Romney's Campaign Adviser "Etch-a-Sketch" Quotes Raises More Money For Mitt; Makes Democrat Strategists Look Desperate!

That Stupid "Etch-a-Sketch" quote is making Democrats look Stupid but its going to raise a Lot of Money for Mitt Romney from his Supporters.

So how is this helping Pres. Obama?

It Also Makes Democrat Strategists Look Desperate!

Do Democrats really think this "Etch-a-Sketch" Political Strategy is going to send more Voters to the polls for Pres. Obama?

See what I mean by "Reaching Down" instead of "Reaching Up"?


Pres. Obama's Re-election Campaign Advisers & Strategists Need To Remain Focused On Substantive Issues like the Economy, Jobs, Racial Profiling, Tax Reform, Entrepreneurship, Tech Start-Up Small Businesses For BLACKS & Latinos, Education, Housing, Energy, PERIOD!!!

Reach Up & Aim High For Obama Supporters, Don't Reach Down!

If Democrat Strategists Aim High For Obama Supporters, The Same Big Money Donors Pres. Obama Attracted In 2008 May Come Back In 2012.

I'm Just Saying.


If Only He Could Shake His Comment Away

There is, perhaps, no more enduring critique of Mitt Romney than the one about him having shaky principles that shift with the political winds.

So it may not have been particularly helpful when one of his top advisers on Wednesday suggested that Mr. Romney’s campaign views the Republican race as an Etch a Sketch toy that can be shaken up and redrawn from scratch.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said on CNN. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

An Etch a Sketch? The toy where nothing is permanent? Where one picture makes way for another with a few shakes by a 2-year-old?

It took mere minutes for Mr. Romney’s rivals to — gleefully — seize on the potential metaphors.

“We’ve been saying it for months, and Mitt Romney has had a reputation for it for years: he’ll say or do anything to get elected – absolutely anything,” wrote Brad Woodhouse, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, in an e-mail with the subject line: “An Etch a Sketch? Really??”

Mr. Woodhouse added: “Now his own top adviser has confirmed that Mitt Romney has absolutely no core and will in fact say anything to get elected. In fact – his positions are no more reliable than if they were written on an Etch a Sketch – which is exactly what Eric Fehrnstrom compared them to. Incredible.”

The dumping on Mr. Fehrnstrom was a bipartisan affair.

The subject line on the e-mail from Rick Santorum’s campaign was in all caps: “***SHOCKING VIDEO EMBEDDED*** LIKE AN ETCH A SKETCH … TEAM ROMNEY ADMITS THEIR CANDIDATE WILL CHANGE POSITIONS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.”

Hogan Gidley, a spokesman for Mr. Santorum, added: “We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts.”

And moments later, Bill Burton, who runs a “super PAC” backing President Obama’s campaign, sent an e-mail titled “Etch a Sketch voters?

“While extraordinarily cynical,” Mr. Burton wrote, “this candid admission of Governor Romney’s general election strategy to mislead the American people does at least have the benefit of truth. There is no doubt Governor Romney is going to try to mask his right-wing, anti-middle class agenda in order to win the election.”

Asked whether he wanted to take the words back, Mr. Fehrnstrom e-mailed what apparently is what he wished had come out of his mouth in the first place.

“As we move from the primary to the general election, the campaign changes,” Mr. Fehrnstrom wrote. “It’s a different race, with different candidates, and the main issue now becomes President Obama’s failure to create jobs and get this economy moving.”

Despite that explanation, Mr. Fehrnstrom’s comment quickly became fodder in the Twitter universe.

Tim Carvell, who identifies himself as a “writer of comedy jokes for the TV box” living in New York, wrote, “Right now, I’m guessing the Romney adviser who compared his candidate to an Etch a Sketch is being turned upside down and shaken vigorously.”


Sources: CNN, NY Times, TPM

Mitt Romney "Etch-a-Sketch" Quotes? Democrats' "Etch-A-Sketch" Attack Makes Obama Supporters Look Stupid!!

Democrats are now attacking Mitt Romney with some Stupid ""Etch-a-Sketch" Quote.

Where is the Political Substance in that Strategy?

See this kind of Foolishness is why we are in trouble!

This is why Mitt Romney is beginning to pick up Independent Voters & Big Money Donors.

Why are Democrats being so Corny & Stupid when attacking Mitt Romney??

"Etch-a-Sketch"? So Embarrassing!

Most Democrats Strategists & Advisers have 2 or more Professional Degrees but yet their Strategies for attacking Mitt Romney are so Childish & Stupid!

STOP talking about Corny, Stupid stuff like "Etch-a-Sketch" Quotes & Focus on Substantive Issues like the Economy, Jobs, Racial Profiling, Tax Reform, Entrepreneurship, Tech Start-Up Small Businesses For BLACKS & Latinos, Education, Housing, Energy, etc.,

NOT Stupid "Etch-a-Sketch" Quotes!


Here's why I disagree agree with Democrat Advisers & Strategists continuing to use Cory, Stupid Political Attacks like "Etch-a-Sketch" quotes to Attack GOP Candidates like Mitt Romney.

After Winning the BLACK Vote decades ago from Republicans, Most (NOT all) Democrat Leaders have consistently used Lower Level Politics to Attract & Keep BLACK Voters in their Coffers.

While GOP Candidates often reach up to attract Supporters, Democrats have reached down.

Reaching Down is an Insult.

Once Democrats were elected into Public Office they often governed their BLACK Constituents the same way they campaigned to attract BLACK Voters.

For Example:

When BLACK Constituents would ask BLACK Politicians & Leaders about doing things within BLACK Communities to close the Digital Divide, BLACK Leaders would ONLY provide just a little funding to Open Low Rate Technology Labs to help BLACK People learn Remedial Computer Skills.

Even though the Majority of BLACK Constituents have Owned PCS & Lap Tops in their homes for Years, this includes Low Income BLACK Constituents, BLACK Leaders thought We were Stupid or Dumb & Needed "Remedial" Help to Close the Digital Divide in BLACK Communities.

WRONG!

What BLACK Communities Needed was Training & Funding for Tech Start-Up Small Businesses to establish Internet Businesses like Facebook, Twitter, Cloud Computing, Web Design, Small Businesses Online, etc., NOT funding for "Remedial" Community Computer Labs!

This is just one example of why I am so against Democrats using Corny, Stupid Political Strategies to reach BLACK & Latino Constituents.

