Why Obama is not in Wisconsln...Thom Hartmann explained..

[Stuart G]

It is not about Obama, but the cause that the workers are fighting for.

If Obama goes to Wisconsin, then the right wing will focus on "Washington intervention in a state's business"...that one talking point, could change the focus of the debate..nothing would help the right wing more, than having Obama come and get involved in the so called local business of Wisconsin

While we could win a local battle, Obama's presence and a big rally lead by him, would focus away from the idiot governor, to the question of federal interference in Wisconson...
that talking point would override the power of the workers fighting for their rights..Hartmann pointed out yesterday, that Obama coming to Wisconsin actually could help Walker survie the crisis and win reelction..

Without Obama, Walker is digging a hole for himself....Sending out cops to peoples houses does not sound too good to average voter..
that is the issue, rather than Obama's presence.. And Walker's use of force, and lies, and taking away bargaining rights......is the issue.

.and not whether people from Washington, national leaders come to help Wisconson out...that is not the issue..

When we win, It will be our victory, not Obama's victory..Obama will be there and is there now,just like most of us are..and we will win..

[LAGC]

1. I disagree.

I think if the President took just 1 day off and stood with the protesters, it would send a huge message to the governor, and might actually be enough to make him back down. Its not like he has to stand vigil for days on end or anything, but just 1 day would do.

He did say during the campaign that "he'd put on a comfortable pair of shoes" and stand with the workers if their right to collectively bargain was being denied.

What's happening in Wisconsin could very well have national implications if the governor prevails.

[Stuart G]

4. I disagree with you...the focus must be on Walker and what we are fighting for..

Obama's being there would take away from the fight..It sounds kinda odd...But the workers are fighting against the dictator, Walker..and are winning..who is the big guy pushing the little guy around.?..Who sent out the cops to peoples houses?
Keep the focus on that..

[still_one]

5. The repukes wouldn't back down. They don't even acknowledge President Obama. They also have a

sizable majority in the legislature, so short term the repukes will get what they want

A year or two from now however, they will feel the wrath of labor against them in the elections, and they will pay the consequences

[lunatica]

8. The people of Wisconsin are doing a very good job without him

and Thom Hartmann is right.

We want the focus on the people, not on Obama. At this stage of the crisis the people are doing just fine. They don't need daddy to prop them up or hold their hand as if they're weak and need help. Things need time to develop on their own right now, and ultimately Walker will answer to the people in his state in one way or another.

[vaberella]

11. I believe Obama stood with the protesters when he made several speeches in support.

Each time he did talk, it took away from the narrative though which I felt hurt the movement a bit. When he spoke out against the Governor of Wisconsin. All of the media turned on him and lost interest in the people. It was when he kept out of the situation did the news get back on track. He's done his part---that's enough. Any presence in the situation can hurt, marginalize, and actually lose the battle.

There will be national implications if the Governor fails or prevails. The point being is that we're seeing a local movement and that movement should have our support regardless if the President is there or not.

[jeff47]

35. Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake. (nt)

[Vinnie From Indy]

48. Yep!

Sun Tzu agrees with that!

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. That's been my take on it.

[FredStembottom]

72. Great way to put it!

This was the decision I reached, too - as I stated in another thread a couple days ago. This new twist in American history should growit's way to the President.

[grahamhgreen]

79. Its only a mistake if they lose, if they get ONE dem back, they have a caucus and can win.

[pnwmom]

86. Are you kidding? It would just swell up Walker's ego even more.

Obama is playing this one just right.

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd. Makes sense to me. nt

[liberal N proud]

3. we wouldn't want to give them a reason to change the debate

So far they have been unsuccessful at moving the debate right. Something that all the media in the world is unable to do at this point.

[Stuart G]

7. And little things help us win...You do not send cops out to

peoples houses..just think about that for a moment.
.Everyone in Wisconsin knows what that means. Let that sit and fester in Wisconsin's minds..

Not Obama's big rally in Madison.

[vi5]

6. You raise some good points....

And I have to say that as much as I want to disagree, I realize that you're right. And thank you for writing in in such a calm, rational, reasoned fashion rather than framing it as something about "Obama haters" or "Obama derangement syndrome".

I'd still like a more forceful statement than the one he gave last week and I don't think that would cause too many issues. Actually I'd even settle for no statement rather than the one he gave that to me reeked of "Well both sides are at fault here, but we shouldn't......"

[Tansy_Gold]

9. Absolutely correct

Obama has no power, no influence, and can do nothing. He is and should be just a figurehead, a pretty face for a photo op. When there's actual work to be done, his presence is of no use.

Besides, we must never do anything to upset the other side. They are our rightful masters and we should not anger them or give them any ammunition against us, because we are weak and defenseless and unworthy of existence. We did not elect Obama to be a liberal or progressive president, to stand up for he people who elected him, or to keep his campaign promises. We are ungrateful wretches if we remind him of them now, more than two years into his caretakership of the government before he hands it back to its rightful owners.

IS THAT WHAT YOU FUCKING BELIEVE, HARTMANN? THAT IT'S ALL ABOUT NOT WAKING THE WRATH OF THE RIGHT? WHEN THE FUCK WILL YOU WAKE UP AND TAKE SOME GODDAMNED ACTION? WHEN THE FUCK WILL OBAMA TAKE SOME GODDAMNED ACTION INSTEAD OF SITTING THERE LIKE SOME AIRHEAD SUPERMODEL, SPOUTING HIS HIGH-TONED PLATITUDES WITH HIS VACUOUS SMILE AND THEN EXPECTING EVERYTHING TO GO ON PEACEFULLY AND SERENE AROUND HIM?

