Now, charges of fraud should be reported on, but Chávez's margin of victory should have made Romero question the opposition's accusations, instead of giving them such prominence. The fact that these assertions were half-hearted can be seen by the fact that Chávez's opponent, Manuel Rosales, conceded defeat the same day.

Curiously, it seems that the Times's web editorial staff recognized the problematic aspects of Romero's piece. The online version reads quite differently, with the headline and opening sanitized and the subhead taken out altogether.

Romero continued his anti-Chávez crusade the day after Chávez's triumph. "If President Hugo Chávez rules like an autocrat, as his critics in Washington and here charge, then he does so with the full permission of a substantial majority of the Venezuelan people," his piece opened. The pull quote for the piece referred to "some heads being chopped," come January. (Interestingly, the person quoted is Steve Ellner, a progressive scholar who has written on Venezuela for publications such as In These Times, and his full quote is much less hostile to Chávez.) Another person cited in the piece says that "Chavez is not a dictator, but he's not a Thomas Jefferson either." Well, who is? Not too many current world leaders have Jefferson's caliber, including the person currently occupying his post.

Romero's hostility toward Chávez was also obvious in the run up to the presidential election. In a story two days before election day, he chose to highlight a crime wave in Venezuela, and quoted the opposition presidential candidate Rosales (without providing any balance) blaming Chávez for the phenomenon.

"Chávez nourishes the anarchic forces that are tearing Venezuela apart with a discourse advocating aggression on all fronts," Rosales told the Times. And the Times accepted this tendentious sociological analysis without question.

Romero is not the only person at the Times with an anti-Chávez agenda. After all, the editorial staff at the Times gleefully supported the 2002 U.S.-backed military coup against Chávez, a duly elected leader. In a classic case of doublespeak, the Times stated that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." The Times gently explained to its readers that Chávez "stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader." Chávez's triumphant return three days later forced the Times to eat crow.

I have mixed feelings about Chávez. Although his social programs are commendable and his defiance of the Bush Administration's agenda for the hemisphere is praiseworthy, his military swagger and showboating leave me cold. Still, he has won multiple elections and referendums since 1998, and in spite of his attempts to pack the courts and spew vitriol at his opponents, his democratic legitimacy can't be denied. (See the coverage in The Progressive by my colleague, Liz DiNovella, of a crucial 2004 referendum.) The Times, on many an occasion, barely acknowledges this fact.

Given the Times's history on this issue, perhaps this isn't surprising. As ex-Times reporter Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" documents, the Times has been very willing to go along with the official agenda when it comes to governments deemed hostile to the United States. In the case of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, whose CIA-orchestrated ouster in 1954 bequeathed Guatemala a near-genocidal dictatorship, the Times went so far as to remove, at John Foster Dulles's behest, its disobedient reporter (Sydney Gruson) from the country.

No need for the Times to do that with Romero. He is faithfully recording Washington's wishes.

After crushing his opponent, Manuel Rosales, by 63 to 37 percent Sunday, President Hugo Chávez said that "if they want to talk as equals, we are willing to engage in dialogue, but I doubt that the government (of George W. Bush) is sincere. It has financed conspiratorial activities..."

The Venezuelan leader accuses the U.S. government of financing the short-lived April 2002 coup in which he was overthrown by dissident senior military officers and businessmen.

Chávez called for "transparent dialogue, without conditions, that respects our sovereignty."

U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield said "The two governments have publicly sent signals and messages...It is premature to say when we are going to start the talks or whether we are heading in that direction. However, the U.S. administration is ready, enthusiastic and willing to do so."

But "Both governments must approach each other, and the process must be gradual," he added.

Referring to Shannon's statements, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said it was "a good start for dialogue between the United States and Venezuela...It is also good that there is reciprocity."

In Washington, "there seems to be a shift towards greater pragmatism, based on a clear improvement in the last few weeks in the global climate of international relations in favour of peace and negotiation," Carlos Romero, director of graduate studies in international relations at Venezuela's Central University, told IPS.

Among the elements of that global context, Romero pointed to the new search for a bipartisan foreign policy in the U.S. in the wake of November's legislative elections, in which the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress; European Union attempts to forge closer ties with Russia and China; and Beijing's efforts in talks with North Korea.

In Latin America, meanwhile, the moderate nature of left-leaning governments in large countries like Argentina and Brazil should help curb the potential radicalism of presidents-elect Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. In addition, Raúl Castro, who currently holds the reins in Cuba while his brother Fidel convalesces, has said he is open to talks with Washington.

"Furthermore, and regardless of how paradoxical it may seem, Venezuela...is one of the most stable countries in Latin America today, with hardly any political violence," said Romero.

U.S. State Department press officer Eric Watnik said "We look forward to having the opportunity to work with the Venezuelan government on issues of mutual interest."

Venezuela provides the U.S. market with 1.2 million barrels a day of oil, making it the United States' fourth biggest supplier, after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

Overall trade between the two countries, which has almost doubled over the last three years, could reach 50 billion dollars by the end of 2006, according to the binational chamber of commerce in Caracas.

Analysts in the United States have also referred to the need for a change in the way Washington deals with its differences with the Venezuelan government.

Cynthia Arnson, head of the Latin America programme at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, said "My sense is that the U.S. can do more to work multilaterally to contain Chávez and not respond to every rhetorical provocation.." That way, "long-term U.S. interests will be better served," she argued.

"However, the administration is not of one mind on dealing with Chávez, so it's very hard to predict where policy will go in the next months and years," she added.

Chávez set out Wednesday for the Southern Cone region, after receiving Nicaragua's Ortega. He will meet with presidents Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez of Uruguay, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil before taking part Friday and Saturday in the South American summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Michael Shifter, vice president of Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based forum for opinion leaders and policymakers on Western Hemisphere affairs, agreed that "The best thing is not to go for the bait, and respond to (Chávez's) provocations. I think the U.S. has learned that hasn't worked."

"But I don't think the U.S. should ignore him either; he's got a clear agenda and enormous resources, and I think the U.S. would be wise to try to engage a little bit more with the Latin American governments that are looking for ways to deal with Washington," he said.

"His victory underscores that the United States needs to be more involved; it's been much too withdrawn and indifferent to what's happening in the region," he told IPS in Washington. "The U.S. needs to close the big gap between the agenda in Washington and the agenda in Latin America, which is more concerned with social questions. The U.S. has seemed indifferent to that. What we know is that Latin American governments that show some concern about the plight of the poor are rewarded."

Brownfield said that just as Venezuela and the United States have "traditionally been very cooperative in...areas such as drug trafficking, oil and terrorism"...."We have serious, deep and wide differences in such areas as socialism, capitalism, free trade, hemispheric organisation, and relations with countries like Iran and North Korea."

Chávez, who sees his resounding victory as a mandate to set out on "a Venezuelan route to socialism," has been at the forefront of those who have opposed the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) pushed by Washington, while promoting South American integration -- in a "multipolar world" -- through the Mercosur (Southern Common Market) trade bloc made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and, most recently, Venezuela.

The Venezuelan government has also reached deals for joint business ventures as well as purchases of military hardware with countries like Russia, China and Iran, while expressing support for Iran's nuclear programme.

Sunday's elections also brought certain international recognition for the opposition, which managed to unite around a single candidate who, in a 180-degree shift from the strategy followed in the past few years, immediately acknowledged defeat while accepting the election results as valid.

Watnik said "The opposition demonstrated its ability to put forth an important, peaceful and democratic campaign and it garnered a significant share of the vote."

Vicki Gass, with the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said "The ray of light is that the opposition didn't claim fraud....(because) had they done so, they would've been isolated completely."

"The opposition now has to determine a more strategic way of dealing with Chávez and engaging him instead of just calling him a dictator. That much is positive," she added.

In Shifter's view, "For the first time, the opposition showed some political skill...I think the main lesson is that really they need to have political experience and should not go back to having labour and business leaders run the opposition."

"They have a tremendous opportunity to build on this"

Arnson said "The only real surprise of (Sunday's) election is how strong the showing was for the opposition."

According to Gass, "The reality is that the situation in Venezuela has changed forever. It will never go back to where the majority of the population was excluded from having a voice in government on policies that really affect them. (The U.S.) can recognise that and work with it."

"Unfortunately, this administration is looking for a way to explain the so-called "pink tide" in Latin America - Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, almost Mexico, and of course Venezuela. The U.S. is trying to find a reason for this, and rather than acknowledging and appreciating the very real democratic debate that's going on in these countries, they're deciding it's the evil influence of some actor, and that's Hugo Chávez."

In the Southern Cone countries, Chávez's victory was welcomed as beneficial to regional integration, especially on the energy front. Both Lula and Kirchner had wished the president luck in the final stretch of his campaign.

But Amorim specifically commented on Chávez's proposal to reform the constitution to allow for indefinite reelection.

"If he tries to do that, I suppose he won't do so by decree, but in a manner that takes into account the people's will. There is a strong current in Venezuela opposed to that. The possibility of alternating in power, in equal conditions in elections, is very important for democracy," Brazil's foreign minister warned.

* Jim Lobe in Washington contributed to this report.

This change of tone was echoed by US Undersecretary of State for Latin America, Thomas Shannon. In his victory speech, President Chávez said it was "another defeat for the devil", referring to President George W Bush. In contrast, Shannon said, "We do not want a relationship of confrontation [with Venezuela]."

"We've always looked for ways to deepen the dialogue with the government of President Chávez, and our hopes are that maybe at this moment he will show a greater interest", he added.

Starr also said that the US would, "continue to seek a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government in areas of mutual interest."

Chávez himself on hearing the conciliatory comments did respond positively, while remaining cynical as to the real intentions of the US. "If they want to speak on equal terms we accept", he said. But he added, referring to previous US behaviour towards Venezuela, "How are we going to have good relations with a government that has financed conspiratorial activities here?"

Chávez went on to list the kinds of things he would expect to be on the agenda of a meeting with the US government. These including the war in Iraq and the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles. Posada Carriles is wanted in Venezuela to stand trial for his alleged involvement in blowing up a Cuban Airliner in 1976 when 73 civilians lost their lives.

The softened tone of the US government's remarks come after the defeated Venezuelan opposition also took the first steps to a more conciliatory way in dealing with their failure to remove Chávez by extra-democratic means. Defeated candidate Manuel Rosales conceded the election early on Sunday night saying he accepted the result, "The truth is that even with a closer margin, we recognize that today they defeated us, but we will stay in the struggle, in the fight, we will stay in the streets," said Rosales.

Rosales also had words for his previous allies who he obviously thought might not agree with his decision to concede. He said that he would not lie to Venezuelans about the elections because the truth would come out in the end.

In other parts of the world the victory of Chávez was also acknowledged. "President Lula viewed Chávez' victory as the expression of a wider process of ongoing social and political changes in Latin America, as appears from recent elections in the hemisphere," a spokesperson for the Brazilian government said.

Mr Castro's death, when it comes, is expected to have repercussions far beyond the shores of Cuba. On the one hand there are fears of an exodus of Cubans towards the US.

Equally, concerns have been raised that hardline anti-Castro groups in south Florida will stage their own attempt to destabilise the regime by sending a flotilla of ships to the island in expectation that Cubans will be prepared to rise up against the government - a scenario with potentially disastrous consequences.

Either way, political developments in Cuba have the potential to influence domestic politics in the US. When, in 2000, the then president Bill Clinton allowed the child Elian Gonzalez to be sent back to his homeland, the Cuban vote turned solidly Republican - and many blame the controversy for Al Gore's subsequent loss of the presidential election that year. Now, as the 2008 presidential campaign grinds into action, Cuba will again become an increasingly sensitive topic in America, especially as speculation surrounding Mr Castro's health mounts.

Cubans themselves are used to being told very little about the inner workings of their government on security grounds, but dissidents say uncertainty over the country's political future has fuelled impatience with the secrecy surrounding his health. While posters proclaiming "80 more years" of Castro's leadership are still hanging all over the capital, Havana, and the country decked the halls on Saturday for his birthday celebrations - for which he was himself absent - many Cubans doubt their leader will ever govern again.

Despite repeated assurances by the authorities - the most recent came last week as Vice-President Carlos Lage Davila spoke at the end of a conference on Mr Castro's place in history - that Mr Castro will return to lead Cuba for years to come, more and more people suspect he is close to death, even though they have been told little about his condition other than that he underwent emergency surgery to stop intestinal bleeding in July and is now recovering. "It's strange they have not said anything about Fidel," Orlando, a telephone company worker and government backer, told Reuters. "They must have their reasons, but I'm worried. It has been a long time since we heard about him."

Even at his 80th birthday celebrations, held with much fanfare over the weekend, Mr Castro did not get a mention other than a cursory "Viva Fidel" at the end of a speech by his brother, designated successor and acting President, Raul Castro. "People are convinced he has cancer," said Joel, a social worker. "We all expected to see him at the parade, and nobody said a word."