|
Edited on Thu Apr-10-08 09:50 AM by quantass
Earlier i had the view that both Obama and Clinton were both correct on the Olympic boycott -- Talk with China to come to some agreement but then boycott the entire games if nothing changes. But now Im thinking Obama is onto something.
Lets face it boycotting the whole games does nothing. China will still do its same old thing. Sure the world press will discuss this boycott throughout the games but like so many issues its impact will wear out very quickly and no one will remember or care. Thats just the way the world works. The ideal: take Obama's approach but extend it to include the other Olympic competing countries and if China doesnt comply with some initial steps then Clinton boycott the enitre games with the other countries. This ideal approach wont happen because basically most countries/people dont care.
The next best, perhaps very realistic approach, is to take Obama's approach, extend it to include the other Olympic competing countries and boycott the opening ceremonies, as he suggested. I'm confident a large % of countries will agree to this and make the opening ceremonies look rather empty. This will get lots of world press and give the whole Darfur / Tibet situation more exposure.
I know i know it isnt perfect but from the way the world works i think its the most realistic option. Hillary's all out boycott for the US alone without discussions seems like an "auto-pilot" default answer hurting american athletes, certianly not china or even the rest of the world. I very much doubt China will change its ways just for a sporting event and so the best you can do is gather more exposure for the situtation -- the ideal approach wont happen so the next best approach, Obama's approach, seems to be interesting.
Obama, i salute you. From my perspective the man is "thinking".
|