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.

USA: Women, Latinos Propel Clinton To First Place

Hillary Rodham Clinton gets a thumbs up on caucus day in Las Vegas. (AP).

By Shailagh Murray and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 20, 2008; Page A01

LAS VEGAS, Jan. 19 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won Nevada's Democratic caucuses on Saturday, handing Sen. Barack Obama a second consecutive setback in a volatile nominating contest that is now poised to become a coast-to-coast battle.

Competing in the first state with significant blocs of minority voters, Clinton won 51 percent of the vote, Obama took 45 percent and former senator John Edwards garnered 4 percent, the result of a colorful and at times chaotic process that included caucuses held in casinos on the Las Vegas Strip. Clinton won almost every casino site and dominated among women and Latino voters, while Obama drew overwhelming support from blacks -- a potential foreshadowing of how the contest could play out when almost two dozen states vote on Feb. 5.

"I guess this is how the West was won," Clinton declared at a victory rally in Las Vegas.

Obama's campaign argued that the outcome in Nevada was a shared victory and laid claim to 13 delegates, compared with 12 for Clinton, because of the way his support was distributed around the state. Obama aides also complained of what they said were voter-suppression tactics. "We're not treating this as a loss," said senior adviser David Axelrod. "We'll keep letting them spin the victories, and we'll keep taking the delegates." Obama left the state without delivering a concession speech, and his campaign sent messages to supporters heralding the edge in delegates.

Clinton officials rejected the delegate claim out of hand, arguing that the count has not been finalized.

The debate over the details of delegate allotment reflected the growing intensity of the competition. After three contests in as many weeks, Clinton and Obama are still struggling for the upper hand in the race for the nomination, neither having gained sustained momentum as they have struggled through a series of fierce back-and-forths.

Clinton scored her latest victory after an especially bitter exchange last weekend over racial divisions, and after her husband took on an even more visible role as both a glad-handing surrogate on the Vegas Strip and a sharp critic of Obama. In one notable exchange on the eve of the vote, Bill Clinton lambasted a reporter who asked about a recent court ruling on the caucus arrangements; the incident, replayed repeatedly on television, bore echoes of his comment the night before the New Hampshire primary that Obama's stance on the Iraq war is a "fairy tale." In both states, his wife won.

The Nevada results contained some worrisome signs for Obama along demographic lines. The heavy support that Clinton won among Hispanics suggested that he could face an uphill climb to win that important group in California, New York and New Jersey, the three most populous states with primaries on Feb. 5. In the first contest in which race has played an important role, white caucusgoers in Nevada backed Clinton over Obama, 52 percent to 34 percent, and nearly two-thirds of Latinos chose Clinton. Black voters broke heavily for Obama over Clinton, 83 percent to 14 percent.

In the two weeks since her stinging third-place defeat in Iowa, Clinton has sharpened her differences with Obama to emphasize her experience and the economy, while honing in on her advantage among Latino voters. Yet even as she campaigned in Nevada -- and played down expectations for how she would do here, with her advisers predicting as late as Saturday morning that the setup would favor Obama -- Clinton kept an eye on California, detouring for a day of campaigning there and ramping up her statewide operation.

As the two candidates head to South Carolina, they are planning to focus increasingly on nearby Feb. 5 states such as Arkansas and Georgia, turning the Democratic nomination into a truly national race.

Racial divides could trigger renewed friction within the Democratic Party as the two sides rush to pick up support from blacks and Hispanics. Although leaders of a "black-brown" coalition have sponsored Democratic debates focused on minority issues, the two groups have a history of mutual mistrust in politics and could find themselves in a tug-of-war between Obama and Clinton. Already, the campaign has been engulfed by identity politics after remarks by Clinton about the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, and after Spanish-language ads, run by a union backing Obama, questioned Clinton's support for Latinos.

Saturday, Clinton continued to outperform Obama among women, a trend that began with her victory in New Hampshire on Jan. 8 -- in contrast to Obama's early victory among women in Iowa. According to network entrance polling, women made up 59 percent of all caucusgoers in Nevada, and they went into the caucuses favoring the senator from New York over Obama, 51 percent to 38 percent, similar to the advantage among women she enjoyed in New Hampshire. Winning strong support from women has been the cornerstone of her strategy for winning the Democratic nomination.

Despite a late endorsement by the powerful Culinary Workers Union, Obama did not win enough support from Nevada's hourly laborers -- or any single demographic -- to produce new momentum after his initial burst of success in Iowa. Since his first-place finish there, the senator from Illinois has struggled to outpace Clinton in consecutive contests and is now banking heavily on a victory next Saturday in South Carolina, where as much as half of the Democratic electorate will be African American.

But Obama's advisers said that, under the complex apportionment rules governing the Nevada caucus process, he will wind up ahead of Clinton by one delegate in the state. Clinton currently leads in the overall national delegate count, including the "super delegates" who can choose their preferred nominee without waiting for any individual state results but may also change their minds at any time.

The caucuses yesterday met to select about 11,000 delegates for a series of local and state party nominating conventions later this year, leading up to the decision on awarding the state's 25 delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, expressed confidence that Obama will take the majority. "This is a very close contest, and we obviously both did a good job at turning out voters," Plouffe said, adding, "I do think that increasingly this is going to turn into a contest of delegates, and I think that's an important measure."

