Maddow To Obama You'd Better Start Kissing Some Union Worker Ass Or Forget About Re-Election!

[democracy1st]

Run time: 08:02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnJ7AeFOJyc   Posted on YouTube: May 21, 2011 By YouTube Member: MOXNEWSd0tCOM Views on YouTube: 307   Posted on DU: May 21, 2011 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 7758

 
AFL-CIO Threatens To Reduce Support For Democrats


WASHINGTON -- Prominent labor leaders, frustrated that Democrats in Washington aren't aggressively pursuing the union agenda, are threatening to limit their campaign support for Democrats, an act that would hamper the party's bid to regain control of the House next year and keep a majority in the Senate.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's threat of a pullback Friday was the latest warning to a party that has long relied on labor's cash and grass-roots support. If it makes good on its threat, labor probably would spend more time and money combating union-busting efforts by state officials.

"We will change the way we spend, the way we do things and the way we function that creates power for workers," Trumka said.

In a speech at the National Press Club, Trumka called for "an independent labor movement" and said unions were not responsible for building the power of any political party, but for improving the lives of working families. He promised that unions would spend the summer holding leaders in Congress and the states accountable.

If labor makes itself truly independent of the Democratic Party, it would mark a major shift in a long-standing political relationship.

"It doesn't matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside to let it happen," Trumka said. "The outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren't blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families' interests, then working people will not support them."

The AFL-CIO's executive council is considering a plan that could spend less on congressional races and more on fighting state battles like those in Wisconsin and Ohio, where lawmakers want to weaken collective bargaining rights and reduce union clout.

But Trumka made clear the federation had no plan to follow the lead of the nation's largest firefighters union, which announced last month that it would halt all political donations to members of Congress because they are not fighting hard enough for union rights. The move has won praise in many corners of the labor movement, where union activists have openly grumbled about House and Senate Democrats being too quiet while unions are getting pummeled in dozens of states.

"We've spent money where we have friends and we will continue to do that," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/21/afl-cio-trumka-independent-democrats_n_865086.html

[derby378]

1. I'd just like to see...

...if any DUer, especially a veteran DUer, pipes up and says, "Fuck the unions - what have they done for Obama lately? The unions need Obama; Obama doesn't need the unions. Besides, they have nowhere to go. They have nowhere to go. Fuck 'em."

Lines are being drawn. Whose side you on?

[demosincebirth]

2. Democratic Presidents cannot be elected without the support of Labor. Where have

you been the last 50 years.

[derby378]

3. My point exactly

After what happened in Wisconsin, "keeping the powder dry" is no longer an option.

[Old Codger]

45. Their attitude

Of positioning themselves "Above the fray" is a losing stance, he and they need to come out swinging in defense of unions, teachers and the rest of their base if they want to keep it going. I for one am sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, with Obama I thought that was over but not so I guess.
That being said Obama has done a lot,and is magnitudes above any the alternative but he could have accomplished so much more if he had stayed true to his espoused ideals.

I seriously doubt that any Dem. could challenge him and win but a strong challenge might give him pause for thought.

[axollot]

56. Isnt that the truth. The most worrying part re Obama has always

been the Wall Street fellows he got into bed with i.e. Larry Summers (total sleeze) and others he surrounded himself with on purpose or through bad advice. He kept many of the Bush people and the ones he didnt he put in the Clinton people.

Neither presidencies were great for the working poor or middle class of this country.

Time to change the sheets, cause that bed is dirty. Nothing will make me vote for a Con tho - short of a gun to the head.

Cheers
Sandy
Who watched inside job last night and though knew most of it, just cringed for the parts I didnt know about.

[Jakes Progress]

65. +100 Exactly. Change the dirty sheets.

[Xicano]

53. +10

And my point is: Any politician who has either gone against labor or done nothing for labor during labor actions such as we saw Wisconsin, etc. Then that's a politician I can no longer trust and any ass kissing by them during an election year is viewed by me as nothing but self serving used car salesman talk.

[mikehiggins]

5. No DUer is that stupid, or detached from reality

The dems seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It is possible that Obama could turn out to be a one term president if he loses organised labor.

And just who would be to blame?

Can't anybody get this guy to wake up and smell the coffee?

