Blog de Paul Krugman do New York Times

House votes no. Rex Nutting has the best line: House to Wall Street: Drop Dead. He also correctly places the blame and/or credit with House Republicans. For reasons I’ve already explained, I don’t think the Dem leadership was in a position to craft a bill that would have achieved overwhelming Democratic support, so make or break was whether enough GOPers would sign on. They didn’t.I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it — though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election. For now, I’m just going to quote myself:

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.

As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.

Hillary Clinton campaigns at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on election day, May 6, 2008. She received an endorsement there from driver Sarah Fisher. (Linda Davidson / The Washington Post)

By Dan Balz - Washington post

If Hillary Clinton hopes to prove she should be the Democratic nominee, today is the day to show it.

The political environment heading into Tuesday’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina has been ideal from Clinton’s perspective. Barack Obama has been on the defensive over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the issue terrain is better than she could ask for.

Indiana is as close to a toss-up state as the Democrats have seen in a long time, giving Clinton the chance to demonstrate superiority in a head-to-head competition. North Carolina seemingly offers her an opportunity to embarrass Obama — if in no other way than by holding down his expected victory margin — in what should be solid territory for him.

Obama spent last week trying to shake the Rev. Jeremiah Wright off his back. His decision to break with his former pastor won applause from some Democrats and earned him superdelegate support. But Obama strategists know the issue has not gone away. As one Republican put it Monday, when you spend the first 20 minutes of “Meet The Press” answering questions about your pastor, you know you’ve still got a problem.

Economic issues, the staple of Clintonian politics, are at the center of the campaign now. Whenever Iraq dominated the debate, Clinton was on the defensive because of her vote to authorize the war. But Iraq, while important, has receded. Rising gasoline prices, the home foreclosure crisis, fears of job losses and recession, and, as ever, the cost and availability of health care, play to her inherent strengths as a champion of the middle class.

Obama has been dogged with question: Why didn’t he break with Wright sooner? Why can’t he win working-class white voters? Why does Clinton beat him in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania when he is heavily outspending her? The concentration on his problems has turned Indiana and North Carolina into tests he must pass — or face more questions about whether his once high-flying campaign has been permanently brought back to ground.

Clinton has largely escaped intensive scrutiny. Not, of course, on her gas tax holiday proposal. Economists and Obama have roundly criticized that idea, but to her apparent relish. Other ideas she has thrown out — putting OPEC in the dock at the World Trade Organization, for one — have not been well scrubbed. That is what happens when (a) you have won recent contests and (b) your chances of becoming the nominee are seen as remote.

As part of Post’s the “8 Questions” project that runs in Tuesday’s newspaper, I asked a group of strategists a ninth question: Has the emergence of the economy as the dominant issue in the election made Clinton a stronger general election candidate than Obama? Or do her high negatives make Obama the party’s better choice?

More of the respondents said her high negatives remained such a problem that Obama was likely the stronger general election nominee, despite the shift in the issue terrain.

Those who said yes cited the Clintons’ long history on the economy. “What’s left of the Clinton brand remains economic common sense,” wrote one Democrat. “Economy has allowed HRC to shine with her depth of knowledge and feel for the economy [and] has highlighted Obama’s weakness,” wrote a pro-Clinton Democrat.

But they were in the minority. Bill Carrick, who was a top strategist in Dick Gephardt’s 2004 campaign, which was heavily focused on the economy, said Obama is still the party’s better choice. “Senator Clinton has adjusted to the ascendancy of economic issues with great skill but her negatives have gone even higher as the campaign has become nastier,” he wrote. “Obama is still better positioned for the general election.”

“The nominee has to be able to say, ‘John McCain supports all of George Bush’s economic policies. I’m going to make the economy work for the middle class again,’” wrote Steve Murphy, another ex-Gephardt adviser who was part of Bill Richardson’s campaign team this year. “I think Obama can handle that.”

Can Clinton overcome those perceptions, which may be a major obstacle for superdelegates? One Democratic strategist offered this thought on Monday. “If she performs higher than expected [in areas where her negatives are high], it might suggest that folks are starting to believe she is the better general election candidate and are willing to put aside their negative assumptions about her.”

That makes Indiana and North Carolina so important to Clinton. She needs strong performances — victory in Indiana and a close finish in North Carolina — to prompt a reappraisal of her general election prospects by the remaining uncommitted superdelegates.

After Tuesday, there will be no real opportunity for her to change the race. The remaining states offer predictable outcomes and the delegate math remains all in Obama’s favor. Whether she will risk a bloody rules or credentials fight over Michigan and Florida is not clear right now, but as one Democrat put it, Clinton probably doesn’t have the time to overtake Obama and still unify the party.

Still, the past week has played to her advantage and she has campaigned as if she knows it. A slow grind to the final primaries on June 3 is not in her interest. If she cannot capitalize in Indiana and North Carolina, there’s little reason to think she will be given another opportunity like this during the rest of the campaign to demonstrate why she should be the nominee. That’s why May 6 long has been circled on calendars as so significant.

da Folha Online

A pré-candidata democrata à Presidência dos EUA Hillary Clinton aparece com 9% a mais de intenções de voto que o provável candidato republicano John McCain, em pesquisa da Associated Press-Ipsos, dando força ao seu argumento de que ela tem mais chances de ser eleita que seu rival, Barack Obama. Em um cenário entre Obama e McCain, os dois estão tecnicamente empatados, segundo a pesquisa.

A sondagem divulgada nesta segunda-feira dá à senadora por Nova York um novo impulso em seus esforços por arrecadação de verbas e para persuadir superdelegados indecisos a ficarem ao seu lado, na convenção nacional da legenda, que decidirá o candidato do partido.

Ajudada por independentes, jovens e eleitores mais velhos, Hillary ganhou terreno neste mês em uma disputa hipotética com o senador pelo Arizona, que já alcançou o número necessário de delegados para se tornar o candidato republicano e aguarda a nomeação oficial. A ex-primeira-dama aparece liderando com 50% das intenções de voto contra 41%, enquanto Obama aparece tecnicamente empatado com McCain, com 46% contra 44%.

Os dois democratas apareciam praticamente empatados com McCain na pesquisa anterior, há cerca de três semanas.

Desde então, Hillary venceu a primária democrata na Pensilvânia, levantando dúvidas se Obama pode atrair eleitores de perfis diversos necessários para vencer em grandes Estados em novembro, quando o candidato democrata enfrentará McCain. Hillary venceu as primárias de praticamente todos os grandes Estados dos EUA, como Califórnia, Ohio e Texas.

Ao mesmo tempo, Obama foi colocado na defensiva após afirmar que os residentes de pequenas cidades dos EUA, amargurados, estavam recorrendo a armas e à religião, tendo sido deixados para trás no processo político. O senador pelo Illinois também teve que continuar a lidar com as controversas declarações de seu ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Disputa democrata

“Não acho que exista nenhuma questão nas últimas três semanas que tenha melhorado sua situação (de Hillary)”, disse Harrison Hickman, pesquisador democrata que não apoiou nenhum dos pré-candidatos. Ele atribuiu os resultados de Hillary à mudança da população de um “estado de admiração”, no qual escolhiam o candidato que mais gostavam, para um “estado de tomada de decisão”, onde determinam quem deve ser o melhor presidente.

A pesquisa Associated Press-Ipsos mostra Hillary e Obama praticamente empatados na disputa pela nomeação democrata. Destacando as profundas divisões dentro do Partido Democrata –e um possível impacto negativo a longo prazo–, 30% dos eleitores de Hillary e 21% dos que apóiam Obama afirmaram que votarão em McCain em novembro se o seu candidato não vencer a nomeação.

Obama conseguiu mais delegados que Hillary nas primárias, mas ela têm vantagem sobre os superdelegados, sendo que cerca de um terço dos 800 pesos pesados do partido que participam da decisão do nomeado ainda não declararam quem apóiam.

Howard Dean, líder do Partido Democrata, disse nesta segunda que um dos dois saberá que é hora de desistir quando a temporada de primárias terminar, em junho, em tempo de os democratas se unirem antes da convenção em agosto e da campanha até novembro.

