del7,

Here again relativism is a key component. Freedom of expression is paramount, however the arena in which you engage others inevitably places intellectual boundaries to the nature of your rethoric without restricting your argument. If you're a journalist (however opinionated) reporting on a presidential campaign, language and metaphorical references will be perceived in the context of a respectful level of discourse. That is, unless you are a comedian, a partisan pundit or an insensitive talk show host, none of which would be an accurate description of Keith Olbermann.

I would respectfully dispute your train of thought and define it as flawed.

Circumstances do matter.

Posted at April 25, 2008 10:16 PM in response to Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Crack About Hillary

I find the responses to this thread lacking in decency a bit. This is not about politics at all.

It is a simple case of relativism. A metaphor can either appear innocent to some and truly offensive to others. Unless you have a prior life experience that exacerbates a certain set of connotations on metaphorical references, one cannot understand the implications.

Domestic violence, sexual assault, physical abuse are tragically part of many people's lives, overwhelmingly women and in that regard, we should all understand that a phrase such as "a woman being taken into a room by a man to not come back out" can have chilling connotations to many.

It is just a matter of being sensitive to the difficult physical, emotional and psychological experiences other people may have been subjected to. No misplaced grandstanding there. That's what the reaction to such stereotypically misogynistic language ought to be about.

Posted at April 25, 2008 9:02 PM in response to Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Crack About Hillary

All names were on theThe Florida ballot

Posted at April 23, 2008 5:01 PM in response to The Speech Obama Can't Give

Bill,

no worries, I am an analytic type and I try to write with fairness in mind. Glad the reply interested you.

Posted at April 2, 2008 11:56 AM in response to Obama Overseas

Bill,

Your enthusiasm for Senator Obama is respectable, legitimate and not the least, warranted by the immense qualities he possesses both as a human being and a politician. However I also believe that it prevented you from capturing a far more diverse political reality of Europe’s relationship towards America than you have outlined.

Your analysis strikes me, a French national who’s been a permanent resident of the US for two decades, as somewhat too simplistic in its generalization. Let me explain if you don’t mind.

Perception of America and its policies varies greatly depending upon which geographical part of Europe one decided to analyze. Although public opinion in Western Europe has had a very difficult time accepting the attitude and the policies of the Bush administration, new European countries born out of the shattering of the Eastern bloc do not necessarily harbor the same resentment and disdain.

Undermining Russia’s influence and power in the region has been a constant political motivation of the Bush White House. The unequivocal haste this administration has demonstrated in advocating the expansion of the EU to new members as well as its rush to support the expansion to NATO to countries that have only recently declared their independence has given these same countries a much more favorable view of the US. It also has influenced these new countries to take a more supportive stance to the American invasion of Iraq (with the help of that dangling carrot known as “economic support”).

It is also important to understand that in some of these recently created countries, ethnic tensions and rivalries have exploded with dire consequences, not the least of them being racial tensions due to intense nationalistic sentiments that are not the best example of democratic racial tolerance. Couple matters such as these with economic realities that make these countries highly dependant on foreign financial assistance (US being an major player amongst them) and you will understand why the overly positive attitude you attribute to European countries toward Senator Obama’s candidacy is not as widespread as you may want to believe. In certains confines of eastern European countries, homophobia, racism and ignorant bigotry towards minorities is unfortunately quite rampant.

As far as Western Europe is concerned, it is much more nuanced and while there is indeed a certain fascination for the excitement that Barack Obama has generated with American voters, if you follow European politics closely you will discover that most of the enthusiastic support he enjoys comes from liberal progressives. Whether they are Social-Democrats (Germany, Italy), Socialists (Spain, France) or Labor (England). In that regard, it would appear misleading to state that Senator Clinton does not enjoy a more favorable public opinion than she seems to face at home.

It is also important to note that people that are politically to the right of center are not as favorable to the Democratic candidates positions ideologically. They are desperately trying to alter the strong social fabric many Western European countries enjoy in favor of far more deregulated free market principles. The fact that America may move towards a stronger social agenda (greater governmental financial market regulation and oversight, universal health care, etc.) runs quite contrary to their agenda. The mere fact that the bastion of capitalism that America has always represented may move towards a more progressive agenda would highlight a rather inconvenient reality.

A greater in-depth study would reveal even more nuanced positions all across Europe, but I’ll refrain from pretending I can expose of them all.

In short, my conclusion is that while your analysis is indeed valid, it is not as overwhelmingly widespread as you seemed to indicate.

Cheers to all.

Posted at April 2, 2008 2:59 AM in response to Obama Overseas

Another Link

Posted at March 31, 2008 5:24 PM in response to test

If one wishes to briefly analyze how the US primary elections are viewed in France, it is important to remember how the two countries compare politically and ideologically. France has a far more diverse political spectrum than the US. There are a number of different political parties from the far right to the far-left. The French far-right being close to what would be considered the homophobic fringe of the Republican Party here in America. The far-left advocating a French brand of communism and unwavering commitments to the distribution of wealth and the defense of the "proletariat" known here as the blue collar working class.

That being said the two dominant political ideologies in France are a mild center-right movement that advocates reforms towards a less regulated free market economy coupled with a slight reduction of social benefits and a still strong socialist movement that goes further left in its agenda than the Democrats ever do.

Aside from the widespread anti-war sentiment and the general dislike for George Bush and the policies he represents, the public opinion seems to remain somewhat neutral with a slight preference for a democratic administration to succeed.

This would appear to explain why John McCain is viewed with relative skepticism, however without the high negatives generally associated with the current administration.

The Clinton name does have some positive recognition in France for several reasons, one being Bill’s overall high ratings as a proponent of diplomacy, another being the positive US role that Europeans associate with the Balkans conflicts. One less politically motivated reason is that French people have never understood the motivation or even the validity of the magnitude of the Lewinsky scandal. They feel rather contemptuous towards such witch-hunts and therefore hold the Clinton name dear for that reason.

It is also important to note that depending on where the coverage comes from in the press, you will see a lot of fascination for the enthusiasm that Senator Obama generates, especially on the left, while the rest of the country seems far more preoccupied by its own social and economic issues whenever the spotlight is not on one of the captivating personal events that seem fill the life of the French President.

Cheers to all.

Posted at March 29, 2008 6:22 PM in response to The View from France

just testing the blog interface. the apple site was simply an url link test. a preview feature might be a nice addition.

Posted at March 29, 2008 4:16 PM in response to test

I also wanted to mention that Le Figaro is a right-leaning newspaper/online publication and that the cynical tone of their article had no other purpose than to depict Ségolène Royal's trip to the US as inconsequential.

Posted at March 12, 2008 2:46 AM in response to Meeting Ségolène Royal "would not be good for her image," said the advisor.

I believe you raise a set of issues that are politically related based on the context in which they occur. I will try to address them individually:

1- Domestic Political Environment

It seems undeniable that the nature of what is viewed as politically viable positions, even for Democrats has dramatically evolved ever since we have been under the governing ideology of the Bush administration. However what has not changed since the start of the Cold War is the stigma associated with anything remotely close to communist ideology. That, in my opinion is an overwhelming burden difficult to overcome for any liberal progressive candidate. This leads us to my second point.

2- Head of State vs. Candidates

It is substantially more delicate for a presidential candidate (declared or hopeful) to meet with influential individuals whose political affiliation could lead to intense scrutiny. As it is, the health care reform proposed by Senator Clinton is being called Socialist Medicine in highly critical terms. This, by any means, is hardly a bastion of socialist ideology. In a similar spirit, Barack Obama has been declared the most liberal US Senator. Here again and by any standard, the Senator from Illinois does not carry a revolutionary progressive agenda that would have the rest of the world believe he is not any less of a moderate than his opponent.
In such a context, one can imagine how meeting with a foreign politician whose social agenda is far more progressive than what we are willing to tolerate from our politicians would be received.

As a Head of State, such meetings are an entirely differently matter, they are part of foreign diplomacy and placed in a far more acceptable context, even when controversial. In the specific case you mention, although the only official meeting in Houston in 1990 that I can reference was between George H.W. Bush and Francois Mitterrand, and not Ronald Reagan, these were all Heads of State at an official summit. Indeed a very different setting from a literal and perceptive point of view.

3- Europe’s Social Democrats and Foreign Policy

You touched on this yourself. European Foreign Policy towards the Middle East has historically been vastly different than that of the United States. In trivial terms, pro-Arab sentiment, especially sympathy for the Palestinian cause runs much higher in Western Europe than it ever would in the US. These fundamental geopolitical and philosophical differences are not considered viable in the mainstream political environment of US foreign policy. Support of Israel is paramount and unwavering. Compound the naïve and relatively controversial comments Ségolène Royal had made about Middle East foreign policy with the differences mentioned above and one should understand why this issue alone made a meeting too politically hot and controversial to handle. Unfortunately, if that is how you view it, this will trump gender solidarity any time.

With this in mind, my belief is that it does not seem unconceivable that Senator Obama might have had second thoughts about meeting Ms Royal, depriving her of an elevating political opportunity. Just pay attention to the criticism his campaign is receiving for allegedly not being as fierce a supporter of Israel as the other candidates are. If his foreign policy advisers are being questioned as it is, imagine what it would have been after meeting with the head of the French Socialist Party whose concern for the Palestinian plight is voiced with a lot less restraint.

I can’t say that I was either surprised or disappointed for that matter by Hillary Clinton’s lack of a transcending gesture of support.

Principled ideology and intellectual integrity would have us believe that milestones such as women gaining acceptance as world leaders is a cause worth being supportive of and In the end Ms Royal did not get to meet with either Senator. The political landscape in this country would not have made it viable. That’s another topic entirely or maybe we’ve thoroughly digressed and that is in fact the issue you had initially raised.

Cheers.

Posted at March 12, 2008 2:38 AM in response to Meeting Ségolène Royal "would not be good for her image," said the advisor.