Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Promises, Promises: Obama Rebuffs Invites to Stand with Workers
Will Workers Stand with Obama Again in 2012?
WASHINGTON -- Union leaders urged Vice President Joe Biden during a White House meeting last month to go to Wisconsin and rally the faithful in their fight against Gov. Scott Walker's move to curtail collective bargaining rights for most public employees.
OBAMA'S SILENCE DEAFENING -- Over 100,000 rally, Saturday March 12, 2011 at Capitol Square in Madison, in Madison, Wis. The Obama administration rebuffed invitations to stand with the workers and their families. (AP/Steve Apps) Request rebuffed, they asked for Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
So far, however, the White House has stayed away from any trips to Madison, the state capital, or other states in the throes of union battles. The Obama administration is treading carefully on the contentious political issue that has led to a national debate over the power that public sector unions wield in negotiating wages and benefits.
Some labor leaders have complained openly that President Barack Obama is ignoring a campaign pledge he made to stand with unions; others say his public comments have been powerful enough.
The stakes are high as Obama looks toward a grueling re-election campaign. Republicans have begun airing television ads linking Obama to "union bosses" standing in the way of budget cuts in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states.
As a candidate, Obama seemed to promise more to organized labor, among the Democratic Party's most loyal constituencies.
"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," Obama said at a speech in 2007. "I'll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."
Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, the nation's largest nurses union, called Obama "largely a bystander" in the debate over collective bargaining. "I think we're feeling a sense of betrayal from him and not liking it much," she said.
Doug Schoen, a Democratic political strategist, said Obama's strategy seems to be "keep your distance, avoid direct engagement, say most of the right things most of the time, and hope for resolution through sources other than your own."
Walker on Friday signed a bill that strips most collective bargaining rights from the state's public workers, except police and firefighters. The measure passed the Legislature following more than three weeks of protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the state Capitol in opposition. The governor had announced his plan on Feb. 11, saying his state was broke and there was no point negotiating with the unions when there was nothing to offer.
The request for Biden to travel to Wisconsin came from Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, according to two union officials familiar with the Feb. 24 meeting. The officials requested anonymity because the meeting was private.
Five days later, during the AFL-CIO winter meeting, McEntee told Obama senior adviser David Plouffe that unions wanted more than words, the officials said. McEntee told Plouffe they wanted a high-profile emissary to stand with protesters to show that the president was by their side.
A spokesman for McEntee, Gregory King, declined comment on the substance of the private meetings, but said the union is "pleased with the support we've received from the Obama administration."
Biden's press secretary, Elizabeth Alexander, declined to elaborate on Biden's discussions with union leaders or say why he had not gone to Madison. She said Biden was "obviously very supportive" of labor, had a long history of fighting for collective bargaining rights and, along with Obama, has been "very involved in what has been going on in Wisconsin both privately and publicly from day one."
Obama has called Walker's proposal an "assault on unions" and urged governors not to vilify public workers. After the state Senate relied on a procedural move Thursday to pass the anti-bargaining rights measure without any Democrats in the chamber, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama believes it is wrong for Wisconsin to use its budget troubles "to denigrate or vilify public sector employees."
Solis also pledged her support for public employees on a phone call with thousands of members of the Communications Workers of America.
"Budget sacrifices are one thing but, demanding that workers give up their voice is another," Solis told the union members.
But asked whether Solis would go to Wisconsin or any other state where protesters are rallying, spokesman Carl Fillichio said she's "keeping an eye on the situation."
DeMoro, from the nurses' union, has been reminding Obama about his 2007 campaign promise to walk with union members. She has even sent out press releases offering to buy the president a pair of shoes to march with demonstrators.
"Standing with the embattled workers would be an important symbol," DeMoro said.
There's no question that Obama will keep getting strong re-election support from organized labor. But he stands the risk that unions won't be as enthusiastic if he is too aloof about the attack on bargaining rights. On the other hand, it's possible that unions will be so consumed with their own efforts to save bargaining rights, recall governors or other issues of self-preservation that they won't have the time to work on Obama's behalf with full vigor.
Schoen, the Democratic consultant, said Obama is "trying to have it both ways."
If the budget-cutting tactics of Walker and GOP Gov. John Kasich of Ohio are successful, Obama doesn't want to be seen as aggressively taking sides, Schoen said. If they fail, the president can say he was always on the side of the unions.
Most union leaders have praised Obama in public for offering support with his words. Some believe it may be better for him to stay out so Republicans can't claim the protests are being organized in a grand political move.
"Obama needed to hang back and let people fully understand this is being run by the people of Wisconsin, not by the Democratic Party leadership," said Greg Junemann, president of the International Federal of Professional and Technical Engineers.
Both parties already are using Wisconsin to try to boost their political fortunes.
Crossroads GPS, a group organized by former Bush advisers Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, announced this past week that it would spend $750,000 on national cable television ads supporting Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Thursday set a goal of raising $100,000 in 24 hours from angry voters opposing the Wisconsin legislation.
Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

152 Comments so far
Show AllAt this point Obama may as well just come out as a republican. He certainly won't have my vote (for whatever it's worth) come 2012. Just another game show host.
Nor mine. But who will we then vote for, Palin?
IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN THAT SEAT. Even Palin would be the same pawn as Oblahbla...cold hard to swallow fact.
Makes me mad as hell to know that the 400 richest people in this country run this country and dictate to our admin as to what they are supposed to do. Has anyone read where any of them are denying their influence? OMG I have to laugh at that question.
Here's a suggestion: Either vote for a viable third party, providing there is one, or write in your own ticket at the polls on the next POTUS Election.
Apparently some people haven't learned from the 2000 presidential election where bush was declared president by the supreme court.
Why? Because the extreme left voted for nader who would never be president because of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Remember them? They are actually the ones who pick the winner, and they are made up of the Democratic and Republican parties. What are the odds any of them would vote for a third party?
I'm sure you would love to get rid of the electoral college, good luck, you would have just as much luck with it as you did with the ERA in the 70's. It never got ratified.
The problem with many of you is that you have little knowledge what the president's powers are according to our Constitution.
He has the power to make suggestions to the legislative branch of the changes he wants. He can not make a bill. But he can sign bills into laws unless he vetoes them, but if the legislative branch has enough votes they can override his veto.
So as you can see legally the President has limited powers.
I supposed if President Obama had giant corporations backing him he could bully the legislative branch, but that would make him just as evil as the gop presidents have been. That's not what I voted for.
Want to get mad at someone get mad at the legislative branch, and the people who vote for many of them.
Are you really that naïve, Lyris? That office has lots and lots of power, beginning with the power to choose the heads of all the departments and agencies that take the everyday decisions, set everyday policies and rules, and generally run the country. Surely you must know that?
It was when Obugger chose exclusively from the right side of the menu that even the most hopeful started to have doubts about what they'd helped put into power. And nothing he's done since has in any way countered that feeling of betrayal.
A lot of union leaders could come to a Republican coming out party. How about McEntee's behavior here? He's president of AFSCME for 30 (thirty) years and at the greatest moment of need is shit on by elected officials, and still issues a press release that he's "pleased with the support we've received from the Obama administration."
There are many battles to fight with fascists, but the American left needs to clean up much of it's own house.
How come the republicans have a dozen or more potential candidates to choose from and the Democrats have only Obama? Is there a fresh new Democratic alternative out there?
OMG, give me a break. You're asking for a "fresh new Democrat?"
My mother would say you are a glutton for punishment!
Despots always enjoy tormenting and torturing the helpless just because they can.
Me neither. On balance, I think Obama does more harm than good. In effect, as representative of the Democratic Party, he is the official voice of the party. So, no matter how much other Democratics speak out, Obama is the only one the media or public recognize. Thus, whenever Obama caves or coopts the liberal position (which he does all of the time), he effectively undermines it. My conclusion: rather than advance a liberal, progressive--or even moderate--vision, Obama undermines it--and actually creates cynicism because he talks such a good line.
Given this political reality, I don't see how it's possible to build a strong opposition to corporate oligarchy under Obama. So, I won't vote for Obama even when Chomsky says you must hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
You couldn't be more wrong. He's been kicked around more than he deserves. and the extreme left are as bad as the right.
Unlike the gop in the past, President Obama is being President of the United States, not just President of the Democratic Party.
Ever hear of the Constitution? He's following it, allowing the states to do their own thing, and letting the people of the fascist states take power against their elected officials. He's also allowing the courts to do their jobs.
I suggest you read our Constitution, but if you have a problem understanding it, have an expert explain it to you.
Oh for the love of Jesus Christ....are you in any way surprised by this?
The very FIRST thought that popped into my mind when I saw those union protests on TV was "Barry's not setting foot in that state for a long, long time."
Got to look neutral for that upcoming election don't you know.
Always about those upcoming elections, you see. Wouldn't be prudent to pick a side, or stand for anything, don't yah know. Reminds me of an old Dave Barry quote "The president is elected every four years after a three year eight month campaign."
Ain't that the godd**n truth?
I often wonder what it would be like if we had a president who was ACTUALLY honest. Who fought hard for the common people. Who didn't start their re-election the moment they were sworn in and actually made decisions based on what was simply the right thing to do. Would this country know what to do with itself under those circumstances? I think it was George Carlin who had a bit about how this country would fall to pieces if we actually had honest leadership.
As much as I see this population as propagandized and stupidified, I think that if Obama had ever stood for his campaign promises, if he spoke clearly and honestly to the public, he would be quite popular (or, more likely, dead). That said, he did make very good, clear remarks last summer about the advantages of portable health care, ways to reduce burgeoning medical costs and the reality of the dangers of those costs, to which the pundits told their audience that he was being unclear and the debate got lost in hysteria. In my most optimistic rendering of Obama, perhaps he thought, screw it, there's no talking to these people.
However, I think such a rendering to be far too optimistic. The problem is that we are in a Corporatocracy and "democracy" is a sham. Pick this or that corporate lackey and feel proud that you voted!
We no longer see Obama speaking with intelligence to the public, as he did to a greater extent during his campaign--which in large part got him elected. He has reneged on every campaign promise he made but one--the pursuit of the "war" in Afghanistan.
Obama protesting in Wisconsin? That's a good one.
Please, I am begging you, BEGGING you, to put to rest the meme that Obama is somehow monitored by snipers who will shoot him if he decides to do the right thing. That is a cowardly, shameful position to hold. It reeks of fear and paranoia and gives the rich bastards who ruin our lives and our planet more power than they have. Stop allowing them that much power. They don't have it. It's not there. It's in your head, put there by crappy spy movies and crappy spy TV shows.
Obama is not doing the right thing because he is a conservative dinosaur who admittedly worships Reagan. He butchers people with bombs in other countries and would clearly throw you and anything you love under the bus if he thought it would make rich people happy. There is nothing, NOTHING worth defending about this bastard.
Don't even get me started on the health care scam/sellout.
Stop.
Just....stop.
"Stop allowing them that much power. They don't have it. It's not there."
Well said, WhatsWrong!
It's not paranoia that King was assassinated with government help. It's on the record that the King family won a civil suit that proved this. As for JFK, if you buy the single bullet theory, you're really confused. Political assassinations can't happen here? Oh please. What sort of American exceptionalism are you still buying into?
I realize that the health care reform was a scam and a sellout. I was speaking of Obama's attempts to speak to the US citizenry before that atrocity was written. I don't disagree with your assessment of Obama, which should be clear to you if you read my entire post.
If Obama is not doing the right thing because of what you say then he is the biggest douche in the universe, the biggest coward in the universe, and the biggest bastard in the universe. I do believe that people have conspired in the past to commit murder, but if someone allowed that to cloud their judgment on how they approached, oh I don't know, health care, with MILLIONS of lives at stake, well.....I don't know if you could even call them human.
I only suggested fear of assassination as one possibility. Frankly, I think he is devoid of ethics, but that's just a guess. Could be any number of reasons. How could I know what motivates the bastard?
The US, number one in serial murderers, is a breeding ground for sociopaths. And look around at the cowards among us. How many whistleblowers DON'T wait until they've retired before they let us in on what they know? I'm glad they blow the whistle nonetheless, but how many people are willing to go along with the program just to save their measly jobs, even poorly paid ones? And how many accountants, actuaries, lawyers, administrators, etc., etc., know that what they are doing is unethical or even illegal? And given this, what do you expect from those most disgusting of professionals, the politicians?
Have you ever stopped to think that every time you open your mouth, you're helping the other side?
Do you ever stop to think at all?
Please review the responses I made to your assinine comments the last time you responded to my posts. You're a waste of mind and time.
I'm with you, Elizabeth.
Usually, an attack without a shred of evidence or connection to the real world is a tactic of the right. But unfortunately there are also plenty of people who think they are leftists whose conversation is completely reality free.
The first qualification of a progressive should be that we care for real human beings. We should always demonstrate, therefore, that we see them and their surroundings, and report accurately.
So, r-u-thru, I will not ask you that you change your opinions, only that you provide some kind of evidence for them.
I don't usually snap at posters, but r-u-thru was accusing me and others of "idiocy" on a post on education the other day, apparently for criticizing educational methodology. With this person's response today, I'm guessing that r-u-thru feels that to be "left" means that one must support public education and Obama without question, just as those on the right often hold their beliefs without any real scrutiny. Maybe that's what s/he means when referring to helping "the other side." It's like two sets of cheerleaders yelling "we're the best." To which I say, this ain't no football game.
Just a quick point... Both JFK and MLK (and probably Bobby besides) knew that they were in the crosshairs, and proceeded into the maelstrom inspite of it.....
True enough. Definitely MLK. But those were different times, less cynical ones.
Malcolm X also knew that he would most likely be killed, as did many of the Black Panthers who were assassinated in those times. Which is why Huey Newton wrote a book called, "To Die for the People." And why Che Guevara wrote, "In revolution, one wins or dies."
I would not ask anyone to die for a movement. But to live for it, to organize and work for human dignity every day, that we can ask.
The danger of being willing to die is that you will also be willing to kill. And that is a danger which the philosophy of Martin Luther King helps us to avoid.
I don't know that being willing to die means being willing to kill; that was certainly not MLK's philosophy, which was to live with dignity, speak the truth, and proceed with love, even knowing that you may be taken out for such impertinence. We see that speaking out may well mean death when we look at the calls for killing Assange from our politicians and their accusations that Assange is a terrorist. We see it in the current torture of Manning, and the new charge that he aided the enemy, which can result in the death sentence. Perhaps neither Assange nor Manning considered that their acts could lead to this (given that Manning is actually responsible for leaks, which is hardly proven), but I doubt it.
The rage against "terrorism" being extended to whistleblowers--even, gasp!, white ones--seems to indicate a move from "fighting them over there" to fighting them here. This is also apparent in Peter King's witch-hunt for Muslim extremists. If this outrage gains some real traction, you can bet that it won't be just the Muslims persecuted, but those who support them. The fight is moving over here, and the public seems primed to usher it in. Terrorists, after all, are so scary.
Note that "Collateral Murder" has largely been dropped from conversation about Manning and Wikileaks. Now you hear about the cables, which Manning's persecutors can speculate, without evidence, put people in danger. "Collateral Murder," on the other hand, is a clear instance of a murderous war crime. That this video was viewed by millions of US citizens and yielded no more than a muffled moan tells you where we're at. If the fight "over here" uses the same tactics employed "over there," we must be willing to die when we speak out. That may seem hysterical, but I think history bears me out.
But of course, those on the side of truth and justice must never resort to the tactics of the enemy, whom, as MLK pointed out, we must love. I have to work on that one more.
I should have said, "might" be willing to kill. It's only a danger, not a certainty.
Hello Elizabeth,
One of the differences between the 60's and now is that in the 60's the ruling class had not yet attained such overwhelming *psychological* control. Media was not so centralized, and it was still possible to hear anti - war songs on mainstream radio. (Remember, "War, What Is It Good For?") There was a huge labor movement and, of course, civil rights, peace movement and counterculture. (Although, alas, labor and the other movements were often not in sinc.) And income, compared to today, was still relatively egalitarian. JFK had a vast array of mental territory to survey.
Obama, on the other hand, has been captured not only financially and strategically, but also mentally. In return for the Wall Street money without which he could not have been nominated or elected, he has surrounded himself with people like Geithner and Summers, and Gates in "Defense," and has accepted their world view. Thus he could follow Wall Street in saying that *any* tax rise during a growing recession is counterproductive, even though FDR proved that that was nonsense. He can talk about cutting the deficit without talking about the fact that it is caused by giveaways to the rich, which includes not only taxes but the "Defense" budget.
Unfortunately, every future president will also be similarly captured, until the power of capital has been broken.
The more I read of political history, the more I think LBJ was the best we've had.
He was certainly the best since FDR, and possibly better than FDR on balance, since the only offset to LBJ's domestic good works I can think of were external (Vietnam, CIA incursions into, e.g., Cambodia, Liberty coverup), whereas FDR oversaw the creation of the MIC, the creation of the consumerist state that's killing the planet, and the shift of the income tax off the wealthiest 5% onto us.
Damn, a little perspective please!
What liberal goods done for the USA could be worth selling your soul for a lie of an illegal war that murdered over 3 million people!
