Just ahead of delivering the State of the Union Address, President Obama's reelection team revealed what they believe to be key 2012 battleground states. They did so by buying TV ad time and by strategically scheduling a handful of presidential appearances after this speech.

Interestingly, the six states that will see the first Obama reelection "limited duration" ads this week are:

• North Carolina, where Democrats have only won twice in North Carolina in 40 years, including Obama in 2008. Obama's saving electoral grace in the Tar Heel State was black voters, fully 23% of state voters, who cast 95% of their ballots for the President.
• Ohio, which boasts the sixth highest state population of labor union members. Obama won Ohio in 2008.
• Wisconsin, where livid Democrats just delivered over one million signatures to recall Tea Party-Republican Gov. Scott Walker
• Virginia, where Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate in 40 years to win. The President's 2008 victory in the Old Dominion State was largely thanks to voters under 30 years old, 22% of all Virginia voters, who cast 60% of their ballots for Obama.
• Iowa, where Obama clobbered Republican John McCain in 2008, due, remarkably, to capturing 54% of the baby boomer vote (voters aged 45 to 64)
• Michigan, which boasts more than 800,000 labor union members, nearly 20% of the state work force. Obama defeated McCain in 2008 in Michigan by drawing 68% of voters under 30 years old (20% of state voters), and 97% of black voters (12% of state voters).

After his State of the Union Address, which is expected to focus on economic measures to support middle-class Americans, President Obama will travel to Michigan and Iowa, as well as to three western states with very large Hispanic populations: Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. Obama was the 2008 victor in Nevada and Colorado, although Arizonans voted for favorite son John McCain.

Revelation of these nine states as 2012 battleground arenas means that Barack Obama clearly plans to rely on the same coalition that elected him in 2008 .... blacks, Hispanics, labor union members, under 30-year-old voters... to propel him back to the White House for four more years.

The burning question is: are the disparate segments of Obama's 2008 political coalition all sufficiently happy to vote for a second term for the President?

My guess today is that black and labor union voters will wholeheartedly support Obama in 2012, and that Hispanics will lukewarmly support the President.

But young voters, particularly college students, are uniformly beleaguered by high unemployment and the exorbitant cost of a college education. Two issues college students historically care about... war and immigration reform... remain largely unresolved by President Obama.

Can President Obama win reelection by relying on the very same coalition that brought him triumphant victory in 2008? Possibly not. It all depends on the appeal and strength of his Republican opponent.

I hate it when Mitt Romney exudes presidential-like competence and intelligence, as he clearly did in the New Hampshire debate a few days ago and throughout his campaign in New England.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney never seems more confident or leader-like than when he's amid a sea of moderate Republicans and business-friendly Democrats... which, of course, defines both New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

I cringe when when Mr. Romney speaks at a forum moderate enough to permit him to declare :

• "I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception." or...

• "... there's every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another... There can be domestic partnership benefits or -- or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include... hospital visitation rights and the like." or...

• "We want to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can." or...

• "I find it extraordinary that -- that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in America. So the -- the hurdle to actually putting our troops in harm's way is very, very high." or...

• "Well, there are certain things that government can do to encourage an economy. And rebuilding an infrastructure that's aging is one of those." or...

• "We have to make sure they're preserved, our entitlements, that is, so we don't kill the future of the country... this election is about the soul of America." or especially...

• " We have the right in this country to pursue happiness as we choose and as people pursue education and work hard and take risks and build enterprises of all kinds, they lift themselves and don't make us poorer, they make us better off."

  (Note - All quotes are from the ABC News Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, held on January 7, 2012)

I detest when Mitt Romney plays his familiar role of moderate Republican leader appeasing liberal-leaning voters because he sounds more like a caring, common-sense Democrat than does Barack Obama, the actual Democrat in the 2012 presidential race!

I'm loathe to admit it, but Romney's firmly spoken sentiments are soothing to my liberal ears. Seriously, Romney knows how to schmooze and smooth-talk Democrats...

Problem is, in his vaunted business career as a venture capitalist, Mitt Romney amply demonstrated that he is an enthusiastic pro-Wall Street, pro-corporation, anti-worker Republican who unabashedly supports:

• Outsourcing of U.S. jobs to outside the United States, the workers be damned
• Downsizing of businesses to increase profitability and executive pay, the workers be damned
• Privatizing of government services, the workers be damned
• Avoidance of labor unions at all costs, the workers be damned

Mitt Romney is part of the 1% of wealthiest Americans. Romney's actions and deeds illustrate that he believes that whatever is good for the 1% is good for America. And that "Corporations are people too!"

Mitt Romney is decidedly not a Democrat, but his campaign rhetoric rings Democratic... which explains his success as a Republican in blue-state Massachusetts.

My political fear is that pro-business Democrats, also known as Reagan Democrats, might vote for Romney over Obama in 2012.... which would be a terrible economic blow to the 99% of hard-working Americans who have suffered mightily through this recession.

Potential Democratic crossovers to Republican Romney need to remember that what is good for the 1% of wealthiest Americans is NOT good for America.

Per pundits and the most recent polls, the three Republicans projected to top the Iowa caucus presidential contest on January 3, 2012 are:

• Mitt "corporations are people, too" Romney,
• Rick "'homosexual marriage' is comparable to 'man on child, man on dog'" Santorum, and
• Ron "abolish Social Security, 'but not overnight'" Paul.

Pick your poison. All Republican scenarios reek of lethal doses of pro-wealthy conservatism for the 99% of Americans who work long and hard for a living or are unemployed and desperate.

