The 2012 Presidential Election and its Aftermath

Immigration Reform A Second Term Priority

On January 21, 2013 (below), the day of President Obama’s 2nd public inauguration I recorded some of the opinions of what Mr. Obama’s political priorities  might be. After thinking about
those assessments and the one in the January, 2013 edition of “Migration News” that I’ve been sitting on for too long now, I decided to quote that publication’s view that reforming immigration will be Mr. Obama’s most compelling act as President. And as the “Migration News”quotation below suggests immigration reform is a real bipartisan goal for both Republicans and Democrats; employers, some labour unions, and middle class citizens who can afford to hire imported nannies and lawn trimmers.

…Immigration reform is expected be a top domestic priority after issues surrounding the debt ceiling and spending cuts are resolved. President Obama in October 2012 called immigration reform his major “long-term” priority for a second term, and House Speaker John Boehner said that a “comprehensive approach [to immigration] is long overdue.” One summary of the politics of immigration reform concluded that the Democrats want immigration reform that includes legalization to reward Hispanic voters while the Republicans need immigration reform to increase their appeal to Hispanic voters. The coalition in support of comprehensive immigration reform includes employers seeking immigrant workers, from agriculture to IT firms, unions that want to represent newly legalized workers, and many other groups, from young people seeking immigrant status to evangelical pastors with Latino parishioners. Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union said: “We expect action and leadership on immigration reform in 2013. No more excuses. No more obstruction or gridlock.”…

Presidential Inauguration January 21, 2013

Is this what it all meant, the election that is ? Or is something better in store, something not yet noticed.

Have y’u  heard Mr. Obama’s startin’ a fresh new term: that’s how BNN characterized what Mitch McConnell said. And when they interviewed Michael Smart from Washington he said that this time around Mr. Obama would be going for free trade in a big way even though his trade union supporters might not be for it.

If that’s true maybe it’s because he won’t be runnin’ again. Or maybe he’s gonna get in line with his real supporters.

But here’s what an ABC News Utube upload caption reads:”The president will tackle gun control, immigration and national debt in the next four years.”

And a British paper, the Guardian states “Barack Obama cites climate change and gay rights in inauguration speech – live”.(Make sure you hit the Latest First link under the Obamas’ photo to get the climate and gay rights prediction of the Jan.21, 2013Guardian article. Nevertheless it is strange that the line “Barack Obama cites climate change and gay rights in inauguration speech – live”.which I copied and pasted from the article(s) seems to have disappeared.)

And the New York Times opinion is “Climate Change Given Prominence in Obama’s Address”.

Today, January 22,2013, I perused a NY Times report of Mr. Obama’s 2013 inauguration in which climate change, gay rights, and immigration are central to journalist, Peter Baker’s, view of Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address outlining tasks for his second Presidential term. So far none of the reports of the inauguration speech say anything about the urgency of addressing poverty and the death rate for Americans under the age of 50 which affects citizens of all persuasions, perhaps even the rich. My guess is that emphasis on climate change, gay rights, and immigration may be items favoured by those who had the political and financial power to get him re-elected, and not the needs of the nation and those seeking justice.

November 30,2012

What follows was written August 24, 2008. The apparent Republican favouring of Democrat Senator Kerry for Secretary of State over President Obama’s choice: Ambassador to the United Nations Ms. Rice, inspired me to republish it.

Sunday, 24 August, 2008

Obama’s Running Mate

Some months ago I learned that former Democrat presidential candidate Senator John Kerry had decided to join Senator Ted Kennedy in endorsing Senator Obama against Senator Clinton in the Democrat primaries; I then began losing interest in Obama’s change that could be believed in.

When Obama chose Senator Biden as his running mate I decided that the Democrat establishment would be in charge of Obama’s campaign, and the Democrat establishment looks a lot like the Republican establishment having more money and family influence than the typical American citizen…

November 15,2012

The “fiscal cliff”(Watch your step.)

Two presidential elections have been contested with the so called Bush tax cuts as a central issue(lowered tax rates on yearly incomes above $250000) which the former Republican President and colleagues had designed to expire at the end of 2010. But on December 17, Bloomberg News reported a new expiry date of December 31, 2012.