Yikes, not to jump straight to the Hitler analogies, but: Hey, Hitler sure made some excellent highways for the good of the people, too bad about those Jews, Communists, homosexuals, trade unionists, etc.
You are right, ergoat, but it was even worse than that. LBJ allowed the Vietnam War to kill the Great Society. The expectations which were raised by his domestic policies were killed not only by the draft and the holocaust of the War, but also by the lack of funding which was drained off to support it. Dashed expectations in the ghettoes led to riots, which made it easy for the right to create a backlash against civil rights, economic liberalism *and* the youth movement. Thus LBJ's war killed liberalism for decades, paved the way for Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, and their wars; and moved the entire political spectrum permanently to the right.
So, everybody, I don't want to hear any more about LBJ's progressive domestic policies. He killed them for all of us.
FDR was a good president up until his desire to get the country into a war even though the country didn't want to be involved in the war got the better of him. Pretty much the same thing happened to LBJ. This seems to be the curse of presidents who come in with a "fix the domestic situation" agenda. The siren call of foreign policy triumphs, of being a star on the world stage, not being the first president to "lose" a country to the communists, gets the better of them.
Too damn many advisors! I think presidents should stop listening to advisors and listen to me instead.
FDR was fighting against the Nazis who were committing genocide in most of conquered Europe, and against against the Japanese imperialists who were conducting near genocide (rape of Nanking, for example) in much of conquered Asia. Germany and Japan were both still trying to expand in 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
LBJ, on the other hand, was fighting against the forces of Ho Chi Minh. After liberating Vietnam from Japan, they praised the US Declaration of Independence and appealed to the US, in vain, for protection against French reconquest. Then, after the French were defeated in 1954, Eisenhower commented that Ho Chi Minh would win an election in a united Vietnam by 80%, which is why he made sure that there was no election or a united country. Vietnam never invaded another country until in the 80's when they saved Cambodia from the genocidal Khmer Rouge (which the US continued to recognize for years).
So much for a comparison between FDR and LBJ.
Please, Paranoid Pessimist, before you comment on history, try to learn some.
Roosevelt's fight wasn't against genocide. If he had been against genocide, his government wouldn't have refused to allow shiploads of escaping Jews to come here. He wanted to go to war since it first started in Europe and he did have to wait until Pearl Harbor before the American isolationist public was willing to go along. But you are totally correct about Ho Chi Minh and the response to Diem Ben Phu, or whatever the name of that battle where the French colonialists got their asses kicked was.
But I reserve my right to comment on history even if I don't know it all. Does anyone know enough history to always speak accurately? But I'm always glad to learn new things so if I say anything that you think is incorrect again, please fill me in, I will be glad to have that knowledge. It would be easier to take without the "Please learn something" tone of exasperation, but that's the way this site is sometime.
OK PP,
You are right on two counts. First, I shouldn't get exasperated when I disagree, and I apologize. Yes, I got very exercised when seeing the moral stature of Johnson's war compared to that of Roosevelt, but that is no excuse. And I shouldn't have said learn history *before* commenting. As you say, an ongoing search for knowledge is all we can do.
Second, you are also right that genocide was not Roosevelt's motivation for war. It was more the continuing expansion of the Axis powers. Not only did FDR turn away refugee ships, but he also refused to divert planes to bomb the railroads to the death camps. Just as the Soviets bypassed the massacres in the Warsaw Ghetto on their march through Poland.
FDR's most serious crime, however, was in refusing to help the Spanish Republic in the '36 to '39 Civil War, and in arranging to pull out the Abraham Lincoln Brigade of American volunteers in '38, while the regular German and Italian armies stayed on. If the Spanish Republic had been helped to win, there might never have been a European War. Maybe.
Best wishes,
Laurence
LBJ was awarded the Silver Star medal in WW2 for being an observer on a plane ride that only went halfway to the objective. The plane turned back because it was attacked and damaged (LBJ's testimony) or suffered a mechanical failure (testimony of everybody else, especially the flight crew, all of whom would have done much more than an observer if a fight took place and none of whom received medals, and certainly not the Silver Star, the military's third-highest medal).
.
LBJ was a war hero, dontcha know?
He needed it and lobbied for it so he could win by 17 votes or whatever it was during his first race for congress, when he became known as 'Landslide Lyndon."
His Silver Star is no more of an outrage than the president's Nobel Peace Prize, a true abomination and insult to the word "Peace."
