We're going to start getting lots of pictures of Hillary smiling

[abcdefz]

...to show how "warm" she is.

Personally, I don't give a damn about whether a candidate is "warm."

But it's funny -- I just saw a picture of Hillary smiling all big (http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/23382/20070121163029/www.variety.com/graphics/photos/featuredstories/FSS_bart_hclinton.jpg) and I didn't even recognize who it was until I read the caption. :D

[QueenAdrock]

You know, she has done some good stuff in the Senate but goddammit she's not gonna swing it. The primaries is where she'll stop.

My friend brought up a good point - would be be taken seriously in the Middle East with a woman as president? I mean, think of their attitudes towards women in general. Thoughts?

[abcdefz]

I think it'd be fine. America has too much muscle to not be taken seriously. Plus, Israel has had female leaders, so it's not THAT remote a scenario.

[Schmeltz]

They send Condi over there all the time. I bet they're all scared of her. Hillary would be able to really throw them for a loop.

[GreenEarthAl]

It's like lipstick on a pig. You can hire Market streets finest and reinvent her as many times as you like. At the end of the day she still is who she is. I didn't vote for her as a senator and I couldn't imagine myself voting for her as president.

[abcdefz]

I have a deep, deep, instinctive mistrust of the Clintons which has been affirmed again and again, so unless I got some sort of burning bush revelation (no pun intended), there's no way in hell I'd vote for her.

[drizl]

billary (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/billaryport.jpg)

[DroppinScience]

My friend brought up a good point - would be be taken seriously in the Middle East with a woman as president? I mean, think of their attitudes towards women in general. Thoughts?

Silly notion. What did they say when Thatcher was Prime Minister? There's women leaders all around the world (past and present), so that's a non-issue.

[drizl]

we would probably be taken more seriously than if bush was in office...


lets think about this...bush clinton bush bush clinton. this country is so fucked.

having this woman as president doesnt mean shit, for women, for men, for politics, for the world. nothing will change.

[Ali]

- would be be taken seriously in the Middle East with a woman as president? I mean, think of their attitudes towards women in general. Thoughts?No less seriously than you already are.

[drizl]

beside the fact that bush isnt being taken seriously, he is creating hatred for all americans, globally. kudos asshole.

[sam i am]

The point isn't if Bush or Hillary are or would be taken seriously....

The USA is still the pre-eminent power in the world (followed closely by China - expanding into Africa and Asia while the USA is bogged down in the Middle East) and will always have a say in the world's affairs....

Unlike former powers like Britain, France, Germany and Russia.

[abcdefz]

India is coming up, too.

[sam i am]

India is coming up, too.

The BIG difference with India is that they are a (relatively) benign country - the world's largest Democracy (or "Republic," if you prefer).

China is a Communist Dictatorship, with state control of all major industries and political discussion. Heck, you can't even access most of the internet if you're Chinese.

China has fought expansionist wars to conquer Tibet, attempt to conquer Southeast Asia (see their 1979 war with Vietnam), and maintains the ability and threat to conquer Taiwan as well.

Much more to fear (and admire) with China than India.

[abcdefz]

Oh, no doubt about that. But I think India's going to become a bigger player over the next couple generations. Maybe it'll be a good influence.

[saz]

china isn't a commmunist dictatorship, but rather a totalitarian capitalist regime with a sickening human rights record. if and when the american empire falls, and china becomes the world's lone superpower, personally i won't be too worried. unlike the us, china generally abides by the united nations and doesn't stick its nose and meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations, other than tibet, taiwan, and vietnam of course.

[phinkasaurus]

The USA is still the pre-eminent power in the world and will always have a say in the world's affairs....

the u.s. will not always have a say in world affairs.
they will fall like all the empires before them.
just like rome, the u.k., russia, etc...
empires built on greed and power have always overstepped their power base and fallen. it's only a matter of time till the u.s. does the same.

and, to get back on topic, i agree with those who said Hillary isn't going to change anything. just like Obama. they still represent the ruling class and neither have mentioned puling out of the war or changing our foreign relation ideology. it's a farce, the whole election is a farce and the american public is eating it up like custard.

[sam i am]

china isn't a commmunist dictatorship, but rather a totalitarian capitalist regime with a sickening human rights record. if and when the american empire falls, and china becomes the world's lone superpower, personally i won't be too worried. unlike the us, china generally abides by the united nations and doesn't stick its nose and meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations, other than tibet, taiwan, and vietnam of course.

