By Paul Vitello
Until about 15 minutes into his 18-minute speech, Mitt Romney was delivering what some supporters thought was one of his most emotionally powerful renditions of a campaign address he has made hundreds of times since declaring his candidacy for president almost exactly a year ago.
It was a speech that had an audience of over 1,000 at the annual Conservative Political Action Convention here interrupting him with sustained applause dozens of times — a few times standing on their feet – as he decried “the culture of dependency” fostered by government social programs, the looming “demographic disaster” of unchecked entitlement programs, the looming threat of Asian economic supremacy, the perilous threat of “Islamic jihadism,” and the urgent need to unleash the American entrepreneurial genius by “taking a weed-whacker to government regulations.”
Then he said something that didn’t fit with the uncompromising tenor of the speech up to that point.
“When he mentioned 1976, I knew it was over,” said Wesley Galloway, an accountant from Trumbull, Conn. who has supported the former Massachusetts governor from the beginning.
The conservative radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham, had introduced Mr. Romney by calling him “the conservatives’ conservative,” and referring to what she called the fatal mistake Republicans made in 1976 when they chose the moderate Vice president Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan as their presidential candidate. Mr. Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, the Georgia governor.As if in reply to that analogy, Mr. Romney said, “But there is an important difference between now and 1976. Today we are a nation at war.” He said it was more important to beat the Democratic candidates, who he said would “declare defeat and retreat from Iraq,” than to continue a campaign that would “forestall the launch of a national campaign” against them.
He hated to lose, he said, “but this isn’t about me.”
“When he said that, I have to admit I teared up,” said Mr. Galloway. “It was a noble thing to do and all that, but I think he was by far the best candidate. It’s a loss for the country.”
Disappointed boos from the audience were followed closely by the last frenzy of waving “Change Begins With Us” signs, and the last sustained demonstration of support for the Mitt Romney for President campaign.
Susie Fox, 46, emerged from the auditorium with smudged eyeliner. “I’m still in shock,” she said when asked what she thought. “I thought it was a great speech. He had us all so up. And then, it was over.”
Becky Norton Dunlop, of Arlington, Va., a vice president of the Heritage Foundation and member of the board of directors of the American Conservative Union, was less distraught but gave Mr. Romney high marks for his “classy decision.” She said she had not cottoned to any of the Republican candidates, but would now be “very eager to hear Mr. McCain explain his vision of conservatism.” Arizona Senator John McCain, no favorite of orthodox conservatives – and a no show at last year’s CPAC convention – was scheduled to speak to the meeting here later in the day.
As many of Mr. Romney’s supporters filed out of the auditorium at the Omni Sheraton Hotel here, people wearing McCain buttons and carrying McCain banners flooded into the room, like a victorious army.
One of them, Amy Kaufman, a college freshman from Annapolis, Md. Who has manned phone banks for Mr. McCain since last November, said she was “elated” by the withdrawal of Mr. McCain’s last major obstacle to the nomination, but feeling “a new respect” for his rival, Mr. Romney.
She had sat in the auditorium to hear Mr. Romney’s speech. “I thought he made a great speech,” she said. “But when he said he was dropping out – I just didn’t see it coming. People around me were, like, what did he just say?”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Sobre o discurso de Mitt Romney, que anunciou sua desistência como candidato republicano a presidência dos Estados Unidos.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Paul Vitello
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/romney-supporters-surprised-by-exit/
Mostrando postagens com marcador The New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador The New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens
quinta-feira, 7 de fevereiro de 2008
With Romney Gone, What Will McCain Do?
By Adam Nagourney
If there was ever much doubt that Senator John McCain of Arizona was going to win the Republican presidential nomination after Super Tuesday, it was pretty much eliminated with the decision by Mitt Romney of Massachusetts to drop out the race this afternoon.
Mr. McCain is now left with one serious opponent – Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Mr. Huckabee has proved this year to be an articulate and affable candidate, and his surprise showing in winning a half-dozen Southern states on Tuesday was one reason that Mr. Romney bowed to what was inarguably the inevitable and quit.
But Mr. Huckabee is a candidate with some shortcomings – in particular, his lack of experience in foreign affairs – and, more significant, not much money to soldier on. What is more, Mr. McCain has a big lead in delegates coming out of Tuesday night, and under party rules, Mr. Huckabee would have tough job catching up even if he had the money to do so.