Why did these lower rates not expire on December 31, 2010 as President Bush and House Republicans had planned? Well I take it that on Dec. 6 2010, Mr. Obama agreed with Republicans on legislation that extends

… through 2012 all Bush-era tax reductions on income, capital gains and dividends. It continues expanded unemployment insurance benefits through 2011, cuts payroll taxes by 2 percentage points during 2011 and lets businesses write off 100 percent of capital investments between Sept. 9, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2011……The legislation also extends dozens of expired and expiring tax breaks, including a research and development tax credit and a college tuition tax credit that was created in [the previous] year’s economic stimulus law…

And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner an Obama appointee ‘ “said in a statement that the tax plan was “good for growth, good for jobs.” ‘

President Obama and some Democrats still say they vehemently oppose these tax advantages because they seem to believe, despite Mr. Geithner’s opinion, that their elimination is a prerequisite for creating jobs and paying off government debt. This need to increase government income by raising tax rates seems so pressing that it has taken on a near mythic significance through endless references to their expiry date of December 31, 2012, as the “fiscal cliff” which obscures practical solutions to U.S. debt, and employment problems by inspiring a kind of fear of an unknown demise when December 31 arrives, possibly the end of the United states as it falls off the tax break “cliff”.

Today, however, November 15, 2012, well read in the literature of second term presidents’ “overreach”, and perhaps wishing to forestall the much dreaded imagined outcomes of the “fiscal cliff” Mr. Obama may again be ready to compromise and not cancel these tax breaks completely on December 31 2012, thus giving the U.S. a new “lease on life”.

November 13, 2012

Since this page about the election is still being read after the November 6, 2012 election I decided to link to this November 10, 2012, New York Times article about the accuracy of various polls, one of which was the Rasmussen, Republican leaning tracking poll, which the article suggests was one of the most inaccurate because of its Republican bias.

November, 2012

You know they say it’s been a real tight election race, especially since the first debate. But they’re sayin’ President Obama’s still lookin’ like a sure thing in the electoral college, and everyone on T.V. seems to favour him, and the T.V.interviewed some people in Kenya who liked him. And a lot of entertainers like Billy Joel, and Madona seem to like him and even Bob Dylan’s enthusiastic about him; and President Clinton’s (1) been talking himself hoarse campaigning for him. And recently investment adviser and Mayor Bloomberg of New York decided to support him, and he’ll probably be joined by a lot of other big time investers, maybe even some of the bankers who helped pay for his 2009 inaugeration, which some journalists called the most expensive in American history. So with all those big people behind him and the electoral college predictions, you have to wonder who’s voting for the other guy?

(1)Considering how hard Mr. Clinton campaigned for Mr. Obama, the Guardian report that follows under a Jan. 21, 2013 article about Mr Obama’s inauguration is rather interesting especially after reading an article yesterday( Feb.1) about the large sums of campaign contributions needed to qualify for various diplomatic posts:

5.33pm ET Quirky historical note from the Associated Press: no Bushes or Clintons this time for the first time in decades: For the first time in more than three decades, there was neither a Clinton nor a Bush on either the departing or the incoming presidential ticket. Since 1981, every year until now has seen someone from one of the two famous political families front-and-center on the inaugural platform. In 1981 and 1985, it was George HW Bush as vice president to Ronald Reagan, followed four years later by Bush as president. In 1993, with Bush looking on, Bill Clinton took the oath as president and again four years later in 1997. Then, a departing Clinton took to the inaugural platform in 2001 as George W Bush was sworn in. Bush had a second inauguration in 2005, and then witnessed the inauguration four years later, in 2009, of Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was there today, of course, but not centre stage.

November 3, 2012

Whose fair share?

I once published a piece (below) that I titled “Money meets money; money wins.” about how the winner of millionaire investor, Governor Romney’s and millionaire supported President Obama’s competition for president will be lots of money. The most recent confirmation of this crazy notion is (once a Democrat now a Republican) wealthy Mayor Bloomberg’s recent endorsement of Mr. Obama’s candidacy. Now way back on October 20, 2012 I think I was being prepared for this endorsement by a New York Timesarticle entitled “Ever Bipartisan, Bloomberg Jabs Both Candidates” in which I read Mr. Bloomberg’s criticism of the President: ” ‘This business of ‘Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?’ Who are you to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ “and his admonishment of Romney” I do think that Romney’s business experience would be valuable, but I don’t know that running Bain Capital gives you the experience to run the country.”But less than two weeks and one hurricane later Mayor Bloomberg announces his support for Mr. Obama because he feels that Hurricane Sandy may be evidence of global warming which Mr. Obama is better equipped to manage than Mr. Romney, and not Mr. Obama’s most repeated rhetoric since he took office in 2008/09, which is that the rich should pay more in taxes (their “fair share”).

