Much has been written about Donald Trump for US
President. His campaign catch phrase seems to
be "Make America Great!" which is working.
I thought it may be interesting to discuss Hillary
Clinton's chances and what her campaign catch
phrase should be.

One suggested on the web that I liked was -
"Choose Choice not chance. Hillary for President."

What do you think Hillary's chances of winning are?
And what slogan would you suggest?
(be polite please).

EXPERIENCE AND INTEGRITY BEFORE SALESMANSHIP

Foxy,

As I stated some months ago, elections are won in the center. If the choice was between Trump and Sanders, Trump probably would have won.

However, as the democrats have chosen a more centrist candidate, Trump has chosen a populist right wing ticket that will win him more republicans than his rivals, but forfeit the center.

In short I believe Hilary will beat Trump.

Foxy:

"(be polite please)"

Yessum.

The fact Clinton is a woman will count against her, just as being black counted against Obama with the conservative voters of
"Middle America". To what degree Trumps idiocracy will balance Clinton's femininity, only time will tell. For many Americans being an idiot is no impairment to being president, heck, it never stopped George W Bush or Ronald Reagan.

I tend to agree with Shadow on this one, but you never know with Americans, Heck, Ronald McDonald is the worlds best known American, and he's not even real, or is he?

Hey, Foxy,

Bit of a hurry at the moment...but saw this piece on Conservatism and it freakily running these days as a radical-right outlier. It includes a brief commentary on the the US situation.

http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2016/03/26/the-end-tony-abbott-and-the-conservatives/14589108003047

SM,

I don't think Clinton has been formally chosen yet....and the GOP is keen to stop Trump from being their candidate (although Cruz is almost as loony)

Though I agree - if Hilary was up against Trump, she'd squash him flat.

I have the feeling that Trump will take out the presidency unless the Republicans split and Trump has to run on one of two Republican tickets thus splitting the Republican votes and basically handing Clinton the presidency on a silver platter.

I don't think Clinton will draw the same wealth of Democratic support that Obama enjoyed. Different person, different times.

You wouldn't take Hilary Clinton home if you won her in a chook raffle. Utterly useless and a spin doctor's product, re-buffed and re-buffed, superficial and lightweight. Heaven help the USofA if she gets in.

Trump is the archetypal billionaire entrepreneur who may never learn to play the politician's game of saying nothing to placate everyone.

Both are ill-suited to the role of President.

I can't figure the keen interest of the Oz leftists in trying to influence the outcome in the US. As if they could anyway. Taking an interest is a different matter. What a joke the leftist Oz political commentators are, just picking up and recycling opinion from others in the US. There is a lot of that now that newspapers and TV channels don't invest in investigative journalism.

The Oz leftists will revel in the dirty campaign that this race for President will become. The electorate will just have to suck up and get even more angry and disillusioned.

"The Loathing Election

It's becoming increasingly clear that the fall presidential campaign – featuring the likely matchup between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump – will be one of the most negative ever. Historian Douglas Brinkley predicts that the general election will be "incredibly nasty, unbelievably nasty."

The two front-runners are so far ahead that it's unlikely they can be derailed as the nominees. But they suffer from massive unfavorable ratings. Fifty-seven percent of voters have an unfavorable view of Trump and 52 percent have an unfavorable view of Clinton, according to the latest CBS/New York Times poll. Only 24 percent have a favorable view of Trump compared to 31 percent for Clinton.

These are the highest unfavorable ratings of any major candidates measured by CBS since 1984, when the network began asking the question."
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-25/both-clinton-and-trump-are-too-detested-to-be-president

Poirot is still obsessed with Tony Abbott.

This is a tough thing to be able to predict.
These are indeed different times to
the ones Hillary Clinton came of age in.
Her vast experience in politics may not be
enough to get her elected.

I remember reading her book, "Living History,"
a few years back. I learned that she was the
only First Lady to play a major role in shaping
domestic legislation: she travelled around the
country to champion health care, expand economic
and educational opportunity and promote the needs
of children and families, and she criss-crossed
the globe of behalf of women's rights, human rights
and democracy. She re-defined the position of First
Lady, and helped save the Presidency from an
unconstitutional, politically motivated impeachment.

She is known to millions not only in her own country,
but around the globe. Yet I wonder how many really
know about her extraordinary journey not
only in politics but also the challenging process in
which she came to find her own voice, surviving
personal betrayal, relentless partisan investigations,
and constant public scrutiny.

I just may re-read the book to jog my memory.
And find one that I can read about Donald Trump as
well.

Then we have our own election on the horizon.

Life is never dull.

I'm not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, but SM is correct that the centre wins the election...(which also explains Tony Abbott's complete fabrication of the LNP agenda prior to the last election. He came across as completely benign to the electorate - before entering govt where he promptly about-faced on almost everything and set forth to implement far right-wing policies by the truck load)

Mr Opinion,

You have to remember that the outrageous Trump is garnering the lion's share of media coverage at present - because...well...he's outrageous.

However, his appeal is to those who would attend "gun-shows" in the US, the disaffected, disenfranchised, fearful, under-educated outlier of society. He's unlikely to carry the same kind of weight in the broader society should he get past the GOP nomination process in the end.

GOP do not want him to be their nominee..although they're getting everything they deserve in my book, having dog-whistled and paved the way for such a character as Trump for yonks now.

Having said, Trump is only one of the two radical right-wing lunatics still in the running for the GOP nomination.

Ted Cruz is as scary as.

I'm still dumbfounded that in a country of 320-odd million people, two crazed bozos like those two can end up being touted for President.

And we also had Carson served up by GOP - a neurosurgeon who seemed about as deluded as they come - a right narcissistic oddball whose palatial house was festooned with pictures of himself.

Talking of narcissism, I read of a senior pysche academic who was filming much of Trump's performance to use in his lectures...because Trump is such a classically pure case of narcissism.

Cruz at one of his conventions had his speech opened by some radical pastor who was reading excerpts form the Bible which called for the death of homosexuals...right before he introduced Cruz to the stage.

Land of the free?

More like Land of the right-wing nutter....

LOL, I imagine you 'learned' that from your copy and paste of a bookseller's flattering promotion, Amazon perhaps.

Perhaps this thread could rise up a mite from its narrow focus on winning, to address what is responsible for such poor quality, ill-suited odd-bods seriously running a chance of becoming the next US President.

No slogans, but I don't think that the U.S can afford another Democrat. If you overlook Trump's personality, he is the one to pull them out of the mire. However, like our own Coalitian, the GOP has slid to the left, and they they don't have the stomach for him. Anything could happen.