The question now for Mr. McCain is how far he needs go now in reaching out to conservatives who have been wary of him – if not flat out opposed to him – given his history on issues like easing immigration restrictions and changing campaign finance laws. Mr. Romney was arguably Mr. McCain’s greatest threat on the right and his greatest impetus for moving right; now that he is gone, some of the motivation for moving right is gone.Mr. McCain, who will address the Conservative Political Action Committee later in the afternoon, has a slightly different task now. He cannot win a general election without having the unambiguous support of conservatives around him – especially going up against a Democratic Party that is so, to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, fired up and ready to go.
But the extent to which he emphasizes conservative positions could complicate his effort to win over the moderate and independent voters who have so long been drawn by Mr. McCain and is one of the reasons why many Democrats view him as the toughest candidate the Republicans have.
As for Mr. Romney, he was a candidate who many Republicans had long thought would in the end emerge as the party’s nominee. The reason for this was obvious to anyone who spent time with him: He was a strong presence on the campaign trail, unusually smart and articulate, and had a command of issues that comes from having spent so much time preparing for this moment.
But Mr. Romney somehow always came across better in person than he did on television, and that cut increasingly against him as the campaign moved on. But Mr. Romney’s change over such key issues as abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights was jarring to people who had watched him as governor in Massachusetts, and even more to Republican voters who began to see clips that illustrated his differing views, thanks to YouTube and Mr. Romney’s opponents.
Altogether, it conveyed an image of inauthenticity that would have been problematic in any election year – but particularly this year, and particularly going against Mr. McCain. That, more than anything else, proved to be the obstacle Mr. Romney could not overcome.
**** **** ***
Em destaque: Os porquês da desistência do candidato Mitt Romney e os desafios propostos a McCain, para angariar os delegados mais conservadores do partido Republicano.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/with-romney-gone-what-will-mccain-do/index.html?hp
If there was ever much doubt that Senator John McCain of Arizona was going to win the Republican presidential nomination after Super Tuesday, it was pretty much eliminated with the decision by Mitt Romney of Massachusetts to drop out the race this afternoon.
Mr. McCain is now left with one serious opponent – Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Mr. Huckabee has proved this year to be an articulate and affable candidate, and his surprise showing in winning a half-dozen Southern states on Tuesday was one reason that Mr. Romney bowed to what was inarguably the inevitable and quit.
But Mr. Huckabee is a candidate with some shortcomings – in particular, his lack of experience in foreign affairs – and, more significant, not much money to soldier on. What is more, Mr. McCain has a big lead in delegates coming out of Tuesday night, and under party rules, Mr. Huckabee would have tough job catching up even if he had the money to do so.
The question now for Mr. McCain is how far he needs go now in reaching out to conservatives who have been wary of him – if not flat out opposed to him – given his history on issues like easing immigration restrictions and changing campaign finance laws. Mr. Romney was arguably Mr. McCain’s greatest threat on the right and his greatest impetus for moving right; now that he is gone, some of the motivation for moving right is gone.Mr. McCain, who will address the Conservative Political Action Committee later in the afternoon, has a slightly different task now. He cannot win a general election without having the unambiguous support of conservatives around him – especially going up against a Democratic Party that is so, to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, fired up and ready to go.
But the extent to which he emphasizes conservative positions could complicate his effort to win over the moderate and independent voters who have so long been drawn by Mr. McCain and is one of the reasons why many Democrats view him as the toughest candidate the Republicans have.
As for Mr. Romney, he was a candidate who many Republicans had long thought would in the end emerge as the party’s nominee. The reason for this was obvious to anyone who spent time with him: He was a strong presence on the campaign trail, unusually smart and articulate, and had a command of issues that comes from having spent so much time preparing for this moment.
But Mr. Romney somehow always came across better in person than he did on television, and that cut increasingly against him as the campaign moved on. But Mr. Romney’s change over such key issues as abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights was jarring to people who had watched him as governor in Massachusetts, and even more to Republican voters who began to see clips that illustrated his differing views, thanks to YouTube and Mr. Romney’s opponents.
Altogether, it conveyed an image of inauthenticity that would have been problematic in any election year – but particularly this year, and particularly going against Mr. McCain. That, more than anything else, proved to be the obstacle Mr. Romney could not overcome.
**** **** ***
Em destaque: Os porquês da desistência do candidato Mitt Romney e os desafios propostos a McCain, para angariar os delegados mais conservadores do partido Republicano.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/with-romney-gone-what-will-mccain-do/index.html?hp
Romney Drops Out of Presidential Race
By JOHN SULLIVAN and MICHAEL LUO
Published: February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who sought to position himself as the true conservative choice for the Republican presidential nomination, announced Thursday afternoon that he had ended his campaign.
Mr. Romney, who had vowed to press on despite disappointing results in the Super Tuesday primary contests, made the announcement at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
In a speech that touched on the messages of his campaign, Mr. Romney said he had come to his decision to help unify the Republican Party, and he charged that Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, would not pursue the war in Iraq.
“Because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to stand aside for our party and our country,” he said.
Mr. Romney had hoped to use Tuesday’s results to narrow the gap between him and his chief rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. Instead, he saw Mr. McCain widen the lead at the same time that Mr. Romney’s campaign lost ground to Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who racked up solid gains.
Speaking before an enthusiastic crowd at the conference, hosted by the American Conservative Union, Mr. Romney said he would have preferred to continue until the Republican convention.
“You are with me all the way to the convention,” he said. “Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976.”
But by fighting to the convention, he said, “I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.”
Mr. Romney faced a series of enormous challenges in the campaign, not the least of which was trying to reconcile the moderate political views he espoused as the governor of Massachusetts, a liberal state, with the more conservative views he championed on the campaign. That tension — and his decision to change positions on a number of emotionally charged issues, including renouncing his past support for abortion rights — led his rivals to continually lambaste him as a flip-flopper.
Then there was the question of his Mormon religion. After the candidacy of Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, took off in Iowa, where it was fueled by evangelical voters, Mr. Romney was moved to give a major speech in Texas defending his faith and denouncing the rise of secularism.
And although Mr. Romney, a former management consultant, ran what many described as a textbook campaign, he never really recovered after failing to execute the original strategy of winning the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and using those wins to build momentum. Iowa went to Mr. Huckabee, and New Hampshire to Mr. McCain, who tried to paint himself as a straight talker to contrast with Mr. Romney’s flexibility.
As the campaign progressed, Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain exchanged increasingly bitter attacks. Mr. Romney charged that Mr. McCain was “outside the mainstream of conservative political thought.” Mr. McCain pointedly noted that Mr. Romney had changed his position on important issues for many conservative Republicans, including as abortion rights and gun control.
But in Thursday’s speech, Mr. Romney emphasized his agreement with Mr. McCain’s position that the United States needed to continue to pursue the war in Iraq. Arguing that the war is a critical part of the country’s battle against terrorism, Mr. Romney said the Democratic candidates “would retreat, declare defeat, and the consequences of that would be devastating.”
*** *** ***
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 07 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: John Sullivan e Michael Luo
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/07cnd-repubs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2008
Support Divided, Top Democrats Trade Victories
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 6, 2008
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama carved up the nation in the 22-state nominating contest on Tuesday, leaving the Democratic presidential nomination more elusive than ever. Mrs. Clinton won California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and her home state, New York, while Mr. Obama took Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and his base in Illinois.
It was a night of drama as millions of Democrats cleaved sharply between two candidates offering them a historic first: The opportunity to nominate a woman or an African-American to lead their party’s effort to reclaim the White House. Yet it was also a night when neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton could decisively lay claim — or even secure an edge — to the nomination, assuring an electoral fight that will unfold for weeks to come.
In remarks to their supporters in Manhattan and Chicago, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama smiled broadly but were relatively low key in their assessments of the night, as if they knew that their state-by-state successes did not add up to the grand prize of Democratic standard-bearer. Both sounded a little tired at times, already exhausted by campaigning and fund-raising, with only more of both ahead.
The wild race from the East Coast to the Pacific began with the first results in Georgia, then Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton traded victories about every 30 minutes. Preliminary vote figures in multiple states were close enough to spike adrenaline in the two camps as each sought an edge.