Remember Warren Buffet’s secretary.

Monday, October 29, 2012

The October 4 date in my October 6 “Much Ado”article below:

This morning while attempting to understand whether or not I had erred in my October 4, 2012 dating of comments made on October 6after the first Presidential debate on October 4,I discovered this very informative article dated October 4, 2012 with very many illuminating links to analyses of the debate and its aftermath.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

On Sunday Oct. 21:

The Rasmussen Reports daily[federal] Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%…

Today the Rasmussen Poll shows “Daily Swing State Tracking Poll Swing State Tracking: Romney 50%, Obama 46%” The Rasmussen page also includes a list of poll results from late August 2012.

October 17, 2012 “Daily Swing State Tracking Poll[for October 17]

Swing State Tracking: Obama 50%, Romney 47%”

Here are comments for the Rasmussen tracking polls with some interesting links. “Daily Swing State Tracking Poll [ for October 14] “Swing State Tracking: Romney 49%, Obama 47%”

October 11,2012

Romney’s leadership still polling behind Obama.

In an October 11, 2012 New York Times article headed “ Voters Give Romney Better Grades for Leadership, Polls in 3 States Find.


The latest Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll, of likely voters in the three states, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin, found no sharp movement after the debate and the news last Friday that the unemployment rate in September had dropped below 8 percent for the first time since Mr. Obama took office.


The current surveys, which have margins of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for each candidate, were conducted from Oct. 4 to Oct. 9, after the debate in Denver.


The president’s support is built on strengths that have been evident for months. In the two states where he holds an advantage overall, Mr. Obama has consistently outperformed Mr. Romney on a series of issues, including international affairs, health care and Medicare.

Here we can see that despite Republican attacks on his administration’s ambiguous efforts to explain the cause of the September 11 killings in Libya, and current hearings into the matter, Mr. Obama’s stature in international affairs continues to give him an advantage over Mr. Romney.

Obviously despite Mr. Obama’s unimpressive performance in the October 4, 2012 debate that helped convince many of Mr. Romney’s leadership abilities, the President’s record in international affairs and government health programs trumps his unimpressive debate performance and Mr. Romney’s superior leadership.

Me and Mr. Obama

October 8, 2012

Hey Mr. Obama is just like me; he thinks that political debates are just a media circus or in his October 7, New York Times media reported words ” media-driven gamesmanship” : “…Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship…” at least that’s what they’re saying, whether you believe it or not. And if that’s what he thinks you might wonder why the President would have openly acted against his own beliefs by participating in an event the Times story calls

… a singular event in the life of the campaign, watched by more than 67 million people – a larger audience than for any of Mr. Obama’s 2008 debates, either of his nominating conventions or any of his State of the Union addresses…

Well, maybe his advisers wanted him to do it. I gather one of them is helping the Vice President prepare for his debate. Oh well I still think that what’s important about these political debates is how they are characterized in talk by professional opinion shapers:

Mr. Obama is said to believe political debates to be “media-driven gamesmanship” . But he apparently thought his October 4, 2012 debate was a good one,”This was a terrific debate”. But most commentators feel he wasn’t that effective, despite his continuing lead in the polls. But they say that’s what happened in 2008: thanks to Mr McCain’s grumpy debate style Mr. Obama came back to win the presidency in November. Maybe that’s what’s going to happen this time: one more win by the mythical “Come Back Kid”. Maybe that’s how they’re shaping it?

