Former US president Bill Clinton has contrary to opinion polls said his fellow Democrat Barack Obama would easily be re-elected to the White House as president in November.

In his own words speaking to the CNN in an interview said “I still think the president will win by five or six points.”

Obama faces presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the US presidential election on November 6.

According to Quinnipiac University Polling Institute recent poll stats, Romney has surged ahead of Obama by a 47% against 41% lead in the state of Florida.

However, a number of nationwide polls have suggested Obama and Romney are even.

Clinton said the polls showed a close support for both candidates due to the United States economic stress but when the supporters tout the achievements of Obama in the last four years, they will surely re-elect him for a second term.

After Mr. Francois Hollande win the presidential election in early May, the French press in particular and the international press in general had spent no less ink to write about people who are supposed to become First Lady new people of France.

Beyond the shadow of the former First Lady of glamorous and elegant Carla Bruni at the Elysee Palace would be a prospect not easy for any new first lady of France. However, many people have expressed confidence, if he became first lady, female reporter Valerie Trierweiler may be no less prominent predecessor.

There is an interesting thing that not everyone knew she was the only Trierweiler current status of the new French president rather than the official of his wife. Most likely, Ms. Trierweiler First Lady would be “no wedding” first of France when both Hollande and women are not keen on marriage story.

Efficient supporter of the new French president

She was born on 02/16/1965 in Angers Trierweiler, eastern France. She was the 5th child in a family with six siblings. Her mother was working at the skating rink. Her father was a wounded, one leg due to landmines in winning World War II. He died when she was 21 years old Trierweiler.

She graduated Trierweiler Sorbonne University in History and Political Science, then received a Masters degree in the same industry field. As a political commentator sharp, she Trierweiler been hailed as the Paris Match report “Property Hollande’s cute.”

Ms. Trierweiler, 47, who is a journalist and a writer “Family”, in charge of the politics of popular magazines of France – Paris Match. She also served as the host for a political TV show called Le Grand 8 on the French channel Direct 8.

However, during which time he participated Hollande presidential election, to avoid conflict of political interests, Ms. Trierweiler has moved from political commentator to comment on television culture.

However, she remains an efficient supporter of his campaign and is one of the important characters contributed to his victory.

To assist in the campaign of the situation, she set up a separate office at the headquarters of his presidential Hollande. Employees working at campaign headquarters is often said to each other that, before making what decisions, should be wise to consult her Trierweiler.

His longtime lover Hollande

Ms. Trierweiler is said to have started a relationship with Hollande affair since 2005. Meanwhile, Mr Hollande and his ex-wife is well-known female politician in France – Ms Royal was not officially divorced.

However, sources said that Ms. Trierweiler not cause Hollande his marriage fell apart. His family life with her Royal Hollande fell into the scene “not healthy soup no sweet rice” and they were separated long before Mr. Hollande and Ms. Trierweiler “dating” each other. Hollande and his ex-wife officially divorced in 2007.

By 2010, Mr. Hollande and Ms. Trierweiler officially publicized their relationship public. It is known that before I met him first Hollande, 2005, Ms. Trierweiler also had two husbands and three children in a second marriage with an editor of Paris Match magazine.

First Lady of “no wedding”

Not hot as former First Lady Carla Bruni Trierweiler but she is still a hot topic of public opinion in France for many other reasons.

Republicans will never see it this way - but Romney is actually the only sensible candidate amongst the entire bunch who tried for the nomination.

Just picking a few at random, Santorum came across as a fanatic obsessed about sex, Rick Perry forgot his own policy, Herman Cain couldn’t keep his hands to himself, Trump and his hair were in there for a while, and  Gingrich thinks the wisdom of the world, not a horny old goat, lives inside his head.

That may make them sound interesting, but worrying too, and hardly Presidential. For many voters the fact that a candidate is not Obama is enough. But that’s a big part of the problem. Because millions of others who can think for themselves, but don’t shout so much, want more from a President.

Once Romney secures the nomination and escapes from the wild eyed fantasists of his own party he’ll probably come up with a decent, if dull, campaign. So surely he needs someone with a sprinkling of wit and charisma to energise the package?

Here comes the first problem. Romney can only pick one running mate so top politicians, being the creatures they are, have to guard against not being the chosen one. They pre-empt the situation by saying – they don’t want to be on the ticket. They can be polite about it and they won’t lose face by not being chosen.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio who could add Hispanic appeal, has said no thanks. So has Susanna Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, who could do the same and possibly win the women’s vote. Bob McDonnell is happy being Governor of Virginia. Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty have said no thanks, together with Nikki Haley Governor of South Carolina and Ohio Senator Rob Portman. There will be more when the hopefuls discover they aren’t in the running.

It was Professor Julian Zelizer from Princeton who said Romney should go for a boring VP. His evidence is a list of successful tickets, Dick Cheney with George Bush, Al Gore with Bill Clinton and surely the clincher, George HW Bush with Ronald Reagan. The big snag of course is that Romney doesn’t have the persuasive charm of a Clinton or Reagan – and unlike Dubya he doesn’t have a brother to count the votes for him in Florida!