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson rejected the rival camp's claim. "Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake," he said. "The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19."

Perhaps the clearest winner of the Nevada caucuses was Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, who secured the early spot on the calendar for his state and boldly predicted turnout of 100,000 -- more than 10 times the Democratic turnout in the 2004 Nevada caucuses. That forecast appeared to come true, with upwards of 114,000 caucusgoers reported. Reid was neutral in the race, but his son, Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid, served as Clinton's Nevada chairman and helped her to lock down support from the Democratic establishment.

Turnout was less impressive along the Strip, where the famous skyline of soaring casinos and neon-lighted hotels drew hundreds, rather than thousands, at nine at-large sites. Clinton won the caucus at the New York-New York Hotel and Casino 93 to 69, for example; at the Wynn, which had expected 1,000 participants, Clinton won 189 to 187. Obama won at Caesars Palace 82 to 79 and also carried the Luxor.

Polling director Jon Cohen and staff writer Paul Kane in Washington contributed to this report.

USA: New Clarity, for Both Parties

Photo Reuters

By David S. Broder

Washington Post

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The New Hampshire verdicts were reinforced Saturday in Nevada and South Carolina, bringing a degree of clarity to both parties' nomination fights.

Hillary Clinton's victory in the Nevada caucuses and John McCain's win in the South Carolina primary were close enough to keep the competition going on both sides. But the winners gained significant advantages for the coming rounds.

Mitt Romney remains a serious challenger for the Republican nomination, with a win in Nevada Saturday on top of earlier victories in Michigan and Wyoming, and second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Barack Obama, winless since Iowa, nonetheless continued to draw the kind of independent support that could fuel a comeback for him, starting next Saturday in South Carolina.

Mike Huckabee, the upset winner among Iowa Republicans, was damaged by his inability to roll up comparable margins among South Carolina evangelicals.

But he remains a factor in the four-way contest on Jan. 29 in Florida, where McCain will test his momentum against Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who has rested all his hopes on the Sunshine State.

Meantime, Saturday put a severe dent in two other contenders, Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson. With third place finishes for the two former senators, their ability to remain viable candidates appeared to be in serious doubt.

For McCain, winning South Carolina reversed the most bitter of defeats in his 2000 challenge to George W. Bush -- another year where he won New Hampshire's independents.

The Arizona senator rallied the kind of establishment support here this time that went to Bush eight years ago and secured a victory that should enable him to raise money for the coming contests against the well-funded Romney.

But McCain still faces a challenge in states, such as Florida and California, where only registered Republicans -- and not independents -- can vote in the GOP primary.

On the Democratic side, in Nevada, as in New Hampshire, Clinton demonstrated powerful appeal to women voters, who dominated the turnout in both states. And she trounced Obama among Hispanics, despite his endorsement by the Culinary Workers' Union that represents many of them employed in the casino industry.

In coming, delegate-rich states, such as California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, those two constituencies could once again be critical. Obama's appeal to African-Americans and younger voters in both races makes him competitive, but may not be enough to push him past Clinton.

In the next contest, in South Carolina, Clinton also benefits from the weakness being shown by the third Democrat, former senator John Edwards. He has looked more and more beleaguered in each state since he edged Clinton and took second place behind Obama in Iowa.

In 2004, Edwards was able to win his native state of South Carolina, thanks primarily to his support from white voters, and he has spent more days campaigning in the state this cycle than any of his rivals. But now, looking like a loser in the national competition, he may divert fewer white votes from Clinton than the Obama campaign had hoped.

Meantime, the Clinton campaign is planning to have Bill Clinton working black audiences across South Carolina, pitting his historical ties to African-American voters against Obama's strength.

Some veteran Democrats here see a potential pattern of racial voting that could yield a narrow Clinton victory.

A economia no centro das primárias norte-americanas

Economy Slumps To the Top of the Campaign Agenda

By Peter Baker and Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writers

As the presidential campaign got underway a year ago, the candidates faced a volatile political environment dominated by the Iraq war, illegal immigration and terrorism. A year later, the campaigns are rewriting their playbooks as it appears that the race may actually be shaped by the economy.

The virtual halt in job growth, the climb of oil prices above $100 a barrel, the New Year's stock market tumble and the continuing mortgage crisis have fueled fears of recession and crystallized the nation's growing economic anxiety. Nowhere was that clearer this week than in New Hampshire, where exit polls showed that the economy has overtaken all other issues as the top concern for Democrats and Republicans alike.

While the Federal Reserve indicates that it will move to spur growth and President Bush and Congress consider stimulus packages, economic worry has already forced the presidential candidates to retool their messages. Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani proposed a new tax-cut package yesterday as rival Mike Huckabee prepared to take his populist message to economically distressed Michigan with a major address today. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who did best among New Hampshire voters worried about the economy, plans to unveil today what her campaign calls a "plan to jump-start America's ailing economy."

"The economy's number one," said Scott Paul, director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a coalition of manufacturers and the United Steelworkers that has found deep apprehension about the economy at town hall meetings in early-primary states. "It's organic. It's not an organized effort. But it's something the voters, Republicans and Democrats, are fretting about."

Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist advising the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), said his travels through Iowa in recent months brought home just how powerful the concern has become. "Everywhere I went, there were people all over the issue, asking a whole lot of economic questions -- as many questions as they were asking about Iraq," he said. "The conditions in the economy have only soured since then."

The poll numbers in New Hampshire were striking. Among Democrats, 38 percent called the economy the biggest issue, compared with 31 percent who named Iraq and 27 percent who said health care. Among Republicans, 31 percent cited the economy, while 24 percent said Iraq and 23 percent chose illegal immigration.

Nationally, the economy began popping to the top of voter concerns before the turn of the year. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in November found that Iraq was the dominant issue by 2 to 1. By last month, the same survey found the economy and Iraq essentially tied as the biggest areas of concern for voters across the country.

But different voters have different anxieties about the economy. For some, it may be jobs, for others housing. Health care and energy costs trouble large swaths of the population. "You'll see candidates spending more time on the economy," said former White House political director Sara M. Taylor, who worked on Bush's campaigns. "But it won't be enough to address the economy as a whole. They'll have to discuss" individual areas of concern.

Clinton managed to tap into that anxiety this week in New Hampshire more successfully than Obama. Although she has sought to address the disaffected middle class since last spring, much as her husband did in his 1992 campaign, her message had often been muffled until she returned to it more intensively in recent days. She repeatedly cited her husband's record of producing 22 million new jobs while promising to make college more affordable and to ensure universal health care.

The National Election Pool exit poll in New Hampshire showed Clinton winning among voters who cited the economy as the biggest issue and among those who said their own families were falling behind financially. Among those who consider the economy in poor shape, she beat Obama 44 percent to 31 percent, a margin 10 percentage points greater than her overall edge. Although Democrat John Edwards's populist message is designed to appeal to those who feel most aggrieved by economic inequality and corporate power, the former senator from North Carolina did only somewhat better in winning their votes than the votes of other constituencies.

Obama has an economic plan centered on tax cuts for the lower and middle classes and has held events built around the subprime mortgage crisis. He has also begun making more direct appeals to the economically disadvantaged. "We understand that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas," he told a crowd in Charleston, S.C., yesterday, echoing a line from his New Hampshire concession speech.

Republicans are also reorienting their messages to take into account growing concerns about the economy, beginning in Michigan over the next six days. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who addresses the Detroit Economic Club today, is the only Republican whose economic message breaks from party orthodoxy with a more populist appeal on the plight of the working class, concern over income inequality and doubt about the effectiveness of free trade.

When he arrived in Michigan on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spoke directly to those problems with a pledge to help workers whose jobs have disappeared through globalization. Giuliani yesterday proposed to cut corporate and capital gains tax rates and simplify the tax code so Americans can file a one-page return. Mitt Romney yesterday issued a statement boasting of his economic record as Massachusetts governor.

Michigan, which votes Tuesday, may be a proving ground on the issue. "It's huge in Michigan," said William R. Rustem, president of Public Sector Consultants. "We continue to be at or near the bottom in terms of unemployment. We were tied in 2005 with North Dakota for the largest out-migration rate. So the economy is going to be huge. People are looking for answers at both the state and federal level as to what we do in Michigan."

Beyond the primaries, both parties are contemplating what the economy may mean for the general election if Bush and the Federal Reserve cannot head off a recession. As the incumbent party, the Republicans may have a new vulnerability. But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former White House economist now advising McCain, said the party will not matter as much as the candidate.

"The American public is looking for leadership," he said. "They want to be convinced the economy's in good hands, and that will be the quality that will be needed in the fall."

Staff writers Peter Slevin in Chicago and Alec MacGillis in Charleston and polling director Jon Cohen in Washington contributed to this report.

America's election: Up in the air

From The Economist print edition

America wants change; it just can't work out what sort of change

IF A week is famously a long time in British politics, five days can be an eternity in America. On January 3rd Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by roughly 17,000 votes, out of around 220,000 cast, in Iowa's Democratic caucus at the start of the presidential nominating season. It was the vote that launched a thousand editorials: the charismatic young black senator was compared to Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King and even Ronald Reagan. France's Libération hailed the man who “will restore America's image in the world”. The nomination, not to mention the presidency, seemed Mr Obama's not by election but by global acclamation.

On January 8th Mrs Clinton staged her comeback, winning in New Hampshire by an even tinier margin (some 7,500 votes), to the surprise of pollsters who had been predicting a trouncing for her. Now, suddenly, the talk is of the triumph of experience over hope, of the crushing power of the Clinton machine, of the next chapter in the remarkable story of the Comeback Kids. Meanwhile, the Republicans seem to be see-sawing even more dramatically—with the Bible-wielding Mike Huckabee winning Iowa (cue, a lot of guff about a fresh face and the power of the religious right) then John McCain winning New Hampshire (all hail now to experience and the virtue of independence) and Rudy Giuliani still ahead in the large states that vote on Super Tuesday on February 5th.