Shadow Minister,

"populist right wing ticket" ? Does that mean it's only the right that follows what the people actually want? Or have you simply made a faux pas? Seems to me that populism is at the core of democracy.

What would happen if Hillary Rodham Clinton would
get elected US President?

Donald Trump would not be President.

Ted Cruz would not be President.

Many Americans might find that enough of a reason
to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. ;-)

Dear ttbn,

I agree with your assessment.

Also keep in mind that there are dark clouds forming on the horizon: increasing unrest in the Middle East, Western Europe is now a battlefield littered by terrorist activity, the South China Sea is about to explode into open warfare, and North Korea is threatening the American mainland with a nuclear arsenal.

I think Americans will select Trump as president because they believe he will be the best suited to build a fortress around America and protect it from a world on the brink of devastation.

Paul,

I suppose it's just coincidence that your 'idiots' happen to be Republicans, and that the biggest buffoon of all, Obama, doesn't get a mention. Reagan was a great president; Bush certainly didn't project himself very well. But Trump, even if you don't like his style, is certainly no idiot. How do your personal achievements shape up to Trump's?

"I think Americans will select Trump as president because they believe he will be the best suited to build a fortress around America and protect it from a world on the brink of devastation."

Lol!...that should work well given all those free trade agreements.

Trade is "global" these days, chaps. During the GFC, if was only cheap Chinese products that kept the US economy afloat, y'know.

The fortress mentality worked so well for the Soviet Union too.

Trump has got buckley's of winning the election - if he manages to somehow snag the GOP nomination, which too is unlikely

ttbn,

So often populism does not represent what the public is saying or asking for at all, but is narrow opinion of vested interests, elites, who are able to influence the media.

Taking the NZ lag for instance, one could have been excused for believing a new flag was the will of all Kiwis and a lay-down misere. Or at least that is what the talking heads and commentariat in NZ and Oz would have had had us believe. Then it is revealed that isn't the case at all.

Similarly one can watch The Box and read newspapers in Australia and come away wondering whose opinions are being touted as those of the public. Surveys? Easily rigged to deliver the wanted result and the public is starting to wake to that.

You are right that Trump would be infinitely better than Hillary Clinton, who is lost without her script.

otb,

"You are right that Trump would be infinitely better than Hillary Clinton, who is lost without her script."

Yep, Clinton does nothing for me....however, anyone seriously touting the dangerous buffoon narcissist, Trump, as preferred President...well....

Mr. Opinion,

Yes. Socialism has had its day, and the world is begining to see the through the long list of failures at long last. Muslim immigration and sucking up to China are just two failed policies, never mind the fact that the socialists have pretty much run out of other people's money to spend. As for China's push for territory, Trump is the only one who will stand up to them for America and, therefore, the rest of the world, including Australia, which, unfortunately has to make do with Turnbull who just doesn' get it, and never will.

Dear Poirot,

We all know about the mechanics of free trade and globalisation. But don't you think there has been a retraction of the idea that these are good? From memory, it was Clinton and the Democrats who were the stalwarts of free trade and an expansion of the global political-economy. Not the Republicans. And in fact hasn't it always been the Republicans who have run on platforms of protectionism, isolationism, etc. So in this context the idea of Trump constructing a Fortress America does not seem so unlikely to me.

Dear ttbn,

Re your last post I think you've made a mistake in thinking that Turnbull is going to back the US wrt South China Sea fracas. All the indicators suggest to me that he will be throwing support behind China.

OTB,

If it doesn't always represent the will of the public, then surely it is not populism? I understand that 57% of Kiwis voted to retain their current flag, which makes the instigator of the move to change, their PM, is not a populist, who was put in his place by popular, majority vote.

Mr. Opinion,

If you are referring to my post on a another thread some time ago about when you asked 'Whose side are you on?' , or words to that effect, and I said that Australia would stick with the Anzus treaty, you might have been correct, given that Turnbull has shown his true colours competely since then. But, would cabinet and 'popular' opinion allow him to act in that totally disloyal way? NB We have gone well off the topic, here.

As much as I dislike the thought of Hilary as President, I really shudder at the thought of a loony toon like Trump getting the job. He frightens me because a bloke as unstable as him could well push the atomic button if another idiot abroad annoys him.

Hilary has had her time I believe, because she was certainly the brains behind Bill, when that simpleton was in office. She was a fool to stay with him after the numerous times he let his private parts do his thinking for him, and played away from home.

She lost any support she may have had with women in the States during those times, and I am amazed she has got this far in the race to win her party's nomination. Mind you, as always, it is the wronged woman in an adulterous relationship who gets the blame, while good ol' Bill gets to continue his fun times...

Surely America could have found some candidates of a higher caliber than these 2 fools? I thank goodness for Malcolm Turnbull!

ttbn,

Agree.

I was criticising the media and others who claim to put and represent public opinion.

-What is spruiked on The Box and in the media generally as the popular/majority view often isn't.

The US Presidential race is long and
anything could happen. Much boils down to how
the candidates present themselves.

It's probably fair to
say many people have skewed perceptions of what
each candidate is really like and where exactly
each stands on many issues.

There's no question that Donald Trump has made
himself rich. Is he capable of doing the same
for America, Who knows?

Hillary Clinton - writes in her
book:

"I always knew that America matters to the rest
of the world; my travel taught me how the rest of
the world matters to America. Listening to what
people in other countries are saying and trying to
understand how they perceive their place in the
world is essential to a future of peace and security
at home and abroad."

With this in mind Hillary included in her book
voices that we don't hear often enough - voices of
people in every corner of the globe who want the
same things we all do: freedom from hunger, disease
and fear, freedom to have a say in their own
destinies no matter their DNA, or station in life.

Of course, the world we now inhabit is very different
from the one described in Hillary's book. However,
her vast experience has to be acknowledged. During her
years as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State -
she became a better student of how government works,
how Congress really works, how people perceive
politics and policy through the filter of the media
and how American values can be translated into economic
and social programs.

She writes, "I learned the importance of America's
engagement with the rest of the world, and I developed
relationships with foreign leaders and an understanding
of foreign cultures ... I also learned how to keep
focused while living in the eye of many storms."

It's America's choice. And, as they say in the US -
it's money that talks!

@ Foxy, Saturday, 26 March 2016 2:19:04 PM

From your post here Foxy it's difficult to understand why anyone would not vote for Hillary Clinton as President of the USA.

ttbn,

I can understand how the simplistic hate speak of the likes of Trump would appeal to people such as yourself, nothing to think about, easy to digest and after all it agrees with your basic prejudice of mistrust of those who are perceived as different/inferior to yourself to begin with. Just as Abbott's one liner's had great appeal for you, Trumps radical right message is just as agreeable.

