Republican Presidential Candidates

[Ronnie Hayek]

Pas étonnant qu'elle fasse la gueule: CNN expliquait que tous les candidats démocrates avaient gagné soit l'Iowa, soit le NH, sauf Clinton '92 et le candidat de '72.

Comme en plus elle n'a pas perdu de peu, j'imagine la pression dans le clan Clinton.

Attendez vous à voir sortir des histoires pas jolies jolies sur Obama ou Edwards d'un moment à l'autre.

Ce n'est surtout pas étonnant compte tenu de son caractère autoritaire. C'est typiquement la femme politique qui estime qu'une victoire lui est due. Tout revers lui paraît dès lors une injustice.

C'est le moment d'enfoncer le clou en rappelant ces articles jubilatoires et dévastateurs du vieux Murray datant d'il y a bien longtemps, mais toujours savoureux et instructifs. Enjoy !

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard140.html

The Menace of the Religious Left

by Murray N. Rothbard

A menace to America and even to the rest of the world, not only of our time but of the last few centuries, is the deadly threat of the "Religious Left," a left which began, in the Middle Ages and even earlier, as a hellish Christian heresy, and by now can only be considered "Christian" in the most remote and twisted sense. This menace, which reached its most influential early form in the views of the charismatic and highly influential late-twelfth century Calabrian Abbot, Joachim of Fiore, is "postmillennial": that is, it struggles to bring about, either immediately or as quickly as possible, a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth, a "perfect" and sinless world, a world which would be Communist, collectivist, and egalitarian, although that "equality" would be supposedly assured by the totalitarian rule of a cadre or vanguard of "saints," presided over by a self-proclaimed Messiah or proto-Messiah, whose reign would supply the pre-conditions for the eventual Second Advent of Jesus Christ. Private property would be stamped out, and all "heretics," that is, any dissenters from this messianic rule, would be slaughtered.

After Joachim, there came waves of these heretics, including the Amaurians, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, and the left-wing of the Czech Hussite Revolution. But before the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was able to contain this plague successfully. Say what you will about the Reformation, even Martin Luther came to acknowledge that he had opened Pandora's Box, that he had unleashed, perhaps forever, the furies and crazies of fanaticism and horror.

In 1520, young Thomas Muntzer, a Lutheran pastor in southern Germany, unleashed upon Western Europe the scourge of what came to be known as Anabaptism: the imposition by force and terror of an alleged Kingdom of God on Earth, with a cadre of rulers, headed by himself, communizing all persons and property and killing all "heretics" who might dissent from his rule. For a brief but frenzied fifteen-year period, there was a real danger of Germany and Holland falling sway to groups of Anabaptist fanatics. Fortunately, when Muntzer urged Luther to join him in this messianic crusade, arrived at by alleged divine revelation, Luther immediately saw the deadly danger; at the end, the Anabaptist movement was crushed by an alliance of Catholic and Lutheran princes.

Movements can be stamped out, but ideas, good or bad, often keep marching on, and the same was true of the idea of imposing a totalitarian Kingdom. In troubled times, the idea popped to the surface: among the Familists, the Diggers, the Ranters, and the Fifth Monarch Men during the English Civil War of the Seventeenth Century; and before and during the French Revolution. By the early and mid-nineteenth century, the main carrier of a Communist Kingdom was the burgeoning "socialist" or "Communist" movement in Europe. (In those days, before the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the two concepts were considered by all adherents to be identical.) What is little realized today is that at the time of the flourishing of Karl Marx as a socialist-Communist leader, at least half of the Communist movement was heretically Christian, the other half following Marx's atheized version of the search for an apocalyptic and secular Kingdom. The victory for Marx's atheist version was not preordained; it was touch and go, until Marx's superior organizing ability and the dispersals following the failed revolutions of 1848 led to the complete triumph of Marxian atheism within the socialist-Communist movement.

Indeed, the Marxist Communist utopia is virtually a replica of sixteenth-century Anabaptism: once again, private property is stamped out, all resources – and people – are owned in common by a cadre of "saints," a vanguard headed by a messianic leader, and all dissent to this collective organism is crushed. Marx's theoretical problem was that since he could not rely on God, Providence, or some mystical force to bring about the allegedly inevitable Kingdom, he had to seek out "material forces" – the class struggle, productive forces, the "dialectic" of history – to constitute the inevitable engine of social change.

But the idea of messianic, Christian Communism never disappeared, and during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries it showed up in various forms: as Christian Socialism, the Social Gospel, and other variants of left-wing Christians and Christian leftists. Perhaps most fascinating and most blatant was the widely beloved East German Stalinist Ernst Bloch, whose widely known three-volume The Principle of Hope was translated into English in the late 1980s. Early in his lengthy career, Bloch – in common with many other Marxists – wrote a laudatory study of Thomas Muntzer, whom he hailed as magical or "theurgic." The inner "truth" of things, wrote Bloch, will only be discovered after a "complete transformation of the universe, a grand apocalypse, the descent of the Messiah, a new heaven and a new earth." For Bloch, mystical ecstasies and the worship of Lenin and Stalin went hand in hand. Thus, Bloch's culminating work, The Principle of Hope, contains such remarkable assertions as: "Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem" ["Where Lenin is, there is Jerusalem"] and that "the Bolshevist fulfillment of Communism" is part of the "age-old fight for God."

How is all this seemingly bizarre stuff relevant to the present day? My contention is that, bizarre and weird and horrifying as all this may be, we are not dealing merely with erratic oddballs or with irrelevant history. My contention, ever since the Clintonian Democrat convention in New York in 1992, is that the Clintonian movement is not "centrist," or simply erratic, confused, or evasive, but that it is in essence a dedicated movement of the "Christian" or religious left. It is an attempt to impose, not immediately as in the case of Muntzer or Lenin, but over a period of years, and as quickly as politically possible, a Kingdom of God on Earth, at least in the United States. The horrifying New York convention had very definite religious and even messianic overtones. The Kingdom, of course, is not the orthodox Christian Kingdom: it is collectivist, egalitarian, multicultural, and "multi-gendered"; it deliberately overthrows and "transvalues" our entire structure of traditional or "bourgeois" Christian values and principles.

It might be thought that one crucial difference between the current left and the medieval or post-Reformation heretical Christian left is that the current movement of course trumpets the glories and even the superior morality of various sexual what used to be called "perversions," but are now worthy and even morally superior "alternative families" or "alternative lifestyles." But that isn't new either. The Anabaptists, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, and the rest were aggressive "antinomians," that is, claiming to be saintly, quasi-divine or even divine and therefore without sin, they believed in publicly demonstrating and even flaunting their alleged sinlessness by committing all manner of sins imaginable, including adultery, theft, and murder. The Clintonians have nothing on these older "Christian" movements.

The Clinton Inaugural was, of course, a horrifying display of a neopagan, multicultural, New Age religious left at work, a fact, which was only discerned by the liberal but highly perceptive New York humorist Fran Lebowitz, who struck a delightfully sour note, saying that even watching the Inaugural orgy of religious leftism on television had driven her to "a new planet of fury." Then, in the crucial early months of the Clinton administration, Michael Kelly wrote an insightful and quickly famous article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (May 23, 1993), entitled "Saint Hillary," replete with a painting of Hillary on the front cover dressed as Joan of Arc, significantly wearing a sword but not a cross. After a lengthy and discerning interview with Hillary, the article, which was carefully neutral in tone but all the more effective, pointed out that Hillary thought of herself as leading the charge for "something on the order of a Reformation: the remaking of the American way of politics, government, indeed life." Hillary, the article explained, had set out "to make things right," to "make the world a better place," to install a "politics of virtue" or "politics of meaning."

Hillary was converted to her current grandiose stance, first by her hometown Methodist preacher, who introduced her to "alienation," the Social Gospel and Paul Tillich, and then to the admonition of that other trendy left Protestant theologian of our century, Reinhold Niebuhr, that we must never be reluctant to wield Power in the service of The Good. An admonition that the power-mad Hillary took to as a duck takes to water. Hillary's most recent guru, of course, is the socialistic pro-war (Gulf War that is) peacenik, Michael Lerner, editor of the pretentious glossy magazine Tikkun and notorious coiner of the phrase "the politics of meaning."

Armed with an all-encompassing ideology, and with what many interviewers have noted as her arrogance and complete self-assurance and self-righteousness, Hillary was now ready to wield total Power in the service of her own hellish conception of The Good.

It was reported that Hillary and her camp in the White House were furious at the Kelly article and its important revelations, and since then she has said not a word about the importance of remaking all of America by wielding State power. But the goal and the means are, unfortunately, still there.

