Hillary Clinton displays astonishing lack of knowledge

[Thanas]

...about European history.

Reuters.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state when she mispronounced her EU counterparts' names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe's.

Clinton has set herself a grueling pace on visits to Egypt, Israel and Brussels soon after touring the Far East, attending dozens of meetings and giving speech after speech, with little time worked into her schedule for sleep.

Tiredness appeared to show Friday when she answered questions in front of 500 young Europeans at the European Parliament, where she was the highest-ranking U.S. visitor since the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

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, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy."

The remark provoked much headshaking in the parliament of a bloc that likes to trace back its democratic tradition thousands of years to the days of classical Greece.

One working lunch later with EU leaders, Clinton raised more eyebrows when she referred to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who stood beside her, as "High Representative Solano."

She also dubbed European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito."

Still, Clinton has been well received in Brussels, where the Obama administration has been viewed as a breath of fresh air after the unpopular leadership of George W. Bush. His secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, often drew protests on her travels.

Fellow foreign ministers stood and applauded Clinton's presentation at a meeting with NATO counterparts Thursday and extra space had to be set aside for a spillover audience of 800 at the European Parliament.

Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering was effusive in his praise, saying that with the new administration, the United States and Europe once again "share the same values."

"What you said mostly could have been said by a European," he told Clinton after she fielded questions ranging from climate change to energy security and aid to Africa and one on gay rights from a participant wearing an "I love Hillary" t-shirt.

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

In case anyone tries to wiggle out of this and say "clearly she is talking about modern democracy", the Netherlands were a republic long before the USA and let's not forget Great Britain etc.


EDIT: Of course, calling a female by the male version of her name and calling Solana Solano is also quite bad, but that may just be a simple mix up.

[MKSheppard]

We sure dodged a bullet there, hun?

[Tanasinn]

Christ, that's embarassing by any standard.

[Darth Wong]

That is typical of Americans. Just last night on the Colbert Report, his guest boasted that America invented the idea of power flowing from the people rather than an aristocracy, and hence all of modern democracy being an essentially American gift to the world.

They teach this "America invented modern democracy" bullshit all the time in the US. You're considered a history geek if you're part of the small class that knows this is not true.

[Samuel]

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.

That is typical of Americans. Just last night on the Colbert Report, his guest boasted that America invented the idea of power flowing from the people rather than an aristocracy, and hence all of modern democracy being an essentially American gift to the world.

They teach this "America invented modern democracy" bullshit all the time in the US. You're considered a history geek if you're part of the small class that knows this is not true.

Which is hilarious because we had property requirements to vote until the 1830s. And didn't let non-whites consistently vote until 1870s/1960s.

[Terralthra]

That is typical of Americans. Just last night on the Colbert Report, his guest boasted that America invented the idea of power flowing from the people rather than an aristocracy, and hence all of modern democracy being an essentially American gift to the world.

They teach this "America invented modern democracy" bullshit all the time in the US. You're considered a history geek if you're part of the small class that knows this is not true.

Which is hilarious because we had property requirements to vote until the 1830s. And didn't let non-whites consistently vote until 1870s/1960s.

Since most of the democracies in Antiquity had similar requirements, I'm curious: what country or state has the first acknowledged universal adult suffrage? I know it isn't the US, but I know it isn't some of the other answers frequently given (Ancient Greece, for example).

[K. A. Pital]

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.

[Ryan Thunder]

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.

Isn't that the textbook definition of a conservative, too?

[Darth Wong]

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.

Isn't that the textbook definition of a conservative, too?

More like a typical American. The Americans on this forum are far from the norm; most Americans know nothing about the outside world except for whatever parts of it they're currently bombing.

[MKSheppard]

most Americans know nothing about the outside world except for whatever parts of it they're currently bombing.

Is that such a bad thing though?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Since most of the democracies in Antiquity had similar requirements, I'm curious: what country or state has the first acknowledged universal adult suffrage? I know it isn't the US, but I know it isn't some of the other answers frequently given (Ancient Greece, for example).

It's actually a more complex question than you'd think because it was adopted in stages, and in the USA varied by the state in question. Many of the United States had universal adult white male suffrage in the 1820s and '30s. France had universal male suffrage in 1792, for exactly one election during the Revolution, and then got it again in 1848. I think New Zealand was the first to give women the vote, in the late 19th century. Overall it's fairly clear that France originated the idea of universal suffrage, and its extension to women and other marginalized groups was just waiting on society to advance to the point that their equality to men became recognized.

Being ignorant and contemptuous of other countries' and their political systems is a strong tradition in America. Since we've only ever had a two-party system, a lot of people don't understand multi-party systems, even if many of them actually work better than ours (here's looking at you, Germany). Personally, I find them interesting, and my favorite is obviously Italy.

Is that such a bad thing though?

