The fall guy is simply a replacement anyway. If you connect the dots it goes back to Michelle's connection with her ex-schoolmate and her computer firm that botched the whole thing from the get go. On a no bid contract no less. Michelle is right in the middle of this storm no doubt about it. The lame stream will leave her alone that is for sure. I personally do not blame Sebelius for the whole debacle, it all falls on the Obama's, both of them. Barrack is too aloof to follow up on anything short of a fund raiser and he ain't going to say to Michelle. This should have been a profered bid and that contract should have been above and beyond board with no gray areas. The whole Obamacare is one huge gray area. But they picked the wrong firm to pull it off and for all the wrong reasons.
No I don’t agree. It depends on how you look at it. What I’m saying is if Sebelius were one of Obama’s black appointees, she would still be there. He would say she had done a great job and looked forward to working with her going forward.
Example, you can’t get 2 bigger screw ups than Susan Rice and Eric Holder and both are still golden.
As for him putting up a white women for confirmation, I think it’s a political gift to Hillary for future considerations.
Disagree if you want but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
[h=1]Feds reviewed only one bid for Obamacare website design[/h]By Richard Pollock | OCTOBER 13, 2013 AT 10:11 PM
Topics: Watchdog Accountability GAO CGI Federal Healthcare.gov Government Contractors Technology HHS FOIA
Watchdog,Richard Pollock,Accountability,GAO,CGI Federal,Healthcare.gov,Government Contractors,Technology,HHS,FOIA
Senior CGI executives met with top White House officials and attended a number of invitation-only...
Senior executives from CGI Federal -- the company that won the Obamacare website contract --...
Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange...
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded GCI Federal $55.7 million to launch... Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.
Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.
CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal.
Instead, it appears they used what amounts to a federal procurement system loophole to award the work to the Canadian firm.
[h=1]Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter![/h]Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Watchdog newsletter.
You must enter a valid email address in the field above!
Thank you for signing up for the Watchdog newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
CGI was one of 16 companies that had been qualified by HHS during President George W. Bush's second term to deliver, without public competition, a variety of hardware, software and communication products and services.
In awarding the Healthcare.gov contract, CMS relied on a little-known federal contracting system called ID/IQ, which is government jargon for “Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity.”
CGI was a much smaller vendor when it was approved by HHS in 2007. With the approval, CGI became eligible for multiple awards without public notice and in circumvention of the normal competitive bidding procurement process.
The multiple awards were in the form of “task orders” for projects of widely varying size. Over the life of the CGI contract — which expires in 2017 — the IT firm can receive awards worth anywhere from the “$1,000 to $4 billion,” according to a contracting document provided by CGI to the Washington Examiner.
This is apparently the route chosen by CMS officials in awarding the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website design contract to CGI.
Between 2009 and 2013, CMS officials awarded 185 separate task orders to CGI totaling $678 million for work of all kinds, according to USAspending.gov, a federal spending database.The Obamacare website design contract was for $93 million.
There is no evidence CMS issued any public solicitation for the Obamacare website contract. The Examiner asked both CMS and CGI for copies of any public solicitation notice for the Healthcare.gov task orders. Neither CMS nor CGI furnished any such public notice.
Linda Odorisio, CGI’s vice president for global communications insisted in an email to the Examiner that the Obmacare Healthcare.gov project had multiple bidders.
“There were at least two bidders, we believe three, for the task order. That is all the information I have,” she said.
Similarly, CMS spokesman Tasha Bradley declined to provide a public solicitation document, saying the only way to obtain such a document would be to submit a Freedom of Information Act request.
It is not uncommon for federal officials to delay responses to FOIA requests for years, provide useless documents instead of those requested, or use the legal system to prevent public access.
The ID/IQ system provides a fast-track contract approval process, but it is much less likely than competitive bidding to secure high quality at a reasonable cost.
“Whenever you have limited competition, but certainly with a sole source or a one-bid offer, the government has to question whether it is going to get the best product at the best price,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog organization that monitors federal contracting.
Both USAspending.gov, which tracks federal spending, and the FFATA Subaward Reporting System, which specifically tracks contracts, refer to CGI as the lone bidder for the Obamacare website design award.
Each site describes the CGI contract award as the product of “full and open competition,” but CGI is the only bidder listed.
Amey suggested that CMS officials linked the “full and open competition” to the original 2007 ID/IQ process.
“They certainly could have handcuffed themselves by creating a schedule to require them to use an existing ID/IQ rather than going with a normal negotiated procurement,” Amey told the Examiner.
