Today I was reading a blurb in the newspaper about John Edwards and HillaryClinton attending Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation's meeting in Cedar Rapids, IA. Edwards continued to chide Clinton for taking donations from health care industry lobbyists. He explained that while Hillary believed in 'giving them a seat at the table', he believed that if you did, they would eat all the food.

While I genuinely like John Edwards and I have reservations about the genuineness of Hillary (which I feel very guilty about in that I should be ecstatic about supporting a women for President, finally!), I agree with Hillary on this one. As a leader, you have to reach out and hear all sides of the issue, but at the end of the day, you have to be strong enough to equitably pass out the 'food'. I think this is a wonderful example of the different way that women and men negotiate. Unlike men, for women, it's not all or nothing, it's about being equitable. Does that mean that you might end up with a less stacked outcome? Yes. But it also means that alot more of the parties will feel a part of the plan and therefore have a personal stake in its positive outcome.

Gillian Parrillo
Sacwomen.com