They're just mad because Chavez said President Obama "seems much more intelligent than the last U.S. President". No kidding. My cat seems much more intelligent than the last President. Or a pet rock, or dirt, or ...

How many world leaders had to weather grief from critics at home for shaking hands with the last Republican President?

...elected U.S. officials refrained from attacking the legitimate U.S. presidents while they represented the country overseas.

Fixed on edit.

There's one clear predicate that you can easily derive by tracking back through all the GOP pissing-and-moaning, regardless of what it's about:

The present government is an illegitimate government.

They were serious about that 'permanent GOP majority' stuff. And not all that serious about the 'majority', either -- push comes to scratch, they don't need a majority, they have the Mandate of Heaven.

Scratch a Republican, find a monarchist.

By what immutable law of the universe is Chavez an "odious figure," and is it really necessary to bow to right-wing prejudice on a progressive blog just to make a point about a stupid Republican senator?

Behind all these manufactured outrages is an effort to raise general suspicion and tear down trust. Something in all the attacks is going to resonate, and thus open the mind to the possibility that other claims just might -- or must -- also be true.

It's a "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

What keeps manufactured outrage from backfiring is that the press treats them with credibility.

President Obama probably didn't mean any harm, but this is another in a string of recent events that blurs the edges of his patriotism. He's a sharp guy, so he'll probably soon figure out which foreign leaders he can and can't talk to. If he doesn't, we'll see the results at the midterms.

I'm really sick of the people directly responsible for ruining our country socially and economically, as well as continual deniers of reality, fact and truth getting to have a soapbox to tell us what pisses them off about the rest of us trying to fix it and deal with reality. I'm sick of watching 25% of the populace drive our country all the way off the cliff, in hopes of proving that they really didn't drive us off the road in the first place. One winger I know told me recently its "time to start challenging everything we know as the truth" because "the stakes have been raised". And you can bet he had NO specifics as to what any of this meant... I told him I would listen to his specifics, not his instructions as to what to do when I heard them. It is to weep.

Wingnuts have distilled modern conservatism to 3 simple tenets: Fear, superstition and anger.
Anything else is mere justification for one of the 3.

By undermining the authority of the Commander-in-Chief while he is abroad, negotiating with dangerous dictators, John Ensign is placing the security of the United States at risk.

John Ensign is a traitor.

He needs to watch what he says, especially in a time of war.

Etc., and so on.

Why not fight fire with fire for a little while?

Is Chavez really worse than the Saudi rulers? For the sake of national security, aren't US presidents supposed to be nice to those who can provide us with oil?

now i have not paid attention to every last detail since chavez was elected president of venzuela but his transformation into "enemy of america" has looked to me to be manufactured almost completely by rightwing american nutjobs.

sure, in addition to objecting to the CIA interfering in his country, chavez has other points of disagreement with the united states, but since when did that make someone an enemy?

it's no surprise that most people in this country don't pay attention to politics -- it really is enough to drive a sane person right around the bend.

It appeared to me that Hugo Chavez was doing his best to suck up to President Obama, not the other way around.

What surprises me is that Sen. Ensign and the Republicans don't see it that way. After all, they've spent the last eight years doing so much brownnosing a president, you'd think they'd recognize it.

They hate Hugo Chavez because he called Bush the Devil and most of the countries of the world agreed. The Republicans don't do well without boogymen. Heaven forbid we should actually get along and have diplomatic relations with people in this hemisphere , striving for a common good . Nah better to have them all hate us and afraid of us.

In her speech in Indiana this week, Palin talked about using oil revenues in Alaska to make state income taxes unnecessary. Tom Delay also talked about how the state of Texas "owns" the oil there. Yet isn't it this precise kind of nationalization of minerals that gets Chavez defined as an evil-doer?

I'll ask the same question that a couple of others have asked: What exactly has Chavez done to make him a brutal dictator or even odious? I'm not defending him, but I really don't know what he has done. Enlighten me please.

