E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe New York Times: “The escalating American confrontation with Iran poses a major new political threat to President Obama as he heads into his campaign for re-election, presenting him with choices that could harm either the economic recovery or his image as a firm leader. Sanctions against Iran’s oil exports that the president signed into law on New Year’s Eve started a fateful clock ticking. In late June, when the campaign is in full swing, Mr. Obama will have to decide whether to take action against countries, including some staunch allies, if they continue to buy Iranian oil through its central bank.”
Obama will once against deliver his acceptance speech outside, the Charlotte Observer reports: “Convention officials are expected to announce the venue this morning at a news conference at the stadium. … The move to the Carolina Panthers' 74,000-seat stadium would replicate the 2008 convention, where Obama accepted the nomination at a packed Invesco Field in Denver.” The speech would be open “to the public,” and “is designed to help mobilize voters in North Carolina, a key swing state. Two Democratic sources, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the information, said the stadium move is just one change that will be announced this morning.”
“It’s Obama-time at the Apollo,” the New York Post writes. “Obama will be serenaded by Al Green and India.Arie, along with Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda, during a fund-raising concert Thursday night at the landmark Harlem theater. Tickets run from $100 to $5,000. It’s the second time Obama has held a campaign event at the Apollo. The previous event took place on Nov. 29, 2007, as he battled Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Film director Spike Lee will host a separate fund-raiser for Obama’s re-election bid, at his Upper East Side brownstone. Tickets are $38,500 per person. A third fund-raising event, hosted by leaders in the Jewish community, will be held at Daniel restaurant.”
Leave a Comment:
Everything evaluated through the Prism of re-election.
If he would just do what is best for the Country, he would get re-elected.
The president seems to be unable to determine what's best for the country. That's just one of the reasons he has been a poor leader!
How dumb can people be, it seems as tho very dumb. Take KingK below, he/she/it, would have Americans believe Iran is some World Power Hellbent on takeing over the World as we know it.Thier talk of Iran supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc is the Very reason why Iran won't attack Isreal with a Nucular Bomb. Nucular fallout would effectively annihilate Hamas/Hezbllah & all others in the general area of Isreal. Furthermore, Iran is Persian(the only Persian country that i'm aware of)& won't risk haveing thier country effectively Elimanated from the face of the Earth.
Lots & Lots of bluster comeing from the Ayatollah, but even they know, thier desire to eleminate Isreal won't happen.
As for Ron Paul last night, it's not surprising that FOX did'nt followup on Saddam being pulled from a hole in a country with no less than 100,000 American Troops at the time. I'm not aware of even 100 American Troops Occupying Pakistan when President Obama ordered OBL Killed.
KingK & others who think like You, remember to Stockup on DuctTape & Plastic, just in case Iran goes Nucular.
All the misspelled Nucualar's are a Tribute to the Former Dear leader of America, Chicken George Bush. What a freaking Mess he left the World in.
4 More Years for President Barrack Hussien Obama to effectively make a dent in cleaning up that Mess!
Occupy SoggyBottom!
These are some funny comments. The real problem is not the congress that has a 14% approval rating where at least half of those probably don't know what day of the week it is. No, the problem is the guy who is voted to uphold the laws that the real criminals pass. Those are really some funny comments you guys have there. I think somebody needs to examine things a little more closely.
The republicans would do well to remember that as well.
Don't listen to the pundits. The President will always do what is best for the country, regardless of the politics.
No, Obama will do anything as long as it benefits Israel. The benefits to the US are irrelevant to the Congress and Obama.
Quinterius Obama is far less accomodating of Israel than any of the previous presidents have been since the creation of the country following Wold War 2. I'm not sure you've been following current events. Prior to Obama fighting against Palestinian membership he and the leadership in Israel were hardly speaking to each other.
Shawn-1937987: Yes, I follow events very closely. Obama may have had some complaints, but he toes the line closely when it comes to Israel. He continues to give $3.6B year of weapons to Israel, he does nothing about the barbaric policies of Israel towards the Palestinians and he is a cheerleader of the lies of Israel and its terrorist actions (such as assassinations and the release of computer viruses) of Israel towards Iran. Obama has no original thought when it comes to Iran. He is like an automaton following Bush's policies as dictated by Israel.
Agreed Amy, white Collar auto - not sure what you think is best for this country, but for me and mine - hope and change are working very well, thanks for asking!
lol... Hope and Change.......
Obama's a joke. His inability to stand up behind any principles while sitting on the fence will be his downfall. The American people need to wake up and stop supporting this President like how North Koreans support theirs.
egads, what planet do you live on? ? ? really? ? ? if anyone could be compared to north korea, it would certainly be the republican party! for you see, the president is not king or a dictator. he must rely on congress and when they always vote no, not for the good of americans, but to defeat obama there is something very dictorial about that?
And Mitt Romney is a bastion of conservative values..... LOL!!
Ok, folks, I think I've lived this before, time to stop letting the middle east influence our every move and every eleciton - they are of little signifance to me and I pay little or no attention to them. I am pretty angry that george w let all those folks from Iraq pour into the country, gave them all big grants to open their markets (oh yes he did - they all love him because of it, I speak often with several gas market owners who tell me the same thing) - we had few if any Muslums in Tennessee before 2002, and yet, the republicans want to complain about them nonstop. For my money - go on and bomb the daylights out of Iran (shame ronnie wasn't quite as brave or willing as his talking points or he would have done the right thing and taken care of that little diddie considering he ran on it no stop), don't want or need their oil - use the money to invest in other forms of energy, but the oil folks out of business, be just fine with me.
Big headline but no substance in the article. Fact of the matter is that Mr. Obama's ability to delay acting on the Iranian issue is running out. He needs to make the tough decision about what he intends to do to stop their nuke program. He has repeatedly said that he will not allow Iran to build/acquire nukes while he is President. But so far he has done little to stop Iran's progress and the reality of an Iran with nuclear weapons and delivery systems is fast approaching. Sanctions are obviously not working. And, as Adm Mullen and Sec Gates both acknowledged, sanctions will only, at best, slow Iran's program down, not stop it.
The American people have a right to know whether or not Mr. Obama has settled on a "containment" strategy (a strategy of letting Iran have nukes and trying to monitor their activity) or that he is actually going to stand by what he promised and do everything in his power to stop Iran from building nukes.He should address the issue during the State Of The Union speech and level with the American people. We have a right to know about our national security.
Given Iran 's sponsorship of terrorist activities and its close ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, including supplying Hezbollah with rockets that are capable of being fitted with a small nuclear warhead (particularly if Iran perfects the two point implosion technology), we can not afford to allow Iran to go nuclear. As Mr. Obama has repeatedly said (see his West Point speech for example), if terrorist are allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons/materials there can be no doubt that they will use them. And an Iran armed with nuclear weapons/materials exponentially increases the likelihood that terrorist will get their hands on nukes/nuclear materials.
The fact that Mr Obama may be taking his reelection hopes into account in dealing with Iran is dangerous. The recent cancellation of our scheduled April war games with Israel, in an effort to appease Iran, likewise sends the wrong message. A message of weakness. A green light to Iran.
From my point of view the sooner Mr. Obama confronts the issue the better. Because, the longer he puts it off, it gives the Iranian leadership the ability to go further with their program while at the same time beefing up Iran's capability to fend off any preemptive strike and line up strategic allies. In the end it is a matter of saving lives and resources if we act sooner rather than later.
While Amy B may place all of her faith in Mr. Obama, we have yet to see any concrete action on his part in dealing with Iran that justifies such blind faith. To the contrary, Iran has been playing Mr. Obama like a fiddle with feigned interest in coming to the negotiating table, while at the same time aggressively pushing forward with production capabilities and work on delivery systems. And given that Mr Obama has displayed a penchant throughout his term so far, for acting based upon his perception of what is best to get him reelected, it is very frightening to see that he may be doing just the same in dealing with Iran.
A bunch of dead Iranian nuclear scientists would disagree with you, KingK. And there are so many countries who don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb, it cannot even be determined which one is assassinating their scientists, jamming their computers, and setting off mysterious explosions.
I think President Obama is handling the situation very well, and I particularly approve of Secretary Clinton's strenuous denials the US is sabotoging Iran's nuke program. She's very believeable.
So in your mind Amy, a few dead scientist are going to stop the Iranian leadership from going forward with their program, is that what you want us to believe? Also, are you saying that SOS Clinton is lying and that Mr. Obama ordered the assassinations of those Iranian scientists? Tell us Amy. at what point does Mr. Obama have to take military action to stop Iran? Before or after they assemble their first nuke? And is Mr. Obama going to be the one to order that to be done or has he quietly switched to a policy of "containment"?
This president will fare no better against Iran than Jimmy Carter did back in the 70's! Ahmadinejad and Rahbare Mo'azzame are not college students and are much more determined to achieve their objectives!
We can't lose sight on how dangerous Iran (and N. Korea) can be! Especially if we continue to send mixed messages!
KingK
Republicans want to make a political football out of the situation with Iran, just as they tried to do with Libya (remember when Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" while other Republicans accused him of doing too much?) Just another example of rightwingers working against America's best interests in order to make Obama a one term President.
I say, let President Obama and his foreign policy team handle this, as they have been adept at working in that region. I have no idea if we are involved in sabotage (kind of doubt it), but I think Hillary Clinton's denials are so much more effective than Rice's relentless threats used to be. Republican saber rattling leaves us no room to maneuver, while Clinton's strategy keeps all parties talking.
Amy
That is the problem. There is no talking. Obama sent SOS Clinton on a year and a half goose chase to try and "negotiate ' with Iran and it resulted in total failure. Iran used the '"negotiations" to stall action to stop their program. Now there are no more talks and Obama's promise to have face to face talks with the Iranian's never materialized because such "talks' would be fruitless. Instead, we have the half imposition of delayed sanctions and Iran threatening to close the Strait if the sanctions are imposed. The question is not letting Mr. Obama do or not do anything, he is the Commander In Chief right now. The question is what exactly he is going to do to adhere to his promise not to let Iran build nukes. And the answer to that right now seems to be not much.
The door should always remain open to negotiations if Iran wants to engage in a serious discussions that call for unfettered continuous inspections of all of its facilities. But we can not be dependent upon the half baked notion that the Iranian leadership will suddenly come to their senses and give up their program because of sanctions. They have repeatedly said sanctions will not stop them.
It will be great to visit North Carolina in September! I am already fired up and ready to kick out Tea-Baggers!!
Obama 2012
The following is from 2009. It is reasonable that they are even further down the road now. Question, can we afford to run the risk that Iran will use such capabilities to supply small nukes to a group like Hezbollah to be used to target one or two of our major cities for another terrorist attack? Perhaps via our porous southern border where Hezbollah is already working with the Mexican drug lords!
President Obama had no compunction against executing Osama bin Laden within Pakistan. Trying to portray the President as shy about taking action is just a right-wing smear against him and purely motivated by politics. Thank God the President doesn't let the right-wing push him into rash actions. Given his track record, I'd trust the President to do the smart thing, before I let right-wingers get their hands back on our military.
Time is of the essence Amy. Hopefully we will not have to deal with what Mr. Obama will or will not do before November rolls around. If Iran's program is delayed long enough to get by the election, then we can have another president that is more concerned with our national security than his chances at reelection making the decisions.
I see you are more concened with knocking down President Obama than debating national security. If you were rational, you'd admit eight years of the Bush administration left us still dependent on middeastern oil and broke. Oh, but Saddam Hussein, Iran's greatest enemy is dead, how nice for them.
Of course Mr. Obama needs a big venue for his acceptance speech, even though he is running unopposed in the Dem primaries, his ego will settle for nothing less.
KingK, are you saying you favor immediate military action by the U.S. against Iran?
Direct military action may be inevitable in the very near future. In the meantime, I favor covert actions designed to take out the leadership and degrade their capabilities. But I would not delay direct or indirect ( another country or group of countries) military action for very long. Because the cost in lives and resources rises with each and every delay. And I certainly would not capitulate and allow Iran to build nukes, which is where Mr. Obama seems to be headed.
ok mr nuke gangrich
Ther price of gas will hit $5 a gallon in some cities within a couple of months just on the threat of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. What's going to happen when it is closed?
And will you support this President if he takes military action, the strait is closed and gasoline shoots upwards of $6 a gallon? 'Cause when it happens, regardless of who conducts the action against Iran, gasoline will be the highest we have ever seen for longer than we can imagine.
The price of gas will be a lot higher for a lot longer if Iran is allowed to build a nuke and then close the Strait in an effort to blackmail other countries into evicting Israel from the ME. Wake up and see the big, long term picture. Not the short term small picture.
Not to mention the problems we will have if one or two of those weapons/nuclear materials falls into the wrong hands and is put to work here in the US.
So your picture is the only possible scenario to the situation? Iran doesn't want the strait closed. If the strait is closed, even Iran cannot move its oil to market. The sanctions recommended prevent anyone from buying Iranian oil. If they ca't sell it, they may as close the strait so nobody sells or buys oil.
By my response you assume I see only one course of action. Military action is a short term response to a long term problem. By using it, we can only set them back unless we wipe out the whole country and its citizens.
My question was "will you support this President if he takes military action". Can you answer that?
Yes I do support taking military action, even if it is carried out by Obama. And I'd support it even more if he was able to get a coalition together or if he is able to get others to carry out the mission for US. BTW, there have been some things Mr. Obama has done that I agree with. For example, continuing and expanding the drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So if you are meaning to suggest that I will oppose anything Obama does, merely because he is doing it, you are wrong.
BTW, if the sanctions prevent Iran from moving oil to the market, what harm is it to them if they close the Strait? Their threat to close the Strait is in reaction to the threat of sanctions that will cripple their ability to sell oil. In their mind, closing the Strait, after the crippling sanctions are imposed, merely levels the playing field.
If the strait is closed who does it hurt more and who can hold out the longest with it closed? All things point to Iran holding the cards if it is closed.
The rest of the world does not want to see this played out. The rest of the world being China as they depend more on Iranian oil then anyone else.
Given the state of the world today, I do not look for them to close the stait, us levying sanctions or anyone else taking militay action. Look at the facts, if Israel was going to do it, it would have been done by now. They attacked Iraq a lot sooner in the same game.
So in your view, Obama is just going to let Iran build nuclear weapons and he is not going forward with the sanctions that have already been approved. So, are you admitting that Obama is largely incompetent or merely that he is a liar?
What sanctions have been approved by the global community? The largest buyers of Iranian oil are still buying it and say they will continue to buy it. Anything else is just PR talk.
You need to look at the larger picture. Obama cannot force other countries to not buy Iranian oil. They are hinting publicly (just for show as always with them) that they might be open to the idea but China is still a firm no to sanctions.
The US has already approved unilateral sanctions which are set to kick in in 6 mos. From there it is a question of getting others to join in.
BTW, sanctions alone will cause the price of gas to rise, because there will be less supply and less competition on the world market if Iranian oil is taken off the market via sanctions.
Well yeah, just for the simple fact that less oil will be on the market.
v
x
x
x
Which is way we intervened in Libya. so the flow of oil to Europe would not be interrupted by Qaddafi. We can make temporary arrangements to circumvent the loss of Iranian oil due to sanctions, but the sanctions are mostly a temporary way of sending a message to the Iranian leadership that they must cease and desist or face the next step to stopping their program.