John Edwards, sitting in a dismal third place among the Democrats, chided both Obama and Clinton for their recent spat about meeting with enemies like Iran, Syria, etc. Funny, because he called it a spat, likening it to what is happening in Washington, instead of dealing with the real issues. In fact, it sounded more like Bush attacking Congress over whether the Attorney General is a liar or not, instead of doing serious work of the Nation. (see comment ‘When All You Have Is Lies‘)

(St Louis, Missouri) Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Friday chided rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama for feuding over whether or not to meet with leaders of rogue nations, saying the spat was distracting Democrats from tackling real problems (source)

I find it difficult to equate this with something not serious. It highlights a major difference between Obama & Clinton. It shows that Clinton is old guard, stuck in the mind set that America is still the Greatest Democracy Ever. It shows her being unwilling to understand that there is a second opinion, that might not be America’s opinion. Her inability to openly engage in dialog with those nations that oppose the USA, shows she is unwilling to accept new ideas, new concepts.

On the other hand, Obama’s willingness to meet, to talk, is a new direction for America. For too long the USA has threatened, bullied other nations, to the point where now there is a serious threat to the entire world, from nations like Iran, Venezuela, and others. It is from being unwilling to talk, to learn from others, that right now the United States pretty well stands alone in the world. Obama isn’t talking about negotiating here, he is merely talking about doing just that, talking.

One added reason of why he should. It is helpful to see first hand the people you are in opposition to. It can help give you insights on how to deal with them, how to formulate policies to protect yourself from them, or persuade them to drop their anger. It is a way to learn, to gather first hand information. That in itself is priceless, and it can help lead to real policies, rather than just shooting from the hip, or worse, in trusting those in the CIA or such. After all, look at how good a job they did with Iraq.

John Edwards on the other hand, drops a notch I think, when he makes light of how important it is to have dialog with one’s enemies. If you are unwilling to consider dialog important, how then do you expect to reach a compromise on issues? Never mind, with just other nations, but with those in your own party, or in opposition to your party? John Edwards is making light of what really is a serious debate.

I think Obama, in not backing down is showing some character. On the other hand, the comments by Senator Clinton, show she is old guard, old school. Her vast experience as being an insider is showing, though I doubt that is what she had in mind when claiming the role of being the experienced candidate. Her tiff with Senator Obama however, shows that she might be a skilled battler, it also shows that for her, new ideas, new approaches, are not something she encourages, or embraces.

Edwards is showing why he is in Third. He might be hard working, might be a champion of those fighting big Insurance even, though frankly I tend to be skeptical about that. Still, his priorities of what is important or not is a bit skewed. When he talks about sticking to issues, surely how to approach one’s enemies is an important issue facing the next President.

I mean seriously, isn’t it mostly enemies that are out there these days? After all, after nearly 7 years of Bush, there sure aren’t many friends left, so the next President needs to have some plan, on how to cope and deal with those nations that no longer call the USA Friend. John Edwards might lash out at big business, and his economic plan seems rather interesting too, but he loses when he tries to make light of what really is an important difference.

Why shouldn’t candidates from the same party highlight those differences? Seems that if all Edwards wants is for candidates to belittle Bush or the Republicans, he is missing the point. A real leader is about their ideas, their vision, and not about how the other guy doesn’t have one. I think the battle of words between Clinton and Obama is good, as it takes the debates into a higher plane.

It is an issue, one worth discussing.

———————————————-

Senator Obama’s Campaign Site

Senator Clinton’s Campaign Site

John Edwards’ Campaign Site.