« WEEK END : BEST OFF ! | Page d'accueil | Ketty Maisonrouge, l'ambassadrice du luxe français »
17.02.2008
UNE LECON DE DEMOCRATIE ?
A 11h30, l’annonce est précise: "Hillary Clinton, selon son directeur de campagne Howard Ickes "ira jusqu'au bout". Qu’importe le vote populaire, elle se battra délégué par délégué, Etat par Etat et ira même à Porto Rico le 7 juin. "Mathématiquement il est, ajoute ce clintonien, impossible pour Hillary ou Barack d'arriver au chiffre magique des 2025 délégués requis pour obtenir la nomination".
C’est vrai !… Avec nos petites calculettes, nous avons tous le même résultat. Même si Barack gagne d’ici à maintenant le reste des primaires, il ne peut avoir ses 2025 délégués. Et Hillary l’a bien compris. Elle et son mari misent désormais tout sur la convention fin août a Denver. Là, les super délégués, à savoir ces bons notables du parti démocrate, les anciens présidents, les gouverneurs, les sénateurs, les maires des villes auront le dernier mot et le dernier vote. Hillary les séduit depuis plus d’un an… et Bill les a tant cajolé pendant 12 ans…
Avec les super délégués, Hillary a véritablement une chance de l'emporter au mépris du peuple. Cet acharnement sans pitié qui débute provoquera une crise terrible voir un éclatement du parti démocrate mais qu’importe... Que ne ferait une femme, c’est vrai pour le pouvoir ! A moins d’un retour au calme, au bon sens et a l’unité, les fans d’Hillary sont en train de provoquer un désastre politique sans précédent. Un ami parisien de passage a New York me disait cette semaine en écoutant Obama quelle leçon de démocratie, l’Amérique en ce moment donne au monde". Il a raison car ce combat de titans suscite aussi une passion sans précédent et inspire des milliers de jeunes à participer au débat politique. Mais dans cette "leçon de démocratie", l’Amérique doit se montrer exemplaire et non pas changer les règles du jeu quant la situation n’est pas bonne.
L’Amérique démocrate ne peut mépriser le vote populaire et le peuple. Le dernier qui l’avait fait s’appelait George W. Bush. Best off photos de la semaine. Compétition acharnée cette semaine a New York entre les chiens venus de tous les Etats pour remporter le titre de best in town. Uno a gagné, il était "un beagle" la première fois en plus de 130 ans qu'un beagle a gagné…
En face deses concurrents, un caniche avec beaucoup d’expérience et sa fille caniche.
Et le vieux sage plein de rides…
03:05 Publié dans Made in politics : l'édito de LH | Lien permanent | Commentaires (4) | Envoyer cette note | Tags : Howard Ickes, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bush, démocrate, républicain, Amérique
Commentaires
Quel mépris de la Démocratie et des électeurs....
Presque à en pleurer.....
Je me demande ce que pensent ses électeurs, en toute objectivité, ils ne peuvent être qu'écoeurés non?
Et mêmea voir un tout petit peu honte de cette future victoire volée....
Et comment après ça, ses futurs électeurs vont se déplacer et voter pour elle en toute conscience?
Encore un mystère.........
Billary n'en n'ont rien à faire de la manière dont ils veulent gagner, quitte à faire sauter le parti.....Ce sera eux ou personne...
Ecrit par : hadya | 17.02.2008
Bonjour,
- J'ai lu que le président du parti démocrate ne laisserai pas les supers délégués décider et qu'il demanderai à l'un des 2 de se retirer avant la convention.
- De plus :
February 16, 2008
Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote
By SAM ROBERTS
Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.
That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.
City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.
In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.
The history of New York elections has been punctuated by episodes of confusion, incompetence and even occasional corruption. And election officials and lawyers for both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton agree that it is not uncommon for mistakes to be made by weary inspectors rushing on election night to transcribe columns of numbers that are delivered first to the police and then to the news media.
That said, in a presidential campaign in which every vote at the Democratic National Convention may count, a swing of even a couple of hundred votes in New York might help Mr. Obama gain a few additional delegates.
City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times’s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results.
“It looked like a lot of the numbers were wrong, probably the result of human error,” said Marcus Cederqvist, who was named executive director of the Board of Elections last month. He said such discrepancies between the unofficial and final count rarely affected the raw vote outcome because “they’re not usually that big.”