[elocs]

6. I beg to differ. I consistently read DUers who are detached from reality.

Anyone who seriously suggests that Dennis Kucinich should be the Democratic nominee is seriously detached from reality.

[Sherman A1]

7. I am very attached to reality and I would have loved DK to be

the nominee. In the current world, I suspect he would not have won, but I wish for a world in which he would be able to do so.

Oh, btw 37 years in a Union & DK walked the picket line here when we were locked out in 2003.

[bvar22]

9. Dennis NEVER had trouble finding his "comfortable shoes."

*

[axollot]

57. Ditto! nt

[Larry Ogg]

35. Your assertions are not only ridicules, they are the exact opposite from the truth.

In addition, your comment is a good example of what psychologist call "Gaslighting"

Which means you are most likely a bully (typical amongst conservatives) with a fetish for arrogance, and because you can't face the truth about your clueless condition, i.e., it is you that is seriously detached from reality.

Predictably, you transpose your erroneous and delusional world-view on to liberals, as if this makes you look like a genius.

Maybe someday liberals will be running the country and you can get some help before it's to late...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalmike27]

62. I suggest Kucinich run

I don't suggest he'd end up being the nominee. I just think it a productive exercise that he run, to at least discuss some of the issues Obama either glosses over, or completely neglects. The treatment of labor, by both parties, the globalization, "free" trade agreements that have melted down labor, in particular manufacturing jobs, and their hit on tax collections at all levels, is important to get into the debate.

Democrats have been losing for 30 years because of this, labor only supporting them out of inertia and the idea of "who else are you going to support, republicans?" That isn't enough. We need globalization to stop, we need jobs and taxes paid back here at home, to fix both employment problems and tax collection problems. We need Democrats talking about it, legislating for it, and if so, they'll win en masse over, and over, and over again.

[russspeakeasy]

74. No time to smell...looking for my comfortable shoes.

[Avant Guardian]

10. Unions are the largest political contributors to the Dems

Do the math, Einstein. They can always go to the republicans, which is exactly where they will go if Obama listens to you.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. They don't have to go to the Republicans.

All they have to do is find other uses for their money, like maybe a massive public-education initiative on the history and values of organized labor.

[whathehell]

49. You are correct, Sir....I don't blame organized labor for being disgusted. n/t

[dotymed]

79. Jackpine,

I am consistently amazed by the few references, if any, in our public text books. Children should learn from early on about our heroic Labor leaders and fighters. They are the true heroes of America, yet they're lucky if they receive a paragraph in a "history" book.

It is intentional. That is why "Johnny" is so fucking ignorant. He/she is is only taught what the corporate, tea drinking assholes (in Texas) approve. No "counter culture-revolutionary" truth here.
I have been meaning to read "History of the American People", by Howard Zinn. From what I hear, THAT would be a great textbook. Too bad it is not "corporate approved."

[Jackpine Radical]

81. You started me on a weird train of thought.

Yes, Zinn's People's History of the United States.

Also Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong

and maybe a whole bunch of similar writing.

If we could get kids to think of these books as "underground," "forbidden," and therefore alluring--and then make copies available to them--we could maybe start radicalizing the coming generations.

[axollot]

58. I am pretty sure the poster is in favor of unions and against those that

think the Dems do not need the unions.

Cheers
Sandy

[JAnthony]

11. Part of being a Democratic supporter involves supporting unions

not always, not every time, but generally, unions are a vital weapon in our fight against corporatists, union busters, arrogant rich Republicans, Tea party folks, and others who frustrate a sane management of our nation.

I don't really understand your post, but then again, I don't understand the leader of the AFL-CIO going after Obama, either.

[chervilant]

13. Well, then,

you have a LOT of reading and research to accomplish in order to understand why a growing number of citizens of this United States are unhappy with Mr. Obama.

[JAnthony]

55. No, I know there are a growing number. And I understand why, I have

done my reading, and I agree with them on some issues.

What's the alternative? Staying home from voting and letting Republicans win? I don't think so.

[liberalmike27]

63. Yea, once again I know Obama (Democrats) suck

But who else are you gonna vote for? How pitiful the lack of choice, that we resort to "having" to vote for a completely inadequate candidate?