You asked, How do your personal achievements shape up to Trump's? Answer; Extremely well.
Taking what Mitt Romney had to say about Trump, someone he knows personally very well, I would say if that is what a friend thinks of him, he can[t be much good. I would hope for something better from a friend, would you not?

Dear JF Aus,

It can be
difficult to get a clear picture of what each
candidate truly believes and who to trust.
On top of that we don't really know
how Hillary Clinton presents herself in the
US today. Reading her book about her
times in the White House, her coming of age,
et cetera, she did impress me greatly.
However, it was a different time
in the US then. A time of tumultuous social
and political change.
Different times, possibly different expectations.
We'll find out in November

I think it more likely that the outcome will be the result of some externality like a pending war with China over the latter's annexation of the South China Sea or a massive attack on Americans by Islamic State, etc. Historical events have a funny way of changing the result. Given the turmoil in the world at present I would bet that something is going to happen that will carry Trump into the presidency. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, that's the way things happen in history.

Mr Opinion,

"....So in this context the idea of Trump constructing a Fortress America does not seem so unlikely to me."

So the super power - the so-called leader of the free world - would turn itself into a cringing, insular, fearful wabbitt led by a 4 times bankrupt spiv realtor who would be 3 times as rich as he is today if he'd invested his money in an index fund and left it alone.

Yeah, that guy.

Dear point,

It's a possibility, The Republicans behaved this way in the decade and a half after World War 1. And Trump is talking about raising tariffs and putting barriers around the country.

PS. That was Dear Poirot.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that The Forum has a habit of changing one's grammar and spelling?

Nothing sets off the left whingers baying at the moon more than Trump. But the problem is that they have no clue as to why he is so successful. P claims that he is a buffoon, but he has pushed himself to the top on a tiny fraction of money spent by other candidates. The left whingers answer, to organise violent demonstrations against Trump which gives him wall to wall free advertising and pins him as a victim of the left.

Yet what do the left whingers offer the US?

The populist idiot Bernie Sanders with comforting platitudes, and economic policies from the 1960s socialists that appeals to those too young to remember how badly they failed last time.

Or Clinton whose claim to fame is having a husband who achieved almost nothing in 8 years and cheated on her many times, with a personal record of poor decisions in power. Her suitability for POTUS is mostly due to being less likely to damage the US than the other candidates.

Trump would be buying media coverage like PLP Palmer did though the latter it appears did not have a enough cash of his own.
Trump has billions that may get him over the line.

SM,

As one of our very own radical right-wingers, it's unsurprising that you would support the irksome Trump...(he;s the guy that his own party are loath to give their nomination).

And how selective you are...one demonstration which stopped one convention appearance, which was notable for the wide demographic of people protesting. If you're going to raise the spectre of violence, why don't you mention Trump's encouragement of his supporters to biffo anyone that disagrees with them. Folks who dissent are beaten up ad nauseam at his conventions - right before they're booted out.

"The populist idiot Bernie Sanders with comforting platitudes, and economic policies from the 1960s socialists that appeals to those too young to remember how badly they failed last time."

"In the 1960s, the government began to expand its role, which was supported by the majority of Americans. However, there was little agreement on which federally funded programs should be expanded. When President Lyndon Johnson came to office following President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, he focused on social welfare programs and began the "War on Poverty." Under Johnson's leadership, Medicare and Medicaid were established, and money was appropriated to improve public education. The Office of Economic Opportunity was also created under the Johnson administration to organize community programs and provide job training to the poor. These programs provided economic relief and reduced the unemployment rate, but they also resulted in federal expenditures reaching $150 billion by the mid-1960s.

Stock Market Trends
A combination of economic expansion, low inflation rates and an interest in private investment resulted in a growing stock market in the 1960s. In fact, during the early 1960s, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose an average of 18.4 percent for three consecutive years. The stock market peaked in February 1966 before dropping 25 percent by the end of the year. However, the market recovered and stabilized in 1968, partially due to inflation rates remaining at 1 to 2 percent...."

http://classroom.synonym.com/american-economy-60s-70s-11277.html

Not too bad at all, methinks....

Naughty Bernie.....fancy attempting to rekindle a little social democracy!

Poirot,

As one of our radical left whinge posters it is unsurprising that you would jump to idiotic conclusions. I don't support Trump for the same reason that I don't support Sanders, as both are populist candidates that would be bad for the country. If I supported anyone it would have been Marco Rubio.

However, I cannot help but admire the brilliance in the way Trump has outmaneuvered everyone, in the same way as I admire the brilliance of Rommel without supporting the Nazis.

P.S. Sanders is nothing like Lyndon Johnson, and while vast spending programs always boost the economy in the short term they have consequences in the short term.

Fair enough, SM....you admire his out manoevering capabilities.

To me, Trump is a bit like a nutter in a market place. First of all, people are happy to watch him acting outrageously, standing by doing nothing, some even highly entertained by his antics - until he starts getting dangerous...by which time iit's too late to intervene and someone is going to get hurt.

Paul,

So, tell us about your great achievements, and just how you match up to Trump.

SM,

Here's another great angle on the brilliant out-manoeuvring Trump...

Trump refuses to rule out war with China: 'We need unpredictability'

"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said on Saturday that his foreign policy would be “unpredictable” in order to maintain leverage over other countries.

In an interview with The New York Times, Trump even suggested that he would not rule out going to war with China in order to show the country that he’s serious about trade negotiations."

"The former reality television star suggested that democracy was hurting the U.S. when it came to foreign policy because it required leaders to be too transparent.

“You know, if I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’ve said I would or I wouldn’t,” he said. “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking. The problem we have is that, maybe because it’s a democracy and maybe because we have to be so open – maybe because you have to say what you have to say in order to get elected – who knows? But I wouldn’t want to say. I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/274386-trump-refuses-to-rule-out-war-with-china-i-dont-want-to-be

Damn that democracy lark - who needs it!

Right, ttbn?

How much more dangerously unstable does Trump have to prove himself?

Oh, and...

Trump's line: "....Trump even suggested that he would not rule out going to war with China in order to show the country that he’s serious about trade negotiations."

How about this...

Donald Trump Blames China for Fact That Much of His Gear is 'Made in China'

"Donald Trump, who has repeatedly accused China of stealing manufacturing jobs from the U.S., acknowledged today that an array of Trump-branded clothes, accessories and other products are made in China.

The real estate and casino mogul, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, blamed China for the fact that Trump ties, Trump cufflinks and even Trump teddy bears come with a "Made in China" label."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-admits-gear-made-china-labels/story?id=13472355

"But visitors to the Trump Store in the lobby of the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York City, or to the displays of Trump clothing at Macy's in New York's Herald Square, would be hard-pressed to find much labeled "Made in the U.S.A."

