Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject: US Election 2012 Latest
Well....after the staged Trump Birther controversy,
and the Osama PR Job, and the trip to Ireland with
it's obligatory genuflection to Guinness....
.. I suppose it's not news that the CIA's Barry's the Boy
2012 presidential reelection campaign is in full swing.
Hey... it's like marketing Cornflakes! Or mebbe: Conflakes.
So this is the BFN official Reelect Barry 2012 thread.
Marketing costs money. And the target for the loot required is?:
Barack Obama after $750 million re-election war chest
...Dozens of Democratic Party operatives and supporters from across the
country assembled in a downtown hotel on Wednesday for an early fund-
raising strategy session.
The group, which was to include Bill Daley, White House Chief of Staff,
and former Director of the White House National Economic Council
Lawrence Summers, laid out their early strategy for raising more than
$750 million to re-elect the president.
"There was talk about why the president deserves to be re-elected and
why it is important for us to make that happen," said a long-time Obama
supporter who attended the meetings.
President Barack Obama's campaign team has set a benchmark
figure of $750 million (£459 million) for his re-election.
That war chest in reality will run to in excess of $1 Billion.
And a compliant media will play the game:
In San Francisco, the White House power play came after the fact:
Team Obama was upset that pool reporter Marinucci had broken an unwritten
rule by pulling out her handheld video camera when a protest erupted.
The White House press office told The Chronicle in plain language that
Marinucci would be banished as a pool reporter from future presidential
visits for having shot the video - and the Obama folks threatened further
retaliation if the paper reported on the threat.
I am proud to work at a newspaper that was unintimidated; a story and
editorial ran the next day. The White House then denied making the
threats - a flat-out lie - and insisted that Marinucci was not blacklisted.
Time will tell.
In Boston, the White House was dumb enough to put its control-freak
streak in writing. In an e-mail to the conservative-leaning Boston Herald
just before an Obama fundraising visit, the White House press office
objected to the newspaper's front-page placement of an opinion piece by
Mitt Romney two months earlier that was critical of Obama.
Now, there is nothing unusual or wrong with representatives of an elected
official protesting coverage. They have every right to challenge a
journalist's judgment and account. But the Obama White House took it to
the next step, a dangerous one: suggesting in its e-mail to the Herald that
access would be determined by "the degree to which papers have
demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly."
The White House spokesman went on to write that it would "continue to
consider the Herald for local pool duty for local visits." Again, time will tell.
What disturbs me as much as the White House press office's audacity is
the passivity of the Washington press corps on these matters. After the
Marinucci episode, the White House Correspondents' Association pledged
to talk with the White House over clarifying the pool-reporter guidelines
"It's still under discussion ... no decisions yet," said David Jackson,
president of the correspondents' association.....
President Obama, DNC Mobilize
2012 Campaign Volunteer Army
By DEVIN DWYER (@devindwyer) - June 6, 2011
A legion of 1,600 newly-recruited Democratic campaign volunteers, armed with Tweet-producing smartphones and a contagious spirit of enthusiasm, are fanning out across 40 states today to begin laying the groundwork for the reelection of President Barack Obama.
The forces -- college students, recent graduates, teachers, and retirees -- will work unpaid through August, aides say, to grow and re-energize Obama's grassroots volunteer network that had remarkable success in 2008, and gather troves of voter data in the process.
Obama campaign managers hope the effort will give the president something of a head start over his yet-to-be-determined Republican rival, in what is expected to be a tough campaign.
The operation kicked-off Saturday at boot-camp-style training sessions held jointly by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee in conference rooms and community centers across the country.......
Down goes Osama and
Up Go OBWan's Poll Numbers.....
Barry O' Is Off To A Flying Start.
Oooooops.... Flying BOMB, that is.
Romney pulls ahead of Obama in new poll
(AFP) – 6 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney pulled ahead of President Barack Obama in a poll of registered voters Tuesday, as public disapproval over the faltering US economy grows.
By 49 to 46 percent, Romney outpolled Obama in a head-to-head election, according to the survey by The Washington Post and ABC News.
That margin was within the 3.5 percent sampling error, but nevertheless suggests that the incumbent president could be vulnerable as he tries to win reelection next year.
