Top Senate Dems urge Obama to take unilateral action on debt ceiling

WASHINGTON –  If President Obama were to break the impasse with Republicans over raising the debt limit by taking unilateral action, such a move would have the potential to set off a firestorm of controversy and spark a protracted legal battle.

Top Senate Democrats say, go for it.

The White House has dismissed talk that Obama would rely on unusual measures to raise the nation's debt limit without Congress' approval, but administration officials also have warned that the country could default on its debt and trigger a new economic crisis if lawmakers don't increase the limit on borrowing.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is among those urging Obama to consider options like invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to find ways around the $16.4 trillion legal cap on government borrowing. The amendment states that the "validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned," which some lawmakers believe permits a way out of the debt limit jam.

The government hit the debt limit last month and is juggling the books to buy additional time for Congress to act. But those moves only buy a few weeks of wiggle room, which requires Congress to act -- likely by mid- to late-February -- to avoid a market-quaking default on U.S. obligations.

The White House has said emphatically that it does not believe that the 14th Amendment permits Obama to ignore the debt cap on U.S. borrowing, though it considered the question during the 2011 debt crisis.

"There is no Plan B. There is no backup plan," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. "There is no alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling."

A letter to Obama on Friday from Reid and Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., doesn't mention the 14th Amendment, but aides to the senators said that's what they have in mind in urging the president to consider unilateral action.

"We believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis -- without congressional approval, if necessary," the letter said.

Battling House and Senate leaders have made virtually no progress on a strategy for legislation to lift the debt cap. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, insists that any debt increase be matched by equivalent spending cuts. Obama, buoyed by his re-election victory, says he won't negotiate as he did in 2011, when he traded a $2.1 trillion debt increase for tight spending limits on agency budgets and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts if a congressional "supercommittee" failed to reach a budget agreement.

"Senate Democrats cannot ignore their responsibilities for political convenience -- and the American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

The impasse has people on both sides scratching their heads over how it will be resolved. The anxiety is such that some on the left are urging Obama to mint a coin worth perhaps $1 trillion to be deposited at the Federal Reserve and drawn upon to meet government obligations.

source: foxnews.com

Bob Dylan predicts Obama in a landslide

Bob Dylan says he thinks President Barack Obama is going to win in a landslide.

Dylan made the prediction on Monday night midway through the song Blowin' in the Wind during a concert in the battleground state of Wisconsin.

Dylan spoke to the Madison audience as he was wrapping up his concert that came just hours after Obama appeared at a morning rally in the same city with rocker Bruce Springsteen.


Dylan made his comments during his encore when he said, 'We tried to play good tonight since the president was here today.'

He went on to say he thinks Obama will prevail on Tuesday.

Dylan says, 'Don't believe the media. I think it's going to be a landslide.'

After his comments, Dylan completed the song to the roar of the crowd.

source: bigpondnews.com

Three reasons Obama will win; three reasons Romney will win

The most expensive election in U.S. history is almost over, and most public polls suggest President Obama has a small, but persistent, edge over his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

But before the final vote counts, here are three reasons each candidate has to expect victory, and a key place to watch to see who is right.

Reasons Obama will win

Economic optimism: Yes, unemployment remains high at 7.9%, and the recovery has been slow. But slow growth and no growth sit worlds apart. Incumbent presidents presiding over a growing economy with rising job numbers in the election year almost always prevail. Moreover, ever since the summer, the number of Americans expressing optimism about the economy’s future has grown. That shift shows up in pre-election polls as well as in rising consumer confidence.

Increased optimism has provided crucial lift for Obama — he wins overwhelmingly among voters who say the economy will be better next year — and it could be particularly important in key Midwestern contests, including Wisconsin and Ohio.

Latinos: For at least a decade, Karl Rove and other Republican strategists have warned that the party risked failure if it could not find a way to reach out to the country’s fast-growing Latino population. Instead of doing so this year, Mitt Romney ran a primary campaign that stressed hard-line positions against illegal immigration. The goal was to outflank Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and it succeeded, but at high cost. (And ultimately, Perry did so poorly that he might have lost anyway.)