From Obamamania to Obam...err

In fact, the only safe lesson to draw is that the battle for the White House is an extraordinarily fluid affair. Everything is up in the air. That is not just because this is the most open election in America since 1928 (the last time that no incumbent president or vice-president was in the race); it is because Americans don't really know what they want. Sure, they are desperate for “change”: with the economy reeling, politics gridlocked, young people dying in Iraq and the Bush administration a global byword for callous incompetence, huge numbers of Americans have long believed their country is on the wrong track. But what sort of change? And who can deliver it?

It is a measure of how far Mr Obama has come that he is the person who has seemed closest (albeit only for a few days) to satisfying this need. More than Mrs Clinton's, his appeal rests on an attractive optimism. He calls himself a “hope-monger”; he argues—not without reason—that change cannot come if the country is mired in the old “Bush-Clinton” partisan politics. And in many ways, a divided, grouchy America's hopes do indeed seem to rest with Mr Obama—personable, consensus-seeking and capable of delivering oratory of some brilliance, in defeat as well as victory.

Yet the Democrats of New Hampshire were probably right to ask for a bit more (had Mr Obama won, he would surely have been unstoppable). Yes, an Obama presidency would close up two of America's deepest wounds: as a black man, especially one who does not run as a black politician, he would draw the sting of race from its politics; as a young man, he would step beyond the poisonous legacy of the 1960s division Vietnam wrought between liberals and conservatives.

Other areas, though, have always looked knottier. Could Mr Obama, simply by dint of being black and having lived in Muslim Indonesia for six years as a boy, really change America's international image so easily? He would get a hero's welcome, of course—but the next president will get that whoever he or she is, simply for not being George Bush and not having made such a hash of Iraq. Thereafter, America will be judged on its actions, not its words. For instance, Mr Obama shows no particular sign of being able to reconcile the need to end the occupation of Iraq with the need to avoid the disaster that a power vacuum in the heart of the Middle East would cause. Tell us more, said many voters in New Hampshire: to that extent, they were right to deny him certain nomination.

Mrs Clinton, however, also has work to do—much more work than simply mentioning “change” a lot. New Hampshire, after all, is a bedrock of Clintonism: had she lost there, she would have been in dire straits in Nevada, which votes on January 19th, and especially in South Carolina, which votes on January 26th, and where around half the Democratic primary electorate is black. Super Tuesday, when 22 states are to vote, might have been her last stand. Now, after this political near-death, she is back where she started—in the lead. One has to hope, however, that she has learnt a few lessons.

These begin with the idea that it is not enough to exude competence and reel off endless policy proposals. She must learn poetry from Mr Obama, just as he needs to learn prose from her. She needs to listen to voters, not talk at them. Above all, she has to shed that sense of wounded entitlement that has bedevilled her campaign; she has to show that the Clintons are not yesterday's people. Her problem is not just that Mr Obama could still catch her; she has reminded many Americans how divisive a politician she is. If she wins the primaries, it may be only because core Democratic groups (trade unions, the uneducated, the poor, the old) rallied to her side. And a nomination does not a president make.

Say what you think

The Republicans should be in much worse shape. They have a wider field (four possibles, if you include Mitt Romney, who finished second in both Iowa and New Hampshire). Whereas the Democrats are agonising about what sort of change they represent, the Republicans are the party of incumbency. On the face of it, they would be mad to ditch Mr McCain. A man who outdoes Mrs Clinton for experience and sometimes matches Mr Obama for charm, he has shown more political courage than either Democrat has yet displayed and he beats both of them in hypothetical “head to head” polls. Against this, the 71-year-old senator is a mercurial cove; and many of his boldest traits, such as his keenness for immigration reform, irritate his deeply dysfunctional party.

Yet there is a lesson for the other candidates in Mr McCain's bravery. When voters don't quite know their own minds, they turn to those who do: 2008 is a year for courage.

Uma furtiva lágrima...

Blog Big Picture

La larme

Apparemment, Hillary a récupéré le vote des femmes…

Les commentateurs sont persuadés que c’est l’effet de ”la larme”.
Le moment d'’émotion qu’elle a eu lundi et qui aurait tout changé.
Il n’y a pas eu de larme à proprement parler.
Il n’y a eu qu’une voix différente.
Lasse, sur le point de laisser tomber.

Après sa victoire elle a remercié le New Hamsphire
- Je vous ai écouté. Et j’ai trouvé ma voix propre.

Sa voix était moins “commandante” en effet.
Elle a arrêté de parler de changement.
Le mot qu’elle a utilisé: transformation.

Derrière elle, il n’y avait aucun des ”revenants” qui étaient là le soir des Caucus de l’Iowa (Bill, Madeleine Albright).
Elle a repris la maitrise du scénario.



Yes we can



Barack Obama a ajouté un concept à son discours sur le changement.
- Yes we can
Il lui faut de nouveau convaincre qu’il peut y arriver.

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

Barreira sexual pesa mais que a racial

Gloria Steinem*

A mulher em questão tornou-se advogada depois de alguns anos como organizadora comunitária, é casada com um advogado de corporação e mãe de duas garotinhas de 9 e 6 anos. Ela é filha de mãe americana branca e pai africano negro - neste país preocupado com raça, ela é considerada negra -, serviu num Legislativo estadual por oito anos e se tornou uma voz inspiradora da unidade nacional.

