Amidst a very busy week that I had due to endless ceremonies and activities for Earth Day celebrations in the City Council and with the NGOs, I've had a glimpse of BBC and English Aljazeera every night.
I was lucky to see parts of the recent morning debate of Senators Clinton and Obama and particularly that suspicious question dealing with Iran. They were asked :"what would you do if Iran nuked Israel?". The intentional inclusion of such a question in the debate was an outright attempt to create a delusion for the audience, inferring that Iran has nuclear warfare capability (which American security reports have denied), and that they might employ it against Israel.
More important however, was the approach that each of the two Senators took in their responses. Clinton, trying to look very stern, went too far in trying to convey a sense of power using the phrase "... we will attack Iran and obliterate it". Obama took a different approach, while also responding forcefully, Obama said that he did not find the employment of such terms as obliterate useful and said he thought that the correct choice of words was important, he also said that he would respond forcefully.
Thinking about the feminine archetypes which I believe are needed in the management of global affairs, I had come across a clear example. On the basis of Jungian psychoanalysis, I have written and spoken about the anima ( the feminine archetypes such as compassion and love) and the animus ( masculine archetypes such as strength, mathematical order, and control)and about the need for a balance in these archetypes not only within individuals but also at the level of global decision making. I believe that in the current world order the anima has very little influence and say.
When I heard Hillary talk, I felt she had so strongly denied her anima to remain in the race. She had mistaken ruthless revenge for firmness and strength. Does Clinton for one moment think that she can obliterate a 70 million nation like Iran? She has not learned her lessons.
Obama had responded with a thoughtful ,balanced and more rational approach. Here we have the case of a man who is capable of displaying some anima in his words and a woman who denies her womanhood to gain power.