DO EITHER OF YOU REALIZE WHAT THE FUCK IS AT STAKE HERE? DO YOU? DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING CLUE?



Tansy Gold, who has no patience with appeasers.

[Stuart G]

12. It is not about apeasing..it is about winnning...

If it becomes clear that federal intervention to help protect workers rights to protest, and use First Ammendment rights,
Obama will be there..if that is what it comes down to..we are not there yet..

YES I SURE DO KNOW WHAT IS AT STATE HERE...YES I HAVE A FUCKING CLUE.
IT IS NOT THE TIME FOR OBAMA, WE ARE WINNING WITHOUT HIM...

[Peace Patriot]

24. I honor your outrage. Very well said. But to me the issue is the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines.

It is so obvious to me that Walker doesn't represent the people of Wisconsin, the Puke-dominated state legislator doesn't represent the people of Wisconsin, and the Scumbag Congress doesn't represent the people of the U.S. (How Obama survived 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting is a separate, more complicated issue, which I won't go into here.) Nobody is representing the majority of people in our country.

THAT is the problem. And, until we fix it, no other problem is solvable.

Our 'votes' are now largely being 'counted' (80%) by one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation--ES&S, which just bought out Diebold--using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls.

We MUST change this. It is not the only thing wrong with our political system but it is the WORST thing wrong with it. It IS the coup d'etat that makes reform impossible. We MUST reverse it. We MUST restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE.

This is still a doable campaign--because the Anthrax Congress never passed a law mandating e-voting run by private corporations. They merely appropriated a $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle and the e-voting coup, all over the country, was accomplished by filthy lobbying. The decision power over voting systems remains at the local/state level, where ordinary people still have some potential influence (as the labor unions in Wisconsin are demonstrating). But instead of having to rally thousands of people to every "hot spot" in the country where our rights are under attack--which may end in exhaustion and brutal repression--we need to address the more fundamental matter of how these bastards are being empowered--not just by billions in filthy campaign money, not just by the corpo-fascist media, but the literal mechanism of empowerment--the vote, which has been hijacked by a private corporation and turned into a 'TRADE SECRET.'

There will be no help from our Democratic Party leaders on this. They are scared shitless of it (or worse, collusive). It is something that "we the people" must do ourselves. And it is something that "we the people" MUST DO, or our democracy is truly over.

One.

Private.

Far rightwing-connected.

Corporation.

Using.

'TRADE SECRET.'

Code.

With.

Virtually.

No.

Audit/recount.

Controls.

[Tansy_Gold]

27. I don't argue your point. The problem is

that to tie that concept to the concept of how-unions-protect-your-living-wage-job-and-your-ability-to-get-one-and-feed-your-family is a huge chain of explanations. We don't have an electorate that can see that far without their eyes glazing over. The pukes know this; they do not attempt to engage in long-winded and convoluted explanations. Instead they rely on "Illegal aliens are stealing your jobs!"

We liberals/progressives/socialists do not collectively (pun definitely intended) rush to engage in similar sound-byte politics, and that's where we make our mistake.

Case in point: The Obama campaign. They DID engage in sound-byte politics, and as should be evident right here on DU, they effectively created a devoted core who will support the message no matter what.

It puts us in a dilemma: Do we engage in sound-byte politics, even though we think that kind of politics may be slightly immoral, for the sake of our moral objective? Or do we maintain our moral integrity and watch our moral objective be devoured by the pukes? Do we have to consider that maybe, sometimes, the end justifies the means? Do we sacrifice all rather than sacrifice some?

The thing is, I think Candidate Obama is still in charge. He's still in sound byte mode, having never gotten into the real dirty business of being a Democratic President (caps intentional). It means he's gonna have to piss off the very people he's most worried about courting -- the rightwing fruit loops who will NEVER EVER EVER EVER like him.

IMHO, until we get him to get over the fact that not everyone will be his friend -- I have a cousin with the same mindset -- nothing is going to change. And until we get the majority of voters staunchly on the side of our policies and politics, even changing the way we vote isn't possible.

Sometimes you have to jump off while the merry-go-round is still spinning.


TG, TT

[Peace Patriot]

30. "TRADE SECRET" vote 'counting' is not complicated. It's very simple.

The very counting of our votes does not take place in public view any more. It has been PRIVATIZED. And the audit/recount controls over this are virtually non-existent.

NO elected official in this country can prove that he or she was actually elected.

The vote 'count' has not been verified in half the states and cannot be verified in the other half. And it's virtually all (80%) being 'tabulated' by ONE, PRIVATE, FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED CORPORATION, with 'TRADE SECRET' CODE--code that "we the people" are forbidden to review.

You say: "We don't have an electorate that can see that far without their eyes glazing over." See how far? To WHO is 'counting' the votes and HOW (out of public view)?

Really, it's very simple. We are NOT verifying our elections and half of them cannot be verified.

To me, this issue sums it all up. It doesn't matter how many voters you convince, on any other issue. Their votes DON'T MATTER. A Puke will be (s)elected anyway--wherever one or many are needed to accomplish whatever far rightwing agenda item they have decided upon.