October 6, 2012

More than 2 days have passed since the debates on Wednesday, October 4, 2012, that as usual I refused to watch. For to me televised political debates are a kind of show business, presenting a small part of an election campaign puzzle, a kind of distraction from real problems that Presidential campaigns themselves distract from. These real concerns include who gets the money spent on these increasingly expensive contests. Is it the entertainment community, corporations, or investors like Mr. Romney, or the $250,000. a year middle classers? These real concerns also include the increasing cost of necessities while wages stagnate or diminish. And one of these necessities is fuel: for furnaces, shipping of food from far across the world, driving of autos for employment, and who the candidates for president and their parties represent, despite personal attacks. For what matters most about these debates is what is said about them on television and in newspapers later. On Thursday, October 4, 2012, New York Times articles suggested that Mr. Obama had been a surprisingly ineffective speaker, but by the next day, and by today, October 6, 2012, debate performance seems forgotten,(1) so too the reported largest audience in debate watching history( a much advertised event, paid for by ?) And time, time helps sift things to bring perspective so that today October 6, 2012 Mr. Obama’s apparent oratorical meekness seems unimportant and the time worn pronouncement about these debates is promulgated with emphasis on the moderators less than demanding questions and not how Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama might have been the winner, and that this has all been “Much Ado About Nothing”.


…”Despite the debate results, however, Mr Obama carries a slender margin in the latest Reuters poll, which showed him hanging on with 46 per cent of the vote, ahead of Mr Romney on 41 per cent.”..

In a Septemer 30, 2012 New York Times article we read “As Iowa Goes So May Go Romney’s Chances”

… the national tracking polls were published on Saturday, and continued to show President Obama in a fairly strong position. He held at a six-point lead in the Gallup national tracking poll, although his approval rating dipped. He also maintained a rough seven-point advantage in the RAND Corporation’s online tracking poll. Mr. Obama also pulled ahead to take a two-point lead in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, which had differed from other polling firms by previously showing a tie…

So I guess the changing explanations for the September 11, 2012 attack have been forgotten.

This September 21, 2012 bit below was entered here from my blogspot blog on September 30, 2012. Since publishing it I read a New York Times article a couple of days ago suggesting that Mr. Obama was getting criticised for conflicting stories about the cause of the attack on the ambassador to Libya and 3 other Americans on Sept.11, 2012. As you may be aware the State Department’s first explanation has been that the attacks were the result of an American movie about the prophet Mohamed while many believed that the attacks were the product of a planned effort by one of the armed militia in Libya perhaps affiliated with Al Qaeda. But based on the article I read a couple of days back the U.S. administration now accepts that the attack was likely planned and by a militia perhaps linked to Al Qaeda and not a spontaneous protest to the video, protested against throughout the Middle East. Consequently the Republicans had seen this acceptance of possible planning in the Libya killings as proof of the administration’s faulty intelligence in not knowing of this planning while it was happening, thus Mr. Obama’s previously good record on foreign affairs suddenly became bad. But in the days since I read this story, I’ve heard nothing more on the President and foreign affairs. Perhaps nothing much has really changed in the Presidential “race” since September 21, 2012 .

This quotation below is from the Sept. 26, 2012  New York Times article headed

September 27, 2012 “Super PACs’ Finally a Draw for Democrats


…Unexpectedly big givers for Democratic super PACs are building trade unions, which have combined to donate at least $6 million. The unions lobbied Mr. Obama aggressively to approve the full Keystone pipeline project connecting Canadian oil sands production with Gulf of Mexico refineries. They failed, at least temporarily, but the administration agreed to a southern section of the pipeline, guaranteeing thousands of jobs for their members…

“Today September 21, 2012 I read that one poll shows President Obama with an 8 point lead and another a 5 point lead to be reelected President. Based on that apparent fact and this evening’s PBS conversations of Shields and Brooks, both of whom despite misgivings about Obama’s leadership image, seem not impressed with Mr. Romney’s inability to convey his humanity, there seems little enthusiasm for not reelecting Mr. Obama.”

September 14, 2012
The September 13 /14 Times article states that recent analysis of presidential election ads shows energy themes playing an “outsized role” which implies to me that real political control in this 2012 election is managed by energy investors, perhaps the “powerful forces” alluded to by environmentalist, Mr. Gore, in a previous election effort and most recently raised as a specter at the Democrat convention by Professor Warren.

 …The Times analysis shows that ads with energy themes have played an outsized role in the 2012 campaign season, with energy earning more frequent mentions than every other issue except jobs and the economy…

The article also appears to put the Republicans and Mr. Romney on the side of the fossil fuel industry with Mr. Obama seeming to favour so-called clean energy sources, even though we are told that after his planned May 6, 2012 to November 30 2012(1)  deep sea drilling moratorium in response to the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the President allowed sea drilling as before and also opened up the environmentally sensitive Arctic to the fossil fuel industry. His much publicised halting of  the Keystone pipeline project on the other hand seems to have counterbalanced his reopening the seas to the fossil fuel industry, but in addition to never mentioning the “nuclear renaissance” and the President’s decision to rely on nuclear power, the article says nothing to remind us that according to a May 5, 2010 Politico article “Obama[is the] biggest recipient of BP cash” .We might imagine then that the President is seeming to be balancing his energy perspective by maintaining support from both the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.