Obama led all other potential Republican challengers in the survey, coming out on top in hypothetical head-to-head showdowns against Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Sarah Palin.
Romney, the putative frontrunner in a field of several Republican contenders, lost the party's presidential nomination to Senator John McCain in 2008.
The millionaire businessman, who has made America's foundering economy a central campaign theme, has been campaigning for the 2012 nomination ever since.
He officially launched his presidential campaign last week at a rally held in the key state of New Hampshire, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
Obama said at a press conference Tuesday that he knows there is "enormous work to do" to strengthen the recovery after the worst recession in decades.
"I'm concerned that the recovery we're on is not producing jobs as quickly as I wanted to happen," he said at the press event marking this week's summit with Germany's Angela Merkel......
By a two-to-one margin, Americans said the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 rated the economy in negative terms.
Meanwhile, nearly six in 10 said they felt that the economy has not yet started to recover, despite official data showing that an economic rebound is underway.
Overall, about six Americans in 10 gave Obama negative marks on his handling of the economy and the deficit, and nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president's handling of the economy.
The Post-ABC telephone survey randomly polled 1,002 adults, between June 2 and June 5, and had a plus or minus 3.5 percent sampling error.
The poll found voters -- especially the critically important independent voters not allied with either Democrats or Republicans -- unhappy with the president's performance.
His relatively low poll numbers are in stark contrast to early May, when a "bin Laden bounce" raised his job approval level to nearly the highest of his presidency.
US Navy SEALs shot and killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on May 2 in the northern Pakistani town of Abbottabad, leading to spontaneous outbursts of dancing in the street in America and that sizable uptick in Obama's poll numbers.
Pretty straightforward, eh?
Romney Ahead of Obama.
Not in the liberal Guardian, UK:
Barack Obama suffers shock poll slump
as Mitt Romney draws level
US president in dead heat with rival as ABC-Washington Post
poll shows public unhappiness with state of economy
Ewen MacAskill in Washington - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 June 2011
Barack Obama's hopes of re-election to the White House next year took a knock on Tuesday with the publication of a poll showing him in a surprise dead heat with one of his Republican rivals, Mitt Romney.....
The ABC-Washington Post poll showed Obama and Romney on 47% each among all Americans surveyed, and Romney on 49% and Obama on 46% among registered party members, who are among those most likely to vote.
Cute how the Guardian ignored the poll defeat for Obama
among those most likely to vote --and plumped instead
for the dead heat among all surveyed.
Associated Press (via USAToday) has caught the same mathematical dyslexia:
Obama and Romney in dead heat, poll says
By David Jackson, USA TODAY - Jun 07, 2011 - By Carolyn Kaster, AP
President Obama does well against potential Republican opponents in
a new poll -- with one notable exception.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney actually leads Obama
49-46% among registered voters, and is tied with the president at
47% among all Americans, according to a new ABC News/Washington
Yeah, AP - Obama is doing really well --except for actually losing.
However even the Guardian admits
Romney is now the GOP frontrunner:
Another poll published by Public Policy Polling shows Romney in the lead
in the early key states of the Republican nomination battle..... [The] PPP
poll shows him on 27% in South Carolina against Sarah Palin's 18%.
And Romney stands greatest chance of defeating
Obama --compared to other Republican candidates
and especially compared to Palin:
When Obama was matched against other potential Republican rivals, the
president enjoyed a lead. Obama was six points ahead of Newt Gingrich
among registered voters, nine points head of Tim Pawlenty, 10 points
ahead of Jon Huntsman, 11 points ahead of Michelle Bachmann and 15
points ahead of Palin.
From the Who Gives A Shit Anyway section of
the Pox on the Whole Damn Lot department:
There is seemingly widespread dissatisfaction with the field
of opposition candidates with an equal number of people
unhappy with their choice, as are happy.
One thing for sure is that World Bank or not,
the will she? - won't she? hysteria has very
significantly raised Hillary Clinton's profile.
First a Team Clinton insider tells Reuters that
Hillary is eyeing the World Bank job. Then other
Team Clinton insiders line up to rubbish the idea.
