The New York Times du 13 mai 2005<\/a>) consiste surtout en une pr\u00e9sentation \u00e9logieuse de Hillary par Newt Gingrich.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00ab Beyond the issue of health care, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gingrich have forged a relatively close relationship working on a panel the Pentagon created to come up with ways to improve the nation’s military readiness, according to people close to them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Mr. Gingrich says he has been struck by how pro-defense Mrs. Clinton has turned out to be at a time when other Democrats have criticized President Bush’s decision to go to war against Iraq. He chalked that up to her experience in the White House, where her husband, as commander in chief, had to deal with grave national security matters.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Unlike most members of the legislature, she has been in the White House, he said. She’s been consistently solid on the need to do the right thing on national defense. It was, in fact, during one of the defense panel’s meetings in Norfolk that Mr. Gingrich suggested to her that they join efforts to push legislation on an area of mutual concern: the need to spur greater online exchanges of medical information among patients, doctors, health insurers and other medical experts. That, in turn, led to the press conference that both attended this week.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb For all the headlines this unlikely duo is grabbing now, the thaw in their relationship dates back at least to December 2003, when Mr. Gingrich showed up on Meet the Press,’ right after Mrs. Clinton had made an appearance of her own, and predicted that she had what it took to be the Democratic nominee for president a comment that was noticed inside Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle. On Thursday, he reiterated his belief that she will be a formidable challenger if she decides to run for the presidency in 2008. Any Republican who thinks she’s going to be easy to beat in 2008 really misunderstands the Clintons.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tOn en a vu d’autres en fait de r\u00e9conciliation, mais celle-ci nous dit sp\u00e9cifiquement deux choses:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t• Le conservatisme dur devient structurel aux USA. Les d\u00e9mocrates, plut\u00f4t qu’y faire contrepoids comme ce serait naturel dans le sch\u00e9ma classique, s’y adaptent et l’embrassent eux-m\u00eames. Le lib\u00e9ralisme (progressisme) est mort dans l’establishment<\/em> washingtonien, le triomphe de GW est complet \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t• Il devient de plus en plus probable que Hillary Clinton sera candidate d\u00e9mocrate en 2008, et s\u00e9rieusement arm\u00e9e pour l’emporter, c’est-\u00e0-dire bard\u00e9e d’engagements sur sa droite.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 15 mai 2005 \u00e0 13H30<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On pouvait le deviner depuis un certain temps. Hillary Clinton, en fine politique, a compris que le lib\u00e9ralisme (selon les conceptions US, c’est-\u00e0-dire le progressisme) ne paie plus aux USA. Elle est en train d’achever une transformation bien dans l’air du temps, en devenant une d\u00e9mocrate faucon (hawk) bon teint. D’o\u00f9 son association en apparence… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[934,4566,4035],"class_list":["post-66414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-clinton","tag-gingrich","tag-liberalisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66414","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}