2 Bills Unlikely to Pass, but Both Parties Square Off With Eye Toward Elections
The Senate yesterday continued a heated but largely theatrical debate on a bill to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days and began considering another that would require the Bush administration to develop a new strategy against terrorism.
Republicans relished the opportunity to joust over war policy, confident in their political standing because of security gains in Iraq since President Bush's troop buildup took hold there last year. But Democrats said the debate offers them a new chance to highlight Republican support for a still unpopular war, setting the stage for them to run a general-election campaign this fall largely against Bush's policies in Iraq.
Under the complicated rules set up for the congressional debate, however, it is all but certain that neither bill introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) would be approved. It is possible that neither would even approach a final vote, despite knotting up the chamber in as many as three days of floor debate.
Rather than distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq policy, Republicans embraced the improvements on the ground since the president sent an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year, and they criticized Democrats for wanting to change course.
"The surge has worked. This is coming from someone who was a cynic," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said during the floor debate. Brownback had criticized Bush's policies in Iraq last year.
"The Democrats are sort of in denial. It's almost as if they're sorry things have gotten better," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a brief interview.
Democrats used the debate to test their emerging line of political attack on Bush's war policy, contending that the mounting cost of the conflict in Iraq is stealing resources from domestic priorities that could help prop up the sagging economy.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the Iraq war the "$800 billion gorilla in the room" that is diverting funds that could be used to address the subprime mortgage crisis in the housing market.
"The spending issue is becoming a new dynamic here," Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an interview. "They are misreading public opinion dramatically. The closer we get to November, the more apparent that will be," he added, referring to Republicans.
Schumer, who also chairs Congress's Joint Economic Committee, is holding a hearing today that he said will demonstrate how funding for Iraq displaces federal spending on economic recovery programs.
"The world should understand America has done its share," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said, closing the debate before a second procedural vote on the Feingold measures. "When is enough going to be enough?"
The debate in the past two days centered on Feingold's bill to begin troop withdrawals within 120 days of its passage and, at that point, to prohibit expenditures not meant for running counterterrorism operations, protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or training Iraqi forces. The second bill would require the administration to draw up a new strategy on the battle against al-Qaeda and to present it to Congress within 60 days.
Arranging a pair of votes on preliminary motions that they expected Republicans to block, Democrats did not expect to have a lengthy debate on either measure. Reid had already scheduled a Tuesday-afternoon debate on a package of bills dealing with the housing crisis.
But, in a surprise move on Tuesday, most Republicans supported opening the debate on the first Iraq measure, even though not a single one had backed five previous bids to take up Feingold's withdrawal bills. Yesterday, 42 Republicans voted with 45 Democrats and two independents to begin a debate on Feingold's second measure.
The complicated parliamentary procedure used to bring the Feingold bills to the floor makes it likely that the bills would simply be withdrawn sometime today. Rather than hold a final vote on either measure, the Senate could just shift its attention to the housing legislation.
Em destaque: Senado americano discute a continuidade da Guerra no Iraque tendo em vista as próximas eleições.
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703382.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Mostrando postagens com marcador Guerra do Iraque. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Guerra do Iraque. Mostrar todas as postagens
sexta-feira, 29 de fevereiro de 2008
Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview
TYLER, Tex., Feb. 27 -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, signaling that a general-election brawl between the colleagues would center in part on who has the foreign policy experience to lead a country at war.
Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."
McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.
Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months.
For McCain, the decision to pick a fight with Obama helps keep the presumptive GOP nominee from being overshadowed by the battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for the Democratic presidential nomination. It also gives him a chance to undermine confidence in Obama's foreign policy experience before the Democrat can turn full attention to the general election.
But even as he focuses on a potentially decisive showdown with Clinton in four contests next Tuesday, Obama has made it clear he won't ignore the attacks from McCain. Generating headlines about an Obama-McCain showdown could also benefit Obama by creating the sense among Democratic primary voters that he is on the verge of becoming their party's nominee and also that he can hold his own against the Republicans.
Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."
"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said in the debate. "And if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
McCain seized on those words, saying they showed a lack of understanding of the terrorist group's activities in the country.
The Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed in response to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The U.S. military thinks that the group's activities -- such as large-scale car bombings of Shiite gathering places -- peaked in 2006 and that American forces destroyed much of the organization in a series of raids last year.
The group is "frustrated" but "not defeated," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said in an interview last month. U.S. officials say that coalition forces have pushed the group largely out of Baghdad and Anbar province, but that it remains active in the upper Tigris River valley.
McCain's attack on Obama's answer is the latest attempt by the Republican to cast Obama as inexperienced on foreign policy. Several months ago, McCain criticized Obama for suggesting that he would bomb al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without that country's approval.
"The best idea is to not broadcast what you are going to do. That's naive," McCain said earlier this month. "You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is. You don't broadcast and say you are going to bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy."
Em destaque: Artigo ressalta as diferenças entre Obama e McCain sobre a condução da política externa americana e o Iraque.
Fonte: Washington Post
Autor: Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703826_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008022703886
Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."
McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.
Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months.
For McCain, the decision to pick a fight with Obama helps keep the presumptive GOP nominee from being overshadowed by the battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for the Democratic presidential nomination. It also gives him a chance to undermine confidence in Obama's foreign policy experience before the Democrat can turn full attention to the general election.
But even as he focuses on a potentially decisive showdown with Clinton in four contests next Tuesday, Obama has made it clear he won't ignore the attacks from McCain. Generating headlines about an Obama-McCain showdown could also benefit Obama by creating the sense among Democratic primary voters that he is on the verge of becoming their party's nominee and also that he can hold his own against the Republicans.
Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."
"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said in the debate. "And if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
McCain seized on those words, saying they showed a lack of understanding of the terrorist group's activities in the country.
The Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed in response to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The U.S. military thinks that the group's activities -- such as large-scale car bombings of Shiite gathering places -- peaked in 2006 and that American forces destroyed much of the organization in a series of raids last year.
The group is "frustrated" but "not defeated," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said in an interview last month. U.S. officials say that coalition forces have pushed the group largely out of Baghdad and Anbar province, but that it remains active in the upper Tigris River valley.
McCain's attack on Obama's answer is the latest attempt by the Republican to cast Obama as inexperienced on foreign policy. Several months ago, McCain criticized Obama for suggesting that he would bomb al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without that country's approval.
"The best idea is to not broadcast what you are going to do. That's naive," McCain said earlier this month. "You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is. You don't broadcast and say you are going to bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy."
Em destaque: Artigo ressalta as diferenças entre Obama e McCain sobre a condução da política externa americana e o Iraque.
Fonte: Washington Post
Autor: Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703826_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008022703886
quinta-feira, 28 de fevereiro de 2008
War and peace, the Army way
Another 100 years of U.S. troops in Iraq?
"Fine with me,"GOP presidential contender John McCain said in January. McCain, who's famously irascible, was presumably exaggerating. His point, he clarified, wasn't that he actually foresaw another 100 years of war, but that U.S. troops may retain an important role in Iraq that goes on for many years after direct combat operations end.
"Fine with me,"
Don't like that idea? Get used to it. Because in many ways, McCain's comments are squarely in line with the latest Army doctrine.
This week, the Army released a new version of FM 3-0, the Army Field Manual on Operations. The first revision since
Remember the 1990s, when disgruntled Army officers waged a muttering campaign against the Clinton administration's decision to send them to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, on the grounds that real soldiers ought to spend their time fighting, not acting as peacekeepers/cops/prison guards/civil administrators? Things are different now.
The 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq changed a lot of minds about the value of what the military once marginalized as "OOTW" -- "Operations Other Than War." The rise of Al Qaeda helped demonstrate that the many varieties of human misery -- poverty, chaos, repression, civil conflict -- also happen to be perfect breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. And our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq made it painfully clear that winning the peace matters as much as winning the war.