I Don't Need Anyone Talking Down or Reaching Down To Me!

Instead I Need BLACK Leaders Reaching Up & Talking Up To Me.

I Need BLACK Leaders & Politicians Who Have HIGH Expectations For BLACK & Latino Constituents.

Word!



Etch A Sketch comment no child's play


The fiery Republican nominating battle has forged Mitt Romney as the party's "inevitable nominee," a Romney advisor said Wednesday. And when the end is in sight, he continued, other candidates should bow out.

The absence of a GOP challenge could allow Romney to "hit a reset button for the fall campaign," Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN's "Starting Point."

But it's what he said next that Romney opponents are jumping all over.

"Everything changes. It's like Etch A Sketch," he said. "You can shake it up and we start all over again."

Rival presidential hopeful Rick Santorum seized on the comment at a Wednesday morning campaign event and said it shows Romney is anything but a consistent conservative.

"He will say what he needs to say to win the election before him, and if he has to say something different because it's a different election and a different group of voters, he will say that, too," Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, said in Harvey, La.

"Well, that should be comforting to all of you who are voting in this primary: that whoever you vote for is going to be a completely new candidate," he said. "Remove all trace of any kind of marks and be able to draw a new picture, maybe a picture similar to when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, not as a conservative."

Fehrnstrom, the Romney adviser, made his comments when asked if the continuing challenge from Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was driving Romney "so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election."

With Romney's win Tuesday in Illinois, the delegate math is increasingly in his favor. He has 562 delegates and is just shy of half the delegates needed to clinch the GOP nomination. Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania stands at 249, former House speaker Newt Gingrich is at 137, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 69 delegates – all less than a quarter of the way towards 1,144, the magic number.

The race for delegates has produced, as in prior contests, sharp language between the candidates.

"Emotions run high. Elbows get sharp and get thrown in different directions," he told CNN's "Soledad O'Brien." "Usually when the contest comes to its natural end in a primary, people get behind the inevitable nominee, and in this case it's Mitt Romney."

Fehrnstrom acknowledged that the decision to enter or exit the race "is a very personal one that can only be made by the candidate."

"But I can speak to what happened four years ago when Mitt Romney stepped aside for John McCain," who went on to win the GOP nomination in 2008, Fehrnstrom said. "At the time, John McCain did not have the delegates he needed to clinch the nomination but he was clearly on a path to doing that. The math was very challenging for Mitt Romney."

Fehrnstrom's comments come as a conservative group behind the tea party movement, FreedomWorks, said in a Washington Times newspaper report that it would no longer protest Romney.

Romney's exit helped McCain, who endorsed Romney this cycle, consolidate the party in his favor. Fehrnstrom suggested a similar case could play out this year.

"Now, in Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, these are both decent, honorable men who have run good campaigns," he said, calling them "good Americans" and "good Republicans."

"And ultimately, I'm confident they'll make a decision that's not only right for their party, but right for them."


Sources: CNN, TPM, Google Maps

David Axelrod Attacks Mitt Romney Over Gas Price & Keystone Pipeline Comments: "Snake Oil"

Axelrod: GOP's gas price talk is "snake oil"


The president's top campaign adviser, David Axelrod, charged Republican presidential candidates and Republicans in Congress with making false promises about how to reduce the cost of gas.

On CBS News' "Face the Nation," Axelrod specifically attacked Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney for saying he would fire three cabinet officials charged with energy production: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Axelrod said Romney is making false promises to voters. "Mr. Romney will pander, and the poor American consumer will be left in the same position," he told host Bob Schieffer. "So we need to keep going forward with an 'all of the above' strategy on energy."

Axelrod also criticized "the notion that we can simply drill our way out of this" by attacking Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's claim that his plan would reduce gas prices to $2.50 cents per gallon. "That's not oil talk, but snake oil talk," Axelrod said.

Axelrod said the president's "all of the above" strategy includes increased production (including from renewable sources) and decreased consumption.

"If we don't do all of those things we're going to be right back here again every election season," Axelrod told Schieffer.

Schieffer questioned Axelrod if the president is doing his own pandering. He asked Axelrod about campaign speeches in 2008 made by then-candidate Barack Obama where he blamed President Bush for gas that cost "two-and-a-half times what it cost when George Bush took office."

Axelrod said the president has taken action to lower gas prices by increasing oil production, raising fuel efficiency standards and increasing renewable energy production.

When Schieffer asked about the president's decision to halt the construction of the XL Keystone pipeline from the Tar Sands in Canada to refineries in the Gulf Coast and whether he thought it was a mistake, Axelrod blamed the Republicans in Congress for playing politics. He pointed to the House GOP's passing a measure that would have forced the president to speed up approval of the pipeline.

"What they did was force a premature decision on this," Axelrod said. "The State Department said they needed more time to evaluate the project and all of its implications" for the land and the environment, such as water aquifers in Nebraska.

"The Congress wanted to force a decision for political reasons; they did," Axelrod said. "Not having the time to make a proper decision, [the administration] had to decline this proposal. If it's resubmitted it will be considered again, hopefully in the the time frame that is appropriate.

"But understand this president has approved dozens of pipelines," Axelrod added. "He certainly is not hostile to transporting oil, but we have to do it in the appropriate way and protect the public safety in doing it.

"It may have been a mistake for the Republicans to force the decision so quickly -that I agree with," Axelrod offered. "But that's their decision to explain. Not ours."

Also on "Face the Nation," head of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, said he "chuckled" when he heard Axelrod's statement.

Priebus said "the Republicans have been in favor of this Keystone pipeline," which he said would create 20,000 jobs, a figure that has been widely disputed. "It wouldn't be the whole deal [to lowering gas prices]. But it's a step closer."

Priebus said the president is not doing all the things necessary to reduce the cost of oil.

"We're sitting on a wealth of energy to get us to a place where we don't have $4 and $5 gas. This president isn't there. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth."


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

James Carville To Obama: "Get Tough! Fire People!

What should the White House do? Panic!

People often ask me what advice I would give the White House about various things. Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.

We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It's pretty damn clear they are not happy campers.

This is what I would say to President Barack Obama: The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.

I don't know how else to break this down. Simply put:

1.) Fire somebody. No -- fire a lot of people. This may be news to you but this is not going well. For precedent, see Russian Army 64th division at Stalingrad. There were enough deaths at Stalingrad to make the entire tea party collectively orgasm.

