Metrosexuals versus manly men: a reason voters will prefer McCain to Obama?
Types like she laughs: I never thought about it this way before, but John Ettorre just left a very interesting and unique (because I’d yet to see the argument made nor had it ever occurred to me before now) comment on this thread with Ellen Bravo’s ten reasons why women should vote for Obama if he is the candidate.
Writes John:
And reason #11: he’s a metrosexual, with all the effeminate qualities that entails. They’re off-putting to many males (me included), and I predict it will be among the leading reasons for sinking his chances in the general election. [emphasis added]
This kind of idea is very far afield to me because I really don’t view people in those terms, or at least, I don’t think about metrosexuals at all.
I can’t remember seeing a microtargeting category of metrosexuals but here’s what you can find on Google if you put in “metrosexual Obama.” Results in the “news” search are here. I don’t have time to go through many of them, so let me just link to a couple:
This letter to the editor, in Maine, goes right to the military comparison and is not complimentary to Obama.
But this article in U.S. News & World Report takes the position that Obama is more of a woman than Clinton and that that implies that women will not lose if Obama is the nominee (fun note: that article was written on 2/13/08 and says that the race was Obama’s to lose, then).
This just gets too wrapped up in genderizing the qualities that go with being a leader and again, being short on time, I’ll leave the comments as a place for people to explore whether we are evolved enough to realize that we should be selecting our leaders based on those qualities, and not by saying things like “he’s more a woman than Clinton” or “McCain is more of a manly man.” What is that supposed to do for us? Some people identify women’s qualities as not being ones akin to leadership, others go the opposite direction. And manly men in the way people refer to someone like McCain totally turn me off. Feh.
Anyway – manly men or metrosexuals? What do people think?
139 Responses to “Metrosexuals versus manly men: a reason voters will prefer McCain to Obama?”
The more troublesome aspect of this focus on appearances is dealt with in the book Blink, which deals with unconscious bias and snap decisions.
Sometimes these are uncannily accurate, while other times they lead us into disastrous decisions. A great example of the latter is covered in a chapter devoted to Warren Harding, one of our worst presidents, who ascended to that role by “looking” presidential and having a deep sonorous voice. The author, Malcolm Gladwell, points out that our top corporations are overwhelmingly run by white men of exceptional height. While none of the boards of directors who choose these CEOs would claim that being tall has anything to do with being competent, the facts are overwhelming that they are unconsciously predisposed toward tall men. We don't choose to be biased in the ways we are, and we can overcome them, but our predispositions are clearly there, and you can explore some of your own through Harvard's Implicit Associations Test, HERE.
The more troublesome aspect of this focus on appearances is dealt with in the book Blink, which deals with unconscious bias and snap decisions.
Sometimes these are uncannily accurate, while other times they lead us into disastrous decisions. A great example of the latter is covered in a chapter devoted to Warren Harding, one of our worst presidents, who ascended to that role by “looking” presidential and having a deep sonorous voice. The author, Malcolm Gladwell, points out that our top corporations are overwhelmingly run by white men of exceptional height. While none of the boards of directors who choose these CEOs would claim that being tall has anything to do with being competent, the facts are overwhelming that they are unconsciously predisposed toward tall men. We don't choose to be biased in the ways we are, and we can overcome them, but our predispositions are clearly there, and you can explore some of your own through Harvard's Implicit Associations Test, HERE.
CStanley – this is a REALLY interesting comment! You know what it makes me think of? It reminds me of how I feel about the word feminism – it just doesn't mean nearly the same thing to nearly enough people anymore. There is a good youtube of “what does a feminist look like.”
Maybe we need a youtube of “what does a leader look like.”
Anybody game?
For the record, I'm with you re: the label is intended to encompass certain behaviors or choices or someething – but I think that that word is so limited – I mean, I read more than 350 RSS feeds! I never once seen this, and yet the person who left the comment – he is absolutely well-read. He and I also disagree on a LOT of stuff, esp. related to gender. But the fact that he would assert that he believes people will find that this matters is what made me want to hear more.
I'm very sorry at these times for the one-dimensional nature of the web. Those who may remember a few months back, I wrote about whether or not what Obama had done, at that time, vis a vis Rev. Wright was enough – and I wanted to know what people thought, from an academic point, was the tipping point where we ALL say to people we followed, that we now diverge too much.