At the same time Trump was speaking in New Hampshire, his Trump Store was contributing to the growth of Chinese manufacturing, arguably at the expense of American workers, selling $80 Trump-branded cotton sweaters and $70 Trump-branded warm-up tops, all made in China. Also available with the made in China tag: golf hats stamped with the Trump crest and stuffed animals."

"...Trump wear sold in Macy's, part of the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, is manufactured overseas, including ties in more than 50 different styles and colors (all made in China), suits (made in Mexico and Vietnam), and dress shirts (five styles made in China).

All the Trump tie pins ($22) and tie clips ($28) are labeled as "Made in China," as are the cufflinks ($35 to $45 a pair) and even the boxes containing them.

Although many Chinese-made products are sold under the Trump name, Trump repeatedly has complained about the quality of Chinese-made goods as compared to American products. "Our companies make a better product, that's very important to know. We make a better product," he told a major gathering of conservative activists..."

Trump....hypocrite, conman and spiv

Dear Poirot,

Can you please stop using words like 'China' and 'Chinese' all the time? You are upsetting Suseonline and Aidan who regard such language as belonging to racist and paranoid ratbags. You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe you could use 'Mars' instead of 'China' and 'Martians' instead of 'Chinese'. That way we will all understand who you are referring to without upsetting the pro-China camp. And if you want to keep them on your side just throw in a couple of 'I love Mao' into your sentences.

P,

"Trump refuses to rule out war with China" Sometimes you are childishly naive. No US president has ruled out war with any country without a non aggression treaty or an alliance, and to do so would be incredibly stupid.

When Obama effectively told the Chinese to shove their territorial claims by sending a warship within 12Nm of one of the recovered islands, a carrier group was just over the horizon. If he'd ruled out war with China, they could sunk the ship with no risk of retaliation.

Don't confuse the refusal to rule out something with the desire to do it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you want to keep up with events in the South China Sea I suggest you look at the ongoing events as seen through the articles I have been posting on my thread 'Which side are you on.'

I could refute so many things you are all discussing but it would take to long to do so, - I got in late on this topic.
So instead, I say let all you mindless jellyfish be mindless jellyfish..

A.c.

That's typical of how a mindless jellyfish thinks at this time of the night.

Here is a slogan for Clinton’s campaign:

"It’s all Whitewater under the bridge for Hillary"

Dear SOG,

You clever bunny, you!

It certainly was water under the bridge for
Hillary. She chartered her own course
through unexplored terrain responding to
many storms and attempts to bring her down.
They failed.

Wife, mother,
lawyer, advocate, and international icon who
lived through America's great political wars,
from Watergate to Whitewater.

LOL Fox, you are lifting bookseller's and the politician's own words (doubtless helped by a ghost writer) and calling the weak, brown runny stuff fact.

In the real world outside of wildly enthusiastic, easily led political stooges, claims that are obviously pure rhetoric and are unsupported by examples of real accomplishment would instantly rule a candidate out of further consideration.

Just saying that she has the CV of the already advantaged and self-entitled Grrl from the Elite who has enjoyed many a leg-up to a job she couldn't handle and didn't bother to learn.

Now her vanity (and ignorance!) leads her to believe she should be the CEO. What, because she is a woman? She has worked that card to death.

It it must come down to gender for the Democrats, there are far better women about and with runs on the board. The real question is what is wrong with Party politics that a pretender like Hillary with failures behind her gets the guernsey instead?

Hillary Clinton is a bloody fool, a stuffed shirt and a jerk,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

I've learned a few facts about Hillary Clinton
from reading her book, "living History," (amongst
others) and also having lived and worked in the
US for close to ten years.

A political life, it's often said is a continuing
education in human nature, including one's own.
Hillary Clinton's involvement on the ground floor
of two presidential campaigns and her duties as
First Lady took her to every state of the union and to
seventy-eight nations.

I stated earlier that during her years as First Lady,
she became a better student of how government can
serve people, how Congress really works, how people
perceive politics and policy through the filter of the
media and how American values can be translated into
economic and social progress. She learned the
importance of American engagement with the rest of the
world and she developed relationships with foreign
leaders and an understanding of foreign cultures that
would come in handy today. She also learned how to keep
focused while living in the eye of many storms.

Hillary Clinton writes in her book:

"I wasn't born a First Lady or a Senator. I wasn't born a
Democrat. I wasn't born a lawyer or an advocate for women's
rights and human rights. I wasn't born a wife or mother.
I was born an American in the middle of the twentieth century,
a fortunate time and place. I was free to make choices
unavailable to past generations of women in my own country
and inconceivable to many women in the world today. I came
of age on the crest of tumultuous social change and took
part in the political battles fought over the meaning of
America and its role in the world."

I strongly recommend the book "Living History," to anyone
wanting to learn about Hillary Clinton. She meant her book
not as a comprehensive history, but a personal memoir that
offers an inside look at an extraordinary time and life
of America. It captures the essence of a formidable figure
in American politics who just may become the next US
President if intelligence wins out.

Foxy dear, I know Hillary is a female, but unfortunately I have to inform you of facts, not just warm and fuzzy female comraderie sentiments that outline a pattern of incompetence and dishonesty that has dogged her path at every step in her undistinguished career.

Upon her leaving Yale she failed to pass the District of Columbia Bar examination, so she went to Arkansas and with Bills connections passed the Bar exam there.

She then went to work on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee underJerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat and a former professor at the University of Santa Clara Law School, who reported her work legally inadequate and ethically flawed.

As a consequence, she was one of only three attorney-employees of the committee over the course of Zeifman’s tenure that he considered unworthy of a positive reference.

As First Lady HillaryCare was her only management assignment, and she screwed that up so badly that it was one of the key causes of her Democrat husband getting the first Republican House in 40 years.

After the White House as a Senator from New York she failed to accomplish anything of note other than fairly meaningless actions such as bridge dedications.

As Secretary of State she started with the “Russian Reset” blunder and finished with the Benghazi fiasco.

Foxy she is a dud............a complete female dud.....

Foxy you forgot to mention killer of ambassadors by inaction, when you mentioned Hillary's accomplishments.

The yanks really got it wrong with Obama. Their first negro president has been a total failure, apart from his ability to handsomely repay with tax payer funds, his campaign donors. Probably the most corrupt president ever.

Now some want to get it just as wrong with their first woman in the office. Won't they ever learn?

If they had a brain, they could have fulfilled both firsts with just one person.

