3 janvier<\/a>. Voici les extraits les plus significatifs, d’o\u00f9 il ressort notamment ces trois points:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t Les trois premiers d\u00e9mocrates restent en piste et rien n’est jou\u00e9 de ce c\u00f4t\u00e9. D’une part la victoire d’Obama n’est pas d\u00e9cisive, d’autre part Edwards et Clinton ont tous deux le potentiel de s’affirmer selon les circonstances et leurs propres fortunes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t C\u00f4t\u00e9 r\u00e9publicain, Clemons a \u00e9t\u00e9 impressionn\u00e9 par Huckabee (un peu) et par McCain (beaucoup).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t Concernant Ron Paul, Clemons estime qu’il a re\u00e7u 10% des suffrages, ce qu’il juge \u00abextr\u00eamement impressionnant dans les structures des caucus de l’Iowa<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tClemons :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abObama probably got the lion’s share of caucus goers who abandoned Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich. That explains the 6-7% jump in his estimated take from the polls. Obama won. . .but he got an assist from other Dems.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe bad news for Obama is that setting aside Edwards this may be the as good as it gets number. He drew the votes that went to the second tier; he drew dissident Republicans; and he drew a lot of Independents and while he won, it wasn’t stunning.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbWhat was surprising was the fact that Edwards has legs. He really did well in Iowa and kept the entire race competitive. I don’t know what waits ahead in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina but Edwards is still in the game, at least for a bit.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbHillary Clinton is in for a marathon and while she came in third she’s still very much alive. As Donna Brazile said tonight, her campaign can easily push the reset button and possibly’ perform well elsewhere.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00bbSo Obama wins on the Dem side but the real truth is, he didn’t win definitively, and Edwards and Clinton have chances ahead to change the outcome. So, no closure here.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbOn the Republican side, Huckabee really performed well and Romney less well. But I sense that John McCain is lurking with some real strength ahead.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbI talked to some of the most seasoned Democratic political strategists in the country tonight — and they fear McCain and relish Huckabee, Guiliani and even Romney as the Republican nominee.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbEven though McCain was somwhere just into double digits tonight in Iowa, they think he has political legs. But on the other hand, Huckabee won. Ron Paul’s support did not defect and stayed solid at 10% extremely impressive in the Iowa caucus structure and Romney. . .well, not sure what to say. . .he just didn’t perform well in the state he believed was essential.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 4 janvier 2008 \u00e0 14H31<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pour un rapide premier commentaire \u00e9clair\u00e9, un point de vue de Washington sans parti-pris et tr\u00e8s politique, nous recommandons la petite note de Steve C. Clemons, du 3 janvier. Voici les extraits les plus significatifs, d’o\u00f9 il ressort notamment ces trois points: Les trois premiers d\u00e9mocrates restent en piste et rien n’est jou\u00e9 de 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":[6179,6433,4141,7345,7346,7340,4063,6208,3140],"class_list":["post-69571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-clemons","tag-edwards","tag-elections","tag-hillaru","tag-huckabee","tag-iowa","tag-mccain","tag-obama","tag-paul"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69571","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=69571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}