I got SLAMMED for asking that – like I had a secret mission.
I swear to you – I just ask questions few others will – either because I'm dumb, naive or – hey – just really want to know!
It truly is because I really want to know.
CStanley – this is a REALLY interesting comment! You know what it makes me think of? It reminds me of how I feel about the word feminism – it just doesn't mean nearly the same thing to nearly enough people anymore. There is a good youtube of “what does a feminist look like.”
Maybe we need a youtube of “what does a leader look like.”
Anybody game?
For the record, I'm with you re: the label is intended to encompass certain behaviors or choices or someething – but I think that that word is so limited – I mean, I read more than 350 RSS feeds! I never once seen this, and yet the person who left the comment – he is absolutely well-read. He and I also disagree on a LOT of stuff, esp. related to gender. But the fact that he would assert that he believes people will find that this matters is what made me want to hear more.
I'm very sorry at these times for the one-dimensional nature of the web. Those who may remember a few months back, I wrote about whether or not what Obama had done, at that time, vis a vis Rev. Wright was enough – and I wanted to know what people thought, from an academic point, was the tipping point where we ALL say to people we followed, that we now diverge too much.
I got SLAMMED for asking that – like I had a secret mission.
I swear to you – I just ask questions few others will – either because I'm dumb, naive or – hey – just really want to know!
It truly is because I really want to know.
CStanley – this is a REALLY interesting comment! You know what it makes me think of? It reminds me of how I feel about the word feminism – it just doesn't mean nearly the same thing to nearly enough people anymore. There is a good youtube of “what does a feminist look like.”
Maybe we need a youtube of “what does a leader look like.”
Anybody game?
For the record, I'm with you re: the label is intended to encompass certain behaviors or choices or someething – but I think that that word is so limited – I mean, I read more than 350 RSS feeds! I never once seen this, and yet the person who left the comment – he is absolutely well-read. He and I also disagree on a LOT of stuff, esp. related to gender. But the fact that he would assert that he believes people will find that this matters is what made me want to hear more.
I'm very sorry at these times for the one-dimensional nature of the web. Those who may remember a few months back, I wrote about whether or not what Obama had done, at that time, vis a vis Rev. Wright was enough – and I wanted to know what people thought, from an academic point, was the tipping point where we ALL say to people we followed, that we now diverge too much.
I got SLAMMED for asking that – like I had a secret mission.
I swear to you – I just ask questions few others will – either because I'm dumb, naive or – hey – just really want to know!
It truly is because I really want to know.
ThunderMonkey – LOVE it! lol yup – think of the movie Amadeus. Totally.
Sigh.
Yeah – I don't know – I think some of it is a fear-thing – fearing how one really is – but in the end, doesn't it all come back to the problem with “genderizing” this stuff – like it's all “BAD” v. “GOOD”?
I hate that.
ThunderMonkey – LOVE it! lol yup – think of the movie Amadeus. Totally.
Sigh.
Yeah – I don't know – I think some of it is a fear-thing – fearing how one really is – but in the end, doesn't it all come back to the problem with “genderizing” this stuff – like it's all “BAD” v. “GOOD”?
I hate that.
ThunderMonkey – LOVE it! lol yup – think of the movie Amadeus. Totally.
Sigh.
Yeah – I don't know – I think some of it is a fear-thing – fearing how one really is – but in the end, doesn't it all come back to the problem with “genderizing” this stuff – like it's all “BAD” v. “GOOD”?
I hate that.
RememberNovember: Hmm, I suppose. I don't know – maybe it's also time to turn this on the writers – journalists and their editors included: this is what THEY are worried about – and what that says about THEM, not us.
Ok – my head is starting to hurt.
RememberNovember: Hmm, I suppose. I don't know – maybe it's also time to turn this on the writers – journalists and their editors included: this is what THEY are worried about – and what that says about THEM, not us.
Ok – my head is starting to hurt.
RememberNovember: Hmm, I suppose. I don't know – maybe it's also time to turn this on the writers – journalists and their editors included: this is what THEY are worried about – and what that says about THEM, not us.
Ok – my head is starting to hurt.
Chris – now see what I mean? I would NEVER have this frame of reference. When someone in Ohio refers to metrosexual, I would ASSUME they are referring to anyone who lives in a city like Chicago or NYC. The sexual orientation wouldn't kick in for me at all.
