I don’t think it’s that simple. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was anything but soft on war, she was even accused of alleged war crimes during the Faulklands war, and once famously warned Bush not to “go wobbly on Iraq”.

And Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2003, a vote she claims to regret, and now promises to “end this war”.

She’s clearly positioning herself in the debate, which is important.

I don’t see her shying away from aggressive action or interventionist policy if America was threatened. “Liberation” is what they like to call it…

I wrote in my first posting that women generally don’t like war. And we don’t, because war destroys families, homes, economies and infastuctures.

But that doesn’t mean women politicians could simply put an end to war- war is systematically ingrained into capitalist society. And there is little sense in arguing against the fact that there is a war of global proportions going on right now.

So what would happen if America put a woman in office during a time of war?

Nothing different, is what I would argue. Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that the U.S should prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology. She is firm on this point, and it’s pretty clear she means business.

And those responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto were threatened enough by the prospect of her overthrowing Mushareff that they removed her from the political equation.

So can women govern a world at war?

They are certainly trying. It’s usually women that clean up the mess.

Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican race.

I was horrified.

I was greatly enjoying watching, on a daily basis, the Republican race unfolding as a veritable circus performance.

Ron Paul isn’t a real Republican, he just wants to gain enough publicity to build the momentum for an independent run. He may very well prove to be a nuanced version of Ralph Nader. (Where is he, anyway?).

Rudy Guiliani was so ensconced in a state of false security that he didn’t even bother to campaign until the Florida primary, and shot himself in the foot with those ill-conceived ‘ground-zero hero’ images.

Mike Huckabee has about as much as much street credibility as a Southern Baptist Preacher with stars in his eyes possibly could.

The point is that their respective and competitive campaigns served only to illustrate the fractured and chaotic state of the Republican Party.

But they figured it out, and one by one dropped out and organized themselves by endorsing the only viable conduit to another run in the drivers seat; John McCain. The Republicans have regrouped. They now have, once again, a clear and strong leader.

This is gloomy news for Democrats because when they go up against McCain they will have a fight on their hands. If they went up against Romney it would be a joke, like Ward Cleaver trying to fight Margaret Thatcher or Martin Luther King Jr.

They figured it out. I was hoping they wouldn’t. I sit uneasy know, and hope the Demorats make their choice, make it wisely, and make it soon.

Let me count the ways;

1. Your ambulance-chasing tactics are an embarrassment to the journalism profession.

2. Compassion and integrity while interviewing are foreign concepts to you.

3. You lure people onto your sorry excuse for a show only to attack and humiliate them.

4. No-one cares what color you painted your doomed offspring’s nursery.

5. Your ethical track record speaks for itself.

6.Your own staff let the public know what they really think of you.

7. You have been repeatedly called out for your insensitive coverage of troubling events.

As a new journalist, I find it incredibly difficult to swallow that I am/will be placed in the same professional category as this woman. I have been troubled by this for a while.

Some may think that odd, but the thing is my Dad is an American, and mired deeply in politics. So when he calls, if I am not up to speed and ready to debate the current political climate, I wouldn’t even answer the phone. It’s a competition, like a quiz show, and if I don’t know the answer- I lose points. So there is the driving force behind my motivation.

This week I have been thinking about the much publisised and scrutinized demonstrations of affection by Democratic Candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Somehow, the concept of emotional expression has worked itself into the political debate. It all started when Hillary “teared up” during a press conference.

She was both praised and lambasted in the media for her “show of affection”. “Hillary tears up on the campaign trail”, screamed the headlines. Uh uh. Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of rigid stoicism, and I would venture that the tears were about as choreographed as a ballet. As planned as the time she was busted for planting questions in an audience or when two thugs burst into a hall where she was giving a speech waving wrinkly shirts around and screaming at her to iron them. I don’t buy manufactured emotion.

Real emotion, however, is something I can get behind. Barack Obama infuses his rhetoric with raw emotion, and has been criticized for it.

Both Clinton and Obama are being followed by a pack of note-pad weilding journalists who feel compelled to report on every little idiosyncrasy, such as Obama’s penchant for tea with honey and oatmeal cookies.

And Obama’s speech at Martin Luther King’s church has some real feeling in it. Watch it. And I dare you not to cry.

I like real emotion because it humanizes politicians and destabilizes the manufactured images created by the political machine.

The audience debated the dimensions of religious fervor that the U.S primaries have taken on. In America today, politicians infuse their campaigns with religious rhetoric as a strategy to win votes. According to Goldman, 85% of Americans identify with some religion. And inevitably, God and Jesus become campaign mantra.

As the primaries play out- it is impossible to ignore that candidates are attempting to harness the vast resources of the religious right.

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and Baptist Preacher, is appealing to the “values voter”. What he means is the religious voter, and I think it’s problematic to equate religious conservatism with ‘values’. What are values? They are subjective, and mean different things to different people. Huckabee is overstepping when he deploys this strategy. Huckabee’s brand of religion is pretty cut and dry. God created the earth in seven days about 10,000 years ago. This postulation is easily refuted by the most basic scientific evidence. Mitt Romney’s brand of faith, Mormonism has been linked with polygamy and child marriages.

I remember four years ago, when Bush’s strategists appealed to the evangelicals and rode this huge demographic wave into a second term by squashing gay rights.

All this religious rhetoric is playing out again in the 2008. Clearly, America is not a secular country, although it may appear to be. Where is the separation of church and state? Should we be calling it the United States of America, or Jesusland?

I guess my obsession with politics started during childhood when, as the daughter and grand-daughter of activists and civil servants, I realized that the only viable way to enter into dinner-table discussion was through political debate.

I used to sit and stare, barely old enough to see over the rim of my glass of apple juice and listen in awe as the debates grew fierce, silently favoring an uncle or my father’s point above my grandfather’s, a formidable opponent who everyone always acquiesced to in the end. He had, after all, survived two wars, and had shrapnel from German tank fire in WWII was still lodged somewhere in his leg.

My female relatives rarely ventured into this arena, and when they did they would inevitably get the proverbial pat on the head. So they usually sat looking bored and blank. This always bothered me. The dominant belief in society is that politics is a masculine realm, and I declare war on that misconception. Politics has known some formidable females.Some have been great, others not so great.

Women, I believe, are skilled politicians because they understand the nature of debate. And women generally don’t like war. The world needs more women politicians. Hillary Clinton is currently running for the Democratic nomination in the States. I believe she has had her eye on that ball for many years.

She stood by Bill through all the scandals, and he backed her campaign for senator in New York, and now he’s backing her presidential run. If she gets it, I believe it will be because she is a Clinton, not because she is a woman even though she wants people to vote for her based on an ‘elect a woman’ rationale. I’m uneasy about that, I admit it.

Right now the Primaries are in full swing in the States. I follow them closely, and goal of this blog is to express my interpretations of the debates in an interesting and unboring way. Everyone knows alot of media coverage of politics is BORING. I follow both the Republican and democratic primaries, although I believe the Republicans don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being re-elected. (thanks, George!)

They are so behind the times that everyone of their nominees is an old, straight white man. The Republicans are going to be on hiatus for a very long time. Anyone who wants to read my opinions about the Republican debates can go to Journalism Ethics.

So why the stodgy Republicans ignore race and gender, the Democratic nominees, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton represent both issues, and are fighting tooth and nail over which will prevail. Sorry John Edwards, you’re lovely and you have great teeth but you are just taking up space.