“By putting in tight turn-around times, creating something that was brand new in a year, they had a very tight schedule that required them to use the existing contract rather than starting from scratch,” Amey said.
But was there really competition? “In the multiple award ID/IQ world, you do worry about whether there is actual competition generally in the task order stage,” he says.
CGI is a relatively new company in the United States. Its Canadian executives grew their corporate U.S. presence through major acquisitions of U.S. companies.
The first acquisition came in 2004 when CGI purchased American Management Systems Inc. for $858 million in a cash tender offer that covered existing federal IT contracts in healthcare, financial services, and communications work.
In August 2010 CGI doubled its size again through the $1.07 billion cash tender offer to acquire Stanley Inc.
The first indication of questions of CGI performance and pricing came in February 2010 when the firm protested a $230 million CMS contract award to Computer Sciences Corp. Inc.
In a sharp rebuff to CGI in November 2010, General Accountability Office acting counsel Linda H. Gibson denied the CGI protest.
In doing so, she noted that CSC’s bid was $148 million versus CGI’s bid of $258 million. When CMS modified the terms of its proposal, CSC was still substantially lower, coming in at $223 million versus CGI’s price tag of $395 million.
Worse, Gibson noted that at the time CMS officials had only rated some of CGI's previous services as “fair.”
“The record reflects,” Gibson wrote in her 2010 decision, “that CGI's positive ratings were somewhat tempered by the fact that [DELETED] had received 'fair' ratings on one of its relevant contracts and that CGI's performance had also been rated as "fair" on another contract, which CMS deemed relevant.”
As the Examiner previously reported, CGI in Canada also suffered embarrassment in 2011 when it failed to deliver on time for Ontario province's flagship project a new online medical registry for diabetes patients and treatment providers.
Ontario government officials cancelled the $46.2 million contract after 14 months of delay in September 2012. Ontario officials currently refuse to pay any fees to CGI for the failed IT project.
Topics: Watchdog Accountability GAO CGI Federal Healthcare.gov Government Contractors Technology HHS FOIA
Watchdog,Richard Pollock,Accountability,GAO,CGI Federal,Healthcare.gov,Government Contractors,Technology,HHS,FOIA
Senior CGI executives met with top White House officials and attended a number of invitation-only...
Senior executives from CGI Federal -- the company that won the Obamacare website contract --...
Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange...
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded GCI Federal $55.7 million to launch... Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.
CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal.
Instead, it appears they used what amounts to a federal procurement system loophole to award the work to the Canadian firm.
[h=1]Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter![/h]Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Watchdog newsletter.
You must enter a valid email address in the field above!
Thank you for signing up for the Watchdog newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
CGI was one of 16 companies that had been qualified by HHS during President George W. Bush's second term to deliver, without public competition, a variety of hardware, software and communication products and services.
In awarding the Healthcare.gov contract, CMS relied on a little-known federal contracting system called ID/IQ, which is government jargon for “Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity.”
CGI was a much smaller vendor when it was approved by HHS in 2007. With the approval, CGI became eligible for multiple awards without public notice and in circumvention of the normal competitive bidding procurement process.
The multiple awards were in the form of “task orders” for projects of widely varying size. Over the life of the CGI contract — which expires in 2017 — the IT firm can receive awards worth anywhere from the “$1,000 to $4 billion,” according to a contracting document provided by CGI to the Washington Examiner.
This is apparently the route chosen by CMS officials in awarding the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website design contract to CGI.
Between 2009 and 2013, CMS officials awarded 185 separate task orders to CGI totaling $678 million for work of all kinds, according to USAspending.gov, a federal spending database.The Obamacare website design contract was for $93 million.
There is no evidence CMS issued any public solicitation for the Obamacare website contract. The Examiner asked both CMS and CGI for copies of any public solicitation notice for the Healthcare.gov task orders. Neither CMS nor CGI furnished any such public notice.
Linda Odorisio, CGI’s vice president for global communications insisted in an email to the Examiner that the Obmacare Healthcare.gov project had multiple bidders.
“There were at least two bidders, we believe three, for the task order. That is all the information I have,” she said.
Similarly, CMS spokesman Tasha Bradley declined to provide a public solicitation document, saying the only way to obtain such a document would be to submit a Freedom of Information Act request.
It is not uncommon for federal officials to delay responses to FOIA requests for years, provide useless documents instead of those requested, or use the legal system to prevent public access.
The ID/IQ system provides a fast-track contract approval process, but it is much less likely than competitive bidding to secure high quality at a reasonable cost.
