You wanna hear a LEADER?

[Armstead]

Yet again Bernie Sanders says what the Democratic Leadership should be saying -- And that includes President Obama.

Here is Bernie telling it like it is about Wisconsin -- and, more importantly putting it into the larger context of the assault on workers and the middle class by the oligarchs.

Hey Democrats. Here is how it is done:

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/media/view/?id=52d8e1c0-0c05-4b0e-91aa-8b400207a319

[Lucinda]

1. Thanks. It's still loading for me...

I ♥ Bernie.

[jenmito]

2. He's a senator-not a president. n/t

[Inuca]

3. Details, details n/t

[liskddksil]

4. I expect the same degree of leadership from all public servants.

No matter what level.

[jenmito]

9. If Sanders were president, you'd be just as disappointed in him as you are in Obama.

Different "levels" have the freedom to "lead" in different ways, unless you also expect Sanders to get on the phone with world leaders to try to deal with the turmoil in the Middle East.

[treestar]

44. +1

There is no President that can mesmerize the entire Congress and nation into doing what every individual wants.

This need for a leader so strong that no one opposes him/her and the poster gets all they want because they are that poster's puppet - it's pure fantasy.

Getting elected President - doesn't that require a leader? Funny how Sanders can't seem to manage it.

And all he could do would be to make speeches and veto everything Congress passed.

[NorthCarolina]

57. I doubt that, but I'd sure love an opportunity to find out. nt

[Donnachaidh]

59. if Sanders was president, he wouldn't be sucking up to elites

Like Obama does. We'd have single payer, and Wall Street would get their asses handed to them.

As it stands now, we're paying 400K a year for photo-ops, and not much else.

[Badfish]

61. Ya , cause Sanders wouldn't be President...

he would be King. He would have to be in order to get a single payer , cause the Senate would never allow it.

Ya , the Senate , perhaps you have heard of it.

[Donnachaidh]

69. yeah, the Senate -- which he's been in longer than Obama was

You really think someone with his EXPERIENCE would be floundering as badly as Obama is? Or surround himself with lobbyist cronies that CAUSED the economic meltdown?

You might want to review history -- Sanders knows how it's supposed to work. And without backroom deals with corporate contributors.

:eyes:

[Armstead]

5. So therefore what he says makes no difference, eh?

There is no reason a president can not say the same things -- because they are true.

Maybe -- maybe -- he can't be quite a fiery about it as someone like Bernie -- But he can -- and should -- be making the same points.

[jenmito]

8. Obama put out a statement strongly in support of the protesters as well as against Walker. And for

that alone, he's been attacked for "interfering," for "not concentrating on his OWN deficit," for "not acting presidential," etc. by RWers while at the same time being attacked from people like you with opposite criticism.

[Armstead]

10. Yeah well he SHOULD be attacked by right wingers and he WILL be whatever he does

As for people like me....Well I don't even care whether he goes to Wisconsin or not. But I would gladly be satisfied if he were at least to come out at some point and make the case as to why this is important as clearly as people like Bernie are doing.

And I don't mean some offside answer to a question in a local TV newscast.

Where is the fighting spirit that Obama exerted against progressives when he wanted to whup us into like to support tax breaks for the rich?

If he turned that same level of combativeness against the Union Busters, it could make a big difference.

[jenmito]

11. Really? I could've sworn there were times when DUers called Obama a "closet Republican"

or "the best Republican president we've ever had," etc. because RWers have praised him once in a while. Like I said, what he said was strong. And he, unlike Sanders, has a lot to deal with right now.

[Armstead]

13. And your point is.....?

Did you bother listening to that video I posted?

If not, please listen to it then get back to me about what exactly Sanders said that was incorrect or so blasphemous that Democrats should stay away from it.

[jenmito]

17. "Yeah well he SHOULD be attacked by right wingers and he WILL be whatever he does"

My post was in response to your comment. And no, I DIDN'T listen to it. I know his style. It has nothing to do with being "incorrect." His style is not the style a president would/should take. Obama made a strong statement and he made it clear he supports the protesters and unions.

[Armstead]

19. Well since you think Sanders is irrelevant, there';s nothing to discuss

You're uncomfortable with his style, so therefore his points are irrelevant.

Okay, nuff said.

[jenmito]

I never called him irrelevant. It's just a fact that he's a very liberal senator from a

very liberal state. He can afford to speak out the way he does.

