Robert E. Lee<\/a>, le grand g\u00e9n\u00e9ral commandant l’Arm\u00e9e de Virginie du Nord, grand strat\u00e8ge des arm\u00e9es du Sud, qui tint le Nord en \u00e9chec et mena\u00e7a m\u00eame Washington jusqu’\u00e0 la d\u00e9faite de Gettysburg (juillet 1863). Bien entendu, on go\u00fbtera l’ironie, peut-\u00eatre involontaire, de faire une analogie entre un candidat Africain Am\u00e9ricain et le plus fameux g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l’arm\u00e9e sudiste, avec la r\u00e9serve que Lee, effectivement gentleman de Virginie, d’une vieille famille anglaise ayant Thomas More et le roi Robert II d’Ecosse parmi ses a\u00efeux, avait une position tr\u00e8s nuanc\u00e9e sur l’esclavage mais avait choisi le Sud par fid\u00e9lit\u00e9 \u00e0 sa terre natale. (Lee \u00e9tait oppos\u00e9 \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession de la Virginie. Il s’\u00e9tait vu proposer le 18 avril 1861 le commandement des Arm\u00e9es du Nord par Lincoln, qu’il avait refus\u00e9e. La Virginie fit s\u00e9cession le 20 avril. Le 23, Lee acceptait le commandement de l’Arm\u00e9e de Virginie du Nord.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tHames d\u00e9crit le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Lee comme ceci: \u00ab…the charismatic General Robert E. Lee, who proved to be more imaginative in the field, inspiring passionate loyalty in his Confederate soldiers.<\/em>\u00bb En face, le malheureux Lincoln essayait pour son arm\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9ral apr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, allant de m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9s diverses en prudences excessives, parfois jusqu’\u00e0 l’une ou l’autre quasi-trahison (le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral McClellan, qui envisageait de s’opposer \u00e0 Lincoln \u00e0 l’\u00e9lection de 1864 comme d\u00e9mocrate, \u00e9tait pr\u00eat \u00e0 traiter personnellement avec le Sud). Ce n’est qu’en 1864 que Lincoln trouva son g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, le brutal Ulysses S. Grant. Mais, depuis Gettysburg, le sort avait chang\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAinsi Hames d\u00e9veloppe-t-il son analogie de Pennsylvanie : \u00abHillary Clinton must hope that history repeats itself in Pennsylvania tomorrow. Having started as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, she has been stunned by Barack Obama’s ability to portray himself as the agent of political change, his skill at motivating activists and success in employing the internet to break fundraising records.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbHe has been the General Lee of the competition so far. If he were to win the Pennsylvania primary, he would indeed become unstoppable. Yet adversity has brought out the best in Mrs Clinton. She has fought for seven weeks in Pennsylvania and while no one has been killed or wounded (unlike the 8,000 dead and near 50,000 casualties and losses at Gettysburg) it has been a bruising struggle with Mrs Clinton landing the most blows. The odds are that she will at least emerge strong enough to take her cause on further.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tHames tend \u00e0 pr\u00e9dire la victoire finale (\u00e0 la nomination d\u00e9mocrate) de Hillary Lincoln parce que, comme le pr\u00e9sident de la Civil War<\/em>, si elle tient en Pennsylvanie demain, c’est elle qui aurait le moins de chance de perdre finalement contre McCain. Hames suppose alors que le choix d\u00e9mocrate se fera selon les nominations bureaucratiques du parti (les super-d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9es), et selon une comptabilit\u00e9 \u00e9lectorale qui est plus bas\u00e9e sur le nombre de voix assur\u00e9es de chaque candidat (face \u00e0 McCain) que sur le nombre de voix que chacun d’eux peut esp\u00e9rer emporter contre McCain dans le meilleur des cas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abMrs Clinton is the 5347 option and Mr Obama is the 5542 one. By this I mean that it is tough to imagine her obtaining more than 53 per cent of the national vote against John McCain, but it is hard to envisage her falling below 47 per cent either. Most of those Democrats who prefer Mr Obama to her (African-Americans, affluent whites, the young) would nevertheless back the New York senator in November (particularly if their man was in the vice-presidential slot).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbMr Obama, by contrast, has a somewhat higher vote ceiling but a much lower floor to his vote. If Americans decide that they are desperate for change, pure and simple, then he is a better vehicle for that mood than a woman who has the history of the 1990s attached to her. If, though, voters are after change (with reassurance), as one suspects is the case, then she is a smarter bet against Mr McCain. A sizeable slice of working-class Democrats who back her may switch to the Arizona Senator if she loses. In the worst-case scenario, the Republican champion may well wipe the floor with Mr Obama.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAssuming she is victorious in Pennsylvania, then Mrs Clinton should keep on running. The superdelegates must ask themselves not only who can win? but how might they lose? For the reality of Gettysburg is not that in pure military terms the North actually won, but that it did not lose. It was this that later made it such a decisive moment.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCette interpr\u00e9tation est int\u00e9ressante. Certes, elle appelle quelques r\u00e9serves, notamment sur l’affirmation que les partisans d’Obama soutiendraient en masse Clinton si Clinton est candidate, alors que l’inverse n’est pas du tout assur\u00e9. (Voir notamment notre F&C<\/em> du : \u00abAbout a quarter of Obama supporters say they’ll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it’s Obama.<\/em>\u00bb) De ce point de vue, contrairement \u00e0 ce qu’affirme Hames, rien ne nous semble tranch\u00e9, y compris dans le chef des super-d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tMais cette interpr\u00e9tation est int\u00e9ressante au-del\u00e0 de la comptabilit\u00e9. Elle nous dit que l’intensit\u00e9 de la bataille Clinton-Obama, l’abaissement du d\u00e9bat vers des pol\u00e9miques f\u00e9roces mais accessoires, n’ont pas emp\u00each\u00e9 les images des deux candidats de se pr\u00e9ciser, voire de se radicaliser dans le sens envisag\u00e9 d\u00e8s le d\u00e9part, \u00e9ventuellement contre leur gr\u00e9. C’est un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne important, dans la mesure o\u00f9 chacun des deux candidats, Obama dans le sens du compromis, Clinton dans le sens d’une affirmation populiste, ont tous deux tent\u00e9 de modifier leurs images, qu’ils n’y sont pas parvenus, qu’ils en seront donc comptables, que le parti d\u00e9mocrate devra faire face \u00e0 cette profonde division que la comptabilit\u00e9 \u00e0 elle seule ne parviendra pas \u00e0 r\u00e9soudre. Plus que jamais, Obama appara\u00eet comme une aventure peut-\u00eatre n\u00e9cessaire (\u00abif Americans decide that they are desperate for change, pure and simple<\/em>\u00bb) et Clinton comme une assurance plut\u00f4t rassurante (\u00abIf <\/em>[] voters are after change (with reassurance)<\/em>\u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 21 avril 2008 \u00e0 15H14<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Demain a lieu aux USA la primaire d\u00e9cisive, une de plus, notera-t-on, dans le grand Etat de l’Union de la Pennsylvanie. R\u00e9sultat d\u00e9cisif pour la nomination d\u00e9mocrate? Peut-\u00eatre, peut-\u00eatre pas. Dans tous les cas, qu’on se rappelle qu’eut lieu, en Pennsylvanie, \u00e0 Gettysburg, la grande bataille qui fit basculer le destin de la Guerre de… <\/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":[934,7540,3896,6208,7533,7347],"class_list":["post-69844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-clinton","tag-lee","tag-lincoln","tag-obama","tag-pennsylvanie","tag-primaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69844","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=69844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}