Elections US 2008

[roubachov]

Puisqu'on parle plus haut de l'histoire du GOP, autant mourir instruit:

Un excellent bouquin paru voici cinq ans.

(à propos des cinq présidents figurant sur la couverture, je ne surprendrai personne en disant que mes deux préférés sont Ike et Ronnie).

[Nick de Cusa]

…une noire qui s'est vantée devant moi d'avoir dit à son fils que "désormais il pourrait marcher la tête haute" …

Je la comprends. Moi c'est en tant que blanc que je peux enfin marcher la tête haute grâce à son élection.

[Rincevent]

Comme McCain ne m'emballait pas plus que cela, cette victoire m'indiffère assez sauf que j'espère qu'elle contribuera à ce que les USA cessent d'être la nation la plus détestée de la planète (on peut espérer) et que, surtout, les neocons soient écartés pour un solide moment des responsabilités.

Tu rêves mouillé. Sur les deux plans.

Il a laissé un énorme excédent budgétaire que Bush jr. s'est empressé de dilapider.

Pas vraiment. L'arrêt de la croissance, dû à l'effondrement de la bulle.com, a tari les énormes rentrées d'impôts de la taxation des plus-values financières. Sinon, avant le 11 septembre 2001, Bush était tout à fait orthodoxe, fiscalement parlant. Ce n'est qu'après que les dépenses ont explosé.

Moi toutes ces manifestations de joie millénariste me rappellent plutôt un certain passage des ténèbres à la lumière…

Carrément.

[Taranne]

(à propos des cinq présidents figurant sur la couverture, je ne surprendrai personne en disant que mes deux préférés sont Ike et Ronnie).

Dommage qu'il y en ait un qui gâche tout. Petit indice: ce n'est pas Lincoln. Ni Roosevelt. Ni Eisenhower. Ni Reagan.

P.S.: Et une fois de plus on oublie Sr.

[Taranne]

Evoquerais-tu les événements quasi-christiques de 2007 où le Sauveur a touché de sa grâce la fille ainée de l'église, alléluhia gloria ô bama ô plus ôôôôôô des cieuuuuuuux ?

Je pensais plutôt à la Parousie tontonnesque du 10 mai 1981. Et, de fait, il y a de nombreux points communs: contexte de crise économique, dont le président sortant est tenu pour responsable et candidat charismatique qui promet le "changement" tout en se posant en rassembleur… Si Obama dès janvier prochain troque son costard pour un ensemble manteau-chapeau noir et un foulard rouge, on saura à quoi s'en tenir.

[Taranne]

Looks like Rincevent is right:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci…lot-initiatives

[roubachov]

Dommage qu'il y en ait un qui gâche tout. Petit indice: ce n'est pas Lincoln. Ni Roosevelt. Ni Eisenhower. Ni Reagan.

Tu parles de celui qui a renié les idéaux du GOP, en menant une politique interventionniste à l'intérieur et belliciste à l'extérieur ?

Nous sommes bien d'accord sur ce point.

J'ai plutôt de la sympathie pour W en tant que personne, mais le dogmatisme sinon l'incompétence de ses conseillers aura bousillé ses deux mandats …

[Taranne]

Vive la démocratie… sauf quand les résultats ne nous plaisent pas:

Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8 in court

Supporters of the measure, which passed Tuesday by a margin of about 52%, are outraged and say the voters have spoken.

By Jessica Garrison, Maura Dolan and Nancy Vogel

12:25 PM PST, November 5, 2008

After losing at the polls, gay-rights advocates filed a legal challenge today in California Supreme Court to Proposition 8, a long-shot effort that the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.

Lawyers for same-sex couples said they will argue that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers said.

The legal action contends that Proposition 8 actually revises the state Constitution by altering such fundamental tenets as equal-protection guarantees. A measure to revise the state Constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature.

Opponents of gay marriage expressed outrage at the move.

"This is exactly the type of behavior that brought us to this position to begin with," said Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert. "The people voted eight years ago overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage and they seem to be saying in pretty strong terms again . . . that they favor traditional marriage, and yet this is not accepted by gay-rights activists."

"Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin said the legal challenge will be a "tough battle" for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Gay-marriage proponents see it differently. "A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution," said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

It is a matter of fairness, said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our Constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw: It removes a protected constitutional right -- here, the right to marry -- not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to marry now.

The state high court has twice before invalidated measures as illegal revisions, but some legal analysts expressed doubt that the Proposition 8 challenge would succeed. Similar attempts to overturn anti-gay-marriage measures have failed in Oregon and Alaska.

A spokesman for San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said he would also file a legal challenge.

With more than 96% of precincts reporting in the state, the measure leads by a margin of 52% to 48%, prompting The Times to call the race. Opponents of the measure have not yet conceded defeat.

The loss was devastating to many in the state.

Paul Waters and Kevin Voecks of Valley Village, who married more than four months ago, were stunned today. "More than half of my fellow Californians still don't get it," said Waters, 53. "They still don't understand that sexual orientation is . . . not a thing that should differentiate."

Waters said he can't know what will happen to the legality of his marriage. But, he says, "what is in our minds and in our hearts will never change, and nobody . . . no matter the fire in their eyes or the coldness in the hearts, will be able to change that."

Proposition 8Early in the campaign, strategist Jeff Flint noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.

"I think the voters were thinking, 'Well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married.' And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.

"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."

On the other side were people like John Lewis, 50, and Stuart Gaffney, 46, who were married in June. They were at the San Francisco party holding a little sign in the shape of pink heart that said, "John and Stuart 21 years." They spent the day campaigning against Proposition 8 with family members across the Bay Area.

Today, Lewis was still unwilling to concede defeat. "Stuart and I are not giving up at all at this point," Lewis said. "We are standing true and we are continuing to remain hopeful. . . . You can't take a marriage away from someone like Stuart and me and the thousands of others couples," he said.

The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.

Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters.

And as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.

"This is the biggest civil-rights struggle for our movement in decades," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese, speaking from a Proposition 8 gathering at a brewery in the nation's capital. "The outcome weighs incredibly heavily on the minds of every single person in the room."

Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

The California Supreme Court overturned that measure, Proposition 22, in its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the state Constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples.

Opponents of Proposition 8 faced a difficult challenge. Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said California voters "very, very rarely reverse themselves" especially in such a short time. Both sides waged a passionate -- and at times bitter -- fight over whether to allow same-sex marriages to continue. The campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars in dueling television and radio commercials that blanketed the airwaves for weeks.

But supporters and opponents also did battle on street corners and front lawns, from the pulpits of churches and synagogues and -- unusual for a fight over a social issue -- in the boardrooms of many of the state's largest corporations.

Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.

On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.

An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance website crashed.

Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort. Campaign officials said they distributed more than 1.1 million lawn signs for Proposition 8 -- although an effort to stage a massive, simultaneous lawn-sign planting in late September failed after a production glitch in China delayed the arrival of hundreds of thousands of signs.

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.

Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."

As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."

Many voters said they had been swayed by that message.

"We thought it would go this way," Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. "We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.

"And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don't like talking to pollsters, they don't like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that's being reflected in the vote count."

Jessica Garrison, Maura Dolan and Nancy Vogel are Times staff writers.

jessica.garrison@latimes.com

cara.dimassa@latimes.com

richard.paddock@latimes.com

[Taranne]

No comment:

http://superobamaworld.com/

[Rincevent]

A l'intention des hébréophones du forum. Je me suis laissé dire que les deux candidats avaient des sympathisants jusqu'en Israël; en voici la preuve :

[Rincevent]

Ah, et le UVoD a aussi parlé de l'élection. Ca devrait plaire à pkk.

[Taranne]

Moment historique: je suis d'accord avec Ed Brayton.

(badurl) http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/11/obama_wins_now_what.php (badurl)

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Je peux faire plus débile : "Ce qui sera vraiment bien, c'est quand les républicains présenterons un candidat gay, ça ce sera vraiment historique !"

Déjà fait.

[john_ross]

Tiens la presse française comme à parler du programme d'Obama.