Wow.
Thanks for commenting.
Chris – now see what I mean? I would NEVER have this frame of reference. When someone in Ohio refers to metrosexual, I would ASSUME they are referring to anyone who lives in a city like Chicago or NYC. The sexual orientation wouldn't kick in for me at all.
Wow.
Thanks for commenting.
Chris – now see what I mean? I would NEVER have this frame of reference. When someone in Ohio refers to metrosexual, I would ASSUME they are referring to anyone who lives in a city like Chicago or NYC. The sexual orientation wouldn't kick in for me at all.
Wow.
Thanks for commenting.
Re: Mikkel I am telling you – we need a Youtube of “what a leader looks like” to go with that first graph of your comment (from 12:15pm). Fascinating.
Re: Mikkel I am telling you – we need a Youtube of “what a leader looks like” to go with that first graph of your comment (from 12:15pm). Fascinating.
Re: Mikkel I am telling you – we need a Youtube of “what a leader looks like” to go with that first graph of your comment (from 12:15pm). Fascinating.
Lol , T-Steel- thank you again.
So let me ask then – covering myself for fear – so – then, it is NOT cool to be a metrosexual?
Maybe I should say here that I remember a movie from a long time ago called Metropolitan about rich white kids in NYC who thought they were cool and they really were just asses. I would think that they would be “metrosexual” but they certainly thought they were cool.
Are we at the point with language where our diversity as a society has made it really hard to know what each other means????
Lol , T-Steel- thank you again.
So let me ask then – covering myself for fear – so – then, it is NOT cool to be a metrosexual?
Maybe I should say here that I remember a movie from a long time ago called Metropolitan about rich white kids in NYC who thought they were cool and they really were just asses. I would think that they would be “metrosexual” but they certainly thought they were cool.
Are we at the point with language where our diversity as a society has made it really hard to know what each other means????
Lol , T-Steel- thank you again.
So let me ask then – covering myself for fear – so – then, it is NOT cool to be a metrosexual?
Maybe I should say here that I remember a movie from a long time ago called Metropolitan about rich white kids in NYC who thought they were cool and they really were just asses. I would think that they would be “metrosexual” but they certainly thought they were cool.
Are we at the point with language where our diversity as a society has made it really hard to know what each other means????
T Steel – interesting!!! Obama gets “cat” which is feline, Clinton gets cookie which is baking and McCain gets…fella! lol oy I have to stop.
T Steel – interesting!!! Obama gets “cat” which is feline, Clinton gets cookie which is baking and McCain gets…fella! lol oy I have to stop.
T Steel – interesting!!! Obama gets “cat” which is feline, Clinton gets cookie which is baking and McCain gets…fella! lol oy I have to stop.
GreenDreams – what you write is consistent with what the commenter subsequently wrote – he'd also linked recently to an article I think from Scientific American maybe? That was about the brain/neural functions and these biases. That's probably why he made this comment about metrosexual and the impact of such perceptions in the first place.
Again – it obviously wasn't anything I knew anything about – and I wanted to elicit some ideas of how to look at it – frankly because I would reject right out of hand – but – as we can see from these comments, well – we dismiss it but it isn't quite as simple.
Thanks.
GreenDreams – what you write is consistent with what the commenter subsequently wrote – he'd also linked recently to an article I think from Scientific American maybe? That was about the brain/neural functions and these biases. That's probably why he made this comment about metrosexual and the impact of such perceptions in the first place.
Again – it obviously wasn't anything I knew anything about – and I wanted to elicit some ideas of how to look at it – frankly because I would reject right out of hand – but – as we can see from these comments, well – we dismiss it but it isn't quite as simple.
Thanks.
GreenDreams – what you write is consistent with what the commenter subsequently wrote – he'd also linked recently to an article I think from Scientific American maybe? That was about the brain/neural functions and these biases. That's probably why he made this comment about metrosexual and the impact of such perceptions in the first place.
Again – it obviously wasn't anything I knew anything about – and I wanted to elicit some ideas of how to look at it – frankly because I would reject right out of hand – but – as we can see from these comments, well – we dismiss it but it isn't quite as simple.
Thanks.