Honestamente: você acredita que essa é a biografia de alguém que poderia ser eleito para o Senado americano? Após menos de um mandato ali, acredita que ela poderia ser uma candidata viável para presidir a nação mais poderosa da terra?

Se respondeu não às duas perguntas, você não está sozinho. O gênero é, provavelmente, a força mais limitadora na vida americana, seja na questão de quem deveria estar na cozinha ou quem poderia estar na Casa Branca. Os EUA estão mal posicionados na lista de países que elegem mulheres e, segundo um estudo, polarizam papéis de gênero mais do que uma democracia média.

É por isso que a primária de Iowa estava acompanhando nosso padrão histórico de mudança. Homens negros receberam o direito ao voto meio século antes de mulheres de qualquer raça terem permissão para marcar uma cédula eleitoral - e, em geral, eles ascenderam a posições de poder antes de qualquer mulher.

Se a advogada descrita aqui fosse tão carismática quanto Barack Obama, mas se chamasse, por exemplo, Achola Obama, ela já estaria liquidada há muito tempo. Aliás, nem ela nem Hillary Clinton poderiam ter usado o estilo público de Obama - ou de Bill Clinton, tampouco - sem ser consideradas emotivas demais pelos figurões de Washington.

Então, por que a barreira do sexo não é levada tão a sério quanto a racial? As razões são tão difundidas quanto o ar que respiramos: porque o sexismo ainda é confundido com natureza, como o racismo foi um dia; porque tudo que afete os homens é visto como mais sério do que qualquer coisa que afete “somente” a metade feminina da raça humana; porque os filhos ainda são criados principalmente por mulheres, de modo que os homens tendem a sentir que estão regredindo à infância quando lidam com uma mulher poderosa; porque o estereótipo racista de os homens negros serem mais “másculos” prevaleceu por tanto tempo que alguns homens brancos consideram a presença deles uma afirmação de masculinidade (desde que não sejam muitos); e porque ainda não há uma maneira “certa” de ser uma mulher no poder público sem ser considerada você sabe o quê.

Não estou defendendo uma competição sobre quem enfrenta a maior dureza. Os sistemas de casta de sexo e raça são interdependentes e só podem ser extirpados juntos. É por isso que Hillary e Obama precisam tomar cuidado para não permitir que um debate saudável se transforme no tipo de hostilidade que a mídia adora. Ambos precisarão de uma coalizão com pessoas de fora para vencer uma eleição geral. Os movimentos abolicionista e sufragista progrediram quando se uniram, e foram debilitados pela divisão.

Estou apoiando Hillary porque, como Obama, ela tem experiência em organização comunitária, mas também tem mais anos no Senado, o fato sem precedente de oito anos de treinamento na Casa Branca, nenhuma masculinidade a provar, o potencial de explorar o imenso reservatório de talento deste país com seu exemplo e, agora, até mesmo a coragem de quebrar a regra que não admite lágrimas. Não sou contra Obama; se ele for nomeado, serei voluntária. Aliás, se olharmos suas votações nos dois anos em que ambos compartilharam o Senado, elas foram idênticas mais de 90% das vezes. Além disso, para limpar a confusão deixada pelo presidente George W. Bush, podemos precisar de dois mandatos da presidente Hillary e dois do presidente Obama.

O que me preocupa, porém, é que ele é visto como unificador por sua raça enquanto ela é vista como uma divisora por seu sexo. O que me preocupa é que ela é acusada de “jogar a carta do gênero” quando cita grupos de favorecimento, enquanto ele é visto como unificador ao citar confrontos pelos direitos civis. O que me preocupa é que os eleitores masculinos de Iowa foram vistos como imparciais sobre gênero ao defenderem o seu, enquanto as eleitoras mulheres foram vistas como parciais se o fizeram e desleais se não.

O que me preocupa é que os repórteres ignoram a dependência de Obama do velho - por exemplo, as freqüentes comparações de campanha com John F. Kennedy, embora Teddy Kennedy esteja apoiando Hillary -, enquanto não questionam a calúnia de que as políticas progressistas dela são parte do status quo de Washington. O que me preocupa é que algumas mulheres, especialmente as jovens, esperam negar ou escapar do sistema de casta sexual; assim as mulheres de Iowa acima de 50 e 60 anos, que apoiaram desproporcionalmente Hillary, provaram uma vez mais que as mulheres são o único grupo que fica mais radical com a idade.

Este país já não pode dar-se ao luxo de escolher líderes de um reservatório de talentos limitado por sexo, raça, dinheiro, pais poderosos e diplomas universitários. Já é hora de termos o mesmo orgulho por quebrar todas as barreiras. Precisamos ser capazes de dizer: “Eu a estou apoiando porque ela será uma grande presidente e porque ela é uma mulher.”
*Gloria Steinem é co-fundadora do Women’s Media Center

VOCÊ ACREDITA EM PESQUISA ?

As pesquisas tiraram 10 pontos
percentuais da Hillary

Paulo Henrique Amorim

Máximas e Mínimas 852

. Uma semana atrás, as pesquisas eleitorais mostravam que Hillary Clinton ganharia a eleição primária do estado de New Hampshire com uma vantagem de dois dígitos.

