Burma vs. Myanmar: What is Hillary really saying?

I watched Hillary Clinton's speech last night -- before the Indiana results were final, she was claiming victory anyway. Guess she figured it didn't matter. She wanted to rally her supporters before everyone went to bed, and if Obama had actually managed to win Indiana she would be out of the race despite the faux-pas.

Anyway, others will no doubt analyze to death her comments, since TV commentators have to fill hours and hours of time with speculations about what would happen if X, Y, or Z. What interests me here is her throwaway comment about the recent cyclone that killed tens of thousands in a southeast Asian country.

Now, the Chicago Tribune calls this nation Myanmar. But Clinton follows the lead of the Brits, and calls it Burma. And she did so twice; it clearly wasn't a mistake.

Now, I'm not rushing to the defense of Myanmar's military dictatorship here. But let's be honest about American realpolitik -- our nation routinely deals with state and nonstate governments that make me queasy without questioning their right to name themselves.

It seems strange (and possibly embarrassing) for our potential future President to use the non-official name for a nation. But clearly she is not alone in preferring to use the name of "Burma". Turns out the U.S. State Department also calls the nation Burma. Even the title of the nation's entry on Wikipedia is disputed. The name of Myanmar was adopted in 1989 (nearly 20 years ago), and is still contested by many. Still, it seems strange for someone aiming for our top diplomatic post to not use the official name for a nation-state.

Adding to the insult, Laura Bush criticized Myanmar's response to the tragedy. I think the only reasonable response by Maynmar to that would be, "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie."