Paul Krugman* – O Estado SP

Lembram de quando os republicanos se gabavam de que transformariam o problema da reforma da saúde na derrota de Waterloo do presidente Obama? Bem, as pesquisas de opinião sugerem que a questão trabalhou a favor dos democratas nas eleições de terça-feira. Mas, embora não deva constituir o Waterloo de Obama, a política econômica começa a se parecer com o drama americano na batalha de Anzio.

Evidentemente, as eleições não foram um plebiscito sobre Obama. Na realidade, a maioria dos eleitores concentrou-se nos problemas locais – e os que se concentraram nas questões de âmbito nacional tenderam a favorecer a política democrata. Em Nova Jersey, o eleitorado que considerou a saúde o aspecto fundamental, votou no governador Jon Corzine por uma margem de 4 a 1; e Chris Christie conquistou os eleitores preocupados com os impostos sobre bens imóveis e a corrupção.

Entretanto, nessas eleições o que pesou foi um elemento de âmbito nacional. O eleitorado de todo o país está de péssimo humor, em grande parte por causa da situação econômica que continua sombria. E quando o eleitorado está mal-humorado, volta-se contra quem está no governo. O próprio Michael Bloomberg, prefeito de Nova York, viu sua reeleição supostamente fácil transformar-se numa competição muito acirrada.

Por outro lado, os concorrentes saíram-se bem, mesmo quando não tinham uma alternativa coerente para oferecer. Christie jamais explicou de que maneira pretende reduzir os impostos sobre bens imóveis, considerando a situação calamitosa de Nova Jersey – mas, apesar disso, os eleitores resolveram correr o risco.

Isso não é nada auspicioso para os democratas nas eleições de meio de mandato, no ano que vem – não porque os eleitores rejeitarão seu programa, mas porque tudo indica que, daqui a um ano, o desemprego continuará dolorosamente elevado. E os republicanos poderão beneficiar-se disso, apesar de terem se tornado o partido sem ideias.

O que me traz de volta à analogia com o episódio de Anzio.

A batalha de Anzio, na Segunda Guerra Mundial, foi um exemplo clássico dos perigos de uma excessiva cautela. As forças aliadas desembarcaram muito atrás das linhas inimigas, apanhando de surpresa seus adversários. Em vez de aproveitar da vantagem, o comandante americano ficou parado em sua cabeça de praia, e logo foi atacado pelas forças alemãs do alto das colinas à sua volta, sofrendo pesadas baixas.

O paralelo com a atual política econômica é o seguinte: no início deste ano, o presidente Obama assumiu o cargo com um forte mandato, proclamando a necessidade de agir de maneira ousada no campo da economia. No entanto, suas medidas concretas foram mais cautelosas do que ousadas. Embora suficientes para tirar a economia da beira do precipício, não bastaram para reduzir o desemprego.

Assim, o pacote de estímulo não chegou a ser o que muitos economistas – entre eles alguns do próprio governo – consideravam necessário.

Segundo o jornal The New Yorker, Christina Romer, presidente do Conselho de Assessores Econômicos da presidência, avaliou que seria justificável um pacote superior a US$ 1,2 trilhão.

No meio tempo, o governo recuou diante das propostas de injetar enormes somas de capital suplementar nos bancos, exigindo provavelmente a estatização temporária das instituições mais frágeis. Ao contrário, adotou uma estratégia de negligência benevolente – basicamente, esperando que os bancos conseguissem se recuperar e reencontrar o caminho da saúde financeira.

Funcionários do governo poderão alegar que não dispunham de campo de manobra por causa da realidade política, e que uma estratégia mais ousada não seria aprovada pelo Congresso. Mas nunca puseram à prova esse pressuposto e também nunca apresentaram indicação de que estavam fazendo menos do que queriam. A linha oficial foi que a sua política era correta, o que torna difícil explicar, agora, o motivo pelo qual há necessidade de fazer mais.

E é preciso fazer mais. De fato, a economia cresceu bastante rapidamente no terceiro trimestre – mas não o suficiente para que houvesse um progresso significativo em relação ao emprego. E não há muitos motivos para se esperar que as coisas possam melhorar daqui para frente. O estímulo já produziu seu efeito máximo no que se refere ao crescimento. O próprio Timothy Geithner, o secretário do Tesouro, admite que os bancos continuam relutando a conceder empréstimos. Muitos economistas preveem que a expansão da economia, na sua situação atual, desaparecerá no decorrer do próximo ano.