The U.S. military has always been exceptionally good at war fighting. In Iraq, for instance, defeating the military forces of
By adding stability operations as a new core mission, the revised Army Field Manual tries to ensure that the failures of Iraq will never be repeated. FM 3-0 foresees future Army forces fighting when fighting is called for -- but troops also will work as needed to ensure civilian security and provide "emergency infrastructure reconstruction, humanitarian relief [and] political, legal, social and economic institutions that support the transition to legitimate local governance."
Stability operations will be integrated into Army planning and training at every level and will take place across the "full spectrum of conflict": that is, such activities may be preventive (intended to keep an unstable society from collapsing), or coexist with traditional war fighting, or occur in the aftermath of a conflict.
Imagine! If the
So FM 3-0 is welcome, and overdue.
But here's the rub. Successful stability operations take a lot of time.
Maybe not McCain's 100 years, but if the U.S. is serious about seeing stability operations as part of the Army's core mission, we'll need a larger Army, and we'll be looking at extended deployments in trouble spots around the globe. You can defeat an enemy army in a month, but truly "stabilizing" a society is something that will happen -- if it happens -- over 10 or 20 years, not 10 or 20 weeks.
FM 3-0 also raises as many new questions as it answers.
The Army can't possibly "stabilize" every troubled society, so how will the U.S. select priorities? Will military involvement in traditionally humanitarian activities create new dangers for private relief and humanitarian organizations? Will others around the world see U.S. stability operations as just a new form of imperialism?
And: Should FM 3-0 be seen as a continuation of a disturbing post-9/11 trend toward the militarization of U.S. foreign policy? Or should it be seen as a sort of "civilianization" of the military, insofar as it acknowledges that real security for the United States can't be achieved through force alone?
And: What role will civilians play? The State Department supposedly "coordinates" U.S. stability operations, including those undertaken by the military -- but that's like saying a mouse will coordinate a pack of 800-pound gorillas. Will Congress commit the funds to build up civilian capacity to match our undoubted military capacity?
In the end, of course, the Army can't answer these questions. Congress and the next president need to. And let's hope they take the task seriously, because 100 years without answers would be an awfully long time.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
***
Em destaque: A colunista do Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks, comenta a inserção de mais uma base de atuação do exército americano no seu manual de operações de campo em sua primeira revisão desde 11 de setembro de 2001 (FM 3-0): 'operações de estabilidade', ou seja, atuação do exército na reconstrução de uma nação.
Antes as bases eram apenas duas: a de defesa e ataque.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Autora: Rosa Brooks
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-brooks28feb28,0,1983673.column
Obama, McCain trade jabs on Iraq, terror
They offer a preview of a possible matchup in the general election, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton focuses on trade and foreclosures.
DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama sparred long distance Wednesday over Iraq and terrorism, previewing a likely foreign policy debate should the two men face each other in the fall.
The exchange was sparked by a response Obama gave in Tuesday night's debate with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both Democrats favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which McCain opposes.
The exchange was sparked by a response Obama gave in Tuesday night's debate with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both Democrats favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which McCain opposes.
Asked if he would reserve the right as president to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war, Obama replied: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
Reacting Wednesday morning in Tyler, Texas, McCain taunted: "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. . . . It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.' " Some in the town-hall audience laughed.
"If we left . . . they wouldn't be establishing a base," the Arizona Republican said. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends."
Obama responded at a rally in the sports arena at Ohio State University in Columbus. "I have some news for John McCain," the Illinois Democrat said, leaning into the crowd for emphasis. "There was no such thing as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
Noting that McCain tells audiences that he would follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama brought the crowd of more than 7,000 to its feet by gibing, "All he has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."
Later, at a rally Wednesday night in Texas, Obama added, "That's the news, John McCain. And I'm happy to have that debate with you in November. In October. In September."
The back-and-forth framed the case that the two men, still fighting to clinch their party nominations, would be likely to make against each other in a general election campaign.
McCain suggests that Obama, 46, is too callow to serve as commander in chief. "If we do what Sen. Obama wants to do -- and that's an immediate withdrawal -- that would mean surrender in Iraq," McCain said at a noontime town hall in San Antonio. "I guess that means that he would surrender and then go back."
Obama asserts that McCain, 71, is too wed to the policies of President Bush and old-line Washington. "He's tied to the politics of the past," Obama told the crowd in Columbus. "We are about policies of the future."
The Democrat later left Ohio to campaign in Duncanville and San Marcos, Texas; the two states hold primaries Tuesday that pose a potential make-or-break challenge for Clinton. In the race superdelegates, Obama gained and Clinton lost one Wednesday when Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a leader of the civil rights movement, changed sides and endorsed the senator from Illinois.
"I understand he's been under tremendous pressure," Clinton told KTRK-TV in Houston in a satellite interview. "He's been my friend. He will always be my friend."
The New York Democrat campaigned Wednesday in Ohio, where she focused on the state's ailing economy and accused Obama and McCain of failing to address the surge in home foreclosures.
"Sen. Obama does not have a plan," Clinton told reporters on a flight from Cleveland to Columbus. "Sen. McCain doesn't have a plan."
She said she was pleased by Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Cleveland, saying she had succeeded in drawing contrasts with Obama and in demonstrating her credentials to be president.
Clinton ignored suggestions that she had failed to change the essential dynamic of the Democratic race, which has tipped Obama's way since early February, when he began his string of 11 straight victories. "What's important is that we have a lot of people yet to vote," Clinton said.
In Zanesville, Clinton again pledged to fix the problems she sees with the North American Free Trade Agreement. The pact with Mexico and Canada was signed into law by her husband, former President Clinton.
"We're going to have trade that lifts up our families -- pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-American trade," Clinton told several hundred supporters. She also touted her plan to put a moratorium on home foreclosures. "Too many Ohioans are losing their homes," she said. "The numbers are staggering."
mark.barabak@latimes.com
maeve.reston@latimes.com
Barabak reported from Ohio and Texas, and Reston reported from Texas. Times staff writers Michael Finnegan in Ohio and Johanna Neumann in Washington also contributed to this report.
****
Em destaque: Os candidatos Barack Obama e John McCain, os favoritos para serem os finalistas das eleições americanas de 2008 trocam 'farpas' sobre suas posições em relação ao Iraque.
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-campaign28feb28,0,5906566.story
sexta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2008
Revista Piauí
A Revista Piauí, da Editora Abril vem, continuamente, em suas últimas edições, trazendo artigos vinculados à temática da Guerra do Iraque. Sendo este um tema também recorrente nos discursos dos candidatos norte-americanos à presidência da república, torna-se interessante a leitura desses artigos. O acesso é livre no site da revista para as edições anteriores ao mês corrente.
* O Petróleo é deles - Trinta trilhões de dólares em reservas, a garantia da supremacia americana e a gasolina.
Por Jim Holt.
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=422&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* O Mutilado - Atleta na adolescência, o fuzileiro Travis Greene embarcou para o Iraque seis dias depois de formado. No vôo de ida havia balões coloridos e faixas com votos de boa sorte. Da volta, ele não se lembra
Por Dorrit Harazim
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=435&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* Generais sem estrelas - Em artigo dirigido às Forças Armadas dos Estados Unidos, um tenente-coronel do Exército republicano aponta as responsabilidades pelo fracasso de seu país na guerra do Iraque: despreparo e falta de coragem moral do comando militar
Por Tenente-coronel Paul Yingling
Edição de Fevereiro 08
Link: ainda não disponível para acesso no site
* Porque Bush invadiu o Iraque? - As razões mais citadas são três: controlar o petróleo do Iraque, aumentar a segurança de Israel e terminar o que não foi feito na primeira guerra do Golfo, em 1991, derrubando Saddam Husseim.
Por Thomas Powers
Edição de Novembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=407&anteriores=1&anterior=112007
* O Petróleo é deles - Trinta trilhões de dólares em reservas, a garantia da supremacia americana e a gasolina.
