NationStates Jolt Archive

"I just don't see the Iranian elections as being a serious attempt to move Iran closer to a democratic future," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News television in Jerusalem. She criticised the legitimacy of the electoral process, in which unelected clerics barred most of the 1,000 presidential hopefuls, including all the women, from standing.

Yahoo News


How does this differ from US democracy?

Only a few people were allowed to run. Those allowed were selected by a few people.
In the US you can only be elected President if you have the backing of the correct people. The vast majority of people who want to run can do so in the knowledge that they have no hope of success without that support.
When did a woman last run for President in the US?

This just seems another case of "do as we say not as we do!"

Oh, and this undemocratic election had a 63% turn out. Even though a lot of intellectuals boycotted it.

How does this differ from US democracy?

Only a few people were allowed to run. Those allowed were selected by a few people.
In the US you can only be elected President if you have the backing of the correct people. The vast majority of people who want to run can do so in the knowledge that they have no hope of success without that support.
When did a woman last run for President in the US?

This just seems another case of "do as we say not as we do!"

Oh, and this undemocratic election had a 63% turn out. Even though a lot of intellectuals boycotted it.

Yes a little few and sometimes a minority party
I think last election
Probably

Our votes don't matter, only the electorial colleges who could vote however they want. Individual (almost useless) votes are only for creating polls.

How does this differ from US democracy?

Only a few people were allowed to run. Those allowed were selected by a few people.
In the US you can only be elected President if you have the backing of the correct people. The vast majority of people who want to run can do so in the knowledge that they have no hope of success without that support.
When did a woman last run for President in the US?

This just seems another case of "do as we say not as we do!"

Oh, and this undemocratic election had a 63% turn out. Even though a lot of intellectuals boycotted it.
The problem with Iran is that they have a revolutionary committee that can bar anyone they want to. As bad as elections are in the US, there's no permanent institution motivated by ultra-conservative values with that kind of power in the US.

Yes a little few and sometimes a minority party
I think last election
Probably

Our votes don't matter, only the electorial colleges who could vote however they want. Individual (almost useless) votes are only for creating polls.
In most states there's some system or another which binds electoral college voters to the popular votes of their state.

But in the US, you dont have to be worried about being tortured or having your family being mowed down. The common misconcetion that minorities dont run just isnt true, and FYI, the last time a women ran was 2004 Dem. Moseley Braun

But without the backing of the Dems she went nowhere. How much is that really different from a bunch of mad old mullahs deciding if you can run or not?

But without the backing of the Dems she went nowhere. How much is that really different from a bunch of mad old mullahs deciding if you can run or not?
Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to run in '08.

Ms Rice is just judging Iran based on the standards of democracy in the USA. Which is a fallacy, since they haven't had, like, women's lib there yet, but let's not little details like you can't judge one country based on another's standards get in the way of preparing the nation for aggressive warfare against Iran.

But in the US, you dont have to be worried about being tortured or having your family being mowed down. The common misconcetion that minorities dont run just isnt true, and FYI, the last time a women ran was 2004 Dem. Moseley Braun
And she would probably of been good for the US had she a snowballs hope in hell of being elected.
Come on guys lets admit it. If you aren't supported by the right comporations with the right money then you are doomed to lose.
I've got no problem the US version of democracy but your govnment seems blinded when it comes to Iran and a couple of other countries.
The revolutionary council selected the last presedent but he still tried for years to reduce the clerics power.
I don't see much news of US presidents trying to restrict corporate interference in US politics. Tobacco and oil lobbies still seem pretty powerful

Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to run in '08.

And that proves? She can be picked by the powerful few to run for them. If she is not selected she doesn't stand a chance because the Reps and Dems have successfully conned the US public into thinking a vote for anyone else doesn't count. Under your screwed up system this is more true than it should be of course but a real protest vote might actually cause people to shift in their perceptions.