The last US President who was more or less honest had his head blown off in Dallas.
One has to remember that Barry used to work for the CIA. He's just following orders.
Hello Galenwainwright,
Can you cite a reference to Obama and the CIA? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would like to read some evidence.
The only source I can cite came from former Governor-Navy Seal-Wrestler Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show where he talked to a guy who said Barak Obama had been a CIA "asset" since he first hit Chicago as a Community Organizer and has been groomed since then to do what he's doing now. I have no other proofs to offer, but that show is viewable online. It is easy to say "consider the source" and dismiss this as nonsense, but It would explain a lot.
Hello Paranoid Pessimist,
When I googled, ... Obama,"CIA asset" ... I got 123,000 results, including one, (second listed) which headlines, "President Obama – as well as his mother, father, step-father and grandmother – all were connected to the Central Intelligence Agency."
I'll write more when I read some of it.
we did... FDR... "traitor to his class"... claimed his critics...
and WE WON... but... we let what we won slip away... since the mid-late seventies...
the right regrouped... they've been darn pissed about this new deal and all... since it was even proposed back in the 30's... but it passed... ALL of it... 90% tax rates... real regulation of the financial sector... new agencies to safeguard the quality of life...
all these 2nd 3rd generation right trust fund babies grew up i'm sure listening to their rich daddies bemoan the polices FDR began...
so they took their trust funds... and built an organized assault... we know the names... the individuals... the organizations... the corporations...
our only weapon... and has always only been our only weapon... is populist organizing of the "rest of us"...
all the progressive groups... have got to put the myriad of progressive planks on the side burner... connect together... and focus on short basic simple principles...
folklore has it... FDR lifted huey long's organizational call to populist protests he was doing from a flatbed truck in the 30's... (plus the fact FDR had governor of new york) inside experience...
if you make more, you pay more. period
if you do business here, you hire here. period.
if you make it somewhere else, you pay premium bringing it in. period.
if you use the commons to make it, you share the costs of the commons. period.
reduce it to a bumper sticker. period.
stay on message. period.
repeat the message. period.
hell... george w bush's 2004 presidential campaign had the tactic so fine tuned it came down to a single letter... remember the "W"... the whole anti-left right wing agenda marketed down to a single letter....
Hi Squid,
The problem with the New Deal was that it left economic power in the hands of the corporate capitalists. FDR didn't support Upton Sinclair when he ran as a Democrat for governor of California in '34, on a platform which would have placed a lot of the economy in the hands of workers' co-ops.
As long as the corporatists own their corporations, they will use them to win political power to reverse populist economic reforms. The New Deal was really over in '47 when the Republican Taft Hartley act gutted the power of labor. After that, the destruction of most of the rest of the New Deal was only a matter of time.
I don't want another New Deal. Yes, it would be better than what we have now. But the capitalists know that they can take it back. Unless we manage to take away their corporations.
Being 'neutral' is what Obama is thinking, I'm sure. By that, he means representing ALL the people, not just the liberals or Democrats. But all that he is doing is representing the privileged class. He's too smart to believe he is representing everyone, and that makes him a liar, a hypocrite, and a demagogue--in other words, your typical politician. What we don't need right now is politicians. Anyone ever hear of statesmen? Or are they part of the 'great extinction'?
I guess you won't be happy unless we have a fascist in the White House again. Then you think the rest of us will run to the Liberals.
Remember Jimmy Carter? I liked him, but look how successful he was in his ONE TERM. Wake UP!
We here in Wisconsin really don't want Obama here. We already have 14 democrats with balls, probably the only ones within the party. Nationally Dems have shown themselves to be republican light. More in favor of corporate corruption then the rights of people. Obama, please stay away!
Absolutely, geoverde. He's, at the least, over a month late. He would muck up and sully anything he touched here. STAY AWAY, you corporate tool.
At one point in this article the writer proclaimed: " Obama has called Walker's proposal an 'assault on unions' ...". That is a lie. He said it SEEMED like an assault. Look it up.
I know there is so much to do. But this piece of crap needs to be challenged from the left. I know Kucinich is flawed, but holy cow, what a speech he gave last night. I wish he and Feingold, McKinney, Sanders and others would get that People's Party going.
Oh my! Wouldn't that be something we could get behind?! Unlikely to happen , but then who'd have imagined some of the stuff we've seen happening over past weeks and days.
Times they are a-changin'.