This is simple and BASIC. We've lost control of the very counting of our votes.

What's complicated is trying to psych out President Obama, or Walker, or anybody, in this circumstance, and trying to get basic rights protected when FALSELY elected officials, who are paid to be deaf, have the power.

This is all about a very simple thing: our votes = our power. We NO LONGER have the power, as a people, to elect leaders who represent us. It's not that we don't have the money or the right "talking points" to elect them. It's that we CAN'T elect them. We can easily--EASILY!--be overridden, and we HAVE BEEN overridden.

Nobody acquires SECRET power over vote counting NOT to use it. They're using it. It's so obvious.

[Tansy_Gold]

42. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your main point

But there's another aspect here that keeps this from being a top-level-of-interest issue.

"Secret" balloting is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have the right to vote without anyone knowing how we vote. We don't have to sign our name to the ballot, or stand up in public and say we voted for Joe Schmoe or Pat Patootie. The only way to truly verify an accurate count is to have everyone's vote listed publicly and verified publicly. That, of course, is the extreme end of the spectrum of non-secret balloting.

Manipulated balloting, such as the no-paper-trail-touch-screen-computer voting, is the opposite end. I think most people want something somewhere in the middle, something that preserves the privacy of the individual ballot but also preserves the legitimacy of the election process.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where roughly 45-50% of the voting population doesn't even vote. Voting in and of itself isn't a concern for them. Either they don't care enough about the issues or they've decided their vote doesn't count or whatever. Regardless WHY they don't vote -- and Piven and Cloward wrote a book about it -- they still don't.

But even the non-voters eat. They need to have food, they need some kind of shelter. Many of them have jobs and health concerns and families and so on. The economy will affect them personally and directly long before they connect it to who was elected in the last election. Getting them to understand that who is in office has a direct impact on their quality of life HAS to come before getting them to understand how important it is that the elections be fair and honest. They need to kow that elections matter before they can be shown how those elections are manipulated.

It's like trying to explain the difference between organic fruits and vegetables on one hand and GMO soybeans on the other hand to someone who eats nothing but Big Macs and Twinkies.


TG

[YvonneCa]

52. This is a great post...

...TG. LOVE this comment:

"It's like trying to explain the difference between organic fruits and vegetables on one hand and GMO soybeans on the other hand to someone who eats nothing but Big Macs and Twinkies."


Education...real education...is the answer. JMHO.

[Tansy_Gold]

55. thank you, and of course the fact that education is the answer

is exactly why the far right is targeting it. And I include the far right within the Democratic party.

Do not think that this is a new problem. Donald Janson and Bernard Eismann wrote about "The Far Right" in the early 1960s, citing the John Birch Society and even school text book selection as instruments of the rightwing.

This is why, I believe, the cult of personality within the Democratic Party has become so dangerous. We have forgotten, far too often, the principles that underlie participatory democracy and social justice, and have instead followed popular leaders who have led us if not off the cliff at least pretty damn close to the edge.


TG, TT

[Peace Patriot]

59. "TRADE SECRET" vote 'counting' has nothing to do with the secret ballot.

The ballot is secret (identity of the voter protected) whether it's a hand-counted paper ballot, a paper ballot scanned into a 'TRADE SECRET' electronic tabulation system, or a blip on a computer screen with no ballot or receipt. We had secret ballots (protected identify of the voter) with the paper ballot system.

What's happening now is this: In half the states, the vote is a blip on a computer screen with no ballot or receipt to compare the machine totals to. Those states cannot even do an audit (comparison of ballots with machine totals). Their vote counts are completely unverifiable. ES&S/Diebold can (s)elect whomever they wish as the winner and there is nothing anybody can do about it. That's half the states.

In the other half, they have a ballot but only 1% of the vote is audited (compared to final machine totals)--a miserably inadequate audit (10% is the minimum needed). In other words, in the best states--those with a paper ballot backup--99% of those ballots are never seen by human eyes, the ballots go into a dustbin and machines that are run on 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that we are not permitted to review--decide which of those votes to count.

This is the horrid reality. The voting system has been rendered 99% to 100% NON-TRANSPARENT.

The issue is not "secret ballot" vs "non-secret ballot." The issue is SECRETLY DERIVED TOTALS.

That code--that we are not permitted to review--is owned and controlled by one, private, far rightwing corporation--ES&S/Diebold. Is it any wonder that our leaders are attacking us--going for our basic rights, robbing us blind? This is the INEVITABLE result of our having been robbed of a PUBLIC vote count.

As for getting this changed, it is a no-brainer. Ask ANYBODY whether they want votes counted in public or in private, and, except for a few nutballs and corporate CEO's, EVERYBODY would say "in public." This is our common ground in a democracy. This is what we ALL have a right to--the PUBLIC counting of our votes.

And the lack of it is WHY things are so screwed up.

Things started getting screwed up back in the Reagan era. But they are so screwed up now that the corpo-fascists running things don't even need to bother "selling" us "Uncle Ronnie." They can just un-write all our laws and scoop our entrails out of our bodies with both hands. There is nothing stopping them. They have control of the very counting of our votes.

They might yield here and there, to protect their 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting system. Say, if Wisconites kick up enough fuss--if it becomes just too blatant that Walker was fraudulently elected--maybe Wisconsin will be permitted to elect a "Blue Dog" Democrat, next time, to slow down the robbery. And then, when Wisconsites are breathing a sigh of relief, the Walkers will be back.

