Celebre!

So despite the dire predictions, despite the implied threats, despite the overt hostility from the US,

[i]n a stunning victory, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez easily defeated a recall referendum that sought to end his self-described revolution that has given hope to the poor but has bitterly divided this strategic oil-rich nation.

Electoral officials announced Monday that Chavez received about 58 percent of the vote in Sunday's balloting. ...

As a result of the balloting, Chavez will serve out the remaining two years of his term.

So reported the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday.

Chavez, who had already survived four national strikes and a brief, US-linked coup which the US avoided condemning until after it had failed, has been a bête noire for the Bush administration. He associated with Fidel Castro. He strenuously opposed NAFTA. But what really got the Shrubberies' goat was that he wanted to increase the excise tax on oil produced in Venezuela from 16% to 30% in order to finance programs for the poor and landless.

The central importance of oil, oil interests, and the oligarchs who benefit from them was acknowledged, if only implicitly, in coverage of Chavez's victory. The ellipsis in the quote above contained these sentences:

The decisive victory eased fears of instability on the world oil market, and prices dropped from record highs. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and supplies about 14 percent of the United States' petroleum needs.

The New York Times, while referring to Venezuela's position as fifth-largest producer in the first paragraph, was slightly more circumspect, waiting until the fifth sentence of its report to say

[h]is victory eased world oil prices, which had been buffeted by concerns that a successful recall, and the ensuing violence that some expected, could disrupt production at the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela.

The concern for the effect on oil prices and the oil industry drove the coverage of the recall - and that concern was undoubtedly behind the active US support for its backers. Greg Palast notes a few of the ways:

Secret contracts were awarded by our Homeland Security spooks to steal official Venezuela voter lists. Cash passed discreetly from the US taxpayer, via the so-called "Endowment for Democracy," to the Chavez-haters running [the] "recall" election.

A brilliant campaign of placing stories about Chavez' supposed unpopularity and "dictatorial" manner seized US news and op-ed pages, ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times.

(It continues even now: In their coverage of the recall vote, the Times called Chavez "a pugnacious leftist populist" and the Tribune made reference to his "signature red beret and class-based rhetoric.")

The presence of such practical endorsements is also undoubtedly behind the refusal of the Chavez opponents to accept their clear defeat.

Opposition leaders rejected the official results after saying their exit polls showed them winning by a wide margin. ...

"We categorically and resoundingly reject these results," said Henry Ramos Allup, a leader of the Democratic Coordinator, the opposition coalition. "The National Electoral Council has committed massive fraud."

However, a team of international observers from the Carter Center and the office of Organization of American States Secretary General Cesar Gaviria said their own investigation supported the official count. Former President Jimmy Carter and Gaviria

explained that the "quick counts" their organizations had conducted at various polling stations coincided with the outcome released by the Electoral Council. The quick counts, used in elections around the world, tally totals from various polling sites, have a margin of error of 1 percent and are more accurate than surveys of voters leaving the polls.

"We have found the information from the quick count was almost exactly the same as that presented" by the electoral authorities, said Mr. Carter, 79, whose organization has monitored elections in 51 counties.

However, it's unlikely things like facts will deter the powerful interests in Venezuela from pushing their claims because, just like their comrades here, truth isn't the issue for them. Power is. And the support of the US for their efforts means there will still be power behind their power. This is a victory for the people, the largely poor, landless people of Venezuela, a place where 77% of the farmland is owned by 3% of the people, where half the farmers together own just 1% of the land and many peasants have none at all. But be assured it is not the end.

Footnote one: One good thing is that the Shrubberies will have something of a difficulty contesting the security of the election and the count: It was done with 20,000 electronic voting machines supplied by Smartmatic of Boca Raton, Florida. Challenging the results means challenging the security and reliability of touchscreen voting, which would be rather awkward for the White House.

Footnote two: For those who would say "just wait until after November," try this:

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government. - John Kerry, Kerry for President press release, March 19, 2004

"Kerry says Bush is soft on Chávez: John Kerry charges that President Bush's passive approach to backing opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez reflects a larger record of 'sending mixed signals.'" - Headline on Miami Herald article, posted on Kerry for President website, March 23, 2004

That is, Kerry accused Bush of not interfering enough in Venezuela. Anybody But Bush does not equal Always Better Than Bush.