http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjO6NFLLE04
Mark Penn is the CEO for Burson-Marsteller an multi national PR firm.Penn was the Chief political strategist for Hillary Clinton in her run for the White House.

Penn; "President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma.
Interviewer;"because of the bombings down there."
Penn; The President seemed removed.It wasn't until that speech that he really clicked with the American public.
Inter; Do you think that words will work for Pres Obama at this point?
Penn; No.Words will work for Pres Obama if he finds the right moment.

So how will President Obama according to Mark Penn,find his right moment?

You missed a key part of the conversation, Arjay.

In answer to the question "Do you think words will work for President Obama at this point?", Penn says "No, he's gotta get some results."

End of story.

Pericles,Penn was implying that Obama needed another event like the Oklahoma bombing to garner public support.Why would Penn imply such an outrageous scenario? These types of statements are only encouraging nutters to carry out terrorism.

It gives us an insight into the mind set of the inner machinations of Govt.Do these strategists think like this all the time?

Arjay, another fictional disaster story like global warming to cover the political lefts own disaster, again supposedly on front foot, a get out of jail free card, from B&M who wrote the book on spin, not this time!

Dallas,I'm surprised about how open and brazen they are about manipulation of the public by events.Nudge,nudge,wink,wink, Obama needs another terror attack.

If we have a series of cool summers (ie the drought is over) ,then the theory of AGW and the carbon taxes need to be seriously questioned.

Well, not exactly, Arjay.

>>Penn was implying that Obama needed another event like the Oklahoma bombing to garner public support.<<

No, that is merely what you infer from what he said.

An inference that is strongly influenced, it has to be said, by your predilection for fabricating imaginary US government conspiracies.

>>Why would Penn imply such an outrageous scenario?<<

Because the "outrageous scenario" exists only inside your head, that's why.

>>These types of statements are only encouraging nutters to carry out terrorism.<<

A bit of a contradiction there, I think. From previous correspondence, you appear to believe that Oklahoma was a government conspiracy. Now you are suggesting that a passing reference to it is "encouraging nutters".

Mind you, consistency isn't a strong point of yours, is it Arjay.