Have you given this story much thought? The reason I am asking you this is because this story doesn't make sense.

Now think about this; we have a politician who has scheduled a tour of the U.S., she has a meeting with the past secretary of the U.N., the current secretary of the U.N., a past president of the United States, at least one senator, Barack Obama, and we do not know who else. These tours take months to prepare, countless man hours of work, consulates have to be notified and have to prepare, the state department has to be notified, diplomatic passports issued, dinners planned, agendas to be decided upon, issues to be discussed settled and more details to be ironed out and figured into these tours than you can imagine. So what does Ms. Royal do? She cancels it because she can't secure a meeting with ONE senator. Does that not sound odd to you? Does it make sense to you that she would cancel meetings with important personages such as Kofi Annan and Ban ki Moon and Bill Clinton because Senator Clinton couldn't meet with her?

Then we have the date of this story - December 2006. Neither Clinton nor Obama had announced their candidacy for the office, so meeting with Ms. Royal would be like meeting with any other senator or representative in the U.S., shake hands, get the picture taken and move on to the next office. When she did visit the Kennedy School of Government in Feb. 2008, why didn't she meet with Senator Obama then? Do you think it might be because he wanted to distance himself from her and her failure to condemn Hizbollah in a timely manner? Do you think it might be because Obama was trying to distance himself from her politics, after all, he has written to the U.S.ambassador of the U.N. asking him to condemn Hamas and reiterating his complete and absolute support of Israel as well as his surrogates campaigning in synagogues explaining his loyalty to Israel. Is Obama triangulating in that case? Is he trying to avoid meeting Ms. Royal to position himself with voters? Do you suppose he avoided meeting with her because it wouldn't enhance his image to be seen with a "socialist and Hizbollah supporter"? Should we assume ulterior motives or think the worst about Senator Obama? Why wouldn't he meet with her in February of 2008? He could have offered her his support now as well as in 2006, couldn't he?

So then you claim that Clinton doesn't support female politicians, and how you arrived at that out of one story you found on the internet makes me wonder about your own ulterior motives for publishing this story. Have you heard of "Vital Voices" an organization she started with Albright which discovers, supports, promoted and finances female candidates for political office all over the world? Have you neglected to notice that she spent a good part of her life promoting and defending the rights of women and children? You condemn her for one story that you don't even know to be true because it quoted one "advisor" whom you don't even know exists.

You know, it isn't the misogyny or the sexism that I find most bothersome, it is the damned pettiness and complete lack of generosity from both campaigns that they can't allow themselves to give either candidate any credit for any accomplishment the candidate might have had and pin their disdain and contempt for the candidate on the most ridiculous, stupid and inconsequential allegations that have absolutely no meaning, no relevance and no importance at all. What is most depressing though, is that people will believe anything at all if it fits their perceptions, their prejudices and their biases about someone else.

Sarkozy reaped benefits from his trips to the US and photo-ops with conservatives. Hillary denied Segolene that opportunity. Barack Obama was willing to meet Segolene, showing support for the female French presidential candidate.

This post is rooted in pure ignorance of international politics. As a permanent resident French National, I can assure you that your support for one candidate blinds you to make an argument that is not based on any attempt in understanding the dynamic of foreign relations.

The underlying reasons for Senator Clinton not agreeing to a meeting with Segolene Royal is solely related to the political background of the French presidential hopeful candidate's statements, most notably on foreign policy. It would be politically impossible for any American presidential candidate to have a stance on Middle East that would mimic that of the European progressive left parties.

Another unavoidable fact is that Ms Royal is a highly ranked official in the French Socialist Party. A party that advocates levels of government intervention that are contrary to American free market principles. And last but not least, the French Socialist Party still has a long-standing alliance with far left parties such as the Communist Party. Anyone remotely familiar with American political history would know that it is unconceivable for mainstream politicians in this country to be in any way associated with anyone advocating anything resembling communist ideology.

A little research can go a long way in explaining the intricacies of meetings with foreign politicians.

No trace of misogyny in this story, simple political principles as usual. Not a very mature way to position an argument.

My intention was not to be offensive or condescending, however I will admit to having little tolerance for matters that appear to be devoid of any investigative qualities.

I did read the article, as you seem to doubt I did, still, I am unsure about the veracity of the evidence mentioned about scheduled meetings between Segolene Royal and Barack Obama. There were none I could find. I generally like Jack Lang from his time as the Minister of Culture under Francois Mitterrand’s presidency, however I would take his assertions with a grain of salt. It is also important to realize that at the time, Segolene Royal was still a leading candidate in the French Presidential Election and making her look presidential by creating high profile meeting with foreign dignitaries of high moral standing was part of the PR game.

That being said, It is also important to understand that in the Winter of 2006, Senator Obama had not officially announced his desire to seek the Democratic Presidential Nomination and a meeting with Ms Royal would not have been given the same significance as it would should Mr. Obama had declared his intentions.

Nevertheless, it appears generally clear that a meeting between any American presidential hopeful and a high ranking member of the French socialist party, whether it be Clinton or Obama, would present real political difficulties and be subjected to criticism by the conservative forces. Unlikely that Mr. Obama would expose himself to such likely scrutiny at any time during his campaign.

If you can read French, this is an article that implies no meeting were ever scheduled or agreed upon by the Obama campaign in a recent trip to the to MIT in Cambridge, MA by Ms Royal (an indication that seem to give credence to my explanations):
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2008/02/08/01002-20080208ARTFIG00403-royal-fait-sesclassesa-harvard-et-s-attaque-au-ps-.php

Also interesting to read brief comments (in English) about Segolene Royal attending an Obama rally:
http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/02/spin.html

Please know that there are no personal animosity or disrespect on any of my comments, I simply rely in critical thinking and investigative qualities, unfortunately your post did not seem to have engaged in enough of either. Your conclusions appeared overly simplistic and that is what I reacted to.

Now to place things in a different perspective, I voted for Ms Royal, even though I find her deeply flawed in many respects, which would indicate that my political beliefs are very much in agreement with what would be described in this country as Liberal Progressive.

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.