Mr. President, your hinge of fate must turn. Bill Clinton fired many people in 1994 and took a lot of heat for it. Reagan fired most of his campaign staff in 1980. Republicans historically fired their own speaker, Newt Gingrich. Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. For God's sake, why are we still looking at the same political and economic advisers that got us into this mess? It's not working.

Furthermore, it's not going to work with the same team, the same strategy and the same excuses. I know economic analysts are smart -- some work 17-hour days. It's time to show them the exit. Wake up -- show us you are doing something.

2.) Indict people. There are certain people in American finance who haven't been held responsible for utterly ruining the economic fabric of our country. Demand from the attorney general a clear status of the state of investigation concerning these extraordinary injustices imposed upon the American people. I know Attorney General Eric Holder is a close friend of yours, but if his explanations aren't good, fire him too. Demand answers to why no one has been indicted.

Mr. President, people are livid. Tell people that you, too, are angry and sickened by the irresponsible actions on Wall Street that caused so much suffering. Do not accept excuses. Demand action now.

3.) Make a case like a Democrat. While we are going along with the Republican austerity garbage, who is making the case against it? It's not the Democrats!

We are allowing the over-educated, over-explanatory bureaucrat by the name of (Congresssional Budget Office director Douglas) Elmendorf do all the talking. Do not let him make your case. Let us make your case. Is it any wonder that we were doing better in the middle of the stimulus-spending period than we are doing with the austerity program?

4.) Hold fast to an explanation. Stick to your rationale for what has happened and what is going to happen under your leadership. You must carry this through until the election (never say that things are improving because evidently they are not).

As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country.

The course we are on is not working. The hour is late, and the need is great. Fire. Indict. Fight.

Sources: CNN, Politico, Youtube

Birth Control As Preventive Medicine? Yes! (Health Insurance Coverage)

Should Birth Control Be Categorized As A Form Of Preventive Medicine Requiring Health Insurance Companies To Include It In Premiums?

Yes!

Here's Why.

Many Of You Know That I Personally Oppose Abortion.

Just For The Record Abortion Is NOT A Form Of Birth Control!

I Don't Judge People Who Do Endorse Terminating Pregnancies But I Would NEVER Do It Because Its Against My Faith.

However I'm Also Opposed To Women Having & Rearing Children At The Government's Expense, In Most Cases Minus Child Support!

Unless You (Women) Can Independently Afford To Properly Care For Children Don't Reproduce! Period!

After All We're Human Beings NOT Rabbits!

Here's My Next Thought On This Sensitive Subject.

In My Family I Have A Niece Currently Residing In North Carolina Who Could Most Certainly Benefit From The Use Of BIRTH CONTROL & Some SELF-CONTROL!

I Love My Niece Dearly So What's The Problem?

She Is Just 25 Years Old But A Low Income, Unwed Mother Of 4 Beautiful Children!!

Wait A Minute!

Who Paid For Her To Have Those 4 Beautiful Children?

TAXPAYERS!

Who's Helping To Care For Those 4 Beautiful Children Even As We Speak?

That's Right TAXPAYERS!

And Yet....

She Won't Properly Use Birth Control, Nor Have Her Fallopian Tubes Tied Because She Wants To Keep Having Babies!

Since All Of Her Children Were Born Via Cesarean Sections (C-Sections) Not Only Is My Niece Being SELFISH & FOOLISH Regarding Her Health, But Her Children Are Suffering Due To Each Of Them Being So Young. (Ages 6, 4, 3, Infant)

Why Were Her Children Delivered Via Cesarean Section Versus Natural Birth, A Less Expensive Method Of Birth?

My Niece Is Physically Able To Reproduce But NOT Medically Able To Have Children Via Natural Birth.

She Tried & Almost Died! Literally!

Forcing My Niece To Have Babies Naturally Would Result In Her Death, Which Would Create A Whole New Chain Of Circumstances & Despair For Her 4 Beautiful Children.

North Carolina Social Workers Are Well Aware Of This Situation But Yet They Allow My Niece To Continue Having Babies At Taxpayers'& The Federal Government's Expense!

How Convenient I Must Say.

Despite What Anyone Else Says Or Thinks, A 25 Year-Old, Low Income, Unwed Mother With 4 Children Can NOT Properly Nurture Her Children!!

At Least NOT Emotionally!

In Fact More Often Than Not Such Circumstances Is What Causes Women Like My Niece To Commit Child Abuse & Neglect, Either Intentionally Or Unintentionally.

(No My Niece Does NOT Physically Abuse Her Children.)

Observing My Low Income, Unwed Niece NOT Being Able To Properly Care For Her Young Children Both Frustrates & Hurts Me Because Her Decision To Continue Having Babies Minus A Husband, Minus An Education & Minus Adequate Finances, Creates An Environment Lacking In Emotionally Stability For All Of Them.

In Most Cases Poverty Adversely Affects Young Children, Thereby Hindering Their Chances For Future Academic Success.

I Truly Love Children With All My Heart.

Especially My Niece's Children.

But A Woman's Right To Choose Should NOT Mean That Women Have The Right To Keep Having Children They Can NOT Properly Care For Via Government Assistance!!

Due To The Southern States Illegally Using Eugenics On Black Women & Mentally Retarded Women Against Their Will, Its Now Illegal For Any State To Force Any Woman To Use Birth Control Or Allow Physicians To Tie Her Fallopian Tubes.

However I Don't Agree!!

I Firmly Believe That If A Unwed, Normally Healthy Woman Living In Poverty & Receiving Government Assistance i.e., Welfare Checks (TANF), Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care Assistance, Section 8, etc., Refuses To Remain On Birth Control Or Get Her Fallopian Tubes Tied After 2 Or 3 Children Then Either Cut Off Their Assistance!!

Especially If Its Obvious Those Unwed, Normally Healthy Women Want To Continue Having Children To Keep A Boyfriend Or To Use As Pawns For More Food Stamps & Welfare Payments, etc.,

Unfortunately North Carolina Is A State That Appears To Encourage Low Income, Unwed Mothers To Continue Having Children.

i.e., Human "Baby Factories"

Why?

For 2 Reasons:

1) To Procure Large Sums Of Federal Dollars Of Which Only A Very Small Amount Is Given To Those Low Income, Unwed Mothers.

The Rest Is Used By Our Governor & State Legislators To Provide A Higher Mode Of Living For North Carolina's Wealthy WHITE Citizens.

i.e., Better Roads & Highways, Nice Neighborhood Parks, Nice Business Establishments Versus Chicken Joints & ABC Stores, Nice, NEW Public Schools, NEW City Transit Buses, etc.,

2) To Place THOUSANDS Of BLACK Children From Low Income Homes Headed By Single Mothers In FOSTER CARE Until They Are 21 For The Sole Purpose Of Getting Even More Federal Dollars To Spend On North Carolina's Wealthy WHITE Citizens.

Requiring Low Income, Unwed Mothers Who Rely On Government Assistance To Use Birth Control Or Lose Access To Government Assistance, Would Prohibit States Like North Carolina From Profiteering Via Using Such Women As Human "Baby Factories".

Thus I Do Agree W/ The Obama Administration's Medical Advisory Panel's Recommendation That Contraceptives SHOULD Be Covered By Health Insurance Companies.

In Fact HIV Testing, HPV Vaccinations & Birth Control Should ALL Be Covered Because They Are Forms Of Preventive Medicine.

i.e., FREE! Completely Covered By Health Insurers!

This Includes MEDICAID Not Just Private Health Insurers.

If Health Insurance Companies & Medicaid Were To Allow Their Plan Premiums To Include Birth Control As Preventive Medicine For Female Patients, States Like North Carolina Would NOT Be Able To Encourage Low Income, Unwed BLACK Women To Breed Babies Like Animals.

Breeding Babies Like Animals To Obtain FAT Checks From The Federal Government!!

I Repeat: A Woman's Right To Choose Should NOT Mean That Women Have The Right To Keep Having Children They Can NOT Properly Care For Via Government Assistance!!

So Should Birth Control Be Categorized As A Form Of Preventive Medicine Requiring Health Insurance Companies To Include It In Premiums?

Yes!

Just My Opinion.








Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception

A leading medical advisory panel recommended on Tuesday that all insurers be required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge as one of several preventive services under the new health care law.

Obama administration officials said that they were inclined to accept the panel’s advice and that the new requirements could take effect for many plans at the beginning of 2013. The administration signaled its intentions in January when Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, unveiled a 10-year program to improve the nation’s health. One goal was to “increase the proportion of health insurance plans that cover contraceptive supplies and services.”

Administration officials, who say they hope to act on the recommendations by Aug. 1, are receptive to the idea of removing cost as a barrier to birth control — a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.

But the recommendations immediately reignited debate over the government’s role in reproductive health. Women’s groups and medical professionals applauded the recommendations while the Roman Catholic Church raised strenuous objections.

The recommendations came in a report submitted to Ms. Sebelius by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The new health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. Ms. Sebelius will decide on a minimum package of essential health benefits, and her decision will not require further action by Congress.

The panel said insurers should be forbidden to charge co-payments for contraceptives and other preventive services because even small charges could deter their use. The recommendation would not help women without insurance.

The administration asked the Institute of Medicine, a nonpartisan, nongovernmental arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to help identify the specific services that must be covered for women.

“This report is historic,” Ms. Sebelius said on Tuesday in accepting the document. “Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist. These recommendations are based on science and existing literature.”

In addition to contraceptive services for women, the panel recommended that the government require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breastfeeding, including the free rental of breast pumps.

The panel also said all insurers should be required to cover screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.

Defending its recommendations on contraceptive coverage, the panel said that nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Thus, it said, greater use of contraception would reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, teenage pregnancy and abortion.

The chairwoman of the panel, Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “We did not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in our deliberations.”

But the panel’s report says that “contraception is highly cost-effective,” averting unintended pregnancies that would be far more expensive than contraception.

To reduce unintended pregnancies, the panel said, insurers should cover the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures and “education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

This recommendation would require coverage of emergency contraceptives including pills like ella and Plan B, panel members said.

Under rules issued last year, many health plans are already required to cover numerous preventive services like blood pressure and cholesterol tests, colonoscopies and other cancer screenings, and routine vaccinations. A provision of the law drafted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, requires coverage of “additional preventive care and screenings” for women.

Most private insurance provides contraceptive coverage, but co-payments have increased in recent years, the panel said.

The report touched off a fierce debate Tuesday. Obstetricians, gynecologists, public health experts and Democratic women in Congress hailed the recommendations.

“We are one step closer to saying goodbye to an era when simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition,” Ms. Mikulski said. “We are saying hello to an era where decisions about preventive care and screenings are made by a woman and her doctor, not by an insurance company.”

Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, said the recommendations would remove cost as a barrier to birth control — and in hard economic times like these, she said, cost can be a formidable barrier.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, denounced the recommendation on birth control.

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”

Ms. McQuade expressed deep concern about requiring coverage of surgical sterilizations and contraceptive drugs and devices.

Jeanne Monahan, the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said: “Some people have moral or ethical objections to contraceptives. They should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying premiums to health plans that cover these items and services.”

One panel member, Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso, a health economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, filed a dissent, saying the committee did not have enough time to conduct “a serious and systematic review” of the evidence.

The report, he said, includes “a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Dr. Phil, MSNBC, NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Chicago Machine Vs. Capitol Hill: Recipe For Political Disaster

As The 2012 Elections Approach Us, Once Again Pres. Obama Looks To His "Chicago Political Machine" For Another Victorious Ride.

Here's Why This Strategy May Or May NOT Work This Time..

Upon Pres. Obama's Election In 2008 He Felt Obligated To Bring Along Most Of The Members From His "Chicago Political Machine" To Help Govern In The White House.

What Was Wrong With This Plan?

Chicago Style Politics Don't Work Well On Capitol Hill.

For Example: Valerie Jarrett Was NOT The Right Person To Work With Business Leaders From D.C. & Wall Street.

Why?

Did Pres. Obama Really Think A Black Woman From Chicago Would Be Totally Respected & Accepted By White, Extremely Wealthy CEO's From Wall Street & The American Business Community?

NO!!!!

Please Don't Get It Twisted.

As A Black Woman I'm All For Diversity But Come On Pres. Obama!

Although Valerie Jarrett Is Well-Educated, It Doesn't Mean She Was The Right Individual For That Particular Position.

You See Diversity On Such A High Level Takes Time.

Such A Bold Move Has To Be Made Gradually NOT Forced In The Faces Of Wall Street CEOs!

Especially NOT New Yorkers!

Dealing With New Yorkers Vs. Mid-Westerners Is Like Oil & Water!

In Addition I Don't Think Ms. Jarrett Cared Two Cents About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Constituents.

Just As Most Chicago Politicians Don't Give A Darn About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Voters There Either.

Another Example Is Bill Daley.

Daley Was NOT The Right Person To Become Obama's NEW Chief Of Staff.

Why?

The Daley Family's Relationship With Blacks & Hispanics In Chicago Has NOT Been A Successful One. NOT EVER!

Including How Poorly Old Man Daley Treated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Years Ago.

Thus After Hiring Bill Daley Obama Lost Respect From Many Black Voters.

Black Voters Are NOT Stupid!

We Still Support Pres. Obama But We Do NOT Respect Bill Daley Because We Remember How The Daley Family Has Treated Blacks In Chicago For Decades.

Newly Elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Appeared To Be Effective In His Former Role As White House Chief Of Staff.

But Rahm's Harsh Language (Profanity) & Bull Dozer Personality Wasn't Well Received By Many Congressional Members Who Were STILL Experiencing Culture Shock By The Election Of A BLACK President!

There's Nothing Wrong With Being Tough, Especially When Dealing With Some Of Those Hard-Nosed, Racist GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill.

However There Is A Time To Be Tough & A Time To Just Out Think Your Opponents Via Practicing Reverse Psychology.

To Avoid Appearing Like A Weak Coward Among One's Peers, Actually A Combination Of Both People Skill Sets Are Preferable.

I Now Firmly Believe That Had Pres. Obama NOT Placed So Much Trust In His Chicago Buddies & NOT Hired So Many Of His Chicago Buddies To Become Senior Advisers, His Presidency Would Have Been Much More Successful.

So Going Forward It May Be Alright For Pres. Obama To Seek Advice From His "Chicago Political Machine" For Re-Election, However AFTER Being Re-elected He Should NOT Hire Those Same People To Help Him Govern.

Except.....

Perhaps David Axelrod!

Axelrod Would Make An EXCELLENT Chief Of Staff!

Just My Opinion. You Don't Have To Agree.

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!!







Obama-Chicago Relationship: Long-Distance Love Affair About To Get Closer


President Barack Obama's relationship with his hometown may be best described as a long-distance love affair. He lavishes attention on it from afar and proud Chicago pines for its hometown hero, though the two rarely see each other.

That looks like it's about to change.

Obama is returning to his roots as he embarks on his re-election race for 2012. He's setting up his campaign headquarters in a downtown high-rise near Grant Park, the site of his victory celebration on election night in November 2008.

He's coming back Thursday to raise money, a week after launching his second White House bid with an understated email and online video.

The president is putting Chicago in the spotlight again as he tries to recreate the grass-roots, start-up flavor of his first campaign and do what no incumbent president has done in decades: try to win re-election from a location outside Washington.

A Chicago base also could reinforce a connection to a city that aides say keeps Obama grounded while he lives in the nation's capital.

"Nobody is more eager to be out and nobody is more eager to be here than him," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist who left the White House this year to return to Chicago to work on the re-election and be closer to his Chicago-based family. "The conversation in Washington is completely different than the conversation you hear out here."

Obama's advisers hope a Chicago location could insulate his campaign from some of the Washington chatter and news leaks that often plague campaigns. A beyond-the-Beltway headquarters could allow them to offset the notion that Obama, who campaigned as an outsider above the partisan fray and promised a new approach to politics, has become the ultimate political insider.

"Basing it in Chicago says, 'I'm not of Washington,' but if he doesn't spend time in Chicago, he is of Washington," said Paul Light, a public service professor at New York University.

Obama's relationship with his town has evolved over the years.

He was a community organizer, worked on a major voter drive and practiced law in his early days in the city. When he entered politics, he focused on the state capital of Springfield, and cast himself as above the brass-knuckled nature of Chicago politics, whose history is pockmarked with corruption and scandal.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama was a fixture in Chicago when he wasn't crisscrossing the country for votes. He took his wife, Michelle, around town to dinner at some of the city's best restaurants. He hung out with his daughters. He worked out at the gym. He played basketball with his buddies. He attended meetings at his campaign office, all under the watchful eye of reporters and Secret Service agents. His family, friends and neighbors talked openly about the candidate and his lifestyle.

As president, Obama has made only about a half a dozen visits to Chicago, often to raise money for candidates. He's made only a few overnight trips to his South Side house.

His neighbors don't seem to hold it against him.

"He's got a whole world to deal with," says Hosea McKay, a 73-year-old retired substance abuse counselor, who lives several blocks away. "Chicago . we can't be so egotistical that we think he's supposed to pop in every three or four months and hang out with us."

The area around Obama's house looks much like it did during the last campaign when extra security measures were added. Even when Obama isn't there, guards and barriers – both metal and concrete – restrict access to his street. His house can be seen through some trees from a nearby busy thoroughfare.

But the neighborhood has changed somewhat since the Obamas left. They're getting new neighbors because the home next door to theirs was sold last year.

While sharing a neighborhood with the president has its share of hassles, Prince Ella Murphy, who lives about a block away, doesn't mind, especially when it comes to the security that increases when Obama is in town.

"I love it. I feel protected because, I mean, they have police everywhere," said Murphy, a 61-year-old retired hotel worker.

Over the past two years, the Obamas have devised ways not to be homesick. They've brought Chicago to them in Washington.

They tapped into their network of hometown connections when they moved into the White House. Among those who relocated to Washington with the Obamas were friend Valerie Jarrett, now a White House adviser, and the family's personal chef. Obama's Chicago buddies, Eric Whitaker and Marty Nesbitt, are constant vacation companions. Countless Chicagoans have visited the White House over the past two years.

The president hosted the 2010 Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks at the White House, last month and put the city's other professional teams on notice. He said: "Let me just say to all the Bears fans, Bulls fans, White Sox fans, and Cubs fans, I want to see all of you sometime soon, as well."

In another nod to their hometown, the Obamas dyed the water in the White House fountains green to celebrate their first St. Patrick's Day in the White House. The city colors the Chicago River that cuts through downtown to celebrate the holiday.

He also swapped one chief of staff from Chicago for another. Rahm Emanuel is Chicago's mayor-elect, while Bill Daley, the current mayor's brother, joined the White House as part of a staff reshuffling aimed at getting ready for the campaign.

While Axelrod said more presidential visits are likely, given that the campaign headquarters is in Chicago, just how much time Obama and his family will spend in Chicago this time is unclear. The duties of the presidency don't lend themselves to much down time.