Ms Rice is just judging Iran based on the standards of democracy in the USA. Which is a fallacy, since they haven't had, like, women's lib there yet, but let's not little details like you can't judge one country based on another's standards get in the way of preparing the nation for aggressive warfare against Iran.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over that. I'm stuck for an emoticon.
:p :( (two will have to do)

And that proves? She can be picked by the powerful few to run for them. If she is not selected she doesn't stand a chance because the Reps and Dems have successfully conned the US public into thinking a vote for anyone else doesn't count. Under your screwed up system this is more true than it should be of course but a real protest vote might actually cause people to shift in their perceptions.
Do you know what the primary system is?

Yeah, I do. And who gets through it who isn't obscenely rich and hence, inherently conservative? No-one. At all. It's a sweet system if you're running it.

Yeah, I do. And who gets through it who isn't obscenely rich and hence, inherently conservative? No-one. At all. It's a sweet system if you're running it.
George Soros is inherently conservative?

While the author makes a valid point, it is lacking some information. In the U.S. anyone can run, as long as you are 35 yrs or older, a U.S. born citizen, and while corporations do have some say so, it is ultimately the will of the people that decides the president. If Hillary Clinton were the most electable candidate in 2008 her party will put her forth... To say that a party puts up a candidate that does their bidding isn't entirely true, as there are a wide range from farrrrr right wing conservative republicans, to moderate republicans, to left leaning republicans, to waaayyyyy far left leaning republicans.... and that's only one of the two major parties... The beauty of the 2 party system is that the Democrats have to put up an electable candidate, not just some cronie for the party, or they have no chance of winning... again, same with the other party as well.. That and alot of the lobbies are not corporations per say, but non-profit organizations, so there are many groups represented. In Iran it is not the same, although I respect the fact that elections are being held in Iran, Condoleeza Rice is accurate in the regards that they are not truly free elections, as certain minorities, such as women are barred from running, (and in some cases voting) and there is much intimidation to vote a certain way if you want to keep your safety... Similar to that in Iraq when Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote....
Your thoughts?

Yeah, I do. And who gets through it who isn't obscenely rich and hence, inherently conservative? No-one. At all. It's a sweet system if you're running it.


The idea that being rich has to make you conservative is 100% fallacy.. Look at the hollywood elites, actors, musicians, etc. that have all the money in the world, and are extremely liberal. Not to mention George Soros, the likes of which the Rebublican Party has no single answer for.. There is alot more to the political process than money, and anyone can technically run, using government funds, although there are limits. Yeeeeee of little faith......

George Soros is inherently conservative?

No idea who he is. However, the majority of the rich would rather keep the status quo, or even tip it in their favour a little more.

Iran is a democracy. Run on different lines from the US (ie, the supreme court gets it's say in first rather than last) but democracy nonetheless. Progressives are gaining power steadily and eventually the moderates will take over the council and so the democratic process will improve. A US invasion would be disastrous for democracy in Iran.

Yeah, I do. And who gets through it who isn't obscenely rich and hence, inherently conservative? No-one. At all. It's a sweet system if you're running it.

John Kerry's a Conservative?

The idea that being rich has to make you conservative is 100% fallacy.. Look at the hollywood elites, actors, musicians, etc. that have all the money in the world, and are extremely liberal. Not to mention George Soros, the likes of which the Rebublican Party has no single answer for.. There is alot more to the political process than money, and anyone can technically run, using government funds, although there are limits. Yeeeeee of little faith......

And the Hollywood elite don't run. It'd be fun to see, say Billie-Joe Armstrong run but he'd probably go nowhere.

Anyone can technically run but who ACTUALLY runs with any chance of success? Uniformly rich, white, male, probably Christian corporatists. Maybe Hilary will buck the trend a little, maybe not. It's not my decision.

John Kerry's a Conservative?

By the standards of anywhere in europe yes. Listen to his personal views. His party line tells him one thing but his personal views? Oh so very conservative.

I just want to know where the certainty about the US invading Iran comes into play? There is no chance the US will be invading Iran, at least not in the next year or so, as we (not that I have anything to do with it) will let UN resolution after UN resolution be ignored by Iran just like we did with Iraq, hopefully not for 12 years like with Iraq, but still, there is a world idea that the US is dying to jump into war with anyone not agreeing with them, that just doesn't happen...

And the Hollywood elite don't run. It'd be fun to see, say Billie-Joe Armstrong run but he'd probably go nowhere.

And they'll promptly lose. They got rejected in the 2004 and they'll get rejected again

Anyone can technically run but who ACTUALLY runs with any chance of success?

People running for the House :D

Uniformly rich, white, male, probably Christian corporatists. Maybe Hilary will buck the trend a little, maybe not. It's not my decision.

Your right its not, its the voters.

No idea who he is. However, the majority of the rich would rather keep the status quo, or even tip it in their favour a little more.

Its true that many rich people are conservatives. To say that all rich are inherently conservative, making the primary system worthless, is wrong though.

By the standards of anywhere in europe yes. Listen to his personal views. His party line tells him one thing but his personal views? Oh so very conservative.
Why use the standards of Europe?

And the Hollywood elite don't run. It'd be fun to see, say Billie-Joe Armstrong run but he'd probably go nowhere.

Anyone can technically run but who ACTUALLY runs with any chance of success? Uniformly rich, white, male, probably Christian corporatists. Maybe Hilary will buck the trend a little, maybe not. It's not my decision.

I think when it comes to the hollywood types. They would rather just throw tantrums and get their names in the paper instead of actually doing it. Well unless you are Gary Coleman :)

By the standards of anywhere in europe yes. Listen to his personal views. His party line tells him one thing but his personal views? Oh so very conservative.

I've listened to him talk! The Senator can't stay with one thing. And isn't he the Number 1 Liberal in the Senate?

Why use the standards of Europe?

He's a European I believe Kwangistar.

Because they are the standards I have when looking at it so they are what I can use. My point is that from here there is only a minimal difference between parties. The difference between candidates is personality more than policy. The real reason I supported Kerry wasn't his policies it was the fact he seemed marginaly less obnoxious and rather more diplomatic than GWB.

And the Hollywood elite don't run. It'd be fun to see, say Billie-Joe Armstrong run but he'd probably go nowhere.

Anyone can technically run but who ACTUALLY runs with any chance of success? Uniformly rich, white, male, probably Christian corporatists. Maybe Hilary will buck the trend a little, maybe not. It's not my decision.


nor do corporations run, but the previous comment (paraphrasing) is that US corporations and big business determine who is the president of the US. If any citizen can donate time, money, and efforts to their cause, why can't groups of citizens such as businesses? The hollywood elites come into play when they

A. Hold concerts like Bruce Springsteen to try to sway voters, sign up voters, and help fund one party's chances of winning (which is their constitutional right and I fully support)

or

B. Make drive-by political commentary, such as going on a talk show, bashing the current President of the US, and making it known that you and your fans are voting one certain way..

I've listened to him talk! The Senator can't stay with one thing. And isn't he the Number 1 Liberal in the Senate?

That says it all. *bows head in fear*

Oh, and just because he can have deeper positions than GWB doesn't make him a 'Flip-flopper' it makes him intelligent. I must admit you did a good job there.

He's a European I believe Kwangistar.
Because they are the standards I have when looking at it so they are what I can use. My point is that from here there is only a minimal difference between parties. The difference between candidates is personality more than policy. The real reason I supported Kerry wasn't his policies it was the fact he seemed marginaly less obnoxious and rather more diplomatic than GWB.

I realize that Wurzelmania is European, but that dosen't really make using the European political centre to talk about who's on the left and right of American politics any more appropriate.

That says it all. *bows head in fear*

Oh, and just because he can have deeper positions than GWB doesn't make him a 'Flip-flopper' it makes him intelligent. I must admit you did a good job there.

At least Bush stuck to his guns. Kerry never did.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

As to the topic of this thread, the revolutionary council struck several names off the list because they are not hardliners but reformers. They are afraid that if they allow full fledge vote, free of their influence, the hardliners would be tossed right out of power. They are right in that regard. They would be.

Their elections are not free and the revolutionary council only allows those that'll keep the status quo. It isn't right that for sure. That is what Rice was refering too. It pretty much is a sham and this is their first ever runoff election. That's surprising in and of itself.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out.

I realize that Wurzelmania is European, but that dosen't really make using the European political centre to talk about who's on the left and right of American politics any more appropriate.