Well, it IS a euphemism, but I'd argue that the euphemism is “preconditions.” When the Bush administration has used the term preconditions it normally means “the other side will have to agree to give us what we want, and then we'll sit down and figure out their reward” which is highly condescending. That's not a precondition, that's an ultimatum.
In the past the preconditions would be that the other side is even capable of acting in good faith in following the agreement and that there is any mutual outcome that could ever be reached. I think the negotiations with the Soviets showed that time and again the two superpowers satisfied these preconditions even as they actively sought to undermine each other in general.
The other problem with the Bush use of preconditions is that they are heavily focused in trying to get everything done at once (at least that's the public image) rather than making individual topics. I think that Obama would be open to trying to negotiate with Iran some solution re: Iraq while leaving their sponsorship of terrorist groups in general off the table until another time. I'm sure that the current Administration tries to do stuff like this privately, but in public they say it's all or nothing.
Well, it IS a euphemism, but I'd argue that the euphemism is “preconditions.” When the Bush administration has used the term preconditions it normally means “the other side will have to agree to give us what we want, and then we'll sit down and figure out their reward” which is highly condescending. That's not a precondition, that's an ultimatum.
In the past the preconditions would be that the other side is even capable of acting in good faith in following the agreement and that there is any mutual outcome that could ever be reached. I think the negotiations with the Soviets showed that time and again the two superpowers satisfied these preconditions even as they actively sought to undermine each other in general.
The other problem with the Bush use of preconditions is that they are heavily focused in trying to get everything done at once (at least that's the public image) rather than making individual topics. I think that Obama would be open to trying to negotiate with Iran some solution re: Iraq while leaving their sponsorship of terrorist groups in general off the table until another time. I'm sure that the current Administration tries to do stuff like this privately, but in public they say it's all or nothing.
Well, it IS a euphemism, but I'd argue that the euphemism is “preconditions.” When the Bush administration has used the term preconditions it normally means “the other side will have to agree to give us what we want, and then we'll sit down and figure out their reward” which is highly condescending. That's not a precondition, that's an ultimatum.
In the past the preconditions would be that the other side is even capable of acting in good faith in following the agreement and that there is any mutual outcome that could ever be reached. I think the negotiations with the Soviets showed that time and again the two superpowers satisfied these preconditions even as they actively sought to undermine each other in general.
The other problem with the Bush use of preconditions is that they are heavily focused in trying to get everything done at once (at least that's the public image) rather than making individual topics. I think that Obama would be open to trying to negotiate with Iran some solution re: Iraq while leaving their sponsorship of terrorist groups in general off the table until another time. I'm sure that the current Administration tries to do stuff like this privately, but in public they say it's all or nothing.
“It's a tired old story: Democrats are all gay or gender confused while Republicans are all manly courageous men.
It's as trivial as it is untrue.”
You nailed right there. The old chestnut of liberals being girly men and republicans being big tough men smoking cigarettes on their horses. Its a theme Bush has repeated played up to in photo ops because it works. So many people don't know how to unravel what they know from their gut impressions.
Take the swiftboating of Kerry. One candidate actually volunteered for service, and was in fact leading boats into action in the deltas, blowing away viet cong and getting shot at. Another candidate's connections kept him off the front lines, home even, where he wouldn't have to fight. Yet it was the war record of the first man that was called into question not the second in the last election. Why? Kerry doesn't look like a guy who did those things, therefore it was easy to think that he never did. You know, if you're gullible, and so many are.
“It's a tired old story: Democrats are all gay or gender confused while Republicans are all manly courageous men.
It's as trivial as it is untrue.”
You nailed right there. The old chestnut of liberals being girly men and republicans being big tough men smoking cigarettes on their horses. Its a theme Bush has repeated played up to in photo ops because it works. So many people don't know how to unravel what they know from their gut impressions.
Take the swiftboating of Kerry. One candidate actually volunteered for service, and was in fact leading boats into action in the deltas, blowing away viet cong and getting shot at. Another candidate's connections kept him off the front lines, home even, where he wouldn't have to fight. Yet it was the war record of the first man that was called into question not the second in the last election. Why? Kerry doesn't look like a guy who did those things, therefore it was easy to think that he never did. You know, if you're gullible, and so many are.
“It's a tired old story: Democrats are all gay or gender confused while Republicans are all manly courageous men.
It's as trivial as it is untrue.”