[Armstead]

22. A very liberal senator who also gets a lot of support from hardass Vermonters

I suppose your reaction is because my thread seemed to be in the form of a criticism of President Obama.

Maybe it is...or not. But I've been a Bernie Booster since the 90's, when he was one of the few Washingtron politicians to openly challenge the nonsenbse spewed by DLC Corporate Democrats -- while the "centrists were praising Mr. Free Market Greenspan, bernie was calling him onm gthe carpet for the damage Greenspan's policies were diong to the economy.

Bernie was considered by the Democrat Elite to be irrelevant, as they curried the favor of Goldman Sachs executives and the others who subsequently took down the economy.

My point -- mr. Obama aside -- Bernie has a message that the Democratic Party ought to be saying as well.

[jenmito]

36. Judging by these words in your OP:

"Yet again Bernie Sanders says what the Democratic Leadership should be saying -- And that includes President Obama" along with your subject title: "You wanna hear a LEADER?" I'd say it was definitely criticism of Obama.

[Armstead]

37. It's both

It is a contrast between someone who is telling the unvarnished truth and those Democratic leaders (NOT all of them) who avoid and dismiss any references to what is really going on.

[jenmito]

39. You're contrasting a senator and a president. That's an apple and an orange.

Like I said to another poster, unless Sanders has been on the phone with Middle Eastern leaders, trying to stop the world and our economy from ruin, you can't compare the two.

[Armstead]

41. I suspect Berrnie would be just as effective as Obama on that phone

and anyway, you are willfully missing my point.

Obama is a better basketball player than Bernie too.

That has nothing to with whether Bernie is saying what needs to be said, and is throwing full sup;port to American workers and the middle class....while President Obama won't touch the real truth with a ten foot pole (or when he does, he all-too-often ignores what he said ten minutes later).

This is ultimately not about personalities. It is about whether political leaders are actually going to lead where leadership is required.

[jenmito]

46. YOU'RE missing MY point, which is that Obama is president, unlike Sanders, who is a

senator. They have different jobs. Obama, as president, has said he strongly supports the protesters, the unions, the people, collective bargaining, and everything else those 14 Dems. in an "undisclosed location" support. But he also has other things to do, like try to save the world from falling apart. Sanders doesn't have that responsibility.

Obama is also being attacked in ads for supporting unions and "following his union bosses." Are there any ads against Sanders? I doubt it. So, no matter how timid you may think Obama is in his support of the people, the union-busters disagree and are spending lots of money to paint him as someone who has radically, strongly, etc., done all he could to protect the unions.

Apples and oranges comparing Obama and Sanders.

[Armstead]

47. If sanders were president, I dounbt he would be trying to placate Republicans

Instead, he would be using a consistent message to lead the country in a different direction.

Yes he wold have to compromise an d wheel and deal, but his approach would more like a progressive version of Rionald Reagan, in terms of leading the country by using a mi xof practical politics and the bully pulpit.

yes Obama has a lot on his plate. But I give him credit that he is smart enough and capable enough to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[jenmito]

48. And there it is...

you don't think Obama has used a consistent message. That's false. Jay Carney said just today that Obama stands with the protesters no matter what shoes he's wearing (since it was in response to a question about his '07 video clip). He's just VERY busy.

[Armstead]

56. You are right...I think he has been inconsistent

President Obama will talk a great game one day...But then seem to forget what he said the next, or else "explain" it into nothingness or backtrack based on the GOP/Media reaction.

That is my opinion, and the ups and downs it causes in terms of how I (and many others) react to Obama is not something we enjoy going through.

[jenmito]

60. So what did he say to "backtrack" from what he first said?

Do you have a quote? Or is it just in your mind?

[Armstead]

62. Remember the public option?

Also, his subsequent silence on Wisconsin is similar to saying "I don't want to deal with this."

Especially compared to his "I'll be walking with you" claim during his campaign.

If he says something, I'll say horray. But I'm not holding my breath.

[jenmito]

68. First of all, I'm asking for a quote backtracking on the WI protesters.

Secondly, in 2007, before he was president, the world wasn't falling apart, there were no teabaggers out to kill him, and he neither said nor implied he doesn't want to deal with this. He said what he said, and his spokesman said just yesterday that he stands with the protesters and unions. He's just a "little busy" right now. The public option has nothing to do with this-but he DID get HCR passed with the congress he had.

[Bake]

42. Calling it a "strong" statement all day long does not make it so.

It was weak AT BEST, and not just in my opinion but in the opinion of a lot of serious commentators.

It was weak. Stop trying to spin it.

Frankly, I don't even want him to show up in Wisconsin. In fact, he should probably never leave D.C., except to go overseas, because he MIGHT upset the Rethugs or becuase the media MIGHT think he's a politician. Or some such shit.

I don't want him to go to Wisconsin because his presence will just screw it up. I don't think the Thugs hated even Bill Clinton this much! But that's who we elected.

Bake

[BklnDem75]

53. And vice versa

Your opinion is just that. YOUR opinion.

[Hawkowl]

15. He's a socialist not a corporatist

As opposed to our ignominious leader.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Labor leaders in Wisconsin have praised President Obama in their speeches to protesters. Get a clue.

That's why they expressed thanks to Pres. Obama for his support in their speeches to protesters. It's funny how no one in Wisconsin seems to think President Obama isn't doing or saying enough, eh?

Perhaps Thom Hartmann, Obama supporters, and the labor leaders in Wisconsin know something you don't: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=618523&mesg_id=618523

BTW, why aren't you ragging on Howard Dean, Alan Grayson, and other alleged liberal oracles for not saying a single word so far? By your yardstick, they are not leaders, yet they no doubt remain cherished by many here still.

[Armstead]

12. Of course labor leaders there are going to look for reasons to praise him

That's smart tactics on their part to rally their own troops. No problem with that.

And You might notice that (at least I) have not just focused on Obama. There are some democrats who have come out strongly to back the unions, others who have not....I can also respect Thom Hartmann's position witrhout necessarily agreeing with it, because Hartmann is genrally out front on issues.

What I believe is that standing up for the Unions and working class ought to be like Apple Pie and Motherhood for all Democrats. Why it is treated like a Third Rail I find baffling.

[Clio the Leo]

52. lol so Obama's not allowed to be tactical....

.... ok, whatever dude.

[Armstead]

54. More of that 3D chess huh?

[polichick]

7. I'd so love it if he ran as a populist - 'course the corps would try to crush him. nt

[AtomicKitten]

14. Bernie's contribution has no bearing on and does not detract from the president.

Everyone has a part to play and this is Bernie's. Trying to use that as a wedge against the president is pointlessly divisive but, hey, have at.

[Armstead]

16. Not as a wedge -- I think it should be a model for Obama

yes they have different personal styles, but there is an important difference.

President Obama tip toes around this core issue. Instead he talks about "productivity" and "Competitiveness" and other such bland excuses for the decimation of the working class, when it is very obvious that such things are just symptoms of the bigger issue.

Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more comfortable with President Obama if he would at least start to point to the issues that Bernie is addressing, and helping to increase awareness that this is a long running pattern that is at the core of what is wrong with America these days.

When he even starts to do that and mean it, Obama will have my wholehearted support (which, i realize, will get you a subway ride as long as you also have a subway token).

[AtomicKitten]

21. This isn't about style -- it's about roles. Obama is POTUS, Bernie a Senator.

As such, their roles are drastically different just as our expectations should be.

[Armstead]

25. That "above tghe fray" stuff is a cop out -- and also ignores a political opportunity

If nothing else, the overreaching by Gov. Walker and the rest of his union busting GOP clique has energized a substantial number of people. It is a golden opportunity cement their support -- and add to it -- if the Democratic Party clearly takes a stand that reflects the truth behind it. More people are lookjing for leadership that stands up for the working and middle class against the CONservative elites.

Or Democrats can once again ignore both the principle and the opportunity to take that leadership role in the political sphere.

Don;t forget, Ronald Reagan did not make a difference from the other side by staying above the fray.

[AtomicKitten]

27. You're welcome to your opinion regarding strategy, however --

sometimes holding their (GOP) coats while they flail about is the best strategy. The Republicans governors, once perhaps invigorated by Gov Teabagger's audacity, are now shoving each other out of the way to back down faster. LOL.

[Armstead]

33. I wish it worked that way but....

waiting for the GOP to implode or self-destruct helped us to aid and abet them when they installed awful right wing judges,took us into a needless war in Iraq, let the Wall St. Crooks loot the economy....etc, etc. etc.

