Eleições Americanas 2008

  • 443 Respostas
  • 87516 Visualizações
*

André

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3555
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +110/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #135 em: Março 05, 2008, 12:36:43 pm »
A «comeback kid»
Luís Delgado

Citar
Hillary transfigurou-se em Bill, a «comeback kid» da política americana. Aquilo não é um par normal, é uma dupla de carros de combate, que resistem até matar, que se reerguem nos momentos mais extremos, quando já ninguém acredita numa viragem na sorte das armas.

Hillary ganhou três em quatro estados, incluindo o Texas, onde falharam todas as sondagens, e apesar de ainda não estar à frente de Obama, em número de delegados – mantém-se a diferença de 100 – conseguiu uma vitória real e simbólica no Ohio, o estado que nos últimos 80 anos sempre foi olhado como o indicador seguro de quem disputará as presidenciais: aliás, os últimos 11 presidentes dos EUA ganharam sempre no Ohio. E é isso que ela hoje «atira» a Obama: «o Ohio decidiu por mim, é a América a dizer quem quer…»

Assim sendo, tudo em aberto entre os democratas, que cada vez mais estão a ver uma luta sem tréguas na Convenção de Denver. No dia 22 de Abril vota a Pennsilvânia, e mais uns tantos estados até lá, mas o empate técnico deverá manter-se. Nunca os EUA viveram umas primárias tão inéditas.

Diário Digital

 

*

André

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3555
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +110/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #136 em: Março 05, 2008, 06:57:59 pm »
Primárias fascinam o país, mas disputa Clinton-Obama ameaça "partir" Democratas

Citar
Os eleitores norte-americanos voltam às urnas no sábado e terça-feira para votarem em eleições primárias que estão a fascinar o país e ameaçam lançar o Partido Democrático numa "guerra civil" de consequências imprevisíveis.

No sábado, realizam-se eleições no estado do Wyoming (18 delegados à Convenção do partido em causa) e na terça-feira no Mississipi (40 delegados).

Ao vencer na terça-feira folgadamente no Ohio e por margem mínima no Texas, Hillary Clinton destruiu os sonhos de uma corrida imparável de Barack Obama, que havia vencido 12 estados consecutivos, colocando a campanha de Clinton à beira do colapso total.

Mas aqueles que esperavam que terça-feira fosse o funeral político de Hillary Clinton cedo se aperceberam que as possibilidades de vitória no Ohio eram nulas e que isso seria suficiente para levá-la a continuar a luta pela nomeação do Partido.

Isto, apesar de todos concordarem ser matematicamente impossível a Clinton ultrapassar Obama na contagem de delegados à Convenção, pois, mesmo nos poucos estados onde perde, Obama continua a obter boas percentagens eleitorais que são suficientes para manter a liderança.

Para conseguir a nomeação, um candidato do partido Democrático precisa de garantir 2025 delegados que votem a seu favor na Convenção do partido em Agosto, na cidade de Denver.

A campanha eleitoral de Obama foi, desde o início, baseada na estratégia de vencer o maior número possível de pequenos e médios estados e garantir boas percentagens nos grandes, como Califórnia, Nova Iorque, Nova Jersey, Ohio e Texas.

Ironicamente, nos últimos dias, Obama foi vítima do seu próprio sucesso. Se em Janeiro, quando se iniciou a campanha, poucos poderiam prever que Hillary Clinton estivesse hoje a lutar pela sua sobrevivência política, as 12 vitórias seguidas antes de terça-feira começaram a dar a Obama a aura de inevitabilidade, com muitos dirigentes partidários a começarem a exortar Clinton a abandonar a corrida para bem do partido.

A sua derrota no Texas por margem mínima poderá, com efeito, ser vista como um extraordinário avanço eleitoral, que, contudo, foi afogado no meio de cabeçalhos sobre "o regresso" de Clinton ou "o descarrilar do 'Expresso Obama'".

Clinton demonstrou terça-feira que continua a ser a favorita do eleitorado Democrático dos grandes estados, considerados essenciais para uma vitória nas presidenciais de Novembro, em que o candidato Republicano será John McCain, que terça-feira ultrapassou o número mínimo de delegados considerados necessários para garantir a nomeação à Convenção do seu partido, em Setembro.

Para Clinton, contudo, a sua única possibilidade é apostar agora em ganhar folgadamente a Pensilvânia, a 22 de Abril, onde estão em jogo mais de 180 delegados, para poder reivindicar que só ela tem a capacidade de garantir os grandes estados nas presidenciais de Novembro.

Sabe-se que a incapacidade de Obama ganhar nesses grandes estados e de ganhar entre a classe trabalhadora branca é uma preocupação para os líderes do partido.

Os "super delegados" terão depois que decidir entre isso e o facto de que Obama provavelmente terá mais delegados à sua conta e muitos mais estados do seu lado.

A luta pelos "super delegados" (membros do congresso, governadores estaduais, líderes Democráticos estaduais, antigos presidentes e vice presidentes e os membros do Comité Nacional do Partido) ameaça pois tornar-se numa luta que poderá dividir o Partido Democrático para regozijo dos Republicanos.

Lusa

 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18316
  • Recebeu: 5558 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5978 vez(es)
  • +7172/-9547
(sem assunto)
« Responder #137 em: Março 06, 2008, 10:57:35 am »
Citar
Bush endorsement may be risky for McCain

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Beware, John McCain. The money comes with a price. Sure, President Bush will raise millions of dollars for your Republican presidential campaign and GOP candidates. But he'll also give you the aura of a presidency tarnished by painful gasoline prices, a sagging economy, the threat of recession, a blemished U.S. reputation around the world, turbulence in the Middle East and many more problems.