Our basic right to vote has been taken away. You don't have a right to vote if you don't have the right to SEE the vote count.

And the way to fix this is local/state campaigns rabble-rousing that 50% of the voters who DO vote and any who don't vote who can be brought on board because they WOULD vote, if they thought it mattered. "Shovels and pitchforks" down to the local county registrar's office, or down the street to his or her home--to DEMAND vote counting that everybody CAN SEE.

There are several solutions. Return to the old hand-counted paper ballot system (probably best to cleanse the scum out of this current system and start over). But there an electronic option: OPEN SOURCE CODE--code owned and reviewable by the public. Another option (the least good) is demanding a paper ballot (in the states that don't have it) and a 50% audit (I would settle for nothing less).

The CORPORATIONS have made the voting system complicated--only runnable by 'experts'--ON PURPOSE. It is beyond the understanding of most people. And it's operations are SECRET and extremely riggable, at extreme speeds. This is why I strongly prefer returning to hand-counted paper ballots (and maybe an OPEN SOURCE code system later).

You voted. You put your ballot into a box. The ballots were counted RIGHT THERE at the end of the day. You could WATCH. And then the ballots and tally sheets were driven to some central place. This was done by your neighbors or maybe you yourself.

If rigging occurred, they had to get rid of the ballots somehow, replace them with other ballots and they couldn't do it at lightning speed, across whole states, without fear of being caught.

That is the reality now. They can do at lightning speed, entirely unobservable with no chance of being caught.

We had bad presidents with paper ballots--but we also had good ones, and good congresses. We had a chance. Now we have no chance. We CANNOT elect another FDR or anybody like that, or any legislative body with those kinds of public servants in the majority. It CANNOT happen. It will not be permitted. And our corpo-fascist rulers are obviously going for it--pukifying a progressive state like Wisconsin! It's all over. Our democracy is over--if we don't restore transparent vote counting.

I've learned this studying Latin America's elections. They've elected strong leftist leaders all over the map--FDR types--in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala. Most of these countries have worse corporate media than we do but what they have, that we don't have, is TRANSPARENT vote counting. They have worked hard on the BASICS. They also have huge voter turnouts, because voters know that they can make a difference--and, boy, have they! Now there is reason to organize, reason for the grass roots to get out there. They have REAL hope. Even if they lose, they know that next time they might not. Do people here think that? No. Many have given up. They are in despair. They feel powerless, because even if they keep voting, nothing changes and everything only gets worse.

We have a lot of problems to solve--such as our filthy campaign contribution system and corporate media monopolies--but none of them are solvable without transparent vote counting so that we have a chance to put good people in office--people who at least believe in democracy and the common good.

We have a big mountain to climb but we have to start by putting our boots on. We can't do it bare-footed. Transparent vote counting is BASIC to all change. Without it, we CAN'T change anything and the bad guys are going to dismantle every democratic right and every progressive program in this country.

[Tansy_Gold]

62. Again, I understand that.

But people who don't even vote are not going to understand the difference between 'secret ballots' and 'trade secret' counting of ballots. Believe me, I've talked to them.

That's why economic issues -- which hit everyone -- need to be addressed NOW. People who are out of work today, who are facing the cut off of their utilities because they can't pay the bills, these people are not going to be worrying about how votes are tallied in an election two years into the future that they probably wouldn't vote in anyway. They ARE worried about being able to buy groceries.

[Chipster]

76. Ballot "Secrecy"

Ballots here may be called "secret" but the vote of the voter is traceable. It works like this:

Voter registers to vote, providing identifying information, including social security number (required).

Voter appears at polling place, identifies self, provides ID.

Poll worker checks voter rolls for voter's name, then assigns and records the voter's number, e.g., "Mr. Jones is voter number 58 today" and records #58 next to Mr. Jones' name on the voter roll.

Mr. Jones receives a numbered stub from the poll worker which he then presents to the next worker. That worker takes his numbered stub, and gives him his numbered ballot after recording the ballot number on the stub.

[OnyxCollie]

82. Help America Vote Act

For those keeping score, the authors of HAVA have:

Been convicted of bribery and corruption for deals with Jack Abramoff and sentenced to 30 months in prison- Rep. Bob Ney
Been convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering to get repub candidates elected. Sentenced to three years in prison- Rep. Tom DeLay (See also DeLay's ties to Jack Abramoff.)
Run for President (poorly) - Sen. Chris Dodd aka "Friend of Angelo Mozilo"
Business and financial ties with ES&S, the company that has a monopoly on vote counting in the US- Sen. Chuck Hagel

When the voting system's rigged, who gives a fuck what the public wants?

Add to that RNC caging lists, FBI investigations of Dem candidates right before elections in swing states, a politicized DoJ that continues to this day, changes in the way the DoJ handled challenges to voter eligibility, and most recently, the Hatch Act violations and the sentencing of Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, to one month(!) in prison for withholding info from Congress.

Bloch withheld info about scrubbing computers used by political appointees.

Bloch was in charge of investigating Lurita Doan, the head of the GSA, who had been accused of using the GSA to get repub candidates elected.

It's all corrupt.

[butterfly77]

50. Remember..

WE ARE THE ONES WE ARE WAITING FOR!!!

[Stuart G]

10. It took me a while to figure it out...but Hartmann made sence to me..

Obama does not want Obama to be the issue..

Right wing assholes always try to make government intervention the issue, even if it is absoltuely necessary to save thousands of jobs..like the GM bailout..It worked, jobs were saved, and the government got its money back...yet the bailout by big government is still an issue...for them..and it kinda sounds right to the average uninformed person..

but it is not right, that is wrong..of course..but Mr. Uninformed doesn't have the time to listen to find out..

Hell Obama was a labor organizer..He is smart enough to see that his being there will help the
....pucks..They will use hatred for the federal governmet as they use hatred for Obama..and Obama knows that that is why he is taking a low profile...

[vaberella]

15. And right wingers did make him the issue when he did talk about it.

Pat Buchanan and Scarborough don't shut up about Obama's input in Wisconsin, til now. Fox news always tries to revert back to it. The more he stays out the more they lose that leverage.

And Government intervention on a state issue where the Governor is in effect similar to the role of a President for a particular state will be even more problematic.

[YvonneCa]

53. Because...

...?

[leveymg]

13. I can see Hartmann's point, but this is one the national Dems need to go All In for.

Unions are the backbone of the Democratic Party. The Prez and party leaders need to use that backbone and stand up tall for collective bargaining rights of local and state municipal workers.

[vaberella]

17. Nationally Dems are all in.

Dems are fleeing states where this is becoming a problem. Obama has made a statement condemning the actions of the Governor. What more do you want to be done?

[leveymg]

18. I want Obama to helicopter in, make a speech, and then go and raise $10 million to fight this one.

That's what Presidents do when they're All In.

[vaberella]

19. You're kidding me. You don't know what it means to be all in, if a photo-op means so much to you. nt

[leveymg]

22. I said he needs to raise $10 million from Democratic funders to fight this one.

The photo op part is just to keep the troops rallied.

[BklnDem75]

43. That's what Presidents do...

though you can't think of one President that's done that. How, exactly, will a fundraiser help in this situation?

[Kurovski]

14. K&R. (nt)

[wolfgirl]

16. Anyone who believes

Obama is not supporting the unions is nuts! Yes, I would LOVE for him to drop in & walk the line, but that would give the GOP just what they want. The conversation would be just as Hartmann outlines as well as give the WI troopers reason to disperse everyone in Madison, all in the name of providing security for the President.

I just wish some of the "liberal" commentators would think about that for a moment before they badger Obama for not being there or for not speaking out more forcefully.



(Happy Friday all!!)

[Stuart G]

20. Please think about this point...the leading post right now

in greatest posts is the fact that the Madison Police chief is calling out Walker for his dictatorial stance on trying to subvert protestors and plant stooges in the crowd. A local leader going after the dictatorial governor. That is also a big story there. Keep it on Walker the "dictator".....trying to push people around...everyone understands that clearly and simply...
......... rather than.... when Obama comes to Madison.......
just think about it for a moment...
.....which would be stronger in touching the average person in Wisconsin to taking sides..

[leveymg]

23. It's not an either/or proposition. The local story will be reinforced if the national Dems

show their support and throw in some cash to offset Koch money.

[polmaven]

21. As usual....

Thom Hartmann has hit the nail directly on the head. The president would be seen as interfering in the state's business, and his presence would take the focus away from what the people are doing on their own....And this is about the people, not about the president.

[WhiteTara]

25. you talk like an Egyptian!

It must come from within and be contained by those who are directly effected so that the win isn't tainted.

[ReggieVeggie]

26. Does the left always act on the basis of what the right thinks?

Obama is the president of the United States. He is not a figurehead or a mid-level manager. He is the voice of the country and if his voice is silent on this issue then the presidency should never be thought of as a leadership position.

[polichick]

33. Today's Dem "leaders" do act on the basis of what the right thinks...

...and that is making this party more and more irrelevant.

[GeorgeGist]

28. When your motivation is fear of what the right wing might say ...

you got nothing but hope that you're wrong.

[sandyshoes17]

29. Thom is right

My sister is a rw, and she is siding with these people. She's waking up to what the repubs are about. But if Obama got involved she would go back to her corner. I think this is changing a lot of people like her minds.

[mistertrickster]

31. Bullshit. Obama's not a fighter, he's a lawyer. He doesn't think his job is to "win."

He thinks his job is to get something incrementally better than what we had.

It keeps coming back to our default position: "well . . . at least he's not Bush."

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[FBaggins]

34. It would also open the President up to criticism

It isn't just that it might shift the debate in WI, it also leaves the president open to attack...


... because he's also an executive who doesn't allow his government employees to have collective bargaining rights.

[Phx_Dem]

36. Agreed. nt

[Stuart G]

37. Nation wide publicity.."Cops looking for lawmakers who didn't show up"

This kind of headline is spreading..Words to that effect...

Everyone knows that police cannot force people to go to work, or vote a certain way, or show up...
Sure, 20 percent would be in favor of anything. The rest of us know...
that is not what we do..in this country.. ..not without a warrent

Keep the headlines focused on that idiot Walker, and his attempts to force people to do what he wants..
the dictator...

Not on Obama's Madison rally or what he says.
Walker, and some of his followers are delusional..they think they can win sending out troopers,
They can't..They will lose..if the focus is on them.

....... not anything else..

