How else could you explain talking about "the possible victory of Brazil's conservative presidential candidate, Jose Serra, in an October election"?

Except for a major accident on the campaign trail (and by "major" I mean something like Ms Rousseff being caught on video taking a bribe - which is more likely t happen on the other side - AND admitting her guilt, AND saying she'll do it again), Jose Serra's chances in October equal zilch - no way Jose. If he's been faring relatively well so far, though falling steadily while Ms Rousseff goes up, it's because many voters have *not* identified him as the main candidate for the *opposition* to the most popular administration in Brazil's history. He's been extremely careful to *hide* this from the voters, but now that the campaign is officially on it will become crystal-clear to everyone who's who, and that's when Serra's steady fall in the polls becomes precipitous.

You just watch - his defeat will be humiliating, final, end-of-career. He may count himself lucky if he doesn't finish third, behind Marina Silva. And forget all vain hopes for a second chance, this election will be decided in the first round of voting, by a large margin.

''In 2002, 29 percent of Latin Americans identified themselves as centrists; by 2008, that number had jumped to 42 percent.''

I wonder how these polls were conducted, if for instance it was carried out landline to landline that would leave out the majority that life in the slums.

Now if that is the case you guys are forgetting about the people that have elected the leftist leaders over the last decade.

But acknowledging these people and their subsequent mobilisation that has moved the continent to the left, due to the failure of neo-liberalism, would not do for those up North, would it?

How about you stop with the misinformation and treat us like the intelligent people we are.

This is an excellent but incomplete article. While it acknowledge a shift towards moderation in some Latin American countries, it fail to address LATIN NATIONALISM and it's likely impact on future events affecting Latin America.
While it is true many nations are embracing a new economic path and less heated rhetoric. It is equally true that they REMAIN DEEPLY SUSPICIOUS of the USA and its intentions, based in part on the poor relations we have had with them in the past. Many Latin Americans attribute there under development to American exploitation and abuse. The recent recession and near collapse of the world economy has only reinforce that negative view of American capitalism. Fortunately China's demand for raw material has kept the economies of Brazil ,Chile , Argentina and Venezuela away from disaster. It might be speculated that China's success with capitalism has had a more meaningful impact on Latin America's outlook, than any growing admiration for America. Of even greater concern for the future is the unanimous demand by ten Latin American nations for the USA to accommodate "Illegal Aliens", a demand they would not accept in there own countries. This unreasonable request, more than anything else will sour the relationship between North and South America for decades. While there are signs of hope and economic growth in Latin America I would hesitate to break out the champagne and celebrate just now.

we can expect that , The US is becoming Out regional discusssions.
China is rising the South America market while USA still fighting Losing Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .
maybe United states Foreign strategy should be changed very very
soon wireless router comparison

Well, as some have pointed out above, the possibility that Brazil will turn right is very small. Of the 4 polls divulged since late July, one reports a tie between Rousseff and Serra; three give an advantage for Rousseff that might be of anything from 5 to 10%. Serra's has not had an advantage at polling reports ever since April.

The predictions that Latin America will turn right have all failed. Only two countries in later times have elected right-wing presidents: namely, Chile and Colombia, and none of them belonged to the same ideological spectrum of the "pink tide" countries. And yes, that includes Chile: it's true that, prior to Piñera, Chile had been electing leftist presidents. But that process began in 1990, which singles Chile out from the "pink tide" leftists in Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina - all of which have been elected during the late 90s and early 2000s in face of the failure of the neoliberal economic reforms of previous presidents. Also importantly about Chile is that: 1 - even leftist presidents had close relations with the US; 2 - Piñera has so far brought no major changes in previous policies either in the economic or in the foreign policies areas. Piñera is no Uribe: his foreign policy has explicitly emphasized ties with Latin American countries, specially with Brazil. His relations with Chávez and Morales aren't bad either. He's continued Bachelet's 13 points programme to negotiate with Bolivia a passage to the Pacific Ocean.

So far, only one country that belonged to the pink tide spectrum has had elections: that is Uruguay, and Uruguay has again chosen to elect a left-wing president: Jose Mujica.

There's also a country that does not belong to the pink tide, but may perhaps join the group: Peru, a country whose president, the conservative Alan García, is unarguably the South American president most hated by his own people.

Also questionable is the author's superficial dichotomy between left-wing policies and pragmatism. Chávez, for instance, is no more of an ideologue than Uribe. If one could say of Chávez that he follows a policy of automatic confrontation with the US, one could say of Uribe precisely the opposite: that his policy is nothing but automatic alignment with the Northern hemisphere. The pragmatists in the region are really Brazil and Chile's presidents.

===== http://www.tnta.us ====

jordan air max oakland raiders $34–39;

Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;

Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;

gstar coogi evisu true jeans $35;

coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;

coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;

CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;

jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;

EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;

coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;

===== http://www.tnta.us ====

Most people is geting tired of populists demagoges pandering to idologies and dividing the country in two with hate speechs but ignoring everyday problems like high levels of crime. If we compare today the words of the current administration with their words 6 months ago, there is a lot less insults and words like "combat" and more words like "pluralism".

input this URL:
( http://www.ashops.us)
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(nike jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv Chanel Gucci Coach h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

Colombia is not ALL Latin America, the arrival of Santos is just the continuation of the Uribe right-wing government, who along with some (only with some) countries in the region, including Mexico, are part of a opposite wave to the path Latin America is taking.

The People's Republic of China is seeking influence in Latin America for numerous reasons, energy and geopolitical strategy being foremost. The PRC is gradually, slowly, trying to get physically closer to the Panama Canal, for obvious reasons. The US government and other governments of the Americas, allies of the US and hostile towards the US, are well aware of the fact.

Remember the Suez Crisis of 1956, when Egyptian Col Nasser as leader of Egypt consequent to his coup, suddenly nationalized the canal? The UK, France and Israel launched a military operation that had to be aborted after a previously not consulted (and furious) Pres Eisenhower squelched it via the UN, citing the post WW II principle of self-determination best articulated by Pres Wilson post WW I.

The PRC moles and apologists lurking around and about at various web discussion boards, the PRC and its pals in S America, need to know the US will not react in the same passive way in respect to the PRC's grand design to gain controlling influence over the Panama Canal whether directly or indirectly.

The PRC and its S America chums are treading extremely dangerous ground concerning the Panama Canal. Together they risk a dangerous and disastrous response against them by the US and its allies in the Americas, to include especially Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Argentina to name a few; and the additional support of the US's Central America allies which, in the interest of the Americas, continue to recognize the Republic of China in Taipei as the government of the Chinese of East Asia.

Chinese Americans on both continents certainly do not support the PRC in its long term designs to gain influential or direct control over the Panama Canal. However, as the CIA well knows, for a decade there are PRC Chinese quietly relocating to Panama, quietly to open a small business (capitalization from the PRC government in Beijing) to become involved in the affairs of Panama.

The PRC and its S American cronies are playing with fire in their moves eventually to gain control of the Panama Canal.