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

Anybody remember Bush holding hands in Crawford.

I don't think the comparison w/ Reagan and Gorbachev is appropriate here (not that I mean to stick up for Reagan) - Gorbachev, when he became Gen. Secy was part of a new generation of very young members of the Politburo, and had a reputation for reform and moderation. These he of course began to implement once in power (perestroika and glasnost). So for Reagan to meet with Gorbachev is not comparable to meeting with someone like Chavez who lacks that reputation and conviction - and seems to be a pretty tyrannical and nasty guy. Nixon meeting with Mao in 1972 is much more appropriate a comparison.

Republicans no longer believe in anything except bitching about Democrats. Anything a Democrat does, Republicans will Bitch about. That's why they're not in power, because they have nothing to offer except complaints. They define their value within the party based on how much they complain, so it doesn't matter what they're complaining about, just as long as they're complaining.

All the Wingnuts know about Chavez is that Bush and Cheney made him to be this hemisphere's boogeyman. That's enough for them. Otherwise, they wouldn't know Hugo Chavez from Cesar Chavez. (Even that is giving them too much credit for name recognition.)

Republicans: Proudly Ignorant.

The thing is, I don't think Chavez WAS particularly anti-American before we tried to overthrow his government and probably kill him.

Oh, excuse me, meant to say, before his country's wealthy elite tried to overthrow his government within weeks of meeting in the US with members of the Bush administration. And then with the coup ongoing, high-ranking members of the Bush administration just about twisted their ankles in the rush to get to the news cameras and welcome and legitimize the 'new government' that was in the process of trying to overthrow him.

Stuff like that can make a guy develop a grudge.

I am originally from Latin America, and if there is a Latin American tradition, is that of ruthless dictators supported by US governments (especially republicans). Batista, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Galtieri in Argentina before Falkland, Pinochet and more come quickly to mind. What ENsing said is so full of hypocrisy that it is almost embarrasing

As for the tradition about not attacking the President or etc., we all know (and more and more of the general public) realize that Republi/cons use these "principles" only as it suits their tactical needs, specifically in terms of which Party is in power. That doesn't stop them from not only plying double standards as SOP, but loudly breast-beating about how "principled" they are anyway.

Did Senator Ensign miss that big event we had in November, when the people had a chance to vote on whether we wanted our President meeting with odious world leaders, instead of snubbing and insulting them?

As I recall, the GOP made quite a bit of noise about this very issue. Obama was very clear in advance that he would do, and we voted him into office. We're OK with him talking to guys we don't like -it's what grown-ups do.

Ensign really should try to keep up with the news better.

human rights violations are very, very prevalent in Venezuela

Listening to pro-torture Republicans who want to rescind the Magna Carta talk about "human rights violations" in other countries is probably the funniest thing anyone's ever heard.

Is Chavez really worse than the Saudi rulers?

No, obviously not. Even Cuba is better than our quasi-theocratic ally.

Chavez is a democratically-elected head of state. Why is he being referred to as a dictator? Is it too much to ask that such things be corrected when they occur?

For instance, when someone says "tax cuts work" or "we've won in Iraq" it'd be very nice if someone asked for an example in support of the statement.

a tradition in which elected U.S. officials refrained from attacking Republican presidents while they represented the country overseas.
==================
Fixed.

I'm glad to not be the first one to ask the question: by which standards is Chavez an odious figure? If you can find any relevant, non-crazy source for that claim, I'd love to see it. Just because the USA media say he's a villain, that doesn't make him so. Generally, reporting on Latin American affairs is just plain atrocious, and on Venezuela, it is aggressively ignorant.

You wrote...
"To be sure, Chavez is an odious figure. ..."

I wish you could provide some believable links to info that supports this broad condemnation.

Two points. (1) It's a manufactured outrage, but this one is getting more sympathetic play in the media beyond Fox, I fear. It's the lead right now on the NY Daily News online. (2) As another sign of phoniness, the photo with the news article, while captioned about their joking together, shows them separated by seven other world leaders.

It's what they ALWAYS do when a dem is in the WH, try and portray him as weak, soft and not adequately tough enough to protect the country.

Although one thing to keep in mind if/when there is another terrorist attack they will be the first ones screaming that Obama cannot protect us, they'll be calling for his head, for his impeachment. Considering how everyone in this country came together after 9/11 it will be interesting how the public will react to them.

Let's be perfectly honest here. Chavez does not consider the United States his enemy. He considered the Bush-led United States his enemy. Like most of the rest of the world, he is willing to reconsider this opinion now that we have come to our senses and elected a legitimate leader. Bush did more to damage our reputation abroad than any president in our history. The only thing for which we can be thankful is that he was more inept than Nixon's crew who murdered Allende and ushered in the grotesque Pinochet.

Why is Chavez odious? Are you required, as an American citizen, I presume, to insert this USA centric opinion in any public statement spilling forth from the land of exceptionalism?

If his name was Angela instead of Hugo, it would have been fine to give him a nice massage.

Steve, I am growing quite tired of your habit of agreeing with one wingnut lie as a prelude to batting down another wingnut lie. Chavez odious? Give me a break.

Chavez is not now, nor has he ever been, "anti American". He has always been quite clear that he is instead *anti Bush*.

Steve, stop buying into wingnut frames. It undermines your entire argument, not to mention your credibility.

Although one thing to keep in mind if/when there is another terrorist attack they will be the first ones screaming that Obama cannot protect us, they'll be calling for his head, for his impeachment.

Not exactly, since the next terrorist attack on US soil will come from a wingnut.

Instead the GOPers will do what they did after OKC -- invite rightwing terrorists to air their grievances in front of Congress and blame Obama for taking away their rights and forcing them to use such unconventional means in response.

Chavez is a brutal dictator?
To be sure, Venezeula is not a *liberal* democracy. Chavez has curtailed some freedoms and somewhat restricted the opposition, though the elections have been more or less clean. (don't forget that the opposition tried to topple Chavez in a coup, not what you'd expect from people committed to democracy). But it's nothing like Pinochet or the Argentine junta. Other countries in South America are equally bad on human rights, like Colombia or even Brazil. Our Middle Eastern allies (not to mention China) are much, much worse.

Or Maybe he is odious because he donates oil to our poor.
http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2009/01/09/hugo-chavez-to-keep-sending-free-oil-to-poor-americans/
We hate him because he is generous and compassionate.

…to be sure, Chavez is an odious figure…Steve Benen 11:45 AM

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/19/united-nations-official-strongly-suggests-that-obama-is-in-violation-international-law-in-refusing-to-investigate-war-crimes/

If you feel obligated to echo rightwing talking points unthinkingly, perhaps you need to label yourself Republican. Get a grip on reality instead of knee jerk support for the Venezuelan oligarchs who are the darlings of the American right.

now i have not paid attention to every last detail since chavez was elected president of venzuela but his transformation into "enemy of america" has looked to me to be manufactured almost completely by rightwing american nutjobs.

It's almost entirely based on the fact that Chavez called Bush names.

We don't have to attack O while outside the country. He's been doing a bang up job on his own....

It is one thing to be friendly in an offical presidental way. It different when you kiss a tyrants butt and let him talk trash to you. Obama is a wimp and we are going to all pay for him making America weak in the eyes of our enemies!

Well, this is entirely predictable, and should come as no surprise to anyone. It's in the same category as the criticisms of Obama bowing to a Saudi, of Michelle and Queen etiquette, etc. We already know that wingnuts will grasp on to every straw that will serve the purpose of characterizing Obama as ________ (fill in the blank with the latest stereotype of the moment). Chavez upsets the oil market apple cart when he can--that's why he's the boogeyman.