There's also the unpopular war in Iraq — although you already are closely associated with that.

How often to rub shoulders with an incumbent president — or whether to appear with him at all — is a delicate matter for presidential wannabes.

Al Gore's decision during his 2000 campaign against Bush not to embrace President Clinton was probably a gift to the GOP. Many people think that despite Clinton's personal troubles, Gore should have been standing shoulder to shoulder with Clinton, who had high approval ratings as he left office.

"McCain's got to make it very clear that this is not a third Bush term, but a John McCain presidency," said Republican pollster David Winston.

"As long as he can make that clear separation, then having a president of the United States on the road, helping with fundraising, going around and talking to people is a very different thing," Winston said.

Bush and McCain exhibited solidarity in the Rose Garden on Wednesday when the president embraced the Arizona senator as the party's next standard-bearer. But neither offered anything definitive about what Bush's role would be in McCain's general election campaign.

Bush, whose approval ratings skidded to 30 percent in February, stresses that the election had nothing to do with him.

"If he (McCain) wants me to show up, I will. If he wants me to say `You know, I'm not for him,' I will," Bush said. "Whatever he wants me to do. I want him to win. ... If he wants my pretty face standing by his side at one of these rallies, I'll be glad to show up."

McCain skirted a question about whether Bush would be an asset or albatross on the campaign trail. McCain says he hopes Bush will campaign for him, although he knows the president has a busy schedule.

Bush plans to campaign in states where Republicans have tight congressional races but that offer little strategic value to McCain, freeing up the Republican presidential nominee to spend time and money where he needs votes the most.

While Bush and McCain dined privately at the White House, the president's top political team and McCain's chief advisers were having their own lunchtime strategy session. The McCain team thanked the White House for not offering running commentary during the primary process. They plan to coordinate the two men's schedules through regular phone calls, although a formal process for meshing Bush's calendar with McCain's has not been set yet.

"We'll figure it out," said Ed Gillespie, the president's counselor. "The fact is that even when you've had vice presidents who are running to succeed sitting presidents, they had to feel their way at first — even after working in the same building. But we're all friends, and there is no higher priority for the president than making sure John McCain is elected president."

Raising money will clearly be priority No. 1. Even though Bush's approval ratings are low, he remains popular with the party faithful who still pay to get in a room with him. In 2007, Bush raised $66.3 million for the Republican Party and its candidates.

Bitter rivals in the 2000 presidential primaries, the two have forged an uneasy relationship during Bush's administration and have clashed on issues such as campaign finance, global warming and defining torture. With all the smiles and back-patting at the White House, it sure looked as if McCain and Bush have long put the bitterness of 2000 aside.

Now, it's about how McCain can distinguish himself from Bush — and do it fast.

An hour after Bush and McCain appeared together at the White House, the Democratic National Committee was firing off press releases about how a McCain presidency would look like a third Bush term when it comes to the economy, health care, Social Security and Iraq.

White House insiders say the president's low approval rating is a moot point because it's McCain who must win over voters. McCain's name recognition will be helpful. And they contend that Democrats will be wasting millions of dollars if they insist on saying McCain would be a Bush redux.

McCain's Democratic rivals each claim to carry a mantle of change, and even Bush admitted he used that line when he ran against Gore in 2000. "Every candidate has got to say `change,'" Bush said.

Maybe Bush didn't do McCain any favors, however, when he followed up by saying that McCain is not going to change U.S. policy when it comes to battling terrorism. "He's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy," Bush said.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Deb Riechmann covers the White House for The Associated Press.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_ ... _albatross
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18316
  • Recebeu: 5558 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5978 vez(es)
  • +7172/-9547
(sem assunto)
« Responder #138 em: Março 06, 2008, 01:16:06 pm »
Citar
Hillary admite Obama como n.º 2 da sua lista


Carlos Gomes

A senadora pelo Estado de Nova Iorque e pré-candidata pelo Partido Democrata (PD) à presidência dos Estados Unidos da América (EUA), Hillary Clinton, já admite poder vir a ter como seu "vice", numa eventual candidatura à Casa Branca, o seu actual rival na disputa pela nomeação, e senador pelo Estado de Illinois, Barack Obama.

Recorda-se que a senadora (que é mulher do ex-presidente dos EUA, Bill Clinton) derrotou anteontem Barack Obama em duas eleições preliminares, no Texas e em Ohio, depois de o seu rival lhe ter infligido 11 derrotas consecutivas. Hillary, que admitira mesmo desistir da disputa pela nomeação do PD se sofresse mais derrotas, decidiu continuar na corrida à Casa Branca.

Questionada ontem no programa televisivo "The Early Show", da cadeia CBS, sobre a possibilidade de Obama poder vir a figurar numa candidatura conjunta à sucessão de George W. Bush, a senadora "Pode ser que seja para isso que estamos caminhando, mas, é claro, temos de decidir quem há-de ficar a encabeçar a lista (...) E eu acho que o povo de Ohio deixou bem claro que essa pessoa deverá ser eu", declarou Hillary Clinton.

Entretanto, o presidente norte-americano, George W. Bush, declarou ontem o seu apoio ao pré-candidato do Partido Republicano à presidência dos EUA, John McCain. "Ele vai ganhar", disse Bush, referindo-se ao correligionário (ver texto ao lado), por ocasião da recepção ao senador na Casa Branca. "O presidente apoiará totalmente o senador McCain", declarou também Dana Perino, porta-voz da Casa Branca.McCain venceu as suficientes eleições primárias dos republicanos e conseguiu o número de delegados suficiente para se tornar o candidato do partido à presidência dos EUA.