(1) I originally mistakenly wrote one year for the moratorium which most articles indicated began on May 6, 2011. The planned cut off date was supposed to have been November 30, 2011; this date is the easiest to discern. The date on which the moratorium  rather hurriedly concluded is the hardest to find, but a number of articles write of its concluding at least after October 12, 2011, making the moratorium barely 5 months in total. But by April 1, 2010 a previous 30 year ban on offshore drilling had ended, less than a month before the BP accident on April 20, 2010.

“Today September 21, 2012 I read that one poll shows President Obama with an 8 point lead and another a 5 point lead to be reelected President. Based on that apparent fact and this evening’s PBS conversations of Shields and Brooks, both of whom despite misgivings about Obama’s leadership image, seem not impressed with Mr. Romney’s inability to convey his humanity, there seems little enthusiasm for not reelecting Mr. Obama.”

The Democrat 2012 Convention

Here are a few things that Professor Elizabeth, Warren( the President’s choice to limit Wall Street’s excesses) told the Democrat Convention on September 5, 2012 about Wall Street, the rich and the poor.

…After the financial crisis, President Obama knew that we had to clean up Wall Street. For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages…President Obama believes in a country where billionaires pay their taxes just like their secretaries do,..

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and called to act…

..After the financial crisis, President Obama knew that we had to clean up Wall Street. For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages. I had an idea for a consumer financial protection agency to stop the rip-offs. The big banks sure didn’t like it, and they marshaled one of the biggest lobbying forces on earth to destroy the agency before it ever saw the light of day. American families didn’t have an army of lobbyists on our side, but what we had was a president—President Obama leading the way. And when the lobbyists were closing in for the kill, Barack Obama squared his shoulders, planted his feet, and stood firm. And that’s how we won…

“President Obama was re-elected in November 2012, winning 332 electoral votes and 51 percent of the 124 million votes cast.”(Migration News, January, 2013)

In the August 20, 2012 New York Times Online edition, under

A MEASURE OF CHANGE [the header], Cautious Moves on Foreclosures Haunting Obama [appears above an article reviewing Obama’s decision to] finesse the cleanup of the housing crash, rejecting unpopular proposals for a broad bailout of homeowners facing foreclosures in favour of a limited aid program – and a bet that a recovering economy would take care of the rest.During his first two years in office, Mr. Obama and his advisers repeatedly affirmed this carefully calibrated strategy, leaving unspent hundreds of billions of dollars that Congress had allocated to buy mortgage loans, even as millions of people lost their homes and the economic recovery stalled somewhere between crisis and prosperity.

Then later that day of August 20,2012 in the Online publication, The Hill, the following header announces:

Obama pushes Congress on mortgage relief

President’s Image Today, June 10, 2012

Today, 3 months later, Mr Obama seems less a shoe in than in March 2012: he’s been accused of leaking classified information. And Republicans with their new Champ, Mr. Romney, are charging that he wishes to raise taxes to hire more government workers.

President’s Image on March 10, 2012

Today, March 10, 2012, the view of Mr. Obama is that the Republicans will have difficulty choosing a candidate to defeat him in the 2012 election. For the perception of the president has changed since April 2011: Bin Laden has been killed, and the improvement in the U.S. job and stock markets have been assessed as decreasing the things for the Republicans to run against. And perhaps most important to his Democrat voter base is the President’s decision to put off deciding on whether to proceed with the Keystone oil pipeline until after the 2012 presidential election.back

Money meets money; money wins.

The following is what I think I learned about the upcoming November, 2012 Presidential race from the Friday, Feb. 10, 2012 PBS Newshour, and the Sunday Feb.12, 2012 political talk shows:

The Republican Presidential nominee will be a hedge fund multimillionaire business man who will face a Democrat President Obama who after his 2008 victory celebrated, during a financial calamity he said was the worst since the great depression, the costliest inaugeration in US history.

Fund raisers for Obama included “two of Obama’s top campaign fundraisers: Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of banking giant and government bailout recipient Citigroup, and billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress Penny Pritzker.”