Dean também pediu aos superdelegados indecisos –membros do Comitê Nacional Democrata, assim como governadores e legisladores democratas– a se alinharem com um dos pré-candidatos antes da convenção, para que o partido se una contra McCain.

Cerca de metade dos entrevistados na sondagem disse que a longa disputa democrata irá prejudicar as chances do partido em novembro. Mais simpatizantes de Obama que de Hillary manifestaram essa impressão.

Com Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton greeted supporters. (Photo: Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times)

By ADAM NAGOURNEY - THE NEW YORK TIMES

The Democratic Party may prove to have been the real loser in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York defeated Senator Barack Obama of Illinois by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain of Arizona.

That worry was confirmed in exit polls that again highlighted the racial, economic, gender and values divisions in the party that Republicans would no doubt try to exploit if Mr. Obama won the nomination.

Barack Obama greeted residents in West Philadelphia. (Photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)

To take one example, only 50 percent of Democratic Catholic voters who attend church weekly said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election; 25 percent said would vote for Mr. McCain.

“This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen,” said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. “They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other, and no one is winning. It underlines the need to find some way to bring this to conclusion.”

The Democratic Party, so energized and optimistic just a few months ago, thus finds itself in a position few would have expected: a nomination battle unresolved, with two candidates engaged in increasingly damaging attacks. At a time when the Democratic Party would dearly like to turn its attention to Mr. McCain, it now faces at least two more weeks of campaigning — and perhaps considerably more — risking continued damage to the images of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

That said, the fears confronting Democrats could be swept away reasonably soon. Mrs. Clinton still faces immense hurdles to securing the nomination, and it remains possible that her candidacy could come to an end in as little as two weeks, when Indiana and North Carolina vote. Should that be the case, the Democratic Party would presumably have the time and the motivation to heal its wounds.

“We have problems going both ways, but that is going to get healed,” said Joe Trippi, who was a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of John Edwards of North Carolina, who quit the race earlier this year. “If it doesn’t get healed, we have problems.”

Still, the voting patterns on Tuesday underlined what has been one of Mrs. Clinton’s central arguments to Democratic Party leaders in asserting that Mr. Obama would have trouble as a general election candidate. Once again, as in Ohio six weeks ago, he is struggling to win support from the kinds of voters that could be critical to a Democratic victory in the fall. Mrs. Clinton posed the question bluntly on Tuesday.

“Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Mrs. Clinton said outside a polling place in a northern suburb of Philadelphia. “Why can’t he win in a state like this?”

Mr. Obama continues to hold a lead over Mrs. Clinton in the total popular vote cast, as well as in pledged delegates. Those factors will weigh heavily on the superdelegates, elected Democrats and party leaders whose votes will be needed to give Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama the 2,025 total to claim the nomination.

Still, there were some worrisome signs for Mr. Obama after what has been several rough weeks for him on the campaign trail. At the least, he would have some work to do going into the fall if he wins the nomination, a point made even by his supporters.

“The negative attacks have had a little damage,” said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. “I do believe it’s recoverable, mainly because of his theme of unity and bringing people together. But it has brought a little bit of damage.”

Mr. Richardson, reflecting the general concern among Democrats about the campaign, added: “I also believe Senator Clinton’s negative attacks have hurt her as well, as recent polls have shown.”

The results of the exit poll, conducted at 40 precincts across Pennsylvania by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press, also found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 56 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 15 percent said they would not vote at all.

After weeks in which Mr. Obama was pressed to explain what his opponents sought to characterize as disparaging remarks about gun owners and church-goers, Mrs. Clinton defeated him among those voters.

About 15 percent of Democratic voters said they would vote for Mr. McCain over Mr. Obama in a general election. Mrs. Clinton defeated Mr. Obama overwhelmingly among Catholics, a constituency that will be critical in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“There are issues people raise about him, and there are also issues they raise about Senator Clinton,” Mr. Bredesen said. “They both have great strengths and they also have weaknesses. The sooner it is we end this and try to figure out how to address those weaknesses, the better.”

Mrs. Clinton was quick to vow that she would push on to the next big races in Indiana and North Carolina. Yet if the outcome threw her enough of a line to keep going, it probably did not do much to help her accomplish two of her top goals: narrowing Mr. Obama’s overall lead in the popular vote, or his lead in delegates elected in caucuses and primaries to date.

But Mrs. Clinton faces some tough obstacles. Her campaign is effectively out of money, and the results Tuesday may not make it that much easier to raise money

“She needed a big win because a big win might spark the $30 million or $40 million coming into her that she is going to need to compete in Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon and West Virginia,” Mr. Trippi said.

Megan Thee, Marjorie Connelly and John M. Broder contributed reporting.

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. presented a series of proposals to overhaul the regulation of Wall Street on Monday in Washington.

By STEPHEN LABATON - The New York Times

Published: March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. on Monday formally laid out an ambitious plan to overhaul the regulatory apparatus that oversees the nation’s financial system. Senior lawmakers and industry lobbyists predicted that most of the plan would run into difficulty.

The product of a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratically controlled Congress, the plan would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets and eliminate a third agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans. It proposes to create a commission that would set new minimum licensing standards for mortgage originators.

By his own account, Mr. Paulson, along with other senior officials, do not want lawmakers to act on the proposal until after the housing crisis is over — and that is likely to be after a new president takes office.

“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said in a speech Monday at the Treasury Department. “That is not how they are intended.”

Democratic leaders are already drafting bills to impose tougher supervision over Wall Street, and some say that Mr. Paulson’s plan does not go far enough in reining in risky practices among banks.

Insurance and some banking groups began over the weekend to formulate plans to oppose various provisions. And several features were criticized by regulators appointed by the Bush administration.

Senior lawmakers, while praising the administration for raising important points for further discussion, said the odds of a major overhaul in the remaining days of the Congressional session were long.

“Since this is opening day in baseball, I might as well make a baseball metaphor,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate banking committee. “This is a wild pitch. It is not even close to the strike zone.”

Mr. Dodd and other Democrats were hoping to move legislation this week that would help homeowners facing foreclosure.

Still, elements of the Paulson plan — including a proposal to expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to examine investment banks and other financial institutions that have previously roamed free of federal oversight — clearly speak to the recent tumult on Wall Street that has hurt the economy. And President Bush, through his spokeswoman, urged Congress to quickly approve the proposed changes.

“Secretary Paulson has been working on this package for about a year, so it’s not like pulling a rabbit out of a hat,” Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Air Force One on Monday.

The administration’s proposal will do almost nothing to regulate the alphabet soup of sophisticated financial products that have fueled the financial crisis. And it will not rein in practices that have been linked to the mortgage crisis, like packaging risky loans into securities carrying the highest ratings.

Hedge funds and private equity firms, which have enjoyed freedom from government oversight for years, would finally fall under federal watch. But that oversight would be minimal, enabling the government to do little beyond collecting information until a widescale crisis has already occurred.

The checks and balances in the plan reflect the mindset of Mr. Paulson, the plan’s architect, who came to Washington after a long career on Wall Street, including a stint as chief executive of Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Paulson has worried that any effort to substantially tighten regulation could hamper the ability of American markets to compete with foreign rivals — and, in fact, the proposal stemmed from a series of policy discussions that began well before the current tumult that has rocked the nation’s economic underpinnings.

The plan began last year as an effort by Mr. Paulson to streamline the different and sometimes clashing rules for commercial banks, savings and loans and nonbank mortgage lenders.

“This blueprint addresses complex, long-term issues that should not be decided in the midst of stressful situations,” Mr. Paulson said in his remarks on Monday. “These long-term ideas require thoughtful discussion and will not be resolved this month or even this year.”

Mr. Paulson also deflected blame for the current tumult away from the Bush administration. “I do not believe it is fair or accurate to blame our regulatory structure for the current turmoil,” he said.

Under the plan, the Fed would have some authority over Wall Street firms, but only when an investment bank’s practices threatened the financial system as a whole. The Fed would be able to examine internal bookkeeping of brokerage firms, hedge funds, commodity-trading exchanges and any other institution that might pose a risk to the overall financial system.

