Charlie Crist deixa o Partido Republicano e concorre ao Senado como independente

Foi um pretendente à nomeação para vice-presidente no ticket de John McCain, em 2008. Parecia ser uma estrela ascendente no GOP. Mas a radicalização do discurso dos republicanos fez com que Marco Rubio, jovem hispânico que parece vir a ser uma das figuras de proa dos conservadores nos próximos anos, se destacasse nas primárias do Partido Republicano na corrida por um lugar no Senado, em representação da Florida.

Obama premeia os melhores professores

Obama em 'town hall' no Iowa: Middle class, middle class, middle class

Mensagem semanal: boas notícias da indústria automóvel

A semana política em retrospectiva

Barómetro: América dividida

A Taxa de Aprovação de Barack Obama continua com números preocupantes, no limiar dos 50 por cento. Mesmo depois dos sucessos recentes (Saúde e Tratado START), a verdade é que, no plano interno, a América é, hoje, como tem sido nos últimos anos, um país dividido quase ao meio, do ponto de vista político...

SONDAGEM AP/Gfk
-- Aprovação: 49%
-- Reprovação: 50%

Obama fala sobre imigração

Joe Biden: «Expansão económica para a classe média»

Joe Biden ao seu melhor estilo: «We gotta change the world...»

«Good old Joe» está de volta e fala sem rodeios sobre a urgência de aprovar a Climate Bill...

Histórias da Casa Branca: A nova estratégia nuclear

Texto publicado no site de A BOLA, secção Outros Mundos, a 16 de Abril de 2010:

A nova estratégia nuclear

Por Germano Almeida


«O caminho fora apontado por Obama em Abril de 2009, no discurso de Praga. Na altura, parecia um objectivo demasiado vago, um pouco ingénuo até: lançar as bases para um Mundo sem armas nucleares.

Meio ano depois, a atribuição do Nobel da Paz deu ao Presidente dos EUA o primeiro grande sinal de que a mensagem estava a passar – ainda que muita gente não tenha percebido.

Outro meio ano depois, aparece, agora, a primeira grande consequência prática da nova estratégia dos EUA para a questão nuclear: a assinatura, com a Rússia de um novo Tratado START, que prevê reduções muito significativas no acesso às armas nucleares por parte das duas maiores potências.

Ainda mais importante do que isso, este acordo foi um enorme passo para o reforço nas relações entre Washington e Moscovo, que não há muito tempo (basta lembrar a crise da Geórgia) chegaram a estar próximas dos tempos da Guerra Fria – tamanha era a tensão e a desconfiança de parte a parte.

Com Obama e Medvedev (leia-se, Putin...) em sintonia na necessidade de levar a sério o desarmamento nuclear, emitiu-se um claro sinal de pressão sobre o regime iraniano. Até agora, Ahmadinejad contava com os russos como eventuais aliados na ameaça aos EUA.

Depois do tratado assinado a 8 de Abril, no Castelo de Praga, o Irão passou a estar sob o crivo de norte-americanos e russos, dado que ambos censuram o projecto de armamento nuclear de Teerão.

Reduzir a partir de cima
Nos últimos anos, floresceu a ideia de que o 'tandem' EUA/Rússia tinha deixado de ser tão poderoso no assunto nuclear como fora durante a Guerra Fria.

É verdade que há, hoje, outros 'players' relevantes a ter em conta (China, Coreia do Norte, Paquistão, Índia...), mas uma rápida consulta pelos números faz-nos perceber que, afinal, a tradição, neste aspecto, ainda é quase igual ao que era.

É que americanos e russos, juntos, congregam perto de 90 por cento do arsenal nuclear conhecido. Um acordo com a dimensão histórica como o que foi assinado em Praga garante, assim, uma mudança de paradigma – mesmo que só tenha sido assinado por dois chefes de estado.