Polls of Latino voters show that Obama probably will get 70% or more of their vote. Already, early vote statistics indicate that strong support from Latinos has given Obama a big lead in Nevada. Depending on the size of the Latino turnout, he could add Colorado and Florida to his column.

Ground game: From strategists David Axelrod and David Plouffe and campaign manager Jim Messina on down, Obama campaign officials have said for more than a year that the organization they were building to identify, register, mobilize and turn out supporters would provide the difference in a close election. So far, in the early voting, that organization has largely performed as advertised.

Even in North Carolina, where most polls have pointed to a Romney victory, Democrats have a slightly larger edge in the early vote than they had in 2008, when Obama won the state by the slenderest of margins. In Ohio and Florida, long lines, mostly of Obama supporters, circled early voting locations over the weekend and Monday. The campaign has benefited from new techniques in identifying and targeting supporters and motivating them to show up at the polls. And although Republicans also have proved they can turn out their supporters — they showed that this spring in Wisconsin’s recall election, for example — the Democrats appear to have an edge.

Reasons Romney will win

Economic performance: Yes, optimism is on the rise, but there’s no denying that a majority of Americans believes the country is headed in the wrong direction and doesn’t have confidence that Obama’s economic policies will fix it. With the economy as the issue that the great majority of voters consider their top priority, Republicans have argued that wavering voters in the end will come down on the challenger’s side. The most recent Pew Research Center survey showed Obama with a slight edge, but also showed that the number of voters who said they might yet change their minds was enough to switch the outcome.

Understating the GOP vote: Among Republican pollsters, several believe that the public polls conducted by news organizations, universities and research centers like Pew have all understated the Republican vote. The arguments for that position vary. A chief one is that the methods pollsters use to identify likely voters have overstated the partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans.

In the 2004 election, exit polls showed the number of voters identifying with each party was roughly equal. In 2008, Democrats had a substantial edge. Most,  though not all, public polls look more like 2008 than 2004, with more self-identified Democrats than Republicans. The Republicans who doubt those polls say the Democratic edge in 2008 was a one-time thing, brought on by Obama’s popularity that year. This year’s party identification should look more like 2004, they argue. Nonpartisan pollsters dispute that argument, but if it’s correct, Romney almost certainly will do better than the polls have indicated.

A smaller, older and whiter electorate: In 2008, 61.6% of the population potentially eligible to register and vote actually cast ballots. That was the highest level since before 1971, when the 26th Amendment to the Constitution gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. Most analysts expect this year’s turnout percentage to be lower. But how much? And which voters will stay home?

Professor Michael McDonald of George Mason University, the leading expert on voter turnout, estimates that 60% to 61% of the voter-eligible population will turn out. That would put the 2012 turnout level slightly lower than that of 2008, but likely higher than 2004’s 60.1%.

Some Republicans expect a bigger decline. They believe turnout of younger voters will drop significantly from 2008 levels and that minority turnout also will decline because of what they see as lowered enthusiasm for Obama. Turnout of older, white voters will rise because of greater intensity on the GOP side, they predict. The result would be an electorate that is both older and whiter than the one in 2008, which was 74% non-Latino whites, according to exit polls.

In 2004, when Bush won reelection, non-Latino whites made up 77% of the electorate, and in the 2010 midterm elections, when Republicans regained control of the House, the white share was 78%. Many Democratic strategists expect the white share of the electorate to fall to 73% this year, but some Republicans expect the white share to rise, which would give Romney an edge in key states because of the sharp racial polarization of the vote.

Early clues to which side is right?

Look for the returns from Virginia, which has among the earliest poll-closing times in the country: 7 p.m. Eastern time. Minority turnout, economic optimism and the strength of Obama’s ground game all will be in play there. If the results come in strongly for one candidate or the other, it could set the pattern for the night.

source: latimes.com

Stevie Wonder, Dave Matthews, Pitbull and More Rally for Obama

A high-profile cast of musicians fanned out in support of President Obama at rallies around the country over the weekend as part of a final push in his re-election campaign, according to multiple news reports. John Mellencamp appeared with Obama in Iowa, Stevie Wonder warmed up a crowd in Cincinnati, Pitbull introduced the president in Hollywood, Florida, and Dave Matthews joined Obama Saturday in Bristow, Virginia, and yesterday in  Aurora, Colorado.