The plan would also merge the Securities and Exchange Commission with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates exchange-traded futures for oil, grains, currencies and the like. And the blueprint suggests several areas where the S.E.C. should take a lighter approach to its oversight, including allowing stock exchanges greater leeway to regulate themselves.

Some agencies within Washington’s patchwork system of financial regulation would be consolidated. One new agency, which the Treasury calls a “prudential financial regulator,” would focus on the safety of financial institutions that have explicit government guarantees. The other watchdog would oversee business conduct to protect public investors and customers of financial firms.

Congress would have to approve almost every element of the proposal, and Democratic leaders are already drafting their own bills to impose tougher supervision over Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and the fast-growing market in derivatives like credit default swaps.

Administration officials acknowledged last week that they did not expect the proposal to become law this year, but said they hoped it would help frame a policy debate that would extend well after the elections in November.

By PAUL KRUGMAN - The New York Times

We’re now in the midst of an epic financial crisis, which ought to be at the center of the election debate. But it isn’t.

Now, I don’t expect presidential campaigns to have all the answers to our current crisis — even financial experts are scrambling to keep up with events. But I do think we’re entitled to more answers, and in particular a clearer commitment to financial reform, than we’re getting so far.

In truth, I don’t expect much from John McCain, who has both admitted not knowing much about economics and denied having ever said that. Anyway, lately he’s been busy demonstrating that he doesn’t know much about the Middle East, either.

Yet the McCain campaign’s silence on the financial crisis has disappointed even my low expectations.

And when Mr. McCain’s economic advisers do speak up about the economy’s problems, they don’t inspire confidence. For example, last week one McCain economic adviser — Kevin Hassett, the co-author of “Dow 36,000” — insisted that everything would have been fine if state and local governments hadn’t tried to limit urban sprawl. Honest.

On the Democratic side, it’s somewhat disappointing that Barack Obama, whose campaign has understandably made a point of contrasting his early opposition to the Iraq war with Hillary Clinton’s initial support, has tried to score a twofer by suggesting that the war, in addition to all its other costs, is responsible for our economic troubles.

The war is indeed a grotesque waste of resources, which will place huge long-run burdens on the American public. But it’s just wrong to blame the war for our current economic mess: in the short run, wartime spending actually stimulates the economy. Remember, the lowest unemployment rate America has experienced over the last half-century came at the height of the Vietnam War.

Hillary Clinton has not, as far as I can tell, made any comparably problematic economic claims. But she, like Mr. Obama, has been disappointingly quiet about the key issue: the need to reform our out-of-control financial system.

Let me explain.

America came out of the Great Depression with a pretty effective financial safety net, based on a fundamental quid pro quo: the government stood ready to rescue banks if they got in trouble, but only on the condition that those banks accept regulation of the risks they were allowed to take.

Over time, however, many of the roles traditionally filled by regulated banks were taken over by unregulated institutions — the “shadow banking system,” which relied on complex financial arrangements to bypass those safety regulations.

Now, the shadow banking system is facing the 21st-century equivalent of the wave of bank runs that swept America in the early 1930s. And the government is rushing in to help, with hundreds of billions from the Federal Reserve, and hundreds of billions more from government-sponsored institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Given the risks to the economy if the financial system melts down, this rescue mission is justified. But you don’t have to be an economic radical, or even a vocal reformer like Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to see that what’s happening now is the quid without the quo.

Last week Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, declared that Mr. Frank is right about the need for expanded regulation. Mr. Rubin put it clearly: If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks.

But will that logic prevail politically?

Not if Mr. McCain makes it to the White House. His chief economic adviser is former Senator Phil Gramm, a fervent advocate of financial deregulation. In fact, I’d argue that aside from Alan Greenspan, nobody did as much as Mr. Gramm to make this crisis possible.

Both Democrats, by contrast, are running more or less populist campaigns. But at least so far, neither Democrat has made a clear commitment to financial reform.

Is that simply an omission? Or is it an ominous omen? Recent history offers reason to worry.

In retrospect, it’s clear that the Clinton administration went along too easily with moves to deregulate the financial industry. And it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that big contributions from Wall Street helped grease the rails.

