Se testate come il Foglio o Libero avessero pubblicato nel nostro paese una riflessione simile, in molti – tra opinionisti ed esponenti dell’agone parlamentare – avrebbero tirato fuori lo spettro dell’inciucio.
«To save his presidency after his stiff rebuff in the midterm elections, Clinton lurched to the political center. He adopted a strategy of “triangulation” that involved painful compromises with Republicans, who had captured the House and Senate. It worked. Clinton glided to reelection in 1996, defeating Republican Bob Dole by 7 points. Though it’s rarely acknowledged, Clinton’s most significant successes in the White House were all in conjunction with Republicans: the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, and balanced budget legislation in 1997 that included a cut in the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent that spurred the financial boom and budget surplus of his second term».
Resta poi, sullo sfondo, una pesante incognita che dovrebbe essere affrontata dall’establishment democratico: come può il presidente Obama riconoscere la sconfitta elettorale in Massachusetts, evidenziando semplicemente la vittoria del candidato più competente, senza fare un minimo di autocritica?