I wonder why?
So do others:
If not World Bank, where’s
Hillary Clinton heading post-2012?
By Jijo Jacob | June 10, 2011 5:07 AM EDT
Hillary Clinton' aides have painstakingly refuted a media report that said she was eying the top job at the World Bank.
“Let me address this as definitively as I can, on the record ... The story is completely untrue," said Philippe Reines, Clinton aide and deputy assistant secretary of state.
Earlier, a Reuters report that said Clinton would be interested in the presidency of the World Bank once it becomes vacant in the latter part of 20102 had sent the world media into a tizzy.
Reines affirmed that the story was bogus, that Clinton has absolutely no interest in a World Bank job and that she hasn’t had any talk with President Obama on her plan to pursue the World Bank post.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, also said the story was completely untrue. So that's been a forceful rebuttal both from Clinton and the White House.
If not running the World Bank, what will Hillary Clinton do after she steps down as Secretary of State? Would she be Obama's Vice-President? Or Defense Secretary? Or will she be gathering herself for yet another White House bid in 2016? Or indeed, a race as early as 2012?
No one thinks it's plausible that a person of her talent and ambition will fade away from public life.
She said in March she had no plans to run for White House again, that she would not want to become the vice-president and that she was not interested in the job of defense secretary.
She had rather hinted that the current job will be her last in the government. "I am doing what I want to do right now and I have no intention or any idea even of running again ... I'm going to do the best I can at this job for the next two years," she had told CNN in March.
"And there isn't anything that I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging or rewarding," she said.
Speculation of a wilder nature too had been set off by Clinton's abrupt announcement that she would not serve another term in the Obama administration. Some suggested that she probably had plans to run against Obama in 2012.....
Call me a cynic, but I've never bought into the public love-fest between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. I think their pairing was borne out of mutual need: For Obama, it was clearly all about, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
And for Hillary, taking the top diplomatic job would serve to repair her election-loss image and quickly make her appear presidential again. It was and is a marriage of convenience, and one that is likely full of residual contention and resentment from 2008.
Fueling speculation is the fact that last week Clinton abruptly announced that she would not serve in a second Obama administration. Is that because she intends to pursue a Clinton administration in 2012? Her announcement comes amid the violence and political turmoil in Libya in which the United States, Britain and France have begun a massive air strike, following the passage of a United Nations resolution authorizing a no-fly zone and the use of military force designed to end Col. Muammar Gaddafi's brutal repression of opposition protesters.
It was Clinton, not Obama, who's been front and center through this crisis, swiftly threatening Gaddafi with military action if he didn't stop the killing. To the contrary, the president's been criticized for not taking a strong enough stand against the Libyan dictator. To be sure, it was Hillary, not Obama, who had the bigger cajones. And that's no great surprise to this blogger, who wrote many pieces during the 2008 campaign that questioned Obama's inability to fight the tough fight, unlike his former rival.
It's no secret that Obama, the much heralded 'Agent of Change', has hugely disappointed those who euphorically supported him and whose mantra is now "change we can't believe in." Progressives and mainstream Democrats alike seethe over his move to the center and for failing to deliver on the issues on which he campaigned and were important to them, from the public option to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and for caving to Republicans.
So with his base disenchanted, his approval rating hovering near 50, and the economy and job growth still stuck in a painfully slow recovery, do these domestic challenges, especially when combined with questions over his handling of world crises, create fertile ground for Clinton to toss her pantsuit into the ring?
It's rare for a prominent member of a sitting president's party to challenge him in the primaries for the nomination. In fact, the last time it was done was 1968 when Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy took on a weakened, unpopular Lyndon B. Johnson. But the Clintons are not your typical deferential, passive politicians. If anyone could trade protocol for self-interest it's the uber-ambitious Hillary and her rock star hubby Bill. Both would like nothing more than to be back in the White House. And if for a second they smell Obama's vulnerability and a potential defeat by the GOP, don't be surprised if she pulls a McCarthy. It's a longshot, but these days in politics anything can and will happen. I can tell you one thing though: I've spoken to many Democrats who'd drop Obama and vote for Hillary in a heartbeat.
Joined: 26 Feb 2011 Posts: 229 Location: west, pa, usa
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject:
Now that Oprah has left daytime TV, there is a desparate need to fill that void. Maybe a daily talk show where she can be an influential persuader of leftist causes and stay in the limelight until the time is right..... _________________ formerly known as duane in a previous registration
Reaching out and/or being seen to be reaching out
for some kind of Afghan exit strategy is a cornerstone
of the Obama reelection campaign.
But the recent hype about peace talks appears to be for
Western consumption, as there actually are no talks of any
substance with anybody who really matters:
America has opened peace talks with Taliban,
says Afghan President Hamid Karzai
American envoys are reported to have met Tayeb Agha, a former close aide to Mullah Omar, several times in Qatar.
Diplomats have stressed that the contacts are at the earliest stages, however, and nothing of substance has yet been discussed. One senior diplomat in Kabul told The Sunday Telegraph: "Lots of people are talking. The net is closing and some of the minnows have been discarded.
"There's some sense that the Taliban are thinking about talks, but there's no serious load-bearing negotiations. We haven't seen a Taliban team come up with a set of demands, or a list of confidence-building measures, or a timetable for negotiations."
Sceptics point out that the coalition appears far more willing to negotiate than the insurgents, who have publicly rejected talks so long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.
Violence remains at record levels in the country, with May considered by the United Nations to have been the bloodiest month on record for Afghan civilians. At least 368 were killed and nearly 600 wounded - around four-fifths by insurgent violence.
Hours after Mr Karzai's remarks, up to four Taliban suicide bombers in military uniform attacked a police station in central Kabul. Two policemen and a civilian were killed and five people wounded.
American involvement in talks reflects a sea change in US policy in the country. With growing opposition to the war, Barack Obama is wary of becoming trapped in a quagmire and America has abandoned previous objections to talking to the Taliban leadership.
In February Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, announced that a diplomatic surge to find a peaceful settlement would now be a cornerstone of efforts to stabilise the country and withdraw 140,000 Nato-led foreign troops. She likened the need to talk to Ronald Reagan's decision to "sit down with the Soviets".
"I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable," she said at the time.
"Diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace."
Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy chair of the High Peace Council which Mr Karzai appointed to try to find a settlement, said he welcomed American participation.
But despite Mr Karzai's claims that Afghan efforts were proceeding well, Mr Mujahid said they had stalled over a Taliban request for diplomatic recognition for them to open an embassy-style office in a Gulf state, where they could meet foreign envoys.
America and the Afghan government had baulked at formally defining the Taliban as a legitimate, official alternative to the Kabul administration.
Anti-war Obama Withdraws Troops
-The Same Troops Which He Put In!
Following in the footsteps of George W. Bush --who placed extra
troops in Iraq's "Surge" deployment, Barack Obama announces
he will withdraw the additional troops which he himself ordered
The Taliban and other anti-occupation forces have proven rather
too stubborn and the occupation is failing --so (as per the recent
fake execution of Osama Bin Laden) Obama switches focus from
failure against the real Afghan insurgency, to vaporware 'success'
against the fake Al-Qaeda variety:
We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength[weakness].
Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together
with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda’s
leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special
Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda
had ever known.....
The information that we [planted and then] recovered from bin Laden’s
compound shows al Qaeda under enormous strain. Bin Laden expressed
concern that al Qaeda has been unable to effectively replace senior
terrorists that have been killed, and that al Qaeda has failed in its effort
to portray America as a nation at war with Islam....
Al Qaeda remains dangerous, and we must be vigilant against attacks.
But we have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat, and we will not relent
until the job is done.
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 Posts: 1046 Location: 3d-rate nation
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:34 am Post subject:
"Reaching out and/or being seen to be reaching out
for some kind of Afghan exit strategy is a cornerstone
of the Obama reelection campaign."
Obama, the Great (he thinks) Deceiver.
Since his re-election campaign is really taking place on Wall Street, his best strategy would be striking a deal with Taliban and exporting the Afghan civil war into Pakistan as a mean to wage a proxy war on China.
Your votes? Ha, just a few tiny bits in Diebold voting machine, easily flippable.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13Next
Page 1 of 13
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum