On Tuesday, July 15, in Washington D.C., Barack Obama gave a speech entitled, “A New Strategy for a New World,” in which he speechified on foreign policy and invoked a series of historically significant U.S. foreign policy players and events.

Obama opened his speech, boldly, with the Marshall plan, proclaiming that “Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name” — did anyone else think Obama Plan? — then, he speechified among other things about the United States, America, and Iraq with almost 100 mentions in the speech (yes, I counted). Here is the entire speech if you want to read it or watch it at the HuffPo. Although, the comments are more interesting.

Then, I noticed this photo of Obama at the podium with his flag props, which is standard staging for a presidential candidate trying to look presidential. But wait a minute, look below his “Judgment to Lead” tag line and his 10 McCain-esque stars. There is something missing in Obama’s map of this new world.

map

Bold, striking. Where is the United States and what does it mean? Have we been thrown off the globe and under the bus?

A picture is worth a 1000 words and image marketing is designed to sell. What are we supposed to be buying here? A new world order where South America, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East are prominent. A new world order where a presumptive party nominee for president stands in front of a map where the United States is noticeably absent. Bold, striking, stupid.

Now, the United States isn’t the center of the universe, but we are a large country on the continent of North America and wish to continue to be represented on a map promoted by a potential U.S. president. Just saying.

Back to — what does it mean? — well, I dunno but the map in conjunction with speech title bothers me. There’s new world order, then there’s new world order both of which are troubling. Consider this an open thread to discuss the map, foreign policy, the speech, or anything else.

Crossposted at Alegre’s Corner

Update: From the comments at Alegre’s Corner.

It is very weird, but the first thing I noticed was that Africa (4.00 / 4)
was front and center. I am into world geography, having traveled a lot. It seems to say that he is still with all the good friends he made at Trinity, the Afro-Centrist church he went to for so many years.  Also, South America is under his right hand, which is also symbolic. Someone is trying to be very subtle and psychological. See, the right hand is the one which defends and feeds, traditionally. The center is the location of the heart and brain. Unfortunately, for this scenario anyway, Obama is left-handed. Which has the Middle East under it. I hope this doesn’t mean he intends to meddle too much there..left hand is sinister in heraldry and in symbols. Of course, it was a foreign policy speech and we don’t do foreign policy with ourselves, at least we haven’t up until now. Who knows, maybe that will change too. But I think it’s an arrogant way of saying that he includes the whole world in his vision(s). I hope they appreciate the inclusion. Heh.

Symbolism (4.00 / 1)
I’m actually for a President including the whole world in his/her foreign policy vision and the best way to represent that would be to use a flat map that showed each continent.Notice, too, that along with the US, that China and Russia are absent as well.

Your take on Obama’s map is interesting. I definitely think Obama’s map sends a message. What and to whom is the real question. Is he paying homage to kindred anti-American spirits or his does he have imperial ambitions? I don’t like either of these options and he has displayed inclinations toward both. Obama has flip flopped so much on important policies and positions, I cannot tell what he’ll do. This makes him very dangerous.

A vote for Hillary means never having to say you’re sorry.

*************************

He said in the past U.S. should take a back seat (4.00 / 4)
Again it was one of those phrases embedded in a speech that set off alarm bells in my head. He was speaking to or about the UK.He said the U.S. should take a back seat at times and let other nations lead in the next administration. Now, of course that is true, if other nations want to lead, they should step up and lead. But if you want the U.S. to take a back seat, you should not be running for president. That is not leadership.

So true (4.00 / 3)
You nailed it:

But if you want the U.S. to take a back seat, you should not be running for president. That is not leadership.

IMHO, under Bush, the United States already has taken a back seat on so many important issues like alternative energy and the environment and needs to lead now more than ever. Also, a person “for the people” needs to led, not multinational corporations and board rooms. Obama has demonstrated a slipperiness on issues and policies like I’ve never seen before. I don’t know what he’ll do and I don’t trust a word out of his mouth. Nothing, nada, ziltch.

I trust Hillary and believe she is the best person to led our country at this time. I trust McCain to put the country before party and govern more to the middle than the right. I cannot trust Obama and I will not put our country in his hands.

A vote for Hillary means never having to say you’re sorry.