I think Bill Clinton's actions should be viewed in the context of Kargil and military rule.
While as Pakistanis we want parity, and in some cases, such as the 123 agreement, we are justified - in this particular case I believe our demand for parity was not justified, given that the events within our country went against the vision the US purportedly wishes to see implemented in the world.
I doubt a Republican President would have done anything different. The only reason we have had a decent run with the Bush administration is because of the WoT in Afghanistan. Even on that count however, I believe recent events have shown that the Republicans have not been averse to acts that harm Pakistan - the unilateral raids for example.
In the current situation, a continuation of the Republican philosophy and another Prez. who leaves policy making primarily in the hands of the Generals will be disastrous I believe. I am willing to try a philosophically different approach through Obama -while being critical of Pakistan's military acquisitions, he has also supported building a comprehensive relationship with Pakistan, and sponsored the Biden bill for billions in social sector aid.
well.............enlightening response..........i do agree with u on the account that the markets and the economy/healthcare ought to be regulated......The NDP Party in Canada embodies such values.
But dont u feel the Dems, attachment to India may be to Pakistan's disadvantage............Example being Bill Clinton in in 1998 visited Pakistanfor 12/24 hours but stayed in india for 3 whole days..........Just shows their tendancy to overlook Pakistan, neglect the military establishment and thus harming us more than a Republican administration!