Este tratado tem uma enorme relevância: não só pelos limites que são auto-impostos por EUA e Rússia no acesso a ogivas nucleares, mas pelo factor de dissuasão que tenta impor às eventuais ameaças: Irão, Coreia do Norte e, mesmo, a China.

Nos dias que se seguiram à assinatura na República Checa, Obama acolheu em Washington uma importante Cimeira sobre Segurança Nuclear. Mais de 40 líderes de todo o Mundo ouviram da boca do Presidente os contornos da nova estratégia dos EUA para que as armas nucleares possam, um dia, deixar de ser uma ameaça real para todos nós.

Em Abril de 2009, muitos consideraram ingénua a intenção de Obama. Meio ano depois, torceram o nariz com a atribuição do Nobel. Em Abril de 2010, já com o novo Tratado START assinado e depois da mega-cimeira de Washington, já parece mais real mais este traço da «mudança» prometida por Barack.

Não depende só da Administração Obama – mas o primeiro grande empurrão já está dado.»

Mensagem Semanal: pressão sobre Wall Street

Como Obama está a mudar a imagem da América no Mundo

Um artigo de Josh Gerstein, no POLITICO.com:


«“Rogue states” is being pushed aside in favor of the less confrontational “outliers.”


“Islamic radicalism” is being converted to the less religiously freighted “violent extremism.”


And in one of the most important speeches of his presidency, Barack Obama omitted a term that was the Bush administration’s obsession: terrorism – part of a larger effort to de-emphasize the problem in Obama's relations with Muslim states.


Diplomats, academics and foreign leaders are hotly debating whether Obama, who won the White House promising dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy, has actually changed much substantively. But there’s little question that he's made a pronounced shift in how the U.S. talks about the rest of the world – and in a way that has opened him up to charges of being soft in the face of America’s enemies.


Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was so incensed at the administration’s recent step towards ending its use of the phrase “Islamic extremism” that he fired off a letter to Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan. Lieberman worries that if Obama doesn’t confront the true nature of the threat, he can’t stop it.


“The failure to identify our enemy for what it is—violent Islamist extremism— is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to ‘know your enemy,’” Lieberman wrote, later calling the decision “absolutely Orwellian” in a TV interview.


And Republicans have lined up to point to the rhetorical recalibrations as evidence that Obama is naïve and dangerously out of his depth.


“It’s evidence of a lack of seriousness in understanding the nature of the problem they face,” John Bolton, the Bush administration’s ambassador to the United Nations and frequent Obama critic, told POLITICO. “This administration is really ‘Innocents Abroad..’…It’s a dangerous policy for us. Obviously one word isn’t the Alpha and the Omega but it is another piece of evidence of the inexperience of this team.”


The White House often tries to downplay the changes, but observers say officials must expect that the linguistic shifts will have substantive impact - otherwise they wouldn’t bother with moves that leave Obama so vulnerable to criticism.


“They are taking a significant political risk when they do these kinds of things, when they make any kind of deviation from the status quo,” said Dan Drezner, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “These sorts of things generate all kinds of blowback. They have to think the blowback is worth it, otherwise making the changes would be both stupid and thankless.”


The administration defends the moves, saying that by needlessly antagonizing or alienating nations and groups, it can make it harder for the U.S. to build alliances against them.


That’s why Obama’s Muslim outreach speech included references to people who carry out violence – but without the word “terrorism,” which became almost a calling card of the Bush administration and its emphasis on the war on terror (a term even the Bush White House eventually dropped.)


At a recent briefing, the State Department defended the decision to move away from “Islamic radicalism.”


“We do confront a global movement of terrorists, violent extremists…. not all of them are Islamic. I think it would be a mistake to say that this is about one part of the world or one community,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. “We oppose people who employ violence for political purposes regardless of where they are. And al-Qaida is working hard to extend its network to all corners of the world, including here in the United States.”


A shift from “rogue states” to “outliers” for Iran and North Korea could be more problematic for Obama.


In arms-control circles, “outliers” has traditionally been used to refer to those countries that never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan and Israel. Under the Obama approach, Israel now finds itself lumped in with the mullahs in Tehran – its mortal enemies.


“Obviously, this administration views important countries, allies like India, Pakistan and Israel the same way it views North Korea and Iran,” said Morris Amitay, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. Obviously, we’re playing up to North Korea and Iran, saying ‘We really love you, even though you’re bad. We just want to be your friend.’ The mindset of this administration is utterly baffling.”

One close watcher of Israel’s nuclear program also found the new terminology about “outliers” unhelpful.


“It’s a poor choice,” said Avner Cohen, author of the forthcoming book, “The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb.” “Rogue states and outliers are conceptually very, very different. It is confusing.”


However, Robert Litwak, who worked on nonproliferation in the Clinton White, said he was pleased to see Obama jettisoning “rogue states.”


“It prevented diplomatic engagement because once these states were relegated to that category it really put them beyond the pale and demonized these states,” said Litwak, now director of international security studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “The term was getting in the way of U.S. policies and it was a lazy shorthand used in lieu of a differentiated policy to deal with each individual country.”


Senior Obama officials haven’t used the phrase “rogue states” much, but in recent days “outlier” has seen an uptick. Crowley has used it once in three press briefings this month. “We’re more concerned about how we keep nuclear technology and know-how out of the hands of outlier states and rogue elements,” Crowley said on April 7.


Obama himself used the term “outlier” in an interview with The New York Times about his nuclear posture review. “When you’re looking at outliers like Iran or North Korea, they should see that over the course of the last year and a half we have been executing a policy that will increasingly isolate them so long as they are operating outside of accepted international norms,” the president said.


White House aides said the de-emphasis of “rogue states” was deliberate. They were less clear about whether the replacement term was set in stone.


Some of Obama’s rhetorical changes are not as starkly different from the Bush administration as some critics suggest. For instance, Bush officials began talking of trading the “Global War on Terror” for the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism” as early as 2005. Bush initially resisted, but by the time he left office, “violent extremism” was the preferred term and the State Department was urging diplomats to downplay Al Qaeda’s religious component.


Brennan told students at New York University earlier this year that the administration believed it was important to choose its words properly and avoid instilling more fear.


“We’re trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance,” Brennan said in February. “That’s why I don’t use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them religious legitimacy that they so desperately seek, but I ain’t going to give it to them.”


But some on the right disagree.

“This administration believes it can replace reality with words. And if it has the right words in the right order things will happen,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said recently at a breakfast organized by the American Spectator. “It’s almost like a medieval, philosophical argument, like alchemy, that if I can just work all these things out right, the world will transform itself to the world I want to live in.”


Lieberman also worries the shifting tone betrays a much more substantive problem.


“This is not honest,” Lieberman said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Three thousand Americans were killed not by some amorphous group of violent extremists or environmental extremists or white supremacist extremists. They were violent Islamist extremists motivated and organized by the ideology preached by Osama bin Laden.”


“And unless we're honest about that,” he said, “we're not going to be able to defeat this enemy.”»

A semana política em retrospectiva

Obama não vai à Lua -- mas quer lançar o objectivo Marte até 2030

A visão exposta por Obama na NASA ocorreu num momento tenso, pouco tempo depois do anúncio do fim do Programa Constelação, que visava o regresso à Lua.

Barack acha que os EUA têm prioridades mais imediatas... aqui na terra, mas lançou uma visão mais alargada no tempo, até 2030, que aponta Marte como a nova fronteira.

Em tempo de crise, parece ser uma estratégia avisada.

Histórias da Casa Branca: Reforma Financeira, a próxima batalha

Texto publicado a 8 de Abril, no site de A Bola, secção Outros Mundos:

Reforma Financeira, a próxima batalha

Por Germano Almeida

«Na política americana, não há tempo para festejar depois de um grande triunfo. A aprovação da Reforma da Saúde pode vir a ser recordada como o melhor momento do primeiro mandato de Obama, mas já começou aquela que será, talvez, a segunda batalha mais dura: tornar o sistema financeiro mais fiável e mais transparente.

O tema dominou a campanha presidencial de 2008. No auge da tempestade bolsista, que rebentou mês e meio antes da eleição de Obama, o então nomeado do Partido Democrata marcou pontos pelo discurso altamente crítico que, desde o início da disputa presidencial, teve contra o «comportamento irresponsável dos 'fat cats' de Wall Street».

É certo que John McCain, o seu opositor republicano, também tinha posição crítica sobre o mesmo assunto: mas, como nomeado do GOP, não conseguiu escapar à herança desastrosa da Administração Bush – e ter tido Phil Gramm como conselheiro económico também não ajudou.

Antigo senador pelo Texas, Gramm foi apontado como um dos responsáveis pela desregulação do sistema, ao ter assinado o Gramm-Leach-Blilei Act, em 1999, na recta final do segundo mandato de Bill Clinton.

Quando McCain afastou Gramm do seu núcleo duro, já era tarde: apesar do discurso reformista de John, foi Obama quem conseguiu agarrar a tese de uma necessidade urgente de se reformar o sistema – com mais regulação e melhor supervisão.

Há, até, quem afirme que essa ideia garantiu a Obama a eleição: é que, nos dias anteriores ao eclodir da crise (o Lehman Brothers faliu a 15 de Setembro de 2008), McCain tinha ultrapassado Obama nas sondagens, devido ao 'efeito Sarah Palin'...

Proteger as pessoas, não os bancos
É essa a ideia forte da mensagem do Presidente: o que a crise de 2008 mostrou é que cabe aos políticos em Washington «garantir que o sistema vos proteja a vocês, que vivem na Main Street, e não aos 'fat cats' que se movem pela ganância de Wall Street».

Esta frase foi repetida vezes sem conta por Barack durante a campanha – e voltou a ser utilizada depois da eleição.

Muitos vêem nesta posição do Presidente o seu maior deslize populista. Há até quem acuse Obama de hipocrisia, por manter esse discurso crítico em público, ao mesmo tempo que se rodeou de gente que sempre esteve ligada ao sistema que tanto critica (Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Peter Orszag...)

Mas essa é uma das facetas que torna Obama um político singular: ao chegar à Casa Branca, Barack sabia que era importante chamar uma boa parte da 'nata' do Clintonismo. Mas, enquanto Presidente, é ele quem tem marcado a agenda e imposto o tom dominante da administração.

«Proteger as pessoas e não os bancos», o lema de Barack, não é, propriamente, um objectivo fácil de passar à prática.

A primeira fase do ataque à crise implicou a aprovação de um Plano de Recuperação e Reinvestimento, que incluía um 'stimulus package' de cerca de 800 mil milhões de dólares.

Evitar novo descontrolo
Garantida a ajuda de emergência por parte do poder federal, chega, agora, o reverso da medalha: mesmo quando aprovou essa enorme intervenção para salvar o sistema financeiro, Obama recordou sempre que os bancos e empresa alvos de 'bailouts' teriam que mudar de atitude, de modo a passarem a ter práticas mais responsáveis e transparentes.

Só que não é realista acreditar numa mudança súbita de quem está dentro de um sistema movido pelo lucro e pela ganância. Para que o descontrolo não se repita, a Administração Obama está a preparar um pacote legislativo que vai estar em foco nas próximas semanas.

Chris Dodd, senador democrata do Connecticut, tem feito a ponte com os republicanos – mas, tal como sucedeu com a Health Care Bill, não será fácil chegar a uma plataforma bipartidária.

Seja qual for o acordo final, a via apontada por Obama é clara: mais regulação, mais supervisão e regras mais apertadas, impostas pela Reserva Federal aos bancos.

Um dos principais trunfos dos democratas passa pela criação de uma Agência de Protecção ao Consumidor, que garanta a defesa dos direitos dos cidadãos em questões cruciais como os contratos de compra de habitação ou os cartões de crédito.»