Last year, there was no question at all about the way Wall Street’s financial contributions to the new Democratic majority in Congress helped preserve, at least for now, the tax loophole that lets hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Now, the securities and investment industry is pouring money into both Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s coffers. And these donors surely believe that they’re buying something in return.

Let’s hope they’re wrong.

Reproduzo a seguir vários quadros com resultados de pesquisas sobre intenção de voto levantadas pelo Instituto Rasmussen de Washington. Com base nesses levantamentos o editorialista Paul Krugman, do New York Times, fez um quadro que mostra a queda pronunciada de Barack Obama confrontado ao candidato Republicano John McCain. Ao contrário, Hillary Clinton tem feito uma curva inversa a de Obama. Hoje a senadora derrota McCain. Isto é o que os super-delegados na convenção Democrata terão em mente no momento da escolha. Mas, como alerta o próprio Krugman, outras pesquisas tem dados diferentes e a coisa pode evoluir até a convenção. Cuidado com precipitar conclusões com muita antecedência. LF

Curva mostrando a queda de Barack Obama contra John McCain (quadro de Paul Krugman com base nos dados da pesquisa Rasmussen)

A revista norte-americana, Slate (on line), traz um levantamento do número de delgados acumulados por Obama e Hillary e pensa que, mesmo ficando duro para Hillary Clinton obter a maioria dos delegados e ganhar a nomeação, ainda poderá impor sua candidatura pelo jogo entre os super-delegados. Na política, as recentes vitórias da senadora, permitem recuperar terreno entre os delegados diretamente designados pelas estruturas e também influenciar nas votações que ainda faltam, antes da convenção dos Democratas. Acontece que neste último item Hillary precisaria vencer por amplíssima margem em Pennsylvania e conseguir que sejam reconhecidos os resultados de Florida e Michigan (que em principio não serão contabilizados).

Slate’s Delegate Calculator It only gets harder for Clinton going forward.

By Chadwick Matlin and Chris Wilson

The dust hasn’t quite settled from last night’s festivities, but Clinton almost certainly finished the night better than she started it. She picked up about a dozen delegates in Ohio, according to NBC News and, as of now, is ahead in Texas’ delegate assignments. More nuanced delegate estimates and caucus returns are still trickling in throughout the day, so Obama could still trump her in Texas, despite losing to her in the primary.

We’ve updated our calculator to take last night’s results into account, and the news isn’t good for Clinton. To catch Barack Obama in pledged delegates, she now needs an average margin of victory of 23 points, according to our delegate calculator. That’s more than twice the size of her win in Ohio. If she falls short of this in Pennsylvania, she’s especially out of luck.

(more…)

Em bate-papo organizado pelo jornal francês Le Monde pode-se acompanhar o debate interno para a escolha do candidato Democrata e as relações de ambos aspirantes, Obama e Hillary, com os eleitores e com a máquina do partido. Tudo caminha para uma decisão na própria convenção e com peso maior dos delegados do aparelho partidário. Hillary Clinton já anunciou que escolhera Obama como Vice em caso de vitória dela. Por sua parte, Obama permanece mudo sobre está questão. O bate-papo esta em francês e contou com a participação de um pesquisador da Universidade de Harvard.

L’intégralité du débat avec Arthur Goldhammer, chercheur au Center for European Studies à l’université de Harvard, et auteur du blog French politics

Xavier : Quelle est, selon vous, la raison principale du retournement de situation actuel en faveur d’Hillary Clinton ? Ses attaques répétées contre la campagne de son concurrent ont-elles joué un rôle ?

Arthur Goldhammer : Je crois qu’il y a beaucoup de raisons à ce retournement. Ce n’est pas facile d’en choisir une. D’abord, il y a la question de l’expérience. Une publicité de la campagne Clinton évoquait la peur d’avoir à la Maison Blanche quelqu’un qui manquait d’expérience en matière de sécurité nationale. Cette question de l’expérience est peut-être la raison principale.