Les coûteuses promesses d'Obama

Immobilier : 30 milliards de dollars

Le nouveau président prévoit un plan de 30 milliards de dollars pour aider les propriétaires frappés par la crise immobilière et prévenir de nouvelles faillites personnelles. Des prêts garantis par le gouvernement fédéral seront proposés aux propriétaires dont le domicile vaut moins que le montant de l'emprunt, ce qui les encourage à abandonner leur maison à la banque. Les conditions de prêts hypothécaires pourront être renégociées. Un moratoire de 90 jours sera décrété pour les saisies immobilières.

Santé : 110 milliards de dollars

Barack Obama a promis une vaste réforme du système de santé, afin de rendre l'assurance-maladie accessible au plus grand nombre. Son coût est évalué à 110 milliards de dollars Il ne s'agit pas de créer une couverture de santé universelle, mais de permettre aux 47 millions d'Américains privés de couverture médicale d'accéder plus facilement à une assurance. Les parents seraient ainsi obligés d'assurer leurs enfants, mais pas eux-mêmes. Des subventions aideraient les foyers les moins riches à prendre une assurance. Les employeurs seront incités fiscalement à assurer leurs salariés. Les compagnies d'assurance privées n'auront plus le droit d'exclure des assurés jugés en trop mauvaise santé. Afin de stimuler l'offre d'assurances médicales, les foyers auraient le choix entre le système public de couverture aujourd'hui offert aux fonctionnaires et des plans privés mis en compétition sur le marché national. Cette réforme très « sociale » serait financée grâce à l'élimination des baisses d'impôts des Américains aux revenus supérieurs à 250 000 dollars.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections-americain…es-d-obama-.php

[0100011]

Le point de vue de Kasparov qui espère un petit geste du novueau POTUS : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story…39-7583,00.html

THERE is no doubt Barack Obama's election as the next president of the US would have an impact on how many in the rest of the world think about the sole superpower. Obama represents a new generation of leadership, and he sounds and looks very different from his predecessors.

Here in Russia, as in most places I have visited recently, Obama's appearance -- he would be the first black leader of any world power -- is getting the most attention. His victory would mark the end of the view of the US still promoted by many in Russia, a line used by the Soviets to counter accusations of repression: "Ah, but in the US they lynch negroes." It is practically conventional wisdom, and not just in Russia, that in the US the rich WASPs and Jews exploit the poor blacks and Latinos. If Obama wins, it will be as if suddenly everyone can see the world is undeniably round.

Unfortunately, most would rather talk about what this is likely to mean for race relations in the US instead of confronting the racism and xenophobia in our own nations. But the only thing that will matter, and surprisingly soon, is whether Obama acts differently. The window of opportunity for Obama to take advantage of the world's curiosity and goodwill will be small. The crises we face are too big; the next US president will not enjoy much of a grace period.

Obama would be halfway there simply by virtue of not being George W. Bush who, rightly in some cases and wrongly in others, has come to symbolise every problem anyone has ever had with the US, Americans and US power abroad.

Bush is practically a bouquet of the classic American stereotypes, the ones so easy to hate: rich, inarticulate, uninterested in the world, stridently religious and hasty to act. (And the images of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina seemingly exemplified the stereotype of Americans as racists and were viewed largely without surprise abroad. Of course they wouldn't rescue poor black people.) Obama would explode these stereotypes. But the world's multitude of grievances against the Bush administration quickly would be laid on Obama's doorstep if he were to fail to back up his inspiring rhetoric with decisive action.

He could get off to a good start by making it clear he does not consider the people of Russia to be the enemy of the US. As in most authoritarian states, the Putin regime does not represent most of its citizens. Kremlin propaganda works hard to present the US as Russia's adversary. Obama could strike a blow against that image by speaking out against dictatorial leaders in Russia and across the world.

Then those words must be quickly followed up with deeds.

Garry Kasparov,

[Nick de Cusa]

Barr brags over Tuesday showing

Email|Link|Comments (8) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor November 5, 2008 07:05 PM

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr is crowing after his showing in Tuesday's election, where he won enough votes -- not in his home state of Georgia, but in North Carolina -- to hold the balance of power.

In North Carolina, which remains too close to call, Democrat Barack Obama has a 12,000-vote lead over Republican John McCain, and Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, has 25,181 votes, or 1 percent.

In Georgia, McCain won with 52 percent of the vote, while Barr won 28,622 votes, or about 1 percent.

And in Indiana, Barr prevented Obama from winning a clear majority. Obama had barely 50 percent, rounded up, while McCain had 49 percent, and Barr had 29,102 vote, or 1 percent.

UPDATE: Barr won about 489,000 votes nationally, compared to 657,000 for independent Ralph Nader, according to the latest tally by the Associated Press, counting 98 percent of precincts.

"This is just the beginning of the new Libertarian Party," Barr said in a statement issued this afternoon. "In these next four years, there will be an even greater need for a political party fully dedicated to lower taxes, smaller government and more individual freedom—a voice for liberty."

"This year, we set a solid foundation for freedom, on which we will build a strong and united political organization that advances freedom and liberty in the United States," Barr added. "I, and all Americans who support true liberty, owe a great debt of gratitude to our staff, donors, volunteers and voters who helped support this campaign."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi…brags_over.html

[Nick de Cusa]

Ron Paul a fait 2% dans le Montana.

Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008

Crash & Burn

——————————————————————————--

Third-party Presidential campaign efforts fizzled this year, with Nader and Barr splitting 1% of the popular vote. Others trailed far behind.

——————————————————————————--

by David F. Nolan

(Libertarian)

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Those of us who were hoping for a big upturn in the vote for third-party Presidential candidates this year were sorely disappointed. In a column posted here two days ago, I expressed the hope and expectation that Bob Barr would get two to three times as many votes as Michael Badnarik received in 2004. The reality was far different. As I write this, about 121.6 million votes have been tallied, with Barr getting 488,449 or 0.40%. Ralph Nader did about 35% better, with 655,847. As additional votes are logged, everyone's totals should rise by as much as 10%.

No national totals are available so far for Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney, but based on very sketchy data it appears that Baldwin may have received 200,000 to 250,000 votes, while McKinney received less than 200,000.

In my last column, posted two days ago, I suggested that one fair measure of the alternative candidates' performance would be how much their vote totals increased vs. their performance (or their party's performance) in 2004. Using this measure, Nader is up about 40% so far and Barr has surpassed Badnarik by about 23%. (These figures will rise as additional votes are reported.) Baldwin may have beaten the 2004 CP total of 143,860 by as much as 75%, almost entirely due to Ron Paul's endorsement.

None of these numbers give any of the candidates or their supporters much reason to rejoice. If anything, they demonstrate, once again, that relatively unknown and hugely underfunded third-party candidates cannot realistically compete at the Presidential level.

Barr's showing of 0.40% puts his results right in line with other Libertarian Presidential campaigns. In 1988, Ron Paul received 0.47% of the popular vote total. In 1992, Andre Marrou got 0.28%. In 1996, Harry Browne got 0.50%, and in 2000 he got 0.36%. In 2004, Michael Badnarik received 0.32%. The average percentage for the last five elections was thus 0.39% -- almost exactly what Barr got this time. The argument that by going "mainstream" the LP could improve its results by a factor of ten or more proved to be completely false. The Libertarian ticket would most likely have gotten a very similar vote total with Root, Ruwart or Kubby as the nominee.

Barr's best showing was in Indiana, where he received more than 1% of the vote, and narrowly beat the spread between Obama and McCain. Barr was the only "alternative" choice on the ballot in that state. His next-best showing was in his home state of Georgia, where he received about 0.75%. Third-best: Texas, with 0.70%. In both Georgia and Texas, as in Indiana, Barr was the only alternative to Obama and McCain. Other states where Barr broke 0.50% include Wyoming, North Carolina, Arizona and Kansas. It appears that the only state where both Barr and Nader were listed on the ballot and Barr beat Nader was Arizona.

Ron Paul's name appeared on the ballot in two states: Montana and Louisiana. He received about 2.1% in Montana and about 0.5% in Louisiana. In several states, his endorsed choice for President, Chuck Baldwin, did better than Barr. These included ultra-conservative Utah (1.25%), along with Idaho (0.7%), South Dakota (0.5%), Nebraska (0.4%) and, oddly, liberal Oregon (0.4%). Quite probably, Paul's endorsement boosted Baldwin's showing in these and other states, but the total "Paul effect" was apparently less than 50,000 votes nationwide.

(Please note: All of the above figures and percentages are based on incomplete data. As many as 12 million votes have not yet been reported, with 5 million or more uncounted in California alone. So if some of these numbers later prove to be slightly off, bear that in mind!)

[Taranne]

London's Calling:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magaz…ss-mighty.thtml

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magaz…t-so-sure.thtml

(cet article devrait faire plaisir à john ross)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20…bama-race/print

C'est beau la neutralité de la presse:

http://blogs.lexpress.fr/nouvelleformule/2…de-tonnerre.php

[h16]

L'équipe d'Obama se dessine et cela n'augure rien de bon : http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?articl…;sous_theme=355

Les rumeurs, de plus en plus insistantes, emmènent à la Maison Blanche des personnalités comme Al Gore, John Kerry ou Jesse Jackson, dans le staff du nouveau président des Etats-Unis.

Argh.

[neuneu2k]

L'équipe d'Obama se dessine et cela n'augure rien de bon : http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?articl…;sous_theme=355

Et oui, il est possible de trouver un groupe ou Kerry est le moins horrible…

[Le martien]

C'est beau la neutralité de la presse:

http://blogs.lexpress.fr/nouvelleformule/2…de-tonnerre.php

Les deux couvertures font preuve d'une certaine partialité en effet.

Sinon, dans la continuité de ton article :

http://blogs.lexpress.fr/nouvelleformule/2…n-a-heureus.php

[Nick de Cusa]

L'équipe d'Obama se dessine et cela n'augure rien de bon : http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?articl…;sous_theme=355

Argh.

Son chief of staff a l'air d'un faucon. D'après wikipedia, il est allé faire un service volontaire en Israël lors de la 1ère guerre du Golfe, et était pour le 2ième.

Ca promet des discussions intéressantes avec son supérieur hiérarchique.

En tout cas, il est décrit comme orthodoxe, donc les européens ignorants qui s'imaginent un recul du religieux dans le pouvoir : DVC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emmanuel

[john_ross]

L'équipe d'Obama se dessine et cela n'augure rien de bon : http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?articl…;sous_theme=355

On sent bien le changement en marche aux USA.

Je me demande si on ne va pas aboutir à la sécession du Texas et de l'Alaska dans pas longtemps.

[h16]

Je rigole d'ailleurs doucement en entendant les tonitruantes fanfares joyeuses que lancent actuellement les médias franchouilles sur Le Changement Obama, Obama qui va casser la baraque (je devais la faire, celle-là), Obama qui apporte un vent de renouveau patati patata.

[john_ross]

C'est clair qu'avec Jackson on pourrait avoir la Barack à 100 000$!

Je tiens à préciser qu'avec 100 000$ au Texas on peut avoir une maison de 200m2

[E.T. bleu]

Du renouveau, peut etre. Une version democrate des neocons.

[Rincevent]

Du renouveau, peut etre. Une version democrate des neocons.

Beaucoup de néocons sont démocrates. Même alors qu'il était dans l'administration Bush, Richard Perle continuait à voter démocrate, par exemple.

[john_ross]

Pour certain Obama c'est carrément le vent divin.

[free jazz]

On sent bien le changement en marche aux USA.

Je me demande si on ne va pas aboutir à la sécession du Texas et de l'Alaska dans pas longtemps.

Pour ça il faudrait une volonté fédérale de modifier la législation sur les armes.

vent divin

Se traduit par kami Kaze en japonais.

Sinon au risque de décevoir ceux qui le dépeignent comme un socialiste pur jus, Obama devra gouverner au centre.

Maintenant je me demande quel moyen les gauchistes vont trouver pour continuer à diaboliser le grand satan américain. L'anti-américanisme hystérique étant un des piliers des alterfascistes rouges-bruns pour canaliser la haine ordinaire contre une société américaine considérée comme arriérée par rapport aux normes sociales européennes, bastion de la ploutocratie mondiale etc.

[h16]

Sinon au risque de décevoir ceux qui le dépeignent comme un socialiste pur jus, Obama devra gouverner au centre.

C'est très probable et c'est ce qui fait que la vision "Grands Changements", "Espoir" et "Renouveau" va bien vite tomber à l'eau.