[JAnthony]

80. Yeah, how awful life ain't perfect, and we all know that, like ..

democracy, Obama is the worst Presidential candidate ever, except for all the others.

[sulphurdunn]

16. The unions need Obama?

Why? What has Obama done for the unions in repayment for their support? The unions have nowhere to go? You better hope they don't realize that little fact. American labor has enough power to form its own national party. I hope the do so, sooner rather than later.

[dotymed]

32. Yes, America NEEDS a labor party, now more than ever.

I would support them 100%, just like I did (in healthier days) when candidate Obama was (supposed to be) the instrument of change. Maybe even harder, since I realize the importance of real change, since we have gotten so little.

Dennis Kucinich? Bernie Sanders? Man, what a combination. That ticket would have HOPE written all over it. If they ran and won, it would be a mandate to completely reorganize America to the standards of the actual majority. The working, working poor and non-working poor. These "classes" comprise the majority of Americans. Most of them are not happy with their position in life and many, many try daily to overcome the current system and thrive.

Seriously, a country that condones (if it is not condoned, why does it continue?), a "credit check" for perspective employees? Draconian marijuana laws, meant to imprison those that can least afford it. Wars of Empire while "Austerity" is forced upon the non-wealthy....there is too much to list anywhere.

I wished and I prodded for the formation of a Labor party since President Obama was elected. Better late than never. No matter what the "party first" people say, I think a Labor party would represent Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, etc... much better than our present (corporate owned?) Democratic Party.

I also think that, even at this late date, a Labor party can win in 2012.

Viva La Resistance

[mountainlion55]

34. yes-yes-yes

A labor party would be awesome!!!:smoke:

[olegramps]

39. I have been calling for a Labor Party since joining DU

I would hope that a candidate who is actually from Labor would lead the fight. No, I am not talking about the forming of a new party but the transition of the existing Democratic Party back to what it was during the 50's. Rename the Party if required but use the existing base to reach out to EVERY one of the working class citizens. The hearts and imagination of the working class could be won if the party dedicated itself to pursuing issues that affect the vast majority of the citizens rather than allowing itself to become little more than DLC Big Business boot lickers.

Trumpka for the Democratic Party's 2012 Labor Candidate.

[eilen]

33. We do need an alternative from the current

bipartisan oligarchy we have going on now.

[spooked911]

29. what has Obama done for the unions???

though I am not sure where you're coming from in your post

[sulphurdunn]

77. The nation needs an expansion

of unionism, militant unionism. That will require a labor party. Obama wishes merely to throw a few economic crumbs to the labor movement while tossing the loaf to Wall Street. His record is clear on that, and it shouldn't be good enough. The dismantling of the American manufacturing base has been aided and abetted by both political parties, as they are enthralled to big business interests. Obama has done absolutely nothing to reverse that trend. Rather, he continues to push "free trade agreements" and has sold out entirely on the Employee Free Choice Act.

[JDPriestly]

4. If any ordinary working person ever read the Chamber of Commerce's letters

and bulletins on employment, they would understand how important unions are for all of us who work and own businesses.

If the Chamber had its way, there would be no rules about the way that employers treat workers. Employers would be free to discriminate, to fire, to punish, to pay or not pay, to require endless hours of work.... Working people would be much worse off than they already are.

[bvar22]

8. The Obama White House has a LOT of "kissing & making up to do."

Their exuberant support for a virulently Anti-LABOR/Anti-Health Care Senator in Arkansas in 2010 when there was a more electable Pro-LABOR candidate in the Primary....and then ridiculing LABOR for supporting a Pro-LABOR alternative was inexcusable.

Sitting Out the battle in Wisconsin will also be long remembered, and take a bunch of ass-kissing to mend.

The PUSH for MORE Anti-LABOR "Free Trade" will also be hard to explain to Americans who Work for a Living.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Sherman A1]

12. Precisely

:toast:

[chervilant]

14. Yes, and,

Let's not forget the ongoing assault on public education. This vile 'privatization' gambit is a thin veneer over union busting efforts by this administration. BIG mistake, Mr. Obama. BIG.

