(explain "what Obama really meant".)
What in Obama's natal chart might indicate this unfortunate syndrome in a person highly educated and with occasional flashes of oratorial brilliance on occasions when speeches and responses have been well thought out? The natal chart can be seen at 'Astro Future Trends' HERE.
Mercury is the planet most involved in communication of all kinds. In Obama's chart it lies at 1 Leo opposite Jupiter at 0 Aquarius. Jupiter, planet of exaggeration opposing a somewhat kingly and arrogant Leo Mercury, could reflect a tendency to be a blabbermouth when unprepared - say too much. The Moon at 0 Gemini, trine Jupiter sextile Mercury could also be significant. The Moon represents one's deepest emotions, so is he letting very personal feelings seep through his words when they would be more diplomatically saved in a mental file marked "strictly personal?"
I don't know the astrological answer, but I am certain that this is something to be watched carefully. At root the issue is one of experience and judgement. In a position of less importance this might be seen as something to work through and polish "on the job" - not so for the President of the United States. Not possible at all!
In the interests of balance, and before I'm reminded by a passing reader of Hillary Clinton's mis-speaks and alleged economies with the truth, I'd point out that any of these instances, not already proved to be exactly or nearly as she told them, were matters connected with her own past experience and history. They were not not undiplomatic, tactless remarks about other groups, be they groups divided by race, background, education, religion or "class". A different matter entirely from those matters mentioned in previous paragraphs.
That he suffers from an unfortunate recurring syndrome of "foot-in-mouth" is fairly obvious and has not eluded his critics. Apologists across the internet, TV and newspaper articles must continually translate "what Obama really meant", also known to some political bloggers as WORM.
There was the remark about his grandmother in his speech after the Rev. Wright debacle. There was the "typical white person" remark soon after, and in the last few days the syndrome recurred. Obama's description of the good folk of Pennsylvania, given to a group of millionaires in California, whose financial backing he sought, has offended the said good folk of PA - and rightly so in my opinion.
What I believe has eluded most onlookers is the possibility that, should the USA find itself with "President" Obama in January 2009, and if at sometime during his first term he should become involved in public discussions which arise from an international crisis, the recurring "foot-in-mouth" syndrome could represent a real danger. Its recurrence could mean a lot more than causing offense to some of his countrymen. It could be the cause of an international incident of huge proportions. There would be no chance to do a WORM in those circumstances(explain "what Obama really meant".)
What in Obama's natal chart might indicate this unfortunate syndrome in a person highly educated and with occasional flashes of oratorial brilliance on occasions when speeches and responses have been well thought out? The natal chart can be seen at 'Astro Future Trends' HERE.
Mercury is the planet most involved in communication of all kinds. In Obama's chart it lies at 1 Leo opposite Jupiter at 0 Aquarius. Jupiter, planet of exaggeration opposing a somewhat kingly and arrogant Leo Mercury, could reflect a tendency to be a blabbermouth when unprepared - say too much. The Moon at 0 Gemini, trine Jupiter sextile Mercury could also be significant. The Moon represents one's deepest emotions, so is he letting very personal feelings seep through his words when they would be more diplomatically saved in a mental file marked "strictly personal?"
I don't know the astrological answer, but I am certain that this is something to be watched carefully. At root the issue is one of experience and judgement. In a position of less importance this might be seen as something to work through and polish "on the job" - not so for the President of the United States. Not possible at all!
In the interests of balance, and before I'm reminded by a passing reader of Hillary Clinton's mis-speaks and alleged economies with the truth, I'd point out that any of these instances, not already proved to be exactly or nearly as she told them, were matters connected with her own past experience and history. They were not not undiplomatic, tactless remarks about other groups, be they groups divided by race, background, education, religion or "class". A different matter entirely from those matters mentioned in previous paragraphs.
Obama is sleep deprived. Once he becomes the President of the United States, the foot-in-mouth episodes will end. He will be an excellent well rested Commander-In-Chief. Just you wait.
ReplyDeleteGo Obama 2009!
Commanders-in-Chief are also, on occasion, sleep deprived, Anon!
ReplyDeleteMore toughness, clear-headedness and resilience is required.
Obama 2016, perhaps!
Thanks for your visit and comment.
I, too, have been a little surprised at his verbal off the cuff blunders. Blushingly youthful, but not an asset to a commander-in-chief inheriting the worst mess in history.
ReplyDeleteXO
WWW
You don't think the 'foot in mouth' incidents might have something to do with a media that loves to spin something out of nothing and a flailing opponent who will stop at nothing to fling as much mud as she can regardless of how much she ends up covered with.
ReplyDeleteDon't fall for the media manipulation game set up and designed to keep voters focused on irrelevancies and not on the vital issues affecting the country. Keep your eye on the ball.
WWW - Agreed. It wouldn't be half as worrying in more normal circumstances, but as things will be in 2009, the USA cannot take risks on a greenhorn with an unfortunate f-i-m syndrome IMO. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnon - Media manipulation is how we got to this stage in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMy eyes are, and have always been, on the ball - and I do not wear rose-coloured spectacles.
Spinning something out of nothing is practiced by both sides - it appears to be all in the game, to fill in time between primaries - but certain things during the spin are made clear to any onlookers with a clear eye and a little insight.
As you know, my words are out there often for public consumption, where they are often spindled, folded and mutilates, because when you make the statement "The sky is blue," there will always be some who'll have a different interpretation or just want to argue because they're pig-headed!
ReplyDeleteActually, from what I see and read, there's a goodly percentage of folks in and out of Penn. who know exactly what Obama was saying and they agree. And I've gotten to the point I pay little attention to the hub and bub about what people associated with any of the candidates say.
Also agree with your bloggers who suggest all these candidates have reached sleep deprivation max. Have seen this consistently for years; they reach a point in these endless campaigns where it's tough to think and speak off the cuff. And that foot-in-mouth problem visits all of them at some point. We put these people through a physically-wearing process and even the sharpest, most articulate of them stumble along the way.
Love ya.
TNPOTUS
ReplyDeleteYes, I appreciate the point about sleep deprivation. I suppose it could be seen as part of the test they're being put through. We need someone who could work , sleepless, through 72 hours during an international or national crisis without putting a foot wrong ! Such a person may not exist from the choices we have now though.
With regard to what Obama actually said, and whether it can be seen to be true or not, for me it comes down to where it was said and to whom. He didn't say it to the people he was describing, with empathy, he said it to a group of millionaires/billionaires in California. His description pandered to THEIR stereotype of rubes and hicks. I cannot imagine Hillary Clinton speaking in this manner about other Americans, I really can't - or Edwards, or Kucinich or Gravel. They are folk of the right calibre for the job in question, in my opinion, as one who comes from a background of the Old Labour party in the UK.
I can't do with elitism, and that's what I see in Obama more and more. It could sink him.
Love back atcha TNPOTUS.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing to disagree!
I just reread my post from above and found three or four editing mistakes that make me appear to be one of the Beverly Hillbillies! And I've been an editurd for 31 years!! Wouldn't it be wonderful if everything we said and wrote was done with such clarity and correctness that there would be nothing left to interpretation or debate? Even the Great Mr. Churchill fluffed at the mouth once in a while!
ReplyDeleteUnderstand your point about "where" Obama made his statements, but disagree that the other candidates wouldn't have also pandered to the crowd in a similar setting. After all, Mr. Kucinich's background includes some rather inflammatory racial innuendo back when he was running for mayor of Cleveland and was trying to secure the bluecollar white male vote.
Anyway, love the exchange. Now I'm off to see if I can mangle the language in my own way today!!
Editing mistakes? - Didn't even notice TNPOTUS - they disappear into the general chaos of Learning Curve on the Ecliptic! I doubt many editors will be reading my drivel.
ReplyDeleteMr Churchill, though an inspirational leader in wartime was never "a man of the people" and never much of a loved politician in peacetime. He did once say "Eating my words has never given me indigestion" - I cannot imagine apologists running to his aid deciding "What Churchill really meant" as in St. Obama's case. ;-)
I'm surprised to hear that about Kucinich. We have to remember that it was a long time ago, when Kucinich was young and inexperienced - as Obama is now.
I think it supports my view that a seasoned politician wouldn't let his mouth run off as would a fresher one, less toughened by past errors. 'Obama 2016' is what I keep saying - but even that could be unlikely if he continues to speak down from his ivory tower.
:-)
I agree. But everything is relative. What could we call GWB's affliction?
ReplyDeleteHi hitchhiker 72
ReplyDeleteLOL !- What could we call GWB's affliction? "Birth" ?
The affliction in his case was on the people of the USA, Iraq, and others, I think.
Let's hope we don't inflict ourselves with another, similar affliction!! :-)