“Whenever you have limited competition, but certainly with a sole source or a one-bid offer, the government has to question whether it is going to get the best product at the best price,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog organization that monitors federal contracting.
Both USAspending.gov, which tracks federal spending, and the FFATA Subaward Reporting System, which specifically tracks contracts, refer to CGI as the lone bidder for the Obamacare website design award.
Each site describes the CGI contract award as the product of “full and open competition,” but CGI is the only bidder listed.
Amey suggested that CMS officials linked the “full and open competition” to the original 2007 ID/IQ process.
“They certainly could have handcuffed themselves by creating a schedule to require them to use an existing ID/IQ rather than going with a normal negotiated procurement,” Amey told the Examiner.
“By putting in tight turn-around times, creating something that was brand new in a year, they had a very tight schedule that required them to use the existing contract rather than starting from scratch,” Amey said.
But was there really competition? “In the multiple award ID/IQ world, you do worry about whether there is actual competition generally in the task order stage,” he says.
CGI is a relatively new company in the United States. Its Canadian executives grew their corporate U.S. presence through major acquisitions of U.S. companies.
The first acquisition came in 2004 when CGI purchased American Management Systems Inc. for $858 million in a cash tender offer that covered existing federal IT contracts in healthcare, financial services, and communications work.
In August 2010 CGI doubled its size again through the $1.07 billion cash tender offer to acquire Stanley Inc.
The first indication of questions of CGI performance and pricing came in February 2010 when the firm protested a $230 million CMS contract award to Computer Sciences Corp. Inc.
In a sharp rebuff to CGI in November 2010, General Accountability Office acting counsel Linda H. Gibson denied the CGI protest.
In doing so, she noted that CSC’s bid was $148 million versus CGI’s bid of $258 million. When CMS modified the terms of its proposal, CSC was still substantially lower, coming in at $223 million versus CGI’s price tag of $395 million.
Worse, Gibson noted that at the time CMS officials had only rated some of CGI's previous services as “fair.”
“The record reflects,” Gibson wrote in her 2010 decision, “that CGI's positive ratings were somewhat tempered by the fact that [DELETED] had received 'fair' ratings on one of its relevant contracts and that CGI's performance had also been rated as "fair" on another contract, which CMS deemed relevant.”
As the Examiner previously reported, CGI in Canada also suffered embarrassment in 2011 when it failed to deliver on time for Ontario province's flagship project a new online medical registry for diabetes patients and treatment providers.
Ontario government officials cancelled the $46.2 million contract after 14 months of delay in September 2012. Ontario officials currently refuse to pay any fees to CGI for the failed IT project.
Canadian officials fired IT firm behind troubled Obamacare website
By Richard Pollock | OCTOBER 10, 2013 AT 1:05 PM
Topics: Watchdog Obamacare Health and Human Services Canada Health Care Accountability GAO CGI Federal Healthcare.gov Technology
Watchdog,Richard Pollock,Obamacare,Health and Human Services,Canada,Health Care,Accountability,GAO,CGI Federal,Healthcare.gov,Technology
Senior CGI executives met with top White House officials and attended a number of invitation-only...
Senior executives from CGI Federal -- the company that won the Obamacare website contract --...
Canadian provincial health officials last year fired the parent company of CGI Federal, the prime...
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded GCI Federal $55.7 million to launch... Canadian provincial health officials last year fired the parent company of CGI Federal, the prime contractor for the problem-plagued Obamacare health exchange websites, the Washington Examiner has learned.
CGI Federal’s parent company, Montreal-based CGI Group, was officially terminated in September 2012 by an Ontario government health agency after the firm missed three years of deadlines and failed to deliver the province’s flagship online medical registry.
The online registry was supposed to be up and running by June 2011.
Officials at the U.S. government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services awarded six technology contracts worth $87 million to CGI Federal for Obamacare website work, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
The CMS officials refused to say if federal officials knew of its parent company’s IT failure in Canada when awarding the six contracts.
CGI Federal built Obamacare’s Healthcare.gov, which went live Oct. 1 but has since experienced multiple technical problems, including crashes, refusal to load and sign-on, or to provide accurate information.
Obamacare requires all Americans to register for health care coverage no later than six months from Oct. 1. Officials in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services, which manages Obamacare, declined to say how many people succeeded in registering through Healthcare.gov.
CGI Federal also is the prime contractor for state health exchange websites in Colorado, Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts. Three of those states also reported significant website glitches.
In Hawaii, health exchange officials formally apologized for the inconvenience in delays and said they did not know when the site would be available.
Only Massachusetts, which has had a state health program in operation for seven years, reported no website problems.
The IT glitches were so acute across the nation that HHS shut down the site for weekend repairs Oct. 5-6, but the problems have persisted.
In Canada, eHealth, the Ontario provincial agency, scrapped its high-profile online medical registry for diabetes sufferers and treatment providers, and cancelled CGI Group’s $46.2 million contract, on Sept. 5, 2012. The company was 14 months behind schedule when it was given notice of termination by the Ontario government agency.
In the meantime, a group of other Ontario IT companies successfully replicated the registry, rendering CGI’s project obsolete.
Because the contract terms stipulated payment only upon delivery of a satisfactory final product, the province has refused to pay CGI.
CGI has not publicly discussed the eHealth failure, but has taken legal action, including filing a defamation suit against eHealth and the Toronto Star newspaper.
CGI has received bipartisan condemnation from Ontario government officials for its failure on the registry.
“They did not meet the requirements of their contract which was faced with many layers of delays, which caused great angst among the health care providers who are trying to do their best,” Frances Gélinas, a member of Ontario's provincial parliament, told the Washington Examiner.
“They basically said, ‘This is not working.’ CGI is not delivering what we need,” Gélinas said. Gélinas also serves as a health policy spokeswoman for the NDP, an opposition Canadian political party.
A knowledgeable official who requested anonymity said the CGI-eHealth controversy mainly stemmed from CGI’s failure to deliver its product on schedule.
“It basically boiled down to missed deadlines,” said the official. “CGI was contracted to build the diabetes registry in the province. They weren’t able to fulfill that commitment, and they weren’t able to meet guidelines to have a product up and running that physicians can use. It dragged on and on.”
“It was becoming an issue for the government in the sense that it was a prominent initiative of the government. Delay was causing some consternation and frustration,” the official said.
Nine thousand medical providers now use alternative online registries for Ontario’s estimated 40,000 diabetes patients. The province has certified 13 IT vendors, a number of which have sold and are maintaining the registries instead of CGI.
At the time, the Ontario health minister, Deb Matthews, told Canadian news organizations she was “enormously disappointed” by the CGI failure.
“They (CGI) were so late in delivering it, that our EMR (electronic medical records) providers here in the province expanded the scope and utility of their product and just rendered CGI’s technology irrelevant,” the source said.
Gélinas agreed. “The diabetes registry was conceived in concept almost four years ago. It may have had utility, had they been able to meet their deadlines. But what happened was that they just didn’t. The project dragged on,” she said.
CGI declined to comment on the eHealth controversy. Linda Odorisio, vice president for CGI’s global communications, said in an email that “discussions to resolve the issues between eHealth and CGI are ongoing. Both parties are bound by confidentiality agreements and we will not comment on the specifics of the matter while proceedings are underway.”
“It basically boiled down to missed deadlines,” said the official. (from the above)
By Richard Pollock | OCTOBER 10, 2013 AT 1:05 PM
Topics: Watchdog Obamacare Health and Human Services Canada Health Care Accountability GAO CGI Federal Healthcare.gov Technology
Watchdog,Richard Pollock,Obamacare,Health and Human Services,Canada,Health Care,Accountability,GAO,CGI Federal,Healthcare.gov,Technology
Senior CGI executives met with top White House officials and attended a number of invitation-only...
Senior executives from CGI Federal -- the company that won the Obamacare website contract --...
Canadian provincial health officials last year fired the parent company of CGI Federal, the prime...
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded GCI Federal $55.7 million to launch... Canadian provincial health officials last year fired the parent company of CGI Federal, the prime contractor for the problem-plagued Obamacare health exchange websites, the Washington Examiner has learned.CGI Federal’s parent company, Montreal-based CGI Group, was officially terminated in September 2012 by an Ontario government health agency after the firm missed three years of deadlines and failed to deliver the province’s flagship online medical registry.
The online registry was supposed to be up and running by June 2011.
Officials at the U.S. government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services awarded six technology contracts worth $87 million to CGI Federal for Obamacare website work, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
The CMS officials refused to say if federal officials knew of its parent company’s IT failure in Canada when awarding the six contracts.
CGI Federal built Obamacare’s Healthcare.gov, which went live Oct. 1 but has since experienced multiple technical problems, including crashes, refusal to load and sign-on, or to provide accurate information.
Obamacare requires all Americans to register for health care coverage no later than six months from Oct. 1. Officials in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services, which manages Obamacare, declined to say how many people succeeded in registering through Healthcare.gov.
CGI Federal also is the prime contractor for state health exchange websites in Colorado, Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts. Three of those states also reported significant website glitches.
In Hawaii, health exchange officials formally apologized for the inconvenience in delays and said they did not know when the site would be available.
Only Massachusetts, which has had a state health program in operation for seven years, reported no website problems.
The IT glitches were so acute across the nation that HHS shut down the site for weekend repairs Oct. 5-6, but the problems have persisted.
In Canada, eHealth, the Ontario provincial agency, scrapped its high-profile online medical registry for diabetes sufferers and treatment providers, and cancelled CGI Group’s $46.2 million contract, on Sept. 5, 2012. The company was 14 months behind schedule when it was given notice of termination by the Ontario government agency.
In the meantime, a group of other Ontario IT companies successfully replicated the registry, rendering CGI’s project obsolete.
Because the contract terms stipulated payment only upon delivery of a satisfactory final product, the province has refused to pay CGI.
CGI has not publicly discussed the eHealth failure, but has taken legal action, including filing a defamation suit against eHealth and the Toronto Star newspaper.
CGI has received bipartisan condemnation from Ontario government officials for its failure on the registry.
“They did not meet the requirements of their contract which was faced with many layers of delays, which caused great angst among the health care providers who are trying to do their best,” Frances Gélinas, a member of Ontario's provincial parliament, told the Washington Examiner.
“They basically said, ‘This is not working.’ CGI is not delivering what we need,” Gélinas said. Gélinas also serves as a health policy spokeswoman for the NDP, an opposition Canadian political party.
A knowledgeable official who requested anonymity said the CGI-eHealth controversy mainly stemmed from CGI’s failure to deliver its product on schedule.
“It basically boiled down to missed deadlines,” said the official. “CGI was contracted to build the diabetes registry in the province. They weren’t able to fulfill that commitment, and they weren’t able to meet guidelines to have a product up and running that physicians can use. It dragged on and on.”
“It was becoming an issue for the government in the sense that it was a prominent initiative of the government. Delay was causing some consternation and frustration,” the official said.
Nine thousand medical providers now use alternative online registries for Ontario’s estimated 40,000 diabetes patients. The province has certified 13 IT vendors, a number of which have sold and are maintaining the registries instead of CGI.
At the time, the Ontario health minister, Deb Matthews, told Canadian news organizations she was “enormously disappointed” by the CGI failure.
“They (CGI) were so late in delivering it, that our EMR (electronic medical records) providers here in the province expanded the scope and utility of their product and just rendered CGI’s technology irrelevant,” the source said.
Gélinas agreed. “The diabetes registry was conceived in concept almost four years ago. It may have had utility, had they been able to meet their deadlines. But what happened was that they just didn’t. The project dragged on,” she said.
CGI declined to comment on the eHealth controversy. Linda Odorisio, vice president for CGI’s global communications, said in an email that “discussions to resolve the issues between eHealth and CGI are ongoing. Both parties are bound by confidentiality agreements and we will not comment on the specifics of the matter while proceedings are underway.”
“It basically boiled down to missed deadlines,” said the official. (from the above)
You nuts are purely speculating about her resigning is a race issue. How can you speculate that when the replacement is WHITE? I don't get it. Nit picking at it's finest.
To the Travon story, a while back, for some reason I don't know how to retrieve the post, If someone can do it for me, I was in a Travon thread and I was willing to bet someone that Z would not be guilty, I swing to the left on social issues no doubt, but not all of us should be lumped.
To the Travon story, a while back, for some reason I don't know how to retrieve the post, If someone can do it for me, I was in a Travon thread and I was willing to bet someone that Z would not be guilty, I swing to the left on social issues no doubt, but not all of us should be lumped.
Obama's disdain for white people is shocking especially white men. Your so correct, the fact that 99% of Muslims support Obama
indicates that he favors them even above his own kind 91%. After all he was even going to go to help al-quida types overthrow Assad
until Putin bailed him out over his 'redline'. statement.
Things that make me think Obama is racist.
Some of the things he has said and done give it away.
“If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.”
"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," but he couldn’t leave it at that, he had to say, "But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
“I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
He was a member of Jeremiah Wright's racist church for 20 years.
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds of war shift in an ugly direction.”
The snubbing of Netanyahu at his White House visit.
I’m sure there are many more but those just popped into my head.
When you’re the POTUS you just don’t go there.
Untrue stat. Jews and Hispanics favor Obama more than Muslims, according to 2012 exit polls.http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/...nd-muslims-backed-obama-by-huge-margins/11799 Obama doesn't have "disdain" for white people, since the large majority of his cabinet is white.
