Hillary Clinton has a pulse over the problems that the 'Global Village' faces - an outstanding leader by any reckoning. However, in her defeat, she is as magnificent as she could be as the nominee to the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. She would have been the first American woman president and the harbinger of building a soft image of USA and evenly poised to integrate all nations in the global order, irrespective of race and ethnicity. I vividly recall her brilliant extempore speech at Copenhagen in 1995 - World Social Summit, particularly her concern for the wretched of the earth. I wrote a few articles in her favour, which got published in the local as well as the foreign press. Her magnanimity impressed me overwhelmingly as she has acknowledged my little support by writing several letters of appreciation and updating me with all the developments in the Democratic Party, and what impresses me most that after losing the presidential race, she adhering to the implicit norm of democracy, gracefully accepted the defeat, without any wrinkles on her face, and smilingly came out all in favour of Obama to win the bout against John McCain. In her letter of August 27, 2008, she wrote: "Standing on that stage tonight in front of 20,000 Democrats unified behind Senator Obama, I saw a bright future of America. I saw millions of people across the country working as one to elect the next Democratic president. I saw a new president and a new Congress giving a voice to the voiceless. I saw America, the land of endless potential, raging its role as a leader of the world. "I could not be proud of the party, of our nominee and of all the work you and I have done together over the course of this campaign and behalf of the American people. Thank you again for everything you've done. Now let us get to work helping elect Barak Obama, Joe Biden and all of our great Democratic candidates." This quintessential value to rise above self and dedicate full efforts for the glory of the party and the supreme interest of the country is the hallmark of true democracy. Just going to the polls do not make democracy. It is the spirit of 'giving' for the greater good and relinquishing all personal rivalries, makes democratic culture so alluring and graceful. Conceding defeat is a great national trait that we must emulate and admire. In all her letters subsequent to her losing the nomination, she spoke of the great qualities of Obama, and not a word of remorse that she got defeated even through very narrowly. What is intended to convey is that she showed political maturity in conforming to the implicit norms like remaining loyal to the party one belongs to, and showing full commitment to its ideology irrespective of who wins the nomination. Horse Trading or changing party loyalties for material benefits is not heard of in the US electoral system. Bill Clinton was quite naturally an ardent supporter of his illustrious wife, but when Obama got the nomination, he was also fully committed to support him. In his letter (September 17, 2008) addressed to me, he writes: "After an 18 months long campaign, Democrats are coming together with the purpose to elect Barak Obama. After eight years of George Bush, America is hungry for real change." It is not a minor repair which is needed but a complete overhaul and revival of the great spirit which needs USA - once a beacon of light - to re-integrate moral values in the state policies. Getting the US soldiers out of Iraq is a commitment of the Democratic Party, which is supported by the popular will of the US citizens as well. By commitment to peace, the world would have changed and a paradigm of inter-existence would have been the most laudable contribution of USA and the citizens of the world would have gratefully acknowledged USA's leadership. The "power of giving" is inherently far superior to the power of military domination. One recalls that in the second World War, Churchill of the Conservative Party, made an outstanding contribution by demonstrating superb strategy of defeating Germany by persuading USA and Russia to join Great Britain, which turned the whole war from an 'impending defeat' to a 'glorious victory'. Despite Churchill's great qualities as a war leader, he got defeated in the elections, soon held after the war. Attlee of the Labour Party was voted for assuming the political power. The reason was that the people craved for change, being fed up with war, and Churchill was thus discarded. The US public has also undergone an attitudinal transformation. They have been 'naively' manipulated through powerful media to become almost 'paranoid' by whipping up War On Terror and Osama bin Laden projected as a demon was built for global domination and control over the 'energy reservoirs' of the Muslim countries. That George Bush was a total flop, as against Churchill, who had given 'victory' to the nation. President George Bush on the contrary was an architect of defeat, of the greatest military power on earth, both in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Obama will have to face Herculean task to rebuild the image of USA, which has grossly been blackened and worst still, the robust economy that Bill Clinton built during his tenure, through rare statesmanship has been squandered away and America faces the worst conceivable economic melt-down. The nation, rightly awaits Obama to rescue the sinking economy, which is an ominous disaster for the country and the world at large. The Democratic presidential candidate has emerged as the best choice for the presidentship of USA and all the polls taken show a definite edge over his Republican contender McCain, who is popularly perceived as a replica of George Bush - who has blown military preponderance out of proportion without achieving any tangible results. The Democrats, as compared to Republicans, are builders of America's real power, in facilitating nations to overcome their chronic deprivations so that they could achieve congenial conditions for adhering to democratic norms of governance. You don't bring democracy in any country through the barrel of the gun. It is mind boggling that due to the propensity to build American Empire, the Republicans have accelerated the defence budget to an incredible figure of about $425 billion in 2004, on account of the Iraq war. If half of this amount would have been spent to free the world for the menace of poverty, environmental degradation, and for paving conditions for global harmony, the scourge of terrorism and violence would have never assumed such an alarmingly dreadful proportion. Bush under the evil influence of the neo-cons, has transformed the world into a killing field - like a typical perverted sport where men, women and children are killed as 'flies to wanton boys'. Human sensibility is the worst casualty. What we witness is a Greek Tragedy on the global theatre. Obama has emerged in all the debates as a very balanced, cool in disposition, and a leader, who shall steer the country not in the style of 'colonial' brute power, which Republican presidents in the recent past have repugnantly demonstrated. Paul Schroeder, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Illinois, very candidly assets: "The real question, however, is whether a US military over the insurgency can be expected to promote durable, worthwhile American victory in the Middle East and the wider Muslim World." The answer is that it cannot. In the same article, he also contends: "One senses a ghastly inevitability about the American adventure - half tragedy, half farce and all follies." (Leave or Lose the American Interest, March-April 2008). Obama knows it well, and when he faces the brass realities, he will have to withdraw forces from Afghanistan as well. No amount of forces inducted into Afghanistan will be able to crush Taliban who are endowed with extraordinary passion for preserving freedom. Obama, no matter how much character assassination is made by the Republican, especially Sarah Palin, he is well poised to be in the White House, to accomplish a colossal damage control to demonstrate that that colour of the president does not matter - the principled leadership makes the difference. Condoleezza Rice completely ignoring the reality that unlike love 'national interest' is not 'blind' thinks that whatever is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan is for 'freedom and democracy'. None of these is true. Bush has been the peddler of 'lies and deceptions', as part of USA's so-called strategic policies. We, in Pakistan, know it very well that had not the Republicans, supported 'dictators', we would have emerged as a vibrant democratic country. What is ironical when she says, "As in the past our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried to marry power and principle - realism and idealism" (Foreign Affairs, July-August 2008, p-3). One wished Bush had solemnised that marriage. It was 'lust and greed', pure and simple that perpetuated during his inglorious regime. Who knows it more intimately than Miss Rice? In a theatrical presentation Oliver Stone depicts: "The elder Bush looks at him disdainfully and says Junior's entire life has been a fiasco." The writer is a political analyst E-mail: fr786pak@isb.comsats.net.pk