domingo, 16 de março de 2008

Eleição americana: Hillary Clinton virou um problema para o Partido Democrata

Ninguém tem mais dúvidas que Hillary Clinton vai perder para Barack Obama na disputa pelos "delegados eleitos". Além disso, sua vantagem entre os "superdelegados" também está caindo em ritmo acelerado. Mas ela insiste em ir até o fim, acreditando que, no final, a máquina partidária, através dos "superdelegados", vai apoiá-la. Já não há tanta certeza assim. A Direção Nacional Democrata não está gostando nem um pouco dessa luta sanguinária que os dois pré-candidatos estão travando. Por mais que eles tenham dado grande visibilidade ao partido, parece que também estão fornecendo munição para os Republicanos. Principalmente com essa baixaria da campanha de Hillary que procura associar Obama a uma campanha racista. Outro problema da Direção Democrata está na falta de justificativa plausível para os "superdelegados" não acompanharem a maioria do voto popular que é evidentemente pró-Obama. Todos procuram forçar um acordo já, antes que seja tarde demais. Ninguém sabe como. Leia mais no New York Times. E nesse texto de Dick morris e Eileen McGann:
Published on on March 14, 2008.
Geraldine Ferraro, a pioneer and trailblazer in American history, has done more to ruin a sterling reputation in the past few days than anybody but Eliot Spitzer. By claiming, I think falsely, that Obama would not be where he is if he were white or a woman, I think she totally overlooks the impact of his charis ma, eloquence, demeanor, message, use of the Internet, focus on caucus states, and his refusal to take special interest money as factors in his sudden rise. She betrays a stunning inability to look more than skin deep for reasons for his success. But this begs the real question: Ferraro is no racist. Her entire career speaks to the contrary. So why is she now so unable to peer into the deeper reasons for Obama's success and stopping at skin level? The blunt fact is that Geraldine Ferraro would not make a statement like this one without at least the tacit knowledge and acquiescence of the Clintons and their campaign. Ferraro is an old pro and would know enough not to shoot off her mouth without making it part of a carefully conceived strategy to discredit Obama based on race. As such, her comments need to be seen as a piece with the attacks on Obama's minister and his endorsement by Farrakhan. With Hillary now almost totally dependent on older voters, the race card may be the only way to produce the kinds of margins she needs in the future primaries to offset Obama's large and widening lead among elected delegates. The fact is that Obama cannot and should not be held accountable for the ranting and raving of his minister, unless he fails to disavow these remarks. He has done all he needs to do in distancing himself from the likes of Farrakhan. And is success is due to his imaginative use of the political process to achieve what he has earned. Obama out-organized Hillary by focusing on the small caucus states in February, by which time Hillary confidently expected the race to be over. Obama out-messaged Hillary by refusing special interest PAC or lobbyist money, giving him a way to paint Hillary as the candidate of the Washington establishment. Obama out-fund raised Hillary by understanding the potential of the Internet to raise quick and clean money and to permit reloading quickly. Obama out-positioned Hillary by using her claim to experience (faux as it was) to paint her as just another cycle in the oscillation between Bushes and Clintons which has dominated our politics for two decades now. Obama out-spoke Hillary by showing and eloquence and elegance that she cannot hope to match. Obama out-targeted Hillary by focusing on young voters and grasping the amazing insight that in an election with a black and a woma n, that age would be the decisive variable. And now Hillary is trying, through her surrogate Ferraro, to make it appear that all Obama had to do was show up, show some skin and win. Even for the Clintons, this is a new low.