Clinton, Obama; To Communicate or Not to Communicate?

by: Betsy L. Angert

Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 13:00:00 PM EDT

Obama Clinton Feud on CNN Debate Question

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.

In recent days, I am reminded of my own life as I watch the Democratic Presidential candidates quibble, over the timing of peace talks.  Throughout the airwaves, and in every periodical, reports discuss the divisive dynamic.  Senator Hillary Clinton thinks Barack Obama is naïve.  She states the comparison he makes when discussing her point of view is silly.  Thus, the former First Lady emphasizes a theme that has haunted the junior Senator.  Is the Senator from Illinois too young and inexperienced to be President of the world's superpower?

Senator Obama said, I would.  And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire.  And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.  We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point.  But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.  I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes.  I don't want to make a situation even worse.  But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.  But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

Perchance, this is the reason the Clinton campaign chose to force focus on this issue.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters considered her calculated response worthy of praise.  The Senator from New York sought further substantiation for her position, and she received it.

Seeking to attack Sen. Barack Obama's greatest perceived weaknesses - lack of experience - Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign today used a former secretary of state to subtly question an answer he gave in Monday night's debate.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a member of Bill Clinton's administration, did not specifically criticize Obama's response to a question about meeting, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during his first year in office.

But she did strongly suggest that her candidate gave a much better answer.

"She gave a very sophisticated answer, which showed her understanding of the whole process," Albright said on a conference call this morning with reporters.  "If you look back at real breakthroughs in diplomatic history, what you basically find is that in order to understand where the situation is, to clear the underbrush away, it is necessary to have lower level people make the initial contact."

Granted on the world stage, people in power may use others as pawns.  They may employ the innocent to impose their destructive and debilitating desires.  The blameless may die and more than a heart is hurt.  However, I believe and history seems to bear this out, more perish and over a longer period of time if world leaders do not speak to each other.

The new world crisis brought about by the lack of strategic foreign policy thinking in the US since 2001 will get worse unless Washington uses its historic strengths instead of believing the myths of its military superiority.

The US did not destroy the German army in the Second World War - the Soviet Union did. Chinese peasants fought America to a standstill in Korea and Third World Vietnam defeated America two decades later. Polish workers sapped Soviet imperialism's will to rule, not threats of Star Wars. America withdrew from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s at the first whiff of murderous violence.

Rumsfeld is no exception to the rule that when America does war, it often does it badly. But it has defeated fascism, communism and will defeat jihadi terrorism by using the unstoppable power of its democratic, multi-faith, multi-race, rule-of-law, open-market ideology to make a better offer than any other ideology.

America now has to find the confidence and strength to try 'jaw-jaw' instead of 'war-war'. Nowhere is this more needed than in the region which has robbed Dick Cheney and the Republicans of control of both houses of Congress. Under Bush, America gave up diplomacy and international politics and surrendered foreign policy-making to the Pentagon. So far this century, America has forgotten the old maxim that peace works by talking with your enemies.

It is not just America. To be sure, the US won't talk to Iran. But France won't talk to Syria. And Syria won't recognise Lebanon as an independent nation. Most Arab states won't normalise relations with Israel.  In turn, Israel won't talk to elected leaders of the Palestinians.  No surprise that the alternative is war.

Humans rationalize and justify whatever it is they do, even if only belatedly.  Perhaps, the perfect example in my mind is all religions claim to command, "Thou shalt not kill."  Yet, for centuries mankind has engaged in religious wars.  When we battle, blood is spilled. 

Accuse others of wrongdoing, make no attempt to understand their position, and the indicted will react.  Refuse to speak to the person [or national leaders] you blame, or send a subordinate to speak for you and watch the resentment grow.  Ultimately, as you assess the situation, or contemplate your options, so too will your opponent.  Without direct dialogue between the concerned parties, nothing will change.  Resolution will be fragile.  Ultimately, as we have seen, the combat will begin.

Un-ringing a bell, although beautiful in the abstract, is not possible in the physical world.  What we choose initially will set the tone for future interactions.  As an educator, as a human, I am reminded of this daily.

You may noticed my last name; "Angert."  At the beginning of each school year, students also observe what you may have just realized.  The root word in my surname is anger. 

As an instructor, that knows what she values and says so at beginning of class, on the first day, at the first bell, I often hear students snicker, as they refer to the deeper meaning of my surname.  As our first meeting begins, I stand tall, all five feet of me.  The expression on my face is extremely serious.  The tone of my voice is strong, not loud, just firm.  I insist the class be silent as I prepare to state my standards.  All the indicators validate for the pupils I will be a taskmaster and I will adamantly dictate their responsibilities.  While it is true, my students are extremely productive; that is their choice.

I begin.  I first mention what they have already observed, my name on the board.  I explain what I realized as an adult.  I was decades old before anyone ever hollered at me.  I assert; clearly, it was not a member of my family.  My relatives "talk," as indicated by the "t" in my last name.  Thus, there is no need for "anger."