Their "Communist" credentials are, factually, waning, I concur.

They're not really capitalist, though, as they still have nationalized industries and heavy trade barriers for both exports and imports.

As for China's meddling in other countries' affairs and projecting power : see the recent Time magazine, where the Chinese are impeding Darfur relief efforts through their support of the regime in the Sudan due to their oil contracts and mining interests.

See Chinese interests throughout Africa and (recently) in Brazil as they slowly expand their circle of influence.

It's laughable that you attempt to exclude Vietnam, India (with whom they've also warred), Taiwan, Tibet, Mongolia (also warred with), Russia (numerous border wars), Korea (remember 1950?), Japan (many major and minor wars throughout their history), etc...

China is no peaceful, UN-abiding nation. They fought the UN in Korea, have helped stop numerous efforts to free Tibet, and DO stick their (collective) "...nose and meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations..."

[sam i am]

Oh, no doubt about that. But I think India's going to become a bigger player over the next couple generations. Maybe it'll be a good influence.

I agree with your hope, but India's always been pretty inwardly-turning. Both they and China have huge population control problems, and both are huge environmental disaster zones - BTW, they're both PRECLUDED from the Kyoto Treaty most on this board love so much, despite their appalling environmental record and inability to stop continuing massive pollution.

[Schmeltz]

China and India put together do not equal the emissions or pollution produced by the United States.

[saz]

See Chinese interests throughout Africa and (recently) in Brazil as they slowly expand their circle of influence.

so? the chinese, like any other nation, have interests and economic interests all around the world. perhaps some elaboration is necessary here. however, i hear you though about sudan: thanks for bringing that to my attention.


It's laughable that you attempt to exclude Vietnam, India (with whom they've also warred), Taiwan, Tibet, Mongolia (also warred with), Russia (numerous border wars), Korea (remember 1950?), Japan (many major and minor wars throughout their history), etc...China is no peaceful, UN-abiding nation. They fought the UN in Korea, have helped stop numerous efforts to free Tibet, and DO stick their (collective) "...nose and meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations..."

please, spare me your condescending bullshit attitude. i neglected the korean war because the united nations was in its infancy, and the china of 1950, with mao tse tung at the helm, was radically different than the china of today. oh and the border conflicts with the soviet union/russia? who cares, honestly. those border skirmishes, between two shady nations mind you, pale in comparison to say, the carnage and chaos of the vietnam war.

let me elaborate, perhaps i wasn't specific enough. i didn't say or claim that china is a 'peaceful' nation. what i did want to point out though, is that unlike the united states (ie iran, vietnam, guatemala, nicaragua, chile, cuba, iraq, et al), china doesn't blatanly and overwhelmingly meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, to the extreme point where they're toppling governments half-way around the world. yes, the chinese government is brutal, ugly, and appalling. yes, they have committed unspeakable offences against the tibetan people, fought in the korean war, have a terrible attitude towards taiwan, and have suppressed their people for decades. however, from the texts and history i have been exposed to, the chinese don't feel the need to topple free and democratically elected governments throughout the middle east, and central and south america, because they feel their economic interests will be threatened, (or on some baseless, paranoia-fuelled threat they perceive, due to ideological differences). and then in their place, once that said government has been toppled, install and support dictatorships that will obey them and protect their economic interests. i can't stand the chinese government for what it does to its people, and for its treatment of its neighbours. but the chinese don't have a wild west view of global affairs, unlike many triggy happy us presidential administrations.

[sam i am]

Except in the Sudan, as we agreed upon above.

Oh, and in their support for some of the "stans" in their oil deals.

Oh, and in their support for Iran and Korea, both brutal, non-democratic regimes.

[saz]

and not only does the united states support repressive regimes in egypt and saudi arabia, but also in uzbekistan (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE17Ag01.html), in which it has a military base (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1238242.stm) there, and how it has quietly been cozy with turkmenistan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/31/60minutes/main590913.shtml).

anyways we can go on forever, but we've both made our points.

[freetibet]

Isn't this post about Hilarious Clinton? She vs Condi - noice!

[sam i am]

and not only does the united states support repressive regimes in egypt and saudi arabia, but also in uzbekistan (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE17Ag01.html), in which it has a military base (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1238242.stm) there, and how it has quietly been cozy with turkmenistan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/31/60minutes/main590913.shtml).

anyways we can go on forever, but we've both made our points.

True story.

Respect.