Hillary Clinton displays astonishing lack of knowledge

[Lusankya]

This table, despite wikipedia's notoriety, indicates that Norway in 1913 and Denmark in 1915 beat Germany and Russian SFSR to female suffrage. If you only count independent nations, that might mean they beat Finland, but not New Zealand.

Also, as I gather, NZ suffrage banned women from being elected, making the traditional rule of "elect or be elected" not applicable.

Yeah. First complete suffrage was in South Australia in 1895 (though the first election where they got to vote was one year later). South Australia also gave aborigines unrestricted suffrage at the same time (as opposed to the partial suffrage granted in NZ), the aboriginal suffrage changed a few years later with federation, though I think they were allowed to remain in the electoral role if they were still on it.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Between this and Obama's spectactularly poor reception of Gordon Brown, the new administration is really tripping over itself to alienate Europe/ utilize the 'Three Stooges' school of International Affairs.

[TC Pilot]

So this is, what? The third or fourth time we've "reset" relations with Soviets/Russians in the last fifty years? Any bets on how long this one will last?

[Stuart Mackey]

Also, as I gather, NZ suffrage banned women from being elected, making the traditional rule of "elect or be elected" not applicable.

I think that it just wasn't included rather than banned, but Women gained the right to be elected to parliament in 1919 "Women's Parliamentary Rights Act "
Elizabeth Yates was elected mayor of the borough of Onehunga, in 1893, and was the first woman to hold the office of Mayor in the Empire.

[seanrobertson]

Between this and Obama's spectactularly poor reception of Gordon Brown, the new administration is really tripping over itself to alienate Europe/ utilize the 'Three Stooges' school of International Affairs.

Pardon me for the hijack, but what was so poor about the reception?

I gathered that Brown's wife brought the Obama children some rather thoughtful gifts, and Michelle "reciprocated" by offering the Brown boys a couple of $15 toy helicopters (which, as the source said, could be bought at the White House gift-shop).

That was pretty half-assed, but it's a relatively minor note in diplomatic terms. Did the President (or anyone associated therewith) do anything else to sully the Prime Minister's reception?

(Double-pardon me for asking this: after a brief search, I'm turning up zilch ... and between work and taking care of my father, my Internet time's ridiculously limited these days.)

[Wicked Pilot]

Still not sure here what qualified Hillary for the job to begin with. I don't recall her having any experience working at an embassy, having any education in international studies, fluency in any foreign language, or anything else that would make her better suited for the job than any other politician. Seriously Obama, seriously.

[Tanasinn]

I always assumed her appointment was twofold: to appease her fanbase and to keep her close to avoid her getting up to shenanigans. Doesn't explain her position, but...

[Erik von Nein]

The only thing I can think of is she and her daughter traveled the world for a little while during Bill Clinton's presidency. Other than that? I don't know. She studied law and represented New York.

It sounded (and still sounds like) a purely political appointment to me.

[Chris OFarrell]

Yeah right. What do we need to say for them to stop pretending nothing happened? "You armed Georgia and just recently they killed a bunch of our soldiers, do you realize we are not happy?"

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US just give them some light infantry weapons and thats about it? I remember some Hummers seen in theater, but they were shown to actually be US gear being used to train Georgian troops in COIN warfare for Iraq.

Its a *hell* of a difference from selling Iran S-300 systems. Its not like the US was equipping Georgia with patriots or M1's or something...

Course I could be wrong, I've found it hard to find out exactly what the level of US-Georgian cooperation is, most sources suggest they were just training some units as cannon fodder...err....valuable allies for Iraq.

And on topic, I think its clear that Hillary is NOT Bill, despite that assumption a lot of people had in the back of their minds...

[Sea Skimmer]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US just give them some light infantry weapons and thats about it? I remember some Hummers seen in theater, but they were shown to actually be US gear being used to train Georgian troops in COIN warfare for Iraq.

Well while Georgia used almost no US made weapons other then a few thousand M4 carbines, they did buy quite a few things from US Eastern European NATO allies with US financing. Independently also got some nice gifts from Ukraine which has far more armaments then it can afford to man.

Its a *hell* of a difference from selling Iran S-300 systems. Its not like the US was equipping Georgia with patriots or M1's or something...

One can only hope we will now, abet Patriot is a little unlikely since we’d have to give them about 600 million bucks to have a single battalion. Course one Patriot battalion is also more firing units then an S-300 regiment. We should also bury a nuclear reactor under a mountain for them. For peaceful production of radiological medical materials of course!