You nailed right there. The old chestnut of liberals being girly men and republicans being big tough men smoking cigarettes on their horses. Its a theme Bush has repeated played up to in photo ops because it works. So many people don't know how to unravel what they know from their gut impressions.
Take the swiftboating of Kerry. One candidate actually volunteered for service, and was in fact leading boats into action in the deltas, blowing away viet cong and getting shot at. Another candidate's connections kept him off the front lines, home even, where he wouldn't have to fight. Yet it was the war record of the first man that was called into question not the second in the last election. Why? Kerry doesn't look like a guy who did those things, therefore it was easy to think that he never did. You know, if you're gullible, and so many are.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Slamfu I agree 100% but WHY WHY WHY then did Kerry do that hunting thing when he was in the race? He looked ridiculous! And when I saw the photo, I assumed he was doing it to show, Hey! I hunt! Man hold gun! Ugga Ugga.
Again – totally turns me off, but obviously someone advised him that he had to do it.
So what do we do – I mean – isn't perpetuating that and candidates letting letting their supporters or advisors tell them that they have to be seen doing x, y or z just as bad as actually believing what the commenter does all on his own?
I don't know – you know – for example, I think of Ann Richards – now I do not believe that there was much that that woman showed us that wasn't really who she was. I could be wrong – I didn't chronicle her or anything.
But I don't think she is the norm. Even Edwards' haircut silliness plays into all this.
How do we get them to just let us see them as they are if they are also going around and “playing types” for different constituencies?
And I do mean all candidates – I'm sure someone can come up with plenty about Clinton too.
This is one reason why, athough it's impossible, it sure would be nice if each of us could meet each of them in a much more up close and personal way than photo ops and so on.
Sigh.
Slamfu I agree 100% but WHY WHY WHY then did Kerry do that hunting thing when he was in the race? He looked ridiculous! And when I saw the photo, I assumed he was doing it to show, Hey! I hunt! Man hold gun! Ugga Ugga.
Again – totally turns me off, but obviously someone advised him that he had to do it.
So what do we do – I mean – isn't perpetuating that and candidates letting letting their supporters or advisors tell them that they have to be seen doing x, y or z just as bad as actually believing what the commenter does all on his own?
I don't know – you know – for example, I think of Ann Richards – now I do not believe that there was much that that woman showed us that wasn't really who she was. I could be wrong – I didn't chronicle her or anything.
But I don't think she is the norm. Even Edwards' haircut silliness plays into all this.
How do we get them to just let us see them as they are if they are also going around and “playing types” for different constituencies?
And I do mean all candidates – I'm sure someone can come up with plenty about Clinton too.
This is one reason why, athough it's impossible, it sure would be nice if each of us could meet each of them in a much more up close and personal way than photo ops and so on.
Sigh.
Slamfu I agree 100% but WHY WHY WHY then did Kerry do that hunting thing when he was in the race? He looked ridiculous! And when I saw the photo, I assumed he was doing it to show, Hey! I hunt! Man hold gun! Ugga Ugga.
Again – totally turns me off, but obviously someone advised him that he had to do it.
So what do we do – I mean – isn't perpetuating that and candidates letting letting their supporters or advisors tell them that they have to be seen doing x, y or z just as bad as actually believing what the commenter does all on his own?
I don't know – you know – for example, I think of Ann Richards – now I do not believe that there was much that that woman showed us that wasn't really who she was. I could be wrong – I didn't chronicle her or anything.
But I don't think she is the norm. Even Edwards' haircut silliness plays into all this.
How do we get them to just let us see them as they are if they are also going around and “playing types” for different constituencies?
And I do mean all candidates – I'm sure someone can come up with plenty about Clinton too.
This is one reason why, athough it's impossible, it sure would be nice if each of us could meet each of them in a much more up close and personal way than photo ops and so on.
Sigh.
I think that Obama would be open to trying to negotiate with Iran some solution re: Iraq while leaving their sponsorship of terrorist groups in general off the table until another time. I'm sure that the current Administration tries to do stuff like this privately, but in public they say it's all or nothing.
But that's not true- the Bush administration HAS negotiated with Iran regarding Iraq security. In fact to me it's almost the opposite of what you are saying- Bush is handling things bit by bit by participating only in the lower level talks, but if you advocate for a summit, that's like saying that we're going to deal with things from the top down or as a whole.
