Over the past several weeks I have noted Obamma using the term 'WE' and 'OUR' alot in response to various questions but blew it off as a rhetorical device to sound "inclusive" in his replys.
No more; last weekend while in a ABC interview he was asked point blank for HIS response to the WH attacks against Fox News Service and answered "We Feel..." "Our advisors....".
Speaking in the third person is a semantic device that originated with the kings and queens of England, it was used to re-enforce the concept that the King WAS England having been placed there by God and to rule in God's place. The rulers of england were more than human, as God's annoited representive they were super-human eclipsing mere mortal status, deserving of the ROYAL 'WE', of course British Royals continued to attend church after taking the throne.
But lets assume that my observations are wrong and that Obamma is grammericaly correct, that would mean the Presidency is now a plurality. Which raises the question: Is that a mouse in his pocket or are there unelected co-presidents in the WH?
No more; last weekend while in a ABC interview he was asked point blank for HIS response to the WH attacks against Fox News Service and answered "We Feel..." "Our advisors....".
Speaking in the third person is a semantic device that originated with the kings and queens of England, it was used to re-enforce the concept that the King WAS England having been placed there by God and to rule in God's place. The rulers of england were more than human, as God's annoited representive they were super-human eclipsing mere mortal status, deserving of the ROYAL 'WE', of course British Royals continued to attend church after taking the throne.
But lets assume that my observations are wrong and that Obamma is grammericaly correct, that would mean the Presidency is now a plurality. Which raises the question: Is that a mouse in his pocket or are there unelected co-presidents in the WH?
Comment