H1 and H2

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 10th, 2016 - 191 comments
Categories: helen clark, International, Politics, us politics - Tags: ,

In a few months, the two most important leadership roles on earth could be held by women, Helen Clark and Hillary Clinton. How cool is that? We’ve come a long way, world!

Leaving aside feelings toward either, it really is just great that this could even be a reasonable possibility of happening. I half joked on twitter the other day that there should be a moratorium on men standing for office, just so women could have a crack at running things. Couldn’t do worse, right?

But Helen and Hillary are going to win on their merits. That’s way better.

They will change this world, if given the chance.

The title of the post is ironic. I seriously doubt that they are going to be nicknamed H1 and H2 or that such a thing would matter a damn to either of them. However, if the two HC’s do win their respective posts, then I think we are going to see some pretty ugly stuff about their relationship as it builds. I’d bet the house that a meme that they are in competition or don’t like each other or hate each other’s hairstyles is on the way. Their gender will be used to cheapen their achievements.

Speaking of building the relationship; one unexpected thing. I could only find one photo of Clark and Clinton together when I was looking to illustrate this post. For technical reasons, I went with an alternative split image. Clark and Clinton don’t appear to hang out. So, it really does look like they will be forging a working relationship from the ground up. Not such a bad thing, really.

They’ll have a clean slate and four years to turn the world around.

 

 

191 comments on “H1 and H2 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    10 June 2016 at 8:37 am

    is this post a real world demonstration of sado-masochism? or UK style Trotskyite contraryist writing–e.g.“Why John Wayne was not so bad”?, nah, surely it can only be TRP’s stab at humour for the day

    • the pigman 1.1
      10 June 2016 at 7:09 pm

      I’m afraid not. Just the usual “centre-left” establishment/authoritarian line reheated.

      Killary will no doubt change the world and further disrupt the axis of global politics, but not in the way that TRP is expecting.

  2. Enviro Gal 2
    10 June 2016 at 8:51 am

    H1, and H2 in top leadership roles.

    Oh I Hope so !
    With Elizabeth Warren for deputy President.

    • Stuff the Politicians 2.1
      10 June 2016 at 9:37 am

      Elizabeth Warren would have made a very good President.

      I would have far more faith in her abilities than I do about Clinton.

      I think she will be even more aggressive than George W Bush, in other words, a war monger.

      • dukeofurl 2.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 1:46 pm

        How many wars has Obama been involved with, and include the CIAs secret wars and those by its proxies like Saudi Arabia.

        • Stuff the Politicians 2.1.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 2:01 pm

          I guess is that if you ask Mr Google he will tell you.

        • Chris 2.1.1.2
          10 June 2016 at 5:55 pm

          And Helen Clark’s War on the Poor from 1999 to 2008.

          • Wayne 2.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2016 at 6:15 pm

            What war?

            • Lanthanide 2.1.1.2.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 6:18 pm

              You’re right, it’s merely a flesh wound compared to John Key 2009 to 2017.

              • Expat …
                10 June 2016 at 6:47 pm

                It’s not even that (a flesh wound) when you consider the 3% unemployment, more like a scratch….

              • Chris …
                10 June 2016 at 7:55 pm

                That’s utter rubbish. Labour did things to welfare National tried to do in the 1990s and failed because the community outage was too strong, including from Labour. Then Labour goes and does it itself. Was quite alarming especially when all we heard from Labour during the Shipley/Richardson years was how they were going turn all that around.

                • red-blooded …
                  10 June 2016 at 9:44 pm

                  Bullshit. Labour repeatedly raised the minimum wage, introduced automatic increases to benefits (inflation), brought back income-related rentals, brought back unemployment benefits and non-work tested sickness benefits, brought in child tax credits, froze interest on student loans (in phases, starting with no interest while still studying), introduced legislation to treat de facto relationships and marriages the same in terms of splitting property when they broke up, fixed superannuation levels to a set percentage of average wage… They also did plenty of other things like strengthening the holidays act, bringing in modern apprenticeship schemes, dumping the dreadful Employments Contracts Act and strengthening the rights of workers to unionise and bargain through their unions. What, exactly, do you think Labour did to attack beneficiaries?

                  They might not have been as left as some on this site would have liked, but they made significant positive changes and they sure as hell weren’t attacking beneficiaries.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#Social_policy

                  • Adrian Thornton …
                    10 June 2016 at 10:29 pm

                    Established free trade agreements that have led to the destruction of our local industries, especially heavy industry, left a unfettered housing market to grow and fester into the beast we know today, therefore create an industry of the dreaded Ma & Pa landlords that any renter (and probably a good proportion of them beneficiaries) rightfully fears, also leading to, what will be an actual embedded class system in NZ.
                    The rich, the home owners and the rest.
                    BTW I don’t remember any significant wage increases when I was a labourer during the Clark years?

                    • red-blooded …
                      10 June 2016 at 10:37 pm

                      I don’t recall saying that everyone got wage increases. It’s a fact that the minimum wage went up more than 5% (well over the rate of inflation) in each year of their second term, though, and there were other regular increases.

                      Plus, if you actually read my comment you would have seen that the Labour government re-instituted income-related rentals for State Housing (and stopped the sell-off of these assets that had been occurring before and has happened since). That’s not “leaving the housing market unfettered”.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 June 2016 at 10:39 pm

                    Labour 5 fucked with the Social Welfare Act and entrenched attitudes that the employed deserved preferential treatment from the government compared to beneficiaries.

                    Labour 5, over its 3 terms, also kept most of National’s social welfare changes and refused to reverse National’s cruel benefit cuts.

                    Basically, Labour 5 was no friend of beneficiaries.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 June 2016 at 10:55 pm

                    I would say [that Labour] a bit more than just tighten[ed] the screws a bit. Labour abolished the special benefit in 2004, introduced the ability to work test people on the invalid’s benefit and then voted with the government on the latest nasty big round of welfare reform just a few months ago. Labour crucifies beneficiaries.

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/fuck-inequality-fuck-poverty-fuck-the-nat-govt/#comment-862787

                    So yeah red blooded, Labour 5 was attacking beneficiaries.

                    • Chris …
                      10 June 2016 at 11:52 pm

                      Precisely. The 2007 amendment Act also did away with the long title of the 1938 Social Security Act that talked about meeting need and looking after the welfare of all NZers etc, and replaced it with the relentless focus on work. It also introduced the ability to make regulations that can override the principal legislation so the government can screw beneficiaries over bypassing Parliament. The writing was on the wall when Labour abolished the special benefit in 2004. Even as recent as 2014 when in opposition it voted with Key et al to remove the ability to relieve beneficiaries of debt when people can’t afford to repay. Now every penny has to be revcovered unless it’s Work and Income’s fault. Labour even tightened that up back in 2002 making that much more difficult than it should be. Labour’s done a whole bunch of bad stuff to beneficiaries since 1999 but most Labour supporters refused to acknowledge it. To be fair, though, I think most people who were aware of what was going on were just too stunned believe it at the time. It was surreal. What’s most interesting is that Labour today still won’t acknowledge what happened of give any indication it won’t be more of the same if/when they’re government. Recent behaviour where they’ve voted with the government to screw the poor over suggests nothing’s changed.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 June 2016 at 12:21 am

                      Labour loyalists like Red Blooded have blinded themselves to the reality of Modern post 1980 Labour.

                      Reading Red Blooded’s comments make the level of self deception palpable:

                      They might not have been as left as some on this site would have liked, but they made significant positive changes and they sure as hell weren’t attacking beneficiaries.

            • Stuart Munro 2.1.1.2.1.2
              10 June 2016 at 6:28 pm

              The one from which today’s homeless are the refugees.

              • Adrian Thornton …
                10 June 2016 at 7:37 pm

                Exactly, when are the left in NZ going to stop with this centrist citizen destroying ideology, Helen was just a softer version of Douglas……and here we all are. We need a transformative left leader, not the same old shit.

                • Tom …
                  10 June 2016 at 7:39 pm

                  I wouldn’t underestimate him.

                • Chris …
                  10 June 2016 at 7:57 pm

                  Exactly.

                • McFlock …
                  10 June 2016 at 8:22 pm

                  I need a hero

                  lol, couldn’t resist.