Por Jim Holt.
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=422&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* O Mutilado - Atleta na adolescência, o fuzileiro Travis Greene embarcou para o Iraque seis dias depois de formado. No vôo de ida havia balões coloridos e faixas com votos de boa sorte. Da volta, ele não se lembra
Por Dorrit Harazim
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=435&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* Generais sem estrelas - Em artigo dirigido às Forças Armadas dos Estados Unidos, um tenente-coronel do Exército republicano aponta as responsabilidades pelo fracasso de seu país na guerra do Iraque: despreparo e falta de coragem moral do comando militar
Por Tenente-coronel Paul Yingling
Edição de Fevereiro 08
Link: ainda não disponível para acesso no site
* Porque Bush invadiu o Iraque? - As razões mais citadas são três: controlar o petróleo do Iraque, aumentar a segurança de Israel e terminar o que não foi feito na primeira guerra do Golfo, em 1991, derrubando Saddam Husseim.
Por Thomas Powers
Edição de Novembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=407&anteriores=1&anterior=112007
segunda-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2008
McCain's doves
He's a hawk on the war, yet independent-minded voters who are sick of Iraq are voting for him anyway.
By Matt Welch
John McCain will likely go down in history as the first GOP presidential nominee who vaulted to the front of the pack despite failing to win a plurality among self-identified Republicans in any of the early state primaries.According to Florida exit polls, the Arizona senator tied Mitt Romney among voters who described themselves as Republican but pulled away to victory with a nearly 2-1 advantage among independents. That formula -- battle to a draw for Republicans, stomp all comers among independents -- powered McCain's wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and has made him the front-runner heading into Super Tuesday.
It's no mystery why independents gravitate toward McCain. He's a country-first, party-second kind of guy who speaks bluntly and delights in poking fellow Republicans in the eye on issues such as campaign finance reform and global warming.
But there's a bizarre disconnect in the warm embrace between McCain and the electorate's mavericks. They hate the Iraq war, while he's willing to fight it for another century. The most pro-war presidential candidate in a decade is winning the 2008 GOP nomination thanks to the antiwar vote.
A full 66% of independents think that the U.S. should completely withdraw from Iraq no later than 12 months from now, according to a Jan. 18-22 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. McCain, meanwhile, said last month that the U.S. might stay in Baghdad for another 100 years. He continually expresses bafflement at the idea that that might not be such a good thing. "It's not the point! It's not the point!" he snarled at reporters recently. "How long are we going to be in Korea?"
And yet he dominated the antiwar vote in New Hampshire, with 44% to Romney's 19%, according to CNN exit polls. Ron Paul, the only actual antiwar Republican running, drew just 16% of voters who said they were against the war. The three finished in the same order among antiwar voters in Michigan, even though Romney won the state overall.
The same pattern holds true in the case of voters who despise George W. Bush. In Florida, for example, McCain clobbered Romney 48% to 18% among those who described themselves as "angry" at the president, according to MSNBC exit polls.
So the voters most hostile to the war are backing a potential commander in chief who makes Bush look gun-shy. More than three years before the Bush administration elucidated the radical doctrine of preemptive war, McCain unveiled a plan during his first run at the presidency called "rogue-state rollback," in which "we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states" -- including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia -- "to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values." And if the "odious regimes" crack down on freedom fighters, the U.S. should respond with force. In that campaign, McCain was the neocons' choice against the more internationally "humble" George Bush.
McCain has advocated threatening North Korea with "extinction," and memorably sung about how we should "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He agitated for military intervention in Darfur, regrets that we didn't send troops to Rwanda and is fond of rattling sabers in the general direction of Moscow and Beijing. During the U.S. bombing of Kosovo in 1999 -- when McCain showily suspended his presidential campaign because he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war -- the senator drew media raves for managing to support the intervention while simultaneously slamming the president for not threatening more overwhelming force.
This easily discoverable uber-hawkishness runs in the family. His four-star Navy admiral father helped prosecute the war in Vietnam and delivered famous lectures about the role of U.S. sea power in making the world safe for democracy. His four-star Navy admiral grandfather worshiped at the altar of interventionist extraordinaire Teddy Roosevelt. If the U.S. has an imperialist class, as historian (and informal McCain advisor) Niall Ferguson has advocated, then John McCain sits at its head.
Still, too many people, wowed by the candidate's considerable charm, have convinced themselves that launching wars is for icky people like that Bush fellow, not Our John. "He knows war," the Des Moines Register wrote, in one of roughly 17,000 newspaper endorsements of McCain over the last two months, "something we believe would make him reluctant to start one." For Californians tempted by such delusions, it's wise to recall the famous words of the last septuagenarian to successfully seek the presidency: Trust, but verify.
Matt Welch is editor of Reason magazine and author of "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick."
*** *** ***
Em destaque: a posição do candidato republicano John McCain quanto ao uso da força militar norte-americana, e o paradoxo de estar recebendo grande quantidade de votos de eleitores contrários à Guerra do Iraque.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Matt Welch
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-welch1feb01,1,1193768.story?ctrack=6&cset=true
Where they stand on the issues
O site do jornal americano Los Angeles Times disponibiliza para os internautas ( no link http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true ) uma ferramenta que tem como função comparar as posições dos candidatos à presidência norte-americana quanto a algumas questões hoje pertinentes para os eleitores, entre elas, as de Segurança Nacional, Educação, Economia, etc.
Reproduzimos aqui o posicionamento dos candidatos apontado pelo site em relação a:
* Segurança Nacional :
Hillary Clinton - Supports modernizing and reforming U.S. intelligence services ... Supports strengthening and rebuilding alliances in Europe; proposes partnerships in Asia and other areas of the world ... Supports reinforcing military efforts in Afghanistan ... Maintains that a strong military is essential for national security ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Barack Obama - Supports improving intelligence information-sharing and analysis at all levels of government ... Supports expanding U.S. diplomatic presence in the world, strengthening NATO and seeking new partnerships in Asia ... Supports expanding the military, adding 65,000 to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines ... Supports revising the Patriot Act ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
John McCain - Supports increasing and modernizing U.S. military ... Supports expanding and improving human intelligence capabilities ... Supports developing and deploying theater and national missile defenses ... Supports engaging in "battleground of ideas" to thwart terrorism recruitment ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Mitt Romney - Supports increasing military by 100,000 troops ... Supports dedicating at least 4% of gross domestic product to defense ... Supports strengthening global alliances and working with Middle Eastern allies to support moderate Muslims ... Supports keeping Guantanamo open (he has suggested doubling its size)
* Iraque
Hillary Clinton - Voted to authorize Iraq invasion in 2002 ... Supports three-step plan to end war: begin phased troop withdrawal within 60 days in office; redeploy some troops to ensure regional stability; convene group of key allies, global powers and states bordering Iraq to stabilize the region
Barack Obama - Opposed invading Iraq ... Has voted in Senate to authorize war funding ... Supports full withdrawal of combat brigades within 16 months; supports leaving some troops to protect diplomats and keep !Al Qaeda from gaining "foothold" ... Opposes permanent military bases in Iraq ... Supports aggressive regional diplomatic efforts to stabilize the ... Supports financial support for Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid
John McCain - Was an early proponent of the "surge" ... Believes there are not enough U.S. forces in Iraq to halt violence, secure strongholds, rebuild the economy, dismantle Al Qaeda and stabilize the country ... Opposes setting a withdrawal timetable for troops ... Believes the war is justified but has been mismanaged
Mitt Romney - Supports Bush troop buildup ... Supports keeping troops in Iraq "until we have brought success" ... Supports Gen. David H. Petraeus' assessment
* Imigração
Hillary Clinton - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence ... Supports employment verification system, along with tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Supports family reunification as basic immigration principle ... Supports agricultural jobs program, but opposes guest worker program that may exploit workers
Barack Obama - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in good standing who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence and additional personnel to secure borders ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants; supports employment verification system ... Supports greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together ... Supports improving speed and accuracy of immigrant background checks
John McCain - Co-sponsored 2006 legislation that called for temporary-worker program and pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. ... Now proposes conditional pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants after they pay fines and learn English ... Believes a secure border is "essential to national security" ... Voted for border fence; supports securing ports and other points of entry
Mitt Romney - Opposes pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants ... Supports building border fence and securing other entry points ... Supports an employment verification system that uses biometric identification cards ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Would punish "sanctuary cities"
* Aborto
Hillary Clinton - Supports abortion rights ... Supports appointing justices who will uphold Roe vs. Wade and right to privacy
