President Obama may be shy or timid, a "compromiser in chief", but Obama has a superb Intelligence and great Intellect. That type of guy becomes stronger with time, and he finds unexpected ways to do great things and to pursue a vision, in this case a vision of economic recovery

.

We should expect a lot from Obama's Resilience and Inner Hidden Strength. Don't forget that he is a Law Professor and outstanding scholar in Constitutional Matters. He can even do things with the super conservative U. S. Supreme Court that practices Conservative Judicial Activism and Legislates from the Bench.

....

There are more people drunk with Religion and Fanaticism than Osama Bin Laden and the beturbaned agents of Satan. Just look at the Tea Party. As someone observed Abraham Lincoln didn't have a Congress of Recalcitrant Confederates in Washington obstructing all his ideas, projects and actions. But Obama has a bunch of stubborn bigots in Congress.

These Tea Party fanatics spend more time in Hysteric Religion Rites and Cults than studying Economy, understanding Keynes and what is necessary in the middle of a Recession or Depression when everybody and his aunt is afraid of investing to produce new jobs.

They are parrots repeating what a stupid pastor or articulate crazy politician like Michele Bachmann brainwashes in their poor empty heads. They are so stupid that they have to be constantly listening to demagogues like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, so that they are confirmed in their prejudices, ignorance and resentment against life, because they carry a big load of frustration and failure.

A super energized Barack Obama giving Hell to Republicans in 2010 and the first 8 months of 2011 could have rocked the boat and could have caused bigger troubles for the nation. But I don't discard that the aggressive Obama in the 14 months before the November 2012 election may be useful, so that people understand the gravity of the Jobs Paralysis, and lack of Economic Dynamism to generate jobs. That Harry Truman is given as an example to follow makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't believe that the electorate is a mathematical "Black Box" that only answers to a number : the unemployment rate, or the the percentage of underemployed people. Voters are not a machine but have intelligence and many interests, aspirations, ideals, hopes, beliefs and also negative things as fear, hate, religious fanaticism, etc....

The position of negative critic is extremely easy : That Obama is a Sissy before the Republican Bullies. - That Obama is a weakling before Osama Bin Laden and the Terrorists of Al-Qaeda or the beturbaned agents of Satan.

For people reared as simpletons in Jingoism and False Patriotism, it is very easy to believe that Foreign Policy is being the Super Cowboy and the Macho Macho and give orders to everybody at the International Level. In practice things are not so easy, and for example Pakistanis just tolerate the Americans in order to avoid more conflicts and the breaking of peace with Foreign Armies inside their territory. The Pakistanis are masters of restraint and being quiet and I admire them for that.

People are extremely naive and believe in polls made in Battlegrounds where everybody answers with fear or with false expectations, and where you are betting your head with every decision. And the sample is always super biased in favor of the Pollsters or the nation that these Pollsters represent or that pays for the Poll.

Before Tim Pawlenty was eliminated from the Republican Primaries he gave a super stupid speech saying that his Foreign Policy was going to be threats for everybody, and that Obama was a wimp, that is a feeble ineffective person that feared the enemies of America. It was manifest that Tim Pawlenty was a total ignorant and fool, not only of Foreign Policy and its intricacies, but also of Human Nature.

Prestigious Think Tanks should be ashamed of inviting and paying such fools and cretins to formulate American Foreign Policy.

Please do an homologous mathematical transportation or a geometric homology between Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy and see that things are not so easy for President Obama and that he does not have a magic wand to impose the necessary taxes for the Super Rich and Wealthy and that he can not dictate the necessary spending to create jobs by fiat, by ukase like a Russian Tsar, by Imperial Decree like Julius Caesar or Emperor Augustus.

Vicente Duque

........

The New Yorker : Give ’em Hell, Barry? : by Hendrik Hertzberg - Abraham Lincoln is the admired model of Obama, but he did not have a Congress of Recalcitrant Confederate Cretins in Washington !

.
The New Yorker
Give ’em Hell, Barry?
by Hendrik Hertzberg
September 8, 2011


Give ’em Hell, Barry?


Some excerpts :

The President spoke in strong, simple words, free of jargon—from the name of the bill (the American Jobs Act) to the blunt calls for action (“You should pass this jobs plan right away,” repeated many times in one form or another). It was, I thought, a startlingly skillful political and rhetorical exercise, delivered with stern energy. Obama’s penchant for “bipartisanship” had a different tone and feel this time. It was a challenge and a demand, not a plea. He looked like and sounded like—maybe even is in the process of once again becoming—a formidable leader. If he keeps this up, a lot of the discouragement and depression that currently afflicts almost every Democrat I know will surely lift.