And throughout the night, uncertainty about the biggest delegate prize, California, vexed both campaigns. Early Wednesday, however, Mrs. Clinton solidified her lead there, providing a huge morale boost to her team from a state that has long been a cornerstone of successful Democratic campaigns.
Missouri proved to be another story. Historically a presidential bellwether, the state was almost evenly split between the two Democrats at 1 a.m. Wednesday, with Mr. Obama leading by half of a percentage point.
Before California and Missouri were counted, an analysis by The Associated Press based on incomplete vote totals showed that Mrs. Clinton had won 166 delegates and Mr. Obama had won 146 at stake Tuesday. All told, Mrs. Clinton had 479 delegates and Mr. Obama had 386. Those figures are likely to change as the vote tallies are completed and delegates are awarded under complicated rules that vary from state to state.
The results and exit polls showed formidable strengths for each candidate, with Mr. Obama gaining appeal with white voters — particularly white men — and Mrs. Clinton solidifying her support among Hispanics. Mrs. Clinton won Democratic primaries in states that her party rarely carries in a general election, like Arkansas — where she served as first lady — as well as Oklahoma and Tennessee.
“Tonight we are hearing the voices of people across America — people of all ages, of all colors, of all faiths, of all walks of life,” a broadly smiling Mrs. Clinton told supporters in Manhattan just before 11 p.m. “Tonight, in record numbers, you voted not just to make history, but to remake America.”
Mr. Obama, who appeared to be building momentum in recent days, held wide leads in states like Minnesota, and ran close behind her in states like New Jersey. That left him poised to pick up a hefty number of delegates, even in some states that Mrs. Clinton won.
“There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come,” Mr. Obama said to cheers at a party in Chicago. “Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.”
Because most states gave nominating delegates to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama based on vote proportions, as opposed to winner take all, the two campaigns were predicting on Tuesday that neither candidate would have a blowout lead, setting up an intensifying race as Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Ohio and Texas hold nominating contests over the next four weeks.
A total of 1,678 pledged delegates were at stake in the 22 state contests on Tuesday, with 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination
Exit polls showed Mr. Obama winning a majority of men in many of the states — in some places by substantial margins — and doing particularly well among white men, blacks and young people. The polls showed three primary bases of support for Mrs. Clinton: women, Hispanics and older voters.
As polls closed in the East and Midwest, Clinton advisers were initially worried about New Jersey, where Mrs. Clinton had endorsements from Gov. Jon Corzine and Senator Robert Menendez, and recognition for her work after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in neighboring New York. While she was drawing votes from 60 percent of white and Hispanic Democrats, Mr. Obama had more than 80 percent of black votes. But as returns came in, she solidified a lead.
Mr. Obama convincingly won Georgia, with exit polls indicating that his support transcended racial lines by an even greater margin than in South Carolina, his earlier Southern primary victory.
More than half of Democratic voters in Georgia were black, and they strongly supported Mr. Obama, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press. Mr. Obama also received more than 4 in 10 votes from white Democrats, winning about half of white men and 40 percent of white women.
Mr. Obama also carried Alabama, Colorado, Delaware and Idaho. In Illinois, his home state (though he was born in Honolulu and Mrs. Clinton in Chicago), he won 70 percent of men overall and two-thirds of both women overall and white men. His weakest showing was among older voters, with only half of them supporting him. He was strongly supported across income and education backgrounds.
The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, portrayed Massachusetts as an upset victory in an e-mail statement Tuesday night, noting that Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick had endorsed Mr. Obama, who campaigned there on Monday. (Mrs. Clinton visited there twice and enjoyed a reservoir of support for her and her husband.)
“This is a strong victory and shows that Hillary Clinton has strength in places where Barack Obama was expected to win,” the Clinton statement said.
Exit polls showed that Mrs. Clinton continued to enjoy the same solid support from Hispanic voters that fueled her victory in the Nevada caucuses in mid-January. Exits polls indicated that she was receiving a majority of the Hispanic vote in all states, with Arizona being close. While most groups went for Mr. Obama in Illinois, Mrs. Clinton won about 55 percent of Hispanic women.
Among Democrats voting on Tuesday, a majority said that they were most concerned about the economy, outpacing those worried about the Iraq war or health care. Nine out of 10 Democratic voters said the economy was in bad shape.