[Peacetrain]

38. Retired AFSCME here... we do not need this movement

to become about the President. The key to all of this, is the 14 Democrats who stepped over state lines to keep Walker from running over the union and taking away collective bargaining.

This is about a concerted effort on the part of the right.. to take every Democrat and their supporters in the Independent movement rights away and give them to corporations.

And the only way to turn this around is from the bottom up. The right has spent the last 30 years trying to stomp down the unions.. and for the first time.. we are having their plans exposed.

The right is working furiously to try and make this about the President. It would then take the media focus off of what has been exposed.

Mr President.. your verbal support has been heartwarming..but do NOT make this about you. You have been handling this just about right.. do not fall for the attempt to pull you into the middle of this..not at this point in time.

The scabs literally are being pulled off

[YvonneCa]

54. I think most of us agree on the desired...

...outcome, here. I just hope the President I voted for is the President in the White House.

[bccnp1]

39. Hartmann is right

The President obviously supports the union. For him to get into the mix publicly takes the focus off "we the people" of Wisconsin who are making a public statement and stand against the corporate elites who want to crush the political threat the union presents.
This is playing out better than anyone could have expected. The marches, the 20min. phone call, the obvious attempt to blame budget problems on working people. What a joke!
As the nation watches,unfortunately there is a bunch of people ignorant to what is going on, the facade is being ripped off of what the Walker and these guys really stand for.
Don't you love it when multi-millionares and multi-billionares tell the working and middle class people of America they are getting paid too much and have too many benefits?

[Stuart G]

40. welcome to Democratic Underground...bccnp1 ...

and good luck here.
Stuart G.

[Kurovski]

56. Welcome!

Yes, the irony of overpaid, overstuffed execs telling America what THEY are worth is something to behold.

[no limit]

41. People act as if this isn't already the way it is being painted.

This isn't going to be a national story for much longer. Obama has a very small time window to keep this on the front page. He is the president of the united states, it is his right to give a speech to some of his greatest supporters.

What pisses me off the most is how our side is so fucking afraid of what the right wing might say. Who gives a shit what they say? They spew bullshit day in and day out, what does that have to do with anything?

[BklnDem75]

44. This isn't a pissing contest

Obama's appearance will take the spotlight from where it needs to be. Saying this is about fear is the height of ignorance. Everything isn't about Obama.

[no limit]

45. Where exactly is the spotlight now?

[center rising]

46. Obama being there

Is bad on so many levels. Let him stay in Washington, and try to govern from there. March 4th is coming soon, and I want him working on avoiding a gov't shutdown if possible.

[BklnDem75]

47. Walker and his idiotic movements

There's a reason why Indiana dropped their anti-union bill.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035497-503544.html


If the GOP is busy shooting themselves in the foot, why are you screaming for Obama to wrestle the gun away?

[Tansy_Gold]

58. Actually, it IS a pissing contest. n/t

[BklnDem75]

93. Actually, it really isn't

[eilen]

49. I don't think that Labor or any of the Unions should

come out and endorse Obama as President in 2012.

It will only bring controversy and take the spotlight off of the candidate who's job is to win the election by winning hearts and minds with Hope and Change (tm).

The people in the middle (the center-right and just a few seats over on the right) will be reminded of those cold wintry Red-dressed days of pure socialistic abandon in which self-entitled public workers neglected their duties, aided and assisted renegade elected officials in thumbing their noses at the serious business of the state. The right will be sure to pick this up and run the footage of clear civil disobedience and throw the campaign into a position in which the candidate might be forced to make a strong unequivocal stand on the issue.

Clearly, it would pull the attention off his platform and make it all about class war politics.

[Dr Fate]

61. True- if Unions support Obama, moderate voters will be turned off.

You might be right- maybe we are better off if the far lefts stay as far away from Obama as Obama wants to stay from them.

Seemed to work great for the 2010 midterms. ;) After all, the "moderates" came out in droves for DEMS, just like the "centrists" said they would.

[eilen]

66. Actually, I made this argument tongue in cheek

just to turn the tables and show a cop out for what it is.

Of course any political candidate needs every penny and bit of support they can get. Just as the workers need all the support they can get. To be abandoned (yet again) with the excuse that he doesn't want to steal their limelight... well, sorry. That just insults my intelligence. I'm sure the Egyptians have made it point very clear.

Too bad we can't show off all those free trade agreements that sold off the American worker's jobs to the lowest bidder signed off by our democratic presidents like the Egyptians showed the tear gas canisters as "made in America."

[AtomicKitten]

51. Thom reiterated this today and I agree with the gist of his argument. nt

[Jersey Devil]

57. As a lawyer I was taught to never interrupt a witness who is destroying himself

Wilson (add in Christie and the other Repub govs who support Wilson) are doing a great job destroying themselves and making their motives transparent to people across the nation. So why should Obama interrupt them by making his words the issue?

[readmoreoften]

60. Sorry, I'm not going to assume that Obama is "with us" because of his mysterious absence.

That being said, I don't want him to attend anyway.

He's done enough for teachers' unions. :sarcasm:

[hay rick]

67. Obama's absence and silence

are sure indicators of his commitment to the rights and general well-being of working folk. EFCA, Race to the Top, and now- Wisconsin. Thanks, Barack.

[grahamhgreen]

74. 100% correct. He's not with us because he's not with us. He's not with us in WI, or with us on EFCA,

He's not with us.