      


JN
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

tsumetomo

  • 159
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #139 em: Março 09, 2008, 02:42:54 am »
Citar
Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses


(CBS/AP) Sen. Barack Obama has won the Wyoming Democratic caucuses.

Just after polls closed Saturday, Obama led Sen. Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, 59 percent to 40 percent. The Illinois senator had 4,459 votes to Clinton’s 3,081, with 22 of 23 precincts reporting. (Click here for full Wyoming results.)

CBS News estimates that Obama captured seven delegates in the state. Clinton captured five.

The Wyoming contest was the latest in the candidates' close, hard-fought battle for the party's presidential nomination.

Obama generally has outperformed Clinton in caucuses, which reward organization and voter passion more than do primaries. The Illinois senator had already won 12 caucuses to Clinton's three.

"This is one more caucus victory for Obama, whose campaign has amassed a delegate lead based partly on a strategy of focusing on events like this," said CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs. "This win, coupled with a likely victory in the Mississippi primary on Tuesday, could wipe out Clinton's gains from last week. But her campaign will go on, focused on Pennsylvania's April 22nd contest."

Clinton threw some effort into Wyoming, perhaps hoping for an upset that would yield few delegates but considerable buzz and momentum. The New York senator campaigned Friday in Cheyenne and Casper. Former President Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, also campaigned this week in the sprawling and lightly populated state.

Obama campaigned in Casper and Laramie on Friday, but spent part of his time dealing with the fallout from an aide's harsh words about Clinton and suggestions that Obama wouldn't move as quickly to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if elected. In Casper, Obama said Clinton had no standing to challenge his position on the war because she had voted to authorize it in 2002.

Clinton, buoyed by big wins in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday, said she faced an uphill fight in Wyoming. Her campaign also holds out little hope for Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, which has a large black population.

Obama's campaign credited the candidate's message for the win.

"Especially in the intermountain West, people are hungry for something different, people are hungry for someone who's a uniter, who can bring together a coalition of change," said Gabe Cohen, Obama's state director in Wyoming.

Clinton's campaign took heart in their ability to pick up more delegates.

"We knew that Wyoming was an uphill climb and that Senator Obama was expected to win," said Ben Kobren, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign in Wyoming. "We're glad we were able to bring out our grassroots support and come very close in delegates."

Both candidates were looking ahead to the bigger prize - delegate-rich Pennsylvania.

In Wyoming, 12 national convention delegates were at stake. From the first caucuses of the day, it became clear the state's Democrats were showing up in large numbers. In 2004, a mere 675 people statewide took part in the caucuses.

In Sweetwater County, more than 500 people crowded into a high school auditorium and another 500 were lined up to get inside.

"I'm worried about where we're going to put them all. But I guess everybody's got the same problem," said Joyce Corcoran, a local party official. "So far we're OK. But man, they keep coming."

Party officials were struggling with how to handle the overflow crowds. The start of the Converse County caucus was delayed due to long lines.

In Cheyenne, scores of late arrivers were turned away when party officials stopped allowing people to get in line at 11 a.m. EST. A party worker stood at the end of the line with a sign reading, "End of the line. Caucus rules require the voter registration process to be closed at this time."

State party spokesman Bill Luckett said they were obligated to follow its rules as well as those of the Democratic National Committee regarding caucus procedures.

"Everybody knew the registration began over an hour before the caucus was called to order. We've done everything we could to accommodate people in the long lines," Luckett said.

After initially accepting provisional ballots from about 20 people who remained behind at the caucus site, party officials said they and both campaigns had decided not to count those votes. John Millin, state party chair, said doing so would have been unfair to those who had left after being turned away.

In Casper, home of the state party's headquarters, hundreds were lined up at the site of the Natrona County caucus. The location was a hotel meeting room with a capacity of 500. Some 7,700 registered Democrats live in the county.

"We'll have to put 'em in the grass after a while," said Bob Warburton, a local party official.

About 59,000 registered Democrats are eligible to participate in Wyoming's caucuses.

Only in the last few weeks have the campaigns stepped up their presence in Wyoming, opening offices and calling voters and sending mailers.

CBS News estimates that Obama now leads Clinton 1570 delegates to 1460. But Clinton has the edge with superdelegates - the party officials and elected leaders - 245-201. A total of 2,025 delegates is needed to win the nomination. (Click here for latest tally.)

Although a win in Wyoming may not persuade many superdelegates, it marks one more prize for Obama as he makes his case for the nomination.

Clinton has hinted recently that if she wins the nomination she would consider sharing the ticket with Obama. But in an interview Friday in Wyoming with KTVQ-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Billings, Mont., Obama shied away from that possibility.

"Well, you know, I think it's premature. You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate - you know, I'm running for president," Obama told the television station. "We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count."



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/08/politics/main3919543.shtml
 

*

tsumetomo

  • 159
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #140 em: Março 14, 2008, 01:46:13 pm »
Citar
Obama's Mississippi Win Blunts Clinton's Recent Gains (Update3)


 March 12 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama's victory in Mississippi last night along with his weekend win in Wyoming has enabled him to erase the gains Hillary Clinton made with wins in high-profile races in Ohio and Texas last week.

Clinton's hurdle in amassing delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination is illustrated by Obama's victories in the small states that eliminate her gains. Obama got 253,441 votes, or 61 percent of Mississippi's popular vote, compared with 154,852 votes, or 37 percent, for Clinton with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

That win gave Obama six more delegates in Mississippi than Clinton, according to an Associated Press tally. With 28 of the state's 33 delegates apportioned, Obama had 17 delegates to Clinton's 11, the AP said. He netted two more delegates than Clinton in the March 8 Wyoming caucuses. Based on incomplete results, Clinton had a net gain of about six or seven delegates after her comeback wins March 4 in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island and her defeat in Vermont.

