Back to ‘the economy, stupid’: How a slowdown will influence America’s presidential contest

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.

By Edward Luce

Published: January 29 2008 19:13

FINANCIAL TIMES

The issue of economics is not something I have understood as well as I should – John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful

In many electoral cycles, Senator McCain’s recent remark may have passed unnoticed. But in an election year when most Americans believe they are already in recession, he was advised promptly to read the book by Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, that he said he was carrying around.

For a long while it was assumed the 2008 presidential election would be dominated by Iraq, fear of terrorism, restoring America’s position in the world and other foreign policy issues. But then the subprime mortgage crisis began to unfold. With a majority of economists now forecasting a recession this year, economic worries have shot to the top of the list of voter concerns. In turn, that has strengthened the already robust conventional wisdom that 2008 will be the year of the Democrats.

So is it just a question of settling who is to be the Democratic nominee and then awaiting either Hillary Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s inevitable capture of the White House? Probably, says Ray C. Fair, a Yale economist whose widely cited forecasting model predicts a 52 per cent to 48 per cent Democratic presidential victory in November, even with a mild slowdown in growth.

But Mr Fair’s model, which has a 2.5 per cent margin of error, predicts a whopping 55 per cent to 45 per cent Democratic victory in November if that slowdown indeed turns into a recession. “Almost everything, including all the non-economic factors, suggests a Democratic win this year,” he says.

Should Mr Fair’s forecast prove anywhere near accurate, it would constitute something of a revolution in American political history. The last time a Democratic presidential nominee won the presidency with more than half the vote was in 1976 when Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford. But that came little more than a year after the Watergate crisis had unseated Richard Nixon and cast a toxic pall over the Republicans.

The only other time since 1964 that a Democrat has won more than half the vote was in 2000 when Al Gore garnered a shade more than George W. Bush in an election eventually settled by the Supreme Court. It also came at the end of one of the longest periods of growth in American history, almost all of it under a Democratic administration.

“Al Gore lost the 2000 election in spite of the economy,” says Michael Feldman, who was a senior adviser to the then vice-president. “Because it was a time of economic contentment, the 2000 election was dominated by softer issues.”

Perhaps the most often cited recession election is 1992 when Bill Clinton deftly exploited George H.W. Bush’s allegedly inept handling of the downturn with the campaign motto, “It’s the economy, stupid”. But the recession had already ended by the time voters went to the polls – and Mr Clinton won only 43 per cent of the vote.

Many believe Mr Bush senior would have won re-election were it not for the 19 per cent vote garnered by Ross Perot’s isolationist third-party candidacy. Mr Clinton took 49 per cent of the vote in 1996 in a year when the economy was much stronger (Mr Perot again ran, taking just eight per cent of the vote). Thus recent history suggests it would be heroic to assume a thumping Democratic victory in November.

“The widespread notion that a downturn or a recession gives a clear advantage to the Democratic presidential challenger is not always supported by the facts,” says Michael Lind, a political historian at the New America Foundation in Washington. “The past offers just as much evidence that we could get a Republican president with a Democratic Congress in November as a Democratic control of both.”

History points to a slightly greater correlation between congressional election outcomes and the prevailing economic orthodoxy – if not necessarily the precise stage in the economic cycle. For example, the Democratic party controlled both branches of Congress for virtually all of the period between the late 1940s and late 1960s when Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal commanded a broad consensus among voters. But the Republicans still won the White House 50 per cent of the time.

Likewise, many political analysts believe the Democratic victory in the 2006 mid-term congressional elections, which brought an end to 12 years of continuous Republican majorities in the House of Representatives, heralded a rejection of a generation’s worth of conservative economics – in addition to the anti-war sentiment on Iraq that clearly motivated many voters.

Most forecasters predict the Democrats will increase their majorities in the Senate and the House this November regardless of which party takes the White House. “An economic downturn would probably reinforce what is almost certainly going to be another good year for congressional Democrats,” says Charlie Cook, a Washington political analyst. “Voters already associate their economic anxieties and their other complaints – about corruption and inept foreign policy – with the Republican party.”

Indeed, the sentiment of the American voter suggests something much worse for the Republican party as a whole than the prospect simply of taking the blame for a short-term economic downturn. The 2006 election took place after five years of robust economic growth from which many – if not most – Americans derived scant improvement in income.

The stagnation of median household incomes since 2001 poses a far tougher structural problem for defenders of the status quo than the latest quarterly economic numbers. “What is so depressing about the Republican party right now is that it is not acknowledging the economic pain most middle-class Americans are experiencing,” says David Frum, a former speechwriter to George W. Bush, whose recent book, Comeback, warns that the Republicans face electoral banishment if they do not reform. “It is a party that has become so beholden to special interests that it cannot honestly address issues like healthcare reform even though the Republican voter is suffering from healthcare inflation as much as any other.”

Frank Luntz, a leading Republican pollster, agrees. He points to the “intellectual stagnation” of Republican ideas, which have dominated American politics for a generation. “The 2006 congressional election was just the beginning of the bad news for the Republican party,” he says. “This year it gets worse.”

Yet whoever becomes the Republican presidential nominee will have a reasonable opportunity to escape the likely fate of his colleagues on Capitol Hill. Whether it is Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani or Mr McCain, all three can plausibly dissociate themselves from Mr Bush.

Had it been a more typical election when the Republican nominee was either the sitting president or the vice-president that would not have been possible. As it is, Mr Bush’s deep unpopularity need not rub off on whoever hopes to succeed him. “Presidential politics is largely about the individual characters of the nominees,” says Mr Cook. “And none of the leading Republican contenders is closely associated with Mr Bush.”

But the Republican nominee would have to go a stage further than simply dissociating himself from Mr Bush to produce an economic narrative that strikes voters both as convincing and empathetic. More than 70 per cent of voters believe the country is on the “wrong track” – a historically high measure of public dissatisfaction. That number could well deteriorate with up to 2m home foreclosures anticipated over the next 12 months.

So far, most analysts are unimpressed by the economic policies the Republican presidential hopefuls are offering. While their Democratic counterparts have been swift to produce their own fiscal stimulus plans in the last three weeks, the Republicans were slow off the mark, in some cases embarrassingly so. For example, Mr McCain’s initial remedy for the downturn was to suggest spending cuts – a measure that would deepen rather than counter any recession.

Mr Giuliani’s plan was little better. Having denied until this month that there were any clouds on the economic horizon, the former mayor of New York recently proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate and incentives to boost investment. Economists pointed out that the counter-cyclical effect of Mr Giuliani’s tax cuts would begin to be felt only after the end of any recession.

Mr Romney, who is the most fluent on economics of the Republican candidates, was also criticised for proposing measures such as the extension of Mr Bush’s tax cuts (which expire in 2010) that would have little or no short-term effect on the economy. “In this general election, the Republicans probably cannot get away with their usual diet of optimism and tax cuts,” says Jared Bernstein at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-centre Washington think-tank. “They will have to come up with something more original.”