He's for limited social justice, but not economic justice.

[Drunken Irishman]

87. Are you with them? Are you in Wisconsin? Are you standing in the capitol as we speak?

Or are you just pounding away at your keyboard?

[grahamhgreen]

98. No, but i'm not the man who was elected on the promise that he would do so.

Besides, I'm working 123 hours the next two weeks trying to make ends meet.

But even at that, if I thought that my showing up in WI would have 1/100 the impact of the president, I'd be there tomorros.

[Drunken Irishman]

100. I bet Obama has done more behind the scenes than this whole board will do combined...

And as for your 123 hours working next week - well, I'm guessing he's working on other important issues, too.

But it's good to see you're all talk.

[grahamhgreen]

103. Yes, he passed tax cuts for the rich instead of EFCA.

[mojowork_n]

63. Hey, speaking FROM Wisconsin...

...there's another element that might possibly come in to play.

If our State Senators continue working away from the office for any length of time -- or, in little more than a month -- the upcoming April election will loom larger and larger in importance.

On Tuesday, April 5th, the two candidates in the (allegedly) non-partisan Supreme Court Justice race will be going head-to-head for voter approval.

If the last two elections to that august body are any indication, this is going to be the Mother of All Non-Partisan Elections. A "Nothing to See Here, Move Along (Let the public corruption continue)" Republican is running against a nice lady litigator and prosecutor from the Dept. of Justice in Madison.

At the moment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is technically split 4 to 3, with conservative, Republican-types holding the majority. So if the incumbent Republican loses, it will be big news. It might even lead to a further re-shuffling of the Court, since the most recently elected Republican, a particularly porcine and truculent fellow, got in trouble for lying about his opponent in most of his TV ads, in HIS election. The Court (predictably) split 3 against 3 when they voted on a reprimand....

[Jackpine Radical]

64. I opened this thread resenting Obama's apparent indifference

to the struggles of labor in WI and elsewhere.

Having read through the arguments--well done on both sides--and believe I have changed my position.

On this issue, maybe Obama is doing what he needs to do. Nothing visible. Not now, anyway. The story must remain the struggle, not the President's intervention.

[grahamhgreen]

77. Its not about the story, its about winning. If we lose WI, we will lose our unions.

[sellitman]

91. I'm on that same page

I now feel Obama is smarter staying away for now.

Nice having a President smarter than me. :)

[jeanpalmer]

68. Cowardly politicians are why we are losing

and the corporations are winning. If you can't stand up for what you believe in, you lose. We need political leaders who are willing to take a bold stand. Sitting back and doing nothing so as not to offend anyone is just appeasement. It's how you lose.

To win, we need political leaders who will proactively make the case for labor, people who believe in something and are willing to take a stand. Obama is not that kind of leader. He's a Neville Chamberlain type.

[JTFrog]

92. Kevin is that you?

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/05/16/4373969-what-did-neville-chamberlin-do">Chris Matthews vs. Kevin James

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[Pirate Smile]

69. The story today and the video that went with it was the WI Assembly jamming through the vote in the

middle of the night without giving notice or even time to vote to many of the members with the response being the chants of "Shame! Shame! Shame!" at the Republicans as they walked out of the chamber right afterward. That was powerful video. That should be the story and focus AND I assume it is in Wisconsin. I hope all the Sunday news programs show it and explain it. <<<<< THAT is the story we want out there - along with the Governor talking about planting phony protesters to provoke disturbances and the state government stripping people of rights long held.

If President Obama comes in - the story becomes OBAMA!!! Are the Feds taking over State issues? How will this effect his reelection campaign? What are all the Republicans saying in response? What are the potential Republican Presidential candidates saying? How will this play during the nomination fight? What .....????

The story stops being about the people actually effected on the ground.

President Obama supports the unions. He said the Budget Repair crap is an assault on unions.

President Obama can NOT literally change the numbers or reality of whether or not the bill can or will pass. He can't change it. He can't make the budget no longer have the votes needed to pass. The people whose minds need to be changed are Republican Wisconsin Senate members. He's not going to change their minds.

People want the moral support and they have it but he isn't going to step on a winning PR campaign and make it about him.

[LynneSin]

70. All we need is Obama on our team. He should not be in Wisconsin

First it would be a logistic nightmare to secure him there. Mind you our protesters I'm not worried about but others :scared:

I think Obama is doing the smart thing.

[ohwinston]

71. More hopey changey stuff.

Hartmann's inexhaustable defense of Obama is truly boring. BO extends the Bush era tax cuts for the richest one percent and Hartmann embraces that choice. Frankly, the progressives have used up their creditability.

[namahage]

95. Hi! Welcome to DU!

Might I interest you in the Google search engine that's in the top right corner? You'll find that Thom has HARDLY been an "inexhaustable" (sic) defender of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Further, if Thom doesn't tell enough truth for you, there are multiple other "creditable" (sic) progressives out there, so you might want to think twice before claiming that progressives have no more credibility left.

Do enjoy your stay with us.

[grahamhgreen]

73. Obama's not in WI for the same reason he passed tax cuts for the rich instead of EFCA.

[vaberella]

88. Are we really going to try to sell this argument?

Didn't the Dem Congress put forth a bill to allow tax cuts for the rich to fail? Did it not fail TWICE? And the Bush tax cuts didn't exclude tax cuts for the poor. They were included. What did you want...tax cuts for the poor to die---because well just because the rich wouldn't get any? Many poor families right now are benefiting for the tax cuts. Until you could tell me another way Obama could have changed the Bush tax cuts (that is not through an act of Congress) let me know.