So he probably does need a partner with a sparkle. A smarter Sarah Palin would do nicely. Perhaps there’s one out there.

2013 Hillary Clinton to withdraw from politics. Her followers hope she will then prepare their candidacy for the presidential election in 2016.

She is quite pale, the world traveler, you should properly address each other with Madame Secretary. In over three years in office, Hillary Clinton has spent more than 300 days in airplanes, visiting 95 countries and covered 1.3 million kilometers. A break would do her good.

Four years ago it was the former first lady refused to be first U.S. president. Barack Obama brought her into his cabinet, but – as Abraham Lincoln, the rival omnibus in his team. Some leaders used to such a close and trusting relationship with their foreign ministers, that they acted as Co-President: Harry Truman and George Marshall, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Obama and Clinton can not claim that. As a “professionally friendly” insiders describe how the two deal with each other. Obama rips much in itself, sometimes it presents important tasks rather his Vice President Joe Biden to entrust Madame Secretary take it. For example, Biden has the political side of the withdrawal from Iraq managed relatively smoothly.

No major breakthroughs

When it comes to Afghanistan, he was the reality of his skepticism closer than Clinton, the former Pentagon chief Robert Gates recommended an increase in troops. But Biden sat on commando raids, and a smaller contingent.

Is also clear that Clinton is no Secretary of spectacular breakthroughs. Your balance is visible rather meager.

In 1996, when Hillary’s husband Bill heading to his re-election, whose emissaries had urged the warring parties in the Balkans into a Bosnia peace agreement. In Northern Ireland, the White House paved the way for a reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants, while it drove the Israelis and Palestinians to make compromises. Today, the United States as an honest broker in the Middle East are practically no longer active in the Syrian crisis barely veiled confusion reigns in Libya was one happy to be British and the French take the lead.

Clinton does not care, sees itself more as a manager of a repair anyway operation. Ten years have the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq determines the debates at home, she lectured recently in the Economist. When she took office, shortly after the financial crash, they’ve heard all over the world the same questions. “What it really stands for?” A painful experience, she admits. Their main concern had been to enhance the emphasis on military means under George W. Bush diplomacy and development assistance.

In his own country he comes, the humble tone. According to surveys done by two-thirds of their work, while only half of Obama certifies to do a good job. Part of it is in the nature of the office, some of Clinton’s way to call a spade a spade without frills.

Meanwhile, their fan base hardly doubt the fact that they Oval Office a candidate for 2016. They would then be 69, as old as Ronald Reagan, when he won the first time. “I would be happy,” says husband Bill and sounds like a motivational speaker. First, the world traveler, but puts a break, that much is certain. In January 2013, it wants to clear her desk, no matter how the election in November starts. “I have even downloaded from the fast lane.”

Romney victorious further

The U.S. Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy, however, one detail: He won the primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington DC in front of Rick Santorum. (Frank Herrmann of Washington,

Image via Wikipedia

They polled nearly 2.5 million American voters over an extended period by telephone. Four days before the election they stated the winner would be Kansas Republican Alfred M. Landon with the startling number of 370 electoral votes. The magazine clearly showed there is always room for human error. Whether voters changed their minds or whether they had kept mum about who they would vote for, nobody knew.

Surprise, surprise, election day saw Franklin D. Roosevelt run over Landon like a raging tornado. It was the largest landslide in any American election. Roosevelt won 523 electoral votes. Landon had 8. Many middle class Americans at the time had no phones, so mostly rich citizens were polled. They would as a matter of course voted republican.

In 1936 the country were still in the big depression, people were desperate, without jobs and hobo camps all over the country. Many of you  remember “The Grapes of Wrath” People were homeless, broke and looking for relief. The only way out of the depression was to get a Democrat into office. They did it by going to the polls and casting their vote. Within a year with their reputation on the skids, the Literary Digest folded.

http://socyberty.com/history/eleanor-roosevelts-death/

http://trifter.com/europe/governments-snafus/

http://socyberty.com/history/1932-in-the-united-states/

http://socyberty.com/history/president-nixon-tricky-dick/

If you’re interested, more examples of the younger generations taking interest in this issue during this election include this article about a video (again a product of YouTube) of a student who leads her high school’s LGBT group questioning former candidate Michelle Bachmann (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/student-challenges-bachmann-on-gay-rights/) and this article about gay rights being supported more by college students than Americans as a whole (http://chronicle.com/article/College-Freshmen-Approve-of/64685/)

To read the article about Mitt Romney, you can copy and paste this link which will lead you to the LA Times article

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-would-mitt-romney-be-the-first-mexicanamerican-president-20120125,0,2113449.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Michelle Bachmann: insanity. Rick Perry: stupidity. Herman Cain: profligacy. Ron Paul: paranoia. Newt Gingrich: gluttony/licentiousness/a dozen other things. And now Mitt Romney:

Immorality.

The immorality of Mitt Romney will be front and center for the next 10 months, as he and the Republican party ratchet up the rhetoric in a doomed attempt to defend vulture capitalism and intentional corporate destruction.