                  Revolutions are rare and usually with a body count (either with guns or just by abandoning those who fail to adapt quickly enough).

                  “Transformations” are just wishy-washy fantasies.

                  Hard work by increments is what we need to do, not wait for a leader to magic it all for us. They can only be a disappointment when when pin our hope for change on them.

                  • Adrian Thornton …
                    10 June 2016 at 10:52 pm

                    I understand and respect your view on incremental change by hard work. However I believe the Lefts adoption of this method, almost globally in the West, has left us with an ineffective centrist platform that fails to even maintain the status quo after the right have a lash at the country.
                    It leaves the Left apologizing for being Left, it leaves the Left being embarrassed to even use the word socialist…in effect all it has achieved is handing the high ground to the Right, the one thing the Left always had (in public perception anyway) was this moral and ethical high ground, by pivoting to the centre the Right have artfully taken this vital tactical tool for their own, but then maybe we deserved to lose it.
                    And you have to own the high ground to win these types of wars, as Keys vast army of (excellent) PR advisors well know.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 June 2016 at 11:33 pm

                      I actually think that the shift right over 30/40 years was because keynesian economics hit stagflation at about the same time that a generation of complacency about the basics (shelter/health/welfare/employment) meant that the left had forgotten how to argue those issues effectively (and all the tories had to do was point at the seventies).

                      Drop in supply-side economic bullshit from the tories, and it knocked us back for a generation.

                      To me, that’s a lesson for the future, not an argument against incrementalism.

                    • Chris …
                      11 June 2016 at 1:09 pm

                      Refreshing to see on here.

                • Ian …
                  10 June 2016 at 9:52 pm

                  100% Adrian Thornton

      • Liberal Realist 2.1.2
        10 June 2016 at 6:35 pm

        Yes Warren would have and perhaps will be a great POTUS in the future.

        On the other hand, HRC is a warmongering neocon hawk of whom has the blood of 1000’s if not 10s of 1000s on her hands. IMO HRC is scarier that Trump.

        I wouldn’t want to be in Europe or South East Asia when HRC confronts both Russian and China on their own borders… The world will become a more dangerous place should the crook called Hillary Rodham Clinton be elected.

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1
          10 June 2016 at 6:38 pm

          Plenty of “left wing” commentators here on TS seem to think that Killary is cool.

        • red-blooded 2.1.2.2
          10 June 2016 at 9:53 pm

          Are you kidding? Do you seriously believe that the world will not become a more dangerous place if the misogynistic, racist, xenophobic warmonger called Trump becomes the next president of the US? He’s a raving loony. Hillary Clinton may not have been your choice of Democratic candidate if you’d had a choice, but she’s certainly better than Trump.

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2.1
            10 June 2016 at 10:36 pm

            I disagree. Trump is far superior to neocon regime changing bankster paid Killary.

            • red-blooded 2.1.2.2.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 10:42 pm

              Oh yes, what are the positive qualities that lead Trump to outshine Clinton? And note, I’m not asking for more empty invective to be thrown in one direction, I’m asking you to justify what positive qualities you see your “far superior” candidate as having.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 June 2016 at 10:53 pm

                Trump is naturally the better candidate because the Military Industrial Surveillance Bankster Complex want Killary.

                • red-blooded …
                  11 June 2016 at 12:18 pm

                  So, you can’t point to any personal qualities or policies that in your (clearly warped) view that would make him a better president? Surprise, surprise! That’s because he would be a dreadful, incompetent, frighteningly unhinged president.

                  CV, I know you like to see yourself as the “most lefty kid n the block”, but this is sure as hell not a leftish view of the world. Try to grow up a bit. Throwing your toys out of the cot because your favourite candidate isn’t going to win is simply juvenile. As it happens, I prefer Saunders’ policies and am really glad that he brought some vigour into this contest and challenged some ideas that needed shaking up I think he’s had an impact (and that’s what he started out by saying he wanted to do). He hasn’t won, though. I think the Us need to look at how their system works, but that’s up to them. In the meantime, the left need to unite round the candidate that can keep an awful, incompetent loony from being US president.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    11 June 2016 at 12:43 pm

                    The US Military Industrial Surveillance and Bankster Complex want Clinton in as their first choice.

                    They are against Trump taking power.

                    Therefore, Trump is automatically the better candidate.

                    Try to grow up a bit. Throwing your toys out of the cot because your favourite candidate isn’t going to win is simply juvenile. As it happens, I prefer Saunders’ policies and am really glad that he brought some vigour into this contest

                    Firstly it’s clear that you aren’t a Sander’s fan, you are just speaking shit.

                    Secondly, the Deep State likes to characterise opposition to its activities as childish, immature, uninformed, narcissistic etc.

                    It’s part of the character assassination play book that they use.

                    So just note after you get over your condescension that my choice of Trump ahead of Clinton is serious and considered. Clinton is a warmongering bankster paid neocon.

                    You need to stop supporting her.

                    • te reo putake …
                      11 June 2016 at 12:56 pm

                      Ha! The funniest comment of the day, by a long distance, CV. Trump is the living embodiment of a bankster’s wet dream. Don’t let your hatred of women blind you to the bleeding obvious, mate.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 June 2016 at 1:17 pm

                      Ha! The funniest comment of the day, by a long distance, CV. Trump is the living embodiment of a bankster’s wet dream.

                      If that were true, then how come they haven’t been donating millions of dollars to him, but to Hillary Clinton instead?

                    • te reo putake []
                      11 June 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      Who says they haven’t? Don’t forget he’s only rich because banksters have been loaning him millions for decades. He can only afford to grandstand about paying his own campaign bills because of the money banksters have invested in him. His position is not a million miles away from John Key’s claim that he would donate his salary to charity. Both bullshit claims that rely heavily on not asking awkward questions about where their personal fortunes came from in the first place.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 June 2016 at 1:31 pm

                      Hi TRP, if you have any links which show that the Trump campaign has received $$$ money from the big banks, let’s see them.

                      Meanwhile back to my claim that Hillary Clinton is the Banksters’ Choice, this is from the Wall Street Journal, May 8:

                      Financial Sector Gives Hillary Clinton a Boost

                      The Democratic front-runner has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of fundraising data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the former secretary of state received 53% of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32% last year

                      http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725

            • Stuart Munro 2.1.2.2.1.2
              10 June 2016 at 11:03 pm

              Trump is politically an unknown quantity, but in business he has earned the distrust of many former partners and clients. Hillary will be undeservedly bad for the middleeast, and deservedly bad for Russia, but no-one really knows wtf Trump will do, though building a humane enlightened postindustrial society doesn’t seem to be part of it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 June 2016 at 11:10 pm

                Hearing what you are saying but I’ll even it out by saying that Hillary was instrumental in firstly destabilising, then destroying Africa’s richest and most socialist country, Libya.

                And replaced it with an Islamist hell hole.

                All because its central bank wouldn’t play ball, it had a lot of gold the US wanted, it has a lot of oil the US wanted and it wanted to launch a new gold backed pan-African currency which threatened the US dollar.

  3. marty mars 3
    10 June 2016 at 9:05 am

    Good luck to them both in turning the world around if they get in. I have very severe reservations and doubts about both of them and I’m happy to be proved wrong.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      10 June 2016 at 12:16 pm

      +1

    • Chris 3.2
      11 June 2016 at 1:24 pm

      Clinton guarantees more war in the Middle East. At least with Trump we don’t know that. Trumps an exception to the rule the better the devil you know.

  4. Nessalt 4
    10 June 2016 at 9:09 am

    Yes, so cool that Hillary clinton could be president. despite facing serious court action for imperilling the state for her own benefit. it’s like a game of ro sham bo that america is playing with itself.

  5. Lanthanide 5
    10 June 2016 at 9:27 am

    “They’ll have a clean slate and four years to turn the world around.”

    I really don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Clinton has no authority over 95% of the world’s population, and the UN is mostly ignored and powerless to make real changes in situations that matter, due to the perennially gridlocked Security Council.