And Slick Willie, too, Hillary's co-president and ideological puppet, underlying his continuing stream of lies, evasions, and tactical changes to front, is deeply committed to the very same goal. Considering his rotten character, does the Slick One's commitment to anything seem improbable? But consider two points. First, each and every one of his programs, regardless of attractiveness of label, whether it be "crime" or "welfare reform," is designed to increase the power of the State, that is, the federal government, and to diminish the liberties and the property rights of every American.

And finally, ponder this: Remember that weekend in August when Willie began his frantic and febrile, but unfortunately successful, drive to reverse his House defeat on the crime bill? He gave a speech in Maryland before the grandiosely named Full Gospel African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. What the media reported Clinton to proclaim was odious and blasphemous enough: that "God wants us to pass the crime bill," and that his, Clinton's "ministry" (?!) was devoted to that task. But he said something else in that speech, of far greater purport, that received almost no publicity. He said that the goal of his "ministry" was to bring about no less than the "Kingdom of God on Earth"! Yes, he said it, he actually said it! Now I have no idea how Clinton's "parishioners" reacted to this phrase, or what the almost uniformly secular media people thought they were hearing. Maybe they thought they were merely hearing a grandiloquent metaphor for improving society.

But we know what he said, and it is our business to inform America of its import before it is too late. We know that William Jefferson Blythe "Clinton" IV, that Monster in the White House, was at last revealing, perhaps in a typical moment of unguarded vainglory and exuberance, the cloven hoof, the face of pure evil, the unholy mission of himself and his Lady Macbeth. We know the truly diabolic nature of the Kingdom that the Clintons are trying to put over on an unsuspecting America.

And still the liberal media wonder: Why do so many people hate this charming and wonderful couple and with such intensity.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard139.html

Saint Hillary and the Religious Left

by Murray N. Rothbard

For some time I have been hammering at the theme that the main cultural and political problem of our time is not "secular humanism." The problem with making secularism the central focus of opposition is that, by itself, secularism would totally lack the fanaticism, the demonic energy, the continuing and permanent drive to take over and remake the culture and the society, that has marked the left for two centuries. Logically, one would expect a secular humanist to be a passive skeptic, ready to adapt to almost any existing state of affairs; David Hume, for example, a philosophic disaster but quietly benign in social and political matters, would seem to be typical. Hardly a political and cultural menace.

No: the hallmark and the fanatical drive of the left for these past centuries has been in devoting tireless energy to bringing about, as rapidly as they can, their own egalitarian, collectivist version of a Kingdom of God on Earth. In short, this truly monstrous movement is what might be called "left-post-millennialist." It is messianic and post-millennialist because Man, not Christ or Providence, is supposed to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth (KGE), that is, in the Christian version, that Christ is only supposed to return to earth after Man has established the 1,000-year KGE. It is leftist because in this version, the KGE is egalitarian and collectivist, with private property stamped out, and the world being run by a cadre or vanguard of Saints.

During the 1820s, the Protestant churches in the Northern states of the U.S. were taken over by a wave of post-millennial fanatics determined to impose on local, state, and federal governments, and even throughout the world, their own version of a theocratic statist KGE. A "Yankee" ethnocultural group had originated in New England, and had migrated to settle the northern areas of New York and the Middle-Western states. The Yankees were driven by the fanatical conviction that they themselves could not achieve salvation unless they did their best to maximize everyone else's: which meant, among other features, to devote their energies to instituting the sinless society of the KGE.

These newly mainstream Yankee Protestant churches were always statist, but the major emphasis in the early decades was the stamping out of "sin," sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment. By the later years of the nineteenth century, however, economic collectivism received increasing attention by these left millennialist Protestants, and strictly theological and Christological concerns gradually faded away, culminating in the explicitly socialistic Social Gospel movement in all the Protestant churches. While every one of the Yankee Protestant denominations was infected and dominated by left millennialism, this heresy prevailed almost totally in the Methodist Church.

SAINT HILLARY

Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God's alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his "ministry" is to bring about "the Kingdom of God on earth." That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton's remarkable statement went unreported.

But, as we all know, it is Hillary, not Slick Willie, who is the hard-core ideologue in the White House. Hillary's theological agenda was perceptively unveiled recently by the knowledgeable, if admiring and liberal, Kenneth L. Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek. (Kenneth L. Woodward, "Soulful Matters," Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) pp. 23–25) In a lengthy exclusive interview with Hillary, Woodward reports that our Lady Macbeth simply considers herself "an old-fashioned Methodist."

Hillary's pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary's family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of "social reform"; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones "developed his privileged suburban students' social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers' children."

The most important passage in Woodward's article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: "More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

Only a few brush-strokes are needed to complete the picture. The Rev. Jones, a frequent visitor to the White House, but who seems at least to have a sense of humor and perspective that the arrogant and self-righteous Hillary totally lacks, puts it this way: Even today, says Rev. Jones, "when Hillary talks it sounds like it comes out of a Methodist Sunday-school lesson." And: "Hillary views the world through a Methodist lens. And we Methodists knew what's good for you."

Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old-fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.

(En comparaison de Rothbard, je ressemble à un réac invertébré.)

[Ronnie Hayek]

Un nouvel avatar pour Apollon.

[melodius]

(En comparaison de Rothbard, je ressemble à un réac invertébré.)

Mais puisqu'on te dit qu'il était un prog dur de dur !

[POE]

Je trouve qu'Huckabee a un peu la tête de Nixon, c'est mauvais signe…

[Harald]

Je trouve qu'Huckabee a un peu la tête de Nixon, c'est mauvais signe…

Oui, mais il ne peut pas perdre, Walker veille sur lui.

[John Loque]

Quelqu'un a le détail du vote Ron Paul par tranches d'âge ? Ca serait intéressant pour l'avenir de connaître son résultat chez les jeunes.

[Ash]

Je trouve qu'Huckabee a un peu la tête de Nixon, c'est mauvais signe…

Huckabee est franchement quelconque. En plus le coup du candidat très chrétien c'est rien d'original.

[Jeeves]

Huckabee est franchement quelconque. En plus le coup du candidat très chrétien c'est rien d'original.

Quelqu'un peut-il décrire brièvement les principales positions de Huckabee et Romney svp?

[melodius]

Socialement conservateurs, économiquement protectionnistes. Aucune différence substantielle entre les deux, Romney est juste beaucoup plus rond et poli que le pasteur sudiste.

Mais l'un est donc évangélique, tandis que l'autre est mormon. D'où l'avantage à l'évangélique, vu que la droite chrétienne considère que les Mormons ne sont pas chrétiens.

[Nick de Cusa]

Ils se disent chrétiens mais ils ont un autre livre, qui vient au dessus des évangiles alors que les évangéliques (justement) non.

[Roniberal]

La victoire de Huckabee par contre est une mauvaise nouvelle pour les républicains, puisqu'il est inéligible dans des états moins conservateurs que l'Iowa. Le parti républicain est, en d'autres termes, profondément divisé.

Mais est-ce réellement une mauvaise nouvelle?

Les divisions actuelles permettront à Ron Paul de tirer peut-être son épingle du jeu. Et c'est vrai que bien malin est celui qui pourra dire, avec certitude, qui remportera les primaires.

Apparemment, Romney est abattu…

Aucune différence substantielle entre les deux, Romney est juste beaucoup plus rond et poli que le pasteur sudiste.

Je préfère quand même Romney à Huckabee.

Sinon, Romney n'est pas protectionniste, au contraire, il est un des candidats républicains les plus favorables au libre-échange.

[Apollon]

Un nouvel avatar pour Apollon.

Je tire mon chapeau à Ron Paul et ne change pas un iota à mes prédictions : Ron Paul est un candidat anti-système et comme tel ne pourra jamais réellement décoller. En revanche il divisera encore plus son camp de sorte que HClinton, derrière laquelle les démocrates se réuniront ultimement, gagnera la présidence.

Qui d'autre veut parier ?

[melodius]

Ronibéral : http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/…_energy_policy/

[Ronnie Hayek]

Je tire mon chapeau à Ron Paul et ne change pas un iota à mes prédictions : Ron Paul est un candidat anti-système et comme tel ne pourra jamais réellement décoller. En revanche il divisera encore plus son camp de sorte que HClinton, derrière laquelle les démocrates se réuniront ultimement, gagnera la présidence.

Qui d'autre veut parier ?

Que R. Paul n'emporte pas l'investiture in fine, cela semble difficilement contestable. Mais qu'est-ce qui te fait dire que Ségolène Rodham réunira le gros des troupes démocrates autour de sa candidature ?

[melodius]

Je tire mon chapeau à Ron Paul et ne change pas un iota à mes prédictions : Ron Paul est un candidat anti-système et comme tel ne pourra jamais réellement décoller. En revanche il divisera encore plus son camp de sorte que HClinton, derrière laquelle les démocrates se réuniront ultimement, gagnera la présidence.