``That's been the essence of Obama's strategy: To pay at least as much attention to the caucus states and the smaller states as to the primary states and the larger states,'' said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. ``And it's paid off.''

Clinton ``hasn't begun to catch up in the delegate race,'' said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

Texas Results

In Texas, which held a primary and caucuses, the delegate allocation is incomplete because caucus results are still being counted. Even though Clinton won the popular vote, Obama's campaign projects he'll wind up with five more delegates because of the way they are apportioned and his advantage in the caucuses. In Ohio, Clinton, a New York senator, picked up at least nine more delegates than Obama, an Illinois senator.

Before yesterday's contest, Obama's lead in pledged delegates was more than 140, according to unofficial estimates by the Associated Press. That number doesn't include superdelegates, Democratic office holders and party officials who are not bound by the results of caucuses and primaries.

Vote counts and delegate allocations are not yet official in many states. For example, as counts were finalized in some of California's congressional districts, Clinton's delegate lead in the state slipped.

Awarded Proportionally

To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,025 delegates. Because the Democratic Party awards delegates proportionally based on voting in congressional districts and statewide, a candidate needs to win by a wide margin to gain an edge. Even a 60 percent to 40 percent victory can mean the delegates are divided almost evenly.

Thus, Clinton, 60, faces an uphill battle to come even close to Obama on pledged delegates.

``It's hard for any single state to have a huge impact'' because of proportional delegate allocation, said Charlie Cook, an independent political analyst in Washington.

With less than 600 delegates at stake in the remaining contests, it's next to impossible for Clinton to win by the margins necessary to close Obama's gap, Galston said.

Obama's win in Mississippi was largely because of a big victory among black voters. According to exit polls cited by the Associated Press and television networks, he won about 90 percent of the black vote, while getting less than a third of the white vote. Blacks accounted for half the Democratic electorate in Mississippi.

Florida and Michigan

The key for Clinton is the seating at the convention of delegations from Florida and Michigan. Both states were stripped of delegates by the national party organization for holding primaries in January in violation of the party's schedule. At stake are as many as 366 pledged delegates and 53 superdelegates.

``With Florida and Michigan, it's an entirely different ballgame,'' Galston said. ``That is the only thing left that could reconfigure the race radically.''

Party and state officials are looking at holding new contests that meet Democratic National Committee rules so delegates can be included in the nominating process.

Even if Clinton trails Obama in the delegate count, wins in the big states of California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and then victories in Florida and Michigan may allow Clinton to argue that she is ``stronger in virtually every state on which the election is likely to hang,'' Galston said.

29 Wins

With the win in Mississippi, Obama, 46, has now won 29 contests compared with 15 for Clinton. In overall votes Obama has about 13.3 million to 12.6 million for Clinton, based on unofficial returns which don't include the Michigan and Florida contests.

The question, said Cook, is whether contests in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and any re-vote in Michigan and Florida ``close the gap between Obama and Clinton enough that superdelegates would be comfortable enough to break the tie.''

``I don't think superdelegates will overturn a clear lead, but if it's basically a tie, they can and will break it one way or the other,'' Cook said.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj2z0oElbJYg&refer=home
 

*

tsumetomo

  • 159
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #141 em: Março 14, 2008, 01:48:09 pm »
Citar
Clinton's Experience Debate

In her race to win the democratic nomination against a first-term Senator from Illinois, Hillary Clinton has put the criterion of experience front and center. She often references what she says is 35 years of work that qualifies her to run the country. And the most important achievements Clinton cites are the ones she claims from her years as First Lady — a job that carries no portfolio but can wield enormous influence.

The nature of Hillary Clinton's involvement was always a matter of great sensitivity in her husband's White House. After her disastrous 1994 foray into health-care reform, Bill Clinton's aides went out of their way to downplay her role in Administration decision making. She rarely appeared at meetings in which officials hashed out important policy trade-offs, but when the discussion centered on issues that were among her priorities, she sent her aides — much the way Vice President Al Gore did. "There were certain issues they kind of owned," recalls Gene Sperling, who headed economic policy in the Clinton White House. The First Lady's top concerns, he says, were children's issues, health care, and foster-care and adoption policies.

Now the former First Lady claims at least a share of the credit for a wide range of the Clinton Administration's signature accomplishments, both domestic and overseas. Does she deserve it? The Clinton and Obama campaigns spent this week arguing that question with dueling memos and talking points.

TIME decided to cut through the spin with a series that will take a closer look at the claims candidates make. As Senator Clinton is fond of saying, It's time to get real. We kick off the series by evaluating three of the achievements she mentions most often:

Children's Health Care

WHAT SHE SAYS
One of her biggest achievements, Clinton often tells voters, is the multibillion-dollar health-care program that provides coverage for children whose parents are too rich for Medicaid but unable to afford health insurance on their own. As one of her campaign ads puts it, "She changed the lives of 6 million kids when she championed the bill that gave them health insurance."

After comprehensive health-care reform went down to defeat in 1994, Clinton and other health-care advocates looked for targeted changes that might win more support. The most likely seemed the issue of providing coverage to children of the working poor. In October 1996, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced a bill to do just that, financed with a 75¢ cigarette-tax increase; in his State of the Union address the following January, Bill Clinton announced a plan to cover 5 million kids.

It was one of several health policies Clinton proposed, including one that would expand coverage for the unemployed. Internally, according to one former White House aide, the First Lady argued that the White House should keep its focus on the more politically popular plan to focus on children.

