Always use a Clinton

Posted by Martyn

China’s citizens will soon have the choice of buying two new brands of condoms, ‘Clinton’ condoms and ‘Lewinsky’ condoms:

A condom maker in southern China’s Guangdong province is marketing its products under “Clinton” and “Lewinsky” brands and has registered the names as trademarks, state press said.

The Guangzhou Haojian Bio-science Co is selling its wares under the Chinese spelling of the names that read “Kelintun” and “Laiwensiji,” the New Express reported.

The names in China are easily recognizable as former US president Bill Clinton and his one time lover, Monica Lewinsky.

The Clinton brand is set to be the company’s top product selling for some 30 yuan (3.7 dollars) for a pack of 12, while the Lewinsky brand was expected to fetch 18 yuan.

The company unveiled the product on Monday. General manager Liu Wenhua expressed confidence the names would not get him into trouble since they are only “trademarks of two foreign surnames and can’t be seen as a violation of rights,” the report said.

For anyone not au fait with the price of condoms in Mainland China, almost US$4 for a pack of twelve ‘Clintons’ is fairly expensive. However, US2.50 for 12 ‘Lewinskys’ is fairly cheap and towards the lower end of the market.

The Discussion: 30 Comments

market segmentation by sexism ๐Ÿ™‚

September 20, 2005 @ 6:51 pm | Comment

There’s something about Clinton and Monica Lewingsky that resonates or fascinates some of the people here. Perhaps it’s just because they remeber the famous incident.

A few months ago when Clinton was in China publicising his book, a young journalist from Chengdu came up with a story saying that Bill and Monica (she had also just released a book) would be staying a the same hotel, on the same night in Chengdu and it would be the first time they’d seen each other since “then”.

This story was, of course, an instant hit and was immediately picked up by the national newspapers in China.

However, when the big media guns pinned down the woman journo and asked about her sources etc she finally admitted that she’d made the whole thing up out of laziness to find a real story.

This exposed a whole slew of similar sensationalist stories – all untrue – in the cut-throat Chinese print media market.

Funny though, all the residents of second-tier Chendu all excitedly speculating whether Bill and Monica would ‘do it’ in their fair city.

September 20, 2005 @ 6:59 pm | Comment

Further evidence of Clinton’s greatness as he is immortalized and forever associated with one of life’s most sacred acts.

As to the phrase, “Always use a Clinton” – it certainly has a nicer ring to it than “Always use a bush.”

September 20, 2005 @ 7:22 pm | Comment

Oh Richard, you walked into this one:

Dick always uses Bush…..

September 20, 2005 @ 8:42 pm | Comment

I won’t have smut in the threads of my posts Ivan, thank you very much!

September 20, 2005 @ 8:47 pm | Comment

It is ashamed that Bill Clinton has to be remembered in this way. Iโ€™m no expert in American politics. But Bill Clinton did impress me as a good president who was very comfortable with his role and had presented himself well to a worldwide audience. The interview that he had with Andrew Denton (the Australian equivalence of Michael Parkinson) was one of the best TV interviews of politicians that Iโ€™ve ever watched. He came across as an honest man with a vision and the best interest of his nation in heart. Very unfortunately he will now be remembered as a cheat and dishonourable husband. I agreed with his wife that he is nothing more than a victim of party politics.

September 20, 2005 @ 8:59 pm | Comment

Martyn,

Smut? Hey, Richard was the one who brought up a Republican’s name first!
๐Ÿ™‚

September 20, 2005 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

Clinton was an awful president who achieved nothing lasting with his huge mandate, just like his buddy Blair. He’s not Bush, OK. I’m not Hitler or Mao but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a saint.

September 20, 2005 @ 9:16 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, I agree 100 percent, but you are opening a can of worms. Some deluded people see him as the Antichrist, and are enraged that he actually was one of the most successful and popular presidents in our history. Watch how enraged they become when Hillary gets elected in 2008.

September 20, 2005 @ 9:16 pm | Comment

Keir, Clinton was surely no saint. He was, however, articulate and effective, and presided over great prosperity. But we’ve had these debates before, more than once, so let’s not rehash the whole thing. He was a human being, he had grievous flaws, but he did a good job as president and enjoyed high ratings even under the most serious attacks. We all have our thoughts about him, and we all know where the other stands. So let’s just let it go, okay?

September 20, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Richard, it’s very interesting that the American people are associating Clinton with the AntiChrist. In my part of the world, this is a name we have reserved for George W Bush.

September 20, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Ivan > fair point!

Richard > Do you really think that will happen? Hilary 2008 I mean?

Clinton’s famous China policy of ‘engagement’ was, in my opinion, a failure. Did anyone really believe that China would change just because we asked them to and were nice to them?

In return for retaining China’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status all through the 90s, what did America get in return? What did the entire engagement policy achieve?

September 20, 2005 @ 9:22 pm | Comment

Hm, now I wonder, what do Karl Rove and his special friend Jeff Gannon use when they get together?

September 20, 2005 @ 9:30 pm | Comment

Daily linklets 21st September

The importance of the Taishi elections. After a hard fought agreement, China already sees the North Koreans backsliding on the nuclear deal…and begs everyone (read North Korea) to live up to their promises. What’s the betting that when the NK negoti…

September 20, 2005 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

Ivan, you’re on a roll today.

Martyn, I admit when Clinton was president I was not watching China the way I am today. Perhaps if we judge him by that he was a failure. I’m willing to accept that. But his presidency was about more; ask most Americans, and they won’t even know what his policy toward China was. Remember, being president is all about communication, and there he did quite well. The American public and the world respected his leadership and competency — exactly what we so desperately need right now. Clinton, like Reagan, managed to inspire and energize many Americans. So did JFK, and Johnson before he got bogged down in Vietnam. Bush did this for about two weeks after 911 and then crumpled because there was nothing there, just a shell of a man. Clinton at least was always compelling, articulate and in command. Even in his direst crises.

About Hillary – to tell the truth, I don’t much care for her and would have discounted her candidacy just a few months ago. But she is doing surprisingly well in polls and many people long for the comfort of the Clinton years – whether it’s real or imagined. So right now I would say she has a damned good chance.

September 20, 2005 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

“Lewinsky is fairly cheap, towards the low end of the market”

How true. How very true. . . .

September 21, 2005 @ 2:26 am | Comment

Fat Cat and Richard,
I will have to agree, reluctantly, that on the whole Clinton was a “good” president. He certainly had a few solid accomplishments to his record, welfare reform being among them. My problem with Clinton is that, given his intelligence, he should have been a great president. He was not. As far as being honest? I’m splitting my sides on that one. The current president is probably far more personally honest than either Clinton or his missus, though I doubt he’d come even close to matching either in intelligence. Just arrogance. So it seems we traded the smug arrogance of the left for the self-righteous arrogance of the right. Great choice!

September 21, 2005 @ 2:38 am | Comment

While I am not a huge fan, nor a harsh critic of Bill Clinton (grudging admirer??), I must say I am definitely not thrilled by the idea of Hillary as President. I think she is intelligent, but she seems to always (or at least often) speak to audiences as if they are children–a trait I find irrritating at best.

Also, her rants about the 80’s “decade of greed,” –a period in which she made large piles of money in an almost certainly rigged cattle futures trading scheme– smack of base hypocrisy.

Before I get too easily labeled, I am no W admirer either…though probably less negative than Richard and many others here.

By the way, might be a few bucks made on Ebay for someone able to pick up a few packs of the Clinton/Lewinsky condoms…just a thought.

September 21, 2005 @ 5:54 am | Comment

I suppose Americans would attach a novelty value to Clinton condoms. Mind you, the boxes might just have Clinton’s Chinese name. I know the company have registered the names as trademark but surely it will be going too far to actually have a picture of Bill on the box. Then again, nothing much surprises me in China.