. Na véspera da eleição, as pesquisas eleitorais mostravam uma reviravolta: Barack Obama ganharia com uma vantagem de dois ditos, por causa da surpreendente vitória em Iowa.

. As pesquisas eleitorais foram as grandes derrotadas – para quem acredita nelas – nas primárias do Partido Democrata (clique aqui para ler “Você acredita nas pesquisa ?”)

. Em Iowa – quando as pesquisas escolheram Hilllary – e agora, em New Hampshire, onde a margem foi apertada.

. A vitória de McCain, no lado Republicano, era mais esperada, porém, também ele tinha sido menosprezado pelas pesquisas e os “colunistas” da imprensa americana.

. A votação de Hillary se deve em boa parte – segundo a cobertura da CNN, da Fox News e da BBC, a que assisti – à fidelidade do eleitorado feminino, ao eleitorado trabalhador e sindical (que sempre gostou de Bill Clinton) e a Bill Clinton.

. E à fidelidade do eleitor mais pobre.

. Mais de 50% dos eleitores democratas com renda anual inferior a US$ 50 mil votaram em Hillary.

. Bill Clinton, nos últimos dias, pôs a mão na massa e partiu para o ataque a Obama, com o argumento de que Obama não tinha sido suficientemente questionado – pela imprensa e pelos eleitores.

. Obama se vangloria de ter votado contra a Guerra do Iraque. Hillary votou a favor.

. Mas, Bill Clinton tentou provar que, depois de votar contra a Guerra do Iraque, Obama aprovou todas as medidas que se tornaram necessárias para que os Estados Unidos realizassem uma campanha eficaz no Iraque – logo, dali em diante Obama e Hillary tinham votado da mesma maneira.

. Aí, disse Bill Clinton, o desempenho de Obama é “ um conto da carochinha”.

. Os eleitores que formam a base mais sólida do Partido Democrata adoram Bill Clinton.

. Obama está à esquerda dos Clinton.

. E isso, os Clinton e os Republicanos vão combater, daqui para frente.

. Pode dar Clinton, Hillary, McCain, Huckabee ou Romney.

. E as pesquisas, nos Estados Unidos, continuarão a ser recebidas como hoje: com ceticismo.

. Acredita em pesquisa quem quer – ou quem faz com que os outros acreditem.

Em tempo: até pesquisa de boca-de-urna errou: segundo a Fox, 39% dos eleitores Democratas que tinham acabado de votar escolheram Obama; e 34%, Hillary.

Em tempo 2: é bom lembrar que, no Brasil, três anos antes da eleição, o Datafolha já elegeu o presidente eleito José Serra.

Em tempo 3: agora de manhã, a CNN tirou a média das pesquisas eleitorais em New Hampshire. Em média, as pesquisas eleitorais tiraram 10 pontos percentuais de Hillary Clinton. Acredita quem quiser.

"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."

Obama dispara nas pesquisas de New Hampshire

PRÉVIAS NOS EUA

Obama e McCain lideram pesquisas em New Hampshire

O Globo Online
Agências internacionais

MANCHESTER, Estados Unidos - Mesmo sob ataque liderado pela senadora Hillary Clinton, o senador Barack Obama abriu uma vantagem de 13 pontos sobre a adversária em pesquisa de intenção de votos nas prévias de New Hampshire, que acontecem na terça-feira. Segundo consulta realizada pelo jornal "Usa Today" em parceria com o Instituto Gallup, entre sexta-feira e domingo, Obama cresceu nove pontos desde dezembro e alcançou 41% das intenções de voto entre os eleitores democratas, impulsionado pela vitória nas primeiras prévias, em Iowa.

Hillary caiu de 32% para 28%, e John Edwards, que ficou em segundo lugar nas prévias anteriores, aparece com 19%. A mesma pesquisa indica que, do lado republicano, o ex-senador John McCain continua sendo o favorito, e subiu para 34% das intenções de voto. Em outra consulta, divulgada nesta segunda-feira por Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby, Obama aparece 10 pontos a frente de Hillary. O mesmo grupo havia divulgado no domingo que os dois estavam praticamente empatados.

Outra consulta, divulgada no dia anterior, colocava o senador dez pontos percentuais à frente. Agora, a pesquisa do "Usa Today" pode mostrar o impacto do debate realizado no sábado, quando Hillary atacou Obama por sua suposta falta de consistência, mas o senador conseguiu manter-se firme. ( Leia mais sobre o debate no blog 'Diário de Nova York' )

Nem mesmo a participação do marido e ex-presidente Bill Clinton consegue alavancar a campanha da senadora. Segundo reportagem do jornal "New Yor Times", Clinton tem atraído platéias sonolentas e minguadas" durante a campanha para a mulher.

Entre os republicanos, na mesma consulta o ex-governador de Massachussets Mitt Romney aparece com 30%; e o azarão Mike Huckabee, que chegou em primeiro nas prévias de Iowa, tem apenas 13%. Comparados com pesquisa realizada em dezembro pelo "Usa Today", os dados mostram que McCain cresceu sete pontos, enquanto Romney perdeu quatro.