Mais d’après les sondages de sortie des urnes, une question très importante pour les électeurs de l’Ohio a été l’économie. Il y a eu une faute grave du conseiller d’Obama pour l’économie, qui a eu une réunion avec un membre du consulat canadien à Chicago. Il a alors évoqué la question du traité de libre-échange de l’Amérique du Nord (Alena). Pour les électeurs de l’Ohio, c’était une question importante, souvent synonyme de perte d’emplois. Beaucoup ont cru qu’Obama tenait un double langage sur ce traité. La campagne de Clinton a mis l’accent sur cette question, et cela a porté, à mon avis.

(more…)

Este artigo vale a pena, apesar de cumprido e só acessível a quem lê inglês. Ele permite acompanhar a evolução do processo eleitoral norte-americano e sua relação com o impacto da crise econômica na população do pais. Ele reforça minha convicção que um presidente democrata será eleito em novembro, mas muito dependerá da mensagem sobre a crise. Por enquanto, se como mostra o artigo, os candidatos Republicanos estão fora da realidade, os principais candidatos democratas permanecem com posições vagas. Os Estados-Unidos vão precisar muito mais que generalidades e os eleitores estarão muito sensíveis aos efeitos da crise.

(more…)

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 28, 2008
The New York Times

It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

(more…)

KENNETH MAXWELL

A PRIMEIRA primária da campanha presidencial norte-americana em que os eleitores efetivamente usaram o voto secreto produziu resultados inesperados nesta semana em New Hampshire. Do lado democrata, o carismático senador negro Barack Obama, de Illinois, vinha sendo unanimemente apontado como vencedor. Mas, quando os votos foram contados, foi a laboriosa campanha da senadora Hillary Clinton, de Nova York, que saiu vitoriosa entre os eleitores do partido.

(more…)

CLÓVIS ROSSI

Folha de São Paulo

SÃO PAULO - Quem perdeu a primária democrata de New Hampshire foi o jornalismo “fast food”, esse que se sente compelido a projetar às pressas o futuro com base só em um microfragmento do presente.

Perderam também os institutos de pesquisa, que davam entre sete e dez pontos de vantagem para Obama, apenas para ver o triunfo de Hillary Clinton. Agora, começam as explicações para o erro de informação que foi atribuir New Hampshire a Obama, mas, por incrível que pareça, reincide-se no “fast journalism”.

(more…)

Blog do Noblat

De Hillary Clinton no discurso da vitória nas primárias de New Hampshire:

- Estou com o coração satisfeito. Aqui encontrei minha própria voz. Sinto que todos temos falado com o coração. Esta campanha é sobre a gente. Sobre como assegurarmos que todos tenham como realizar seus sonhos. Enfrentamos muitos desafios no país e no mundo. Tenho encontrado gente que perdeu suas casas, jovens que não podem pagar seus estudos. Muitos ficaram invisíveis durante demasiado tempo. Vocês não são invisíveis para mim.

- As companhia petrolíferas, farmacêuticas e outras tiveram um presidente que as representou nos últimos sete anos. Eu quero ser um presidente que represente vocês. Para que não haja mais americanos invisíveis. Aqui estamos e ficaremos até o final da campanha. Vamos cumprir a promessa de que o governo pode ser pelo povo, para o povo, e não apenas para os privilegiados. Saberemos pôr fim de forma apropriada à guerra do Iraque. Saberemos restabelecer a posição dos Estados Unidos no mundo.

(more…)

MARCELO COELHO

Barack Obama não é um caubói, um astronauta, um fuzileiro naval. Não lembra ativistas negros

ESCREVO ESTE artigo sem saber o resultado das prévias de New Hampshire. E sem saber direito, aliás, onde fica New Hampshire nos Estados Unidos.
Sei menos ainda o que pensa Barack Obama, e se é uma vantagem para os democratas ter o senador negro de Illinois como candidato à Presidência dos Estados Unidos, em vez de Hillary Clinton.
Vou mais pela cara de cada um. Sem dúvida, seria uma bela novidade ter uma mulher como Hillary Clinton no lugar de Bush. Mas, se o critério é novidade, Barack Obama vale muito mais a pena. Visualmente, pelo menos.

(more…)