Barack Obama - Supports abortion rights; would make "preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president"
John McCain -Believes Roe vs. Wade is a "flawed decision" that should be overturned ... Supports nominating judges who do not "legislate from the bench" ... Supports leaving abortion legislation to the states
Mitt Romney - Believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned ... Supports leaving abortion laws to the states ... Previously supported abortion rights
*** *** ***
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Graphics reporting by Nona Yates. Sources: Candidates' websites; Associated Press; Congressional Quarterly; Times research
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true
Reproduzimos aqui o posicionamento dos candidatos apontado pelo site em relação a:
* Segurança Nacional :
Hillary Clinton - Supports modernizing and reforming U.S. intelligence services ... Supports strengthening and rebuilding alliances in Europe; proposes partnerships in Asia and other areas of the world ... Supports reinforcing military efforts in Afghanistan ... Maintains that a strong military is essential for national security ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Barack Obama - Supports improving intelligence information-sharing and analysis at all levels of government ... Supports expanding U.S. diplomatic presence in the world, strengthening NATO and seeking new partnerships in Asia ... Supports expanding the military, adding 65,000 to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines ... Supports revising the Patriot Act ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
John McCain - Supports increasing and modernizing U.S. military ... Supports expanding and improving human intelligence capabilities ... Supports developing and deploying theater and national missile defenses ... Supports engaging in "battleground of ideas" to thwart terrorism recruitment ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Mitt Romney - Supports increasing military by 100,000 troops ... Supports dedicating at least 4% of gross domestic product to defense ... Supports strengthening global alliances and working with Middle Eastern allies to support moderate Muslims ... Supports keeping Guantanamo open (he has suggested doubling its size)
* Iraque
Hillary Clinton - Voted to authorize Iraq invasion in 2002 ... Supports three-step plan to end war: begin phased troop withdrawal within 60 days in office; redeploy some troops to ensure regional stability; convene group of key allies, global powers and states bordering Iraq to stabilize the region
Barack Obama - Opposed invading Iraq ... Has voted in Senate to authorize war funding ... Supports full withdrawal of combat brigades within 16 months; supports leaving some troops to protect diplomats and keep !Al Qaeda from gaining "foothold" ... Opposes permanent military bases in Iraq ... Supports aggressive regional diplomatic efforts to stabilize the ... Supports financial support for Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid
John McCain - Was an early proponent of the "surge" ... Believes there are not enough U.S. forces in Iraq to halt violence, secure strongholds, rebuild the economy, dismantle Al Qaeda and stabilize the country ... Opposes setting a withdrawal timetable for troops ... Believes the war is justified but has been mismanaged
Mitt Romney - Supports Bush troop buildup ... Supports keeping troops in Iraq "until we have brought success" ... Supports Gen. David H. Petraeus' assessment
* Imigração
Hillary Clinton - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence ... Supports employment verification system, along with tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Supports family reunification as basic immigration principle ... Supports agricultural jobs program, but opposes guest worker program that may exploit workers
Barack Obama - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in good standing who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence and additional personnel to secure borders ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants; supports employment verification system ... Supports greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together ... Supports improving speed and accuracy of immigrant background checks
John McCain - Co-sponsored 2006 legislation that called for temporary-worker program and pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. ... Now proposes conditional pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants after they pay fines and learn English ... Believes a secure border is "essential to national security" ... Voted for border fence; supports securing ports and other points of entry
Mitt Romney - Opposes pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants ... Supports building border fence and securing other entry points ... Supports an employment verification system that uses biometric identification cards ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Would punish "sanctuary cities"
* Aborto
Hillary Clinton - Supports abortion rights ... Supports appointing justices who will uphold Roe vs. Wade and right to privacy
Barack Obama - Supports abortion rights; would make "preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president"
John McCain -Believes Roe vs. Wade is a "flawed decision" that should be overturned ... Supports nominating judges who do not "legislate from the bench" ... Supports leaving abortion legislation to the states
Mitt Romney - Believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned ... Supports leaving abortion laws to the states ... Previously supported abortion rights
*** *** ***
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Graphics reporting by Nona Yates. Sources: Candidates' websites; Associated Press; Congressional Quarterly; Times research
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true
Clinton and the Iraq War Amendment
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — During Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Los Angeles, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked to explain why she had voted against an amendment to the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton said that she opposed the amendment, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, not because she favored going to war but because it would “subordinate” American national security decision-making to the United Nations Security Council. The vote on the Levin amendment came just hours before the Senate approved the resolution that President Bush later used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mrs. Clinton voted for that resolution.
Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in her explanations for her opposition to the Levin amendment, from a floor statement she delivered before her vote for the war resolution to her words at the debate Thursday night. In that floor statement, she said the United Nations was often incapable of backing up its words with action, that a single Security Council member could veto any resolution and that the body usually waited to act until it was too late.
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in January, Mrs. Clinton said: “The Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.”
But Mr. Levin and defenders of his amendment assert that her description of the measure is simplistic and misleading.
The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”
Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”
“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.”
*** *** ***
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: John M. Broder
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02check.html?ref=politics
Published: February 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — During Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Los Angeles, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked to explain why she had voted against an amendment to the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton said that she opposed the amendment, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, not because she favored going to war but because it would “subordinate” American national security decision-making to the United Nations Security Council. The vote on the Levin amendment came just hours before the Senate approved the resolution that President Bush later used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mrs. Clinton voted for that resolution.
Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in her explanations for her opposition to the Levin amendment, from a floor statement she delivered before her vote for the war resolution to her words at the debate Thursday night. In that floor statement, she said the United Nations was often incapable of backing up its words with action, that a single Security Council member could veto any resolution and that the body usually waited to act until it was too late.
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in January, Mrs. Clinton said: “The Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.”
But Mr. Levin and defenders of his amendment assert that her description of the measure is simplistic and misleading.
The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”
Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”
“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: A candidata democrata Hillary Clinton expõe suas razões para ter votado contra a emenda proposta pelo senador Carl Levin, que colocava como condição do uso da força no Iraque pelos Estados Unidos a concordância do Conselho de Segurança da ONU.
Para ler a Levin Amendment: http://clarkiw.wordpress.com/2002/10/09/levin-amendment-text-october-9-2002/Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: John M. Broder
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02check.html?ref=politics
Obama Wins Endorsement of MoveOn.org
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 2, 2008
LOS ANGELES — As the Democratic presidential rivals dashed into a final weekend of campaigning before the nominating contests here and in 21 other states next Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama collected the endorsement on Friday of a leading antiwar group, MoveOn.org. He said his opposition to the war would make him a stronger general election candidate.
California holds the largest trove of delegates, but Mr. Obama turned the state over to an army of high-profile surrogates, led by Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy, who will join together for a rally here on Sunday. Mr. Obama also won the backing of the state’s largest newspaper and labor union, which had been supporting John Edwards.
“I think this is going to be very competitive, but we’ve got 22 states,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference, adding, “And this is, frankly, a delegate race at this point.”
In a speech in San Diego, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the biggest difference between her and Mr. Obama was in their “commitment to universal health care in America.” Mrs. Clinton would require all Americans to buy or obtain insurance, while Mr. Obama would emphasize lowering health care costs, broaden coverage and mandate it for children — but not adults.