I'll agree with you there and they say that we are the center. They way they talk, you think the world revolves around Europe.

Well we can agree who is 'right' and who is 'left'. I am making the point that in comparison to other democracies, particulary the liberal democracies of Europe it is all on the right and, TBH there isn't much difference. At least Labour and the Conservatives have clear air between them that any fool can spot. I'm pretty smart and i can't honestly see much difference in US candidates.

I'll agree with you there and they say that we are the center. They way they talk, you think the world revolves around Europe.

And it all revolves around the US of course. [/heavy sarcasm]

particulary the liberal democracies of Europe

That settled that question. We already know the Europe is far left. We don't want to go there. BTW: How high is the unemployment rate in Europe anyway?

it is all on the right and, TBH there isn't much difference.

I wouldn't say that to an American to their face if they are a diehard party loyalist.

At least Labour and the Conservatives have clear air between them that any fool can spot.

Sometimes its hard to tell.

I'm pretty smart and i can't honestly see much difference in US candidates.

I CAN!!!

And it all revolves around the US of course. [/heavy sarcasm]

Actually it revolves around the sun! :D

That settled that question. We already know the Europe is far left. We don't want to go there. BTW: How high is the unemployment rate in Europe anyway?

Liberal democracy is not a term that means 'far left'. look it up. Better still, I'll do it for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Liberal_democracy)

Try thinking before you post.

Liberal democracy is not a term that means 'far left'. look it up. Better still, I'll do it for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Liberal_democracy)

Try thinking before you post.

:rolleyes: I guess someone missed sarcasm

:rolleyes: I guess someone missed sarcasm

This is the internet. BTW, given your track record of idiocy I tend to take you seriously (as in, believe you are speaking your mind, not actually take your views as serious) when you pull this crap.

This is the internet. BTW, given your track record of idiocy I tend to take you seriously (as in, believe you are speaking your mind, not actually take your views as serious) when you pull this crap.

its how I keep people on their toes. Crack something when its least expected. :D

But in the US, you dont have to be worried about being tortured or having your family being mowed down. The common misconcetion that minorities dont run just isnt true, and FYI, the last time a women ran was 2004 Dem. Moseley BraunAnd she would probably of been good for the US had she a snowballs hope in hell of being elected.
You *can't* be serious.

http://www.realchange.org/moseley.htm
Carole Moseley Braun has quite a resume to qualify her as a president. She won a Senate seat in a major upset, capitalizing on anger over the Anita Hill hearings, and proceeded to line her pockets with campaign funds, cover up sexual harassment charges against her boyfriend/campaign manager (while paying him $15,000 a month out of campaign funds), and support an infamous Nigerian dictator even as he was executing dissidents like renowned playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. After denying reports that the Democratic party offered to pay off her campaign debt if she would quit when her term expired in 1998, she chewed through staff like like a puppy in a room of slippers, and lost her re-election to an unknown amidst widespread charges of improprieties.

If that doesn't qualify you to lead the free world, what does?

Quotes

"If I lose, I'm going to retire from politics, practice law and wear bright leather pants." -- Moseley-Braun, during the 1990 Senate race.

"We were asking her fairly obvious questions. Things you'd expect a candidate for Senate to be familiar with. She was dumbfounded the entire time. She just sat there.... Then she'd fumble around with some half-baked answer. It was very awkward for all of us." -- Chicago Tribune political writer Thomas Hardy

"With this fund-raising being as successful as it is, as God is my witness, I will not go hungry again." -- Moseley-Braun

"For someone who has been in politics for 20-plus years to have so few if any supporters is remarkable. Her candidacy has more to do with psychology than politics. It's just inexplicable." -- political consultant Don Rose.

"She had a chance to make a difference and blew it." -- Paul Stilp, former Braun aide

Lining Her Pockets

It's surprisingly rare for candidates to actually use political office to enrich themselves. Most, like Bob Dole, are driven by political power and are more than happy to live a monastic life in order to achieve it. President Bush and Ralph Nader are two exceptions to that rule; Carole Moseley Braun is a third.