And I also disagree with the way you and Chris oppose the “ultimatum”. That's one way to characterize it, I suppose, but really it's disingenuous to sit down with someone for negotiations on a topic that you are unwilling to really negotiate. And certainly sponsorship of terrorism should be nonnegotiable.
There's also the idea behind the Bush approach of isolationism that it is the best leverage we have to force regime change by internal forces- because if the moderates in Iran see that they'll get nowhere with Ahmadinejad, they're more likely to push him out the door and replace him with someone that is more moderate.
I think that Obama would be open to trying to negotiate with Iran some solution re: Iraq while leaving their sponsorship of terrorist groups in general off the table until another time. I'm sure that the current Administration tries to do stuff like this privately, but in public they say it's all or nothing.
But that's not true- the Bush administration HAS negotiated with Iran regarding Iraq security. In fact to me it's almost the opposite of what you are saying- Bush is handling things bit by bit by participating only in the lower level talks, but if you advocate for a summit, that's like saying that we're going to deal with things from the top down or as a whole.
And I also disagree with the way you and Chris oppose the “ultimatum”. That's one way to characterize it, I suppose, but really it's disingenuous to sit down with someone for negotiations on a topic that you are unwilling to really negotiate. And certainly sponsorship of terrorism should be nonnegotiable.
There's also the idea behind the Bush approach of isolationism that it is the best leverage we have to force regime change by internal forces- because if the moderates in Iran see that they'll get nowhere with Ahmadinejad, they're more likely to push him out the door and replace him with someone that is more moderate.
I think that Obama would be open to trying to negotiate with Iran some solution re: Iraq while leaving their sponsorship of terrorist groups in general off the table until another time. I'm sure that the current Administration tries to do stuff like this privately, but in public they say it's all or nothing.
But that's not true- the Bush administration HAS negotiated with Iran regarding Iraq security. In fact to me it's almost the opposite of what you are saying- Bush is handling things bit by bit by participating only in the lower level talks, but if you advocate for a summit, that's like saying that we're going to deal with things from the top down or as a whole.
And I also disagree with the way you and Chris oppose the “ultimatum”. That's one way to characterize it, I suppose, but really it's disingenuous to sit down with someone for negotiations on a topic that you are unwilling to really negotiate. And certainly sponsorship of terrorism should be nonnegotiable.
There's also the idea behind the Bush approach of isolationism that it is the best leverage we have to force regime change by internal forces- because if the moderates in Iran see that they'll get nowhere with Ahmadinejad, they're more likely to push him out the door and replace him with someone that is more moderate.
And one more thing, about whether 'preconditions' or 'preparations' is the more honest and forthright terminology. If by preparations you just mean doing your homework and understanding as much as possible what your opponent thinks, then yes, that's an honest term. But Obama (and certainly his surrogates) has at times defined preparations as the lower level talks which are done to find out if there is actual room for negotiation- is the other party willing to give up certain things and is there something they want from us that we're willing to give. He's then said that if those lower level talks reach a dead end, then the high level talks would not take place. So how in the world is that not a “precondition', when you take that word at face value to mean that a condition must be met before the action is taken? If he's only arguing about specific preconditions which Bush uses but he would not, then he should say so, so that everyone can understand exactly what he thinks is necessary before the high level talks can possibly be productive.
And one more thing, about whether 'preconditions' or 'preparations' is the more honest and forthright terminology. If by preparations you just mean doing your homework and understanding as much as possible what your opponent thinks, then yes, that's an honest term. But Obama (and certainly his surrogates) has at times defined preparations as the lower level talks which are done to find out if there is actual room for negotiation- is the other party willing to give up certain things and is there something they want from us that we're willing to give. He's then said that if those lower level talks reach a dead end, then the high level talks would not take place. So how in the world is that not a “precondition', when you take that word at face value to mean that a condition must be met before the action is taken? If he's only arguing about specific preconditions which Bush uses but he would not, then he should say so, so that everyone can understand exactly what he thinks is necessary before the high level talks can possibly be productive.