O problema é que não está claro o que Obama poderá fazer diante desta perspectiva. Em Washington, o senso comum parece estar congelado na ideia de que os déficits orçamentários impedem um novo estímulo fiscal – ideia totalmente errada do ponto de vista da economia, mas aparentemente não importa. Ao mesmo tempo, a base democrata, tão vibrante no ano passado, perdeu grande parte do seu ímpeto e paixão, em parte porque aparentemente muitos consideraram a estratégia pouco enérgica do governo a respeito de Wall Street uma traição aos seus ideais.

Então, como o presidente não explorou suas oportunidades iniciais, está preso em sua cabeça de praia excessivamente limitada.

Se os democratas sofrerem uma pesada derrota nas eleições de meio de mandato, os gurus da mídia dirão que Obama quis fazer demais, que afinal esta é uma nação de centro-direita e assim por diante. Mas a verdade é que Obama pôs em risco seu programa ao fazer pouco demais. A decisão fatal, no início do ano, de adotar meias medidas econômicas poderá perseguir os democratas nos anos que virão.

*Paul Krugman é Prêmio Nobel de Economia

By DAVID E. SANGER – The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

The choices are as revealing of the new president as they are of his appointees — and suggest that, from its first days, an Obama White House will brim with big personalities and far more spirited debate than occurred among the largely like-minded advisers who populated President Bush’s first term.

But the names racing through the ether in Washington about the choices to follow also suggest that Mr. Obama continues to place a premium on deep experience. He is widely reported to be considering asking Mr. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to stay on for a year; and he is thinking about Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine Corps commandant, for national security adviser, and placing Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary whom Mr. Obama considered putting back in his old post, inside the White House as a senior economic adviser.

“This is the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right,” David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton official who wrote a history of the National Security Council, said on Friday, as news of Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Geithner’s appointments leaked. “It’s teaching us something about Obama: while he wants to bring new ideas to the game, he is working from the center space of American foreign policy.”

The reason, several of Mr. Obama’s transition team members say, is that they believe that the new administration will have no time for a learning curve. With the country facing a deep recession or worse, global market turmoil, chaos in Pakistan and a worsening war in Afghanistan, “there’s going to be no time for experimentation,” a member of the Obama foreign policy team said.

That explains Mr. Obama’s first selection: Rahm Emanuel, another centrist Democrat and former member of the Clinton White House, as his chief of staff.

In some ways, the choices made so far are reminiscent of the way the last senator to be elected president, John F. Kennedy, chose a cabinet. As president-elect, Kennedy soon picked three top officials significantly more conservative than he was: Dean Rusk as secretary of state, Robert S. McNamara as secretary of defense and C. Douglas Dillon, a Republican, as secretary of the Treasury. They helped him navigate the Cuban missile crisis, but also got him bogged down in Vietnam.

Of all the choices Mr. Obama has made so far, it is the selection of Mrs. Clinton that appears the biggest gamble, in part because she has never had to engage in the give-and-take of high-stakes diplomacy, and in part because no one really knows how she will mesh with the Obama White House.

In her discussion with the president-elect, several members of his transition team said, Mrs. Clinton expressed no doubt that she could be a loyal member of the Obama team — though she was reportedly deeply conflicted about giving up her Senate seat and the independent power base it afforded her.

During the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton went out of their way to point out their foreign policy differences, with Mrs. Clinton portraying herself as a hawkish Democrat and defending her decision to vote in favor of the 2002 resolution that Mr. Bush later considered an authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein. (Later, she said she fully expected Mr. Bush to use diplomacy first — and was shocked that he did not.)

Now the question is less one of ideological differences than whether a Clinton State Department could become something like Colin L. Powell’s: an alternative, though weak, power center that made little secret of its differences with the White House.

“Anyone who tells you they really know how this is going to work out,” one senior transition official said Thursday, “is telling less than the truth.”

If Mrs. Clinton is taken from the “Team of Rivals” model, Mr. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is from the Team of Neutrals.

“He’s no liberal,” said a former colleague at the Treasury Department, where he managed the American response to the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s.

At the time Mr. Geithner developed a reputation as the ultimate pragmatist, putting together a package of more than $100 billion in aid to halt the financial contagion. That turned out to be a training session for his role, a decade later, in the bailouts of Bear Stearns, A.I.G. and the injection of nearly $350 billion in Congressionally authorized money, whose exact use has become something of a political football.

Mr. Geithner grew up in Asia — in Tokyo, New Delhi and Bangkok — and keeps his ego well in check. He asks a lot of questions, but does not have Mr. Summers’s overwhelming — some say overbearing — personality.

“He clicked with Obama,” one outside adviser said. “If you think about it, their sort of cool, distant styles are alike.”

Partido de Obama (Democratic Party) conquista a maioria absoluta no Senado e na Câmara dos Deputados.