Romney parte para o ataque em debate republicano

Pressionado pelo desempenho decepcionante em Iowa, Romney adotou estratégia semelhante à pré-candidata democrata Hilalry Clinton, e partiu para o ataque em debate com adversários promovido, no domingo, pelo canal de televisão Fox News. As taxas de impostos foram o principal assunto do encontro, o último antes das primárias de New Hampshire. Romney acusou Huckabee de elevar a carga tributária em Arkansas quando governou o estado.

- Você elevou as taxas em seu estado em meio bilhão de dólares? - questionou Romney, sentado lado-a-lado com Huckabee durante o debate.

" Você gastou dezenas de milhões de dólares falando coisas negativas sobre mim "

---

Ex-pastor evangélico, Huckabee respondeu que foi obrigado a elevar as taxas para cumprir uma determinação de investir em educação. Irônico, ele provocou o adversário dizendo "talvez você não precise obedecer a Justiça em Massachussets".

- Você gastou dezenas de milhões de dólares falando coisas negativas sobre mim. Se alguém levanta uma questão, você diz que é um ataque pessoal - provocou Huckabee.

O ex-governador de Massachussets, que havia sido alvo de críticas em um debate no sábado, devolveu de forma agressiva:

" Mike, você inventa os fatos mais rápido do que fala "

---

- Mike, você inventa os fatos mais rápido do que fala - criticou Romney, que na véspera havia sido alvo também dos pré-candidatos Rudy Giuliani e Fred Thompson.

Contra John McCain, que comandou os ataques ao adversário na noite anterior, a crítica de Romney foi o voto do ex-senador contra o corte de impostos do governo Bush em 2001 e 2003. McCain argumentou que foi uma tentativa de reduzir o déficit do orçamento, e disse ter lutado pela contenção de gastos do governo.

- Eu tenho um histórico de poupar bilhões para os contribuintes americanos - disse McCain.

Os dois devem ser os protagonistas da disputa nas próximas prévias, já que Huckabee já admite que dificilmente conseguirá um resultado melhor do que o segundo lugar nas próximas primárias republicanas. Em Iowa, o ex-pastor contou com forte apoio da comunidade evangélica, que tem pouca força em New Hampshire,

Para Romney, que depositou grandes esforços em Iowa, sem sucesso, as próximas primárias estão sendo apontadas como a última chance de ressuscitar sua campanha. Embora ainda haja um longo caminho pela frente, esta próxima etapa tem um importante peso simbólico na disputa.

Desfazendo rumores: Obama e os judeus norte- americanos

Obama e família após a vitória em Iowa

O candidato democrata Barak Obama tem um histórico de amizades na comunidade judaico-americana. Na sua primeira eleição em Illinois, em 1996, ele recebeu o suporte de um dos mais influentes advogados de Chicago, Alan Solow. Oito anos mais tarde, concorrendo para o senado americano, o seu primeiro encontro político com apoiadores foi com Robert Schrayer, um líder filantropo judeu de Chicago. Em 2006, quando lançou seu nome como pre-candidato democrata às eleições presidenciais americanas, seu chefe de campanha para assuntos financeiros foi Alan Solomont, um conhecido filantropo de Boston que já havia trabalhado para o senador John Kerry em 2004.

O primeiro pronunciamento sobre política externa americana, na recente campanha, foi feito em março de 2007, num encontro promovido pela AIPAC, o comitê judaico-americano para assuntos da América e Israel. Obama escolheu Dennis Ross, o ex-consultor do presidente Clinton, que culpou a liderança palestina pelo fracasso do Tratado de Oslo, como seu conselheiro para assuntos de Oriente Médio. Nas ultimas pesquisas, 53 % dos judeus americanos votariam em Hillary Clinton e 38 % ficariam com Barak Obama.

Porque Obama ganhou em Iowa?

Será?

A Campaign Retools to Seek Second Clinton Comeback

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday in Nashua, N.H.
After a loss in Iowa, her campaign is fine-tuning its approach.

By PATRICK HEALY and JOHN M. BRODER

The New York Times

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in career-threatening scrapes before, but never quite like the one they face in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, when nothing less than their would-be dynasty will be on the line.

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, right,
at a news conference on Friday in Manchester, N.H.

In trying to battle back from her loss in the Iowa caucuses to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Mrs. Clinton is recalibrating her message in hopes of producing Comeback Kid: The Sequel — achieving the reversal of fortune her husband pulled off with his second-place finish here in the Democratic nomination contest in 1992.

Mrs. Clinton, after arriving here at 4 a.m. Friday, used a rally in Nashua to begin focusing on young voters and independents, two groups that flocked to the Obama banner in Iowa. She said she wanted to appeal to young people, and surrounded herself with them at the rally, in contrast to her caucus night party where older, familiar faces from the Clinton administration and her political team stood out.

Yet many of the challenges and questions she faced in Iowa — like Clinton fatigue and the generational showdown with Mr. Obama — remained part of her baggage as she flew east. While she is ahead in public polls here, she faces a popularity contest against Mr. Obama. There were empty seats, for instance, at a rally Mr. Clinton held with students at the University of New Hampshire on Friday afternoon.

And her campaign, while trying to fine-tune its strategy, is also engaging in some finger-pointing. Some advisers say that the campaign miscalculated in having Mr. Clinton play such a public role, that Mrs. Clinton could not effectively position herself as a change agent, the profile du jour for Democrats, so long as he stood as a reminder that her presidency would be much like his. Other advisers say that Mr. Obama now owns the “change” mantra and that Mrs. Clinton needs a Plan B.

“Hillary says she’ll change things, but then voters see Bill and hear them talk about the 1990s, and it’s clear that the Clintons are not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2,” said one veteran adviser to both Clintons. “That won’t win.”

Beating a sunny, charismatic opponent like Mr. Obama — especially given his embrace by such a cross-section of Iowa voters — is not part of the Clinton experience. When facing political crises, the couple’s modus operandi has been to attack their attackers and question their motives. But Mr. Obama is not Kenneth W. Starr, Newt Gingrich or Paula Jones; a presidential campaign is not a Washington scandal; and the Clinton strategy of attacking Mr. Obama’s readiness for the presidency did not work in Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, suggested she would now be more direct in pointing out contrasts between her experience and policy ideas and Mr. Obama’s, both on the campaign trail and in their televised debate Saturday night.

“I am making the case for myself, but I think one of the ways I make that is by drawing contrasts,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters in Nashua.

But on Friday, she stuck to a theme she has been using against Mr. Obama for months, that her health care plan would mandate that all Americans get coverage while his would not.

She is also counting on her base of support and endorsements here, much deeper than in Iowa, to counter Mr. Obama’s appeal to young people and independents.

Fifty percent of voters who were 44 and younger supported Mr. Obama in Iowa, compared with 16 percent for Mrs. Clinton, according to a poll of Democrats entering caucus sites Thursday. Over all, 52 percent of voters said they backed the candidate who would bring needed change, and Mr. Obama won 51 percent of their support.

“You have to learn from what happened in Iowa,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director. “But the message in New Hampshire has been working. It’s who she is as a person, her experience making change, the importance of picking a president that is ready. That won’t change.”

Speaking to reporters in Nashua, Mrs. Clinton played down her loss in Iowa and asserted that it was not a referendum on the strength of her candidacy.

“I was never a front-runner of any significance in Iowa — I knew it was always going to be hard for me,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Both of my two leading opponents, one had been there for years; one is from a neighboring state. So I feel that we executed what we thought was the limit of what we could produce in Iowa under the circumstances.”

Clinton advisers said Friday that they would not mount a negative advertising campaign against Mr. Obama in New Hampshire, saying the primary was too soon for such an onslaught to have any effect. And they said there were no plans to bring in new senior advisers to help right her campaign.

Yet no sooner had Mrs. Clinton finished her concession speech in Iowa on Thursday than second-guessing set in among her supporters.

One longtime adviser complained that the campaign’s senior strategist, Mark Penn, realized too late that “change” was a much more powerful message than “experience.” Another adviser said Mr. Penn and Mr. Clinton were consumed with polling data for so long, they did not fully grasp the personality deficit that Mrs. Clinton had with voters.

Advisers said that both Clintons had miscalculated the endurance and depth of what they called “the Obama phenomenon.” They both believed that, in the final months of 2007, more voters would question whether Mr. Obama was ready to be president and more reporters would pick apart his political record and personal character. Now anger inside the campaign at the news media has hardened; Mr. Clinton, in particular, believes reporters will be complicit if Mr. Obama becomes the nominee and loses to a Republican.

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Former President Bill Clinton greeting supporters
on Friday in Nashua, N.H. His role has been debated within the campaign.

Mr. Clinton’s role in the campaign has also become fodder for debate in her camp. Some advisers laud him as a vote-getter and crowd-builder bar none, and Mrs. Clinton’s best character witness. But others increasingly look at him with a jaundiced eye, saying that some of his off-message remarks have proved a distraction, and that his looming presence has undercut her promises to make a break with the politics of the past.

Mr. Clinton seemed tired, almost downbeat as he worked his way through two 45-minute speeches in New Hampshire on Friday. He focused on Mrs. Clinton’s record of service and her qualifications for the presidency.

He never mentioned Mr. Obama’s name, but he seemed to draw a contrast between what he called her 36 years of public service and Mr. Obama’s relatively limited depth of experience, the very themes that did not succeed for the Clintons in Iowa.

Denny Gallaudet, an investment manager and undecided Democratic voter from Freedom, N.H., who attended a rally in Rochester on Friday with Mr. Clinton, said he sensed “a little Clinton fatigue” among voters. Mr. Gallaudet, who supported Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996, said he was skeptical that Democrats were still in the thrall of the former president.

“I got really mad at him about the Monica thing,” he said. “It really creamed the party.”

While Mr. Clinton hits the campaign trail for the next few days, Mrs. Clinton plans to spend the bulk of Saturday preparing for the debate, a crucial showdown with Mr. Obama in the eyes of Clinton advisers. Her allies, including Gen. Wesley K. Clark and former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, are also fanning out in New Hampshire.

Campaign officials held a conference call with reporters on Friday, where leaders of her efforts in some of the next states to vote — Nevada, South Carolina, California — all predicted that she would win the nominating contests there.

Patrick Healy reported from Manchester, and John M. Broder from Durham. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from Des Moines.