Tom Gallagher, managing director of International Strategy and Investment, a broker-dealer specialising in economic research, is even blunter. “Normally when Washington gets round to passing a fiscal stimulus plan, that is a signal that the recession is already over,” he says. “But the plans put forward by the Republican nominees would only begin to take effect by the time of the next recession.”

The two leading Democratic candidates have been awarded much higher grades for the content of their fiscal stimulus plans and for having reflected in their policy platforms the public’s sense of economic dissatisfaction since campaigning began a year ago.

Given her detailed expositions on economic policy, many assume that Mrs Clinton is better placed to exploit a recession than Mr Obama, whose campaign deals in larger generalities (even though his stimulus plan received more plaudits than Mrs Clinton’s).

But both are well positioned to move into a general election with a set of economic policies tailored to the mood of the electorate – including plans for universal healthcare, higher spending on infrastructure and a dose of populist scepticism about the downsides of globalisation.

Yet presidential elections, even during recession years, are never confined purely to the economy. Nor is it yet clear that the US is heading into recession. History also shows that American voters have a partiality for divided government. “If the Democrats believe they have sewn up the presidential election because the economy is turning down, they may be in for an unpleasant surprise,” says Mr Lind.

As a chill sets in, it pays to check what plays in Peoria

With its grey-and-yellow brick Italianate façade dotted with bored, reclining cherubs, the Madison Theater in downtown Peoria speaks to another age, writes Hal Weitzman. In the 1920s, the largely blue-collar audiences at venues such as the Madison were seen as the truest test of a vaudeville show. If it played in Peoria, the saying went, it could not fail in the rest of the US.

These days, the doors of the Madison are closed, its awnings in tatters. But Peoria, a city of about 110,000 in central Illinois, retains its reputation as a typical US town, an indicator of trends in both the Midwest and the broader American heartland.

If Peoria is the quintessential American city, it sits in a state that can also be seen as mirroring the wider US. Measured by a host of demographic factors – race, age, income, education, industry, immigration and rural-urban mix – Illinois is the most representative state in the union, according to data from the Census Bureau.

Illinois is also typical in that the economy has shot to the top of voters’ concerns in the run-up to Super Tuesday next week, when the state joins 21 others – four of them in the Midwest – in primary elections for a presidential candidate.

In Peoria, concerns about the economy have been expressed very publicly. Caterpillar, the maker of construction equipment and heavy-duty engines, is based in the city and is its biggest employer. Last October the company – often seen as a bellwether for the wider economy – warned that the US was either in a recession or near to one. Buoyed by strong international sales, Caterpillar released healthy results last week but reiterated that it expected “anaemic growth” in the US economy.

Peoria itself is not yet suffering much. The city’s productivity is among the highest in the Midwest and it has largely been spared the foreclosures associated with the subprime mortgage crisis. While manufacturing remains the backbone of its economy, a healthcare boom has diversified employment. Nevertheless, Bernard Goiteen of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Bradley University in Peoria says local leading economic indicators suggest growth is slowing: in the third quarter of last year, job openings fell 6 per cent from the previous quarter, building permits were down by 25 per cent and new unemployment claims rose by 23 per cent.

These data may be a worrying signal for the Midwest and the broader US. The region represents about 25-30 per cent of the national economy, says Bill Testa, senior economist at the Chicago Federal Reserve. In spite of years of job cuts and international outsourcing, it is still manufacturing-intensive. Much of that manufacturing is of durable goods, a sector sensitive to downturns.

Across the street from the Madison, in the elegant ballroom of the Père Marquette hotel, the Peoria County Republican party held its annual Lincoln Day Dinner on Sunday night. Over chicken cordon bleu and Black Forest gateau, the talk was of volatile stock markets. “Sure, I’m worried about it – I’ve lost a couple of hundred thousand dollars in the past few weeks,” said Merle Widmer, vice-chairman of the Peoria county board.

On the other side of the Illinois river, in Caterpillar’s tractor plant in East Peoria, the issues are somewhat different. Steve Sanneman, who instals engines on the production line, says higher petrol and food prices mean he and his family are struggling to get by. “My biggest expense is just keeping a roof over our heads,” he says. “I’m working from pay cheque to pay cheque.” Mr Sanneman says the economy will determine his vote but has no great confidence in any of the candidates. “They talk a mean battle about the lower middle class but I don’t think they have a clue about what it’s like.”

Jim McConnoughey, head of the Peoria Chamber of Commerce and one of three candidates competing for the Republican nomination in Illinois’ 18th Congressional district, says economic issues are on the minds of most Peorians. “Rural voters are worried about higher revenues falling, young people are moving to take up jobs elsewhere and the growth of smaller manufacturers has elevated the issue of economic security.”

That view is echoed by Billy Halstead, chairman of the Peoria County Democratic party. “The economy is one of the top issues we’re hearing on the doorstep – what with the housing market the way it is – and we’re using it as a campaign tool. Unemployment isn’t high yet but a lot of our blue-collar manufacturing jobs that used to be in the city have gone.”

In Illinois, it is hard to see the economy changing the outcome of the Democratic primary. Barack Obama, who represents the state in the US Senate, has an insurmountable lead. But it could help Mitt Romney – who has pledged to fight for jobs in the industrial heartland – in the Republican primary.

At Northwoods mall in central Peoria, Brianna Brignall, a student, is working her shift at a concession selling calendars featuring John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, Hillary Clinton and Mr Obama. When asked which has sold the most, she giggles and points to one featuring a confused-looking President George W. Bush. Called “I can’t wait”, it counts down the days until Mr Bush leaves office. “I guess a lot of people will just be glad to see him go,” she says.

USA: Lessons of 1992

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.

Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?

Meanwhile, though Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

This turned out to be a disaster. Much has been written about the process by which the Clinton health care plan was put together: it was too secretive, too top-down, too politically tone-deaf. Above all, however, it was too slow. Mr. Clinton didn’t deliver legislation to Congress until Nov. 20, 1993 — by which time the momentum from his electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time to organize against him.

The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run (something we’ve learned to appreciate now that we’ve seen what a badly run government looks like), but — as Mr. Obama correctly says — there was no change in the country’s fundamental trajectory.

So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.

I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.