    • AB 5.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:10 am

      A couple of people at the top however competent and well-meaning they are (the latter must be questionable for Clinton anyway), cannot turn things around.
      Things can be turned around only from the bottom up – as per the famous Tolstoy quotation about leaders being the bow-wave pushed ahead by the ship.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:19 pm

        +1

        Exactly. If it’s the ‘leaders’ changing things then it’s usually the rest of the citizenry being led around by the nose.

        Oh, wait, that’s pretty much what we’ve had for the last thirty years of neo-liberalism.

  6. AsleepWhileWalking 6
    10 June 2016 at 9:30 am

    I doubt having Killary as president will produce anything for the world to celebrate.

    I’m a woman, she’s a woman, we’re all women….. ffs how is it even relevant when she has actively participated in the cover up of sexual abuse of women – by her own husband?

    Here is a story of Clinton back when she was a young lawyer degrading a 12 year old rape victim on the witness stand. She laughs about it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tor00iWUhDQ

    In fact all you need to know about Hillary can be found by googling “Hillary Clinton took me through hell”.

    [Your link doesn’t back up your statement. In the link, she laughs at the rapist, and the piss poor prosecution team, not the victim. Don’t waste my time, please. TRP]

    • dukeofurl 6.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:14 am

      Are you too unaware to even listen to your own link. Clinton laughs at the prosecution case where they discarded evidence to would prove her clients innocence.
      As to the falsehood that Clinton degraded anyone on the witness stand, this 12 yr old didnt give evidence. Clinton prevented a miscarriage of justice.

      • McFlock 6.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:58 pm

        The thought occurs that these days the failing would so much be at the lab chain-of-custody level so much as:
        A) the sample never gets processed because of the forensic backlog in much of the US; and
        B) the public defender might not spot the evidentiary problem in the 90 seconds she has to review the case before it goes to trial.

  7. AsleepWhileWalking 7
    10 June 2016 at 9:31 am

    And how dare you put Helen Clark on the same level as [r0b: deleted – I’m no fan either but let’s not please].

    [Thanks, R0b. AWW, I make no comparisons at all between Clinton and Clark in the post. That’s your prejudice showing. You’re welcome to keep commenting, but keep it seemly and on point, OK? TRP]

  8. left for dead 8
    10 June 2016 at 9:33 am

    Try not to be a fool. Helen Clark will do an adequate job in that post. That other women should be in prison.

    edit: may have breeched policy, but hey.

    • Kiwiri 8.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:32 am

      HCs certainly do the job and deliver, and as for our HC:

      “Still, Clark’s chances for the top job may even thrive in the wake of this latest scandal. After all…isn’t a readiness to turn a strategic blind eye to human rights abuses very much what a Security Council dominated by the US, Russia and China will demand of their choice as the next UN Secretary-General?”

      http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2016/05/26/gordon-campbell-the-latest-allegations-against-helen-clark/

      • dukeofurl 8.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 11:07 am

        The gist was –
        “under Clark’s leadership, the UNDP had soft-pedalled on human rights issues in general to maintain access for UNDP personnel in countries ruled by human rights violators.”

        UNDP should have let the local people starve instead helping them, so they could tell the local elites what they really thought about them, that seems to have been HCs scandal.
        Is this a classic white western case of ivory towerism ?

  9. One Two 9
    10 June 2016 at 9:46 am

    Forget the criminal past, present, future blood stained money grabbing corporate puppet hands……..Because woman

    ‘Women’ are dis-empowered by such musings and ‘progressions’

    This author is consistent if nothing else

  10. Enviro Gal 10
    10 June 2016 at 9:59 am

    Theses women are used to fighting on, despite sexism.
    [even on this website ? ]

  11. Bill 11
    10 June 2016 at 10:01 am

    You could look at women securing leading roles in governance structures as something positive. On the other hand, you might view it in terms of a type of institutional capture.

    I guess that if the institutions in question already exhibited some signs of shift, then a woman assuming the leadership role within that institution could be seen as riding change and even pushing further change – a positive thing.

    But if the institutions are staid or static, then we’re just talking ‘Thatcher’.

    Looking at the UN and the US political system, I’m concluding ‘Thatcher’. Nothing to celebrate. Neither Clark nor Clinton have any track record for initiating fundamental change. They are both conservative. Both play the game and do quite well within existing institutional parameters.

    What ‘will be’ tomorrow will be the same ‘as was’ yesterday. Neither Clinton nor Clark will make one iota of difference on that front. They will resist any challenge to their basis of power, even though that power is predicated on a peculiar ‘male mind set’ of dominance that has been culturally forged and historically defended. There will be no need for anyone to defend that against any actions undertaken by either Clinton or Clark.

    • dukeofurl 11.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:17 am

      Do you have special factory that turns out such gobbledygook.
      “that power is predicated on a peculiar ‘male mind set’ of dominance that has been culturally forged and historically defended. ..”

      • marty mars 11.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 11:04 am

        seemed easily understood and definitely NOT gobbledygook (unbelievable spelling that one) – I though a very apt comment by Bill personally

        • dukeofurl 11.1.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 12:40 pm

          Not a word about the Clinton Foundation

          Creating Partnerships of Purpose

          We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.

          It may be a puff piece headline, but I dont see this work under the leadership of the Clintons as just the same old Thatcher, Richardson philosophy.
          http://www.clintonfoundation.org/press/facts

          George Bush just sits at home and paints.

          • adam 11.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 3:15 pm

            Ah the Clinton Foundation, taking money from Killers all across the globe, and just possibly breaking the law whilst they do it as well.

            The Clinton foundation is a sad organisation, at best – producing pitiful results.

            • dukeofurl 11.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 5:51 pm

              Name the great deeds Sanders foundation has done?

              Has he even been promoting candidates for other offices to support his policies. A zero on that too.

              Elizabeth Warren has endorsed Clinton . Cant be expecting her to go away soon
              Obama has endorsed Clinton cant be expecting her to go away soon.

    • weka 11.2
      10 June 2016 at 11:27 am

      “On the other hand, you might view it in terms of a type of institutional capture.”

      Except you run the risk of being patronising.

      It IS an achievement for a woman like Clark to have done what she has done as a woman. I agree with your general points about what women in her position have to do to get ahead, but there are still important differences between Clark and Shipley that we should be mindful of. Shipley basically wholeheartedly endorsed the patriarchal structures, Clark at least pushed back a little.

      If we hadn’t had Clark as PM and instead had had some like Cullen, then there would have been a batch of changes that wouldn’t have happened simply because she was a feminist pushing into the patriarchal system and he was someone already privileged there. This is why Clinton, for all her evil, is still a better evil than Trump.

      btw, in terms of initiating fundamental change, one of Clark’s real achievements was to change the law in NZ so that midwives could practice independently and be trained as midwives without having to have a nursing training and practice first. That not only gave women a far better range of choices in childbirth and maternity care, but it broke the stranglehold that the still pretty patriarchal medical profession had over that aspect of women’s bodies. Hugely significant (there is an adage that you can judge the degree to which a nation values women by the kinds of midwifery care it has). Clark did that as Minister of Health in the outgoing Labour govt in 1990.

      • Lanthanide 11.2.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:14 pm

        The changes in midwifery basically amount to allowing lower-skilled people to do this job than would otherwise have been the case.

        We therefore end up with this sort of situation: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/264953/coroner-critical-of-midwifery-training

        There are always costs to progress, of course. But just pointing out that the change in midwifery shouldn’t be considered an unmitigated success.

        • marty mars 11.2.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 12:28 pm

          “basically amount to allowing lower-skilled people to do this job ”

          not sure if that is the framing – I’d rather say the process of birthing became more than just a medical procedure controlled by doctors (mainly men).

        • weka 11.2.1.2
          10 June 2016 at 12:49 pm

          “The changes in midwifery basically amount to allowing lower-skilled people to do this job than would otherwise have been the case.”

          That is flat out incorrect Lanth. To be a direct entry midwife you have to get a degree in midwifery. That’s a higher qualification and more training than what nurse midwives had in the 80s.

          “We therefore end up with this sort of situation: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/264953/coroner-critical-of-midwifery-training”

          Where we have one professional disagreeing with multiple others. Not sure what your point is.