Republican Mr. Powell will not commit to the President in this 2012 election.

Mr. Powell who supported Democrat President Obama instead of Republican Senator Mc Cain in the 2008 election because he then believed Mr.Obama to be a transitional figure stated today May 27, 2012 that as a private citizen (no longer a performing general or Republican Secretary of State) he had the luxury of withholding his choice for president until giving his decision more thought.

“Mirror mirror on the wall” which is the real-est characterization of them all?

On April 12, 2011 I was reading an article in the Toronto Star : about President Obama’s appearing to be celebrating government spending cuts that might some day diminish the US’s government debt, and saw a reference to an April 10 article in the New York Times By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: April 10, 2011

“What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?”

So after reading these two articles of April 10 & 12 assessing President Obama’s deficit reducing stature I was surprised on Friday April 15,2011 to hear on PBS the following appraisal of Mr. Obama’s deficit cutting actions by two other journalists:

“JIM LEHRER: Do you agree the president did an effective job?

MARK SHIELDS: I think the president did a remarkable job. I mean, understand this, Jim.” ……………………………………………………………………….

“DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, I mean, he did rally the left.”

President Obama and the News Hour

PBS News, Feb. 9, 2010

On Tuesday, February 9, President Obama’s wife opened WNED’s PBS program, “The News Hour”,with a discussion of childhood obesity. The following evening the governor of Maryland began with news of his state’s efforts to clear a massive snowfall and his gratitude for the support of President Obama, and homeland Security head Napolitano.

President Obama and “The News Hour”

The second news item aired on this evening’sFeb. 11,2010) PBS “The News Hour” was Dr.Christina Romer’s review of President Obama’s efforts to correct the economic crisis that he had inherited.

Tonight’s congratulatory review by Dr. Romer follows yesterday’s airing of Maryland’s governor’s thanking President Obama for supporting the governor’s efforts to confront a snowy blizzard in Maryland.

The news item featuring the Maryland governor aired on February 10 following President Obama’s wife talking about childhood obesity on February 9.

President Obama on the March 31 “Newshour”

President Obama appeared on the “Newshour” this March 31, 2010 evening to say that he had “partially ended a moratorium that’s lasted more than 20 years.”

JIM LEHRER: ‘There could be more drilling for oil along major expanses of the U.S. coastline. President Obama today partially ended a moratorium that’s lasted more than 20 years.’ ………………………………………………………………………..

U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: ‘This is not a decision that I have made lightly. But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel, even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.’

President Obama on the April 8, 2010 “Newshour” and CBC News

President Obama is shown signing a nuclear arms treaty with Russian President Medvedev in a ceremony shown between 6:45 and 7 the morning of April 8 2010 on CBC television.

That evening on PBS’ News Hour Mr. Obama speaks of the significance of his signing the treaty,in his and the Russian president’s pursuit of “responsible global leadership.”

U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: ‘This day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia — the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — to pursue responsible global leadership.’ …………………………………………………………………………

BARACK OBAMA: ‘When the United States and Russia are not able to work together on big issues, it’s not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for the world. Together, we’ve stopped that drift, and proven the benefits of cooperation.’ (PBS Transcript)

PBS transcript of President Obama’s June 2 comments on the Gulf oil spill

Recent inquiries concerning the reasons for the Gulf Of Mexico oil spill make a review of Mr. Obama’s June 2010 analysis (republished below)of the spill interesting.

(Thursday, 3 June, 2010)

President Obama on the PBS Newshour in a recording of his words earlier in the day at Pittsburgh speaks out against “human error” or “short cuts” that may have led to “the catastrophe unfolding in the gulf right now” .

Although Mr. Obama’s Pittsburgh speech in the transcript that follows is introduced as being about his refocusing “on possible criminal wrongdoing leading up to the spill.” Mr. Obama speaks not of “criminal wrongdoing” but of nameless corporations in a nameless gulf taking “dangerous shortcuts” and comitting “human error”

JIM LEHRER:’ At an afternoon speech in Pittsburgh, President Obama refocused on possible criminal wrongdoing leading up to the spill.’

U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf right now may prove to be a result of human error, or of corporations taking dangerous shortcuts to compromise safety. But we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the earth.’

(Transcript from June 2,2010 PBS News Hour) ————————————————————————