Going somewhat further back the Democrat's disengagement with the core issues Bernie is referring to helped the GOP and Corporate Robber barons to repeal financial regulations, turn the media over to a handful of media monopolies, brought a form of "free trade" that has gutted the American workforce, etc. etc.

This is another of those "turning point" moments. And if the Democratic Establishment acquiesces once again while the GOP lowers the bar even further, it will be a lost opportunity -- and another tragic step backward.

[AtomicKitten]

35. This is still unfolding so we shall see. nt

[BobbyBoring]

26. With the assault on the middle class being what it is

I would love for Obama to come out and speak the truth like Sanders. Sanders is a Senator representing ONE state. Obama is the President of all of us and yet he has done virtually nothing to stop the rape, pillage, and plunder of 80% of Americans.

[Dr Fate]

20. Unions are actually glad to have Bernie's contribution, and would love to have Obama present..

Some union members may have even been encouraged to help him win the WH after they heard him say this:

"If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself — I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America."

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/25/videos-say-whatever-happened-to-obamas-comfy-shoes/

[AtomicKitten]

23. Wisconsin voters disagree.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/24/poll-56-percent-of-wisconsinites-oppose-end-to-collective-bargaining-even-split-on-recall-attempts.aspx">Link: Slate

Do you believe that President Obama should get involved in state disputes like the one in Wisconsin or focus his efforts on the federal budget battle in Washington?

* Get involved in state disputes - 27%

* Focus his efforts on the federal budget - 68%

[Dr Fate]

24. LOL! Your sample includes Walker voters! Show me the unions who got him elected who are saying that.

Besides, who knows how many Republicans are included among the "likely voters" in that poll?

What was promised to his base is arguably more important than what 500 poll takers (many who probably never voted for him and never will) say they want.

From your own link:

Wisc. -- The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity sponsors a poll of 500 likely voters in Wisconsin, slightly more Democratic than the election day electorate (Walker won this sample by 1 point, but won the election by 5).

Your sample went for Walker as well, so go figure.

[AtomicKitten]

29. It's a poll of WI voters - yes they come in all flavors - and it's clear what they want.

Unless you yourself are from Wisconsin, your opinion (and mine - hey from California) is rather beside the point.

* The union-busting started in Wisconsin, thus the relevant polling was proffered. Also the OP talks about Wisconsin in particular, so I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree in your dash to make this a pissing contest.

[Dr Fate]

30. The Unions who elected Obama disagree with you & Walker voters. They call for national solidarity.

National solidarity is the order of the day, and Obama (as well as other national DEMS like Reid, Pelosi, etc) need to be involved and visible-making it clear that they side with middle class workers, not the Koch brothers & their ilk.

Unions are holding protests in DC too, for instance.

FEDERAL laws that protect unions in WI and all states could be a solution here, if DEMS dared to support such laws, so you are wrong to say that this is just a WI matter.

[AtomicKitten]

31. The president has already declared solidarity with the unions & with this WI protest in particular.

Indeed the GOP has tipped their hand with their intent to promote union-busting across the country, and the president has weighed in unequivocally on the http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-on-wisconsin-budget-protests-an-assault-on-workers.html">"assault on unions."

Solidarity is a fellowship arising from common purpose, sympathies, and interests. Nowhere is it written the a particular action is implied.

[Dr Fate]

32. So you are wrong to suggest in post #29 that this is soley a WI concern & not a national issue.

Your quote:

"Unless you yourself are from Wisconsin, your opinion (and mine - hey from California) is rather beside the point."

Since the President is at least weighing in, then we can say this is truly a national issue- not just a concern for WI residents as you suggested.

Since we have cleared that up, now we can get back to the issue as to whether Obama, for better or for worse, will keep his promise. My guess is that he will not.

[AtomicKitten]

34. I never said it was solely WI nor did I say this is not a national issue.

You may as well have a conversation talking into a mirror because you obviously aren't hearing anything other than yourself parroting the barking on the internetz.

There are a myriad of reasons why President Obama should not go to Wisconsin. I refer you to Thom Hartmann who has explained this eloquently.

[great white snark]

38. Shouldn't the issue be what's best for the situation?

He's purposely broken promises before(extending tax cuts). I'll take a broken promise over a situation FUBAR.

[Scottybeamer70]

28. If a governor

tried a financial assault on bankers and wall street,
I wonder who would be the first to defend them........
just sayin'

[louslobbs]

40. First, probably FOX GOP Propaganda, then all the teapublicons both

in government and private life. Then all the idiot rabble who listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Palin.........the list of wackos would never end when it comes to defending the rich and powerful in this ravaged, torn and divided nation. Thanks Republicons and all your dirt bag brain dead rabble for the continued division of this country and all of the suffering you pigs cause everyday with your lying, cheating, corruption and domestic terrorism. All of the other bought and paid for networks and papers would make it seem as though the world were coming to an end, and that governor, would be verbally assaulted 24/7 until he or she resigned or killed themselves.

As a side note, I have a home in Palm Springs CA and when the Koch brothers and their pathetic ilk were here for their secret meeting, the Palm Springs airport was packed with parked, private and corporate million dollar Leers, Challengers, Cessna Citations and several Gulfstream jets parked and waiting for their pigs to return for the flight home. These modes of transport for the wealthy thieves cost anywhere from $3mil to $50mil or more depending on how they are fitted plus fuel, maint and staff. How do these people sleep at night while the people they are stealing from (all of Us) can barely afford fuel for our cars? That's if we still have a car.
Lou

[treestar]

43. So making a speech you agree with is LEADING?

Not every elected official can be in complete agreement with any one of us at all times.

We elect them and then they have to deal with the issues and the OTHER LEADERS - the other ones who were elected. No marching in lockstep seems valued too - if we all followed the good LEADER we'd be marching in lockstep.

Even if the whole country got behind Bernie because he's a good LEADER it would still give him just one vote in the Senate.

[Armstead]

45. "....It would still give him just one vote in the Senate"

and you just nailed the problem. Too many other Democrats are AWOL in terms of protecting this country. Bernies positions ought to be the mainstream position of the Democratic Party....Not necessarily marching in "lockstep" but at least unified as a representative of the middle and working class with no ambiguity about it.

(I hasten to add there are some great Democrats in Congress who are just as string as he is.)

[bvar22]

49. K&R to the front page +5

Maybe he should put away the Reagan books,
and study up on some FDR & LBJ.

[Sheepshank]

50. op is a continuation of a flawed meme...

stated just one more time *yawn*

[Armstead]

55. And that meme would be.....?

What specifically did Sanders say that you disagree with, or that you think is a "flawed meme"?

[boppers]

51. You wanna hear a LEADER?

http://www.youtube.com/user/hitlerrantsparodies

Take your pick.

[ProSense]

58. Here's a leader

The President

Hey, since the topic is Bernie Sanders' leadership, here he is on the health care law:

Bernie Sanders: Health Care Retreat Is Beyond Comprehension (video)

[Armstead]

63. Two things

Regarding Obama on Unions -- Where is that guy now, when people are paying attention and it really matters and there is a real chance to advance support for organized labor?

Regarding Bernie -- Sure, he's right to go after Republicans there. But lest you forget, he was also outspoken in his criticism of the removal of public option/ social insurance during the debate. No contradiction there.

More to the point -- Why is Obama not being more relentless and forceful in bringing what is really behind this GOP spree of union-busting? Why does he not call it what it is, within the larger context of the GOP/Corporate assault on average people?

[ProSense]

64. Hmmmm?

"Regarding Obama on Unions -- Where is that guy now, when people are paying attention..."

"More to the point -- Why is Obama not being more relentless and forceful in bringing what is really behind this GOP spree of union-busting?"

Here and to the point

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers.

"They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees."

[Armstead]

66. The point is not that Obama is anti-union...More that he is ignoring a key turining point

Sure, Obama supports the general role of labor unions. That's not in question.

But this is not just one little labor dispute in one state, or some regenade governor.

It is a turning point that have a major impact for the future of organized labor, collective bargaining and the overall position of the working and middle class going forward.

It is similar to the air traffic controllers strike in the 1980's -- which Ronald Reagan actively used to break the union and signifiocantly undermine the entire labor movement.

Somehow, that seems important enough to merit more than one little offhand statement.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Sheepshank]

70. the meme...the flawed meme n/t

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[obamafourmore]

71. Why he is not running against Obama if he is such a great leader with so many supporters?

[Keith Bee]

72. But OMG OMG he's a S-S-Socialist!

:sarcasm: