Watching the round-table on the NewsHour tonight, with Gwen Ifill leading several observers:

Rev. Joseph Lowery, who with Dr. King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; he will deliver the benediction at tomorrow's swearing in; Charlayne Hunter-Gault, a NewsHour alum who was also the first African-American woman to attend the University of Georgia, she's now a special correspondent in Africa for NPR and other news organizations; Ta-Nehisi Coates, contributing editor for the Atlantic and a fellow at the Nation Institute; and Rael Nelson James, a development associate for KIPP DC, a network of high-performing inner-city charter schools in and around Washington, D.C.

... my friend asked me, "If Hillary had won the election, would we have a panel talking like this, about the "transcendental" nature of her election?"

Yes and no. It would be different.

If Hillary were elected, I don't think that the world's reaction would be quite the same. The world has seen a few quite prominent and powerful female leaders. Major nations today are led by female presidents (or similar titles). If America had elected Hillary Clinton, I think the world would be relieved that it wasn't McCain and the Bush era was ending, but I don't think they would be quite so rocked to their core. For all the misogyny in the world, women leaders are not so unknown.

(Stay with me, I'm coming back to Hillary in a moment.)

If you've traveled overseas in the past few years, you might know that, as racist as America has been (and still is), the rest of the world is on balance more racist. "Ethnic cleansing" is a foreign thing, not an American thing. Frankly, much of the world truly believed that America would never ever elect a black president.

And coming out of this darkest era in the modern history of the United States -- Iraq, torture, extraordinary renditions, surveillance, unilateralism -- the contrast of the impending Barack Obama presidency vs. the Bush presidency is pretty shocking. The world is relieved, astounded, hopeful, and I think inspired. We turned from the dark side. And this former slaver nation has elected Barack Obama!

So what about Hillary?

I'll say this: If Hillary had been elected, it would not be such a profound worldwide event, but it would be an earth-shattering change in domestic politics.

America does not have a strong history of powerful female political leaders. It's not just misogyny -- that's too easy. It's also a matter of cultural habit, and blindness.

It took an exceptionally intelligent, graceful, savvy, tenacious Barack Obama to cross the racial barrier. And perhaps it's his bipartisan rhetoric that has made it possible at all.

It will take an even more exceptionally intelligent, graceful, savvy, tenacious woman candidate -- also bipartisan, I think, to win against the prejudgers -- to cross the gender barrier.

Because there is a barrier, no question.

Hillary might have been that person, but I think she truly undermined her own candidacy. Someday a woman will win. And while the world at that moment may just shrug, it will be a transcendent event in America.

(Unless it's Sarah Palin, in which case America is doomed.)

Republican candidates don't get the internet at all, it seems:

Conservative bloggers associated with the “Save the Debate” petition seem to be unconvinced that Republican candidates have really grasped the significance of the YouTube debate. George Ajjan, writing in New Jersey’s Herald News, takes Republicans to task for their failure to understand basic aspects of the political internet:

The comments of those skeptical about the YouTube debates sadly exemplify many of the traditional and stereotypical shortcomings of Republicans. The GOP has got to shatter the image of country-club elitism that plagues the party. Giuliani’s campaign prioritizing fundraising over a one-day commitment to appear before millions of viewers and answer tough questions directly from the electorate is deplorable and plays right into that regrettable typecast….
As far as YouTube itself goes, the issue is not that national Republicans don’t want to use new technologies. Both Giuliani and Romney have invested heavily in their online efforts and have specifically touted their embrace of YouTube as a campaigning medium. But their behavior seems to indicate the belief that the internet is a switch they can turn on and off, depending upon whether they’re in the mood to communicate. But the internet is always “on,” although it’s not always “on your terms.”
Until our party truly grasps that, we will continue to alienate voters and activists, especially young people for whom the internet is not “new,” but an integral part of their political upbringing.

The Republicans don’t have a technology problem, per se. They have an arrogance problem, and it’s spilling over into their online outreach efforts. Coming at a time when polls show young voters abandoning the GOP en masse, this bodes ill for the elephants.

The Right Field.

This is more than just arrogance, though. The internet is a medium that lends itself to free speech, egalitarian values (at least as far as right to ones own opinion goes), empowering the people.

The internet might have made sense in the old Republican party of Barry Goldwater, but it is really nothing but a threat to (or at best only a tool to be exploited by) modern day neo-Republicans who have ditched libertarian values in favor of big government as big brother.

In other words, it is not modern Republican arrogance that puts them at odds with the internet, but rather modern Republican culture that is diametrically opposed to a medium that gives us peasants a way of talking back at them ... and talking amongst ourselves.

Can the neo-Republicans and their vision of authoritarian government keeping the people in line succeed in the internet age? I doubt it. The party is already fraying and showing serious signs of breaking. They are going to have to reinvent themselves or destroy the internet to preserve their privilege.

I stumble across The Secret website and think, "Well, I've heard of this pop concept, so I'll go take a look," and click past the splash screen (hello!) and see that they list "Featured Teachers."

Well....

It seems that women don't have much to offer in the Featured Teachers department. Well, four out of twenty-four people happen to be women.

Funny how this happens. Women don't innovate, and now, it seems, women have nothing to teach, at least about "The Secret." [cue dramatic music stinger]

So what is The Secret? Apparently a penis helps answer that question.

Is this the commercial manifestation of Chinese fears of powerful women?

Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction -- the world's first "women's town," where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday.

The 2.3-square-km Longshuihu village in the Shuangqiao district of Chongqing municipality, also known as "women's town," was based on the local traditional concept of "women rule and men obey," a tourism official told Reuters.

"Traditional women dominate and men have to be obedient in the areas of Sichuan province and Chongqing, and now we are using it as an idea to attract tourists and boost tourism," the official, surname Li, said by telephone.

Maybe the government officials responsible have been enjoying a bit too much their pirated copy of Seven Beauties.

I mean, imagine! Men? Obeying? Women? What an exotic notion! Oh the horror! The fear! The eroticism!