[grahamhgreen]

97. If they did NOTHING, the tax cuts would have expired. Now, we have to cut peoples PAY,

because we have stopped taxing the rich.

Getting a 10% tax cut, and then having your pay reduced 10% means your actually getting less money in the end.

Having your Medicaid expire, is far worse than having your taxes increase by a few percent.

The whole thing revolves around failure of the ultra rich to pay their fair share. If we don't tax them, we will continue to be screwed. This is why our grandfathers taxed them at a 94% rate.

If we don't tax the rich, and end the wars and "free" trade, our country will continue to suffer, and the ultra-rich will continue to accrue obese levels of wealth. They have become the Marie Antoinette's of our time.

[TheWraith]

75. I don't always agree with Thom, but he's right here.

This needs to be about the people rising up. There's no central figure, and it NEEDS none. These people don't need the President to lead them--they KNOW what they're doing.

[JDPriestly]

78. There are arguments both ways, but if Obama went, he would

united a lot of people and possibly bring people back into the Democratic Party that have left due to the Party's failure to stand for working people.

[NBachers]

80. Good on Thom Hartmann; Good on President Barack Obama

[TheWebHead]

81. it's a difficult rhetorical position

given he froze federal worker wages, which he could do thanks to there being no unions or collective bargaining. You add on to that the deficit and debt elephant in the room that nobody in DC is doing anything serious to address, making it hard to get on any governor's case if they choose to tackle similar issues in their state, and of course he's desperately trying to shake the perception that he's anti-business, so publicly siding with public unions does nothing to shake that view by an important demographic - business leaders who can crouch under their shells instead of deploying risk capital until a president more to their liking comes around.

[AlbertCat]

83. Fear of Right Wing talking points not yet made.... to the point of inaction...

.... is REALLY HELPFUL and looks so courageous!


:eyes: :sarcasm: :eyes:


There's a way to do it. There's a way to support the US constitution and fellow Dems without being afraid of whatever the Right says. They're gonna say any fool thing they want anyway.

[obxhead]

84. I agree. Every major issue Obama has a hand in

eventually turns into a GOP/corporate win. He needs to stay away from this.

[hay rick]

96. Faint praise.

Well done.

[obxhead]

101. Yes.

I see you offer no counter argument.

Show me a single critical issue Obama has not feinted left while running right. Just one.

[Zambero]

85. Good arguments either way

But for now I tend believe that keeping this protest at the local / grass roots level helps focus the issue of worker's rights. Yes the right wing would love for President Obama to show up, so they can concoct the argument that Obama's been "pulling the union bosses' strings all along". Walker is doing just fine making an idiot out of himself, and he doesn't deserve whatever relief might come his way if the spotlight gets shifted to President Obama.

[Roci]

89. Sorry Tom

AS much as I like most of what you usually have to say, your argument this time only holds water if this was the first few days of the crisis. Walker is in a hole with or without Obama after a certain point. So when Obama (the poor timid fellow that he is) "elects" to "show up" isn't a matter of "If" so much as when.Walker and his anti-union zombies are already blaming Democrats anyhow, so how much more "Harm" is it going to do for the Democrat-in-chief to show up.

But beyond any master stroke of Political timing, it has to do with something even more basic that's become a real problem for 44. Keeping his word. You've heard the clip from '08-The comfortable shoes line. Personally, I think it's bunk, and Obama is as gutless as they come. Every hour that goes by on this proves me right. If 44 wants to "rehab" his "street cred" with real Democrats (the people who elected him) he would keep his word, and show up in Wisconsin first as Barack Obama and last as POTUS.

[jerseyjack]

90. While I like Tom, He defends Obama to much.

In past, Tom has defended Obama by speculating Obama has an end-game plan, saving political capital for important issues, or Ob doesn't have the votes anyway and so forth. Each time, Tom has been wrong. Obama is not for you or me. and he ain't ever gonna be.

Lets get that clear.

[grahamhgreen]

99. You may well be correct.

[MaeScott]

94. This is the people's battle. We must keep focus on the people...

...not the Prez.

[mmonk]

102. I agree that the vision of a Republican governor against the state's

workers makes for great public drama, maybe better than Walker vs Obama over labor rights. However, I think it has more to do with party handlers. I no longer project my views of what Obama represents on that blank screen he talked about.

[obamafourmore]

104. AFL-CIO chief blesses Obama's handling of Wisconsin labor battle

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave his blessing Sunday to President Obama's handling of the labor standoff in Wisconsin.

Amid some criticism on the left that Obama could do more to boost unions in their demonstrations against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and his proposal to eliminate most collective bargaining rights for public workers, Trumka said the president was doing just fine.

"I think he's doing it the right way," Trumka said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146311-afl-cio-chief-blesses-obamas-handling-of-wisconsin-labor-battle?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

[Stuart G]

105. I agree with this...

If this were all about Obama, it would not be about labor vs the dictator..

Walker gets full Meet the Press Coverage,
but the AFL President sits on a panel..with Pukes....

this will not be an easy battle to win, but it can be won..
Most fair thinking people know collective bargaining is ok, and correct..


Question is will Wisconsin people believe this after several more weeks of this?