If you really want a US lady president, who might be able to fix up Obama's stuff ups, you have Condoleezza Rice, a proven success in almost all she has ever done. Worth about 10 Hillarys & a dozen Obamas put together.

Hasbeen,

Didn't Condo Rice help organize the illegal mass mortality and mass devastation attack on Iraq to remove the non existent weapons of mass destruction?

Why did Condo Rice not speak out about the non-existent evidence of mass destruction weapons?

JF Aus, everyone actually believed the weapons were there. Saddam Hussein had done everything he could to give that impression as he was in big trouble if Iraq decided to invade, & he thought it would keep the yanks out.

I gather you think the world would be a better place with him still there. I won't argue that too much, as he would have stopped the ISIS very quickly, if as brutally as they are.

Rice did a great job, & would make a better president than most.

Hasbeen,

"JF Aus, everyone actually believed the weapons were there...."

Which of course is complete BS.

The Bush administration cooked the whole thing up, as was later proven by official reports.

"Thanks to a formerly secret memorandum published by the London Sunday Times on May 1, during the run-up to the British elections, we now have a partial answer to that question. The memo, which records the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s senior foreign policy and security officials, shows that even as President Bush told Americans in October 2002 that he “hope[d] the use of force will not become necessary”—that such a decision depended on whether or not the Iraqis complied with his demands to rid themselves of their weapons of mass destruction—the President had in fact already definitively decided, at least three months before, to choose this “last resort” of going “into battle” with Iraq. Whatever the Iraqis chose to do or not do, the President’s decision to go to war had long since been made."

"Seen from today’s perspective this short paragraph is a strikingly clear template for the future, establishing these points:

By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.
Bush had decided to “justify” the war “by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”
Already “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going “the UN route”).
Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war."
Seen from today’s perspective this short paragraph is a strikingly clear template for the future, establishing these points"

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2005/06/09/the-secret-way-to-war/

"Rice did a great job, & would make a better president than most."

As one of the coterie of Bush administration war criminals, she did a great job at stuffing up a large section of the middle-east...if that's what you mean.

Hasbeen,

Has you been drinking tonight? LOL

Actually believed you say?
What type of intelligence or evidence is that?

The attack by Bush disrupted the control Saddam Hussein had in the region.
That attack let loose the mob that formed and controls IS.

Right on, JF Aus,

Hasbeen says:

"I gather you think the world would be a better place with him still there. I won't argue that too much, as he would have stopped the ISIS very quickly, if as brutally as they are."

On the contrary, the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent destabilisation of the region, created the conditions for the rise of ISIS.

ISIS formed out of the disaffection of the Sunnis in a region that had even been a challenge for Saddam to control (even though they shared his sectarian identity) and who after his demise, were completely sidelined - and reacted accordingly.

Dear SOG and Hasbeen,

If you were to get hold of Hillary Clinton's book,
"Living History," you would understand the times
and conditions under which she lived and what
her accomplishments were. The two Clinton terms
about which she writes covered not only a transforming
period in her life but also in America's. Her husband
assumed the Presidency determined to reverse the nation's
economic decline, budget deficits and the growing inequities
that undermined opportunities for future generations of
Americans.

Hillary supported his agenda and worked hard to translate
his vision into actions that improved people's lives,
strengthened their sense of community and furthered their
democratic values at home and around the world.

She writes - "Throughout Bill's tenure, we encountered
political opposition, legal challenges and personal
tragedies, and we made our fair share of mistakes.
But when we left office in 2001, America was a stronger,
better and more just nation, ready to tackle the challenges
of a new century."

The choice at the upcoming American election will
most probably be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
I know who I will be hoping wins.

Perhaps you should Google the web for what the effect Donald
Trump's election would be for Australia.
It's scary stuff.

Foxy one,

I believe in a womans intuition, in this case yours

Hillary is pretty much a generic product of party politics in the US.

Backed by banking donations and the status quo - she's no great shakes.

Up against the monstrous Trump and the only slightly less monstrous Cruz, she looks pretty good...but she's pretty ordinary really.

A run of the mill, not particularly inspiring - business as usual - type of candidate.

This sums up the US presidential campaign:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ceit1aIWQAA7m-G.jpg:large

Here's an interesting article, pointing out that the rise of a man like Trump partially rides on the back of people like Clinton.

"No friend of labour, Trump benefits from the Clintons’ reliance on Wall Street cash and works it to his advantage: ‘Look at me,’ he shouts. ‘I’m too rich to be bought!’ The Clintons have snubbed their noses at ordinary people for decades now, mocking them with bromides about ‘the future of our global economy’, ‘internet freedom’ and business ‘innovation’, so they shouldn’t be surprised when a Trump comes along and rouses the hoi polloi to a rage..."

"This is no way to beat the Clinton couple, whose corruption and cynicism at times leaves me breathless. Over their long political careers, Bill and Hillary have been perpetually on the make and on the take — from Wall Street, from Walmart, from foreign governments via the Clinton Foundation — and Sanders can’t bring himself to say that clearly."

"...For one thing, Clintonism, in its dogged adherence to political deception, is in large measure to blame for the rise of Trump. The Clintons specialise in double-talk and hypocrisy. Promoting the virtues and ‘inevitability’ of globalisation is deeply cynical when incomes are stagnant or falling..."

"God knows why Bernie Sanders or Trump don’t ridicule Hillary’s six years of service on the board of Walmart, the gigantic retail chain that hates labour unions and loves buying cheap products made in China....As of 1 January a new, full-time entry-level ‘sales associate’ is paid $9 an hour. After completing Walmart’s ‘Pathways’ training programme, they are raised to a pharaonic $10 an hour..."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/yes-donald-trump-is-grotesque-but-i-will-never-vote-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160324_Weekly_Highlights_12

Foxy,

"With this in mind Hillary included in her book
voices that we don't hear often enough - voices of
people in every corner of the globe who want the
same things we all do: freedom from hunger, disease
and fear, freedom to have a say in their own
destinies no matter their DNA, or station in life."

"She writes, "I learned the importance of America's
engagement with the rest of the world, and I developed
relationships with foreign leaders and an understanding
of foreign cultures ... I also learned how to keep
focused while living in the eye of many storms."

How about this for US engagement with the destiny of other cultures:

"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"

"Syrian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter five-year-old civil war."

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

And I believe hunger, disease and destruction are the order of the day in Yemen, which at the moment is being pummelled by US and British supplied weapons deployed by the Saudis.

What does Hillary think about that I wonder?

I find it hard to believe that Americans would want to suffer another 8 years of what they have had with Obama; but of course, they have allowed enough free-loaders over the border who now have the vote mean that they might have to suffer a continuing disaster with Clinton.

Thanks everyone for your opinions.

It's always interesting to look at things
from various perspectives, especially when
argued intelligently and from people who
one respects. I try to give thought to
what is said and try to learn as much as
I can from those statements.

As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, we
shall have to wait and see what the future
holds for her and who American voters want as their
President.
I found her to be a remarkable woman of her time.
But those were different times.
What sort of leader will she make today?
Hopefully she will be granted the opportunity to
show us. Better her then Trump.

P,

I am puzzled by the strength of your antipathy towards Hillary considering that BS will battle to beat Trump. His lengthy stays in Moscow etc during the cold war make him very vulnerable, and while he has appeal for the left wing of the democrats, I think that he will be a hard sell for middle America.

*I find it hard to believe that Americans would want to suffer another 8 years of what they have had with Obama*

So lets think back where America was, when Obama took over. The economy was a train wreck, unemployment was huge and rising fast. GM had gone bankrupt, America was hated everywhere. Obama has been limited in the changes that he could make, due to an obstinate Senate, but he can be very proud of his achievements, compared to 8 years ago.
Shame that he can't do another 4 years.

SM,

I do think Sanders is a hard sell for middle America - being that the US has always been suspicious of social democracy. They'd like to have the quality of services delivered by Scandinavian countries, for example, but they don't wish to have so much govt control or pay the taxes required.

Clinton. as I mentioned earlier, is more a mouth piece for the status quo. No great shakes. No particular stand out qualities.

Yabby,

"So lets think back where America was, when Obama took over. The economy was a train wreck, unemployment was huge and rising fast. GM had gone bankrupt, America was hated everywhere. Obama has been limited in the changes that he could make, due to an obstinate Senate, but he can be very proud of his achievements, compared to 8 years ago.
Shame that he can't do another 4 years."

I agree entirely.

I agree about Obama too.
Clinton could take a few notes about Obama's empathy and diplomacy if she knows what is good for her.

I still think she has some way to go to secure women's votes though. She should have left Bill years ago, and then she would have been a shoe-in for the nomination...

It is extraordinary that Hillary now gets flak because of Monica.
It takes two to tango yet the male always blamed.

I think it very likely Monica came onto Bill, after all she was the one who bragged with the evidence that she jumped on the most powerful man in the world.

Bill said it was not a relationship. In other words it was sex and not love. And Bill did not shame Monica by spelling that out in his own defense.

I think Hillary was likely wise in her decision not to break up the family.
Taking children from their father without justification should be a crime.

Being a wise woman could allow understanding of the power of another woman coming onto her man.
It takes a wise woman to understand how nature can make a man momentarily lose control of the driving force embedded in males to sustain the species. It's no excuse but nevertheless that psychological exists.

And it takes a decent human being to understand what forgiveness is all about.

I think Hillary Clinton could be the best President the US has ever had.
Time will tell.

Don't be ridiculous JF Aus! Clinton's daughter was an adult when Bill decided to play around with Monica in the office, so no one was going to take her away from her father!

I have absolutely no doubt that Hilary stayed with Bill for financial/political reasons, and not to 'keep the family together'. She had her own ambitions too, which are playing out right now. The American public may not go for a female President as it is, let alone a sinful divorced one. She needs Bill for own purposes.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Hilary had oral sex on the Oval Office desk with one of the White House staff, would you be so forgiving? You can bet your bottom dollar she wouldn't be where she is now if that were the case.
It is ok for the President to play away from home, but perish the thought of his wife doing so...

Suseonline,

You seem to think a man's children are not longer the man's progeny that remain loved and of concern when they become adult, albeit young or older.
Respect and/or trust can be taken away at any age, forever.

You would know about women and financial motives because women discuss such motives. However I am putting the male point of view about sex associated instinct that drives males to do stupid or spontaneous things including murder.

Sinful you say, what is that these days when some clergy is so hypocritically sinful?

Hillary is not driven onto a desk top like males are but of course there are the exceptions.

And the ladies play around too. You know that, Suseonline.

Give Hillary a chance.
I knew two of the three women who pioneered Australian filmmaking in the 1920's and one of them told me women are women's worst enemy.

Best put female instinct/jealousy aside and assess the whole picture like a Judge assess a crime.

Truly, give Hillary a chance.

Hilary deserves nothing less than to rot in a dirty damp prison for the rest of her days for all the things she and Bill are responsible for.

The reality is that Hilary is the least worst option in the US elections, so a win would not be such a bad thing. To me she sounds like a fishwife when she raises her voice, but she would still do a better job and be a safer bet for the world and the US, than the male candidates standing.

The sad thing is that no better quality candidates are standing. There are plenty of smart people in America, but having ones personal past scrutinised about every affair, mistress or whatever, would keep most of the smarts well away from being interested in the job.

Armchair.

What have the Clintons been found guilty of?

You people are such uninformed blubbering jellyfish.
I don't even know why I should bother backing up my statements when its you guys that are so ignorant and living in your own fantasy worlds.
You people are lazy and believe everything thats stuffed down your throats through an openly deceptive mainstream media.
Try looking into things maybe you will become informed and not waste everyone else's time.

You can start with the Clinton Body Count List if you'd like and go through all the suspicious deaths that have occurred around the Clintons.
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt

People close to the Clinton's have a habit of dying in plane crashes, murder or suicide.

Then refresh yourself with the scandals.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/?page=all

Maybe your one of these stupid feminists or you support women just because its politically correct.
I'm not against a woman holding a position of power, its just that I will only support one that deserves the job on merit.
Do you know how she destroyed one of Bills sexual assault victims on the stand when she was an attorney?
Shes not about women, shes about winning, if she don't she's going to jail.
Don't you know there is 50 FBI staff working of her indictment?

Shes already committed treason by having her staffers strip the 'top secret' classifications from documents so they could be sent to her unsecure server and blackberry.

Maybe you have forgotten about what happened when she was Secretary of State; or maybe you are too ignorant to look into these things because it would challenge your belief system that Hilary is just great.

Don't you remember what happened in Libya, of Hilary saying 'We came, We saw, He died' - talking about taking out Ghaddafi, having him killed.
Who do you think runs all these terrorists?
Where do you think they got all the Toyota's from? US State Department.
Who was Secretary of State? Hilary
What do you think Benghazi was all about?
They were secretly arming the terrorists.

Do you really believe the US is fighting IS?
The Syrian Army took back Palmyra.
America wasn't trying very hard because its all about Assad.

Do you know about the Clinton Foundation selling US secrets to foreigners for campaign contributions?
And of having used an unsecure server which was hacked.
Some have questioned whether this was done deliberately to allow transfer of secrets to people giving the Clinton Foundation campaign contributions.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/08/16/real-email-question-hillary-clinton-sell-us-intelligence/

Do you know about how Hilary said she wanted to obliterate Iran?
(If they attacked Israel)
Iran hasn't launched an attack on another nation in 200years.
US and Israel have a new one every year.
And they are likely with their Neocon agenda to do something to make it happen.

Do you want a nuclear war?

You morons better get informed because when it all goes to hell in a handbasket it will be you with your tunnel vision and blinkers-on attitude to becoming informed whilst lapping up the excrement on the telly that made it happen.

Sad but true.
And one more thing.
I'm not a news reporter.
It's not my job to inform you.
It's your responsibility to become informed.
Now go back to being a jellyfish or learn something and don't bother me with your questions while you are too lazy to find things out for yourself.

All you people saying it was hard for Hilary with Bill cheating on her...

Don't feel sorry for her for that she was playing around too.
She was having an affair with Vince Foster who was killed is suspicious circumstances.

And at the end of the day she likes women more than men.
Don't you know shes a Lesbian?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/bill-clintons-alleged-former-mistress-hillary-is-a-lesbian/

http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-05-01/a-brief-history-of-hillary-clinton-lesbian-rumors/

Armchair Critic,

I now see how you created your name here on OLO.

If Hillary did everything, how could the public fail to force her into Court?

I have never seen so much spin.

It's so easy to sit back and use half truth and BS to tell stories about people to try to defame them, isn't it.

What about innocent until proven guilty?

In case you haven't been informed politicians are liars.
They lie about everything so often that they are scared to tell the truth in case you might actually learn to tell the difference.

Obviously you haven't woken up to this yet.
Hence the reason I called you a jellyfish, which probably was insulting, and I'm sorry, though it probably wasn't inaccurate.

The real truth sadly is not that you've never heard so much spin.
You've obviously been gobbling it down for an eternity and haven't been able to tell the difference.

There's plenty of info out there on each and every topic I mentioned if you choose to go look for yourself, as I already pointed out.

In any case there's enough scandals and questions over her conduct to make a informed judgement that she should not ever hold a position of authority within the US government.

She's committed treason, and provided aid and comfort to the enemy (arming the rebels via Benghazi) in a time of war.

I'm opinionated, sure, but I'm not a liar and I don't deliberately deceive people.

I don't have to prove every statement I make, I'm still entitled to hold any opinion I choose to.
This is a right I'm glad to say is not just a right for me to speak my mind, but one also afforded to you.

Armchair Critic,>> You people are such uninformed blubbering jellyfish.<<
........most.

Armchair Critic >> In case you haven't been informed politicians are liars.
They lie about everything<<
..........yep.......

Suseonline, >> I have absolutely no doubt that Hilary stayed with Bill for financial/political reasons, and not to 'keep the family together'. She had her own ambitions too, which are playing out right now..<<
You know Suse, a politician has the only vocation that is truly sociologically genderless. Neither the nurturing drive of the female nor the integrity traits of the male survives in that vocation.

JF Aus >> What have the Clintons been found guilty of?<<
Jf, what was Jimmy Saville found guilty of?
What was Stalin found guilty of?
What was Hittler found guilty of?
.............nothing, while they were alive.

sonofgloin,

You give some way out comparisons in spin right there, savill, stalin and hitler, in comparison to the Clinton's.
Please inform the jellyfish what have the Clinton's got to do with saville?

Why not state exactly what law Hillary Clinton has broken?

Dated 2 April 2016, here is a headline to sell papers and claim how 'Hillary Clinton betrayed Syrian rebels'. LOL
By mentioning possibility of a non-fly zone? LOL
http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/ex-cia-operative-how-hillary-clinton-betrayed-syrian-rebels/

Google: Wiki New York Post.
Note criticism and controversies surrounding the New York Post.

How did HC actually betray the rebels?

JF Aus>>You give some way out comparisons in spin right there, savill, stalin and hitler,<<

JF I was just expounding the fact that not being convicted does not automatically mean you are not guilty. Whitewater stinks, sure the Clintons were never charged but both their partners in the Whitewater company went to jail, one partner Susan McDougal went to jail for contempt of court for not disclosing the Clintons part in Whitewater. Bill pardoned Susan McDougal just before he left office.......it stinks JF.

sonofgloin,

A lot of things stink in this world we live in and were taught to be honest and decent in.

As for Hillary Clinton I think she is a better choice than Trump and others in the race.
If HC has committed a crime then she should be charged and tried and punished if guilty.

Personally since 1982 I have been trying to bring attention to solutions to protein deficiency malnutrition among seafood dependent Pacific Islands people.
But the Australian government does not want to know about it, neither does major media.

On International Womans Day 2016 I heard on Radio Australia about 5,000 dead babies and 1,500 dead women annually at present in PNG, due to maternal mortality.
I am aware maternal mortality among islanders is linked to malnutrition, with numerous cases linked to island and ocean fish depletion.
The amino acid type protein is now virtually missing from islander food supply.

Even on this site there are people who could not care less and that coupled with media and government ignorance with intent, I think stinks beyond belief.

It is to be hoped HC can see the world as it really is. I thought Obama would but I was wrong.

Lets hope Foxy is a good judge.
Fingers crossed with Hillary Clinton who has seen so much and should know of at least some solutions.

From my point of view concerning the oceans and sustaining water quality and world food supply there is more business and employment and money to be made from solutions than from corruption.
The corrupt will also rake in more, not that I agree with that.

The Clintons are part of what caused a lot of Americas problems
In the first place.

They are equivalent to the stupidity of the Labour Party in Australia
in the past few decades.

They represent the looney left, and live in hippy, la, la, land.

CHERFUL,
Like everyone who's held positions of power in America, the Clintons are to blame for some of America's problems. Probably the worst thing they did was fail to help Russia when Russia needed America's help; this ultimately led to the rise of Putin.

Even so, the problems they're to blame for are trivial compared to what GWB is to blame for.

All people make mistakes. Smart people learn from them.

Last time I checked, neither of them lived in LA.

I don't know what you mean by "They represent the looney left". The term 'loony left' has a specific meaning: it refers to those who want to put up income tax rates very high and nationalise nearly everything. That doesn't sound at all like the Clintons. Nor for that matter does it sound like the ALP.

AJ, I don’t think America wins with either candidate. Hillary talks democrat but mixes with the Bilderberg Group and I know they do not favour Trump...........so that’s a positive for Trump.

Friends of mine returned from a whistle stop 4 weeks, north south east west tour of the USA yesterday. My first question was “what was it like”.......the first words they said was “homeless”.......that is their strongest initial impression of the USA..........homeless everywhere. Trumps border security policy appeals to the blue collar and the conservative white collar.......

AJ, well done on the protein supplements work in the islands.
I will add,PNG is a mess, I have been travelling up there for work over the past years and it has gone downhill economically, socially, and now they have this drought to cope with. Little has been reported in the Australian media and reaction from our government even after it was reported to the PM’s office has been mute......

Aiden,
'Probably the worst thing they did was fail to help Russia when Russia needed America's help'.

The US has been the one trying to bring down Russia.
Its done so ever since the cold war began and it continues to this day.
Look up 'Zbigniew Brzezinski';
Also look up the 'Neoconservatives' or 'Neocons'.

Everyone Else,
If I told you all Newt Gingrich openly stated a few weeks back that 'Trump isn't part of the club'; that 'He hasn't done the initiation rites' and that 'He isn't part of the secret societies', you guys would probably think I'm making it up.

But it's right here, for all to see, or those who look.
http://youtu.be/9eD-XA-0iSM

I know some of the older people might find some of the conspiracy stuff hard to swallow, but I don't understand at all why you don't at least think to yourself 'Something doesn't smell right here' when leaders openly speak like this.

Sonofgloin,

Who or what is AJ?

Re islander malnutrition, I think similar malnutrition or starvation would also be occurring among the USA homeless.

My fingers are crossed for Hillary Clinton to work on relevant solutions.
I think HC could do it or at least make a beginning, if only she can keep the war mongerer's at bay.

Sonofglobin

Why are we responsible for New Guinea.
didn't they seek independence to run their own country.

The world seems to think Europe and Western countries are their nannies.
there to save them from every mess they create.

Australian politicians,responsibilities, are to their own people,
after all it is the Australian people who work most of their lives to
provide the money that the Australian government spends.
That money is to fund the Australian community, other countries
are responsible for their own people.

I think Trump shot himself seriously in the foot when he made that comment about women being punished for abortion.
I think from this point on his momentum will slow.
It's not so much about the issue of abortion as it is that chilling statement of punishment
Of women.
Women have been being punished by male dominance for 1,000 of years.

I think that punishment word, will kind of put Trump in the same category as Islamic state in women's minds. He was winning a lot of votes because of the fear of Islamic fundamentalist, and suddenly he takes that kind of male punishment of women stand.

I think he has lost the election as of now.

CHERFUL,

Reality is the malnutrition among PNG and other SW Pacific Islands people is linked to devastation of staple seafood supply and collapse of barter economies that were based on trading fish.
Fish was the primary commodity in barter trade.
Fish provided traditional livelihood.

Fish stocks are devastated because western nations don't want to see and find solutions to nutrient pollution that has destroyed most ocean food web nurseries that most fish depend on for their food.
The problem is not overfishing.
The problem is most animals do not breed successfully when malnourished, humans included.

It was western cleverness that invented refrigeration and factory ships that could roam and fish far away oceans.
It was long distance refrigerated fishing fleets that took fish from waters off Somalia, causing locals to retaliate with piracy to deter foreign fishing. That piracy led to piracy of cargo ships at sea and out of control crime onshore.

Hillary Clinton must have insight to such matters, and hopefully some innovative productive and viable solutions.

Meanwhile consider what Australia's present PM might do with real aid if he retains his position.

At present the aid said to be given is not given. The money does not get to the people in need of cash to trade.

There is a shortage of cash among islanders to such an extent that most cannot afford a hook and line let alone an outboard and petrol to find and catch enough fish.
Fish are now too few and far between to catch enough on a daily basis from a hand paddled canoe, as was done say 40 years and more ago.

Understand reality of the situation.
It was Europeans and other modern world nations that came into this SW Pacific Ocean region and spoiled the natural environment to the extent people these days need real aid to survive.
Without real aid many people will become riddled with TB - on our doorstep.
Anyway, what about humanity?

Genuine leadership is needed

Surely the modern world should contribute toward solutions.

Google: boomerang aid.
See:
Phantom aid SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/phantom-aid-never-leaves-our-shores/2007/05/27/1180205079584.html

Wake up, Australia.

Armchair,

Obviously the USA was trying to bring down Russia in the cold war. But when Bill Clinton was president, the cold war was over (so Zbigniew Brzezinski's irrelevant). Russia's had the potential to be a powerful ally, but America stood idly by while the Russian economy collapsed, and supported political changes that took the power away from the Russian people, so instead now we've effectively reverted to the cold war situation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

JF Aus,

HOW CAN YOU CLAIM OVERFISHING'S NOT TO BLAME?

Are you unaware that out in the oceans, ecological productivity is limited because nutrients are in short supply?

There are some places, mainly near the cost of continents, that nutrient overload is a problem. and there are some complications because coral has evolved in low nutrient conditions. But generally out in the ocean there's plenty for fish to eat, but because of overfishing, too few fish to take advantage of the abundance of food.

@ Aidan, Thursday, 7 April 2016 11:19:59 AM

Aidan,

Your awareness of reality of the state of the marine environment and ocean ecosystems is testimony to media boycott and failure to investigate and report evidence of the situation in news, such as why Australia is now having to import over 70 percent of fish annually.

I can claim overfishing is not to blame because I have evidence of substance to prove it.

Yes nutrient is in short supply out to sea in open ocean generally in the southern hemisphere but no so in the northern hemisphere.
e.g. Take a look at algae feeding on nutrient in the northern Atlantic.
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/phytoplankton-bloom-in-the-north-atlantic

Coral has evolved in balanced nutrient conditions. Coral almost everywhere right now is impacted by algae. I see it. I am a diver. I study dying and dead coral. I have photo data evidence, dates and time.
I wish OLO provided for photos.

Open ocean generally is almost almost bare of food. If you think otherwise, ask yourself where that food comes from, where does it breed, where can that food be seen?

If you think there are too few big fish and therefore lots of small fish, where are those small fish?
Small fish are even imported into Australia to feed aquaculture. LOL

Truth is vast quantities of small fish to feed ocean fish comes from estuaries and bays and lagoons.
The small species of fish swim out to sea to become food for bigger fish and animals such as birds and whales.

Most estuary and bay and lagoon seagrass is long dead and gone due to nutrient overload feeding over-abundance of algae epiphyte growth that reduces sunlight and essential photosynthesis.

The 1990's SOMER report found 50 percent of seagrass lost from the NSW coast.
Over 95 percent of seagrass has been lost from the Nerang River (Qld) estuary alone, Moreton Bay has massive loss in areal coverage and especially density.

M/s Hillary Clinton best lookout if US President.
World war must be avoided because there is no longer enough worldwide seafood to HELP sustain over 7 billion people.