[emilyg]

22. +1

[Nay]

30. And don't forget Arne Duncan and his pack of school privatization rapists and

blatant union busters. I can't believe a Dem president would even go near that sort of crooked shit.

[Bryn]

66. +1000000

Amen! I was there and saw all of crap happened here in Garland County. That was unforgivable! Bill Halter should have won, but they fixed it so that he'd lose. x(

[DeSwiss]

15. K&R!!! n/t

[Overseas]

17. Ass kissing not required, just some solid support would do fine.

Like getting the revenue from those who made out like bandits over the past few decades, and giving unions the power to advocate for workers' rights and rebalance our extreme plutocracy going forward.

[Johnny Morales]

18. Unions are in a bubble and this President will easily replace them with Corporate cash.

The tremendous power that Unions once had in significant part stemmed from their reputation as the good guys among NON union people, as fighters for the middle class.

Yet Union leadership never understood this, and instead assumed Union members were the ONLY source of their POLITICAL strength exclusively.

This meant cultivating and sustaining the positive image of Unions among the NON union people was not done. Nothing was spent. Instead Unions expected politicians they helped elect to do that for them, and it's taken decades for them to realize that was a huge mistake.

Considering that even at peak Union membership never topped 40% (and that's decades ago) It should have been obvious that Union strength depended on the desire of NON-union workers to join them as well as the overwhelmingly positive image Unions ONCE had.

One great example of many of just how oblivious the leadership was is their utter refusal to confront mob influence, and even worse not even attempt to counter this being used as a cudgel to destroy Union's good name.

So now after fighting the worst fight ever in political history Unions are getting serious, hmmm.

Well if they want to have a chance they better start telling the Union troops that treating people who ask questions as "enemies" is not a good idea.

Union members need to wake up and realize NON-union Americans ARE UTTERLY CLUELESS, completely ignorant as to the positive reasons associated with being in a Union are.

Any time their asked questions should be seen as an opportunity to educate, NOT an opportunity to vent and treat the questioners like a waste of time.

When it comes to Unions, no group puts on a meaner, more hostile public face, making defeating them much easier.

Even the most vile republithug knows that he better make some commercials kissing babies and helping those who can't help themselves. Keeping the public informed on the good things about Unions though isn't in any union member's job description, so.

In today's world 'being real' is not good enough is NOT nearly good enough. That means you have to present a public image that is MUCH better than real, sincere and good and promote the hell out of it.

Because Unions haven't tried, among the general public the reputation lies in tatters.

Wisconsin is proof of why I'm right.

The fact that so many think it means their winning is a good example of how detached Union leadership is from reality.

You are not winning when you are one defeat away from losing it all. You are in survival mode, and should you win this one, you have decades to make up for to get even.

If the polls are to be believed, the #s in support of Unions have shifted by the amount of UNION MEMBERS who VOTED REPUBLICAN! Enough to give them the support of the majority of Wisconsin voters, but far short of enough for victory.

In any case given the penchant for DUer's especially Union types to NOT read a post before commenting and attacking. I'll stop here. Far be it for me to try and stop a nasty bad habit that has turned many a sympathetic individual NOT fortunate enough to be a Union member into haters instead.

If you think I'm anti Union - that just means you did NOT read what I wrote, and a good indication as to why I am right and you are wrong.

[earcandle]

23. Thanks for this update. We need to be in the same house until our house is back in order... then

we can agree to disagree... but right now, we need to agree in
general and stand for the good of all of us, not for any one
of us to be right, or wrong.  Just do the work we need to do
to usurp this Machiavellian economy... shift in context to
enlightened capitalism until we do some r & r on social
living. We need to tend to our country, our schools, our
roads, our health and our international dignity not play cops
and robbers.   The bible is dead.    

or some such what... who where and when..... like now.
collect.. gather... use language and be smart... use
technology.. work with me. work with him and her... he and
she... they and them... me and I am you and we are
altogether... 

[PFunk]

24. If Obama does follow this course then he probally will win the white house ...

at the cost of destroying the democratic party. Say what you want but the repugs pay attention to their base while the dems dump on theirs. And now that base is finally beginning to be fed up with it. The finial straw on said camel's back is finial showing.

[SharksBreath]

40. Why did unions lose support; Jealousy.

Republicans and corporations successfully spread the jealousy and envy message to non union workers.