My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

Previsões e resultados

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. Já do lado republicano, Mitt Romney, ex-governador de Massachusetts e um dos candidatos mais bem financiados da campanha, sofreu derrota incontestável diante do senador John McCain, 71, do Arizona, um dos candidatos menos endinheirados. Foi uma noite memorável na política norte-americana.
De muitas maneiras, as primárias de New Hampshire cumpriram a missão que as primárias foram criadas para realizar, quando introduzidas, no começo do século 20, como parte do movimento progressista de reforma política: transferir o poder de selecionar os candidatos de volta ao povo, em um processo transparente, tirando-o das mãos dos chefes políticos e de suas tramóias de bastidores. Os cidadãos de New Hampshire encaram com grande seriedade o papel único que exercem na política dos EUA. Muitos se mantêm independentes dos dois grandes partidos, mas têm o direito de votar em seus candidatos durante a primária estadual. Por isso, New Hampshire continua a ser o local clássico para a política "de varejo", sob a qual os candidatos são forçados a fazer política à moda antiga: saindo às ruas para conversar com os eleitores reais e descobrir o que os preocupa.
Para o senador McCain, a política de varejo funcionou. Suas opiniões sobre a Guerra do Iraque e a imigração não eram populares em New Hampshire, mas ele declarou às audiências que estava lá para lhes dizer a verdade tal qual a via, mesmo que os espectadores discordassem dele. Diante de Romney, um político oportunista, a mensagem se provou poderosa. Os especialistas agora estão atribuindo a notável virada conseguida por Clinton ao "momento de emoção" no qual ela derramou lágrimas em um dos pequenos restaurantes característicos de New Hampshire, demonstrando que ela também é "humana". Na verdade, foi organização política à moda antiga que levou os eleitores democratas às urnas.
As multidões fascinadas pelo carisma que compareceram aos comícios de Obama em largos números eram a antítese da política de varejo ao estilo de New Hampshire. No dia da decisão, foram os velhos e confiáveis sindicalistas democratas, preocupados com a economia, bem como uma maioria das mulheres maduras, que foram de fato às urnas para conceder à senadora Clinton sua famosa vitória.

---

KENNETH MAXWELL escreve às quintas nesta coluna.
Tradução de PAULO MIGLIACCI

"Fast journalism"

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".
Uma das supostas explicações: as mulheres se comoveram com as (raríssimas) lágrimas de Hillary em um evento de campanha e correram a ampará-la com seu voto. Pode até ser, mas, que pelo leio na mídia internacional, ninguém foi perguntar a um número representativo de mulheres de New Hampshire se foi isso mesmo.
Meu palpite (e com isso me dou o direito de cenas explícitas de "fast journalism") é o de que a grande maioria dos analistas cometeu o erro de tomar Iowa como sinônimo de Estados Unidos. Seria o mesmo que aceitar que uma situação eleitoral de, digamos, Roraima fosse representativa do Brasil.
O fato é que, antes como depois de Iowa, Hillary está à frente na intenção nacional de voto, com cômoda vantagem de uns 20 pontos. Nada mais natural que New Hampshire faça parte desse sentimento nacional pró-Hillary, ainda que em menor escala. Bem menor, aliás.
Ou, posto de outra forma, a surpresa não foi a vitória da candidata em New Hampshire, mas a sua derrota em Iowa. Ponto.
Voltando ao jornalismo não tão "fast": nem morreu a "Obamamania" nem Hillary Clinton está condenada a ganhar todas as demais primárias só porque ganhou em New Hampshire. É dizer o óbvio? É.
Mas é melhor sabedoria convencional que chute. crossi@uol.com.br

"Aqui eu encontrei minha própria voz", diz Hillary

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.

(Comentário meu: Para quem foi dada como derrotada por até 10 pontos percentuais, Hillary colheu uma vitória espetacular em New Hampshire. Para quem é a mais provida de meios entre os aspirantes a candidato do Partido Democrata e era considerada favorita até há 15 dias, Hillary sai de New Hampshire com uma vitória modesta. Barack Obama está em ascensão. E será duro derrotá-lo.

Parece ter dado certo a mudança de discurso de Hillary, que nos últimos dias atacou fortemente Obama e contou para isso com a ajuda do marido Bill Clinton. Daqui para frente, Clinton ocupará cada vez mais espaço na campanha da mulher. Hillary é a candidata da máquina do Partido Democrata. Obama, dos jovens e dos eleitores independentes.)

Blog do Noblat

Novidades no ar

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.
Hillary traz aquela aparência composta, artificial, maquiada, de toda mulher executiva em qualquer parte do mundo.
Os homens da classe dominante dispõem de uma série de recursos estabelecidos para se impor fisicamente ao mundo exterior: o terno, a gravata, o sorriso, a gesticulação decidida, a posição dos ombros, a estrutura óssea do queixo.
Nas mulheres executivas, apesar dos conjuntinhos de saia e paletó, a armadura convencional do "poder" e da "objetividade" tendem a se concentrar no rosto. O corte de cabelos, a maquiagem, um ou outro retoque de botox, fazem-nas ainda mais padronizadas do que seus equivalentes masculinos.
Apesar da cor da pele, há menos diferença visual entre Hillary e Condoleezza, por exemplo, do que entre Gordon Brown e Tony Blair. Os homens poderosos podem ser baixinhos, gordos, cabeçudos, carecas... podem ostentar narizes ou sobrancelhas descomunais.
Ponha-se uma mulher de candidata, e, bonita ou feia, seu destino será aproximar-se do figurino antinatural, dessexualizado e biônico da grande Górgona dos anos 80, a baronesa Thatcher.
Machismo de minha parte? Acho que não. Machismo delas, talvez. Cumpre-lhes, sem dúvida, anular por meio de maquiagem e cabeleireiros o que possam ter de imprevisível, de "diferente". É como se fossem obrigadas a eliminar o que, na imagem feminina, costuma-se associar a um comportamento errático, sazonal, "de lua".
Personalidades como Hillary não podem ter acordado com o pé esquerdo, ou com o cabelo em desordem. Tudo, nesse novo estereótipo da mulher poderosa, tem de estar sob controle: a cosmética facial trata de exorcizar qualquer fantasma de ingovernabilidade ou desatenção.
Não será este um ponto fraco para a imagem de Hillary Clinton? Tanto ela quanto Barack Obama representam a esperança de superar os oito desastrosos anos de George W. Bush. Mas Hillary aposta mais na previsibilidade e na experiência do que na mudança. Seu visual é claramente conservador.
E basta ver Barack Obama na televisão para perceber que há algo completamente novo no ar. O terno e a gravata estão lá: mas o corpo de Obama parece ter vida independente de suas roupas. Movimenta-se com uma flexibilidade, uma leveza, uma angulosidade que o distingue radicalmente do modelo de jogador de futebol americano adotado pela maioria dos candidatos à liderança da Casa Branca.
Não é um caubói, um astronauta, um fuzileiro naval. Não se assemelha tampouco aos ativistas negros das décadas de 60 e 70. Sua aparência é de alguém mais solto, menos sufocado pela política de identidades que divide o ambiente ideológico norte-americano. Se o fato de ser negro constitui uma novidade e tanto, o que mais chama a atenção na figura de Obama é o seu desenraizamento, sua "laicidade", se posso resumir assim.
Um dos males da esquerda (penso nas eleições francesas, por exemplo) está no fato de que seus candidatos parecem ficar o tempo todo na defensiva, tentando fingir que não pensam aquilo que de fato pensam.
Enquanto isso, a direita acumula sucessos quanto mais se radicaliza. Os conservadores perderam o medo de ser conservadores; os progressistas fazem o possível para esconder seu progressismo.
Na França, Nicolas Sarkozy não tinha problemas em ser de direita, enquanto Ségolène Royal tentava ganhar os votos do centro. Uma vez eleito, Sarkozy conseguiu aliados à esquerda, porque nunca teve medo de si mesmo.
Se é para fazer mudanças, nada pior do que um progressista se embonecar de executivo de multinacional, apenas para não se confundir com Chávez. Uma esquerda que não seja, como Chávez, troglodita, tem de inventar um figurino novo. O que significa, talvez, criar a partir do nada. É nesse vazio, nesse éter de futuro e imprevisto, que Barack Obama parece dançar com elegância. Resta saber se não tropeça.