I continue.  The faces are wide-eyed.  Students listen intently.  Soon they discover that my tale is informative, not punitive.  I am actually human, just like them. 

The yarn I share helps to explain that people, pupils have choices astounds many a learner.  Possibly, it confuses some.  The narrative is not baffling.  Indeed, students are captivated as they take the saga in.  What confounds those sitting in the class is that I am so open about my life.

I discuss my own awful habits and how I adopted these when I was so very young, I did not realize there were other options.  I offer analogies.  A talkative child believes that is their nature; they constantly chatter.  They always have.  A young girl or boy with "nervous energy" never considers that they may be bored, seeking any form of attention, or that they are perhaps frustrated.  People do as they do, and more often than not as was done to them.

As I tell my tale, I speak of my own progression and realizations.  In my life, in my family no one drank milk; nor did I.  I mention the first time I ran away from home at the age of eight.  My Dad wanted me to drink the milk left in the bottom of my cereal bowl.

I tell new students of how, when, and why I developed a dependency on soda.  I share the realization, the repercussions from too much carbonated water.  I speak of my own choices and the challenge to change. 

Quickly, they discover our shared qualities.  They understand my demeanor.  They accept "anger" is not a place I travel to.  We develop a relationship.

I consciously choose to create a communicative, creative, caring, and peaceful environment in the classroom.  In truth, I endeavor to establish a tranquil milieu in each aspect of my life.  For me, reciprocal reverence reaps abundant rewards. 

I am acquainted with those that yell.  As I said, after many years of calm, I met someone that screams, that stops speaking when he feels agitated.  I learned.  People do what was done to them.  If as children, the people we most admire are punitive, we are likely to be similar as we age.

How many of us can recall a time in our youth when we stood in awe of our mother or father's foolish behavior and said, "I will never do that to a child of mine."  Yet, a score later we find ourselves repeating the pattern we learned at our parents' knee.

As I witness a scholar, a successful attorney, a Senator, and some say a threat to the security of a Clinton win called "silly" by his opponent I must wonder.  What was learned, accepted, and rejected.  What habits were formed when the Senator from New York was so young she did not realize there were other options.

I inquire.  Why would this well-informed, intelligent Presidential hopeful, the former First Lady, Hillary Clinton think it naïve to speak with world leaders as soon as possible?  I can only ponder why the senior Senator thinks she might be used as a pawn.  I cannot imagine why in her mind punitive measures are proper.

It seems Senator Clinton thinks accentuating her experience and asserting her skepticism are strengths, or possibly, she wishes to emphasize there is a difference between Senator Obama and she.  However, this was always obvious, even to the casual observer.

Journalists commented, Hillary Clinton is totally in control in this campaign.  In the most recent broadcast, her body language spoke volumes.  Senator Clinton is self-assured.  Many thought the Senator from New York was confident going into the Cable News Network forum.

The Clinton camp put forward . . .

[T]he aura of inevitability: "Face it, she's going to be nominated.  Better get on the bandwagon now.''

The CNN-YouTube debate in Charleston, South Carolina, Monday night could look like seven against one: seven Democratic contenders trying to challenge Clinton as "The Inevitable" -- and competing with each other to become "The Alternative."

The former First Lady wore a striking orange and pink jacket.  Her tone was firm.  When Senator Clinton answered a question, and she was given an opportunity to answer most every inquiry, Clinton spoke with certainty.  An air of authority surrounded this esteemed front-runner.  Even up until the moment, the controversial instant when the split between Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was glaringly evident.

Washington (CNN) - The spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is really about calling attention to your opponent's weakness.

In politics, just like in prizefighting, you look for your opponent's weakness and pound away at it.  In the debate this week, Obama portrayed himself as new and different - the total opposite of George W. Bush.  "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous," Obama said in the CNN/You Tube debate on Monday.

Clinton portrayed herself as experienced and knowledgeable. "You don't promise a meeting until you know the intentions.  I don't want to be used for propaganda," she said.

She was going for Obama's weakness - his lack of experience.  She kept hammering away at it the next day.  "I thought that was very irresponsible and, frankly, naïve to say you would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro or others within the first year," she said.

Obama came back punching at Clinton's weakness.  "If there is anything irresponsible and naïve it was to authorize George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq apparently without knowing how they where going to get out," Obama said.

-CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider

"The reason that this president has failed to lead this country is because he hasn't been able to unite our country.  He's polarized us when he should have pulled us together." . . .

"That's why the experience we need in the next president is the ability to bring this country together.

"It's not enough to just change parties."

Not to be undone, defeated, or denied a righteous place in this crucial crusade the Clinton crowd fought back.

The New York senator's campaign contended Obama, with his remarks, had broken a pledge "to elevate our political discourse."

Let us not walk in lock step.  May we never stop speaking or delay when world affairs beckon us.  We must accept that Heads of State will not feel safe or honored when speaking solely with diplomats.  If our own President were slighted in negotiations there would be no peace.  Perchance, we might each adopt the Angert family practice.  Talk to ensure that anger will never arise.

Resources, references, rage, habits that hurt  . . .