¥€$

YES or NO?

It was a simple question that deserves a simple answer. "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

A black man named Barrack 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. 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."

A white woman named Hillary Clinton said "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."

A lot of punditry has been devoted to analyzing these two questions. No doubt that Hillary, with her far more extensive corporate connections, is capable of buying more favorable media coverage of her answer than Obama. For the rest of us, though, it boils down to two things: "I will." And "I will not."

I can hear the pundits' stomachs churning already. "Yes or no" doesn't capture the nuances of Hillary Clinton's answer well enough; she isn't saying no, but she isn't saying yes either. She's saying she would open diplomatic relations using various tested and proven diplomatic methods. She would make sure to "test the waters" first using envoys, to determine the best way forward for diplomatic relations, and to make sure her meeting with other world leaders isn't being used for propaganda purposes. Of course, those of us who are used to getting jerked around by politicians know this is just a politically acceptable way of saying "No."

Obama didn't get into the nuances of the answer, because the question didn't ask how he would engage America's supposed enemies abroad. To that point, Obama understands that most of us don't really care how he does it, only that he makes a sincere effort to do it, and states that commitment openly for all of us to see. The American people are not interested in making war with the rest of the world; we don't want enemies, we don't want conflict, we don't want hatred or animosity between us and anyone else. And that being true, the Diplomacy Question really boils down to this:

"If you are elected, will your foreign policy reflect the desires of the American people?"

A black man named Obama answered, "Yes, because America wants peace."

A white woman named Clinton answered, "No, but I'll pretend to if it'll get me elected."

Obama is going to receive a lot of criticism for his honesty from the camp of those who still believe, on some level, that a meeting with the President of the United States is a reward and a privilege, while denial of such contact is some sort of punishment. Hillary and Edwards are going to receive a lot of praise from people--Democrats in particular--who think that "dictators and tyrants don't deserve diplomacy for nothing in return." But then, I don't really care what Imperialists think; peace, not dominance, is the highest goal of the American people. Creating peace and eliminating conflict, therefore, is one of the President's most important duties; if anything, he should spend more time talking directly with the Axis of Evil than the Gang of Eight (keep your friends close and your enemies closer).

Then I think to myself: if Barrack Obama is on the side of the American people, and Hillary Clinton disagrees with him, then exactly whose side is Hillary on?