What they did was tell non-union people the unions are messing everything up for you and they get benefits you can't.

Who the hell do they think they are.

Instead of the non-union people fighting to get the same rights they were jealous and decided since I can't have those rights why should they.

My corporation would fire me in a second. They should be under the same system.

Crab meet barrel.

"I hate unions."

It's easier to be jealous and tear down than to fight for what you want.

That's why it's easy for people to demonize teachers of all people.

They see teachers as being better than them. They see cops earning overtime they can't.

They are jealous.

Just another step in the race to the bottom.

[stockholmer]

60. spot-on

[Bluenorthwest]

43. More than 12% of US workers are Union members.

In some places, like CA, it is about 16%. Are you willing to suggest that other groups with such numbers should be subjected to the same standards? Large segments of majority populations have false negative views of groups other than Unions. Is that also the fault of those groups? How do these standards follow through?

[Jackpine Radical]

51. FAULT is irrelevant.

CURE is relevant.

[russspeakeasy]

75. A well written arguement...and a damn good point.

[bertman]

19. REC. nt.

[donheld]

20. We're kind of between a rock & a hard place aren't we?

or maybe I should say between a union forsaking Obama & a Palin-Pawlenty-Paul-Bachmann.

[DuaneBidoux]

21. It would also be nice if he noticed the state by state disenfranchisement of voters.

I haven't heard him mention one of the states where they are trying to take voter rights away. That bothers me.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Is the ass first base?

I can never remember these things.



(Just snarking about your subject line :) )

[Populist_Prole]

26. Oh come on, we all know what's going to happen

President Obama will make a stirring speech in which parts thereof that will tell organized labor what it wants to hear, and then, the election having been won ( the radicalized GOP being unelectable ) will stay the course with the ever present DLC/3rd way neoliberalism. Yeah it's better than the teabag 'Pubs, but sucking wind is sucking wind.

Poster 'Johnny Morales' has a point here and there: The whole "3rd way" dynamic is founded upon a rationalization that is brutally simple: That the role of the Democratic party as the fighters for Joe six pack may be no longer viable ( support...eh...funding wise ) and corporate cash is the ready replacement. Suuuurrre they're allowed to opine stridently about saving whales and such...but seriously discuss the man behind the curtain throwing brickbats at the working class is frowned upon. The other point raised ( which I'd like to clarify since it seemed to be mentioned rather turgidly ) is that while organized labor has fought for itself ( with varying degrees of success ) it really should have allied itself...fought for just as hard...non-unionized working class citizens. Doing so would yank the rug out from under the corporatist types that seek to turn non-union working class citizens against unionized citizens. One of the things the Limbaugh types always do is make a feigned show of support for the working class...crocodile tears really...while bashing unionized types in the hope the former doesn't realize they have more in common with the latter than the corporatists.

What does this all mean? Until the working class unites and realizes that their own survival is more important than political posturing, the posturers will win.

[creon]

27. Yes

I agree with your post.
Basically, that is what will happen.

[spooked911]

31. No DOUBT he will make a nice speech saying all the right things

and then ignore labor otherwise. He needs them for re-election-- if nothing else, their grassroots organizing abilities. But I don't think for a minute he really cares about organized labor.

[olegramps]

41. It was a propaganda war and Big Business won.

The workers deserted the unions when they bought the propaganda that management spewed that they would be well taken care of and that unions were corrupt mobster contolled hell holes. Yes there were some instances of mob involvement, but also remember that the AFL-CIO kicked out the Teamsters when they didn't clean up their act. Younger workers, especially swallowed the swill, and refused to join the union and pay dues since they could get the same benefits that had been won by the unions. Business was smart in that they were able to get the workers to support their cause with so-called Right to Work Laws. The workers ended up cutting their own throats and allowed themselves to become the pawns in the game. It appears that the workers won't wise up until they are reduced to virtual servitude with the wifes taking in laundry and their kids selling papers on the corner.

[Lorien]

44. True, with one correction

Obama is pro-whaling and has allowed fewer species to receive endangered species protections than did BushCo in their first two years in office.

[xchrom]

28. recommend

[RoccoR5955]

37. Dems have to do right by unions or Dems will sit home on Election Day. n/t

[still_one]

38. Labor sure showed the Democrats when they voted for Reagan against Carter. How did that work out

For them?

[Mosaic]

42. I don't trust Maddow

She has sub conscious republiscum inclinations, as I detect often strongly on her corporate gig. When you work for the corporation you lose your soul, if your job is on the line.

[no limit]

47. lol

[democracy1st]

50. i know lmao!

[a2liberal]

52. So anyone who supports actual progressive values over a party

Is a secret right-wing troll? I've noticed this party over principle attitude a lot lately and it bothers me. (yes I realize I risk being labeled a troll or disrupter myself by posting this but I had to say it)

[Jakes Progress]

68. What's in your tea?

[tularetom]

46. Simply withholding support from Obama is really not an option for the unions

That will just result in the election of a member of the party that wants to privatize medicare and outlaw collective bargaining.

What they need to do if they want to see something change is direct that support toward the election of true progressive candidates, potential congressmembers who will actively work to save the dwindling middle class in America.

If they believe they can find a suitable primary opponent for the President, that would be the best way for them to make their point. Sitting out the general election is stupid.

[onehandle]

54. He doesn't need them. Nor progressives.

The GOP's got nothing. The centrist President remains.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted and expected him to be somewhat centerist.

But not center-right. The Hillary haters must be livid with him.

[axollot]

61. I suspect we would have a similar administration under Hillary had she won.

This administration is chock full of those from the Clinton administration and with too many left overs from Bush.

Center right is not where I expected to be either, at the very least a true center. However, a true center would have to pull to the left as the center has moved very far to the right in just 10yrs.

Cheers
Sandy

[Jakes Progress]

69. We would need at least three new SC judges,

would need all republican and two thirds of the Democrats replaced, and four years of straight out progressive mandates passing to get even close to a true centrist government.

[axollot]

71. Never said it would be easy. We managed to lose the majority too. Plus momentum

when we had it. The folks were behind him. Problem is too many in his administration were against us from the start. Progressives. We lost most of the Dems that would have voted out progressives but kept most of the progressive Dems. Anti-Incumbent coupled with jobs helped R's pick up the extra seats. The people want to move left - getting our elected officials to do it is nigh impossible.

Cheers
Sandy

[Jakes Progress]

76. Amen to the lost momentum.

We went off track with the first round of presidential appointments.

Agreed that the people want to move left, but those elected don't seem to want to work for the people but rather for the money sources. That's why more than half the Dems need to be replaced.

[Jakes Progress]

67. "The Hillary haters must be livid with him."

Only the honest ones.

[Marblehead]

59. Labor Party

would get my vote

[booley]

64. It's about the money

Even though the Unions never had a majority of people, they did for many decades wield great political power.

But as Union membership went down, so did their ability to raise money.

And it's not just because people are uninformed. Laws like Taft/hartley hamper Unions, putting them at a disadvantage to corporations.

As Union money went down, Dems turned to Corporations to make up the slack.

I think many Democratic Higher Ups would love for Unions to abandon them. It means they could focus on getting more corporate money away from the Republicans.

A Labor party is a nice idea but besides that third parties are often non-starters (I mean whatever happened to the Greens?) it misses the real problem, the need for ever greater amounts of cash just to get access to the system.

IF we want to change things, it's the need for money that needs ot be changed first.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

70. Catch 22. Organized Labor helped drive jobs over seas. Obama knows that.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. Ending tariffs against microwage countries drove jobs overseas

For example, Clinton ending tariffs against China. Impossible for US workers to compete with $2 a day labor.

Without unions and tariffs, there's zero hope for working Americans.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

78. Indeed. But unions also contributed to outsourcing by simply asking for what they deserved.

Just watch "Norma Rae". Or "Avatar" for that matter. It is inevitable that business will find the lowest wage earners possible, unless forced to by their government. But with multinationals, we have no actual government agency to regulate them. Hope I'm wrong. But it must be trickier than it seems or we'd have fixed this mess. Because America is going down fast.

[Demeter]

73. When there's a choice to make (and no way to duck it)

Obama will always choose to screw the people for the corporations' benefit. This election will be no exception.