Looking back on a life in America, I remember a number of odious presidents.

For example, Nixon, who broke up the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 by promising the southern Vietnamese a better deal, and accepted in 1973 the same terms Johnson had negotiated in 1968.

Or Reagan, who sponsored death squads that murdered over 300,000 people in Central America in the 80s.

Or the most recent George Bush, who tried to replace the democratically-elected President of Venezuela with a dictatorship, in addition to his other crimes.

I haven't even seen the suggestion that Chavez stole an election from a candidate who got more votes, or that he has set up torture prisons, or that his troops systematically target wedding parties and kill civilians with missiles.

Venezuela shares a border with Colombia, ruled by Uribe. Uribe began his career with narco-traffikers and still supports- and is supported- by death squads. As you might imagine in a country that leads the world in murdering union members and journalists, Uribe wins every election.

I find Uribe to be odious. Chavez, not so much.

The Republican Party: "OMG! OMG! Look over there!"

Giant Oblivious P**sies

Failure and irrelevance at its ugliest.

They might actually have a viable platform again if they ever manage to elevate their policy ideas beyond Junior High.

the only thing more dangerous than the terrorists are the idiotic, short sighted, and yes bigoted right-wing nut jobs in this country, from the idiots on fox news, to talk radio, there is an insurgency of idiocy in this country. Obama is doing the right things. the next big threat to this country is hatred that fox and the right-wing is breeding, just look at the teabaggers, a bunch of idiots who are to stupid to realize that they are paying lower taxes under Obama than they were under bush. Just read between the lines with the right-wingers and that will show you the next big threat to america's prosperity and safety. The conservative movement. They hate intelligence, rational thought, and science and every time they see Obama's black face on television they lose there minds. As a life long democrat I urge Obama to keep doing what needs to be done, and I'm begging for more teabag parties, keep exposing the real reason you don't like Obama you're making 2012 re-election easier every time you open your mouths.

Check out photos posted on Americablog yesterday and today: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Rumsfeld, both Bushes, all shaking hands (or holding hands in W's case), smiling, etc. with world leaders far worse than Chavez. Those pictures are worth a thousand words in defense of Obama, if he needs any.

"He is a brutal dictator and human rights violations are very, very prevalent in Venezuela.

I simply can not believe this statement. After years, DECADES of the United States propping up brutal dictatorships in Africa and South America, that someone could say something so monumentally stupid, so obviously hypocritcal... I just don´t know what possibly to say to correct him other than, "fuck you in the ass with a rusty hand saw." I think anyone who takes human rights seriously and is not completely ignorant of American history would feel the same way.

(Post Script: By the way, I seem to recall a tradition in which elected U.S. officials refrained from attacking the U.S. presidents while they represented the country overseas. It's safe to assume Republicans no longer believe in that tradition?)

I seem to recall a tradition where U.S. Presidents did not trash their own country or their predecessor while on an overseas trip, or bow down to a foreign monarch, especially one with a dismal record on human rights. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How about the the Financial Times, which gives us details of the latest outrage from Venezuela:

Venezuela’s opposition leaders have accused the government of President Hugo Chávez of launching a campaign of persecution aimed at stripping them of power since they won key posts in regional elections last year.

Many of the leftwing leader’s most high-profile opponents are either being investigated for corruption or subjected to new laws that restrict the exercise of their powers.

Antonio Ledezma, an anti-Chávez leader who was elected as mayor of Caracas last year, called his subordination to a new official to be handpicked by the president a “coup” against the constitution. Legislators loyal to the government passed a law last week creating a new official with administrative and budgetary control over Venezuela’s capital.

Analysts say Mr Chávez is using his control over state institutions to centralise power and emasculate his political opponents at a time when plunging oil revenues are pressing the government to cut spending as Venezuela slides into recession.

Manuel Rosales, the opposition candidate in the 2006 presidential elections who is facing corruption allegations, has gone into hiding, saying he would not get a fair trial. Meanwhile, General Raúl Baduel, an ally-turned critic of Mr Chávez, was arrested at gunpoint last week and imprisoned over corruption charges.

True democrats do not act this way and do not run a country the way Hugo Chavez does. After having seen the way in which freedoms have been curtailed in Venezuela over these many years, it would seem ridiculous to even contend that there might be doubt as to whether Hugo Chavez is a dictator.

Brutal dictator? WTF? He has curtailed human rights and that is disappointing and distressing, and should not be papered over.

But...does he torture? (And, might I add, does he protect the previous administration's torturers?) If so, I'd like to see the evidence on this. Like others, I don't see why we have to accept the far right's talking points on Chavez's "odiousness" without demanding proof.

Democrats are blood-suckers. They suck the blood out of the taxpayers and give it to their cliental.

Chevez would be a Democrat if he lived in the US.

Obama is a one-termer...I promise.

This is not manufactured. I am furious and no one so instructed me. This is over the line.

This we we found out that in Barack Obama's America our new friends are, or are going to be, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Fidel..the long time dictator of Cuba and Chavez the man who has destroyed democracy in Venezuela and is now its dictator for life. At the same time we found out that in Obama's America our new enemies are going to be just about anybody who disagrees with Obama, and our returning Veteran/Heroes! Imagine Obama orders a solder to Afghanistan. He's injured and returns home. Obama's dept of Homeland Security has advised with this assessment all federal and local police authorities that this wounded vet, and all others, is a potential terrorist and they need to watch him. The OUTRAGE was committed by the Obama Administration and is not at all manufactured. And its growing!

Steve, I am growing quite tired of your habit of agreeing with one wingnut lie as a prelude to batting down another wingnut lie. Chavez odious? Give me a break.

What Disputo said. What serialcatowner said. What rabbit said. Chavez may be authoritarian but at least he recognizes the results of elections. Chavez may centralize power but his security forces don't engage in torture. Venezuela is no Denmark but this is a far cry from 'odious.' His main crime seems to have been to survive two Otto Reich coordinated coups.

DJH, um 'extent.' Someone who shoplifts is not a heinous felon. Difficult concept I realize.

How sad that we now have an intelligent, well spoken and mature president. How shall we survive?( y'all! )

Echoing many commenters....

Chavez? Anti American?

Is that why he offered help during Katrina? Why he offered New Englanders discounts on heating oil?

If he wants to be anti-American. He could improve his game.

Last I checked, his main claim to anti-Americanism was accusing Bush of orchestrating coups (who can doubt?) and said Bush was the devil. I do not in any way equate anti-Bush sentiment with anti-American sentiment.

I have great antipathy for the Chinese government and Vladimir Putin. I have sympathy and a strong wish for prosperity for Russia and China's people.

The other side may well harbor similar emotional dichotomies.

Bush has a beef with Chavez. I don't.

This article calls Chavez "odious" without mentioning one reason he's that way is because our own odious former president immediately endorsed a coup against Chavez's lawfully and democratically elected government. Chavez has some reason for the way he's acted toward the US. So do some of the other leftist leaders of South America who were put in power by people angry at their mistreatment by Washington.

it's simple chavez is "odious" because he won't privatize his oil industry. ask mossadegh.

its a tradition not to criticize presidents while they are overseas?
its also a tradition for the president of the united states not to trash his own country overseas in front of a bunch of american hating scum like ortega and chavez

Barry Soetoro is gonna drive this country in the ground, that is for sure!
He is a "community organizer" who bows to the "defender of the holy sites", shakes hands with this socialist guy, and apologize for America. Impeach Barry!!!

I seem to recall a tradition in which elected U.S. officials refrained from attacking the U.S. presidents while they represented the country overseas. It's safe to assume Republicans no longer believe in that tradition?