And one more thing, about whether 'preconditions' or 'preparations' is the more honest and forthright terminology. If by preparations you just mean doing your homework and understanding as much as possible what your opponent thinks, then yes, that's an honest term. But Obama (and certainly his surrogates) has at times defined preparations as the lower level talks which are done to find out if there is actual room for negotiation- is the other party willing to give up certain things and is there something they want from us that we're willing to give. He's then said that if those lower level talks reach a dead end, then the high level talks would not take place. So how in the world is that not a “precondition', when you take that word at face value to mean that a condition must be met before the action is taken? If he's only arguing about specific preconditions which Bush uses but he would not, then he should say so, so that everyone can understand exactly what he thinks is necessary before the high level talks can possibly be productive.
And I suppose they could demand we dismantle our CIA or end our immoral occupation of Iraq. Or make us pay reparations for overthrowing their government and supporting the Shah.
Both sides can come up with hundreds of excuses to hold grudges and not talk to each other. Or we can all grow up and sit down and try to hash things out. If that doesn't work, we'll at least know that violence was the last option not the first.
And it didn't work in Iraq. It hasn't worked in Cuba. It didn't work with China. It didn't work with North Korea. That idea has been thoroughly trampled on by history. And remember Ahmadinejad doesn't call the shots in Iran.
And I suppose they could demand we dismantle our CIA or end our immoral occupation of Iraq. Or make us pay reparations for overthrowing their government and supporting the Shah.
Both sides can come up with hundreds of excuses to hold grudges and not talk to each other. Or we can all grow up and sit down and try to hash things out. If that doesn't work, we'll at least know that violence was the last option not the first.
And it didn't work in Iraq. It hasn't worked in Cuba. It didn't work with China. It didn't work with North Korea. That idea has been thoroughly trampled on by history. And remember Ahmadinejad doesn't call the shots in Iran.
And I suppose they could demand we dismantle our CIA or end our immoral occupation of Iraq. Or make us pay reparations for overthrowing their government and supporting the Shah.
Both sides can come up with hundreds of excuses to hold grudges and not talk to each other. Or we can all grow up and sit down and try to hash things out. If that doesn't work, we'll at least know that violence was the last option not the first.
And it didn't work in Iraq. It hasn't worked in Cuba. It didn't work with China. It didn't work with North Korea. That idea has been thoroughly trampled on by history. And remember Ahmadinejad doesn't call the shots in Iran.
CS I'm not disagreeing that Obama isn't going to have preconditions. I'm saying that the term has become loaded politically and so what he says is just responding to that. Many terms now have implicit political meanings and the response is more about that than the definition.
As for the Iran talks, I've heard that they never had the support of a lot of people at the top and the diplomats/Rice basically got hung out to dry. They went over to see if Iran was willing to stop all the meddling in Iraq but really had no ability to make it worthwhile for them. Iran wanted a security guarantee which they could not be given and the talks never really got underway. In that particular example, Iran's influence in Iraq is extremely important for them to try and dissuade us from attacking over their nuclear program, so I'm not sure they can be separated. When thinking of separation I was thinking more about their support for Hezbollah.
CS I'm not disagreeing that Obama isn't going to have preconditions. I'm saying that the term has become loaded politically and so what he says is just responding to that. Many terms now have implicit political meanings and the response is more about that than the definition.
As for the Iran talks, I've heard that they never had the support of a lot of people at the top and the diplomats/Rice basically got hung out to dry. They went over to see if Iran was willing to stop all the meddling in Iraq but really had no ability to make it worthwhile for them. Iran wanted a security guarantee which they could not be given and the talks never really got underway. In that particular example, Iran's influence in Iraq is extremely important for them to try and dissuade us from attacking over their nuclear program, so I'm not sure they can be separated. When thinking of separation I was thinking more about their support for Hezbollah.
CS I'm not disagreeing that Obama isn't going to have preconditions. I'm saying that the term has become loaded politically and so what he says is just responding to that. Many terms now have implicit political meanings and the response is more about that than the definition.
As for the Iran talks, I've heard that they never had the support of a lot of people at the top and the diplomats/Rice basically got hung out to dry. They went over to see if Iran was willing to stop all the meddling in Iraq but really had no ability to make it worthwhile for them. Iran wanted a security guarantee which they could not be given and the talks never really got underway. In that particular example, Iran's influence in Iraq is extremely important for them to try and dissuade us from attacking over their nuclear program, so I'm not sure they can be separated. When thinking of separation I was thinking more about their support for Hezbollah.