          • Lanthanide 11.2.1.2.1
            10 June 2016 at 1:39 pm

            “That is flat out incorrect Lanth. To be a direct entry midwife you have to get a degree in midwifery. That’s a higher qualification and more training than what nurse midwives had in the 80s.”

            Just basing it on what you yourself said:
            “so that midwives could practice independently and be trained as midwives without having to have a nursing training and practice first”

            It used to be A + B to be a midwife, and now it’s only B.

            Quite clearly the coroner in this case has highlighted the medical angle as being deficient in the training of midwives, which if they used to need nurse degrees first, would have been covered in the previous system.

            As for professionals disagreeing, what it looks like to me is an outside independent observer has found failings that they believe contributed to the death of the woman and made recommendations on how to correct these failings, and the body in charge of the profession is in denial.

            • weka 11.2.1.2.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 2:04 pm

              In other words, you don’t know what the various trainings involve. You seems to be assuming that there is something in the nursing training that is necessary to be a competent midwife. Care to share what that might be?

              There was no nursing degree prior to 1990, not in NZ.

              I doubt that the issue is a medical one. It could be a training one, but I doubt it’s an issue of training across the board (as opposed to in that particular midwife). Midwives are trained to refer on to appropriate medical specialists, in the same way that all other health care professionals are. This includes making assessments when that is needed. I’m not sure why you think that midwives don’t have the skill to do this given it’s in their training in similar ways as to nurses. Midwives have to learn what you are calling ‘medical’ skills. But again, if you think that nurse midwives have skills that direct entry midwives don’t, please share.

              “As for professionals disagreeing, what it looks like to me is an outside independent observer has found failings that they believe contributed to the death of the woman and made recommendations on how to correct these failings, and the body in charge of the profession is in denial.”

              It might be that. Or it might not. There is no way to tell from that article. Which leaves us with why each of us has the particular beliefs about the situation that we do.

      • Bill 11.2.2
        10 June 2016 at 3:11 pm

        Yes, Clark and Clinton have overcome systemic bias. But that’s more or less where it ends. Neither woman appears to have particularly feminist politics; they’re liberals.

        • weka 11.2.2.1
          10 June 2016 at 4:38 pm

          I think the point is that’s not where it ends. See my comment to McFlock below. Short of a revolution, we need people from the non-dominant cultures in positions of power, and with Clark in particular she did NZ and NZ women a huge service by being the politician she was*. We couldn’t have MPs like Turei back then and if we didn’t have Clark it would have been Cullen all the way. The only way to argue that’s where it ends if to also argue that feminism is a side politics.

          *not sure I would say the same about Clinton, and I would definitely see them as different kinds of politicians and that lumping them together would be anti-feminist.

          “Neither woman appears to have particularly feminist politics; they’re liberals.”

          Well I’m liberal and I’m feminist, they’re not mutually exclusive. And feminism covers a huge range of ideas and actions. I don’t think we can say they don’t have feminist politics. Clark is obviously so. Clinton is the block between Trump and Roe vs Wade. She wouldn’t be if she wasn’t feminist. To suggest that Clinton doesn’t have feminist politics also says that all those feminists who support her aren’t feminist either (or are stupid), which puts your argument on tricky ground. I can critique Clinton’s feminism, but I can’t really say she doesn’t have any.

          • Bill 11.2.2.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 8:57 pm

            that’s not where it ends

            I said “more or less ends” – ie, I can’t really see either of them rocking the boat to any great extent. And that in no way translates as me saying that feminism is ‘a side politics’.

            we need people from the non-dominant cultures in positions of power

            If their heads and hearts are still of the non dominant culture, then yes. But if they’ve adopted the mores of the dominant culture to get their power, then no.

            Well I’m liberal and I’m feminist, they’re not mutually exclusive.

            I didn’t say they (liberalism and feminism) were mutually exclusive. But insofar as it’s a question of whether they (Clark and/or Clinton) are principally liberals or principally feminists, I’m saying they’re principally liberals. And by quite a long way.

            To suggest that Clinton doesn’t have feminist politics also says that all those feminists who support her aren’t feminist either (or are stupid)…

            You may want to argue that line, but what I said was that “neither woman appears to have particularly feminist politics”. That’s not at all the same as saying that “Clinton doesn’t have feminist politics”. And that, in turn, in no way implies or suggests that any woman voting for Clinton (from any feminist reasoning) must also have “not particularly feminist politics”

    • McFlock 11.3
      10 June 2016 at 1:25 pm

      But maybe the transition from (the establishment) to a (new system that is more diverse because of its different priorities) is a series of steps. Thatcher was a woman, but an establishment conservative. Clinton is a woman, but works within the establishment (I think she wants to tweak it left whereas thatcher shoved it right, but whatevs). Sanders is anti-establishment, but old-white-dude. Obama works within the establishment (tweaking it left a bit), and is a minority dude.

      SandersB might well be an anti-establishment woman who wins the presidency and goes for major establishment change.

      • Bill 11.3.1
        10 June 2016 at 3:08 pm

        When I wrote the original comment I was absently thinking where people’s opinions would land if both the democratic contenders had been women and both the results and the policies were the same as Clinton’s and Sanders’.

        • McFlock 11.3.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 3:52 pm

          Then femSanders by a mile, I reckon.

          But would jeb bush have failed so dismally against a femTrump? Or Roger Clinton Jr won against a femSanders? No idea.

      • weka 11.3.2
        10 June 2016 at 4:29 pm

        “But maybe the transition from (the establishment) to a (new system that is more diverse because of its different priorities) is a series of steps.”

        Yes. Imagine if we’d had Marilyn Waring alongside of Helen Clark. And if their other contemporaries had stayed in parliament (I think it’s safe to say that the more progressive ones got out in large part because of the compromises being demanded by the system). I don’t think it would be possible for MPs like Turei and Wall to be doing what they are doing if Clark had never been.

  12. dukeofurl 12
    10 June 2016 at 10:04 am

    Amazing to see these twisted moronic statements used to justify their misogyny.

    Yes shes no Snow White but the only choice is Clinton or the Manhattan Mussolini

    • mauī 12.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:39 am

      Not everyone is into supporting people like Hillary bombing Libya back to the stone age.

      • dukeofurl 12.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:32 pm

        That was Obamas decision. The President makes the decsions, the others just follow orders.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    10 June 2016 at 10:11 am

    Now let’s have a post celebrating the ground breaking Maggie Thatcher, first woman PM of the UK and leadership example for women all around the world!

    FFS.

    • te reo putake 13.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:25 am

      Meh, you’re the one who thinks Trump is the better option for President, so nothing you say on the matter has much gravitas.

      • dukeofurl 13.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 10:58 am

        CV seems to have lost it in regard Clinton. He doesnt even read the FBIs own FAQ on why that agency doesnt lay charges or prosecute any crimes.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.2
        10 June 2016 at 11:00 am

        For a more local example you can go with our first female Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ruth Richardson! An example of a woman leading the way against chauvinist male dominated industries.

      • Liberal Realist 13.1.3
        10 June 2016 at 7:01 pm

        I’m with CV on Trump being a better option that HRC (not that I agree Trump wouldn’t be a disaster) specifically because of HRCs track record.

        Trump may be a loud mouthed bigot without a filter but he hasn’t (yet) facilitated the destruction of at least one sovereign nation (Libya), making a joke about the brutal death of that country’s leader (noting Gaddafi was a brutal dictator himself)and a coup d’etat in Honduras.

        HRC is also sucking up to Israel and AIPAC, promising to take their relationship to the ‘next level’. I’m assuming that means more violence, death & genocide of the imprisoned palestinian people.

        Then there’s the intention to confront Russia which could lead to nuclear conflagration.

        In Trump’s case, should he be elected, it really depends on who he has in his cabinet which will determine was sort of foreign policy path his administration will take. It’s pretty clear that HRC intends on fully supporting her backers in MIC & Wall Street by way of war, death and destruction.

        I agree with John Pilger, HRC is the real danger (to all of us)…

        http://johnpilger.com/articles/trump-and-clinton-censoring-the-unpalatable

        • Tom 13.1.3.1
          10 June 2016 at 7:07 pm

          How easy!

          Are you clever enough to problem solve? War, death and destruction is too easy, but to problem solve for the better? I’m not sure you have that level of intelligence for such a task!