She was elected in 1992, the year of the woman candidate, and raised an amazing $7 million -- substantial chunks of which went to support her lifestyle and that of her boyfriend.

And like Nader, it's especially galling in her case because she's so quick to paint herself as "the voice of change", a leftist who will reform the corrupt system. The reality is, she was happy to milk the ultra-corrupt Chicago political machine for cash from the beginning of her political career.

In her first job, as Illinois state legislator, she became the official legislative spokesman of Chicago mayor Harold Washington. As part of that deal, Moseley-Braun was paid $100,000 (at the mayor's behest) for municipal bond work as a co-counsel for major law firms, even though she had no experience in the field.

Her next job was Cook County Recorder of Deeds, a patronage job reserved for loyal party lieutenants. She created a code of ethics, then exempted herself. Here's what else she did, according to the New Republic magazine:
"she moonlighted as a highly paid lawyer-lobbyist; deposited hundreds of thousands of county dollars in non-interest-bearing accounts at a bank that had contributed to her campaign; and bestowed a $55,000 "consulting" contract on a full-time state senator who happened to be an old friend and political ally."

During the campaign, Moseley-Braun announced that "with this fundraising, as God is my witness, I will never go hungry again." (Her campaign raised $7 million dollars).

Much of that money went to Kgoise Matthews, her campaign manager and later fiance, whose previous experience was as a valet for Jesse Jackson. She paid him $15,000 per month and gave him unprecedented control over the campaign's finances, which were full of irregularities. He burned through the entire $7 million and more; they had to borrow money in the last days of the campaign, despite spending only $1 million on TV ads.

During the campaign, the couple stayed in 4 star accomodations and each got a credit card -- despite FEC regulations, they spent $26,400 on them that was never accounted for. In addition, there were a number of 5-figure payments for obscure reasons such as "advance for travel authorization" and "expense advance for authorization."

Shortly after the election, she announced her engagement to Matthews, moved into a $3,240-a-month luxury apartment in Chicago's Lake Point Towers, bought a new Jeep Cherokee with cash, then flew to South Africa on the Concorde with Matthews and her son. (Tickets on the now-defunct Concorde tickets ran about $4,000 per person, one way, at the time).

On January 15th after her election, she put her fiance on the payroll (at $120,000 per year) to "develop strategies to reduce the campaign debt." By the time she laid him off the following October, that debt has risen by $94,000 despite a new Senator's ability to raise funds easily.
Covering Up Sexual Harassment

Moseley-Braun won her Senate seat because of anger over the Anita Hill sexual harassment hearings. So it's particularly disheartening that she herself went to great lengths to cover up charges of sexual harassment against her boyfriend and campaign manager, Kgosie Matthews. As early as January 1992, long before her primary election, several staffers confronted Moseley Braun about incidents of sexual harassment by Matthews.

Peter McLennon, her then-political director, recalls that she "became quite livid. She said, `Oh, no, that couldn't be. It's just not possible.' She sort of shut us up." McLennon and two other top staffers quit the week before the primary, citing "personality differences" with Matthews.

Problems continued. Staff members told a reporter for the New Republic that the harassment "was pretty clear-cut. I was asked to resign by Kgosie after I refused to see him." Another staffer said that she was humiliated and verbally abused by Matthews after she refused a date. Steven Cobble -- Moseley Braun's finance director for the general election -- said "I knew of five or six instances, any one of which I would have thought was serious. Together, it was a major problem."

On October 15, just weeks before the election, Moseley Braun received an anonymous letter from a group of women in the campaign. It read, in part, "members of your senior staff are aware of these incidents; just ask them if you are in doubt,... investigate the allegations in this letter, talk to your senior staff--Heather , Ira [Cohen], Steve [Cobble], David [Eichenbaum]-- and ask them to be honest with you. We think they will be."

Instead, she successfully covered up the allegations until after the November election. Instead of talking to the staffers, she called an old friend, laywer and campaign contributor named Joyce Moran and asked her to write a report, which she did. Braun claims the report found no wrongdoing, but to this day she refuses to release it, citing "confidentiality." Several staff members say they told Moran details of harassment.

After she was elected, the issue blew up and Moseley Braun held a press conference on December 31st, where she claimed that she had talked to the four staff members involved and they had said the charges were ridiculous. Two of those four staffers flatly contradict her, saying Braun never spoke to them and they had told Moran of problems.

Steve Cobble says he went further and confronted Moseley Braun on the issue 10 days before the election. Staffer David Eichenbaum -- another of the four staffers -- says he told Moran "that there was a problem.... When [Kgosie's] advances were spurned, his demeanor toward people would change completely. He would became nasty toward them. These women had a legitimate complaint."

Of the report, Eichenbaum said "Her intention was to clear her boyfriend, not to get to the truth." Unless several of her staffers -- including 5 women who talked to the New Republic on condition of anonymity -- are mistaken, then Moseley Braun is shamelessly lying to cover this scandal up.

[B]Medicaid Abuse

In 1990, Moseley Braun's mother was living in a nursing home, completely supported by Medicaid because she had no assets. Then her mom inherited $28,750 dollars. By law, she needed to report that to the state within 5 days so they could reclaim some of it to pay for the nursing home.

Instead, she turned it over to Moseley Braun, who kept some and gave the rest to her brother and sister. She even admits that she drew up a legal agreement spelling out the distribution of money, dated June 27, 1990, which her mom signed.

When the story broke, Moseley Braun basically blamed her mom, conceding that she should have "taken greater control of the reporting requirements." She was forced to pay back the $15,239 that she received to the state, but was not prosecuted in part because the Illinois state Attorney General Roland Burris, a Democrat who campaigned with her, didn't press the case.

Then a reporter found an unsigned letter from Moseley Braun to her mother with explosive wording. "In an effort to help you "launder" the timber proceeds and not run afoul of the state regulations, I agreed to handle your $28,750. The money was deposited in a money-market account and touched only at your direction. "

The reporter had, at the time, only a fragment of the letter, and it was unsigned, so he had a television reporter friend ask her about the letter during a videotaped interview. Here is the transcript:

KUR [shows letter]: Do you have anything to say about that?
MOSELEY-BRAUN: No, I don't....
KUR: Can you say you never wrote it?
MOSELEY-BRAUN: No I can't. I mean, you know, I mean, my mother [pause]. It's a pretty damning letter.

David Eichenbaum, who attended the taping, remembers that "Kgosie started bouncing off the walls, grabbing Carol, grabbing the letter. He took a look at it, said, `We're getting out of here' and basically just whisked her out."

According to Gerald Austin, who at the time was the campaign's media adviser, they held an emergency meeting back at campaign headquarters, and he asked Moseley Braun if she had written the letter. She said "I used to write lots of letters to my mother for catharsis. Some I sent, some I tore up." According to Austin, "She said she didn't remember if she had sent this one or torn it up. That to me was an admission she'd done the letter. People were shocked. We said, `(a) she's going to lose the election, (b) she's going to be disbarred and (c) she's going to be indicted.'"

Now the reporter had a dilemna. The actual evidence was pretty shaky -- part of an unsigned letter -- but Moseley Braun's response made it clear it was solid. Then Austin applied the pressure. He called the reporter, whom he had known for 20 years, and basically begged him not to run the story, because it would destroy Moseley Braun, and he would personally have prevented the first African American woman Senator from being elected. According to Austin, the reporter was a "good liberal" and didn't run the story.

Aid For Corporate Contributors

Despite her claims of being a reformer, Moseley Braun was quick to scratch the back of her contributors in indefensible ways. In 1994, a technical error in the GATT agreement extended Glaxo's patent on Zantac, a mistake worth $2 billion to the company. When Congress moved to correct the error, Moseley Braun was the only Democrat on the Finance committee to vote AGAINST fixing the [completely unintended] mistake. Why? Well, Glaxo had paid her $15,000 for a speech to their executives and had flown Moseley Braun around on their corporate jet for free. [They also gave $487,500 to the Republican National Committee, and the measure to correct the error failed by a single vote -- Moseley Braun's.]

Miscellaneous Little Scandals

Moseley Braun has some smaller stuff, too. After Clinton appointed her as ambassador to New Zealand, the top ranking career diplomat there was reassigned to Washington after accusing her of unethical practices in hiring, procurement and gifts. A State Dept. investigation cleared her of the charges. In 1996, right before the Democratic Convention, she travelled to Nigeria with Kgosie Matthews, who was not only her fiancee but also a paid lobbyist for the Nigerian government. In Lagos, she met with infamous Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, who had recently executed famed playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. Moseley Braun said the dictator was misunderstood and treated unfairly by the press; her unauthorized visit was criticized by the State Department and human rights groups. In justifying her actions, her story has changed. She first said it was a personal visit, then admitted she had made a mistake. Probes by the IRS and Federal Election Commission (presumably for her receiving income and campaign donations in the form of travel and expense money) were dropped. The FEC spokesman said "There's no statement here: no exoneration, no Good Housekeeping seal of approval, just no action. The commission dismissed it for a lack of manpower, a lack of time." After the probes were ended, she reverted to her initial story, saying it was a personal visit.

Sources

"Crusading for a second chance: The former U.S. senator strives to revitalize her tarnished political image. But her campaign has little money and she left behind a trail of disillusioned supporters.", By Dan Mihalopoulos, Chicago Tribune, October 23, 2003

"The Spy 100 lineup", by Lance Gould and David Andrews, Spy Magazine, Dec96 p32

"A star is born", (cover story) by Ruth Shalit, New Republic; 11/15/93, Vol. 209 Issue 20, p18

"A senator's uneasy debut", by Eloise Salholz and Todd Barrett, Newsweek; 1/18/93, Vol. 121 Issue 3, p26

"The dirty Hill" (cover story) , by David Grann and Erika Niedowski, New Republic; 04/07/97, Vol. 216 Issue 14, p21

Let's see if we can drag this back to topic.

To say that Iran is not a democracy because the mullahs preselect the final contenders is false. In Western democracies, although anyone can run, very few make it into the election ballots, either by internal party elections or some other mechanism, but the people (i.e. the total voting population of the country) have very little say into who these final contenders will be.

And money plays a much more important role in the West than people are willing to admit. Without money for a campaign candidates have no chance in hell of getting elected, and that money mostly comes from big corporations or citizen's groups with whom the candidates have to negotiate and promise to back certain reforms, or not to change certain things, to receive it.

At least everybody knows what the deal is with the mullahs and there are no secret deals.

To conclude, Iran is not a Western style democracy, but it doesn't have to be, and as long as the people have some say in the affairs of the government they will change at their own pace and following their own path.

The good side: Iranian elections are remarkable by the region's standards. In fact, I have studied their government's structure and it is quite an interesting model. Women can vote (and they do vote). In fact, the current (post-revolution) system gives the Iranian people more political liberty than anything they had between 300BC and 1990.

The bad side: Anything that comes out of the electoral process is just partly relevant, since the Ayatollah has strong veto powers. Many progressive candidates are barred from the process. There is still a lot of censorship in the newspapers.

The verdict: The Iranian political system is far from being a theocracy; since the islamic revolution, it has slowly evolved towards "true" democracy; they are halfway through. They have the equivalent of a 19th century constitutional monarchy, where the non-elected supreme leader has a right to veto anything the elected government proposes (in fact, in Canada and the UK, the Queen could still do that today). Their system is not bad, when compared to 80% of asian countries (who have dictatorships, life-long "presidents" or single-party "democracy"). At least, the Iranian people have access to their political scene.

Bush sure did stick to his guns. Stateside.

But if Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy, like many of you maintain, then why is there open-minded reformists running everywhere?
The truth is that the candidates are checked for religious aspects, not for political ones. Often that correlates, but right now, the Iranians have a choice of either conservative or reformist. I think they'll choose the reformist, and then we'll have it. No point invading, then.

But if Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy, like many of you maintain, then why is there open-minded reformists running everywhere?
The truth is that the candidates are checked for religious aspects, not for political ones. Often that correlates, but right now, the Iranians have a choice of either conservative or reformist. I think they'll choose the reformist, and then we'll have it. No point invading, then.

Unlike Iraq, or Syria, or Saudi, I think Iran really is a complicated matter. Were it not for the Ayatollah's Fatwas regarding the U.S. and Israel, we'd probably be friendly with 'em (that, and the hostage situation. Americans tend to hold grudges about that sort of thing you know...) today. Sure, it's repressive, so is Saudi, or China. But Iran's showing real inclinations towards both reform, and modernity since the death of Khomeini, some of that is due to the Shah's attempts to drag a fourteenth-century people into the 20th Century. The Iranian Revolution was unusual in that they didn't kill the intellectuals-the Intellectuals there were part of it.
Barring military conflict, I suspect Iran will continue to reform, and may eventually reach the point that the U.S. might be persuaded to deal with 'em, and unfreeze the assets frozen in 1979. since those assets have, for the most part, been accruing interest, that's quite a bit of fuel for Iran's growing industrial base. (they're getting to the point where they are building their own vehicles instead of relying on Imports...)

Anti-Iran sabre rattling is a common sport on Capitol hill, and has been since 1979's hostage crisis. Unlike Iraq, where the only thing preventing American action was a cease-fire agreement that Saddam broke first, an Iranian Invasion isn't likely. We may use Iraq to handle Iran the way we used West Germany as the "Line" against Soviet Expansion, but unless they actually decide to pursue an expansionist policy, it won't go past dirty looks and dirty words. too many of our European (and asian) Allies rely on Iranian oil exports to keep their economies in good shape. Unless and until sufficient alternate sources are available, an invasion would only serve to harm the economies of allies such as Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and Greece.

Americans are too greedy and self-centred to be that stupid.

While the author makes a valid point, it is lacking some information. In the U.S. anyone can run, as long as you are 35 yrs or older, a U.S. born citizen, and while corporations do have some say so, it is ultimately the will of the people that decides the president. If Hillary Clinton were the most electable candidate in 2008 her party will put her forth... To say that a party puts up a candidate that does their bidding isn't entirely true, as there are a wide range from farrrrr right wing conservative republicans, to moderate republicans, to left leaning republicans, to waaayyyyy far left leaning republicans.... and that's only one of the two major parties... The beauty of the 2 party system is that the Democrats have to put up an electable candidate, not just some cronie for the party, or they have no chance of winning... again, same with the other party as well.. That and alot of the lobbies are not corporations per say, but non-profit organizations, so there are many groups represented. In Iran it is not the same, although I respect the fact that elections are being held in Iran, Condoleeza Rice is accurate in the regards that they are not truly free elections, as certain minorities, such as women are barred from running, (and in some cases voting) and there is much intimidation to vote a certain way if you want to keep your safety... Similar to that in Iraq when Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote....
Your thoughts?
Surely a right to run that means nothing just means nothing. You (if you qualify) could run for president but without the funding would doubtless fail.
This isn't democratic. You could be the very best candidate. A veritable god of US politics but without funding and support you wont be heard of and so wont get any votes.
If you were iranian you douubtless wouldn't be allowed to run so you wouldn't get any votes.

The difference?

Let's see if we can drag this back to topic.

To say that Iran is not a democracy because the mullahs preselect the final contenders is false. In Western democracies, although anyone can run, very few make it into the election ballots, either by internal party elections or some other mechanism, but the people (i.e. the total voting population of the country) have very little say into who these final contenders will be.

And money plays a much more important role in the West than people are willing to admit. Without money for a campaign candidates have no chance in hell of getting elected, and that money mostly comes from big corporations or citizen's groups with whom the candidates have to negotiate and promise to back certain reforms, or not to change certain things, to receive it.

At least everybody knows what the deal is with the mullahs and there are no secret deals.

To conclude, Iran is not a Western style democracy, but it doesn't have to be, and as long as the people have some say in the affairs of the government they will change at their own pace and following their own path.
Thank you. You have grasped my point entirely. Democracy is very varied. The US system is just one way of doing it. It's not fair but it's better than some.
The same can be said of the Iranian system.
The double standard Rice sets is to criticise one but not the other. remember this is the same US that supports several dictators where the populous have no vote at all. Bad democracy is better than none.

No idea who he is.
He essentially bankrolled at least half of the democratic party's actions this last election.