Would you talk to---part 2?

The Main Stream Media has set up the game between Clinton and Obama as being between the veteran and the rookie. Consequently they will be looking for examples which support their view.


I just published a post a few minutes ago about how Clinton's response has been portrayed as an example of a veteran response. The tough guy or gal, the seasoned one, the one who's been there and approaches those who oppose us with cynicism. Hard to argue with that, though that approach, or rather that non-approach, is tantamount to accepting the lousy and bleak view of the future of our relationships with other countries and peoples, some who actively oppose us, and some who simply disagree with us.


"No" is considered the safe position, at least in the short run. One can always move up from that toward a compromise. It's often the position of choice of those who take a negative view of the future, and also of those who run for office as a politician, not a stateman, focused on first things first; getting nominated, then getting elected, and then using the connections and realtionships established over the last several years to consider how to use them to their advantage, which too often means doing what is necessary to continue in power, whether or not that is in the best interest of the country.


Here's the rub. To Whose Advantage? Yours as the President, your political party, or the Constitution you hope to take an oath to uphold, and by extension, the citizens of the country you have been elected to lead; all of them, not just those whom you think are on your side. If you think the way of whose side are you on, you are no different than George W. who said you are either for us or with the terroists. Terrorists, opposition party senators and representatives, disagreeing journalists, opposing lobbyists.