On primary night, Mrs. Clinton was leading with 57 percent to Mr. Obama’s 40 percent in New York State, which meant she stood to win 139 delegates to Mr. Obama’s 93, with 49 others known as superdelegates going to the national convention unaffiliated.
Jerome A. Koenig, a former chief of staff to the State Assembly’s election law committee and a lawyer for the Obama campaign, suggested that some of the discrepancy resulted from the design of the ballot.
Candidates were listed from left to right in an order selected by drawing lots. Mrs. Clinton was first, followed by Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who in most election districts received zero votes, and by John Edwards, who got relatively few. Mr. Obama was fifth, just before Representative Dennis J. Kucinich.
Mr. Koenig said he seriously doubted that anything underhanded was at work because local politicians care more about elections that matter specifically to them.
“They steal votes for elections like Assembly District leader, where people have a personal stake,” he said.
A number of political leaders also scoffed at the possibility that local politicians, even if they considered it vital that Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton prevail in the primary, were capable of even trying to hijack such a contest.
Still, for those inclined to consider conspiracy theories, the figures provided plenty of grist.
The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Mrs. Clinton.
Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright, a Clinton supporter who represents the same area, said he was confident that there was an innocent explanation for the original count giving Mr. Obama zero votes.
“I’m sure it’s a clerical error of some sort,” Mr. Wright said. “Being around elections for the last 25 years, no candidate receives zero votes.”
But Gordon J. Davis, a former New York City parks commissioner and an Obama poll watcher in the district, remained skeptical, even after being informed of the corrected count.
“First it was reported at 141 to 0, now it’s 261 to 136 in an Assembly district that went 12,000 to 8,000 for Barack,” Mr. Davis said on Friday.
“I was watching like a hawk, but how did I know the machine had a mind of its own?” he added. “And I speak as one who grew up on the South Side of Chicago where we delivered the margin of victory for John F. Kennedy at 4 in the morning.”
At the sprawling Riverside Park Community apartments at Broadway and 135th Street, Alician D. Barksdale said she had voted for Mr. Obama and her daughter had, too, by absentee ballot.
“Everyone around here voted for him,” she said.
The 53rd Assembly District, in Brooklyn, is represented by the borough’s Democratic chairman, Assemblyman Vito P. Lopez, another Clinton supporter. He said the party faithful have produced lopsided margins of as much as 160 to 4 and that on Primary Day he fielded election captains in every district to galvanize Hispanic voters for Mrs. Clinton.
“We ran it the old-fashioned way,” he said. Still, he said, the 118 to 0 vote “has to be a mistake.”
At the Archive, a cafe and video store on the border of Bushwick and East Williamsburg, the manager, Brad Lee, agreed. “There were Obama posters in everyone’s windows,” he said. “There was even Obama graffiti.”
Most election-night anomalies are later reconciled by the official canvass of the machines and in the formal count of absentee returns and of paper affidavit ballots issued on Primary Day, to people who do not appear to be eligible but demand the right to vote, and later validated.
On Feb. 5, Mrs. Clinton carried 61 of the state’s 62 counties but won Brooklyn by a margin of less than 2 percent. Because delegates are awarded proportionately on the basis of the primary vote in each Congressional district, Obama supporters expressed hope that if the official count continued in their favor, they might gain an additional delegate or two.
Ecrit par : etreange | 17.02.2008
Tout cela est bien juste. Et oui les électeurs sont dégoûtés et réagissent de la même manière que Laurence (d'après ce que je lis ici et là).
etreange -> Cela est aussi arrivé à Ron Paul. J'ai lu qu'une famille entière avait voté pour lui, et que bizarrement leurs votes n'avaient pas été comptés du tout. Et ce dans une petite ville.
Quand à l'irrespect de la démocratie dans la classe politique américaine, cela a toujours été le cas.
L'un des Pères Fondateurs, John Jay, disait : "Le pays devrait être gouverné par ceux qui le possèdent." Façon de dire que le petit peuple ne doit pas vraiment mener la barque. C'est dangereux, il est stupide.
Ecrit par : littlehorn | 17.02.2008
Par contre Laurence, y aurait une autre possibilité pour que la question soit réglée pour Barack : qu'il gagne plus de SD qu'Hillary.
Pensez-vous que ce soit possible?
Ecrit par : hadya | 17.02.2008