---

coelhofsp@uol.com.br

Hillary concentra forças na Superterça

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".
Hillary também indicou que pretende usar os 18 dias que a separam da primária da Carolina do Sul para "aprofundar" o contraste entre ela e Obama. "Sempre chega o momento em que as gentilezas se esgotam", ela disse. Em um sinal de como Hillary planeja tornar mais aguçada a sua mensagem, o ex-presidente Bill Clinton descreveu a campanha de "esperança" e "mudança" de Obama como "um conto de fadas" e acusou a mídia de engolir a mensagem sem visão crítica.
Hillary, que esteve perto de chorar em público na noite de segunda-feira, também planeja um esforço mais agressivo para levar às urnas as mulheres democratas, tradicionalmente seu eleitorado mais forte.
Mas, enquanto alguns sentiam simpatia pela rara demonstração de vulnerabilidade de Hillary, outro candidato democrata, John Edwards, disse que o público quer "um comandante-em-chefe inflexível".

Mudanças
A campanha de Clinton não está confiante quanto a uma vitória na Carolina do Sul, onde cerca de metade dos eleitores democratas registrados é negra. As esperanças são maiores em Nevada, que terá primárias na semana que vem.
Mas o foco real, disseram assessores de Hilllary, será o dia 5 de fevereiro. Ao contrário da primária de New Hampshire, que permite participação dos eleitores independentes, muitos dos Estados que votam em 5 de fevereiro admitem apenas o voto de eleitores registrados de cada partido.
Os Estados maiores enviam mais delegados à convenção democrata do que New Hampshire, Iowa e Carolina do Sul combinados.
"Hillary continua na liderança entre os eleitores democratas registrados de todo o país", disse um assessor de sua campanha. "Se a onda pró-Obama se moderar antes de 5 de fevereiro, teremos forte chance de ganhar a indicação." Surgiram fortes sugestões, ontem, de que Hillary demitiria Mark Penn, o principal estrategista de sua campanha e formulador da estratégia de "inevitabilidade" da indicação da candidata, que dá sinais de fragilidade. Mas os assessores de Clinton também aconselharam contra uma reforma abrupta no comando da campanha.

Superdelegados
Hillary ainda tem uma forte vantagem sobre Obama: a supremacia entre os chamados superdelegados, membros do Partido Democrata que votam na convenção nacional independentemente dos resultados das primárias.
Para ganhar a indicação, um candidato precisa levar 2.025 votos na convenção, em agosto, e os superdelegados garantem 796 votos. Até agora, segundo a análise da CNN, a senadora obteve a lealdade de 154 superdelegados, contra 50 de Obama e 33 de John Edwards.
O apoio professado a Hillary por políticos como Jon Corzine, governador de Nova Jersey, Eliot Spitzer, governador de Nova York, e dez senadores é mostra de que ela ainda é a candidata do establishment.

---

Tradução de PAULO MIGLIACCI

New Hampshire: Clinton Upsets Obama; McCain Wins

ELECTION RESULTS

New Hampshire

Democrats	Vote
Clinton	110,550	39%
Obama	102,883	36%
Edwards	47,803	17
Richardson	12,987	5
96% reporting

Republicans	Vote
McCain	86,802	37%
Romney	73,806	32%
Huckabee	26,035	11
Giuliani	20,054	9
96% reporting

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.

The success of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain followed their third- and fourth-place finishes in the Iowa caucuses last week. Mrs. Clinton’s victory came after her advisers had lowered expectations with talk of missteps in strategy and concern about Mr. Obama’s momentum after his first-place finish in Iowa. Her team is now planning to add advisers and undertake a huge fund-raising drive to prepare for a tough and expensive fight with Mr. Obama in the Democratic nominating contests over the next four weeks.

Mr. McCain had pursued a meticulous and dogged turnaround effort: his second bid for the White House was in tatters last summer because of weak fund-raising and a blurred political message, leading him to fire senior advisers and refocus his energy on New Hampshire.

Several New Hampshire women, some of them undecided until Tuesday, said that a galvanizing moment for them had been Mrs. Clinton’s unusual display of emotion on Monday as she described the pressures of the race and her goals for the nation — a moment Mrs. Clinton herself acknowledged as a breakthrough.

“I come tonight with a very, very full heart, and I want especially to thank New Hampshire,” Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking to become the first woman to be elected president, told supporters in Manchester. “Over the last week, I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice.”

“I felt like we all spoke from our hearts, and I am so gratified you responded,” Mrs. Clinton said. Then, echoing her husband’s “Comeback Kid” speech after his surprise second-place finish in the primary here in 1992, she added, “Now together, let’s give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.”

The scene was noticeably different from the one in Iowa when Mrs. Clinton spoke after her loss in the caucuses. Instead of being surrounded by longtime Clinton supporters like former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, she went on stage with teenagers and young adults behind her.

Mr. Obama leaves here with political popularity that is still considerable, after his victory in Iowa and his growing support in the nominating contests ahead. Mrs. Clinton had been struggling to stop Mr. Obama, turning on Tuesday to new advisers to shore up her campaign team, and both of them are strongly positioned heading into the Nevada caucuses on Jan. 19 and the South Carolina primary a week later.

“We know the battle ahead will be long,” Mr. Obama told supporters in Nashua Tuesday night. “But always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.”

With 91 percent of the electoral precincts reporting, Mrs. Clinton had 39 percent of the vote, Mr. Obama 36 percent, and John Edwards 17 percent. On the Republican side, Mr. McCain had 37 percent, Mr. Romney 32 percent and Mike Huckabee 11 percent.

The New Hampshire results foreshadow a historic free-for-all for both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations in the weeks to come. Mr. McCain’s victory dealt another serious blow to Mitt Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts. Mr. Romney campaigned hard and spent heavily as he sought wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, only to come up short in both states.

Mr. McCain, after watching television reports of his victory in his Nashua hotel room, took congratulatory calls from Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who won the Republican caucus in Iowa. He then went downstairs to declare victory.

To cheers of “Mac is back,” Mr. McCain told supporters last night: “My friends, you know I’m past the age when I can claim the noun ‘kid,’ no matter what adjective precedes it. But tonight, we sure showed them what a comeback looks like.”