          • Liberal Realist 13.1.3.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 7:15 pm

            @Tom, what exactly is your point? Are you being facetious?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.3.1.2
            10 June 2016 at 7:26 pm

            No-one does: that’s why collective decision-making can be so successful; cf: democracy, business, etc.

        • red-blooded 13.1.3.2
          10 June 2016 at 10:11 pm

          Then your claims to being either a liberal or a realist are ridiculous.

          “Trump may be a loud mouthed bigot without a filter but he hasn’t (yet) facilitated the destruction of at least one sovereign nation…”

          Golly, could that be because he’s never actually held political office and is therefore a complete amateur? I think we could probably make a pretty long list of things Trump has never done! And, by the way, let’s remember the point made above, that foreign policy decisions are made by the president (Obama), not the Secretary of State.

          “HRC is also sucking up to Israel and AIPAC, promising to take their relationship to the ‘next level’. I’m assuming that means more violence, death & genocide of the imprisoned palestinian people.”

          Let’s remember that Bernie Sanders is also a backer of Israel. And do you imagine that Trump is going to move towards protecting the strongly Muslim population of Palestine against the traditional friend of America? Get real!

    • vto 13.2
      10 June 2016 at 10:30 am

      Interesting call there mr cv.. Not many would like to remember Thatcher around here I’m sure for her treacherous ways and outrageous policies….

      …. policies which both of these women have also followed to different degrees. So yeah, I see your point and it is a fair one.

      I suspect though that the trp was referring to their female traits which may lead to different (and better) outcomes for the world..

      will be most interesting
      hope it does do as hoped
      I doubt it though
      fingers crossed eh

      • Colonial Viper 13.2.1
        10 June 2016 at 11:18 am

        In the US administration, all in key positions: Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and of course Killary Clinton…all neocons, all pro-war, all pro-regime change, all pro-confrontation with China and Russia.

    • Liberal Realist 13.3
      10 June 2016 at 6:46 pm

      +1

  14. Byd0nz 14
    10 June 2016 at 10:13 am

    Woman or man, makes no difference.the US is a military regeime run by war monger generals. The first hat worn by any US president is that of comander in chief. The land that has and manufactures all WOMD. The button will be burning her hand.
    Christopher Colombas has a lot to answer for discovering that evil land it has become, I’m sure the great red Indian nation could have done without his discovery. Lets hope the button backfires and blows yankeeland off the face of the earth.

    • Kiwiri 14.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:55 am

      “Woman or man, makes no difference. ….”

      In the context that you write, white or black makes no difference either … despite being sold, just not that long ago, the audacity of hope.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 11:25 am

        I think having being “sold” on it is right…Obama won an advertising industry award for his first election campaign by the way – the industry professionals recognised what a good job he had done of manipulating consumers into making the purchase.

  15. Tiger Mountain 15
    10 June 2016 at 10:24 am

    jeez I rather regret my snide posting (#1) now, the levee has broken and the waters of Crazy River are gushing all over…

    • te reo putake 15.1
      10 June 2016 at 10:35 am

      The first comment is always a hostage to fortune, TM!

      When I wrote the post, I figured some commenters wouldn’t be able to put aside their dislike of Clinton and focus on the point of the post, which really is that the world may well be better of being run by women for a change. But criticism of Clinton is in itself OK. However, I hope we’re mature enough here to couch our criticisms in gender neutral terms. I don’t want to write Broken 2.

      • marty mars 15.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 10:46 am

        I put aside, a little bit 🙂 , my dislike of clark – one aspect summed up nicely with this

        “Gisborne’s Tina Ngata, an environmentalist and indigenous rights advocate, made a trip to New York last week to speak at the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues.

        She questioned Ms Clark’s ability to stand up for indigenous rights as secretary general, pointing out that when in government Ms Clark did not sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, labelling it “divisive and unimplementable”.”

        http://gisborneherald.co.nz/localnews/2311333-135/clarks-indigenous-rights-record-challenged-at

        there also was the Foreshore and Seabed stuff, the Terror police raids as examples too – both direct attacks on Māori rights

        but hey she’s not as bad as clinton right?

        • Kiwiri 15.1.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 10:57 am

          Helen Clark should be the first cab off the rank for UN SecGen

        • Expat 15.1.1.2
          10 June 2016 at 12:20 pm

          Hey Marty

          Are Maori indigenous rights any better under this govt?

          The foreshore and seabed debacle, was conflated heavily by a few radicals, I was personally involved in one of the disputes over Maori land rights, and was assaulted for trying to access publicly owned land, land that ALL NZers could use and have access too, no matter what race, creed or nationality.

          Discrimination against any race is unacceptable.

          • marty mars 15.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2016 at 12:37 pm

            “The foreshore and seabed debacle, was conflated heavily by a few radicals”

            No – quite widespread condemnation from Māori at the time but certainly not universal – many labour Māori mps ate it without complaining too much apart from the eventual Leader of The Māori Party of course, which begat The Mana Movement – THAT is making lemonade, right bloody there! 🙂

            I am sorry that you were assaulted – I wish that never happened to anyone. If there was a dispute then there was a dispute and there was no ‘publicly owned land’ because it was in dispute.

            “Discrimination against any race is unacceptable.”

            Bigotry is commonplace and so is intolerance – we need to make our society better than it is imo.

            • red-blooded 15.1.1.2.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 10:16 pm

              “many labour Māori mps ate it without complaining too much apart from the eventual Leader of The Māori Party of course, which begat The Mana Movement – THAT is making lemonade, right bloody there! 🙂”

              “Begat”? Only in the same sense that the Labour Party “begat” the Māori Party! Don’t let’s rewrite history…

  16. Corokia 16
    10 June 2016 at 10:24 am

    Margaret Thatcher, Ruth Richardson, Judith Collins, Paula Bennett.
    It’s what they DO that matters!

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      10 June 2016 at 11:26 am

      Don’t forget that Helen Clark was not NZ’s first female PM, either.

      • Expat 16.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:06 pm

        No, BUT she was the first one elected by the VOTERS to the position, a big difference, not to mention the BIG difference ability.

        A client of mine at the time Shipley took office said, Quote: I know we needed a new PM, but we don’t need a “Bull Dog”, he was a National supporter, through and through.

        You can never compare Clark with Shipley.

  17. Anne 17
    10 June 2016 at 11:03 am

    Thanks TRP.

    Both of them have their failings. Who doesn’t. But despite reservations (in Clinton’s case anyway) they have a real chance to make the world a [slightly] better place. As always, I take Bill’s points seriously but hey Bill… lets wait and see on this one. We may be pleasantly surprised at what they are able to achieve should they get the nod. Both are exceptionally intelligent political moderates, and have a history of strength and determination even in the face of adversity.

  18. Ad 18
    10 June 2016 at 11:16 am

    +100 TRP
    To feminists getting to power everywhere, making the differences they can, within all kinds of states, institutions and structures.

  19. weka 19
    10 June 2016 at 11:17 am

    I agree with the idea that we would be better of if women ran things for a while (I’d put the kuia in charge myself). The problem with how you have framed it trp is that you appear to think it’s the nature of the chromosomes that makes the difference. It probably does at the overall population level ie. if we had gender equity across all power holding positions we would see some improvement, but the value of women isn’t in their gender, it’s in their culture. So where you have women who have had to socialise themselves into some pretty reprehensible aspects of the patriarchy to even get a look in, you end up with Thatchers, Shipleys, Clintons and yes even Clarks, not with Aung San Suu Kyi, Marilyn Waring, Gloria Steinem, Winona LaDuke or Audre Lorde.

    And what else do Thatcher, Shipley, Clinton and Clark have on common apart from gender? What about ethnicity and class? Marty has already made the point that Clark can’t be trusted on the rights of indigenous peoples, so how can she be a good leader at the UN? What we need is women who are steeped in cultures other than the dominant one, that’s the point. Thatcher, Shipley, Clinton and Clark were allowed into the boys club, they didn’t get to change it.

    I think Clark will do some good if she gets the job, but she will do damage too (marty’s point). Clinton will at least hold some ground in the US eg abortion rights, which is a critical progressive issue that affects so many other things there, but she will do a lot of damage along the way. In that sense, yes it’s good to have women who are at least feminist/somewhat progressive in charge (unlike Thatcher/Shipley etc), but it’s still a pretty low standard compared to what we could really do if we honoured women’s culture alongside all others that sit outside the patriarchy.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      10 June 2016 at 11:35 am

      It’s not just good women they sideline, it’s men like Bernie Sanders that the establishment is dead keen on stone walling and derailing.

      • dukeofurl 19.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:30 pm

        Voters have chosen HC by a fair margin.

        Bernie did well in the caucuses, which are run by the local establishment, while the primary elections are run by public officials , the voters strongly favoured HC.

        The myth of the democratic establishment undercutting Sanders wont die despite facts to the contrary.

        • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 4:56 pm

          Voters haven’t chosen fuck all mate.

          • Liberal Realist 19.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 7:12 pm

            Yep – no mention of numerous irregularities across many states in the primary process, of course almost always favouring Clinton.

            Bernie was screwed from day one given MSM and the Clinton campaign had and have complete control of the narrative. APs patently false call on HRC clinching the nomination is case and point.

            • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 7:20 pm

              dukeofurl is one of those guys who is fine with the appearance of democracy and the appearance of legitimacy.

              • dukeofurl …
                11 June 2016 at 11:32 am

                16 million votes compared to 12million is no ‘appearance of democracy’

                remember last time in 2008 Clinton was far closer to Obamas primary season numbers than Sanders ever has been.
                She was close in super delegates, pledged delgates and actual voter numbers, yet the ‘appearance of democracy’ meant Obama went on to be President.

                The travesty of democracy would be for Sanders to replace Clinton.

          • dukeofurl 19.1.1.1.2
            11 June 2016 at 11:36 am

            Hes they do. US allows ordinary voters to VOTE for the person who would represent a particular party at the general election.

            Your US knowledge is so low as to be a problem getting anything coherent from you.
            Tell us how they get to be chosen in Russia or China ?

      • weka 19.1.2
        10 June 2016 at 12:41 pm

        Indeed. So the argument is that putting people who have different cultural values in charge will lead to different kinds of outcomes. People who aren’t going to be as attracted to or co-opted by the establishment, who will choose values and ethics over power. Get a critical mass and the change will happen faster and further. Not that I’m waiting for that revolution either, but it would help to have more people in power who aren’t as beholden to privilege.

      • red-blooded 19.1.3
        11 June 2016 at 1:23 pm

        “It’s not just good women they sideline, it’s men like Bernie Sanders that the establishment is dead keen on stone walling and derailing.”

        Take a look at your own attitudes, CV. In this context, you could be seen as “the establishment” – not ready to open up the political process to women, not ready to consider the progress of women into positions of political power as a good thing in its own right – a defender of the patriarchy that’s limited women and disempowered them for so many generations and that is finally being challenged by women like the two HCs.

        • Colonial Viper 19.1.3.1
          11 June 2016 at 1:36 pm

          Get over the utterly irrelevant fact that Killary has two XX chromosomes, and get on to the relevant fact that she has been a warmonger and destroyer of nations operating at the top levels of US Gov.

          a defender of the patriarchy that’s limited women and disempowered them for so many generations and that is finally being challenged by women like the two HCs.

          “Finally being challenged”? Dude thanks for ignoring or forgetting amongst many others those who have been or are at the top levels of US Gov: Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Condoleeza Rice, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, etc.

          • red-blooded 19.1.3.1.1
            11 June 2016 at 7:25 pm

            Actually, the two XX chromosomes (and the history of oppression and sidelining that goes with the possession of these) was the point of the original post , CV. And as for the (very short) list of women who have reached high levels of political power in the US, I’ll say two things:
            1) Just because a few (very few) women have started to break into the boys’ club, that doesn’t mean that it’s easy or not worthy of notice;
            2) I don’t see a president listed there (and we in NZ have had only one elected PM who’s been female – Helen Clark).

            Just over 50% of the population is female; it should trouble all of us that so few of our national leaders are female. This is an ongoing struggle and sadly, it looks like it will be for some time yet.

            BTW, thanks for calling me “dude” (sarc). Has it ever occurred to you that I might be female? That maybe I care about the struggle of women leaders (and the struggle of women to become leaders) at least in part because I am a woman?

  20. Enviro Gal 20
    10 June 2016 at 11:50 am

    @ marty mars
    I grew up in Gisborne , and The Ngata family’s affiliation to conservatives
    was well known.
    I will accept that I am probably older than the woman quoted.

  21. johnm 21
    10 June 2016 at 12:17 pm

    HC is a recklessly dangerous neocon racketeer, war criminal, Wall Street tool she devil .

    The UN is a mere U$ financed impotent side show. Clarke must have been a useful U$ tool otherwise she wouldn’t be where she is.

    • Anne 21.1
      10 June 2016 at 1:55 pm

      Can’t even spell her surname correctly so it’s a given the rest of your comment is fictitious nonsense.

      • johnm 21.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 3:48 pm

        Hi Anne 🙂
        As Spock of Star Trek would say: It’s not logical to deny the truth of an assertion because of a spelling mistake! 🙂 I can assure you what I said is the truth.

        • Anne 21.1.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 4:08 pm

          Are you a personal acquaintance of Helen Clark johnm? I have known her in a personal as well as a political way going back 40 plus years and I can assure you she is so far from being:

          a recklessly dangerous neocon racketeer, war criminal, Wall Street tool she devil,

          that your comment is laughable to the point of hilarity.

          • Matthew Whitehead 21.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 4:23 pm

            LOL well played Anne. Besides, whatever you think of Helen Clark’s record on economics, she’s hardly a tool of the United States, having reoriented New Zealand to an independent foreign policy, and also because it’s very difficult to succeed in the UN as a US puppet- at the high levels such as where Helen worked, it’s important to walk the line between working constructively with the US while also being perceived as independent with them.

            Besides, if the US had it’s way it would probably do away with the UN, as it considers it a costly roadblock to doing what it likes, especially in the matter of Israel and Palestine.

            • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 4:58 pm

              No I think your analysis is incorrect; the US uses the UN when convenient to its objectives, and cirvumvents the UN when it is not.

              • Expat …
                10 June 2016 at 5:24 pm

                Which countries don’t do that?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  10 June 2016 at 5:46 pm

                  Are you trying to be stupid? How many other countries wage war on other nations, or execute a programme of regime change, with or without UN mandate?

                  • Expat …
                    10 June 2016 at 6:36 pm

                    You might want to try Syria, Russia or even Egypt and then if you want to go Nth Africa, there are a few more and even some in central Europe, Yugoslavia comes to mind, singling out one country is hardly fair on the US, remember they’re an ally of NZ, and

                    Lets not forget even Aus had their knuckles wrapped by the UN, but that didn’t change anything either, counties only accept the UN decisions when it suits their needs.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 June 2016 at 6:46 pm

                      The US is an ally of NZ? So the TPP, a US initiative, is something that they are doing to help us out?

                      Also the mass surveillance programme they have put all Kiwis under, that’s to help us out too?

                      Remember the US isn’t interested in allies, it is interested in vassals.

                      Syria, Russia or even Egypt

                      Which countries did they invade or try and regime change?

                      As for the US – in the 21st century alone they have been behind regime change or attempted regime change in :
                      – Iraq
                      – Afghanistan
                      – Hong Kong
                      – Ukraine
                      – Honduras
                      – Libya
                      – Syria
                      – South Ossetia
                      – Brazil
                      – Venezuela

                      Then there is the entire effort to destabilise East Europe by moving NATO right to Russia’s door step.

                      Basically the behaviour of the USA is in a class all of its own.

                • McFlock …
                  10 June 2016 at 6:19 pm

                  Let’s see:
                  Russia
                  Israel
                  Jordan
                  Syria
                  Turkey
                  Saudi Arabia
                  Iraq
                  France
                  UK
                  Burundi
                  Rwanda
                  DRC
                  Serbia
                  Vietnam
                  Indonesia

                  … as well as the USA.

                  So that’s over a dozen in my lifetime who do do that, and just listed off the top of my head without google or what have you.

