I'm an ex-pat, and over the past few decades I've lived and traveled all over, so I think I have some sense of it.

Rabid anti-Americanism is mostly based on something like scorned lover wrath, on disappointed hopes. It is only so rabid because underneath remains so much affection. (It is why Canadians tend to be popular in many parts of the world: they are sort of ersatz Americans, sort of the same but without all the baggage.) America promised much, but basically delivered the current Middle East.

(Oh that, and US trade practices. It has been rather amusing watching Clinton and Obama bashing away at NAFTA and how it hurts the US: most Americans do not realize what an absolutely wretched reputation the US has in the rest of the world on trade matters: liars, bullies, cheaters, and immensely exploitative and uncaring-- cf US agricultural and intellectual property trade policies. You can re-brand all you like, but that reputation is going to take some serious work to make go away; frankly, it is probably more entrenched than US responsibility for the Middle East mess.)

Once upon a time, the US took a position of sort of a reluctant first among equals; not so much the US ideals, but the fact the US entered the world stage with little colonial baggage and a burst of idealistic rhetoric made all the difference. The US was a sort of indifferent leader of the Free World, mostly because it never really cared all that much about foreign affairs, and frankly, that was welcomed. Reagan started to change that, and Dubya totally changed it: from now on the US would not lead towards shared goals, but dictate what the goals were, no matter what anybody else thought, and command obedience.

I'm also a little dubious about rebranding based on recent experience, didn't Dubya hire a couple of heavy Madison Ave types to rebrand the US in the Arab world? Worked out pretty good, huh? ("What we have here, son, is a failure to communicate.")

At the end of the day, its more of a Where's the Beef type of question, or if you want to get biblical, by their works ye shall know them. The US has some works to do.

Branding might be an important first step, but the way the rest of the world looks at it, what they are hoping to see might more accurately be called "regime change." With precisely the same connotations the Bushies had when they used the phrase about Iraq.

Which is why Obama will be getting my vote: not because of his brand, but because he is most convincingly and authentically Not George W. Bush out of the available choices.

I like Clinton rather more than I wanted to. I deeply want to see 1) a woman president, 2) a progressive president, and 3) a competent president.

I did not want to see a woman president a la Bhutto, more family and insider connection than genuine choice, and Clinton has more than a tinge of that. A self-made president who happens to be of color is pretty impressive.

I want a progressive president, and Clinton is, to my mind at least, hardly that. But then neither is Obama particularly.

And after her first health care fiasco, while acknowledging that she has experience, I doubt her competence. Indeed, on the basis that being right is a sign of competence, as is running an effective campaign, Obama beats her out on that one of the three grounds anyway.

And the basis of his appeal in rhetoric that he has been criticized for, is actually a large part of his appeal to me: I think he has a better ability to use the bully pulpit which can the be the president's greatest power, to actually shake up the country.

But Clinton has impressed me during the campaign in spite of myself. She has shown a great deal of dignity and courage, wit and humility, and humor and good will and intelligence. Although I voted Obama in my primary, I did it with some regret and sadness. If she wins, while I would see Obama's loss as tragic, I would not see her victory as a bad thing, and I would celebrate it. And vice versa.

If she loses, and I am pretty sure she will, I dread the crowing and grave dancing that is sure to occur in the media. The only hope I have is that Obama might be able to unleash one of his A-List speeches in a tribute to her that might quash some of that, and make healing and unity easier and quicker.

And it will not be the end of her political career by any means.

In some ways, being attractive helps a comic; humour is so often based on incongruity, and seeing this nice ladylike attractive woman act like a clown, or speaking in ways we are often very unaccustomed to hearing attractive women speak, well it's funny. Sarah Silverman is a good example, on a good day she is pretty darn hot, but some of the things that come out of her mouth, damn.

I wouldn't call Tina Fey hot exactly, but she is certainly, I dunno, intriguing? attractive? beguiling? Something.

And incidentally, there are still some pretty good male comics around, but since the media market for humour by men is driven by male teen buyers, you get the Farrels and shows like Jackass. But for example if you ever get a chance to catch Bob Saget doing adult material, not family friendly tv or other schtick, he is screamingly funny. But there doesn't seem to be much market for that these days.