Mr. Obama, like Mrs. Clinton, devoted considerable financial resources to Iowa and New Hampshire, and his advisers said they planned to spend carefully in the coming contests. He has a major fund-raiser scheduled for Wednesday night in Manhattan — Mrs. Clinton’s home turf — and intends to seek donations from online donors and major party figures. He is also seeking endorsements from members of the Senate and labor groups that have thus far been torn between him and Mrs. Clinton.

The voting in New Hampshire did little to clarify the muddied Republican field. The McCain, Romney and Huckabee campaigns are all girding for battle, and some political analysts still see Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee as a wild card in Southern primaries. Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose strategy calls for winning big in later states like Florida and the Feb. 5 primaries in New York, New Jersey and California, finished near the back of the pack here.

Mr. Romney, stoically smiling in remarks to supporters Tuesday night, is now looking ahead to Michigan primary on Jan. 15; he grew up in the state, where his father was a popular governor, and has been advertising on television there since mid-December.

“Another silver,” Mr. Romney, who ran the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, said in his concession speech. He went on to call for sending someone to Washington “who can actually get the job done,” and added, “I don’t think it’s going to get done by Washington insiders.” He vowed to fight on.

Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Thompson are hoping for a huge lift from fellow Southerners in the South Carolina primary on Jan. 19. And Mr. Giuliani, speaking to supporters before flying to Florida, said the toughest fights were still to come. “By the time it’s over with, by Feb. 5, it’s clear that we’re going to be the nominee of the Republican Party,” Mr. Giuliani said. He added that, perhaps, “we’ve lulled our opponents into a false sense of confidence.”

Mrs. Clinton plans to stay off the campaign trail on Wednesday and huddle with her husband and advisers about the way forward. She is planning to add new strategists and advertising advisers to her team, including a longtime aide, Maggie Williams, and advertising adviser, Roy Spence, as she seeks to build on a strategy memorandum written by another ally, James Carville, to show more fight and grit against Mr. Obama in Nevada.

Even before polls had closed Tuesday, advisers to Mrs. Clinton were portraying her performance here as a gratifying revival and surprise, given her loss in Iowa and Mr. Obama’s double-digit lead in some public opinion polls going into Tuesday’s vote. Advisers and female voters pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s emotional moment on Monday as decisive, with advisers promising that voters would see more personal touches in the days to come.

“Women finally saw a woman — perhaps a tough woman, but a woman with a gentle heart,” said Elaine Marquis, a receptionist from Manchester, who had been torn between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton but was leaning her way when she bared her feelings.

Exit polls of voters on Tuesday showed that women, registered Democrats, and older people — especially older women — came out solidly for Mrs. Clinton, while independents, men and younger voters went for Mr. Obama.

It was an especially remarkable night for Mr. McCain, who had to lay off much of his staff after he nearly ran out of money because of his effort to run a national campaign last spring along the lines of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. All but counted out, Mr. McCain retrenched and focused his limited resources largely on advertising and campaigning in New Hampshire, where he enjoyed a reservoir of support among Republicans and independents from his 2000 run here.

He got back on his emblematic bus, the Straight Talk Express, chatting with the few reporters who continued to cover him and working to persuade the state’s voters one by one in a seemingly incessant stream of town-hall-style meetings.

And while Mr. Romney outspent him on television commercials by two to one — spending $8.7 million to Mr. McCain’s $4.3 million, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising — Mr. McCain closed the gap in the last days of the campaign here, in part because of his tireless campaigning.

Mike Dennehy, who directed the McCain efforts in the state, estimates that Mr. McCain spoke to some 25,000 people directly.

Exit polls suggested that there was a record turnout, with half a million voters — 280,000 Democrats and 230,000 Republicans.

In the Republican primary, Mr. McCain got 38 percent of voters unaffiliated with either party, and the same proportion of registered Republicans, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press. Such undeclared voters made up about a third of voters in the Republican primary.

It was different for the Democrats. Undeclared voters make up a larger share of the voters in the Democratic primary — about 40 percent. Mr. Obama got about 4 in 10 undeclared voters and Mrs. Clinton got about a third of their support. Mrs. Clinton got 45 percent of registered Democrats, and Mr. Obama got a third.

Primárias nos USA: Apoio do partido à senadora mostra fraturas

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.


O bom momento de Obama ameaça afogar a campanha da senadora e ex-primeira-dama também nos próximos dois Estados a votar no processo de escolha do candidato do partido para as eleições presidenciais de novembro. Os resultados até aqui também expõem sinais de fratura no apoio do partido a Hillary.


Alguns membros do comitê dela já começam a fazer lobby para que a senadora desista da campanha, se perder em New Hampshire por uma margem grande, como sugerem as pesquisas. Vários senadores que têm estado em cima do muro estão agora negociando com conselheiros de Obama.


A próxima prévia é em Nevada, dia 19. Alguns membros da cúpula democrata dizem que o poderoso sindicato dos trabalhadores na indústria culinária no Estado - que diz ter 60 mil membros, entre eles empregados de cassinos em Las Vegas, por exemplo - está para apoiar Obama se ele ganhar New Hampshire. Esse apoio é considerado equivalente a uma vitória no Estado, onde o sindicalismo domina o processo das primárias.


Aí vem a Carolina do Sul, dia 26. A campanha de Hillary está, de fato, pensando em ceder o Estado, onde ela liderou por muito tempo, para Obama. Quase metade do eleitorado do partido lá é negra e o apoio à senadora, que já foi forte, tem minguado porque os negros estão ficando energizados ao perceber que um homem de sua raça tem uma chance real de ser candidato a presidente, e até vencer.


A senadora já levantou mais de US$ 100 milhões para sua campanha, caixa suficiente para continuar, e promete ir adiante, com um forte apoio do marido, o ex-presidente Bill Clinton. Sua campanha vai adotar o "Plano B" e focar mais na "Super Terça-Feira", em 5 de fevereiro, quando votam 21 Estados. "Vamos continuar até a convenção", diz o porta-voz de Clinton, Howard Wolfson. Ele ressalta que, apesar da perda em Iowa, ela tem "consideravelmente mais" delegados para a convenção do que Obama.


A senadora ainda lidera as pesquisas em âmbito nacional. Mas sua estratégia original, traçada há um ano e que a retratava como uma candidata inevitável que conquistaria os primeiros Estados nas prévias e fecharia a indicação do partido antes de fevereiro, está em frangalhos.


Quando a campanha de Clinton concluiu que perderia Iowa, New Hampshire - o Estado que pôs o marido da candidata, Bill Clinton, a caminho da presidência em 1992 - era para ser a barreira que conteria seu rival. Agora não é mais nada disso.


Ontem Obama havia capitalizado a vitória em Iowa e aberto uma vantagem de dois pontos percentuais nas pesquisas do Estado.


Atualmente, Hillary tem o apoio de dez senadores do Partido Democrata, e Obama só dois: Dick Durbin, também de Illinois, e Kent Conrad, da Dakota do Norte. Outros ficaram em cima do muro por respeito aos senadores Joe Biden, de Delaware, e Chris Dodd, de Connecticut, que também concorriam para presidente mas desistiram na semana passada, depois de perder as prévias de Iowa. Eles também estão esperando provas de que Obama poderia mesmo ganhar votos.


Para os senadores dispostos a apoiar Obama, "essa não é uma decisão anti-Hillary", disse um estrategista do partido, que não está envolvido na campanha de nenhum presidenciável. "É uma decisão pró-Barack. Colegas de Obama acham mesmo que ele é especial."

Os ventos de Iowa

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.

Os eleitores de Iowa elegem poucos delegados para as convenções dos Democratas e dos Republicanos, que serão as que decidem em definitivo qual será o nome ungido candidato oficial dos respectivos partidos. A verdadeira tendência começará a aparecer após a "super terça", no mês de fevereiro, em que vários Estados elegem simultaneamente seus delegados, depois portanto da escolha do Estado de New Hampshire a semana próxima.

Também é verdade que Bill Clinton, por exemplo, perdeu em Iowa, nas primárias que acabaram escolhendo-o candidato pelo partido Democrata à Casa-Branca. O mesmo pode se repetir com Hillary Clinton agora.

Nada disso porém, apaga as lições do inicio deste complexo processo de escolha. Os eleitores de ambos partidos privilegiaram candidatos pouco representativos do establishment político, defensores de posições de maior mudança, de posturas por vezes polêmicas e até com menor experiência que as principais figuras de ambos os lados.

Paradoxalmente, Hillary Clinton acabou penalizada pela sua postura mais de centro, moderada e consensual, sendo que elas eram aparentemente necessárias para reduzir a rejeição ao fato de ser mulher, progressista e com vida familiar digamos, conturbada.

Pode ser que os eleitores de Iowa estejam expressando um sentimento nacional de mudanças após o desastrado governo Bush, sua política belicista e guerreira no Iraque e os impasses econômicos, conseqüência da crise das hipotecas e também do aprofundamento da desigualdade social visível na questão da saúde, da renda e do emprego, por exemplo.

Ainda é cedo para saber se o fenômeno é local ou passageiro, ou se traduz uma tendência mais profunda. O fato do beneficiado no campo Democrata ser um jovem senador negro, de origem imigrante e isto em um Estado de maioria branca e perfil conservador parece expressar algo mais que um humor passageiro.

Barack Obama tem dinheiro para sustentar a campanha e recebeu um apoio ao seu discurso de mudança. Resta saber se Hillary saberá captar os novos ventos de Iowa para recuperar o espaço perdido.

New Hampshire nós dará mais uma dica de para onde vão os Estados-Unidos. Para o resto do mundo isto tem, seguramente, uma certa importância.

Luis Favre

Bill: Hillary Win In Iowa Would Be 'A Miracle'

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?"

"What do you want to do -- whether you think it matters that, I mean, in theory, no experience matters," Clinton said. "In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentators and let them run. They'd have only one year less experience in national politics..."

And Clinton said the notion that experience led the politicians to sanction the Iraq War is "absurd."

"That's like saying that because 100% of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery, I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."

Towards the end of the interview, Rose indicated that Clinton's staff was asking producers in his show's control room to get them to have Rose end the interview.

And Clinton said: "Somebody will parse this interview..." to take his quotes out of context. "It is stupid... I think we are fortunate in having people..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people."

They may parse his body language. Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in.

Please read this rough transcription of Clinton's take on why his wife isn't doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"Really, really interesting, that I've heard Sen. Obama a dozen times making some fairly derisive comment about Hillary...saying, you know, she had a decades old plan to be president...repeating this total canard that...totally fabricated account from an anti-Hillary book...as if it was something bad that he didn't have a decades-long president...so on their website they put reports that he had been planning to run for president...and they put this thing when he was in kindergarten that he planned to run for president..but the Obama people got the press on their side..."

Rose asked Clinton whether he was nervous about the state of the campaign.

"Well, no. Let me back up. In January, when on New Years Day, she said she was finally going to try and do this... I said I'll make you a prediction...allt he press will say you will coast to the nomination....I think you will have a difficult time getting nominated, and if you are nominated, you'll win the general election handily.....[HRC asked why]...you'll have to run in Iowa, which is the single most difficult state...but Sen. Edwards has a well-earned, huge cadre of support in Iowa because he's worked it for seven years...Sen. Obama is next door, that matters.

Rose: "You think that's the reason for the polls...""

Clinton: "On Edwards, there is no doubt...So, look I've done this before. When I lost in New Hampshire to Paul Tsongas, I lost the first 10 miles next to the Massachusetts border. I carried everything from 10 miles north up to the Canadian border. There are thousands of Illinois students in Iowa colleges...who have never caucused before...[insists he's not lowering expectations.]..he's been to 75 counties, she's been to 50..so my view of this is that I never thought she had a big lead in Iowa...the Iowa people have been really fair to her...they've listened to her and they've given her a chance, and she might win there...and it is astonishing...from the beginning of this race, she had a lead in 36 of 38 states...and not having good luck...what has really happened...what i have been frustrated about has nothing to do with her campaign...the challenges in the polls in the moments will be overcome..I can feel in Iowa, it depends on what people think the answer is...in New Hampshire...the Republicans have been attacking her in all the debates...those attacks affect independent voters...she is not in a position to answer back what the Republicans are doing in the primary...that has not been good..."

"In Iowa, nobody wants to go negative on television, so really it's a war underneath the radar screen and it has more to do with how the press interprets it than anything else...what broke her momentum there was the extraordinary attention given to her not very great answer on the driver's licenses....the press should have a common set of standards..."

"He is great, Edwards is really good..."

"It's a miracle she's got a chance to win."

Richardson, Biden, Dodd are ready to be president, Clinton says.

"Obama has got great skills. It depends on what the American people think is more important....[do they] have somebody who is very his very nature a compelling, very attractive, highly intelligent, visible symbol of transformation, or is it more ...[important] to have someone who would also symbolize change...but who has done a significant number of things to change other people's lives."

USA: Cai vantagem de Hillary sobre Barack Obama em New Hampshire

Margem de mais de 20 pontos em setembro diminui para 6 em Estado considerado crucial pela campanha da senadora

Hillary Clinton mantém uma estreita margem de vantagem sobre o senador Barack Obama entre os candidatos democratas em New Hampshire, um Estado que a campanha da ex-primeira-dama sempre considerou como uma espécie de porto seguro caso ela tropece nas primárias de Iowa, indicou uma pesquisa do Washington Post-ABC News.

Hillary é amplamente vista como a candidata presidencial do partido com mais experiência e mais possibilidade de ser eleita, mas com muitos eleitores em New Hampshire buscando um estilo de governar mais moderno, a primeira eleição primária dos EUA tornou-se muito competitiva.

Segundo a pesquisa, Hillary (senadora por Nova York) tem 35% das intenções de voto e Obama (senador por Illinois), 29%. O ex-senador John Edwards (Carolina do Norte) está em terceiro lugar, com 17% das intenções de voto e o governador do Novo México, Bill Richardson, 10%. O deputado Dennis J. Kucinich, o senador Joseph R. Biden e o senador Christopher J. Dodd têm 3% ou menos.

