C’est un moment o\u00f9 vous avez montr\u00e9 que l’Am\u00e9rique est pr\u00eate pour le changement et que vous \u00eates pr\u00eats pour faire l’histoire. C’est un moment o\u00f9 votre engagement a d\u00e9menti les sceptiques.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLe langage employ\u00e9, le rythme de l’article, tout y concourt L’\u00e9nonc\u00e9 de la chose, l’esprit de la chose tel qu’il est sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 en un sens, tel qu’il a du \u00eatre per\u00e7u par la journaliste, tel qu’il a du lui \u00eatre sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 par ses contacts dans l’\u00e9quipe Clinton, donc tel qu’il doit \u00eatre ressenti fortement dans cette \u00e9quipe elle-m\u00eame, c’est que le volume d’argent r\u00e9colt\u00e9 remplace, dans l’ordre, les sondages sur les intentions de vote et, au bout du compte, les \u00e9lecteurs et l’\u00e9lection elle-m\u00eame. Dans la perception, l’argent a remplac\u00e9 effectivement le vote: il le pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, l’annonce, le dessine, bref il le remplace. Bien entendu, ce n’est pas propre \u00e0 la s\u00e9natrice (qui a pourtant de grandes dents dans ce domaine) mais au monde politique lui-m\u00eame, au syst\u00e8me, \u00e0 leur fa\u00e7on de voir et \u00e0 leur perception. R\u00e9p\u00e9tons-le, tout cela est expos\u00e9 inconsciemment dans cet article, certainement d’une fa\u00e7on innocente, et c’est pour cela que ce texte est significatif. La conclusion, c’est que l’\u00e9lection se fait au volume d’argent que vous recevez des donateurs. Celui qui a re\u00e7u le plus d’argent pour sa campagne est \u00e9lu. Plus besoin de voter. D’ailleurs, les choses seraient plus nettes de cette fa\u00e7on, si l’on s’abstenait de voter, la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de la situation serait plus franchement expos\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abHillary Clinton solidified her status as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination yesterday, surpassing all her rivals in fundraising to bring in $27m (\u00a313m) for her campaign in the past three months.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe quarterly announcement of fundraising totals puts the senator from New York ahead of Barack Obama, who had previously held an advantage in fundraising even while trailing Ms Clinton in the opinion polls. Mr Obama took in $20m.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn an triumphant email to supporters, the Clinton campaign depicted the inflow of funds as a return on the candidate’s strong performance in televised debates and on the hustings. This is the moment when you showed that America is ready for change and that you are ready to make history. This is the moment when your dedication defied the sceptics. The strong showing for Ms Clinton defied predictions that Mr Obama would outperform her on fundraising as he did in the second quarter. The Obama campaign has been touting its army of small donors as the secret to its fundraising prowess. The campaign reported bringing in 93,000 new contributors in the past three months.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe cash haul for Ms Clinton also belies her campaign’s recent troubles with fundraising. The campaign last month was forced to return some $850,000 that had been raised by a donor facing prosecution in an unrelated fraud case.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbYesterday’s figures plus the most recent ones from The Centre for Responsive Politics, an independent thinktank which tracks election finance, put Ms Clinton’s overall takings for the primary season at about $90m, which includes $10m left over from her 2006 Senate re-election campaign. On the same basis Mr Obama has raised about $79m.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 3 octobre 2007 \u00e0<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cet article nous a arr\u00eat\u00e9s, par son ton aussi bien que par son contenu. Il exprime si bien un esprit qui conquiert la raison, qui emporte la perception, qui nous impose une r\u00e9alit\u00e9. L’auteur n’en est pas responsable, elle ne fait qu’exprimer justement; tout juste pourrait-on lui reprocher de n’avoir rien remarqu\u00e9? Mais peut-\u00eatre est-ce… <\/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":[3974,6120,2825,7099,3278],"class_list":["post-69284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-argent","tag-campagne","tag-democratie","tag-donations","tag-hillary"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69284","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=69284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}