In May 1997, however, when then Senate majority leader Trent Lott said the children's health plan would blow up their balanced-budget deal, the President abruptly changed course and actively lobbied Democratic lawmakers to vote against it. As a result, the provision failed, and Kennedy was furious at what he considered a betrayal. Hillary defended her husband's decision, telling one audience, "He had to safeguard the budget proposal."

The measure was resurrected a month later, largely through the efforts of Kennedy and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who worked behind the scenes on Capitol Hill and built a coalition of children's advocacy groups to bring public pressure on Congress to pass the measure. Kennedy also privately pressed the First Lady to use her influence at the White House. After Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that August, Kennedy said at a press conference, "Mrs. Clinton ... was of invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program and also as a clear advocate."

THE BOTTOM LINE: The record suggests Clinton did indeed lobby for children's health coverage but that many others were responsible as well. And it also shows that her husband nearly killed the idea before it ever got off the ground.

Northern Ireland

WHAT SHE SAYS
On the campaign trail, Clinton has claimed she "helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland" in the 1990s.

Clinton's words are very carefully chosen. She has never claimed to have actually negotiated the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which paved the way toward power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Her involvement was more about generating public and private support for peace talks in the months leading up to that agreement.

It's a key distinction. There is no question that the First Lady encouraged women from Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods to push their political leaders toward the bargaining table. She traveled to Northern Ireland twice by herself in the mid- to late 1990s and praised those who stood up for peace. She engaged in particular with a group of women peace activists who were largely cut out of the male-dominated negotiations and encouraged them to keep the pressure on.

Some of Clinton's supporters, like former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, say this pressure was instrumental in creating the atmosphere for the eventual peace agreement. But several diplomatic sources who worked on the peace talks say that the women's groups were not nearly as pivotal to the process as Hillary's backers maintain. And Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, former First Minister of Northern Ireland, told Britain's Daily Telegraph that Clinton was not involved in the process and her claims to have played a direct role were "a wee bit silly."

Clinton's husband and, to an even greater extent, former Senator George Mitchell were much more involved in those efforts, when the eyeball-to-eyeball negotiations began. Clinton was working on the outside, said several involved in the process. "She was helpful with Vital Voices," said Jean Kennedy Smith, former ambassador to Ireland, referring to a women's organization in the country. "But as far as anything political went, there was nothing as far as I know, nothing to do with negotiations." Smith, who is supporting Obama, suggested the process was well under way by the time Clinton got involved.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Clinton played a role in hearing the concerns of Irish women left out of the peace process, and in encouraging them to put pressure on their countrymen to pursue negotiations. But that does not mean she rolled up her sleeves and conducted or led the talks that resulted in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

Macedonia Refugees

WHAT SHE SAYS
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," Clinton has asserted when asked to identify an example of her foreign policy experience.

Clinton's shorthand version of her role in the 1999 refugee crisis in Macedonia is accurate but oversimplified. She did discuss open borders with the President and Prime Minister of Macedonia on May 14, 1999. (Borders between that country and Kosovo had been opening and closing for weeks.) She did support requests for economic help that the Macedonians were making.

But keeping the borders open was a key U.S. diplomatic project at the time, and her initiative was but a part of the larger effort. During the NATO war with neighboring Serbia that spring, the fate of Kosovars fleeing Serbian ethnic cleansing was a pressing issue on the international stage. If a flood of refugees overwhelmed Macedonia, a wider regional war could erupt. No one, however, wanted to leave the Kosovars to the mercy of the Serbs. So finding a temporary home for them was crucial.

When Clinton arrived in the middle of the situation in that May, diplomats on the ground expected an ineffectual high-profile visit. But they were wrong. "She was quite at ease and professional," says a diplomat who served in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, at the time. Clinton visited refugees in camps on the border and held talks with the Macedonian leadership.

When the Prime Minister complained about American companies terminating textile contracts with local firms, Clinton promised to urge the businesses to change course. Five weeks after her trip, Clinton returned to the country with a pledge from Liz Claiborne to support textile manufacturing there.

THE BOTTOM LINE: In the case of Macedonia, Clinton engaged in personal diplomacy that brought about change. But securing the return of American business partners is not the same as the opening of borders to thousands of refugees. That accomplishment was a result of broader U.S. and European efforts during the war.



http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html
 

*

André

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3555
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +110/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #142 em: Março 16, 2008, 05:12:50 pm »
John McCain "leva" campanha ao Iraque

Citar
O Senador John McCain, candidato dos Republicanos à eleição presidencial norte-americana de Novembro, inicia quarta-feira uma visita ao Médio Oriente e à Europa, que lhe poderá conferir a estatura de estadista que ambiciona
 
McCain, que fez da sua experiência diplomática um dos grandes temas de campanha, deve partir terça-feira para a Jordânia, Israel, Reino Unido e França chefiando uma delegação da Comissão de Defesa do Senado.

O Senador norte-americano vai avistar-se com o rei Abdallah da Jordânia, com o primeiro-ministro israelita Ehud Olmert, primeiro-ministro britânico Gordon Brown e com o Presidente francês Nicolas Sarkozy.

Segundo o jornal Washington Post, o senador do Arizona deverá visitar também o Iraque este fim de semana, a poucos dias do quinto aniversário da invasão norte-americana, que sempre apoiou, apesar de ter criticado a estratégia do Presidente Bush ao logo do tempo.

A campanha de McCain não confirmou esta informação e os seus serviços no senado não estiveram contactáveis.

No último ano, John McCain tornou-se um dos maiores apoiantes da estratégia do Presidente George W. Bush de envio de milhares de soldados de reforço para o terreno.