Highlighting a flash point from their debate one night earlier, advisers to Mrs. Clinton denounced a new piece of voter mail from the Obama campaign that criticized her health care plan as too costly. The mail piece includes a couple, apparently fretting over the plan, in an image that Clinton advisers denounced as reminiscent of the “Harry and Louise” advertisement used effectively by opponents of Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul effort in 1993 and 1994.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief strategist, defended the mailer, saying, “They’ve spent a lot of money in this campaign to distort our health care plan.”
In a conference call arranged by the Clinton campaign, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, likened the mailing to “Nazis marching through Skokie, Ill.” He added, “I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage.”
A Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, disavowed the Nazi reference and said the campaign did not think it was appropriate.
Mr. Obama received an endorsement from the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times, while Mrs. Clinton was endorsed Friday by the editorial board of The Denver Post.
Mr. Obama also received the backing of the California chapter of the Service Employees International Union, the nation’s most potent union. Because of the union’s large Latino membership, the endorsement could prove important. He has the support of another union that is powerful among immigrants, Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant and apparel workers.
The endorsement by MoveOn .org is the first time the group has weighed in during a Democratic primary. In a poll of its members, 1.7 million of whom live in the 22 states holding contests next week, Mr. Obama outpaced Mrs. Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent.
“The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org
While Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, campaigned for Mr. Obama in New Mexico, former President Bill Clinton was working on behalf of his wife. At a rally in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton criticized Mr. Kennedy for partnering with President Bush on the No Child Left Behind legislation, saying the education bill came about because “the president made a deal with Senator Kennedy.” Mr. Clinton then quickly added, “Neither one of them meant to mess it up.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Los Angeles, and Patrick Healy from San Diego. Steven Greenhouse contributed
reporting from New York
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O apoio da organização MoveOn.org ao candidato democrata Barack Obama, por sua oposição à Guerra do Iraque.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeff Zeleny e Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ref=politics
Published: February 2, 2008
LOS ANGELES — As the Democratic presidential rivals dashed into a final weekend of campaigning before the nominating contests here and in 21 other states next Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama collected the endorsement on Friday of a leading antiwar group, MoveOn.org. He said his opposition to the war would make him a stronger general election candidate.
California holds the largest trove of delegates, but Mr. Obama turned the state over to an army of high-profile surrogates, led by Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy, who will join together for a rally here on Sunday. Mr. Obama also won the backing of the state’s largest newspaper and labor union, which had been supporting John Edwards.
“I think this is going to be very competitive, but we’ve got 22 states,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference, adding, “And this is, frankly, a delegate race at this point.”
In a speech in San Diego, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the biggest difference between her and Mr. Obama was in their “commitment to universal health care in America.” Mrs. Clinton would require all Americans to buy or obtain insurance, while Mr. Obama would emphasize lowering health care costs, broaden coverage and mandate it for children — but not adults.
Highlighting a flash point from their debate one night earlier, advisers to Mrs. Clinton denounced a new piece of voter mail from the Obama campaign that criticized her health care plan as too costly. The mail piece includes a couple, apparently fretting over the plan, in an image that Clinton advisers denounced as reminiscent of the “Harry and Louise” advertisement used effectively by opponents of Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul effort in 1993 and 1994.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief strategist, defended the mailer, saying, “They’ve spent a lot of money in this campaign to distort our health care plan.”
In a conference call arranged by the Clinton campaign, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, likened the mailing to “Nazis marching through Skokie, Ill.” He added, “I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage.”
A Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, disavowed the Nazi reference and said the campaign did not think it was appropriate.
Mr. Obama received an endorsement from the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times, while Mrs. Clinton was endorsed Friday by the editorial board of The Denver Post.
Mr. Obama also received the backing of the California chapter of the Service Employees International Union, the nation’s most potent union. Because of the union’s large Latino membership, the endorsement could prove important. He has the support of another union that is powerful among immigrants, Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant and apparel workers.
The endorsement by MoveOn .org is the first time the group has weighed in during a Democratic primary. In a poll of its members, 1.7 million of whom live in the 22 states holding contests next week, Mr. Obama outpaced Mrs. Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent.
“The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org
While Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, campaigned for Mr. Obama in New Mexico, former President Bill Clinton was working on behalf of his wife. At a rally in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton criticized Mr. Kennedy for partnering with President Bush on the No Child Left Behind legislation, saying the education bill came about because “the president made a deal with Senator Kennedy.” Mr. Clinton then quickly added, “Neither one of them meant to mess it up.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Los Angeles, and Patrick Healy from San Diego. Steven Greenhouse contributed
reporting from New York
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O apoio da organização MoveOn.org ao candidato democrata Barack Obama, por sua oposição à Guerra do Iraque.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeff Zeleny e Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ref=politics
domingo, 3 de fevereiro de 2008
Democrats Flood States With Ads as Tuesday Nears
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: February 3, 2008
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have unleashed advertisements in nearly all the 22 states that have Democratic presidential nominating contests on Tuesday, a combined $19 million expenditure that is the most ambitious and geographically expansive television effort in a presidential primary.
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney have a far more restrained advertising effort that started just this weekend and is focusing on a handful of states and national cable television.
Faced with the challenge of getting their messages out to nearly half the country for a single day of voting, the candidates are taking to the airwaves in a concentrated burst of advertising that includes individual advertisements tailored to specific concerns of different parts of the country. The sweep of advertising has put their strategies out in the open and has highlighted the diverging financial fortunes of the two parties.
The complexity of the delegate allocation rules has prompted the campaigns to make decisions about advertising that are unlike what would be made in a general election. And the sheer number of contests has ruled out the retail politicking the candidates practiced in Iowa and New Hampshire. That has forced the candidates to choose between paying for advertising or relying on the kindness of free news coverage, as Mr. McCain has done.
The advertisements are striking in that they are devoid of any overt attacks on opponents. (Though Mr. Romney has reprised an advertisement in which he attacks Mrs. Clinton.) After weeks in which the race in both parties has featured flashes of intense personal animosity, the candidates all seem to have decided that they need to introduce and define themselves for a broad swath of the country in positive terms, especially since the compressed calendar gives them no time for a second chance.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has run advertisements in 21 of the 22 states that will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has run advertisements in 16 of those states. His campaign has aimed advertisements on different issues at particular cities in an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of voters.
Voters in Hartford and Fargo, for example, are watching advertisements for Mr. Obama decrying Wall Street abuses and talking about tax cuts. The advertisements seek to address the economic anxiety that polls suggest is rife in those parts of the country. (“Stock markets in turmoil, jobs in jeopardy, fear of recession,” the announcer says.)
In Minneapolis and Albuquerque, audiences are seeing advertisements that include battle scenes from the Iraq war, reflecting Mr. Obama’s effort to emphasize his early opposition to the war in a part of the country where antiwar sentiment appears high. “We can end a war,” reads the message on the screen, over a backdrop of Mr. Obama talking and rousing rock music playing. “We can save a planet.”
Most of Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements are keyed to economic anxiety, a subject she has increasingly addressed. Voters across the country are seeing what has become her signature advertisement on the economy: a man dropped from a plane and hurtling toward the ground — an image intended to capture an economy in free fall — until his parachute engages, presumably suggesting what a second Clinton presidency might do for the economy.
But she, too, has aimed specific advertisements at specific states or groups. In California, for example, she has run advertisements about the environment and energy. “We have to get serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil,” she says in that spot. And on Saturday, an advertisement featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is supporting her, will begin running in Massachusetts and New York — seeking to counter Obama advertisements that feature Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former President John F. Kennedy, who have endorsed Mr. Obama and campaigned for him.
The advertising strategies reflect strategic calculations by the candidates as they navigate the different Republican and Democratic delegate rules.
In many states for Republicans, the candidate who wins the popular vote captures all the delegates. But for Democrats, delegates are awarded proportionally by Congressional district, so it makes sense for a candidate to advertise in selective areas in hopes of winning a share of the delegates — which is what Mr. Obama is doing.