No início de setembro, Hillary tinha uma vantagem sobre Obama de mais de 20 pontos porcentuais na pesquisa da Universidade de New Hampshire-CNN-WMUR. Apesar de a grande vantagem de Hillary ter sido reduzida, seus partidários estão mais entusiasmados e são mais leais do que os de Obama ou de Edwards. Na pesquisa do Washington Post-ABC News, ela também se saiu melhor do que os rivais em seis ou sete questões. Mas os eleitores de New Hampshire - que votam em 3 de janeiro - dizem que Obama é o candidato que mais entusiasma.

A maioria dos democratas do Estado vêem “novas direções e novas idéias” com maior prioridade do que “força e experiência”. Essa discussão tem sido o ponto principal na disputa democrata e deve definir amplamente a batalha em New Hampshire.

Entre os 53% dos eleitores que dão mais importância às mudanças, Obama é o preferido com 44%, seguido por Hillary e Edwards, com 19%. Em contraste, Hillary é a preferida pelos 37% de eleitores que dão prioridade à força e experiência e obteve 57% dos votos, enquanto que Edwards conquistou 14%, Richardson 11% e Obama, 10%.

Cerca de metade dos pesquisados disse que Hillary é a candidata democrata com melhor currículo para a Casa Branca, melhores habilidades de liderança e mais chance de vencer as eleições presidenciais de novembro de 2008. Ela tem amplas vantagens em cada um desses atributos.

A principal qualidade de Edwards como candidato é a empatia: 20% dos eleitores dizem que ele entende melhor suas preocupações. Obama é líder no quesito confiança: 29% dos pesquisados o qualificam como o mais confiável, 21% consideram Hillary e 17%, Edwards. Mas, como em Iowa, os eleitores de New Hampshire vêem Obama e Edwards como mais candidatos do que Hillary.

USA: Provável vitória democrata aquece lobbies

Empresários aproveitam fim do governo Bush para tentar aprovar normas legais que os favoreçam

ROBERT PEAR
DO "NEW YORK TIMES", EM WASHINGTON

Folha de São Paulo

Os lobbies de negócios norte-americanos, antecipando a possibilidade de avanço dos democratas nas eleições do ano que vem, estão na corrida para aprovar uma ampla gama de regras trabalhistas, econômicas, de saúde e de segurança, pois acreditam que conseguirão mais vantagens do governo Bush do que de seu sucessor.
Com a esperança de firmar normas que contam com o apoio de um governo favorável aos interesses das empresas, os criadores de galinhas, por exemplo, querem obter uma isenção quanto aos regulamentos ambientais para o mau cheiro produzido por toneladas de esterco de aves. As empresas também estão pressionando o governo Bush pela redução das licenças que concedem aos funcionários por problemas médicos e de família. E as geradoras de energia elétrica querem que o governo relaxe as normas de controle de poluição.
Antecipando um futuro sem Bush, empresas e associações setoriais estão recrutando profissionais de lobby conectados aos democratas. E os grupos de lobby, na expectativa de batalhas quanto aos impostos e serviços públicos de saúde em 2009, estão despejando dinheiro nas campanhas de candidatos democratas ao Legislativo e à Casa Branca.
Documentos encaminhados a diversas agências federais demonstram que os grupos de lobby reforçaram suas atividades nos últimos meses, na medida em que tentam ajudar o governo Bush a concluir seu trabalho quanto a regras que foram debatidas com aspereza e, em certos casos, são alvo de processos judiciais há anos. No Departamento do Interior, as empresas de carvão estão pressionando por regulamentos que permitiriam que despejem rochas e terra de operações de mineração conduzidas no alto de encostas em riachos e correntes vizinhas. Seria dispendioso demais transportar esse material e não existem depósitos para esse tipo de resíduo em suas áreas de operação, elas alegam. Luke Popovich, vice-presidente da Associação Mineradora Nacional, disse ser mais provável que um presidente democrata se alinhasse "com os verdes". Uma coalizão de grupos ambientalistas condenou a norma proposta.

Licença médica
Uma prioridade para muitos empregadores em 2008 é garantir mudanças nas regras de licença médica e por motivos familiares. Sob os termos de uma lei de 1993, pessoas que trabalhem para uma empresa com 50 ou mais funcionários em geral têm direito a 12 semanas de licença não remunerada para cuidar de recém-nascidos ou parentes doentes, ou para tratar de problemas médicos. O Departamento do Trabalho sinalizou seu interesse em mudanças no texto da lei ao solicitar comentários públicos.
A Associação Nacional da Indústria informou que a lei havia dado origem a numerosos abusos e causado "uma perda espantosa de horas trabalhadas". A associação diz ainda que o uso desse tempo de licença tende a crescer acentuadamente pouco antes dos feriados, no dia posterior à decisão do campeonato de futebol americano e nos dia de abertura das temporadas locais de caça. Debra Ness, presidente da National Partnership for Women and Families, um grupo de defesa dos direitos da família, disse estar "muito preocupada" com a possibilidade de que o governo Bush promulgue novas normas para reduzir essas licenças.
De fato, a maioria dos candidatos democratas à Presidência dos EUA oferece propostas de expansão da lei de 1993, com o objetivo de conceder licenças remuneradas e estender os benefícios a milhões de outros trabalhadores. O senador Christopher Dodd, democrata de Connecticut, foi o proponente da lei original. A senadora Hillary Clinton, senadora por Nova York, diz que a lei "teve um imenso sucesso". E o senador Barack Obama, democrata de Illinois, diz que licenças-família mais generosas são parte de seu plano para "reconquistar o sonho americano".

Limites
Quem quer que venha a se tornar o próximo presidente, democrata ou republicano, descobrirá que não é tão fácil realizar mudanças imediatas e abrangentes. A Corte Suprema decidiu que um novo presidente não pode revogar arbitrariamente regulamentos implementados em final de mandato por seu predecessor e que já tenham adquirido força de lei. Para reverter essas normas, um novo governo precisa fornecer uma explicação convincente e passar pelo processo formal de adoção de regras, que pode demorar meses ou anos.
Poucas horas depois de assumir, em 2001, o presidente Bush tentou deter diversas dezenas de regulamentos promulgados pouco antes de sua posse, para que governo pudesse revisá-los. Um estudo publicado pela "Wake Forest Law Review" constatou que um quinto desses "regulamentos de última hora" foram alterados ou repelidos pelo novo governo, mas quatro quintos se mantiveram válidos. Algumas das maiores batalhas atuais envolvem normas ambientais.

---

Tradução de PAULO MIGLIACCI

USA: Para Barack Obama ganhar as previas dos Democratas...

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

The Line: For Obama, It Takes a Movement

For months, we've written that the only way for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- or any other Democrat for that matter -- to defeat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is to make the vote about more than just politics.