September 21, 2005 @ 6:10 am | Comment

Richard

Yes, foreign policy does not decide elections – the fact that Bush, Blair and Howard were all re-elected partly proves this I suppose.

I was just shocked all those years ago to see the US embarking on a similar policy towards China as the policy towards Japan in the 80s – which achieved absolutely nothing. Unless one considers making the Japanese govt howl with laughter an achievement.

Re Hilary – it’s a scary thought although she does seem to be a bit more intelligent than the past first ladies. Nothing on Cherie Blair the top lawyer of course.

From what I’ve seen and read, Hilary does tend to polarise people into love and hate camps. I thikn that the US needs a more uniting president in 2008 – not more of the same. Jumping from one extrmem to the other isn’t the answer I think.

Good grief – however did I find myself commenting about US politics!?

September 21, 2005 @ 6:17 am | Comment

I really like this site,- this is the last conversation I thought I would hear first thing in the morning.

September 21, 2005 @ 6:55 am | Comment

RJT,

Well, at least on this thread, this site woke up this morning as “The Priapic Duck”

๐Ÿ™‚

September 21, 2005 @ 7:20 am | Comment

But Hillary’s not extreme, Martyn. Her “liberalism” is far more to the center than Bush’s “conservatism,” which is downright medieval. Agreed, she is polarizing, to say the least, but (and it hurts to say this) there simply doesn’t seem to be anybody else, except perhaps John Edwards, who’d better distance himself from Kerry fast.

September 21, 2005 @ 7:23 am | Comment

Hilary for president? Lord help us. At a very basic level, what experience does she vring to the table? I understand that she is a NY Senator but before that?

The American presidency isn’t a joke, it’s the job of the most powerful person in the world. NOthing against Hilary Clinton but it just can’t be right for an ex-president’s wife to be president.

September 21, 2005 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

It just goes to show you the quality of a race; here we have bigC himself making life easy for his ChiComs paymaster by conducting tour of the WH for PLA emissaries in return for some campaign pocket changes of course, and what do the Chinees choose to remember their useful foreign buddy. Nothing short of a heart felt gesture to show where BJBill’s place is. “Sacred acts” don’t make me want to throw up.

September 22, 2005 @ 5:47 am | Comment

Just a thought…but I wonder what China would make of America or British companies producing Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu jintao or even Mao Zedong condoms?

Unfortunately, we only know the names of Mao’s girlfriends so could only do a equivilent ‘Bill’ and ‘Monika’ set with him.

September 22, 2005 @ 12:53 pm | Comment

Are you kidding? Whiteys making fun of Third World leaders/personalities per se, ACLU and its various commie surrogate sister organizations will make you regret the day you re born, not to mention the expected gripes from the ‘offended’ country.

Just ask MacDonald and Nike. Their cases didn’t involve any real person even.

September 22, 2005 @ 3:54 pm | Comment

Yes, the “sensitivity” of some Mainlanders to, for example, certain McDonalds TV adverts in China is exasperating.

I haven’t actually met one single local person who agreed with all the “We’re offended” anti-McDonalds hoo-hah.

Therefore, I sometimes wonder where these “offended” Chinese people come from. My best guess is the third and fourth-tier cities.

September 22, 2005 @ 4:01 pm | Comment

…or perhaps the Internet chatrooms?

September 22, 2005 @ 4:02 pm | Comment

Reminds me of how those activists both Chinese and their white sympathizers operate in and around Chinatowns. They have this formular tactics of springing into action on the slightest provocation. Sometimes the grievances they are protesting are all in their heads but almost always profitable to them politically and finance wise.
The Chinese have this down as an art. One of their favorite mo is to marry their causes to a wider Asian American milieu. Wider and more conducive to easier sympathy when the unsuspecting pictures downtrodden boat people farmers/refugees, not the image generally associated with one of the most wealthy politically viable racial groups.
The poor peasants and third or fourth tierers in China may not have any original thoughts on the subject, but they are malleable dupes for those carpetbaggers.

September 22, 2005 @ 4:28 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.