Qui d'autre veut parier ?

Pour ma part je crois que, sauf événements imprévisibles, le prochain POUS sera un black.

[Apollon]

Que R. Paul n'emporte pas l'investiture in fine, cela semble difficilement contestable. Mais qu'est-ce qui te fait dire que Ségolène Rodham réunira le gros des troupes démocrates autour de sa candidature ?

Pour ma part je crois que, sauf événements imprévisibles, le prochain POUS sera un black.

Deux choses :

* Personne n'aime les favoris. Les électeurs veulent sentir qu'ils ont le choix, être courtisés etc. En face de Clinton, Obama et Edwards avaient fait comprendre que perdre l'Iowa compromettrait leurs chances pour la suite. Donc elle a perdu cette bataille mais désormais HC n'a plus le fardeau de favorite et la tendance "sécuriser la présidentielle" va pleinement s'exprimer.

* Il faut avoir souffert pour être président. Les Américains vont adorer relever une Hillary Clinton humiliée mais qui en veut.

Donc, à part un phénomène Lipietz, c'est elle qui sera désignée.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Deux choses :

* Personne n'aime les favoris. Les électeurs veulent sentir qu'ils ont le choix, être courtisés etc. En face de Clinton, Obama et Edwards avaient fait comprendre que perdre l'Iowa compromettrait leurs chances pour la suite. Donc elle a perdu cette bataille mais désormais HC n'a plus le fardeau de favorite et la tendance "sécuriser la présidentielle" va pleinement s'exprimer.

* Il faut avoir souffert pour être président. Les Américains vont adorer relever une Hillary Clinton humiliée mais qui en veut.

Donc, à part un phénomène Lipietz, c'est elle qui sera désignée.

- "Personne n'aime les favoris"… sauf ceux qui optent pour eux. C'est un truisme, certes, mais qui doit être rappelé. Pour le reste, que Clinton mette le paquet pour reprendre la première place, c'est certain. Y arrivera-t-elle pour autant ? Je n'en sais rien.

- Cela fait un peu "Femme actuelle" comme remarque, non ?

[Apollon]

- "Personne n'aime les favoris"… sauf ceux qui optent pour eux. C'est un truisme, certes, mais qui doit être rappelé. Pour le reste, que Clinton mette le paquet pour reprendre la première place, c'est certain. Y arrivera-t-elle pour autant ? Je n'en sais rien.

- Cela fait un peu "Femme actuelle" comme remarque, non ?

- A-t-elle vraiment besoin de mettre le paquet ? Pour ce caucus, c'était ses adversaires qui avaient mis la dose, insistant sur le fait que si HC remportait l'Iowa c'était fini. Très bonne tactique.

- Je tente une autre formulation : un politicien accompli doit avoir sa "traversée du désert", son moment de doute, de difficulté.

Je remarque quand même que j'ai oublié de prendre en compte un élément : la division des Républicains accroit les chances de victoire du candidat démocrate mais en même temps j'ai oublié que ces divisions accroissent la marge de maneuvre des démocrates dans le choix de leur candidat. Vu qu'à l'heure actelle les républicains courent au suicide, les démocrates peuvent se permettre de se la jouer anti-establishment.

Ce n'est pas bon pour les libéraux : les candidats mainstream vont courtiser les extrêmes. Tournant prévisible de HC sur sa gauche.

[melodius]

Tu es totalement à côté de la plaque. D'abord, du côté démocrate, l'électorat est beaucoup plus homogène que du côté républicain. L'Iowa est donc un bon test pour les démocrates mais pas pour les républicains. Le gros avantage de HC c'est que, si personne ne l'aime, tout le monde la croit compétente et donc éligible, pour autant évidemment qu'elle parvient à maintenir un aura d'inévitabilité. On ne choisit pas HC, on s'y résigne. Mais avec un Kennedy black qui se pointe la donne change, d'autant que HC est ultra-détestée et a un sex-appeal nul pour les indépendants, voire les républicains déçus par leur candidat - et il y en aura beaucoup dans tous les cas de figure. A mon avis, le candidat démocrate ne pèchera pas à gauche, mais au centre.

[Apollon]

Tu es totalement à côté de la plaque. D'abord, du côté démocrate, l'électorat est beaucoup plus homogène que du côté républicain. L'Iowa est donc un bon test pour les démocrates mais pas pour les républicains. Le gros avantage de HC c'est que, si personne ne l'aime, tout le monde la croit compétente et donc éligible, pour autant évidemment qu'elle parvient à maintenir un aura d'inévitabilité. On ne choisit pas HC, on s'y résigne. Mais avec un Kennedy black qui se pointe la donne change, d'autant que HC est ultra-détestée et a un sex-appeal nul pour les indépendants, voire les républicains déçus par leur candidat - et il y en aura beaucoup. A mon avis, le candidat démocrate ne pèchera pas à gauche, mais au centre.

Possible On verra quelle interprétation sera conforme aux faits.

[Roniberal]

Ce n'est pas bon pour les libéraux : les candidats mainstream vont courtiser les extrêmes.

Hillary Clinton est, sans doute, la candidate la plus à gauche de son parti surtout depuis que Joe Biden a annoncé son retrait de la campagne.

Aujourd'hui, il ne reste plus que 5 candidats démocrates et demi: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson et Mike Gravel (dont il se pourrait qu'il se retire très rapidement). Et la moins "modérée" est justement la favorite…

[Nick de Cusa]

Pour ma part je crois que, sauf événements imprévisibles, le prochain POUS sera un black.

The Atlantic a écrit que ça règlerait plein de problèmes parce qu'il n'a pas voté pour la guerre et que… sa couleur de peau lui donne un aspect moins antipathique pour la plupart des habitants de la planète* (ça n'était pas écrit comme ça mais c'est ça que ça disait).

*: Si on utilisait un tel argument dans l'autre sens…

[Ronnie Hayek]

Oui, mais il ne peut pas perdre, Walker veille sur lui.

Sacré

:

[Apollon]

Hillary Clinton est, sans doute, la candidate la plus à gauche de son parti surtout depuis que Joe Biden a annoncé son retrait de la campagne.

Aujourd'hui, il ne reste plus que 5 candidats démocrates et demi: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson et Mike Gravel (dont il se pourrait qu'il se retire très rapidement). Et la moins "modérée" est justement la favorite…

Edwards serait donc moins à gauche que Clinton…

[Rincevent]

Je rappelle que Clinton est à peu près la moins à gauche chez les démocrates : il n'y a guère que son caractère "un peu dur" qui la fait passer pour extrémiste.

[Toast]

Je rappelle que Clinton est à peu près la moins à gauche chez les démocrates : il n'y a guère que son caractère "un peu dur" qui la fait passer pour extrémiste.

Il me semble bien qu'elle fait partie de l'aile droite du parti.

[melodius]

Hillary a commencé à l'EG mais dans sa quête du pouvoir elle a évolué, sincèrement ou non, vers le centre. Elle me semble plus à droite que les autres candidats dems, en effet.

Je crois par ailleurs qu'il ne faut sous-estimer la révulsion qu'elle inspire à nombre d'Américains, au moins autant que W en fait. Obama par contre est un rassembleur. S'il remporte encore quelques caucus, à mon avis il sera impossible à stopper, sauf incidents majeurs. Je croyais que Hillary l'emporterait il y a quelques semaines encore, mais j'ai visiblement cru l'électeur américains plus cynique qu'il ne l'est réellement.

The Atlantic a écrit que ça règlerait plein de problèmes parce qu'il n'a pas voté pour la guerre et que… sa couleur de peau lui donne un aspect moins antipathique pour la plupart des habitants de la planète* (ça n'était pas écrit comme ça mais c'est ça que ça disait).

*: Si on utilisait un tel argument dans l'autre sens…

C'est-à-dire qu'un type à moitié africain qui devient POUS, c'est en quelque sorte l'American Dream fait chair.

[Apollon]

Je crois par ailleurs qu'il ne faut sous-estimer la révulsion qu'elle inspire à nombre d'Américains, au moins autant que W en fait. Obama par contre est un rassembleur. S'il remporte encore quelques caucus, à mon avis il sera impossible à stopper, sauf incidents majeurs. Je croyais que Hillary l'emporterait il y a quelques semaines encore, mais j'ai visiblement cru l'électeur américains plus cynique qu'il ne l'est réellement.

Il est nouveau, il rassemble, il a du charisme, il n'aime pas l'establishment : il fera un excellent président en 2017 et un bon vice en attendant. Avoir grillé autant pour l'Iowa, est-ce que ça ne montre pas paradoxalement qu'il vise le poste n°2 avec option sur le 1er ?

[melodius]

Euh… non.

[Apollon]

Euh… non.

Tu paries ?