          • johnm 21.1.1.1.2
            10 June 2016 at 4:33 pm

            Hi Anne That comment referred to Hilary Clinton not Helen nobody from NZ.
            As a women I’m surprised you are so ignorant!

            [Your poorly written comment appears to have confused a few people, johnm, including yourself, so there was absolutely no need for the gender based dig. Don’t do it again. And for the record, Helen Clark is her own person; she’s nobody’s tool. TRP]

            • Anne 21.1.1.1.2.1
              10 June 2016 at 5:09 pm

              If you look at your comment @21 johnm, it was followed with a claim about Helen Clark(e). It was a reasonable assumption to make that the HC you were referring to was Helen Clark.

              • Expat …
                10 June 2016 at 5:19 pm

                It’s apparent that John only votes for John anyway, you know which John I’m talking about……..

    • Byd0nz 21.2
      10 June 2016 at 3:28 pm

      Whichever way to spell it, the comment rings true. Helen is a fence sitter and always was.

  22. Enough is Enough 22
    10 June 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Helen is likely to be rejected.

    If that does happen she should come home and save New Zealand. Imagine what the polls would do if we knew Helen Clark would be in the next parliament as the Labour leader.

  23. Yup 23
    10 June 2016 at 1:37 pm

    If Hillary wins it will be because of a massive campaign of highly funded dirty politics.
    The US the home of dirty politics that people lke Lusk Key and the others inported here, so lets keep in mind that things like voter suppression the calling of the nomination before even California vote.
    And the media largely ignoring Bernie Sanders for a long time and writing him off even before it began all leads to low voter turn out ,Clinton would lose without the dirty politics being on her team.

  24. adam 24
    10 June 2016 at 3:10 pm

    This seems very corporate media talking point focused, and a tad premature.

    It seems Hilary could will have at two court cases if not one more, to fight before the democratic convention. How fun

    Bring on the pop corn

    One is from the FBI, and that could fall at any time, the spin off case from the FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation –

    and this new one.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10062016/#comment-1186667

  25. Paul 25
    10 June 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Clinton will take the world to war.
    Can’t see why that’s worth celebrating.
    I bet Britain really wishes Thatcher didn’t get voted in.

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      10 June 2016 at 4:57 pm

      Clinton’s a woman so she will be a better President. Really.

      • Paul 25.1.1
        10 June 2016 at 5:00 pm

        To quote the Daily Blog “This isn’t a win for women, it’s a win for the same corporate elites who always own American politics.”

      • Expat 25.1.2
        10 June 2016 at 6:44 pm

        Certainly a better President than TRUMP, remember, the lesser of the two evils is the preferred out come, the number of republicans stating that they will vote for Clinton, as Trump is not an option.

        • Colonial Viper 25.1.2.1
          10 June 2016 at 6:52 pm

          Clinton isn’t the lesser of two evils; she is the first choice of the US banksters and power elite establishment.

          • Expat 25.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 7:26 pm

            Yeah, but if Trump gets in, civil war will break out, but I suppose your comfortable with that.

            • Colonial Viper 25.1.2.1.1.1
              10 June 2016 at 7:28 pm

              Not a civil war, a revolution. However due to the Deep State I don’t expect that Trump will last out even one term in office.

              • Expat …
                10 June 2016 at 8:12 pm

                Civil war, revolution, serious violence will occur in either case, I can understand the support for Trump as a demonstration of frustration for the average voter against the establishment, but the premises about Clinton are just that, premises, and the world right now needs the stability of someone Clinton.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  10 June 2016 at 8:18 pm

                  Clinton doesn’t promise stability; she promises a continuation of the status quo Empire of Chaos, where US supremacy is maintained by cutting others down at the knees.

                  Unless of course, that is what you mean by “stability.”

  26. red-blooded 26
    10 June 2016 at 10:28 pm

    How about we get back to one of the main points of the original post? It IS “great to see that it could even happen”! It’s clear that some of you don’t like either of these women, but it’s still great to (finally) see that the political world is starting to open up to women. Girls should have as much of a chance of one day running their country, or the UN, as boys. We’re a long way from that point, but there’s nothing wrong with noticing and celebrating a potential milestone along the way.

    Thanks for the post, TRP.

  27. Dennis Merwood 27
    11 June 2016 at 12:34 am

    There is no, as in zero, evidence that women running the world will any difference than men running the world. As pointed out by another poster on this blog, in the current US administration all women in key positions: Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and of course Killary Clinton are neocons, pro-war, pro-regime change, all pro-confrontation with China and Russia. The same old crap, but in a skirt.
    How cool is that? We’ve come a long way, world! Yeah-nah.

    • red-blooded 27.1
      11 June 2016 at 12:33 pm

      My comment was about opportunities for women. Women like Helen Clark and Hillary Clinton get a lot of shit thrown at them from almost everyone: right wing ideologues, defensive men who don’t want to give up power, defensive men who don’t want to acknowledge patriarchy, conservative women who want to defend what they see as women’s natural role, feminist women who believe they aren’t staunch enough or that they – singlehandedly – haven’t made enough difference, left wing commentators who believe the same, the media who want them to be more “womanly”… They should be admired for taking the shit and helping to open up opportunities for the women in coming generations.

      I’m going to say it again, thanks for the post, TRP.

      • te reo putake 27.1.1
        11 June 2016 at 12:48 pm

        Cheers, red-blooded. It’s comments like yours that make it worth writing posts like mine.

      • Colonial Viper 27.1.2
        11 June 2016 at 12:58 pm

        Good of you to shit-stain Helen Clark’s NZ and UN anti-war reputation by putting her in the same sentence as neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton.

        Two women, poles apart, one worth supporting and voting for, the other…pffft.

        • red-blooded 27.1.2.1
          11 June 2016 at 5:31 pm

          CV, how does your “one worth voting for and supporting” comment coexist with your earlier comment that “Labour 5 fucked with the Social Welfare Act and entrenched attitudes that the employed deserved preferential treatment from the government compared to beneficiaries.

          Labour 5, over its 3 terms, also kept most of National’s social welfare changes and refused to reverse National’s cruel benefit cuts.

          Basically, Labour 5 was no friend of beneficiaries.”?

          This is basically a rhetorical question; you don’t have to respond. The answer is clear – it doesn’t.

          • Colonial Viper 27.1.2.1.1
            11 June 2016 at 8:14 pm

            you still smarting over the truth of how Labour 5 watered down the social welfare act and attacked beneficiaries

  28. Dennis Merwood 28
    11 June 2016 at 2:49 pm

    te reo uptake,
    It is unfathomable to me that you can proffer that Hillary Clinton will ” win on her merits”. Surely her disastrous performances as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, indicate that this political chameleon has very few merits. AS Colonel Viper points out, she is a neocon, war-mongering, Wall Street sock puppet, paid dupe of the Military-Industrial-Complex.
    Everybody knows that. Except you apparently.
    If the “Queen of Chaos” becomes the President of the United States, the whole world is deep doodoo. Including little ole New Zelind!

    • te reo putake 28.1
      11 June 2016 at 3:12 pm

      Dennis. The USA has a binary system for choosing presidents. Whether you like her or not, she is better than the alternative. She will win on her merits because she has plenty of those. She’s not only popular, she’s smart. Ok, she to use those smarts within the limits of the American political system, but the fact they she has got this far further confirms that she’s on to it. She’s going to be a good President, in the same way Obama was a good President. Not able to achieve a hell of a lot, but still able to make a difference. The point of the post was that between her and Helen Clark, there’s a chance to re-align global political power in a positive way. I don’t know how it’ll work out, but I’m willing to give it a go, because it’s better than business as usual.

      btw, not everyone knows that she is a “neocon, war-mongering, Wall Street sock puppet, paid dupe of the Military-Industrial-Complex.” That’s because not everyone is a wibbling fantasist without a clue. Get a grip if you want to be taken seriously.

      • Dennis Merwood 28.1.1
        11 June 2016 at 6:00 pm

        te reo putake, ( keep spelling your name wrong…sorry.)

        Where to start with you, eh?
        The US has a binary system for choosing presidents. Not remotely true. Tell that to The Green’s Jill Stein. Or Ralph Nader….or all the other candidates who have run on other party tickets over the years.

        How is she better than the alternate? Who are you referring to? Trump or Sanders. Arguably both have much “better” platforms than Hillary. Trump says he will talk to Putin, protect us US workers jobs, not sign the TPP, and enact responsible immigration reform, just for starters. Bernie’s list of “better” things he wants for us Americans is too way long for this blog forum. How about free tertiary education, and Universal Healthcare (like you lucky Kiwi’s have). She is just for more of the same tired old stuff.

        She has very, very few merits. Care to list them? Been riding on her husbands coat tails for her whole political career. That’s about the level she is “on to it.” A terrible First lady. An inconsequential Senator, And a disastrous Secretary of State.
        And just not very smart.

        And I’m sorry te reo uptake, Obama has not been a “good” President. He’s been an ineffective flop. I voted for him twice. More fool me. He has not done one of the things I wanted him to do. Quite the opposite. He promised he was going to end the Afghanistan War. Didn’t. And started a few more to boot. Aided and abetted by his Secretary of State, Killary. Sadly, Obama has just been Bush II, and Hillary will surely be Bush III on steroids. We Americans are sick of this statue quo.

        Your half baked theory that between her and Helen Clark, there’s a chance to re-align global political power in a positive way is…well half baked and naive! The UN does exactly what the US Deep State tells it to do. That’s why Israel escapes censure over and over again for its apartheid state. The UN, because of its voting rules, is ineffective at bringing about any meaningful change.

        The reason you can entertain the notion that the “Queen of Chaos” is popular in my home country, is that you don’t live there, and don’t have a clue, other than what you read. She is a pariah to millions of progressive Americans. The most unpopular Presidential candidate ever by most measures. It is absolutely frightening that the polling for her to defeat the absolute moron Trump are not looking too hot. Whereas they show Bernie Sanders beating Trump by miles. Unfortunately the wibbling fantasist without a clue is te re uptake.

  29. Dennis Merwood 29
    11 June 2016 at 6:25 pm

    Goddam it…keep screwing up the spelling of your name! Not only am I a “wibbling fantasist without a clue”, I am also dyslexic. My apologies.
    Dennis

  30. red-blooded 30
    11 June 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Dennis, when you say, “Trump says he will talk to Putin, protect us US workers jobs, not sign the TPP, and enact responsible immigration reform, just for starters,” you show yourself to be frighteningly naive. Trump talks bullshit and simply can’t deliver on his extremist promises. He doesn’t have the experience, the smarts or the tactics to follow-through on a lot of this, and even if he did it wouldn’t necessarily be a good thing. Let’s take these one by one:
    1) “Talk to Putin” – Why is this a good thing? Putin is a bully who is deeply involved with many of the policies that have been vilified on this discussion thread. Consider his bombing of Syrian civilians, for example. (And yes, he’s the one who made the decision for that, and Russia’s aggression has been extreme and self-interested.) Putin is very like Trump, only far more experienced in politics and foreign policy. Do we want two narcissistic bully boys ganging up on the rest of the world? It’s not as if Russia and the US are on the brink of some kind of WW3 conflict against each other at present.
    2) “Protect US workers’ jobs” – Oh yeah? How? What you mean is, push unemployment rates up in developing countries like China and india, and in trading countries like NZ.
    3) “Not sign the TPP” – Forgetting the fact that it may actually be signed before the new president takes office, the fact that Trump says he won’t sign it is not a reason to vote for him. Clinton is also anti-TPP.
    4) “Enact responsible immigration reforms” – I’m sorry, but have you actually heard what this racist xenophobe has been saying about bans on Muslims and building a wall (that he somehow thinks he can bully another sovereign nation into paying for)? This would be a joke if it wasn’t so sick and frightening.

    If you’re a far-right, dim-witted, racist idiot, then go ahead and support Trump. If not, think again.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10960124/donald-trump-foreign-policy-isis

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730

    • Colonial Viper 30.1
      11 June 2016 at 7:27 pm

      Firstly, fuck you and the neocon horse you rode in on.

      Next:

      1) “Talk to Putin” – Why is this a good thing? Putin is a bully who is deeply involved with many of the policies that have been vilified on this discussion thread.

      Ans: Putin is not a bully, and even if you regard Russia as a mortal enemy, you must maintain diplomatic contact at all times if you are to have any chance of avoiding war.

      2) “Protect US workers’ jobs” – Oh yeah? How? What you mean is, push unemployment rates up in developing countries like China and india, and in trading countries like NZ.

      Ans: sorry mate, sick of your zero sum economic games. American workers have been destroyed by neoliberal corporatism and it is time to end the race to the bottom of the barrel.

      4) “Not sign the TPP” – Forgetting the fact that it may actually be signed before the new president takes office, the fact that Trump says he won’t sign it is not a reason to vote for him. Clinton is also anti-TPP.

      Clinton is pro-TPP. She is lying when she says that she is against it.

      4) “Enact responsible immigration reforms” – I’m sorry, but have you actually heard what this racist xenophobe has been saying

      Trump is trolling the electorate at this stage. He’s comparably racist to Clinton and Obama is.

  31. red-blooded 31
    11 June 2016 at 8:09 pm

    So Clinton is “lying”, and this is a bad thing, but Trump is “trolling” and this is OK?

    Your comments are almost as ridden with inconsistencies, ridiculous claims and abuse as your beloved Mr Trump, CV. I’m beginning to understand what you see in him.

    Note, I’m not going to respond to whatever idiocies you intend to throw my way at this stage. Have fun. 😘

    • Colonial Viper 31.1
      11 June 2016 at 9:13 pm

      Killary Neocon Clinton

    • Chris 31.2
      11 June 2016 at 9:37 pm

      How about better the Trump we don’t know than the Clinton we do?

      • McFlock 31.2.1
        11 June 2016 at 9:39 pm

        lol

        Trouble is, if he’s being honest then the world is super-fucked

        • Chris 31.2.1.1
          11 June 2016 at 10:24 pm

          But we know he’s full of shit so who knows what’ll happen?

          • McFlock 31.2.1.1.1
            12 June 2016 at 2:45 pm

            That’s the problem.

            For example, ditching nuclear non-proliferation and pressuring NATO nations to drastically increase their defense spending. These are not strategies that bode well for long term global stability, and I’m pretty sure Clinton won’t do that.

            Whereas Trump’s criticism of Obama’s Syria policy is that Obama announces troop deployments, whereas Trump will pretend nobody knows.

        • Chris 31.2.1.2
          11 June 2016 at 10:51 pm

          A good name for a band: “Clinton in the War Room”. Free to a good home.

  32. Dennis Merwood 32
    11 June 2016 at 8:14 pm

    Colonel,
    I guess he missed the part in my post where I stated….”I voted for him (Obama) twice.”
    Hardly a ” far-right, dim-witted, racist idiot”, eh? LOL

    Sadly, posters like “red-blooded” have a slim grasp on the situation.
    As you point out , he is just flat out wrong, and ill informed, on all (4) points he addresses.

    I’ll supplement your post up with some responses if my own:
    1. Putin has one or two military bases all around the world. Obama has 800+. I’ll just leave it at that. Don’t want to embarrass the poor guy by comparing how many countries the US and Russia have illegally attacked in recent years.
    2. The race to the bottom. Locate all production factories to Vietnam, or China, where the workers are paid $0.50 per hour. Then US and NZ workers can flip hamburgers. Great idea.
    3. Clinton was for the TPP, before she was against it! She’s lying.
    4. The country I live in has 10 million+ illegal immigrants. Five times the population of New Zealand. Why? Because greedy American business people employ them for crap wages, with no benefits. This is what Trump is referring to when I say he wants to address immigration. Its nothing to do with Xenophobia.

    BTW, I will never vote for Trump, or Hillary. I’ve gotta vote my conscience and vote for Jill Stien. Sadly. it will be a waste of my time.
    Oh oh…All Blacks are struggling…….

    • Colonial Viper 32.1
      11 June 2016 at 9:14 pm

      Then US and NZ workers can flip hamburgers.

      Except chain store burger flipping jobs will be automated in the next 5 or so years.

Links to post