headermask image

Business Tools Blog

Presidential Debate - no show stoppers

I had really been looking forward to watching the Presidential Debate on Friday September 26, 2008.  I was hoping that one of the candidates would wow me.  I thought Obama did better, but he didn’t knock my socks off.

I was, however,  horrified at John McCain’s inability to correctly pronounce Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name.  (No wonder he doesn’t want to meet with him).  I may be naive, but not knowing how to pronounce the President of Iran’s name invalidates one’s ability to claim to be an expert on foreign policy.

In case you aren’t sure how to pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad it’s (mah-MOOD) (ah-mah-DIH-nee-zhahd).

It may seem like I am picking on McCain, but as a reference, my 15 year old had to learn how to correctly pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before a high school debate last December where the topic was whether or not the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran.  Think about it, a fifteen year old had to have the enunciation correct for a weekend competition, but a Senator can’t get it right for a Presidential Debate?

The following is the transcript.

LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down
with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition.
Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene (ph), Ahmadinejad, who is,
Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination
of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going
to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and
give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the
extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them
more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve
probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across
the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald
Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko
until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.

Or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by
Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I’ll sit down with
anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions
would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a
person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without
preconditions.

OBAMA: So let’s talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is
not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right
person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the
United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing
if I think it’s going to keep America safe.

And I’m glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the
bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of
his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just
said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without
precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means “without preconditions.” It
doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means
is that we don’t do what we’ve been doing, which is to say, “Until you
agree to do exactly what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with
you.”

There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of
course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level
diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested
that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know
what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns,
to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear
weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn’t work, then we have
strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough
sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven’t done it, as in North Korea — let me just
take one more example — in North Korea, we cut off talks. They’re a
member of the axis of evil. We can’t deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went — they quadrupled their
nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They
pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear
secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged — because, again, the Bush administration
reversed course on this — then we have at least made some progress,
although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are
seeing it on shaky ground.

And — and I just — so I just have to make this general point
that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain’s own advisers
all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially
with the prime minister of Spain, because he — you know, he wasn’t
sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a
NATO ally.

MCCAIN: Of course.

OBAMA: If we can’t meet with our friends, I don’t know how we’re
going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like
terrorism.

MCCAIN: I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule
before I’m president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal
yet.

Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to-
face meetings between the president of the United States and the
president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower
level meetings. I’ve always encouraged them. The Iranians have met
with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without
precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called
Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe
it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so
we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.

As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea,
most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average
South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a
huge gulag.

We don’t know what the status of the dear leader’s health is
today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every
agreement that they’ve entered into.

And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan’s
“trust, but verify,” and certainly not sit down across the table from
– without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean,
it’s just dangerous.

OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example
that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without
doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody’s been
talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a
mischaracterization of my position.

When we talk about preconditions — and Henry Kissinger did say
we should have contacts without preconditions — the idea is that we
do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that
it hasn’t worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes
to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and
not say anything while he’s spewing his nonsense and his vile comments
is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad,
and he says, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,”
and we say, “No, you’re not”? Oh, please.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

4 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

  1. This appears to be something you found in the 90 min debate to validate your position. There is not one person I have every met in busines or public speaking that wouldn’t and hasn’t stumbled on a name. Arabic has little ties to english. Do you make fun of vendors of clients or staff that stumble on names? I hope not.

    Also the 5 yr old thing is a low shot!!

    1. tom on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
  2. I think you and I will agree that it is annoying but disagree on the weight that we put on this. McCain to date has hardly been a walking gaffe machine (see many Sen. Biden clips) so hoping folks give him a pass on that. If that is the extent of the issues with him then we as Americans are doing well. We need to focus on substance of each candidate’s position and not how they pronounce words. Frankly, I am hoping that the Iranian leader was offended by him mispronouncing his name :) (BTW: I spoke to some Dem and Independent coworkers who were actually impressed with some of the other names that McCain was listing in the Middle East.) Have a great day Sandi!

    2. John Fontana on September 30th, 2008 at 6:43 am
  3. John,

    It’s great to hear from your soapbox.

    I don’t think I am picking on a candidate because he/she has a hard time pronouncing the name of an evil leader in the middle east. I am simply pointing out that he fibbed on his resume. If he is an expert in foreign policy, then he should be able to pronounce Ahmadinejad’s name.

    If I interviewed a candidate for a job at Zayo and they couldn’t pronounce the names of our competitors … I probably wouldn’t hire them. Should we be any more lax in our requirements for a president? These are generally gating requirements to get into the interview - must haves … before we ask the hard question based on other more stringent criteria.

    3. Sandi Mays on September 29th, 2008 at 10:02 am
  4. Cmon Sandi you are better than that. Don’t pick a candidate because he/she has a hard time pronouncing the name of an evil leader in the middle east? We get the point but seems pretty weak to me. If that were the criteria of picking or not picking a leader then there are a few blogs out there today where the writer constantly misspells words. Annoying and distracting perhaps but not a reason to completely discredit the great capabilities, accomplishments and mind of the writer….same thing here.

    I completely agree with you…neither knocked it out of the park. Neither answered CRISPLY what does NOT happen now that we are spending $700B bailing out banks. They danced around it with great vagueness. In not so many words they both basically said nothing gets eliminated. I loved that Lehrer held their feet to the fire to answer the question. Very disappointing that neither had the courage to stick their necks out and say what had to be cut from their “pie in the sky” plans because of the crisis.

    Funny, aren’t they both currently Senators? Couple of tangential thoughts come to mind. 1.) How can ANY public official keep their current job while interviewing for another? See Senators McCain, Obama, Congressman Udall and many others. That drives me crazy. If they want to run for another position, fine. Just resign from your current job (we sure as heck would have to if we told our employer we were looking for another job). 2.) Seems to me the mess we are in is due primarily to the paralysis of the Legislative Branch of govt more than anything. How about term limits for these folks as well? 2 full 6yr terms for Senators and 4 full 2yr terms for Congressman. Career politicians need to be eliminated and forced to live under the BS laws and regulations that they pass (or do not pass).

    I am off my soap box now. Thanks Sandi.

    4. John Fontana on September 29th, 2008 at 7:26 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*