“We are in a world in which delegates matter,” said Ken Goldstein, a political science professor and the director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which just completed a study of campaign expenditures to date. “Obama’s got money, and there’s a different definition of competitiveness. General election competitiveness is, Can you win? Primary competitiveness is, Can you come close and win delegates?”
Mr. Obama has spent $10.9 million on advertisements in the states voting on Tuesday; his first expenditure was Jan. 12, according to officials from both campaigns. Mrs. Clinton has spent about $8 million, starting on Jan. 17 in California. Between them, they have spent at least $1.3 million a day for the last week on television advertising in the states voting on Tuesday, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.
Most of this money has been expended in just two weeks. By comparison, all the presidential candidates spent a total of $43 million in Iowa and $32 million in New Hampshire, according to a report from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In those states, advertising ran for months before the votes.
Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state, is the one place where neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is advertising. Of the five other states where Mrs. Clinton is not advertising, four — Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota — have caucuses, the kind of competition that aides to both candidates believe gives an edge to Mr. Obama. In the fifth state, Georgia, Mr. Obama is looking to do well, in part because of the state’s large black population.
Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain began their television effort on Friday; there were no specific figures available on their spending, though it appeared to be about $2 million for Mr. Romney and about $1 million for Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, again reaching into his own pockets, bought television advertisements across California and on national cable television, a venue rarely used in a primary campaign.
That is a significant drop-off in spending by Mr. Romney over earlier in the primary season, a decision his advisers said reflected the paucity of Mr. McCain’s efforts and the different demands of competing across the country.
Mr. Romney reprised an old advertisement asserting that his background as governor of Massachusetts and chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics gave him the experience to be president. Mr. McCain’s advertisement suggested that he was more intent on addressing concerns about him among conservatives than the challenge of Mr. Romney. Speaking to the camera, he invokes Ronald Reagan and describes himself as “a proud social conservative who will never waver.”
The advertisements by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton offered insights into their strategic decisions and challenges. Mrs. Clinton has shown a decided edge among women over Mr. Obama this year; Mr. Obama’s advertisements are filled with images of women, including several that feature elected officials who have endorsed him, including Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona.
Mr. Obama uses these endorsers to offer an implicit criticism of Mrs. Clinton, something he is not doing himself. For example, Ms. Napolitano says, “Barack Obama doesn’t just tell people what they want to hear.”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are running Spanish-language advertisements, mostly in California, testimony to the importance of Hispanic voters in so many states. In one, Mr. Obama is introduced in Spanish and speaks in English in a clear effort to deal with the reluctance of some Hispanic voters to rally behind a black candidate.
“Hope is what led me here today,” he says, his words translated into Spanish subtitles. “With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that can only happen in the United States of America.”
Both campaigns use their candidates as the main star. Mrs. Clinton is shown talking to the camera or to small groups of voters, which has been a strength for her. Mr. Obama is repeatedly shown talking to big, energized — and young — crowds that often roar their approval.
Aides to both campaigns said that the decisions had been complicated given the varying rules. Mr. Obama has put more of his resources into states with caucuses, which tend to draw the party’s most committed voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama started advertising early in California not just because of its size, but because the state allows people to begin casting votes early.
“There’s a little bit of a chess game with the ads,” said Mr. Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “When all is said and done, there will be a lot of re-examining of all these decisions. This one will get plowed over pretty hard.”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Nas progandas políticas do democrata Barack Obama, em Minneapolis e Albuquerque, o uso de imagens da Guerra do Iraque para enfatizar a posição contrária do candidato a esta empreitada americana.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03ads.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all
Published: February 3, 2008
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have unleashed advertisements in nearly all the 22 states that have Democratic presidential nominating contests on Tuesday, a combined $19 million expenditure that is the most ambitious and geographically expansive television effort in a presidential primary.
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney have a far more restrained advertising effort that started just this weekend and is focusing on a handful of states and national cable television.
Faced with the challenge of getting their messages out to nearly half the country for a single day of voting, the candidates are taking to the airwaves in a concentrated burst of advertising that includes individual advertisements tailored to specific concerns of different parts of the country. The sweep of advertising has put their strategies out in the open and has highlighted the diverging financial fortunes of the two parties.
The complexity of the delegate allocation rules has prompted the campaigns to make decisions about advertising that are unlike what would be made in a general election. And the sheer number of contests has ruled out the retail politicking the candidates practiced in Iowa and New Hampshire. That has forced the candidates to choose between paying for advertising or relying on the kindness of free news coverage, as Mr. McCain has done.
The advertisements are striking in that they are devoid of any overt attacks on opponents. (Though Mr. Romney has reprised an advertisement in which he attacks Mrs. Clinton.) After weeks in which the race in both parties has featured flashes of intense personal animosity, the candidates all seem to have decided that they need to introduce and define themselves for a broad swath of the country in positive terms, especially since the compressed calendar gives them no time for a second chance.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has run advertisements in 21 of the 22 states that will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has run advertisements in 16 of those states. His campaign has aimed advertisements on different issues at particular cities in an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of voters.
Voters in Hartford and Fargo, for example, are watching advertisements for Mr. Obama decrying Wall Street abuses and talking about tax cuts. The advertisements seek to address the economic anxiety that polls suggest is rife in those parts of the country. (“Stock markets in turmoil, jobs in jeopardy, fear of recession,” the announcer says.)
In Minneapolis and Albuquerque, audiences are seeing advertisements that include battle scenes from the Iraq war, reflecting Mr. Obama’s effort to emphasize his early opposition to the war in a part of the country where antiwar sentiment appears high. “We can end a war,” reads the message on the screen, over a backdrop of Mr. Obama talking and rousing rock music playing. “We can save a planet.”
Most of Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements are keyed to economic anxiety, a subject she has increasingly addressed. Voters across the country are seeing what has become her signature advertisement on the economy: a man dropped from a plane and hurtling toward the ground — an image intended to capture an economy in free fall — until his parachute engages, presumably suggesting what a second Clinton presidency might do for the economy.
But she, too, has aimed specific advertisements at specific states or groups. In California, for example, she has run advertisements about the environment and energy. “We have to get serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil,” she says in that spot. And on Saturday, an advertisement featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is supporting her, will begin running in Massachusetts and New York — seeking to counter Obama advertisements that feature Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former President John F. Kennedy, who have endorsed Mr. Obama and campaigned for him.
The advertising strategies reflect strategic calculations by the candidates as they navigate the different Republican and Democratic delegate rules.
In many states for Republicans, the candidate who wins the popular vote captures all the delegates. But for Democrats, delegates are awarded proportionally by Congressional district, so it makes sense for a candidate to advertise in selective areas in hopes of winning a share of the delegates — which is what Mr. Obama is doing.
“We are in a world in which delegates matter,” said Ken Goldstein, a political science professor and the director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which just completed a study of campaign expenditures to date. “Obama’s got money, and there’s a different definition of competitiveness. General election competitiveness is, Can you win? Primary competitiveness is, Can you come close and win delegates?”
Mr. Obama has spent $10.9 million on advertisements in the states voting on Tuesday; his first expenditure was Jan. 12, according to officials from both campaigns. Mrs. Clinton has spent about $8 million, starting on Jan. 17 in California. Between them, they have spent at least $1.3 million a day for the last week on television advertising in the states voting on Tuesday, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.
Most of this money has been expended in just two weeks. By comparison, all the presidential candidates spent a total of $43 million in Iowa and $32 million in New Hampshire, according to a report from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In those states, advertising ran for months before the votes.
Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state, is the one place where neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is advertising. Of the five other states where Mrs. Clinton is not advertising, four — Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota — have caucuses, the kind of competition that aides to both candidates believe gives an edge to Mr. Obama. In the fifth state, Georgia, Mr. Obama is looking to do well, in part because of the state’s large black population.
Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain began their television effort on Friday; there were no specific figures available on their spending, though it appeared to be about $2 million for Mr. Romney and about $1 million for Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, again reaching into his own pockets, bought television advertisements across California and on national cable television, a venue rarely used in a primary campaign.
That is a significant drop-off in spending by Mr. Romney over earlier in the primary season, a decision his advisers said reflected the paucity of Mr. McCain’s efforts and the different demands of competing across the country.
Mr. Romney reprised an old advertisement asserting that his background as governor of Massachusetts and chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics gave him the experience to be president. Mr. McCain’s advertisement suggested that he was more intent on addressing concerns about him among conservatives than the challenge of Mr. Romney. Speaking to the camera, he invokes Ronald Reagan and describes himself as “a proud social conservative who will never waver.”
The advertisements by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton offered insights into their strategic decisions and challenges. Mrs. Clinton has shown a decided edge among women over Mr. Obama this year; Mr. Obama’s advertisements are filled with images of women, including several that feature elected officials who have endorsed him, including Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona.
Mr. Obama uses these endorsers to offer an implicit criticism of Mrs. Clinton, something he is not doing himself. For example, Ms. Napolitano says, “Barack Obama doesn’t just tell people what they want to hear.”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are running Spanish-language advertisements, mostly in California, testimony to the importance of Hispanic voters in so many states. In one, Mr. Obama is introduced in Spanish and speaks in English in a clear effort to deal with the reluctance of some Hispanic voters to rally behind a black candidate.
“Hope is what led me here today,” he says, his words translated into Spanish subtitles. “With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that can only happen in the United States of America.”
Both campaigns use their candidates as the main star. Mrs. Clinton is shown talking to the camera or to small groups of voters, which has been a strength for her. Mr. Obama is repeatedly shown talking to big, energized — and young — crowds that often roar their approval.
Aides to both campaigns said that the decisions had been complicated given the varying rules. Mr. Obama has put more of his resources into states with caucuses, which tend to draw the party’s most committed voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama started advertising early in California not just because of its size, but because the state allows people to begin casting votes early.
“There’s a little bit of a chess game with the ads,” said Mr. Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “When all is said and done, there will be a lot of re-examining of all these decisions. This one will get plowed over pretty hard.”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Nas progandas políticas do democrata Barack Obama, em Minneapolis e Albuquerque, o uso de imagens da Guerra do Iraque para enfatizar a posição contrária do candidato a esta empreitada americana.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03ads.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all
Candidates Go to Final Round in Battle for Super Tuesday
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
Published: February 3, 2008
With two days to go before Super Tuesday’s multistate nominating contests, candidates for both parties campaigned furiously on Sunday, trying to seize voters’ support in the hours before the country’s attention shifted to the Super Bowl.
A variety of weekend polls showed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was locked in a tight race with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democratic nomination. A CBS News poll released Sunday evening showed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama each had the support of 41 percent of the 491 Democratic primary voters it surveyed.
In contrast, Senator John McCain appeared to be heading into Tuesday’s Republican contests with a clear lead over his chief rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The CBS News poll showed Mr. McCain gaining the support of 46 percent of the 325 Republican primary voters it surveyed, compared with 23 percent for Mr. Romney.
The polls also showed that significant numbers of voters have simply not yet decided who they are going to vote for, or if they have decided, are not fully committed to their decisions. About four in 10 Democratic voters and more than half of the Republican said they still could change their minds before Tuesday’s contests, the CBS News poll said. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney both came out swinging on Sunday. At a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Obama criticized both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain and tried to link his opponents to the policies of the Bush administration, particularly the war in Iraq, which Mrs. Clinton initially supported.
“I can offer and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush,” Mr. Obama said. “I won’t have to explain my votes in the past.”
At a campaign rally outside Chicago, Mr. Romney, who has repeatedly claimed that Mr. McCain is out of step with conservative Republicans, also tried to link the Arizona Republican with Mrs. Clinton.
“There’s a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party,” Mr. Romney said. “Which way are we going to go? Are we going to take a sharp left turn in our party, get as close as we can to Hillary Clinton, without being Hillary Clinton?”
Still, Mr. McCain appears to be picking up significant support from Republicans after relied on independents to carry him to victory in some early primaries. An ABC News/Washington Post survey showed that his support among self-identified Republicans was up nearly fourfold since December.
Part of this increased support appeared to come from Republicans rallying around the candidate now deemed most electable. And part of it, said Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and second-tier Republican candidate, was a sense among some Republicans that Mr. Romney is a conservative of convenience, not of conviction.
“When we were out there supporting Ronald Reagan, he was running away from him,” Mr. Huckabee said on CNN. “That’s what rankles many of us. He’s a recent convert and now he shouts ‘hallelujah’ louder than the rest of us.”
The many winner-take-all Republican contests give Mr. McCain a chance to come within a few hundred delegates of victory on Tuesday, by some estimates.
Looking to Tuesday, Mr. Romney has concentrated his efforts in states that award delegates by caucuses and conventions, where his organization efforts can help offset the pull of Mr. McCain’s higher name recognition. He was also fighting hard to win in California, the day’s biggest prize.
Still, Mr. McCain’s emergence has political analysts speculating more pointedly about possible matchups. The ABC/Washington Post poll showed Mr. Obama narrowly defeating Mr. McCain in a head-to-head contest but Mr. McCain defeating Mrs. Clinton by an identical three-point margin.
At a campaign appearance on Sunday at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., Mr. McCain took a rare shot at Mrs. Clinton, including her in a denunciation of pork barrel spending.
“In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, has gotten $500 million worth of pork barrel projects,” Mr. McCain said. “My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop when I’m president of the United States of America.”
The race for the Democratic nomination is likely to go beyond Tuesday, partly because it is so competitive and partly because the Democrats’ proportional system allows a candidate to win delegates even while losing a state.
Together, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are advertising in nearly all the 22 states with Democratic contests on Tuesday, spending millions of dollars. On Sunday night, Mr. Obama has even purchased 30 seconds of commercial time on the Super Bowl in more than 20 states where he is competing.
Mr. Obama has been gaining more ground in the polls than Mrs. Clinton, who has stemmed the erosion that began after the Iowa caucuses but not added much to her base. A poll by the Pew Research Center shows that since mid-January, Mr. Obama increased his support significantly among independents, white voters in general and white men in particular, voters aged 50 to 64, moderates, and voters with some college or more. The poll also found increased support from him among the middle class, voters whose yearly household income is between $40,000 and $75,000.
On Sunday afternoon, Mr. Obama also received the endorsement of Maria Shriver, who joined Caroline Kennedy and their uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachasetts, in endorsing the Illinois senator. Ms. Shriver’s husband, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, endorsed Mr. McCain last week.
Mrs. Clinton continued Sunday to play down the frictions that she and her husband, Bill, have had with the Obama camp, saying of herself and her rival: “We have lived the progress that has been made in America, each of us has broken barriers. Whoever wins the nomination will change American history.”
But Mrs. Clinton also suggested that she would prove tougher in a general election than Mr. Obama would be, once negative charges began to fly.
“I have been through these Republican attacks over and over and over again and I believe that I’ve demonstrated that, much to the dismay of the Republicans, I not only can survive, but thrive,” Mrs. Clinton said on the ABC News program “This Week.”
Mr. Obama, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” predicted that he would draw votes “that Senator Clinton cannot get.”
“That broadens the political map,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it bodes well for the election.”
He quickly sidestepped a question about a possible Democratic “dream ticket,” as the interviewer called it, uniting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “Democrats are eager to unify against the Republicans,” he said. He then pivoted to talk about his differences with Mr. McCain.
Mr. McCain, and Mr. Romney too, he said, had “essentially embraced” what Mr. Obama said was President Bush’s failed economic approach, and “both have suggested that we continue the war in Iraq.”
Mrs. Clinton, too, has begun drawing contrasts with Mr. McCain. On the Iraq war, she said, the differences “could not be stronger.” Mrs. Clinton has said she would start withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, while Mr. McCain has said American troops could be there up to 100 years.
“I personally believe there is no American military solution,” Mrs. Clinton said, “and it is imperative that we focus our attention on the political and diplomatic side of this equation.”
The contests on both sides have been so fierce that political analysts on Sunday were even analyzing intelligence on where the candidates planned to watch the Super Bowl.
Mr. McCain planned to watch from Massachusetts. Was that a pitch for votes from New England, whose Patriots are undefeated this year? Or a finger in the eye of Mr. Romney, the former governor?
And what did it mean that Bill Clinton would be watching from New Mexico, with Gov. Bill Richardson? Was this tantamount to an endorsement by the governor, or a bid for Hispanic support?
“I suspect,” Mr. Obama said, when asked about this on ABC, “that they’re just going to be watching the game.”
Reporting was contributed by Jeff Zeleny from Wilmington, Del., MichaelLuo from Chicago, Michael Cooper from Fairfield, Conn., and John Sullivan and Janet Elder from New York.
*** *** ***
Matéria que menciona levemente as posições dos candidatos quanto à Guerra do Iraque (parte em destaque)
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Brian Knowlton
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03cnd-campaign.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Published: February 3, 2008
With two days to go before Super Tuesday’s multistate nominating contests, candidates for both parties campaigned furiously on Sunday, trying to seize voters’ support in the hours before the country’s attention shifted to the Super Bowl.
A variety of weekend polls showed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was locked in a tight race with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democratic nomination. A CBS News poll released Sunday evening showed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama each had the support of 41 percent of the 491 Democratic primary voters it surveyed.
In contrast, Senator John McCain appeared to be heading into Tuesday’s Republican contests with a clear lead over his chief rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The CBS News poll showed Mr. McCain gaining the support of 46 percent of the 325 Republican primary voters it surveyed, compared with 23 percent for Mr. Romney.
The polls also showed that significant numbers of voters have simply not yet decided who they are going to vote for, or if they have decided, are not fully committed to their decisions. About four in 10 Democratic voters and more than half of the Republican said they still could change their minds before Tuesday’s contests, the CBS News poll said. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney both came out swinging on Sunday. At a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Obama criticized both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain and tried to link his opponents to the policies of the Bush administration, particularly the war in Iraq, which Mrs. Clinton initially supported.
“I can offer and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush,” Mr. Obama said. “I won’t have to explain my votes in the past.”
At a campaign rally outside Chicago, Mr. Romney, who has repeatedly claimed that Mr. McCain is out of step with conservative Republicans, also tried to link the Arizona Republican with Mrs. Clinton.
“There’s a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party,” Mr. Romney said. “Which way are we going to go? Are we going to take a sharp left turn in our party, get as close as we can to Hillary Clinton, without being Hillary Clinton?”
Still, Mr. McCain appears to be picking up significant support from Republicans after relied on independents to carry him to victory in some early primaries. An ABC News/Washington Post survey showed that his support among self-identified Republicans was up nearly fourfold since December.
Part of this increased support appeared to come from Republicans rallying around the candidate now deemed most electable. And part of it, said Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and second-tier Republican candidate, was a sense among some Republicans that Mr. Romney is a conservative of convenience, not of conviction.
“When we were out there supporting Ronald Reagan, he was running away from him,” Mr. Huckabee said on CNN. “That’s what rankles many of us. He’s a recent convert and now he shouts ‘hallelujah’ louder than the rest of us.”
The many winner-take-all Republican contests give Mr. McCain a chance to come within a few hundred delegates of victory on Tuesday, by some estimates.
Looking to Tuesday, Mr. Romney has concentrated his efforts in states that award delegates by caucuses and conventions, where his organization efforts can help offset the pull of Mr. McCain’s higher name recognition. He was also fighting hard to win in California, the day’s biggest prize.
Still, Mr. McCain’s emergence has political analysts speculating more pointedly about possible matchups. The ABC/Washington Post poll showed Mr. Obama narrowly defeating Mr. McCain in a head-to-head contest but Mr. McCain defeating Mrs. Clinton by an identical three-point margin.
At a campaign appearance on Sunday at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., Mr. McCain took a rare shot at Mrs. Clinton, including her in a denunciation of pork barrel spending.
“In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, has gotten $500 million worth of pork barrel projects,” Mr. McCain said. “My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop when I’m president of the United States of America.”
The race for the Democratic nomination is likely to go beyond Tuesday, partly because it is so competitive and partly because the Democrats’ proportional system allows a candidate to win delegates even while losing a state.
Together, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are advertising in nearly all the 22 states with Democratic contests on Tuesday, spending millions of dollars. On Sunday night, Mr. Obama has even purchased 30 seconds of commercial time on the Super Bowl in more than 20 states where he is competing.
Mr. Obama has been gaining more ground in the polls than Mrs. Clinton, who has stemmed the erosion that began after the Iowa caucuses but not added much to her base. A poll by the Pew Research Center shows that since mid-January, Mr. Obama increased his support significantly among independents, white voters in general and white men in particular, voters aged 50 to 64, moderates, and voters with some college or more. The poll also found increased support from him among the middle class, voters whose yearly household income is between $40,000 and $75,000.
On Sunday afternoon, Mr. Obama also received the endorsement of Maria Shriver, who joined Caroline Kennedy and their uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachasetts, in endorsing the Illinois senator. Ms. Shriver’s husband, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, endorsed Mr. McCain last week.
Mrs. Clinton continued Sunday to play down the frictions that she and her husband, Bill, have had with the Obama camp, saying of herself and her rival: “We have lived the progress that has been made in America, each of us has broken barriers. Whoever wins the nomination will change American history.”
But Mrs. Clinton also suggested that she would prove tougher in a general election than Mr. Obama would be, once negative charges began to fly.
“I have been through these Republican attacks over and over and over again and I believe that I’ve demonstrated that, much to the dismay of the Republicans, I not only can survive, but thrive,” Mrs. Clinton said on the ABC News program “This Week.”
Mr. Obama, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” predicted that he would draw votes “that Senator Clinton cannot get.”
“That broadens the political map,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it bodes well for the election.”
He quickly sidestepped a question about a possible Democratic “dream ticket,” as the interviewer called it, uniting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “Democrats are eager to unify against the Republicans,” he said. He then pivoted to talk about his differences with Mr. McCain.
Mr. McCain, and Mr. Romney too, he said, had “essentially embraced” what Mr. Obama said was President Bush’s failed economic approach, and “both have suggested that we continue the war in Iraq.”
Mrs. Clinton, too, has begun drawing contrasts with Mr. McCain. On the Iraq war, she said, the differences “could not be stronger.” Mrs. Clinton has said she would start withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, while Mr. McCain has said American troops could be there up to 100 years.
“I personally believe there is no American military solution,” Mrs. Clinton said, “and it is imperative that we focus our attention on the political and diplomatic side of this equation.”
The contests on both sides have been so fierce that political analysts on Sunday were even analyzing intelligence on where the candidates planned to watch the Super Bowl.
Mr. McCain planned to watch from Massachusetts. Was that a pitch for votes from New England, whose Patriots are undefeated this year? Or a finger in the eye of Mr. Romney, the former governor?
And what did it mean that Bill Clinton would be watching from New Mexico, with Gov. Bill Richardson? Was this tantamount to an endorsement by the governor, or a bid for Hispanic support?
“I suspect,” Mr. Obama said, when asked about this on ABC, “that they’re just going to be watching the game.”
Reporting was contributed by Jeff Zeleny from Wilmington, Del., MichaelLuo from Chicago, Michael Cooper from Fairfield, Conn., and John Sullivan and Janet Elder from New York.
*** *** ***
Matéria que menciona levemente as posições dos candidatos quanto à Guerra do Iraque (parte em destaque)
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Brian Knowlton
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03cnd-campaign.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)