Reforma Financeira: será que é desta que há um acordo bipartidário?

Na Reforma da Saúde não foi possível, mas Obama ainda não desistiu de diminuir a tensão política em Washington...

Cimeira sobre Segurança Nuclear: o primeiro passo em frente do pós-START II

Obama, o anfitrião da Cimeira sobre Segurança Nuclear

Hillary Clinton: «Comportamento iraniano está a ajudar-nos a marcar posição na questão nuclear»

Mensagem semanal: baixar os impostos para a classe média

Sarah 'Pitbull' Palin de novo ao ataque

Imagens para a História: Medvedev e Obama assinaram, em Praga, o START II

Barack Obama e Dmitri Medvedev assinam um pré-acordo, no Kremlin, em Julho de 2009, que lançou as bases para a redução nuclear selada ontem, em Praga



Encontro informal para afinar pormenores antes do acordo


Hillary Clinton e Sergei Lavrov, chefes da diplomacia norte-americana e russa, com Gary Samore, conselheiro especial de Barack Obama, especializado em questões nucleares


(fotos Whitehouse.gov, portal oficial da Administração Obama)

HISTÓRICO: Obama e Medvedev assinam os acordos START II

Um forte passo rumo ao desarmamento nuclear -- certamente, um dos pontos altos do primeiro mandato de Barack Obama:

Michelle Obama e Jill Biden falam sobre o Mês dos Filhos dos Militares Americanos

Armas Nucleares: Administração Obama revê política norte-americana e compromete-se a não usar armas nucleares contra países que não as tenham

Um artigo de David Sanger e Peter Baker, no New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.”

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council, and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites.

He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons.

But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.

There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.

In shifting the nuclear deterrent toward combating proliferation and the sale or transfer of nuclear material to terrorists or nonnuclear states, Mr. Obama seized on language developed in the last years of the Bush administration. It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence.

Mr. Obama was asked whether the American failure to make North Korea pay a heavy price for the aid to Syria undercut Washington’s credibility.

“I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.”

He indicated that he hoped to use this week’s treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations.

“We are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO as a whole,” he said.

An obvious such issue would be the estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States still has stationed in Western Europe. Russia has called for their removal, and there is growing interest among European nations in such a move as well. But Mr. Obama said he wanted to consult with NATO allies before making such a commitment.

The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hoped to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states.

“Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”»

Plano de Recuperação e Reinvestimento: Joe Biden exige transparência e 'accountability'

E agora um momento «real America» de Barack Obama...

Michelle voltou ao Spring Garden

A Primeira Dama plantou, há um ano, uma horta biológica na Casa Branca: 12 meses depois, voltou ao Spring Garden, acompanhada do secretário da Agricultura, Tom Vilsack, e da secretária da Saúde, Kathleen Sebelius.

Um esforço simbólico pela promoção da alimentação saudável numa América dominada pela obesidade:

Sinais de recuperação: economia americana cria 162 mil empregos em Março

É o melhor registo mensal desde o início da era Obama e desde a crise de 2008. Um valor favorecido com os mais de 40 mil empregos criados pelo Estado, para se fazer o censo da população, é certo, mas não deixam de ser sinais animadores...



Análise de Eamon Javers, no Politico.com:


«President Barack Obama got the first unequivocally good news on the nation’s employment picture Friday, as new government figures showed the nation gained 162,000 jobs in March.


The unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent. That’s the first time the nation has gained, rather than lost, jobs since late 2007, with the exception of November 2009, which many economists saw as a fluke.


Reversing the unrelenting jobs decline has been a central goal of the Obama administration, and it has been politically crucial for Democrats to demonstrate progress on the jobs front ahead of the midterm elections in November.


The news will not have an immediate effect on the stock market, where the Dow has been surging toward the psychologically important 11,000 marker this week because Wall Street is closed today for Good Friday.


The employment number was not high enough to beat expectations of many economists, who were looking for a gain of 200,000 or more.


Many economists say that about 150,000 of the new jobs can be explained away by the combination of a bounce-back effect from the February snowstorms, as snowed-in workers got back to their job sites in March and by massive temporary hiring by the U.S. Census of as many as 50,000 canvassers.


Still, a positive number will almost immediately change the political dynamic, as Republicans — who have issued press releases demanding “Where are the jobs, Mr. President?” nearly every time the monthly jobs figure has been released for the past several months, will lose a key talking point.


The White House has positioned itself to capitalize on the news, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner scheduled for an interview on Bloomberg Television at 11:30 a.m. and Obama in Charlotte, N.C., to talk jobs and the economy at an advanced battery technology facility around midday.


Despite a positive trend line, the White House is trying not to appear to be resting on its laurels, given the devastation that the financial meltdown has inflicted on much of the nation.


Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was cautious in her response to the jobs report, calling it a sign of “gradual labor market healing.”


“Even after adjusting for the 48,000 temporary Census workers hired and a rebound effect from the February snowstorms, this number suggests an increase in underlying payroll employment,” she said, noting that for the first quarter of 2010 job growth averaged 54,000 per month versus average monthly job losses of 753,000 per month in the first quarter of 2009.

At the same time that we welcome today’s encouraging labor market news, it is obvious that the American labor market remains severely distressed. ... There will likely be bumps in the road ahead.”


"I'm thrilled," Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) chairwoman of the Joint Economic Committee told POLITICO. "This is the best news we've seen in a while." Maloney said she was particularly impressed that 123,000 of the new jobs were in the private sector, and that key sectors such as manufacturing saw boosts in hiring. "I'm optimistic, but also realistic," she said. "It will take a long time to bring down our unacceptable unemployment."


Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, in a statement, said that “no matter what spin the White House puts on these job numbers, it is unacceptable for President Obama to declare economic success when unemployment remains at 9.7 percent and a large portion of the job growth came from temporary boost in government employment.


“As Democrats grow Big Government, Americans grow weary of the strain on family budgets, job security and peace of mind. As America’s employers announce the frightening and immediate impact of the Democrat government-run health care experiment on their balance sheets, American workers wonder why the only place exempt from increasingly painful belt-tightening seems to be Washington, D.C. In November, the American voters will deliver a few more pink slips — to congressional Democrats.”


Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said that while “new job opportunities for the American people are always welcome news…we have still yet to see the robust private sector job creation the Obama administration promised would come from its $862 billion failed stimulus.


“This administration has spent more than a year trying to grow the economy by expanding government, even though history shows that strong and sustainable economic growth must begin in the private sector.”


While most players on both sides of the aisle assume that the employment agony in the country has been a major drag on Obama’s popularity, two Republican analysts at Hamilton Place Strategies issued a white paper Thursday making the case that positive jobs growth does not immediately affect a president’s popularity.


“It usually takes months for presidential approval to recover after a return to job growth,” wrote Tony Fratto and Taylor Griffin.


“The early Reagan presidency provides an instructive analogy. When jobs numbers finally began to improve, it was 10 months before Reagan’s approval broke above 50 percent again.”


Interest in Friday’s jobs number has been so high that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiles the data, scheduled its first ever live Web chat for 9:30 a.m. BLS subject matter experts said they would take questions on national unemployment data at www.bls.gov/chat.»

«Real American Stories» - a estreia do 'talk show' da Fox News, versão Sarah Palin

Obama e as sanções ao Irão

Histórias da Casa Branca: contra-relógio até Novembro

Texto publicado esta quinta-feira no site de A BOLA, secção Outros Mundos:

Contra-relógio até Novembro

Por Germano Almeida

«Ted Kennedy, o mítico senador democrata do Massachussets, falecido em Agosto passado, costumava dizer que «por muito que os membros do Senado dos dois lados da bancada discutissem no Capitólio, ficavam todos amigos depois das seis da tarde».

A frase, recordada por Barack Obama em recente sessão comemorativa do St. Patrick's Day, perante a comunidade de ascendência irlandesa nos EUA, dá conta de um clima bipartidário que vigorou em largos períodos dos quase 50 anos em que Ted se manteve no Senado mas que, manifestamente, deixou de ser possível, perante as posições extremadas que o debate de mais de um ano sobre o ObamaCare gerou em Washington.

Por estes dias, com a aprovação da Reforma da Saúde ainda a dominar a agenda de uma Administração Obama subitamente renascida, Ted Kennedy tem sido muito lembrado. O "liberal lion" morreu sem ver concretizado o sonho que durante décadas alimentou no Senado – mas não faltaram referências ao seu legado.

Nancy Pelosi, nas alegações finais, momentos antes da histórica votação na Câmara dos Representantes que viria a selar a concretização desse sonho, recordou a carta que Ted escreveu a Barack Obama, dias antes de morrer.

Na missiva, o mais novo dos irmãos Kennedy exortava o Presidente a manter a Reforma da Saúde como prioridade das prioridades, pela mais forte das razões: «Trata-se do principal problema a resolver na nossa sociedade».

Na cerimónia de assinatura da lei, momento que porá Obama na história da América (seja qual for o seu destino político a partir de agora), o Presidente tinha ao seu lado Vicky Kennedy, a viúva de Ted, e Marcelis Owens, o menino de 11 anos cuja mãe morreu por lhe ter sido negada a assistência médica num hospital (ficara desempregada e, por causa disso, perdera o seguro de saúde).

Acidez republicana
O clima de tensão bipartidária já foi muito intenso nos últimos anos. Mas com o debate sobre a Reforma da Saúde chegou a níveis que dificilmente serão sanáveis durante o primeiro mandato de Obama.

Como já havia acontecido na votação realizada na véspera de Natal no Senado, nenhum republicano votou a favor da proposta aprovada na House.

Com a aprovação de 21 de Março, cantou-se vitória na Administração Obama – e o Presidente conseguiu mesmo, contra a previsão de muitos, concretizar a sua principal bandeira.

Robert Gibbs, porta-voz da Casa Branca, afirmou mesmo que, para Barack Obama, «a aprovação da Reforma da Saúde foi mais gratificante do que sua própria eleição como Presidente».

Mas o que a batalha legislativa concluída recentemente no Congresso também reafirmou foi a total impossibilidade de se pensar num clima de «reconciliação» durante a era Obama.

O Partido Republicano teve uma atitude de total obstrução durante a longa discussão da Reforma da Saúde – e promete insistir nesse caminho. No dia seguinte à vitória democrata, John Boehner, líder da minoria republicana no Congresso, prometia: «Faremos tudo para travar esta reforma errada e nociva para a América».

E a primeira retaliação não demorou a aparecer: depois de analisada ao detalhe, a Health Care Bill apresentava, garantiam os republicanos, duas irregularidades que obigavam a novo escrutínio.

A votação repetiu-se – e a aprovação confirmou-se. Mas Boehner lançou novo aviso, desta vez com um alvo bem definido: a 'speaker' Nancy Pelosi: «Vá-se preparando para estar na mira de um pelotão de fuzilamento, depois de Novembro».

A alusão do congressista do Ohio é clara: Boehner está a contar com enormes ganhos eleitorais dos republicanos nas 'midterms' do final do ano.

O tempo está a contar
Não é provável que os democratas percam a maioria no Senado e na Câmara dos Representantes, mas é de admitir que as eleições intercalares permitam aos republicanos uma redução significativa na actual maioria clara dos democratas.

Obama sabe perfeitamente disso – e está a preparar um autêntico contra-relógio legislativo para aproveitar os meses que faltam até Novembro, de modo a ainda avançar com temas difíceis como a Reforma Financeira.

O tempo está a contar.»