The Electoral Map: Key States

By ADAM NAGOURNEY, JEFF ZELENY AND SHAN CARTER

November 4, 2008

Revista afirma que democrata elaborou retrato mais convicente e detalhado para o futuro americano

Apoio foi declarado na capa da última edição

WASHINGTON - A revista The Economist, um bastião da economia de livre mercado, declarou nesta sexta-feira, 31, seu apoio ao candidato democrata Barack Obama na corrida presidencial norte-americana. Estampando em sua capa uma imagem de Obama pensativo debaixo do título “Chegou a hora,” a publicação britânica de 165 anos de existência afirmou que endossa com sinceridade a candidatura do democrata.”Quanto a apresentar um futuro mais luminoso para os EUA e o mundo, o senhor Obama elaborou um retrato mais convincente e mais detalhado. Ele vem fazendo campanha com mais estilo, inteligência e disciplina que seu adversário”, disse a publicação. “O senhor Obama merece a Presidência”, afirmou a revista semanal, que possui um grande público leitor nos EUA.

A Economist havia dado apoio ao hoje presidente norte-americano, George W. Bush, nas eleições de 2000 e ao democrata que tentou sem sucesso impedi-lo de reeleger-se em 2004, John Kerry. Em 2000, os EUA eram sem sombra de dúvida uma superpotência, disse a revista. A questão central então era decidir o que fazer com o imenso superávit orçamentário do governo. “Quando os norte-americanos forem às urnas na próxima semana, o clima será bem diferente. Os EUA estão infelizes, divididos e com problemas tanto internamente quanto no cenário internacional. Sua autoconfiança e seus valores encontram-se sob ataque.”

Apesar de a escolha por Obama envolver algum risco por causa da inexperiência dele, o candidato demonstrou claramente que é a melhor opção para restabelecer a autoconfiança dos EUA, disse a Economist.Observando ainda que o democrata seria o primeiro presidente negro dos EUA caso derrote o republicano John McCain nas eleições da próxima terça-feira, a revista afirmou: “Ele aliviaria, ou talvez curasse, a ignóbil ferida racial legada pela história norte-americana e minoraria a tendência dos negros norte-americanos de responsabilizar o racismo por seus problemas.”

The presidential election

It’s time

Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

AP

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

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.

(mais…)

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.

(mais…)

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.

(mais…)

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.

(mais…)

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.

(mais…)

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”.

(mais…)

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.

(mais…)

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.

(mais…)

Senadora tenta mudar caminho de campanha e investe no 5 de fevereiro, quando mais de 20 Estados farão primárias

Ex-primeira-dama chega na frente nacionalmente, apoiada por primazia entre os superdelegados, que independem de primárias

DO “FINANCIAL TIMES”

Hillary Clinton deixou claro ontem que deposita suas esperanças de manter a vantagem nacional diante de Barack Obama na chamada “terça tsunami” (a Superterça), quando 22 Estados escolherão candidatos democratas à Casa Branca. Enquanto se preparava para o que -segundo pesquisas incorretamente indicavam antes da votação- seria uma possível derrota na primária de New Hampshire, ontem à noite, a ex-primeira-dama declarou acreditar que “o processo de indicação se encerra à meia-noite de 5 de fevereiro”.

(mais…)

ELECTION RESULTS

New Hampshire

Comebacks in New Hampshire Revive Campaigns

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Hillary and Bill Clinton after Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic primary
Tuesday night in Manchester, N.H.

By PATRICK HEALY and MICHAEL COOPER

The New York Times
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York rode a wave of female support to a surprise victory over Senator Barack Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday night. In the Republican primary, Senator John McCain of Arizona revived his presidential bid with a Lazarus-like victory.
(mais…)

Jackie Calmes, The Wall Street Jornal, de Nashua, New Hampshire

VALOR

O senador americano Barack Obama é o franco favorito para vencer a segunda primária do Partido Democrata hoje em New Hampshire, depois de ter sido o mais votado em Iowa, semana passada. Mas ele e sua principal concorrente, e até recentemente, favorita, Hillary Clinton, já estão com a cabeça nas próximas batalhas.

(mais…)

Que o editorial do jornal francês Le Monde denomine uma “ruptura americana”, os resultados das primárias no Estado de Iowa, pode até ser um exagero. Mas, indiscutivelmente, o recado é altamente significativo.
(mais…)

The Huffington post

Hits Obama’s Experience,
Voting For Him Is ‘Rolling The Dice’ …

Looked “Tense And Almost Pissed Off
That Obama Is Running”

Bill Clinton … Well, He Just Puts Everything On The Table. Read It.

14 Dec 2007

In a hard-changing interview with Charlie Rose tonight, Bill Clinton said Americans who are prepared to choose someone with less experience, are prepared to “roll the dice” about the future of America. “It’s less predictable, isn’t it? When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service before he’s running?”

(mais…)