The Definition Of Airhead

Mr. Clinton's former Secretary of State, on what's important to her in choosing the next president.

Albright, a Democrat, surprised no one by endorsing Barack Obama. "It would be sending a message of diversity" to the world, she said, drawing cheers from an audience of dozens of diplomats and hundreds of students.

"A message of diversity."  To the world.  As if diversity should be a primary concern even on the list of concerns.  That and $1 will get you a cup of coffee.  I know I should have something incisive or amusing to add, but she's left me scratching my head in wonderment.

Comments

[Eileen]

While "diversity" may not seem important (and is not as important as many other things); the image we project to the world does matter.
Getting along with the world does help make us safer.
I believe that Obama is more likely to negotiate peace than McCain is.
His color could be of benefit in that area, to peoples who see Caucasians as suppressors. This may not be logical, but many things are emotional.

I think that Obama will make more effort to get along, and understand the point of view, of those who hate us, then McCain will.
As for Palin, while I would love to have her in charge of the budget and the veto pen, I don't want her anywhere near the trigger (unless she is hunting , in which case better her than Cheney).

Is it that I am still naive enough to think that negotiating peace, and trying to get along, will make us safer than threats, weapons and invasions?
Yep, I am, although I question it much more than I did when I was 18.

Just as much as I would not want Palin anywhere near the trigger, I would not want Obama in control of the trigger either (we might as well not have a trigger if Obama were put in charge of it).

[Giacomo]

Eileen:
a) You can't "negotiate peace" if your opposition knows that war, or even walking away from negotiations, is for you not an option. Obama will be "negotiating" from a position of weakness. McCain projects more strength precisely because it's a better position from which to negotiate.

b) I think you mean "oppressors," and if you buy that perceptions that "the white man oppresseth" should be catered to than you're negotiating from an even weaker position.

c) What "point of view" do we need to understand of those who hate us and (to complete your thought) are trying to kill us?

d) It is not naive to want peace over war. It is naive to think you can get there with good intentions and weak positions. After all, recall that Teddy Roosevelt said "speak softly and carry a big stick."

e) Although she is an NRA member, I have not found Palin's approach to be "war mongering." To understand that would, however, mean reading all of her answer on Russia and not just the Dowdified version that ABC presented. I can give you the reference if you need it, but I linked it in an earlier piece.

[Eileen]

Thank you for the very well articulated response.
Yes I did mean "oppressors".
I have not read Palin's views in depth, but have been exposed to the media summaries (and youtube videos posted in myspace discussion forums).
I am sure I can find more information if I look for it, I will make time to do that before making my actual voting decision.

I do believe that many in the world do see the Western world (US and its Allies) as oppressors. We have been exploiting the world's resources for a very long time. But most of the human species has a history of conquer and exploitation, not just us.

The point of view we should try to understand is WHY they hate us.
Is it due to our exploitation of resources?
I highly doubt it is because we love freedom, as George Bush would suggest.