O senador insiste que as tropas devem continuar no Iraque até que o país seja capaz de se gerir a si próprio, mesmo que esta posição lhe venha a custar caro em Novembro.

A maioria dos norte-americanos está cansada da guerra, segundo as sondagens, e o adversário democrata de McCain, quer seja Hillary Clinton ou Barack Obama, defenderá um rápido regresso das tropas a casa.

Lusa / SOL

 

*

tsumetomo

  • 159
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #143 em: Março 19, 2008, 03:16:58 am »
Citar
A More Perfect Union


“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy.  Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished.  It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.  What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.  I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.  

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people.  But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas.  I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.  I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations.  I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.  I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate.  But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity.  Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country.  In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign.  At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.”  We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary.  The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.  On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.  

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.  For some, nagging questions remain.  Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?  Of course.  Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?  Yes.  Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?  Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.  

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial.  They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice.  Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.  Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask?  Why not join another church?  And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man.  The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.  He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones.  Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.  Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories tha t we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity.  Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger.  Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor.  They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear.  The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright.  As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me.  He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.  Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.  He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.  I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
 
These people are a part of me.  And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable.  I can assure you it is not.  I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.  We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.  We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.  And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point.  As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried.  In fact, it isn’t even past.”  We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.  But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.  That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.  And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.  They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.  What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.  That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future.  Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways.  For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.  That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends.  But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table.  At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews.  The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.  That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.  But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community.  Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.  Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch.  They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor.  They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.  So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company.  But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation.  Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.  Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends.  Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.  And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now.  It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.  Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past.  It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.  But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.  And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons.  But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society.  It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.  But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change.  That is true genius of this nation.  What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed.   Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.  It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us.  Let us be our sister’s keeper.  Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country.  We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism.  We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news.  We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.  We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.
 
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction.  And then another one.  And then another one.  And nothing will change.

That is one option.  Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”  This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children.  This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem.  The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy.  Not this time.  

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.  This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.  We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country.  This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.  And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.  

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina.  She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer.  And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care.  They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches.  Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice.  Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally.  But she didn’t.  She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign.  They all have different stories and reasons.  Many bring up a specific issue.  And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time.  And Ashley asks him why he’s there.  And he does not bring up a specific issue.  He does not say health care or the economy.  He does not say education or the war.   He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama.  He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.”  By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough.  It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start.  It is where our union grows stronger.  And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.  



http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBbKG
 

*

André

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3555
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +110/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #144 em: Março 20, 2008, 09:05:18 pm »
Data incentiva ataques entre pré-candidatos

Citar
Os pré-candidatos democratas à presidência dos Estados Unidos aproveitaram o quinto aniversário da Guerra do Iraque para se atacarem mutuamente e atacarem ambos o candidato republicano John McCain, que apoiou a respectiva campanha no sucesso do conflito.
Quando a corrida pela Presidência começou, o Iraque era visto como a principal questão entre os pré-candidatos, que acreditavam que o desenrolar do conflito seria decisivo para a escolha dos eleitores.

Desde a invasão, em Março de 2003, foram mortos dezenas de milhares de iraquianos e cerca de 4.000 militares norte-americanos, com um custo que já ultrapassa os 500 mil milhões de dólares.

A invasão do Iraque voltou à tona esta semana, quando passaram cinco anos desde que, em 20 de Março de 2003, o presidente George W. Bush disse que a América estaria mais protegida e o mundo seria um lugar melhor se os Estados Unidos invadissem o Iraque e depusessem Saddam Hussein.

Num discurso, o senador e pré-candidato democrata Barack Obama afirmou que sua rival Hillary não é confiável para terminar a guerra. A senadora votou a favor da invasão em 2002, quando o assunto foi submetido ao plenário do Senado. O comité de Hillary rebateu a crítica e declarou que o senador Obama praticamente não agiu para solucionar os conflitos desde que a corrida pela Casa Branca começou.

Obama reiterou o seu plano de retirar as tropas norte-americanas do Iraque em 16 meses se for eleito presidente. O Senador também apontou a intenção de direccionar os militares para o Afeganistão e para o Paquistão, onde Osama Bin Laden e outros membros da Al Qaeda estão supostamente escondidos.

Na segunda-feira, Hillary prometeu em discurso que, se for eleita, levará os soldados norte-americanos de volta para casa apenas 60 dias após a sua posse, que ocorreria em Janeiro de 2009.

Apesar da troca de farpas entre os democratas, os dois candidatos possuem planos parecidos para a Guerra do Iraque e usam os mesmos ataques contra o pré-candidato republicano, John McCain.

O senador pelo Arizona é acusado de fazer do mundo um lugar mais perigoso através do seu apoio à guerra, que, para Obama, envolve a diminuição dos esforços em encontrar Bin Laden no Afeganistão.

Durante uma visita à Londres na quinta-feira, McCain recusou comentar publicamente a intenção britânica de reduzir as tropas no sul do Iraque e declarou que a decisão é do governo e do povo britânico.

Porém, em reunião com o primeiro-ministro britânico, Gordon Brown, McCain afirmou que a saída das tropas norte-americanas do Iraque seria um erro, porque permitiria a vitória dos terroristas.

O republicano declarou: «A questão agora é ou retirar, dar uma vitória à Al Qaeda e anunciar ao mundo que eles venceram, deixando que este país (o Iraque) se afunde, ou saber se implementamos uma estratégia para triunfar».