The plan itself is modest compared to the need, but it’s big enough and well enough targeted that its enactment would make a real difference in relieving some of the suffering of mass unemployment. It would help the country, but at the price of brightening the President’s prospects for reëlection as well. It’s not hard to guess where most Republican politicians will come down in that particular cost-benefit analysis. Helping the country is unlikely to be enough of an incentive for Republicans to pass a bill, any bill, that Obama supports, even a bill, like this one, that is assembled mostly from refurbished spare parts collected from their own ideological warehouse. No doubt many of them sincerely believe that the end (upping the chances of defeating Obama and his nefarious agenda of turning America into a socialist hellhole like Western Europe) justifies the means (deepening the extent of mass unemployment, human suffering, and ancillary damage to the economy and to society).

Obama made a forthright argument that primitive individualism has to be paired with what he called “another thread running throughout our history—a belief that we are all connected and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.”

.........

The New Republic : Every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country

.

Obama may be finding a way out of the Economic quagmire and nightmare, in great part created by his Republican Enemies. The last Republicans are not fit for Governance, only for Obstruction.

The New Republic -
The Fighting Bipartisan: Has Obama Found a Solution for Republican Obstructionism? -
September 9, 2011

By Mark Schmitt
Mark Schmitt is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former editor of The American Prospect.


The Fighting Bipartisan: Has Obama Found a Solution for Republican Obstructionism?


Some excerpts :

Last night Obama found a way out, sort of. It’s not a fiery partisan confrontation; it’s a kind of fighting bipartisanship. He’s now putting forth a substantive agenda that is very likely to boost the economy, create jobs, and improve the basic fairness of the tax system in order to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly. But he aggressively linked almost all of those things to ideas that Republicans had already supported, or that wealthy people such as Warren Buffet had embraced. He took ownership of some ideas that had traditionally been conservative, and embraced ideas that had had some Republican support.

None of that means that the American Jobs Bill that he insisted Congress pass will pass. Of course it won’t. And maybe it’s all too late; maybe at this point, only results matter. I noticed an odd idiosyncrasy today in the July Pew poll on Obama: Despite his 44% approval rating, his rating on the question, “Cares about people like me,” which many politicos consider the only question that really matters, is at 60%, higher than George W. Bush at his best. But the combination of the two suggests that people no longer care that he cares. They’re fed up with gestures, empathy, or good ideas that get blocked in the political process—all they want is results.

Obama’s new approach, though, sets up, in theory, a different hypothetical win-win than the one we’ve been operating under for almost three years. One possibility is that Republicans have some qualms about a wholly obstructionist agenda, Congress passes some or most of the American Jobs Act, the economy improves (likely with some help from the Federal Reserve, international circumstances, and good fortune), and actual conditions get Obama out of the box he’s in. Failing that, if the White House and Democrats can keep their focus on the American Jobs Act (and if the left can avoid getting distracted by Obama’s wise concessions to reality, such as long-term reductions in Medicare spending), then Republican obstruction takes a new form. It’s not just blocking Obama, or his agenda—it’s blocking economic recovery, systematically, including ideas that Republicans have embraced in the past and will embrace again.

Pulling that off, however, requires a discipline that goes beyond one speech. It means that every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country. This speech alone won’t do the work. But if it’s a roadmap to the next period of the Obama presidency, it might represent a dramatic change, not just in the president’s electoral prospects, but in the range of policy solutions that are available now and in the future.

...........

I see the Law and Constitutional Interpretation as something that constantly evolves. - Constitutional "Originalists" say that the Constitution is what the Founding Fathers understood and intended. What is lawful "standing" in USA and elsewhere ??

.

The most dangerous originalist is U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ( born 1948 ) this is President's Obama greatest headache in the Supreme Court, a super conservative similar to Rick Perry with his hate for Social Security and all advancements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

It is very ironic that the Greatest Obstacle for President Obama in the Supreme Court is another "Black" guy. Although Obama is considered a "Black Guy" only because of human foolishness, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry and racism.

This post is valid for all nations and constitutions, and for unwritten constitutions like in England, where there is only a vague "Carta Magna"...

For example different courts of appeals have different interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. And they contradict each other. The U. S. Supreme Court has contradicted itself hundreds of times with the passage of centuries.