A standard political race -- governed by the same rules and regulations that typify these contests -- will almost certainly result in Clinton as the nominee. Her reach within the party establishment is just too broad for anyone to beat her in a traditional nominating contest.

But in a non-traditional fight, all bets are off. And, more and more, Obama seems set on turning his candidacy -- and the vote in the Iowa caucuses -- into a movement, insisting that the choice is crucial for the future direction of the country.

This idea is illustrated in Obama's latest ad, which began running in Iowa earlier this week:

That is one powerful spot, and it's all about casting his campaign as something much, much more than politics as usual. "We are in a defining moment in our history," he says in footage taken from his speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last month. "America, our moment is now."

The contrast between Obama's "movement" and Clinton's traditional campaign operation is implicit in the ad (the New York senator is not mentioned), but it is very real. Clinton, by the very nature of her background and candidacy, is not capable of taking advantage of this unique moment in American political history, argues the ad. Only Obama can do it.

Turning his campaign into a movement about something more than politics is the best -- and perhaps only -- path for Obama to win the nomination. He appears to have realized that.

In an attempt to keep pace with ever-changing landscape of the two nomination fights, The Fix is going to a weekly presidential Line between now and when the two parties have effectively picked their 2008 nominees. Because we'll be looking at the presidential candidates every week for the next 8 weeks (or more), we are trimming down the write-up for each candidate to make for a slightly quicker read.

As always, remember the No. 1 ranked candidate is the one who is most likely to wind up as that party's nominee.

To the Line!

REPUBLICANS

Profile | Finance | Tracker

1. Rudy Giuliani: The former mayor of New York has hit a rough patch of late, symbolized by the media fallout from (and his campaign's strained explanations of) a Politico story that suggested Hizzoner used official security funds to transport his mistress (now wife, Judith Nathan) when he was still mayor. But take a step back and things look far better. Mike Huckabee's rise in Iowa takes the pressure off of Giuliani to slow Mitt Romney there and opens up the real possibility that Giuliani could win New Hampshire. His campaign won't cop to it, but in figuring out the math it seems like a win in New Hampshire or South Carolina is an absolute must for Giuliani at this point. (Previous ranking: 1)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

2. (tie) Mitt Romney: For a man who seemed to have considered every possibility and every angle in this race, we don't think Romney saw Mike Huckabee coming. (He admitted as much in a sitdown with The Fix last week in Iowa.) Huckabee's surge in the Hawkeye State is generally bad news for Romney, as it puts a state where he looked invincible back into play and seriously jeopardizes his chances of running the table in Iowa and New Hampshire. That said, if Huckabee maintains his lead in Iowa for a week or two, Romney could well look like the Comeback Kid (apologies to Bubba) if he winds up winning the caucuses. (Previous ranking: 2)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

2. (tie) Mike Huckabee: Timing is everything in politics, and Huckabee is moving at the right time. What remains to be seen is whether Huckabee's momentum can overcome Romney's money in Iowa. Huckabee finished a surprising second at the Ames Straw Poll in August but was well behind the well-financed and organized Romney. Given where Huckabee stands in Iowa polling now, a second-place finish is no longer the moral victory it would have been. Ah, the expectations game! (Previous ranking: 3)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

4. John McCain: McCain is basically running a one-state strategy at the moment, putting the vast majority of his time and campaign resources into New Hampshire. Polling shows that to be a sound strategy, as McCain remains a major factor in the Granite State and is positioned to make a major push in the final month of the campaign. But can McCain's support in New Hampshire withstand a fourth or fifth place finish in Iowa? He skipped the state in 2000 and has so far mounted a half-hearted effort there this time around. McCain must hope New Hampshire voters ignore what happens in Iowa and decide to assert their famous independence by backing the candidate they loved in 2000. (Previous ranking: 4)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

5. Ron Paul: "Dr. No" makes The Line for the first time. Why? Because Paul's surprising fundraising success means that he will have plenty of money to reach Republican caucusgoers and primary voters with his unique message of getting American troops out of Iraq and drastically limiting the role of government. Paul seems likely to become a home for any disaffected voter unhappy with the top-tier candidates. While we'd be surprised to see him crack 10 percent in Iowa, his messaging is a surprisingly natural fit for a segment of New Hampshire's Republican voters. Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes.

DEMOCRATS

Profile | Finance | Tracker

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton: The coronation is officially on hold. But be careful about predicting the demise of Clinton II. She is tough as nails and, more so than any other candidate on either side (with the possible exception of McCain), knows how to soldier through adversity. For all the political obituaries being penned about Clinton, every poll we've seen shows Iowa a three-way statistical dead heat. Momentum isn't on Clinton's side at the moment in the state, but her campaign is pulling out the stops to shift the debate from one of personalities to one of accomplishments. If Clinton loses in Iowa, New Hampshire will be her last, best chance to retake the frontrunner mantle. Still, she has more potential paths to the nomination than any of her opponents. (Previous ranking: 1)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

2. Barack Obama: We've said our piece about Obama above. During our trip to Iowa last weekend, we saw a different Obama -- savvier politically, more comfortable in his own skin etc. The biggest remaining question for Obama is: Do Iowa voters go right to the edge with him only to change their minds to go with the perceived better general-election candidate (Clinton or John Edwards)? We don't know. (Previous ranking: 2)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

3. John Edwards: Count us as skeptical about the talk that Edwards's Iowa support is rapidly eroding. In poll after poll -- including the Post's own poll and the Des Moines Register's gold standard survey -- Edwards is within striking distance. He touched a chord with Iowa voters in 2004, and he has kept a loyal and sizable group with him despite the presence of two rock stars in the Democratic field. Turnout is everything for Edwards in Iowa. In 2004, the campaigns of former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.) and then-Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) planned for a traditional turnout model (60,000 to 70,000) and were swamped when more than 124,000 people turned out. If the number of voters stays between 120,000 and 140,000, Edwards has a strong chance. If it grows beyond that, he could be in trouble. (Previous ranking: 3)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

4. Bill Richardson: There remains a major gap in Iowa and nationally between the Big 3 on the Democratic side and the rest of the field. We move Richardson up a spot this month based on the idea that of the candidates not named Clinton, Edwards or Obama, he will have the most money to spend in the final month. Richardson has really struggled to differentiate himself from the field; his appeal that he is the lone chief executive in the race has fallen flat and his plan to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of the year hasn't done the trick either. Still, polling shows Richardson running a solid fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire; our numbers-based mind can't ignore that. (Previous ranking: 5)

Profile | Finance | Tracker

5. Joe Biden: The highlight of the generally news-less National Public Radio debate earlier this week in Iowa was Biden. With foreign policy on the front burner, Biden scolded his rivals for their lack of knowledge and realism while simultaneously showing off his impressive political resume. The best thing going for Biden is Biden. He knows what he believes and connects well with voters and elected officials alike. The problem for Biden is that he hasn't made a major move in the Iowa polls yet -- and time is running out. Still, if an Iowa dark horse does emerge, our money is on the man from Delaware. (Previous ranking: 4)