Course I could be wrong, I've found it hard to find out exactly what the level of US-Georgian cooperation is, most sources suggest they were just training some units as cannon fodder...err....valuable allies for Iraq.

Georgian troops guarded several US bases, and then latter the Green Zone in a static role, hardly cannon fodder role. They had five killed of which only three came from hostile fire, along with 19 wounded. Denmark, that huge bastion of foaming mouth pro American military awesomeness took heavier losses.

[Thanas]

Between this and Obama's spectactularly poor reception of Gordon Brown, the new administration is really tripping over itself to alienate Europe/ utilize the 'Three Stooges' school of International Affairs.

Pardon me for the hijack, but what was so poor about the reception?

I gathered that Brown's wife brought the Obama children some rather thoughtful gifts, and Michelle "reciprocated" by offering the Brown boys a couple of $15 toy helicopters (which, as the source said, could be bought at the White House gift-shop).

That was pretty half-assed, but it's a relatively minor note in diplomatic terms. Did the President (or anyone associated therewith) do anything else to sully the Prime Minister's reception?

Well, how about this - Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder made out of the planks of a ship that is about 150 years old and was used in the victorian anti-slave operations, and Obama gave Brown in return...15 DVDs.

So yeah. On the one hand you have the british PM gifting a priceless artifact with real meaning, on the other hand you have the best of WalMarts DVD selections. That is pretty bad, all things concidering.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Between this and Obama's spectactularly poor reception of Gordon Brown, the new administration is really tripping over itself to alienate Europe/ utilize the 'Three Stooges' school of International Affairs.

Pardon me for the hijack, but what was so poor about the reception?

I gathered that Brown's wife brought the Obama children some rather thoughtful gifts, and Michelle "reciprocated" by offering the Brown boys a couple of $15 toy helicopters (which, as the source said, could be bought at the White House gift-shop).

That was pretty half-assed, but it's a relatively minor note in diplomatic terms. Did the President (or anyone associated therewith) do anything else to sully the Prime Minister's reception?

Well, how about this - Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder made out of the planks of a ship that is about 150 years old and was used in the victorian anti-slave operations, and Obama gave Brown in return...15 DVDs.

So yeah. On the one hand you have the british PM gifting a priceless artifact with real meaning, on the other hand you have the best of WalMarts DVD selections. That is pretty bad, all things concidering.

Also the Prime Minister has usually been given a large joint press conference with the President. It usually would get fairly substantial coverage for a few days following the PM's visit it seems to me the extra coverage would be gratifying for any PM, and maybe even for the UK's citizens in general. President Obama opted for a shorter less formal (and consequently low news) mini conference.

The cynical part of me also thinks any British politician would relish the opportunity to receive questions from a pool where tenacious BBC reporters are a small speck in a sea of fairly bland cable talking heads.

On Tuesday, Feb.3, the two leaders, Prime Minister Brown and President Obama met in the Oval Office with a pooled spray, rather than the usual full court press conferences that the current and previous British Prime Minister had expected and once enjoyed under the previous US presidency.

Link

I've seen tin-foil hat type speculation that the "downgrading" of the PM's press conference represents a "downgrading" of the special-relationship. I think it's just a protocol officer flubbing something. It was also reported that President Obama was meeting Boy Scouts the same afternoon.

...snip
While the Prime Minister is expected to hold nearly two hours of talks with the US president, the White House has categorically ruled out a traditional joint press conference before the White House media. After overnight protests from British diplomats, the White House agreed to allow journalists into the Oval Office later for a brief round of questions after the talks.

Gordon Brown’s officials have played down the significance of the decision and deny the Prime Minister is being snubbed. However, the move will distinctly lessen the prestige of the PM’s coup of becoming the first European leader invited to Washington for talks with Obama since his inauguration in January.

That Obama will find time to meet with the Boy Scouts of America later this afternoon is sure to add to the embarrassment.

The trip is in marked contrast to the hospitality lavished on Tony Blair by George Bush when they met for the first time.

Link I haven't seen much about that from US news sources, and I haven't seen any links to the President's schedule, so take that with a grain of salt.

[Sea Skimmer]

Also the Prime Minister has usually been given a large joint press conference with the President. It usually would get fairly substantial coverage for a few days following the PM's visit it seems to me the extra coverage would be gratifying for any PM, and maybe even for the UK's citizens in general. President Obama opted for a shorter less formal (and consequently low news) mini conference.

The other big snub was seen as the failure to host formal state dinner, which is normally held for any visiting head of state, let alone the US’s closest ally. Some people have speculated that Obama just didn’t care much for Brown on the expectation that he wont be in office much longer, but I don’t buy that for an instant. Its pretty clear that Obama’s staff just totally dropped the ball, which is no surprise since very few of them have any previous experience in the matter.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Would the reception be the sort of thing that the Department of State is responsible? Or White House staff folks? I mean from the planning side of things.

[Lonestar]

Yeah. First complete suffrage was in South Australia in 1895 (though the first election where they got to vote was one year later). South Australia also gave aborigines unrestricted suffrage at the same time (as opposed to the partial suffrage granted in NZ), the aboriginal suffrage changed a few years later with federation, though I think they were allowed to remain in the electoral role if they were still on it.

If we're going by localities than the Wyoming Territory has South Australia beat(1869).

[Lusankya]

If we're going by localities than the Wyoming Territory has South Australia beat(1869).

Australia wasn't a country at that time.

[Lonestar]

Australia wasn't a country at that time.

Neither was Wyoming, which is why I mentioned it after you mentioned Australia.

[Lusankya]

Australia wasn't a country at that time.

Neither was Wyoming, which is why I mentioned it after you mentioned Australia.

... South Australia was as much a country at the time as New Zealand. It may currently be a state, but at the time it was an independent colony of Britain.

[Norseman]

Probably some other European republic, certainly not USA, Britain, Greece or other nations that take lots of vain pride in their "tradition". Actually, it's France.

Universal Suffrage so yes we have New Zealand and a tiny European republic as the first. If you count real countries, so to speak, then Finland was first. In 1913 Norway was the first independent country to give women full rights, e.g. right to vote and stand for office. So various monarchies and parts of the Russian Empire were the first to have universal suffrage (men and women)! Amusing.

EDIT: I should add that in Norway middle-class women could vote already in 1909, while all women could vote for municipal elections from 1910 onwards. In 1913 the Storting unanimously granted suffrage to all women. I don't think that it's a coincidence that this occurred after the dissolution of the union with Sweden, Norwegians have a reputation for radicalism.

[TC Pilot]

To be fair, I don't see how ranking when a country implemented universal suffrage is in anyway relevant to when a democracy really existed in a state. The existence of mass-participatory and representative government is what really matters for a modern democracy, not which arbitrary percentage of the population is enfranchised to vote.

In that respect, Europe and the United States implemented it fairly simultaneously, albiet the inspiration for such a thing is entirely European in origin.

[Broomstick]

Seriously, WTF? What, did she never have any history classes at all?

Believe it or not, throughout all my years of schooling, through the receipt of my college degree, I had not one class in European history. Not one. This is typical of American schools. What little such history I did get was in French language class and of course had a distinctly French bias. Everything else I know of European history I learned outside of the classroom. I can not emphasize enough that the average American barely reads, much less reads history.

A veteran politician, Clinton compared the complex European political environment to that of the two-party U.S. system, before adding:

"I have never understood multiparty democracy.

"It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy,

I find this more daming. After all it implies she doesn't understand the concept of multiparty democracy. While a politician can get by (barely) with poor historical knowledge, not knowing about how the main alternative to the US two party state is... well, stupid. It shows a profound lack of looking at alternatives and simply assuming that the US has the best model.

When are Americans ever taught about the parliamentarian system of government? The only mention of it I can recall is a brief word or two about "it's not like our Congress" and on to something else. Americans are barely taught how our own system of government works, and that only because it is legally required. Naturalized citizens are required to know about how our government works and our history than are people born and raised here going through the public school system.

[Beowulf]

Would the reception be the sort of thing that the Department of State is responsible? Or White House staff folks? I mean from the planning side of things.

It would be White House staff that's responsible. Unfortunately, all the ones from the Bush Administration got sacked, and the replacements apparently are clueless. Seems to be a pattern.

[Thunderfire]

Believe it or not, throughout all my years of schooling, through the receipt of my college degree, I had not one class in European history. Not one.

Not even ancient history? No roman , greek or egyptian history?

[ray245]

Hell, even in Singapore, we only cover modern European history. That's if you choose to take the History elective when you are in upper Secondary School.

We only learned about Ancient Asia history briefly when we are in lower Secondary.

[Thanas]

Would the reception be the sort of thing that the Department of State is responsible? Or White House staff folks? I mean from the planning side of things.

It would be White House staff that's responsible. Unfortunately, all the ones from the Bush Administration got sacked, and the replacements apparently are clueless. Seems to be a pattern.

Actually, I would disagree with that. Remember the first years of the chimp, where he barely knew how to pronounce, much less spell, important foreigners?

So yeah, that is a huge improvement compared to Bush.