An example :


A Federal Court : the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia dismissed two lawsuits Thursday that had challenged the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul


So Obama Health Care Law was upheld, this Federal Court Dismissed the Challenge To Affordable Care Act.


The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in both lawsuits – one filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, the other by Liberty University – that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The court did not delve into the constitutional issues.


Another appeals court in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate. And a federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law like the court in Virginia.

But what is "standing" ??

With help from Wikipedia :

Standing ( Law ) in Wikipedia




Some excerpts :

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

International Courts

The Council of Europe created the first international court before which individuals have automatic locus standi.

United States

In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues".

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.[12] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".

The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[14] Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.

The doctrine on standing has recently been modified by the unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States in which it was held an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute under the Tenth Amendment.

There are three standing requirements:

Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[16]

Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

..........

2012 will hinge on jobs-focused swing voters who are in no mood to revisit the still-popular New Deal-era program during a time of economic uncertainty. Many thinking Republicans and Conservatives believe that Social Security and Medicare reform should be handled with great care

.

Rick Perry may be suicide for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney may have better possibilities to attract the center and independents ( but only in case that the Economy is in poor shape and that unemployment is not diminshed in 2012 ).

Those prudent conservatives and republicans will vote for Mitt Romney, the extremists and crazies will vote for Rick Perry in the Primaries. And prudent and cautious Analysts and Strategists of both parties may acknowledge that competing against Barack Obama with Extremism and Emotion is a suicide for the Republican Party.

POLITICO.COM
At Reagan debate, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry place big bets on GOP direction
By JONATHAN MARTIN & BEN SMITH
September 8, 2011

At Reagan debate, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry place big bets on GOP direction


Some excerpts :

Perry’s bet is on a conservative, confrontational and mad-as-hell Republican Party. Romney’s is that GOP activists want, above all, to win and will come to recognize that nominating the Texas governor would be an act of political suicide.

The divide between the two men reflects an ongoing debate that’s splitting the Republican Party both on the campaign trail and beyond it. Some of its leaders, looking back at the 2010 midterm elections, believe that the party – and the nation – are ready to gorge on red meat as never before. The American people, goes this line of thinking, recognize that entitlements must be addressed and that old-style demagoguery over the issue has become less effective.

Others believe deeply that the laws of political gravity still apply - that Social Security and Medicare reform must be handled with great care, if at all, and that 2012 will hinge on jobs-focused swing voters who are in no mood to revisit the still-popular New Deal-era program during a time of economic uncertainty. The divide is both strategic and ideological, and as Romney and Perry emerge clearly as the party’s two presidential poles on the issue, it will take on an even higher profile than it did during the punishing debate over Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.

.................

What’s crazy, say gleefully incredulous Romney aides, is nominating a GOP candidate who thinks that “by any measure Social Security is a failure.”

“The Republican Party has to defend the position of the nominee,” said top Romney adviser Stuart Stevens. “Every House candidate that runs, every Senate candidate that runs, would have to run on the Perry plan to kill Social Security.”

..........

Romney and some establishment Republicans believe such talk offers the makings of a Goldwater-style landslide loss in a general election and will even stop Perry from capturing the Florida Republican primary.

“Our nominee has to be somebody who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security,” Romney said in the debate.

Alex Castellanos, who is now unaligned but worked against Perry in 2006, said electability-minded Republicans would come away scared following Wednesday’s performance.

“Rick Perry did not alienate the GOP base of primary voters tonight, but he didn’t show them an electable Republican who can win the middle, independents and soccer moms, and that is essential if a Republican is going to defeat Barack Obama,” said Castellanos. “If he begins to lose steam in head-to-head [polling] matchups with Obama, he becomes Bachmann, just another conservative who can’t beat Obama.”

.

Ed Koch ( New York City ex-mayor ) to the President : "Legislation should be adopted “allowing homeowners to reduce their mortgage debt to no more than the current value of their property" - "That was done in 1986 to help family farmers"

.

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) : Conyers is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the House and was not long ago its chairman. He asks for this Legislation and Ed Koch supports it.

Real Clear Politics
Mr. President, Please Read This Before Thursday
By Ed Koch
September 7, 2011


Mr. President, Please Read This Before Thursday


Some excerpts :

I propose, as many have, that the bankruptcy laws be amended immediately to empower bankruptcy judges to reduce principal as well as interest. Opponents of this proposal generally respond, “moral hazard,” meaning it would encourage future borrowers to borrow more than they could repay. If “moral hazard” were the standard, why were the banks, which made decisions that were financially devastating to this country, bailed out to the tune of billions of dollars by laws enacted by Congress and signed by you, as well as actions taken by the Federal Reserve? Remember, Mr. President, that banks were given those billions to provide liquidity to businesses, but instead used the taxpayers’ monies to buy U.S. Treasury bonds to enhance their balance sheets with the interest received.