His team is setting up shop in a downtown high-rise not far from offices the Obama operation used in 2008. Campaign manager Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff, is directing the effort, and Axelrod is certain to be a constant presence.

"It's nascent group and it's going to grow," said Axelrod, who stopped by the offices recently. "You could sense, you could feel some of that old excitement coming back and you know people are really eager to get going."

Some are hoping to see Obama, himself, more.

Says Freddie Fitch, 53, who lives just a few blocks from the Obamas, "We love him here."



Obama and the Illinois Political Machine

Democrat Barack Obama piled on the praise last month as he stood beside Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and embraced the mayor's bid for a sixth term.

"I don't think there's a city in America that has blossomed as much over the last couple of decades than Chicago, and a lot of that has to do with our mayor," Obama said, supporting Daley ahead of Tuesday's city election.

It was a switch from a year earlier, when the Illinois senator brushed off questions about endorsing Daley and said reported corruption at Chicago's City Hall gave him "huge pause."

What happened in the meantime? Obama decided to run for president.

The endorsement is one example of the sometimes complicated relationship between Obama _ who offers himself as an untainted, non-traditional alternative _ and Illinois' sometimes tarnished political establishment.

While Obama prides himself as an independent-minded Democrat, he's maintained relations with important parts of the establishment, from remnants of the legendary Chicago Democratic machine to the city's leading black politicians.

Yet as an outsider who came to the city as an adult, he doesn't owe his political fortunes to ward bosses and can claim distance from the political corruption for which the city is famous. He's ruffled feathers in the past by taking on incumbents or bucking his party's anointed candidate in a statewide race, but he has also mended fences and now has Illinois' most important politicians lined up to support his run for president.

"He understands ... about politics and how you make friends in politics," said Rep. Bobby Rush, who Obama unsuccessfully challenged in 2000 for his seat in Congress.

Rush said Daley, for one, can be helpful to Obama because of his national reputation. Daley's brother, William, who headed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, has already signed on as an Obama adviser.

Rush is also backing Obama's bid for the White House.

Growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, Obama didn't come up through the ranks of traditional Chicago Democratic politics.

Obama writes in his book "The Audacity of Hope" that he got into his successful first race for the Illinois Senate at the encouragement of friends who thought his work as a civil rights lawyer and experience as a community organizer made him a good candidate.

That 1996 election put him in conflict with the incumbent, Alice Palmer. She planned to run for Congress and endorsed Obama as her successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional primary, Obama would not step aside so she could keep her state Senate seat.

Once he got to the state Senate, Obama was no radical. He became a political protege of current Senate President Emil Jones, a 35-year veteran of the legislature and one of the state's most influential black lawmakers.

Obama was in the Illinois Senate just a few years when he went after the congressional seat held by Rush.

In his book, Obama calls it an "ill-considered race," and he and another state senator who challenged Rush were trounced in the primary. Rush had the support of the powerful Cook County Board president and widespread support in his district.

Obama also was viewed as a long shot in his 2004 bid for the U.S. Senate. He decided to run even though most party leaders were backing the state comptroller, who was the son of a powerful Democratic leader. Other candidates included Mayor Daley's former chief of staff and a millionaire who had helped elect the Democratic governor. Obama's candidacy gained momentum when the millionaire businessman, who had once led in the polls, acknowledged striking his ex-wife and calling her names.

Once Obama's fortunes started rising with his starmaking address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his Senate win, he found almost uniform support from Illinois Democrats.

Yet Obama still didn't always stick to the party line, most notably last year when he rejected the party-backed candidate for state treasurer to support a political newcomer, putting him at odds with the state Democratic chairman, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan of Chicago.

Over the summer, Madigan derisively referred to Obama as "the messiah" in a published report. But by early this year, Madigan was proposing moving up the state's 2008 primary from March 18 to Feb. 5 to give Obama more momentum early in the presidential race.

For his part, Obama has lined up with party leaders in some recent local races. He supported the party's choice to become the new Cook County board president, despite allegations of political nepotism surrounding the man, who was the son of the previous board president.

Obama also endorsed Daley, saying he was still concerned about City Hall corruption but thought Daley had taken steps to clean it up. And he supported the November re-election of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is under federal investigation for hiring fraud.

Attorney Gery Chico, the Daley former chief of staff who lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, said Obama has been under increasing pressure to play a role in local races and it's smart for him to get in the mix.

"You don't want to go the route of Al Gore," Chico said. Gore famously didn't win his home state of Tennessee in his failed bid for president in 2000.

But the Daley endorsement in particular _ featured in one of the mayor's campaign mailers _ isn't sitting right with some people in this city known for its legendary political machine.

Daley's father, the late Mayor Richard J. Daley, built the once-mighty machine that doled out jobs and favors in exchange for support for Democrats on Election Day. The courts have mostly dismantled the machine by outlawing political patronage, but the city's powerful Democrats _ like Daley _ can still turn out the vote.

Obama's decision to support Daley turned off voter Alan Dobry, who's part of a Chicago independent-voters group.

"He's trying to play with the machine," Dobry said. "I'm very unhappy about it."


View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Michael Bloomberg Slams Obama's Business "Advisors", Broken Promises

Bloomberg: Obama Needs More Suits In His Circle


Mayor Bloomberg took at shot at President Obama’s cabinet - and his own - today, saying the President needs more business expertise.

“We can all use better advisors. I can use some too,” he said [as two of his top aides exchanged a look of dismay].

“One of those things that I’ve urged the president to do is to get some business people in his close, tight circle,” Bloomberg said of the president. “I think business is—one of the president’s job is to promote American business around the world, sell our products around the world, get people from around the world to come and invest here. That’s a big part of the job.

That’s our tax base. That’s how Americans earn a living and I don’t think he has enough advisers.”

Bloomberg was responding to a question about comments he made about the president in the December issue of GQ Magazine in which he accused the president of breaking campaign promises.

"The president, I think, needs some better advisers," Bloomberg told GQ in an article that named Bloomberg one of its men of the year for being "the most interesting—and most fearless—politician in America."

"He campaigns, 'I'm gonna do A,' and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents."

The mayor did not name any specific promises Obama had broken.

Bloomberg has adamantly denied rumors that he plans to challenge Obama in 2012 but he’s been openly critical about some of the president’s efforts.

His comments today came just minutes after he refused to weigh in on whether the House should censure Charlie Rangel.

“You have to ask the members of the House. I don’t know what the procedures are,” Bloomberg said when asked about Rangel. “I shouldn’t be criticizing. I don’t want them to come to the city and try to tell us how to run New York City.”




Leader: Michael Bloomberg: The Most Interesting & Most Fearless Politician In America


In a year when Democrats became the party that dared not speak its name and Republicans would not shut up, one diminutive New York mayor stood tall. Once the GOP made a national issue of whether or not a mosque (actually part of an Islamic community center) should be allowed at Ground Zero (actually two long blocks away), Mayor Michael Bloomberg was the one politician who spoke to his city—and the country—in a way that made a citizen proud.

He delivered a beautiful, and beautifully straightforward, speech that embraced the idea of the community center and dared to evoke the firefighters, police, and emergency workers who made the ultimate sacrifice on September 11: "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights—and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."

Bloomberg is surely the most intriguing politician in America today, by turns earthy and high-minded, funny and dismissive, modest and self-congratulatory. Scorned by right-wingers for his social liberalism, reviled by some liberals for his avid support of developers, he is a one-man party of the "sensible middle" that so many voters and commentators claim to want.

They won't get it, as American third parties never emerge from the middle. Instead, Mayor Mike, a Massachusetts native who speaks with fierce pride of his adopted city, a rich man who takes the subway twice a week (even if he takes an SUV to his stop), a leader who can see the practical benefits of the First Amendment, is likely to remain sui generis. And that's fine by us.

First, as somebody who has lived in New York for almost thirty-five years, I have to say your stand on the non-mosque that's not at Ground Zero marked the first time I've ever written a mayor to say thanks for doing the right thing.

It's a First Amendment issue. About a month ago, my girlfriend, [financial-services manager and public activist] Diana [Taylor], and I were at J.G. Melon, 74th and Third, great hamburgers, and a big hulking guy comes up to me. I have a rule with my security guys: Anybody can come up to me. Now, if you shoot me, you won't get away, but I should be accessible to the people—that's the job.

You don't want to run the risks, get out of the kitchen. Anyway, big guy comes up to me, says, "Can I talk to you?" I say, "Sure." I've got a hamburger in one hand, I got a glass of beer in the other one, and I said, "Whaddya wanna talk about?" He says, "The mosque," and I'm thinkin', Ah shit, I don't need this. But he said, "I just want to say, I just got back from two tours in Afghanistan, and a couple of my friends never came back. You get out there and keep reminding everybody why we're fighting."

Your speech did a great job of tracing the fights for immigrants' rights, the fights for religious freedom in New York, all the way back to the Flushing Remonstrance of the seventeenth century. Is New York City the place, more than any other, where we have fought it out over who gets to be a full American and what that means? Is the Islamic community center the latest chapter in that fight?

I don't know that it's as big a battle as the others you describe. I think it's fair to say that the mosque as an issue goes away on November 3 [the day after election day]. Keep in mind these guys don't have the money to build a mosque and there's already a mosque down there.

This is an issue on the stump, in the polls, with the op-ed writers. We don't man the barricades and burn torches. There are a lot of cities in the world that are as diverse as New York: London, Singapore—cities that have been welcoming to immigrants and where they speak 150 languages and all that sort of stuff. But New York is different, because we live as a mixture and they live as a mosaic.

In London, there is an Arab quarter, if you will, an Irish quarter, a Roma quarter, whatever. In New York, in one block you have signs in Arabic and in Korean and in Spanish and English.

New Yorkers, I don't know that they like each other or socialize together, but they go down the same steps to the subway, they hail a cab at the same corner, they buy their coffee at the same Starbucks, their newspaper at the same kiosk—and so people who look different, act different, sound different, smell different, dress different, whatever, they are not threatening, because you are next to them all the time. That gets people to work together in a way here that's not true elsewhere.

You're saying this is an issue manufactured by politicians, and very much the kind of thing people hate about politics nowadays?

A hundred percent. None of this stuff is done on a rational basis. It's all in the world of the twenty-four-hour news cycle and of the blogs, and also the economics of the news business. You know the old joke: "If it bleeds, it leads." Well, the news business is so tough that if today it's not bleeding, they take a knife to it.

So in standing up to that, does that make you the model for the twenty-first-century American politician—somebody who understands the political news business but whose independence nevertheless lets him be the sort of leader we like to say we all want?
It's pretty hard for me to say no to that! Although if, in my daily press conference, I stood up and described myself the way that you just did, the blogs here would probably rip me apart.

I am a believer that the public is a lot smarter than the press—that they don't read the press, listen to the press, remember what the press wrote. If you go out in the street and say, "Who is Monica Lewinsky or Gary Condit?" a lot of people wouldn't know. And the public wants somebody they believe is genuine. I've always believed that George W. Bush was elected and reelected not because people agreed with him but because people think [he] believes in something.

Bush ran against Gore and he ran against Kerry, and people never believed that either of those two guys stood for something. They thought they flip-flopped and looked for the right issue all the time. George W., if you call him today, he would say he did a good job, he did what was right. And you may find that so laughable, you don't agree with that at all, [but] the Bushes believe.

Is that an ongoing problem with Democrats? Do you think that's also the case with President Obama?
Listen, the last thing I'm ever going to do is criticize the president. I think we should work very hard to make this president a good president, even if you would prefer somebody else. The time to prefer somebody else is two years from now, not while he's president.

We need him to be good, for our country, for our kids. But I think that it is too easy to let your political guys set your agenda; you'll never do anything if you have your political guys that close. It is too easy to look at the polls and lead from the back. I have always said what I believed, even when it's not popular, and the results are that today if you did a poll in New York City, after the mosque, after nine years in office, we'd have a 65 percent approval rating. I think the ways to be popular are to say what you believe.

Watching you up close at a couple of political functions, I don't think I've ever seen a major politician less worried about whether people liked him, whether they're reacting well to him.

No, but I care as much as anybody else. You know, if you don't want people to like you, you should see a shrink. The first day I ever campaigned was on South Beach in Staten Island. And this nice little old lady with white hair comes up to me and she said, "Oh, I'm glad you're running. You're a breath of fresh air. I'm going to vote for you. All my friends are going to vote for you. Anybody that wants to run against you is going to drop out right away."

And I'm thinking, "Shit, this is easy. First day and I'm elected." Then she looks up at me adoringly and says, "And I'm so glad you're pro-life." And I remember for a billionth of a second in my mind: What do you say? Do you lie? You want someone's vote. She's got all her friends; she's influenced the whole city already the first day! I don't wanna piss her off. But I said, "Well, I'm so sorry, I happen to be very much pro-choice. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I do think it's totally up to the woman's right to choose." And I will bet you anything that I got that woman's vote.

Consistency is paramount?

It's the old saying: You dance with the one that brung ya. The president, I think, needs some better advisers. He campaigns "I'm gonna do A," and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents. You go for it.

Do you have any ideas for better advisers?
No. I don't know. David Axelrod, when I've talked to him, he seems very smart, and Rahm Emanuel, who I've known forever, he is very smart. [But] you know, if you're going to stand up for the mosque Friday night, you don't walk away from it Saturday morning.

Who has been the past New York mayor you admire most or are most interested in, or who had to deal with problems that are most similar to yours?

I have a friend, David Rockefeller; he's 95 years old. My father, if he were alive, he wouldn't find my success fascinating. He would have found fascinating the fact that I can tell you David Rockefeller is a friend on a first-name basis. That would have been something. But David's first job was as secretary to a mayor. And the mayor was Fiorello La Guardia, and his job was to walk around and write down everything that La Guardia said.

And La Guardia said, you know, "There's no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage." La Guardia did what he thought was right; he was not afraid of anybody. That is, I'm sure he was afraid of people, but he never let it show. And he was willing to tackle the big things. He had a good feel for people. He wanted to help the less fortunate, but he understood you needed a tax base. And I think, you know, he's as good an example as any. And we're the same height, I think.

Is there a big, transformative idea you could imagine getting behind, for the city and/or the country, or is the job of the mayor just the daily grind, getting it done?

Collect the garbage, educate the kids, and keep it safe. That's why mayors never go on, incidentally, to higher office—I prefer to call it "other office," I don't think it's higher. The mayor's job is not to cave in, and just as we've resisted those wages and benefit increases for city workers that we can't afford, we've also resisted tax cuts that businesses and conservative ideologues may want but that we can't afford.

So you're not running for "other office," including president?
I've said many times, I have no intention of running for president or any other office.


View Larger Map


Sources: GQ, Huffington Post, NY Daily News, Youtube, Google Maps

David Axelrod Leaving Obama W.H. Sooner Than Expected; Plouffe Steps Up

Plouffe To White House, Axelrod May Exit Sooner

President Obama is planning to bring former campaign manager David Plouffe onto the White House staff at the beginning of January to work alongside senior adviser David Axelrod for a brief time before Axelrod moves on to help run the re-election campaign, according to a senior administration official and a senior Democratic strategist familiar with the plan.

The sources added that Axelrod is now planning to leave his White House post as soon as immediately after the State of the Union address, which is an earlier departure date than originally expected and could be part of a new round of departures at the White House.

While there have been reports suggesting Plouffe will directly replace Axelrod, the working plan right now is actually for the two veterans of the 2008 campaign to work together for at least a short period as sort of a handoff, as the White House continues to reshape itself to deal with a Republican-controlled House and a shrunken Democratic majority in the Senate.

"I think there will be some overlap," the senior administration official told CNN about Axelrod and Plouffe working together next January.

While Axelrod is known as a master strategist he is the first to admit that he's disorganized, while Plouffe's key strength demonstrated during the 2008 campaign was crafting a plan and implementing it with meticulous precision.

"David will be very focused on executive strategy," a senior Democratic strategist said of Plouffe's plans to help Obama deal with a divided Congress and prepare for what may be a very difficult re-election campaign based on the slow economic recovery and anger within the country over the President's policies.

After his highly successful run as Obama's campaign manager, Plouffe has most recently been serving as a senior Democratic National Committee official advising the White House on the midterm election and has long been expected to be tapped for a high-profile administration post at some point in 2011 but perhaps not as quickly as January.

Plouffe was seen entering the West Wing of the White House on Monday afternoon and did nothing to knock down the speculation. When asked whether he will be joining the White House staff a little earlier than expected, he said, "We'll figure it out sooner or later."

A key detail that still needs to be worked out is precisely when Axelrod will leave, but CNN is learning for the first time that the senior adviser may exit sooner than expected.

A senior administration official said that Axelrod has now only committed to the President to stay on the job through the State of the Union address, which is expected to be in late January or early February.

This is a slight shift from what Axelrod suggested publicly on Nov. 14, when he said on "Fox News Sunday" that he would be in his White House post for approximately six more months.

"If I were to call you six months from now, will you be working in the White House or will you be working back in Chicago on the campaign?" Fox anchor Chris Wallace asked Axelrod in the interview earlier this month.

"You're right on the line there, I think, Chris," Axelrod said via remote from his hometown of Chicago. "I'll be going back - coming back here to Chicago and beginning to work on that - on that project."

A senior administration official explained that Axelrod wants to get some time off from work altogether to recharge his batteries before immediately jumping into the re-election campaign. Axelrod has essentially been working around the clock for four straight years when you combine his nearly two years in the White House with the two years he spent on the wild and unrelenting 2008 presidential campaign.

There has already been a significant amount of overhaul inside the White House since before the election, starting when Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel left to run for Mayor of Chicago and was replaced by Pete Rouse, who left open a senior adviser slot inside the West Wing. National Security Adviser Jim Jones was replaced by his deputy, Tom Donilon, and administration officials are still looking for a replacement for top economic adviser Larry Summers, who is leaving at the end of the year.

Two senior Democratic officials noted that Plouffe may not take Axelrod's direct portfolio inside the White House because there are also other potential moves coming that could mean a re-tooling of various roles amid some musical chairs inside the administration.

In large part, however, Obama is staying within the family by moving current staffers into new roles rather than injecting new blood into the staff as some outside advisers have suggested the President should do after the "shellacking" he faced on Nov. 2.

The officials said that current energy czar Carol Browner is being considered for a deputy chief of staff role with current deputies Jim Messina and Mona Sutphen expected to leave soon. Messina is moving to Chicago shortly to help run the re-election campaign with Plouffe staying in Washington this time around for the campaign.

The current Congressional liaison, Phil Schiliro, is expected to be elevated to become either a deputy chief of staff or a senior adviser to Rouse, according to the officials. The mostly likely candidate to replace Schiliro as the President's Congressional lobbyist is Rob Nabors, a former White House budget official who is now a senior aide to the chief of staff.

Amid all of the speculation behind the scenes, Plouffe tried to downplay any talk of more big moves ahead. "I'm just visiting," he said with a smile outside the West Wing of the White House.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps