Obama contre Clinton, miroir du déchirement interne du parti démocrate?

Que représente la bataille entre Clinton et Obama? Une réponse évidente est qu’il s’agit d’un affrontement de personnes et d’ambitions. Cela laisse le registre politique ouvert: y a-t-il un affrontement politique de fond entre Clinton et Obama? Dit autrement, cela implique de s’interroger pour savoir si les deux candidats représentent des tendances politiques différentes alors que les débats télévisés qui les opposent montrent surtout des affrontements polémiques sans véritable substance.

Le site WSWS.org (dans un article publié aujourd’hui) estime que la question se pose et il tente de lui donner une réponse. Après avoir fait une rapide analyse du dernier de ces débats, à Cleveland, dans l’Ohio, WSWS.org remarque qu’effectivement il n’y a guère eu d’affrontement de substance: «The disconnect between the heated rhetoric and recriminations and the narrow range of visible political differences draws one to the conclusion that more fundamental issues are being fought out behind the scenes and are driving the public conflict between Clinton and Obama.»

Les positions des deux candidats concernant la guerre de l’Irak sont ensuite rappelées. WSWS.org n’accorde guère de crédit à Obama, qu'il estime être complètement acquis à l'esthablishment et dont il juge la position assez proche de celle de Clinton malgré ses affirmations d’opposition à la guerre en Irak. Mais l’analyse de WSWS.org accorde une place considérable au symbole («But as always in American politics, symbols play an immense role») et observe qu’Obama est devenu le symbole de l’opposition à la guerre en Irak. A partir de là, est-il conclu, oui les deux candidats s’opposent effectivement sur des matières de substance parce qu'ils représentent bien deux partis qui s’opposent, – deux fractions qui se déchirent à l’intérieur du parti démocrate.

«It seems that sections of the US political and foreign policy establishment who are deeply worried and bitter over the foreign policy debacle in Iraq, and frustrated by their inability to effect a change in policy through the more established leadership of the Democratic Party, have promoted Obama and rallied behind his campaign as a means of forcing a change in course in Iraq and the broader Middle East.

»The prominence of Iraq in this year’s Democratic primary contest stands in stark contrast to previous elections. In the 2002 congressional election, the Democrats sought to exclude Bush’s drive toward war in Iraq from the campaign. They welcomed a vote on his authorization of force resolution in October of that year in order to get Iraq off the agenda in advance of the November election.

»In the 2004 presidential election, Democratic candidate John Kerry did everything he could to distance his campaign from the growing popular opposition to the war.

»By the time of the 2006 congressional elections, the Democrats could not avoid raising the issue of Iraq. They owed their rout of the Republicans and return to power in both houses of Congress to mass antiwar sentiment that they neither encouraged nor welcomed.

»In the run-up to the 2006 congressional elections, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group was formed to publicly lobby for a shift in policy, including a diplomatic initiative that would include Iran and Syria, not to end the war, but to avert an outright US defeat and salvage what could be salvaged from the colonial adventure.

»But the hopes of those Democratic insiders who were pressing for a change of course were dashed by the refusal of the Democratic congressional leadership to take up the Iraq Study Group’s proposals or mount any serious opposition to Bush’s war policy. Moreover, the cowardice of the Democratic Congress and its complicity in the war aroused immense anger among Democratic voters, intensifying the crisis within the party establishment.

»Unable to effect a change of course through internal pressure, these forces are evidently, through the Obama campaign, taking their factional struggle into the public arena and making an appeal to the broader population. They have rallied behind Obama because they view Clinton as inalterably linked to the disastrous Iraq war and because, as numerous Democratic commentators have explained, they see in Obama, an African-American with less political baggage than his opponent, an opportunity to present a new image of America to the world.»

Mis en ligne le 28 février 2008 à 14H11