If more Americans had been aware of things about the world, they wouldn't have voted for Bush twice!

[General Zod]

Hillary mispronouncing foreign officials names? Gee, where have we heard her do that before? Oh yeah. . .

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

To be fair, you really can't consider Great Britain's parliamentarian workings real democracy (defined here as universal adult male suffrage) since it was more or less just a forum of the landholders. Did Republucanism exist in Europe before it did in America? Yeah, sure. But the Doges and Stadtholders certainly weren't elected in the way we understand it in a modern sense.

Though, of course, this is ignoring Athenian democracy, but, uh look over there.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The early American Republic didn't elect officials in the same way we do today, either. It wasn't terribly "Democratic" compared to today's standards. Senators were chosen by the state legislature, and there were limitations on the vote for other positions, as well. Real adult male suffrage didn't really begin until the Jacksonian Era and beyond.

The real "difference" in the American version was in the style of ideals. It promoted a relatively radical application of Enlightenment libertarian values and economic values. Americanism iterated intentional government gridlock, a gospel of the agrarian voter as the virtuous citizen, and decentralized federal structure.

But it's true that the idea that Americans created the idea of Democracy or representative government before Europe is silly.


Edit: the American Federal or main legislative body was also a great deal weaker and less effective in the scope of things it could do relative to the main legislative bodies in other countries. They had a type of government-phobia.

[Patrick Degan]

This is actually an appalling degree of ignorance Hillary Clinton is so freely admitting to before a foreign audience. Even if you don't understand multiparty democracy or nitpick the definition of free democratic government as understood in the timeframe since the American experience, surely it would have been more prudent to have said as little as possible on the matter so as to not commit such a public faux-pas before people you're trying to convince as to your credibility to represent the United States on the diplomatic stage. You know those in governmental and diplomatic salons across the Continent are going to be scratching their heads over this one —not only for her lack of knowledge of politics outside that of the American model but also of the necessary art of covering one's own ass. If for nothing else, she surely should have known how embarrassing this could be for the Obama administration and how the comedians and the GOP mouthpieces would pounce on her for it.

And this is supposed to be one of the smartest women in America?

My estimation of Hillary Clinton certainly lowered watching her performance on the campaign trail, and this has done nothing to revise it upward.

[Terralthra]

To be fair, you really can't consider Great Britain's parliamentarian workings real democracy (defined here as universal adult male suffrage) since it was more or less just a forum of the landholders. Did Republucanism exist in Europe before it did in America? Yeah, sure. But the Doges and Stadtholders certainly weren't elected in the way we understand it in a modern sense.

Though, of course, this is ignoring Athenian democracy, but, uh look over there.

Well, when I asked about it, I just said universal adult suffrage, I'm not sure where "male" snuck in there. Athenian democracy wasn't even close to universal adult male suffrage. Only adult male citizens (that is, descended from a citizen family; later on both sides of the family) who had done the equivalent of enlisting in the army could vote. The wikipedia page lists the population of Athens as being between 250,000 and 300,000 and the population with suffrage as approximately 10% of that, 30,000.

[ray245]

Which reminds me, other than trying to shape his administration as a party of rivals and to please the Hardcore Hillary supporters, is there any other sensible reason for Obama to appoint Clinton as head of foreign relations?

[General Zod]

Which reminds me, other than trying to shape his administration as a party of rivals and to please the Hardcore Hillary supporters, is there any other sensible reason for Obama to appoint Clinton as head of foreign relations?

Because otherwise she'd be in the Senate, which means she'd be in the position to actively fuck over a number of Obama's policies. This way she has no choice but to smile and nod and do what she's told. Unfortunately her popularity meant that anything but a high level cabinet post was rather out of the question.

[ray245]

Which reminds me, other than trying to shape his administration as a party of rivals and to please the Hardcore Hillary supporters, is there any other sensible reason for Obama to appoint Clinton as head of foreign relations?

Because otherwise she'd be in the Senate, which means she'd be in the position to actively fuck over a number of Obama's policies. This way she has no choice but to smile and nod and do what she's told. Unfortunately her popularity meant that anything but a high level cabinet post was rather out of the question.

Oh well, at the least she's not the President of the US.

[Tiriol]

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.

If I remember it correctly, the first one to acknowledge universal sufferage was actually New Zealand. I think that in Europe, it was France, as you said; the other possibility being Finland (although I'm not sure if that counts, since Finland was an autonomous state within the Russian Empire when the women received the right to vote).

[Thanas]

That is typical of Americans. Just last night on the Colbert Report, his guest boasted that America invented the idea of power flowing from the people rather than an aristocracy, and hence all of modern democracy being an essentially American gift to the world.

They teach this "America invented modern democracy" bullshit all the time in the US. You're considered a history geek if you're part of the small class that knows this is not true.

Rosseau is crying in his grave.

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.

If I remember it correctly, the first one to acknowledge universal sufferage was actually New Zealand. I think that in Europe, it was France, as you said; the other possibility being Finland (although I'm not sure if that counts, since Finland was an autonomous state within the Russian Empire when the women received the right to vote).

This is all partially correct. Universal male suffrage was first established in France. As was universal female suffrage (in Corsica, actually in 1755, but quickly rescinded a mere 14 years later). New Zealand was the first to establish universal suffrage overall, whereas Finland (if you count it) was the first European country to do so.

If you do not count Finland, it would be the Weimar Republic of Germany, who extended universal suffrage in 1918 to all its citizens, quickly followed by Bulgaria, Belgium etc.

[Edi]

NZ had first universal suffrage, in 1902. Finland was second in 1906 (as the autonomous Grand Duchy that was part of Russia) and I don't know who came after that. In Australia, some territories had female suffrage as early as 1893, but they were slower in making it universal than NZ and Finland. We kept the universal suffrage when we became independent in 1917, so we still get to predate Weimar Germany in that regard.

[K. A. Pital]

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.

[fgalkin]

More of Hillary's amasing diplomacy skillz!

GENEVA, Switzerland (CNN) -- The Obama administration has been talking about "pressing the reset button" with Russia after relations "crashed" when Russia invaded Georgia last August.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday before sitting down to their working dinner, she presented him a small green box with a ribbon. Inside was a red button with the Russian word "peregruzka" printed on it.

"I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together.'"

Clinton, laughing, added, "We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" she asked Lavrov.

"You got it wrong," Lavrov said." Both diplomats laughed. "It should be "perezagruzka" (the Russian word for reset,) Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"

The question came up at the news conference afterward.

"In a way, the word that's on the button turns out to be also true," Clinton said. "We are resetting, and because we are resetting, the minister and I have an overload of work."

Asked by a Russian reporter whether he had pressed the button, Lavrov said that he and Clinton did, indeed.

"It is big and red and I hope that Russia and the United States, and other countries will never press on another button which used to be associated with a destructive war," he said.

The "overload," Clinton said, is a broad agenda of issues.

"We are going to systematically go through each and every one of them," she added.

Clinton said the two sides will get to work on re-negotiating a follow-up to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and nonproliferation. On other issues like Afghanistan, the Middle East and Iran, Clinton said, "We will work through them."

On issues where there is disagreement, Clinton said, "We are keeping those on the list because, we think through closer cooperation and building trust in each other, we can even tackle some of those differences."

Lavrov agreed the burden of the agenda for the two countries is "enormous," but added: "I don't think either Hillary or I have any desire to be freed from any burden."

Clinton called the encounter "a very productive meeting of the minds." She said both Lavrov and she are "very practical-minded" and will create a "specific set of objectives and responsibilities" to present to presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev before the leaders' first face-to-face meeting in April at the G-20 meeting in London.

On the START treaty, she said Russia and the United States intend to have an agreement by the end of this year when the treaty expires and are "going to get to work immediately" on it.

Lavrov was asked about Russian intentions to install S-300 missiles in Iran. He said the decision "will be made exclusively on the basis of law in accordance with Russian law, and will be under expert control, which is one of the strictest in the world and of course in accordance with international agreements." Lavrov said the weapons Russia provides to its partners are "nondestabilizing, defensive weapons."

In an apparent reference to U.S. military supplies to Georgia, Lavrov said, "We want our partners to act the same way and show restraint in military supplies to those countries where, including very recently, those weapons have been used very close to our borders."

Senior U.S. officials who briefed reporters afterward, however, said they had not read Georgia into the minister's comments.

They said the discussion ranged broadly over a number of areas and "we now have a very substantive work agenda that they just outlined."

"It would have been easier and in a first meeting almost natural to be much more general but in this case it was very focused and very productive in laying out steps," one official said.

On the proposed missile defense system the United States is considering installing in Poland and the Czech Republic, one official said, "Minister Lavrov made it clear he had listened quite attentively to Secretary Clinton's comments about missile defense ... and I think it's got them thinking."

linky

Using cheap online translators is bad, mmkay?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[K. A. Pital]

Ouch...

Lavrov was asked about Russian intentions to install S-300 missiles in Iran. He said the decision "will be made exclusively on the basis of law in accordance with Russian law, and will be under expert control, which is one of the strictest in the world and of course in accordance with international agreements." Lavrov said the weapons Russia provides to its partners are "nondestabilizing, defensive weapons."

In an apparent reference to U.S. military supplies to Georgia, Lavrov said, "We want our partners to act the same way and show restraint in military supplies to those countries where, including very recently, those weapons have been used very close to our borders."

Niiice.

Senior U.S. officials who briefed reporters afterward, however, said they had not read Georgia into the minister's comments.

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?"