Even scarier... Romney, Santorum and Paul likely are the most rational and emotionally stable from among Republican 2012 choices for the presidential nomination.

Ponder the terrifying possibility of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or... God forbid... Newt Gingrich in the Oval Office. (And who can forget cartoonish Herman "9-9-9" Cain, resplendent in pimp hat and who-gives-a-s**t smile?)

Caucuses can generate unrepresentative electoral results because a caucus contest differs radically from primary votes. At at caucus, voters congregate for an hour or two at neighborhood locations, and publicly voice their candidate preferences. Thus, caucuses are attended most frequently by the most enthused supporters.

By all accounts, former Sen. Rick Santorum's evangelical Christian supporters are passionately devoted to his ultra-conservative candidacy. And it's well-known that Congressman Ron Paul's libertarian supporters border on fanaticism in their rabid desire for their charisma-free man to secure the party nomination.

The Republican enthusiasm gap for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential ambitions is also widely known, and may hinder supporter turnout for fair-weather conservative Romney at the Iowa caucuses. Mr. Romney is the type of candidate who fares well at the ballot box as compromise choice, and but can falter when passionately energized troops are requisite for victory.

If I were to predict 2012 Iowa caucus results, I would guess that:

• Mitt Romney will disappoint slightly in Iowa, but garner enough support to easily survive until primary elections.
• Ron Paul devotees could generate a resounding Iowa victory that will ultimately prove meaningless in primary election states.
• Christian conservatives could finally rally around a single candidate-brethren, Rick Santorum, rather than dilute their powerful presence between Bachmann, Perry and the former senator from Pennsylvania. If Iowa Christian Republicans do coalesce, their candidate of choice could win big on January 3rd, and have a fighting chance to capture the party presidential nomination.

But it won't matter. If President Obama runs a smart campaign that speaks to the 99% of hard-working Americans who will be horribly hurt by Republican policies that favor corporations and the richest 1%, none of these conservative extremists are either likable or centrist enough to win in 2012.

Barring a national catastrophe, President Obama will beat any of these Republican presidential wannabes at the ballot box in 2012.

(All photos are by Getty Images, and were taken on January 1-2, 2012 in Iowa. Photographers: Ron Paul/by Justin Sullivan, Rick Santorum/by Scott Olson, Mitt Romney/by Chip Somodevilla)

Before the Iraq War, I was a tepid liberal. But on this long-awaited day, nearly nine years later, as the last U.S. soldier departs Iraq in the dark protection of night, I've been transformed into a passionate progressive, an Occupy Wall Street enthusiast, and a fervent believer that for U.S. democracy to survive, the 99% must take back power from from the corporatist 1%.

And I urge that Barack Obama be reelected to the White House in 2012.

I vividly recall not believing that the President of the United States, George W. Bush, would do something so obviously foolish as attack a country, Iraq, that neither threatened nor attacked our nation. The ridiculous idea bordered on insanity, to my naive thinking. Who would possibly fall for the Bush administration's unfounded, clownish attempts to scare the American public? It seemed irrational. Silly.

Congress, it turned out. On October 11, 2002, the Senate, by a vote of of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives, by a vote of 296 to 133, dumbly granted carte blanche to Bush/Cheney for their desperate rush toward an unprovoked attack on the citizens of Iraq.

At the time in October 2002, a little-known Illinois state legislator angrily orated my sentiments:

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by... armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

On May 1, 2003, about six weeks after the U.S. "shock and awe" attack on and invasion of Iraq, President Bush stood proudly on aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, under a patriotic banner festooned "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED," and foolishly declared, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed... "

But, of course, President Bush was wrong. Dead wrong. Except for the opening salvos of spectacular bunker-busting bombs and TV-ready images of Hussein's statue hog-tied and crushed to the ground, the Bush administration gave scant thought to planning the war effort or aftermath.

I wept in sorrow for our country when Bush and Cheney were reelected to the White House on November 2, 2004, scarcely able to grasp that voters were sucked-in by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice fear-mongering images of mushroom clouds and nuclear holocaust.

In a fit of passion on the day after that painful election day, I applied to be About.com's Guide to Liberal Politics. When this site when live in February 2005, two of the first issues I wrote about were:

• Iraq War Facts, Results & Statistics, which I've updated monthly for more than six years. You can read the latest here, at Iraq War Facts, Results & Statistics at November 30, 2011, and

• Barack Obama's Inspiring 2004 Democratic Convention Speech, in which he proclaimed to thunderous ovation:

  "When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

I voted in 2008 for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because he promised to end the Iraq War and she did not. (In fact, it a moment of political calculation, then Sen. Clinton voted YES for the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq.)

Today, President Obama kept his promise, and the Iraq War is over.

The Republican ideological escapade in Iraq cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1 trillion, the lives of nearly 4.480 U.S. soldiers, and drastically injured nearly 33,000 more U.S. service members.

Historians may never know how many Iraqi citizens were killed during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but many estimates range beyond a million. Millions of Iraqis were made homeless refugees by the U.S. War in Iraq.

And yet, today, as the last U.S. troops skulked secretly out of Iraq for fear of attack, only one Republican 2012 presidential candidate labels the Iraq War a mistake, one that should never be repeated: Congressman Ron Paul, who will never win the presidential nomination from the Republican establishment.

For this reason alone, Barack Obama should be reelected as President in 2012. For survival of the United States, this can never happen again.