A majority of Democrats in most states said they believed that Mrs. Clinton was best suited to be commander in chief, while Mr. Obama had a similar edge among Democrats regarding who was more likely to unite the country.
Mr. Obama was receiving at least half of the votes from white men in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, and Illinois, and he received 4 in 10 in Missouri, New York and New Jersey. But Mrs. Clinton appeared to have an edge in the delegate-rich state of Missouri late Tuesday.
He also won a majority of voters under 30 in most of the states. Similarly, Mrs. Clinton received most of the votes from people over 65.
For months now, the Obama and Clinton campaigns have viewed Tuesday as a decisive moment in the presidential race. When Mrs. Clinton lost the first nominating contest, in Iowa, she and her advisers noted that the 45 delegates at stake there were a mere fraction of the delegates at stake in the state contests on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama and his aides made similar remarks after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada, and both he and Mrs. Clinton increasingly spoke of the nomination fight as a two-way battle for delegates, pure and simple.
Mrs. Clinton underscored this viewpoint by campaigning in California and Arizona, two states that voted Tuesday, in the week before the South Carolina primary — signaling, in effect, that her strategy was much more focused on winning contests on Tuesday than on South Carolina, which Mr. Obama ended up winning in a rout.
Over the last week, however, public and private opinion polls have showed tightening races in states where Mrs. Clinton had held substantial leads, including Massachusetts and New Jersey (where a combined total of 200 delegates were at stake) and California, which had 370 delegates.
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
*** *** ***
Sobre a Super Terça para os candidatos democratas
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 06 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/us/politics/06delect.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Published: February 6, 2008
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama carved up the nation in the 22-state nominating contest on Tuesday, leaving the Democratic presidential nomination more elusive than ever. Mrs. Clinton won California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and her home state, New York, while Mr. Obama took Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and his base in Illinois.
It was a night of drama as millions of Democrats cleaved sharply between two candidates offering them a historic first: The opportunity to nominate a woman or an African-American to lead their party’s effort to reclaim the White House. Yet it was also a night when neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton could decisively lay claim — or even secure an edge — to the nomination, assuring an electoral fight that will unfold for weeks to come.
In remarks to their supporters in Manhattan and Chicago, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama smiled broadly but were relatively low key in their assessments of the night, as if they knew that their state-by-state successes did not add up to the grand prize of Democratic standard-bearer. Both sounded a little tired at times, already exhausted by campaigning and fund-raising, with only more of both ahead.
The wild race from the East Coast to the Pacific began with the first results in Georgia, then Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton traded victories about every 30 minutes. Preliminary vote figures in multiple states were close enough to spike adrenaline in the two camps as each sought an edge.
And throughout the night, uncertainty about the biggest delegate prize, California, vexed both campaigns. Early Wednesday, however, Mrs. Clinton solidified her lead there, providing a huge morale boost to her team from a state that has long been a cornerstone of successful Democratic campaigns.
Missouri proved to be another story. Historically a presidential bellwether, the state was almost evenly split between the two Democrats at 1 a.m. Wednesday, with Mr. Obama leading by half of a percentage point.
Before California and Missouri were counted, an analysis by The Associated Press based on incomplete vote totals showed that Mrs. Clinton had won 166 delegates and Mr. Obama had won 146 at stake Tuesday. All told, Mrs. Clinton had 479 delegates and Mr. Obama had 386. Those figures are likely to change as the vote tallies are completed and delegates are awarded under complicated rules that vary from state to state.
The results and exit polls showed formidable strengths for each candidate, with Mr. Obama gaining appeal with white voters — particularly white men — and Mrs. Clinton solidifying her support among Hispanics. Mrs. Clinton won Democratic primaries in states that her party rarely carries in a general election, like Arkansas — where she served as first lady — as well as Oklahoma and Tennessee.
“Tonight we are hearing the voices of people across America — people of all ages, of all colors, of all faiths, of all walks of life,” a broadly smiling Mrs. Clinton told supporters in Manhattan just before 11 p.m. “Tonight, in record numbers, you voted not just to make history, but to remake America.”
Mr. Obama, who appeared to be building momentum in recent days, held wide leads in states like Minnesota, and ran close behind her in states like New Jersey. That left him poised to pick up a hefty number of delegates, even in some states that Mrs. Clinton won.
“There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come,” Mr. Obama said to cheers at a party in Chicago. “Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.”
Because most states gave nominating delegates to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama based on vote proportions, as opposed to winner take all, the two campaigns were predicting on Tuesday that neither candidate would have a blowout lead, setting up an intensifying race as Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Ohio and Texas hold nominating contests over the next four weeks.
A total of 1,678 pledged delegates were at stake in the 22 state contests on Tuesday, with 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination
Exit polls showed Mr. Obama winning a majority of men in many of the states — in some places by substantial margins — and doing particularly well among white men, blacks and young people. The polls showed three primary bases of support for Mrs. Clinton: women, Hispanics and older voters.
As polls closed in the East and Midwest, Clinton advisers were initially worried about New Jersey, where Mrs. Clinton had endorsements from Gov. Jon Corzine and Senator Robert Menendez, and recognition for her work after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in neighboring New York. While she was drawing votes from 60 percent of white and Hispanic Democrats, Mr. Obama had more than 80 percent of black votes. But as returns came in, she solidified a lead.
Mr. Obama convincingly won Georgia, with exit polls indicating that his support transcended racial lines by an even greater margin than in South Carolina, his earlier Southern primary victory.
More than half of Democratic voters in Georgia were black, and they strongly supported Mr. Obama, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press. Mr. Obama also received more than 4 in 10 votes from white Democrats, winning about half of white men and 40 percent of white women.
Mr. Obama also carried Alabama, Colorado, Delaware and Idaho. In Illinois, his home state (though he was born in Honolulu and Mrs. Clinton in Chicago), he won 70 percent of men overall and two-thirds of both women overall and white men. His weakest showing was among older voters, with only half of them supporting him. He was strongly supported across income and education backgrounds.
The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, portrayed Massachusetts as an upset victory in an e-mail statement Tuesday night, noting that Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick had endorsed Mr. Obama, who campaigned there on Monday. (Mrs. Clinton visited there twice and enjoyed a reservoir of support for her and her husband.)
“This is a strong victory and shows that Hillary Clinton has strength in places where Barack Obama was expected to win,” the Clinton statement said.
Exit polls showed that Mrs. Clinton continued to enjoy the same solid support from Hispanic voters that fueled her victory in the Nevada caucuses in mid-January. Exits polls indicated that she was receiving a majority of the Hispanic vote in all states, with Arizona being close. While most groups went for Mr. Obama in Illinois, Mrs. Clinton won about 55 percent of Hispanic women.
Among Democrats voting on Tuesday, a majority said that they were most concerned about the economy, outpacing those worried about the Iraq war or health care. Nine out of 10 Democratic voters said the economy was in bad shape.
A majority of Democrats in most states said they believed that Mrs. Clinton was best suited to be commander in chief, while Mr. Obama had a similar edge among Democrats regarding who was more likely to unite the country.
Mr. Obama was receiving at least half of the votes from white men in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, and Illinois, and he received 4 in 10 in Missouri, New York and New Jersey. But Mrs. Clinton appeared to have an edge in the delegate-rich state of Missouri late Tuesday.
He also won a majority of voters under 30 in most of the states. Similarly, Mrs. Clinton received most of the votes from people over 65.
For months now, the Obama and Clinton campaigns have viewed Tuesday as a decisive moment in the presidential race. When Mrs. Clinton lost the first nominating contest, in Iowa, she and her advisers noted that the 45 delegates at stake there were a mere fraction of the delegates at stake in the state contests on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama and his aides made similar remarks after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada, and both he and Mrs. Clinton increasingly spoke of the nomination fight as a two-way battle for delegates, pure and simple.
Mrs. Clinton underscored this viewpoint by campaigning in California and Arizona, two states that voted Tuesday, in the week before the South Carolina primary — signaling, in effect, that her strategy was much more focused on winning contests on Tuesday than on South Carolina, which Mr. Obama ended up winning in a rout.
Over the last week, however, public and private opinion polls have showed tightening races in states where Mrs. Clinton had held substantial leads, including Massachusetts and New Jersey (where a combined total of 200 delegates were at stake) and California, which had 370 delegates.
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
*** *** ***
Sobre a Super Terça para os candidatos democratas
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 06 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/us/politics/06delect.html?pagewanted=1&hp
segunda-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2008
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)