Wonder, who recently released a song for Obama, joked with the crowd in Ohio before he played "Sir Duke," saying, "You know, I've not looked at either candidate," then pausing for a wave of laughter as the joke sank in. "So it's not based on that, the color of their skin. But I must tell you, it's based on their spirit."

Pitbull didn't perform in Florida, but the first-generation Cuban-American did talk about "what my family went through to be able to appreciate the opportunity that this country gives me," and emphasized a sense of commonality.

"We ain't got to worry about those that dislike and – I don't like to use this word because to me it's a bad word – but those that hate," the Cuban-American rapper told the crowd. "All we got to worry about is sticking together and doing this together, and that's what we're doing here today. So it doesn't matter whether we're, mira, Latino, black, pink, purple, orange, white, it doesn't matter, because we're all Americans."

Neil Diamond and Burt Bacharach showed their support a different way, according to The Hollywood Reporter, dropping by an Obama phone bank in Los Angeles to sing "Sweet Caroline" for get-out-the-vote volunteers making calls. Diamond stayed afterward to help with phone calls, tweeting, "Working the phones for Obama . . . If I call you, don't hang up. It's really me and I need you."

Also, Katy Perry played her third Obama event in Milwaukee yesterday, and Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z join the president for rallies today. Election Day is tomorrow.

source: rollingstone.com

Mitt Romney's Disastrous Energy Plan

The smirk appeared on Mitt Romney's face near the end of his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. President Obama, he said, had "promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans" and to "heal the planet." Here Romney paused, giving the crowd in Tampa a moment to savor the fact that he was about to turn climate change – arguably the greatest challenge civilization has ever faced – into a joke. "My promise," he said, "is to help you and your family."

The smirk summed up everything you need to know about the GOP's addiction to fossil fuels. Even George W. Bush – a Texas oilman and loyal servant to Big Oil – paid lip service to the importance of clean energy and the risks of climate change. But what Romney and the Republicans are offering voters this November isn't a coherent energy plan. It's a suicide note.

The nut of Romney's plan, such as it is, goes like this: Because of technological innovations like fracking, America is awash in gas and oil that we're now able to reach. If we drill the hell out of everything, including protected public lands and fragile regions like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, America can emerge as an "energy superpower." This "drill, baby, drill" policy, the Republicans claim, will lower energy prices, create 3 million new jobs, add $500 billion to the gross domestic product, boost tax revenues by $1 trillion and strengthen national security by increasing "freedom from dependence on foreign energy supplies."

This fantasy is not only a blueprint for polluting the planet and speeding up climate change – it's also precisely the energy policy that David and Charles Koch, the billionaire conservative oilmen who have pledged $400 million to help defeat Obama, would advocate if they were sitting in the Oval Office. Indeed, America's leading fossil-fuel barons have lined up behind Romney, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign, as well as the shadow groups and Super PACs that are supporting him. During a recent stop in Texas, Romney raked in nearly $7 million during a single lunch hosted by ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson and other oil and gas executives. As Justin Ruben, the executive director of MoveOn, puts it: "It's not a stretch to say that the fossil-fuel industry is attempting a hostile takeover of the U.S. political system."

To bring about that takeover this November, Romney recently unveiled his so-called "energy plan" during a campaign stop in New Mexico. His vision for our energy future, like the one outlined in the Republican platform, is big on promises and Obama-bashing but short on specifics. Here are the five key talking points:

SPIN #1: Free at Last

The centerpiece of Romney's energy plan – and the Republican platform – is achieving energy independence by 2020. The slogan is touted as if it were a great and grand call to action, the energy equivalent of the race to the moon. In fact, when Romney talks about "energy independence," what he is really talking about is drilling.

Right now we import about 45 percent of our oil, which means we export about $1 billion a day to places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela. So if we drill more at home, Romney argues, or import more oil from friendly neighbors, we can eliminate our dependence on Arab sheiks and Latin American despots. Romney has vowed to bring in more oil from Canada via the Keystone XL pipeline, open up the coastlines of Virginia and the Carolinas to drilling, and empower states to speed up fracking and drilling on federal lands. Taken together, Romney claims, such moves would double oil production in North America over the next decade. "We won't need to buy any oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or anywhere else we don't want to," he declared in New Mexico.

But according to Michael Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, this notion of energy independence is "a pipe dream." For one thing, because oil is easier and cheaper to transport than coal and natural gas, it's sold on the global market – which means that what we pump out of the ground here doesn't necessarily stay here. The whole point of the Keystone pipeline, for example, is to connect the dirty oil flowing out of Canada's tar sands with refineries on the Gulf Coast, where the oil can be directly shipped to overseas markets. The only way to keep domestic oil in America – even if foreign markets are willing to pay more for it – would be to nationalize the oil industry, a solution that is decidedly not a part of the GOP's energy plan.

In short, when Romney utters the words "energy independence," he's really promoting the idea that we can drill our way to freedom – using a fear of foreigners to justify opening up fragile coastlines and wildlife sanctuaries to the Koch brothers. "The only real path to energy independence is to get off oil completely," says Steve Kretzmann, the executive director of Oil Change International, a group that advocates a transition to clean energy. A serious push for energy independence would begin by reducing the demand for oil, through tougher fuel standards for cars and higher gasoline taxes – measures that Romney refuses to consider.

SPIN #2: Drilling = Jobs

During his speech in New Mexico, Romney claimed that expanding oil and gas production would create 3 million new jobs, including 1 million in manufacturing. "Job creation numbers are always speculative," says Sean Sweeney, head of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University. "With Romney, it's all about voodoo accounting." In fact, the jobs-creation numbers being tossed around by Republicans are pure fantasy. Romney supporter Carly Fiorina recently claimed on Meet the Press that completing the Keystone pipeline would create "over a million jobs." But even TransCanada, the company that will build the pipeline, estimates that it will create only 6,500 jobs a year.

In reality, studies show that investments to spur renewable energy and boost energy efficiency generate far more jobs than oil and coal. A recent report by the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts concluded that $150 billion invested in renewable energy would generate 1.7 million more jobs than the same amount invested in fossil fuels. Another study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that a national standard requiring utilities to obtain at least 25 percent of their power from wind, solar and bioenergy by 2025 would create 297,000 new jobs, generating $13.5 billion in income for rural landowners and $11.5 billion in new tax revenues for local governments. In addition, the private sector has recognized the lucrative opportunities offered by clean energy: In 2010 – for the first time ever – investments in renewable energy surpassed those in fossil fuels.

So why the Republican focus on oil and coal? First, clean energy still suffers from its image as some sort of hippie utopia. "For many working-class voters in places like Ohio, oil and gas and coal are the only 'real' forms of energy," says Kretzmann. "Many people see wind and solar as just toys. So naturally, pandering politicians play to this idea, rather than challenging voters to see that renewable energy is not only growing fast but represents a far smarter and safer bet for the future than continuing with the old ways."

Second, when it comes to campaign contributions, clean energy still can't touch the clout of Big Oil. By the end of August, the oil and gas industry had given more than $36 million to federal candidates and their PACs – nearly 90 percent of it to Republicans. ExxonMobil alone has given more than $1 million so far this year; Sunpower, the most generous solar company, has contributed only $17,000. As Ruben of MoveOn puts it: "You can't separate the Republican energy policy from the fact that the Koch brothers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the election for Romney."

SPIN #3: The GOP Is Clean

Once in a while, Romney lets the phrase "clean energy" slip into one of his speeches. The GOP platform claims it "will encourage and ensure diversified domestic sources of energy." But in Republican­speak, diversifying our energy options means diversifying fossil fuels – creating more sources of oil, gas and coal.

In reality, Republicans have long been at war with clean energy. They have ridiculed investments in solar and wind power, bashed energy-efficiency standards, attacked state moves to promote renewable energy and championed laws that would enshrine taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels while stripping them from wind and solar.

Take the wind-production tax credit, which is set to expire at the end this year. The tax break, which amounts to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of wind-generated electricity, has allowed wind power to compete against coal, gas and nuclear energy. Today, Iowa gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind, creating 7,000 new jobs and generating $5 billion in private investment. Yet Romney has vowed to kill the wind tax credit – a move that would put some 37,000 jobs at risk, particularly in Midwestern states. Republicans from Iowa have blasted the man from Massachusetts: Rep. Tom Latham says Romney lacks a "full understanding of how important the wind-energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation," while Sen. Chuck Grassley calls Romney's plan "a knife in my back."

To be fair, Romney is not against all attempts to use the power of the federal government to boost renewable energy – just the effective ones. He supports the current federal mandate requiring 13 billion gallons of ethanol to be used in gasoline this year – a disastrous law that has diverted 40 percent­of the U.S. corn crop into fuel production, done nothing to reduce climate-warming pollution and raised food prices worldwide. "Our ethanol policy is becoming the moral equivalent of shooting some poor Indian farmers," Jeremy Grantham, a leading hedge-fund manager and global-commodities expert, has observed. "Death just comes more slowly and painfully."

SPIN #4: The Market Rules

This talking point is central to the theme of Romney's entire campaign: That unlike President Obama, he's a savvy businessman who understands how the economy works and who won't interfere in the free market. That's why Republicans continue to make such a stink about Solyndra, the solar company that defaulted on a $535 million federal loan. Romney and his surrogates point to Solyndra as proof that government should leave energy to the oil barons. During his convention speech, vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan singled out the firm for its "gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs and make-believe markets."

In fact, Solyndra was encouraged to apply for the federal loan not by Obama but by the Bush administration. In addition, the company – which was backed by $1 billion in private capital – failed because of increased competition in the solar industry, which has been booming ever since Obama's stimulus passed. But that hasn't stopped congressional Republicans from issuing subpoenas for 300,000 pages of Solyndra documents and spending $1 million in taxpayer money on a political witch hunt that has uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing or corruption.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney understood the need to use government money to help jump-start clean energy. In 2003, he created the Green Energy Fund – a $15 million program designed to "provide equity capital, loans and management assistance to Massachusetts-based renewable-energy businesses." That was a sound plan – because in the world of energy, the government already plays a pivotal­ role in propping up the fossil-fuel industry, providing as much as $52 billion a year in annual subsidies. And that doesn't include the other costs that taxpayers and consumers bear for burning fossil fuels: polluted air and water, damaged crops, increased illness and death. The nation's most respected science organization, the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that burning fossil fuels costs Americans $120 billion a year – not counting the costs related to our changing climate, including increased floods and droughts.

When it comes to climate change, Romney is guided by polls, not science. As governor, he accepted the views of climate researchers (it's real and it's happening); as a primary candidate, he mouthed the views of crazy Tea Party denialists (it's a liberal plot to destroy the U.S. economy); now, as his party's nominee, he has adopted the views of establishment corporate denialists (maybe it's happening, but any action would be premature). The GOP platform brings up climate change only to bash it as a job killer. "We oppose any and all cap-and-trade legislation," the platform states – bluntly dismissing a proven, market-based approach to fighting climate change that the GOP once championed as an alternative to a carbon tax.

SPIN #5: Government Sucks

In mid-August, during a campaign stop in Ohio, Romney surrounded himself with coal miners and operators and accused the Obama administration of "waging a war on coal." In Romney's view, Obama – whom he has called the "anti­energy president" – is using the power of federal agencies like the EPA to snuff out the coal industry by regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. If elected, Romney promises to roll back federal regulations that are suffocating the industry. "We have 250 years of coal – why in the heck wouldn't we use it?" Romney said as the miners roared in approval. "We're going to take advantage of our energy resources to save your jobs, to create more jobs."

In fact, Obama is far from an anti-energy zealot. He has called for more offshore drilling, resisted a push to enact tougher federal­standards for fracking, and delayed tighter standards on ozone pollution and other regulatory measures needed to save lives and reduce illness, arguing that the economic impact of the new rules would be too burdensome. Even more telling, domestic oil production has increased under Obama every year he has sat in the Oval Office – making him the first president to achieve such a dubious distinction since Lyndon Johnson.

As for Obama's "war on coal" – well, there isn't one. The coal industry is indeed in steep decline: 124 coal plants have been retired in the past two years, and the percentage of electricity generated from coal has dropped below 40 percent. Things are especially tough in West Virginia, where 2,000 workers have been laid off so far this year, and more mine closures are expected in the months to come.

But the problem isn't that Obama has cracked down on mountaintop removal mining (he hasn't) or passed a tax on carbon pollution (he won't even mention it). The problem is that coal is being killed off by larger economic forces, including the falling price of natural gas and renewable energy, as well as the simple fact that, after 150 years of mining, America's mountains are tapped out. "All the cheap, easy-to-get coal in central Appalachia is gone," says Robert Ukeiley, a noted environmental lawyer in Kentucky. "That's just a geological fact. There is no politician who can change that or scapegoat anybody."

Once upon a time, Romney understood that government regulations are not about killing American industry but about preventing industry from killing Americans. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney fought for environmental controls on a coal plant that was responsible for dozens of premature deaths and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. Announcing the new regulations on coal pollution, Romney declared that he would "not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people."

But now that he's running for president, Romney has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil-fuel industry. In his new view, financed by Big Oil and Big Coal, creating jobs that kill people is apparently the price America must pay to become an energy superpower.

This story is from the September 27th, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone.

source: rollingstone.com

White House Pushes Refinancing Expansion Before Election

(Bloomberg) — The White House is urging the U.S. Senate to vote as soon as this week on an expansion of a government mortgage refinancing program, a move that could showcase President Barack Obama’s support for policies aiding homeowners before the Nov. 6 presidential election.

Democratic leaders are considering adding the measure expanding the Home Affordable Refinancing Program to their agenda for the two-week Senate session that begins today, Senate aides said.

Win or lose, a vote on the bill could help the president. If enough Republicans sign on, the vote could show momentum for his efforts to help the 11.3 million borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth. If Republicans vote against the measure, Democrats can paint them as unsympathetic to homeowners, said Jaret Seiberg, senior policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities’ Washington Research Group.

“This is an effort by the president and his administration to say we’re trying to help people refinance and blame blocking action on Republicans,” Seiberg said in an interview.

The pressure for an immediate vote is coming from the Obama administration, according to Senator Robert Corker of Tennessee, a Republican on the Banking Committee. The White House press office did not respond to e-mails requesting comment.

“My guess is they may get the votes. If they get the votes, they want to do it in a way that tries to show a divide,” Corker said.

The Senate session may last as few as six days. Even if senators manage to pass it in that time frame, the bill has little chance of becoming law since Republicans who control the House have no plans for a companion measure.

Read more from Bloomberg

source: thenichereport.com

James Taylor pokes fun at Clint Eastwood's chair stunt

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina - Headline music act at the Democratic convention, folk singer James Taylor poked fun Thursday at Clint Eastwood's bizarre cameo at the rival Republican gathering last week.

The 82-year-old Eastwood chatted with an imaginary President Barack Obama in an empty chair next to him on stage, in a routine which raised eyebrows and was lampooned by critics as the ramblings of an iconic but aging actor.

Opening his act hours before Obama was due to make his case for re-election to the American people at the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Taylor couldn't resist having a dig at the Oscar-winning Republican.

"Empty chair, kinda makes you nervous, doesn't it? I'm not gonna talk to it, I'm gonna sit on it," the five-time Grammy Award winner said, before doing just that and launching into one of his greatest hits: "Carolina in My Mind."

On a roll by this stage, the long-time activist for environmental and liberal causes added a quip related to the president's struggle in appealing to certain demographics.

"I've been watching the coverage and I don't get it. I mean, I'm an old white guy and I love Barack Obama," he said.

source: interaksyon.com