The Democrats need to demand that they do so. Someone in the Senate needs to rent a spine and denounce the GOP tactics for this violation of patriotism.

I wonder what right-wing blog linked to you, Steve. We obviously have some folks commenting that would have loved a teabagging by Bush the Lesser.

anti-american my tuchus. he called dubya a donkey, an insult to donkeys.

(although it's good to see steve has his defenders on this thread)

And just how does it help American interests to cozy up to a socialist like Chavez, who doesn't believe in indivdual rights or freedoms?

Shaking hands with the guy, or having coffee with the guy, isn't going to change who he is or what he stands for.

"To be sure, Chavez is an odious figure. But he's also the twice-elected head of state of a large South American country with 30 million people. GOP rhetoric notwithstanding, there's no downside to improving our relations with the country's leadership."

Here's one downside to legitimizing "odious" -- your word -- thugs -- you make it a lot more difficult for an opposition to arise.

To those on the left: how do you feel about Chavez shutting down his country's second largest tv station because they opposed his policies? How's that for free speech? Or is it ok to suspend free speech if it means enforcing socialistic policies?

Or is it ok to suspend free speech if it means enforcing socialistic policies?

the radio station was shut down because they supported the coup against chavez originally and on the anniversary of the coup they ran an incendiary piece hinting that chavez should be assassinated.

if cnn agitated to overthrow the bush government, would they have stayed on the air?

don't think so

fail.

To those on the left: how do you feel about Chavez shutting down his country's second largest tv station because they opposed his policies?

I think it's rotten, as are most of Chavez's antics. So why are wingnuts elevating Chavez to cult hero status in SA by constantly pining to him make him an enemy of the US. He is one man for christ's sake and was elected by the Venezuelan people.

I am glad that Obama is looking past the stupid posturing of one idiot to promote America's interest over petty right wing enemy hunting. This kind of ideological hysterics over personalities in SA, and meddling to promote "our" kind of people for leadership on that continent is behind a lot of AMerican hatred from Latino citizens. (And I should say that "our" kind of people really are the kind that conservative business interests want in power to grease the exploitation wheel.

They are sick of our shit and our efforts to choose their leaders for them, when those leaders turn out to be Somoza, Pinnochet, and a long list of right wing junta thugs beholden to their Oligarch masters. Maybe if we left them alone to decide for themselves, we would get good progressive small d dems, or even moderate conservatives with concern for the people.

I am glad Obama shook Chavez's hand and Castro (raul) and any other leader we have issues with. It feels like we just might be graduating from grade school resentments in this country. Bout fracking time.

To the poster who thinks it's ok to shut down a tv station who disagrees with Chavez, do you also agree that it was ok for him to send troops in to take over the rice factories?

To the poster who thinks it's ok to shut down a tv station who disagrees with Chavez, do you also agree that it was ok for him to send troops in to take over the rice factories?

i didn't say it was ok for chavez to shut down a tv station that disagreed with him, i said that if a tv station here had done that it would have been shut down by the government, and you would have agreed with it.

well, perhaps unless it was calling for obama's assassination. see; i can do strawmen too!

why did he take over the rice factories? why did he nationalize the oil? could it have something to do with a country full of poor people, a history of colonialism, and rampant inflation? d o you understand context at all???

To the poster who thinks it's ok to shut down a tv station who disagrees with Chavez

Wow, a wingnut setting up a strawman -- who wudda thunk it?

Epic fail, per usual.

Than you for answering my next questions. I was going to ask you if if you thought it was ok that Chavez forcibly took over foreign oil companies, but you already answered. You think it's just fine.

I would ask if you think it's ok to forcibly take over a Mexican cement company, but I think we know your answer to that as well.

You don't believe in individual rights. You don't believe in private property rights. If the state wants it, you believe they can have it.

Your economic theory has failed everywhere it's been tried.

how do you feel about Chavez shutting down his country's second largest tv station because they opposed his policies?

i'm not happy with everything chavez has done, but we don't not talk to egypt cause they kill unarmed protesters who want political freedom; we don't not talk to israel cause they build illegal settlements; we don't not talk to canada cause of celine dion, etc.

to single out chavez shows you're a sucker. people being denied the opportunity to make a buck off of venezuela's oil wealth have snookered as if you were a six-year old at a carnival. again, if you were capable of googling, you could look up mossadegh. that would tell you all you need to know about what makes chavez "odious"

but at least you've given up on the "anti-american" meme -- baby steps...

Do you really think that by "talking" to Chavez, he's going to change any of his dictatorial policies? Do you think he's suddenly going to embrace American capitalism? Do you think he'll just stop nationalizing private industries and restore free speech? We stopped talking to Chavez because of all the things he did, of which there are many.

And look at how foolish he made Obama look. Did you see the book he gave Obama in front of the media?

we have to deal with the historical facts, not wishful thinking.

Do you think he's suddenly going to embrace American capitalism?

why would he??? does the world have to embrace america's way of doing things?

here's a little clue for you from TIME on this issue:

But the truth — one that both Chavez and his archfoe, the Bush Administration, would prefer you not know — is that when it comes to oil nationalization, Hugo is hardly the most radical of his global peers. In fact, even after today's petro-theatrics, Chavez is just catching up with the rest of the pack.

From Mexico to China, more than 75% of the world's oil reserves are controlled by national oil companies today. Of the world's top 20 oil-producing firms, 14 are state-run. And even though Chavez has now stripped foreign oil companies like Exxon Mobil of any majority stakes they had in Venezuelan oil production projects — mandating that his state-run company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), have at least 60% ownership from here on out — he's at least allowing those private multinationals to continue taking part in the drilling. Not so, for example, in Mexico or the world's largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia. Washington touts those two countries as model energy allies, despite the fact that for more than half a century their national oil companies have barred U.S. and other foreign oil businesses from production ventures.

Just for the record, I don´t idolize Chavez... but I do have a sense of context in South America and a global perspective of brutal dictatorship. Compared to the brutality of regimes the United States has actively sponsored or tactitly supported, Chavez is running a kindergarten.

Hey, does anyone remember Saddam Hussein?

another dumbfuck. you idiots seem to come out of the woodwork whenever a leader comes along who works for his people rather than cater to the multinationals. Max-could you elaborate on how a democratically elected leader can be a thug tyrant ? why not read a book or something ? Learn a little about a nation before you spout ignorance ? what a fucking moron.

obama loves talking to the south american socialists, the chinese communists, and the russian former communists because he feels at home in their ideology.

yes, i heard he looked into putin's soul.

we have to deal with the historical facts, not wishful thinking

When the Oligarchs owned everything in Venezuela, who do you think ends up with the money. A handful of rich people and the thugs they pay off to protect them. Until a threshold of hungry poor citizens is reached and they decide they've had enough and civil war ensues, and a lot of people killed. It is a scene played out many times in SA and usually with our complicit finger in the mix supporting the Oligarchs.

And what about the Saudi Royal Family controlling the oil there. Jesus, they are a Monarchy for christ sake, and the Bush's and other wealthy republicans are attached at the hip with these despots who jail women for showing an ankle.

Per usual, your wingnut outrage SirLie, is not consistent when it comes to yer wingnut leaders mucking around the world. Take your enemy mongering and shove it. Something we can shake on, eh!

To be sure, Chavez is an odious figure.

If you're a believer that America is "good" and not the imperial buttfucker of Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine was published in 1819, perhaps this is true. The unfortunate problem for an imperial hegemon is that the imperial hegemon finally gets the opponent who can overcome its malign influence.

Example: Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, 1950, was a believer in Social Democracy who wanted to "westernize" Iran by controlling its main resource, for the benefit of his people. The CIAscum overthrew him, returned the fascist Shah to power, and 28 years later we got Ayatollah Khomeniei. The United States created Khomenei as a viable nationalist leader by the overthrow of Mossadegh - the kind of Middle Eastern leader we'd love to have around today.

Chavez is representing the interests of the 80% of Venezuelans who felt themselves fucked-over by the United States and its ruling-class Venezuelan stooges, which is why he gets the majorities he does.

There's really no use trying to educate these foolish Wingnuts who have been sent over here by whatever blog in which they normally wallow.

They are deliberately stupid. No amount of factual history or context will ever matter to them. They are willfully ignorant, getting heaps of praise for ignorantly parroting the meme of the day from whatever authority they bend over for.

You are wasting your time.

It will be interesting to see how long Chavez stays in power with his oil revenues tanking the way they are. He has to keep those voters bought off, don'tchaknow.

Ditto Obama when he discovers that the rest of the world isn't interested in loaning him several trillion/year for the next eight years. :-D

plaasjaapie

Go play with your Palin Doll wignut. Not misspelled.

Comrade Stuck: Oooh! An intellectual! ROTFLMAO! :-D

plaasjaapie : Oooh, an idiot! ROTFLMAO :)

Lol Ya gotta love the American left. :-)

I agree that Obama shaking hands isn't bad in and of itself, but would anybody have liked a little defense of the United States while Ortega, former Communist dictator, attacked us?

What if Obama helps Chavez with his anti-American goals?

Do some of the comments here feel like projection on Democrats' part?

Republicans need fear. Because, you know, Democrats never try to scare anybody about the economy, Patriot Act, "breeding" terrorists, global warming, what French college professors think about us, phantom right wing terrorists.

I actually thought that Obama handled the conference rather well. What Daniel Ortega did was perfectly predictable, so why pay any attention to him? Hillary did well in that regard, too.

LMAO @ all the refugees from LGF, searching for a place to live since Charles stopped allowing their racist crap. Move along, boys, this isn't freeperville.

You are the first person within our media that has, at least publicly, pointed out how rediculous the whole Chavez thing was. Chavez isn't hostile to us, I wish the public knew more about Venezuela. How would our government act if, say, the government of Chile was involved in a serious and advanced plot to overthrow our democratically elected gov't; woulndt we be at least angry with them? Chavez and the venezuelan people made the mistake of treating their natural resources (oil in particular) as if they were for their own benefit. The proper way for them to behave was to allow our oil companies unfettered access and control over their countrie's oil reserves. Until this happens, Chavez is considered an enemy, even though he was elected democratically in legit elections and is breaking the longstanding tradition of those in power who use the position for their own good, and he is turning the tables and helping the masses, the poor. Sure, it's bad for business. But its good for the people.

hey steve, you and most of your readers (apprarently) are a bunch of naive simpletons. I almost can't wait til the neophyte arrogance known as BHO gets eaten alive by the likes of Chavez and his peers in North Korea, Iran, etc. Obama is supremely self-involved, and like Icarus, he will get burned when he flies "too high." As for you, and your ilk, I guess the Carter presidency isn't instructive enough to break through your delusional fantasy of world affairs. Idiot....

sub, nyc

It's diplomacy, stupid

I don't know why that pansy Reagan feels that it's in American interests to meet with a commie dictator like Gorbachev? What possible good can come from that? The only way to bring down the Ruskies before they kill us first is to nuke 'em.

Ronnie Red just wants to make us all good Marxists so he can control everything and kill millions of people like his good one-party ancestors, just like that RINO Nixon wanted to do when he went to the Poople's Republic of China to learn how they did population control there like the left wants. The Communist Chinese will never embrace capitalism.

Whoops, sorry -- wrong thread. I meant to post this in the alternate universe where wingnuts aren't total flaming screwtards.

oh noes the Republikan thought police are onto him! Maybe they're just pissed cuz Chavez told a really good Larry Craig joke.