Diário Digital / Lusa

 

*

André

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3555
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +110/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #145 em: Março 25, 2008, 02:27:47 pm »
John McCain esteve a um passo de ser democrata, diz NYT

Citar
John McCain, o candidato republicano à presidência dos Estados Unidos, esteve por duas vezes a um passo de ingressar nas fileiras democratas, noticiou segunda-feira o "The New York Times" na sua página da internet.

Segundo o diário, McCain discutiu em 2001 com os democratas a sua renúncia ao Partido Republicano e em 2004 conversou sobre a possibilidade de vir a ser candidato à vice-presidência pelo Partido Democrata com John Kerry, aspirante à presidência.

O "New York Times" sustenta, porém, que existem versões divergentes sobre de quem foi a iniciativa em ambos os episódios.

Por um lado, os democratas, incluindo Kerry, afirmam que não só McCain manifestou interesse, como também os seus assessores tomaram a iniciativa de explorar essa possibilidade.

Mas tanto McCain como os seus assessores indicaram que em ambos os casos foram os democratas a tomar a iniciativa dos contactos e que o senador do Arizona se mostrou reticente.

De acordo com o diário, os dois episódios reflectem um período em que, depois das eleições de 2000, McCain começou a afastar-se da doutrina partidária dos republicanos, e, por outro lado, o seu estado psicológico e as dificuldades que sentia em identificar a sua ideologia após muitos anos no Senado.

O diário indica que na primavera de 2001 McCain estava descontente com a estratégia lançada contra si um ano antes durante a campanha para as primárias da Carolina do Sul em que aspirava à candidatura presidencial republicana.

McCain culpava também a campanha de George W. Bush de espalhar rumores de que era o pai de um menino negro, afirmação negada pelos assessores do actual presidente.

O "The New York Times" recorda ainda que McCain se reuniu em 2001 com o senador e líder democrata em 2001 Tom Daschle para mudar de partido.

«Houve momentos em que (McCain) se pôs à altura das circunstâncias e se revelou um verdadeiro pragmático», disse Daschle ao jornal.

«Houve outras em que se sentiu motivado por objectivos e agendas políticas que o levaram a ser mais um ideólogo político», acrescentou.

McCain apoiou em 2001 diversas iniciativas dos democratas e informou Daschle que projectava votar contra as reduções de impostos, um dos pilares da política económica de George W. Bush, e formulou «comentários desfavoráveis» sobre Bush no Senado, afirmou Daschle.

Diário Digital / Lusa

 

*

tsumetomo

  • 159
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #146 em: Março 25, 2008, 09:22:36 pm »
Citar
Obama posts tax returns


Barack Obama just posted six years of :arrow: income tax returns on his website -- his latest maneuver to pressure Hillary Clinton to release hers and hit his Democratic rival on the issue of transparency.

The most recent return, for 2006, shows that Obama and his wife Michelle reported wages of about $430,000, plus another $507,000 in business income, mostly from book sales. Their tax bill topped $277,000, and they received a refund of nearly $41,000. They also gave more than $60,000 to charity.

So far, Clinton has pledged to disclose hers at least three days before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Obama's campaign said today that Clinton should release her full returns because she loaned her campaign $5 million in January and because of reports that former president Bill Clinton is about to pick up a $20 million payout from a holding company.

“Senator Clinton recently claimed that she’s ‘the most transparent figure in public life,’ yet she’s dragging her feet in releasing something as basic as her annual tax returns,” Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement. “Senator Clinton can’t claim to be vetted until she allows the public the opportunity to see her finances—particularly with respect to any investment in tax shelters.”

The Clinton campaign immediately responded with a memo arguing that Obama has not been forthcoming about his record in the Illinois state senate.



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_posts_tax.html
 

*

tsumetomo

  • 159
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #147 em: Março 25, 2008, 09:40:21 pm »
Citar
Clinton 'misspoke' about '96 Bosnia trip


 WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Obama campaign suggested it was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to an Associated Press story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

When asked Monday about the New York senator's remarks about the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton's written account of it in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," Clinton wrote.

"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

A spokesman for rival Barack Obama's campaign questioned whether Clinton misspoke, saying her comments came in what appeared to be prepared remarks for the Iraq speech. His campaign's statement included a link to the speech on Clinton's campaign Web site with her account of running to the cars. Clinton's campaign said what is on the Web site is not the prepared text, but a transcript of her remarks, including comments before the speech in which she talked about the trip to Bosnia.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."

The Obama campaign statement also links to a CBS News video of the Bosnia trip posted on YouTube, which shows Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, walking across the tarmac from a large cargo plane, smiling and waving, and stopping to shake hands with Bosnia's acting president and greet an 8-year-old girl.

"This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push 'cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate," Wolfson said during Monday's conference call.

Clinton's written account contradicts her comments last Monday about the welcoming ceremony.

Just after the speech, Clinton reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it during a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base.

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who accompanied Clinton to Bosnia, said he was not surprised "that there could be confusion" when someone who has taken a number of trips tries to recall details of a particular trip 12 years earlier.

"The important thing is that she was there. Our soldiers saw she was there and heard her and knew that our country cared about them and what they were doing," West told the AP during a telephone interview.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_bosnia
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18316
  • Recebeu: 5558 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5978 vez(es)
  • +7172/-9547
(sem assunto)
« Responder #148 em: Março 28, 2008, 09:45:47 am »
Citar
Rejeição a Hillary bate novo recorde
     

   
     

WASHINGTON - Uma pesquisa divulgada ontem pelo The Wall Street Journal e pela rede de TV NBC mostrou que a rejeição ao nome da senadora Hillary Clinton atingiu um novo recorde. Os novos números mostram que apenas 37% dos americanos têm uma imagem positiva da ex-primeira-dama, bem menos do que os 45% que aprovavam a senadora duas semanas atrás. A piora na imagem de Hillary, segundo analistas, está ligada à campanha negativa que ela tem feito contra o senador Barack Obama, seu maior rival na corrida democrata para a Casa Branca.