They will try to argue that there was nothing illegal, and, by extension, nothing really wrong with what Mitt Romney did as CEO of Bain Capital, and they will be partially correct. There was nothing, I suppose, surrounding Mitt Romney’s activities at Bain that could be actionable in a court of law. But for one seeking the presidency, the standards are, presumably, a bit higher.

For instance, there is nothing illegal about running a string of strip clubs and porn shops, in most American municipalities, but does one really think the magnate of such an empire would have the slightest chance of winning in a bid for the presidency? When his opponents pointed out the questionable morality of his actions, would party elders rush to his defense with arguments akin to what we’re hearing from Romney’s guard: “He is practicing free market capitalism!” “Nothing on the law books about what he did!” “You’re just envious!”

Newt Gingrich termed much of Romney’s rhetoric “pious baloney,” and we will get more of that in the GOP’s myopic attempt at defending practices that place their candidate outside the mainstream of contemporary politics. If the Republicans want to run a full-throttled defense of predatory capitalism, wealth-building at any cost, and the sacrifice of community values for the sake of a few shiny-suited raconteurs, then more power to them. The American people will reject their Robber Baron sensibilities wholeheartedly, and the November election will be a welcome referendum on the morality of Mitt Romney and, by extension, the practices that have led the middle class of this country to the brink of extinction.

While important, most of the discussion on what to do until the end of 2012 does not address America’s overall macro-economic problems.  Leadership in America has never been found in people who don’t understand the concept of public service.  It would be nice if political calculations of self-preservation were put aside, so that our problems could actually begin to be addressed.  Wishful thinking!  Someday, things will be so bad that politicians are forced to act.  Until then, let us consider the merits of the Republicans opposition to government spending, “On principle.”

The great tax cutter in chief, George W. Bush, used the threat of moving the Texas Rangers to get approval of a half-cent sales tax to build a new stadium.  To obtain the land they would build the stadium on, they had the city of Arlington use eminent domain.  George W. Bush and his fellow investors paid $86 million for the Rangers.  Nine years later, they sold the taxpayer subsidized asset for $250 million.  The prime location, a new stadium, and a sweetheart bond deal to finance this project, paid big dividends to Bush & Co.  On his 1998 income tax return, Bush reported a long term capital gain of $17 million from the Rangers sale.  Sweet!

What a far cry from the specious rhetoric on taxes Republicans have been repeating every election cycle.  How much of that taxpayer money ended up helping Bush succeed in the presidential run shortly thereafter?  As a businessman, Bush would be considered a failure if judged only on the ventures that were not subsidized by taxpayers. If only Republicans required their own to “pull themselves up by the boot straps,” we could have saved America from eight years of poor leadership.

In Milwaukee, Brewers owner Bud Selig needed to sell the public on the idea of a tax to build a new stadium.  Conservative radio talk show hosts, Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner, spent hours of WTMJ radio time voicing support for the tax, and fear of losing the Brewers without it.  WTMJ was owned by Selig’s good friend, Robert Kahlor.  Sykes later acknowledged, “I used up a lot of my credibility with my audience, and to be a conservative pushing a tax increase is a difficult thing.”  Former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson was upset at the opening of Miller Park for not being recognized for his role in getting the stadium deal, and vowed to never set foot in the park again.  Selig sold the team to Mark Attanasio in 2004.  Most of that $220 million value being accrued with Republican approval, at taxpayer expense.  The park actually cost $413.9 million, and 78% came out of the taxpayers’ pocket.  The team’s main financial contribution came from selling the naming rights to Miller Brewing Company.

Conservative political commentator George F. Will is one of Selig’s closest advisors.  He claims that the fifteen new or renovated ballparks that Selig has lobbied for, with $3.22 billion in public subsidies, are monuments to Selig’s status as the greatest baseball commissioner of all time.  Greatness, in the eyes of George Will, is measured in how much taxpayer money a person can divert into corporate welfare.

How many schools, roads, and bridges could have been built with that money?  Why do Republicans, who are so smug when lecturing on the vice of spending taxpayers money, feel so comfortable giving it away to millionaires who don’t need it?  They can’t resist their superficial sense of elitism, which is stroked whenever they shmooze and scheme with the filthy rich, who epitomize everything they wish they could be.  While much ado is made by Republicans about honoring God, their actions reflect a preference for paying homage to Mammon.

Republicans have no problem giving away land, money, or both for their projects: wars, stadiums, prisons, oil wells, and other macho items.  If you want money for education, health care, environmental protection or preservation, building infrastructure, why you’re a gosh darn communist.  Other than a difference in how to spend tax dollars, what exactly is their overall economic plan?  That’s just it, there’s no need for a plan.  If you would just listen, you’d realize that the “free market” will sort itself out.  But that can only happen if we just give rich people everything they want.

Stimulus is an economic tool, not an ideology.  It cannot be purely embraced or condemned.  The problem with Republicans is that they are so hypocritical in trying to score a political point on this issue.  Every tax dollar is a redistribution of wealth, if you want to be honest about it.  Rather than politicians trying to figure out what they stand for, and making all kinds of arguments on their own behalf, let’s focus on fixing the economy.  All I can see in this upcoming election cycle is an opportunity for politicians to really piss off a lot of people by showing how out of touch they are with main street America.