Mr. President, you should propose a quick new foreclosure-bankruptcy proceeding that could restore full title to the homeowners and keep them in possession. Help them with the same alacrity as you did the car manufacturers. Of course, that needs the approval of Congress. You can propose, but Congress must dispose. If they won’t, the country will hold them responsible in the election of 2012.

Jobs, jobs, jobs, is the nation’s cry. I suggest, as I’m sure your advisers have, that you look to what FDR did in the depression of the 1930s. Again, you can propose, but the Congress will dispose. You should propose work programs comparable to the WPA, PWA, CCC and a host of others.

...............

Mr. President, after I wrote this commentary, I read the New York Times on Labor Day and saw the letter of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) with whom I served when I was in the Congress from 1969 to 1977, before I was elected mayor of New York City. His letter serendipitously deals with the issue of mortgage foreclosures. He believes legislation should be adopted “allowing homeowners to reduce their mortgage debt to no more than the current value of their property.” He points out that that was done in 1986 to help family farmers. Conyers is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the House and was not long ago its chairman, so I defer to him. In any event, please examine his proposal.

...

Super Conservative British Historian Niall Ferguson : "The West risks not the genteel decline of old age so much as collapse. As a highly complex system, civilisation has a “tendency to move quite suddenly from stability to instability”

.

"That, he argues, was what happened to Ancient Rome, the Ming dynasty in 17th-century China, the Bourbons in 18th-century France, 20th-century Britain and, most recently, the Soviet Union. The West’s present fiscal crisis might yet prove to be a symptom of the rot within."

The Economist
Western civilisation : A success that looks like failure

The West’s long run as top dog may be ending. But the values that made it great, consumerism included, have been sold on to the rest of the world

March 10, 2011

Book "Civilization: The West and the Rest". By Niall Ferguson. Allen Lane


Who is Niall Ferguson ??
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niall Ferguson ( born 1964) is a British historian who specialises in financial and economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets, as well as the history of colonialism.

Ferguson is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University as well as William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and also currently the Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at the London School of Economics. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Ferguson advised Senator John McCain's campaign.

In the UK, Ferguson is probably best known as the author of Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. In 2008, Ferguson published The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, which he also presented as a Channel 4 television series. Both at Harvard College and at LSE, Ferguson teaches a course entitled "Western Ascendancy: The Mainsprings of Global Power from 1600 to the Present."

Richard Drayton, Professor of Colonial History at the University of London, has stated that it is correct to associate "Ferguson with an attempt to "rehabilitate empire" in the service of contemporary great power interests."

Western civilisation : A success that looks like failure


Some excerpts :

Historians will find things to pick at—how could they not in a whistle-stop journey through 600 years? The politically correct will bristle at Mr Ferguson’s defence of empire—though he does not shy from its enormities. But the book’s main weakness lies when it comes to the second question: is the West doomed?

Mr Ferguson presents a thesis that the West risks not the genteel decline of old age so much as collapse. As a highly complex system, civilisation has a “tendency to move quite suddenly from stability to instability.” That, he argues, was what happened to Ancient Rome, the Ming dynasty in 17th-century China, the Bourbons in 18th-century France, 20th-century Britain and, most recently, the Soviet Union. The West’s present fiscal crisis might yet prove to be a symptom of the rot within.

Leave aside whether the rule of Caesars was really shattered in a generation or whether the French revolution marked the end of a civilisation. The trouble with Mr Ferguson’s view that the West may collapse is that he also believes Asia is adopting the West’s values. China, following the path of Japan, is harnessing Western science, medicine and technology, and encouraging its hard-working people to become consumers and, within limits, to own their own homes. That is not so much a defeat of the West as its triumph.

Unless Asia has any exclusive “killer apps” of its own, it is hard to see how such a triumph could alone condemn the West to disaster. Whereas a handful of Western countries were once at it, a whole planet has started to join in. More likely than the end of civilisation—and more boring—is that the West will just cease to be special.

.........

A gloomy presidential campaign for a gloomy era : The frightening prospect of a Republican Party not only of wrong but medieval thinking - The policies the Republicans are pursuing in Congress are politically ruinous

.

GOP presidential candidates are racing to embrace the Tea Party :

Huffington Post -
Obama Aide Discusses 2012 Campaign Strategy -
By Howard Fineman -
September 6, 2011 -


Obama Aide Discusses 2012 Campaign Strategy


Some excerpts :

But as he and the Republican field launch the active, above-ground phase of the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama’s strategists are planning to focus less on his record –- which is spotty at best -– than on what they regard as the frightening prospect of a Republican Party not only of wrong but medieval thinking.

The strategy will be more accusatory, alarm-filled and defensive than the one used during the uplifting, even joyous campaign of 2008, symbolized as it was by depicting the first letter of the candidate's name as a rising sun.

Asked how President Obama could win reelection in the face of persistently high unemployment, a stagnant economy and restiveness in his own Democratic base, a top Obama strategist gave a three-part answer:

“The Electoral College map is tough for them.” He went on to explain that the president would have solid, if diminished support in the states he had won in 2008. They will lose some -- Indiana being a prime example –- but feel they can hold onto enough of the rest.

“The policies the Republicans are pursuing in Congress are politically ruinous.” He cited Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) Medicare bill, the GOP leadership’s “Cut Cap and Balance” bill, and efforts to roll back or even rescind the Wall Street reform law.

“Republican presidential candidates are racing to embrace the Tea Party, which is going to drive away independent voters.” The Tea Party’s “extreme” views, he said, are outside the mainstream, and will cost the GOP ticket, whoever is on it.

More generally, White House and Democratic strategists will try to portray the GOP as a ruined party in thrall to pre-rational thinking: a tribe of the willfully ignorant that rejects modern science, modern teaching methods, modern research and social science, all in the name of fealty to a static (and in that sense anti-American) society in which God’s word is the one and only answer.

.

Electoral College : Dems have 247 "sure" Electoral Votes, Reps have 206 "sure" EVs - 85 EVs are free to reach the magic number 270 : Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13)

.

The seven Super Swing States that decide the Presidency in year 2012 :

The Wall Street Journal -
The 2012 Election Will Come Down to Seven States -
National polls are nice, but Electoral College math is what matters. -
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011


By LARRY J. SABATO
Mr. Sabato is director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, author of Pendulum Swing (Longman, 2011), and editor of the Crystal Ball newsletter, www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball.

The 2012 Election Will Come Down to Seven States


Some excerpts :

Prior to Obama's 2008 victories in each of these states, several had generally or firmly leaned Republican since 1980. Virginia, which hadn't voted Democratic since 1964, was the biggest surprise, and its Obama majority was larger than that of Ohio, which has frequently been friendly to Democrats in past decades. Massive Hispanic participation turned Colorado and Nevada to Mr. Obama, and it helped him in Florida.

The GOP has gotten a quiet advantage through the redistricting following the 2010 Census. The Republican nominee could gain about a half-dozen net electors from the transfer of House seats—and thus electoral votes—from the northern Frostbelt to the southern and western Sunbelt. Put another way, the Democrats can no longer win just by adding Ohio to John Kerry's 2004 total. The bleeding of electoral votes from Democratic states would leave him six short of 270.

Of course, the best-laid plans of Electoral College analysts can be undone overnight by the rise of one or more third-party or independent candidates, as shown by George Wallace from the right (1968), Ross Perot from the middle (1992), and Ralph Nader from the left (2000).

Right now, though, a troubled President Obama—so far unopposed for re-nomination—has the luxury of keeping both eyes on the Electoral College, planning his trips and policies accordingly. By contrast, the leading Republican contenders are forced to focus their gaze on delegate votes in a handful of early-voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Still, quietly they're already seeking admission to the only college that can give them the job they want.

......

Two VIDEOs : Obama's Labor Day Full Speech, Detroit September 5, 2011 : "Congress Must Pass Jobs Plan" - "Vote to create new Jobs" - "We are ready to get dirty working" - "Congress Get on Board !"

.
Detroit, Michigan  - President is self-confident, self-assured, happy to be president, exultant, energetic, a great campaigner !.

People fired up chanting "Four More Years", AFL-CIO ( Labor Unions ), Teamsters, etc...

"Country was founded on Hard Work, Seriousness, Responsibility !"



Uploaded by MiniRtist on Sep 5, 2011

President Obama in Detroit, Talking About Jobs - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsxZH29GCzo

******************

President Obama in Detroit, Talking About Jobs - Part 2

http://youtu.be/xpr4v37M7XQ

....