A notícia não poderia ter chegado em pior hora para a senadora, que tenta convencer os superdelegados do partido de que ela é a candidata mais viável para vencer o republicano John McCain, nas eleições de novembro. A mesma pesquisa mostrou que as declarações antipatrióticas de Jeremiah Wright, pastor de Obama, que descreveu os EUA como um país racista, não afetaram a visão que os americanos têm do candidato. Seu índice de aprovação manteve-se inalterado: 49%.

Apenas 32% dos entrevistados deram ao senador uma avaliação negativa, enquanto 48% avaliaram Hillary negativamente. Embora ainda tenha a simpatia da maior parte dos eleitores brancos, a senadora perdeu terreno também entre eles. Há duas semanas, ela liderava com 51% da preferência entre os brancos, enquanto Obama tinha 39%. Agora, a diferença diminuiu: 49% a 41%.

De acordo com a sondagem, pela primeira vez as mulheres tiveram uma impressão negativa maior de Hillary (44%) do que positiva (42%). Em uma tentativa de diminuir a liderança que Hillary tem nas pesquisas de intenção de voto na Pensilvânia, Obama apresentou hoje uma proposta de um segundo pacote de estímulo no valor de US$30 bilhões. No discurso de ontem, realizado em Nova York, o senador defendeu ainda uma melhor regulação financeira, para evitar que se repitam crises como a atual.

Em campanha na Carolina do Norte, Hillary também propôs ontem um plano de US$30 bilhões para ajudar as nove milhões de vítimas da crise dos créditos imobiliários no país. A senadora também prometeu um investimento de US$2,5 bilhões por ano em programas de formação profissional. Daqui para frente, tanto Obama quanto Hillary concentrarão esforços na crise econômica. Ambos os candidatos querem conquistar o voto do operariado da Pensilvânia, considerado fundamental para uma vitória no estado. As prévias na Pensilvânia ocorrem no dia 22 de abril. Para muitos analistas, uma eventual derrota de Hillary seria o fim de sua candidatura. (AP)


http://www.correiodabahia.com.br/exteri ... igo=150446
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18316
  • Recebeu: 5558 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5978 vez(es)
  • +7172/-9547
(sem assunto)
« Responder #149 em: Março 28, 2008, 02:27:04 pm »
Citar
28/03/2008 - 10h32
Obama ganha de Hillary e McCain perde para democratas, diz pesquisa


Colaboração para a Folha Online

Uma nova pesquisa realizada pelo instituto Pew Research Center mostra o democrata Barack Obama liderando a preferência dos eleitores com 49% do votos contra 39% de Hillary Clinton.



O bom resultado pode indicar que a candidatura de Obama não foi afetada pela polêmica criada em torno dos comentários controversos de seu ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

O pré-candidato manteve praticamente a mesma margem de liderança sobre Hillary indicada por uma pesquisa realizada pelo mesmo instituto no final de fevereiro, 49% contra 40%.

Segundo o estudo, 51% dos eleitores dizem acreditar que Obama lidou bem com a polêmica. No grupo de eleitores de Obama entrevistados, 84% disseram que seu candidato lidou bem com o problema. Entre os eleitores de Hillary, o número cai para 42%. Já entre os republicanos, apenas 33% têm a mesma opinião.

Em uma disputa simulada com o provável candidato republicano John McCain, Obama ganharia a eleição, com 49% dos votos contra 43% de McCain. O senador pelo Arizona perde também para a outra pré-candidata democrata, já que Hillary contou com 49% dos votos contra 44% de McCain.

Entre as principais preocupações dos eleitores está a situação da economia. De acordo com a pesquisa, 56% dos eleitores dizem achar que ela está em crise. Em fevereiro, 45% dos eleitores identificavam problemas na economia dos Estados Unidos. Apenas 28% tinham a mesma opinião em janeiro.

Discursos sobre economia

Cientes da importância do tema, os três possíveis candidatos realizaram discursos sobre a economia nesta semana. Os democratas Obama e Hillary apontaram seus planos de intervenção governamental para auxiliar as famílias em risco de falência devido à crise hipotecária e financeira que assola o país.

Hillary propôs que o governo estabeleça um leilão para comprar as casas destas famílias, e sugeriu que o atual presidente dos Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, crie um grupo de especialistas para lidar com o problema.

Já McCain, em discurso nesta quinta-feira, declarou sua preocupação com as famílias em dificuldades, mas se negou a apoiar uma intervenção governamental tão grande na economia. Ele argumentou que "não é função dos Estados Unidos apoiar e recompensar aqueles que agem irresponsavelmente, seja grandes bancos ou pequenos empréstimos".

Hillary, em um evento em Raleigh, disse que McCain prefere "ignorar a crise ou simplesmente culpar as famílias de classe média por seus problemas, em invés de oferecer soluções para beneficiá-las".

Aprovação

A mesma pesquisa revelou que a aprovação do governo Bush caiu de 33%, em fevereiro, para 28%. A queda é preocupante para McCain, que é tido como um candidato que manterá as atuais políticas de Bush.

A equipe de campanha de McCain esforça-se para separar a imagem do senador da do atual presidente, que já declarou seu apoio político ao provável candidato. No mesmo discurso em que falou da economia, McCain realçou que seu governo será diferente do atual mandato republicano.

A pesquisa foi realizada entre 22 e 24 de março.
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas