As a Wisconsinite I will feel President Obama has let us down...

[book_worm]

if he doesn't come to Wisconsin. I've been and am a strong Obama supporter, but this recall is the most important election in many years. There is no more important election until November. What can it hurt the president to come into Wisconsin this weekend and hold a rally? Sometimes I think his political advisors play it too safe. They don't want to come just in case Walker wins. So what!? I think it will hurt him more if he doesn't come. I think a lot of people who have worked their hearts out to recall Walker would feel let down by the president and wonder why they should work hard for him in November if he isn't willing to help us now.

[liberal N proud]

1. And what do you think a President romney would do for you?

[book_worm]

6. Is that your stupid response?

Do you even understand anything? Do you not understand what has been happening here? Why isn't the president coming? he is the leader of the party and he is willing to go to Iowa and Minnesota this weekend and by-pass Wisconsin? What is his reason for that? What is he afraid of? He has to show leadership and that would be one way to do it. And do you think organized labor in Wisconsin is going to work their hearts out for him if he lets them down on Tuesday? If Obama loses Wisconsin it will be his own fault.

[bahrbearian]

16. What do you want a Unicorn that can jump Rainbows?

The PreZ is playing 3-D chess here. Did you want him to put on his comfy shoes and march, what would that have done? Then Fox Newz would go berserk, and you don't want to piss-off Fox news you might lose a vote or two.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. I think I speak for mono-horned equines everywhere when I protest these stereotypes

[Booster]

22. I have to agree with liberal and proud. Mr. Obama can't be everywhere at all times and he's not the

magician we would like him to be, but I'll take him any day over Rmoney.

[sudopod]

69. But he can be in one place for around 30 minutes. nt

[crunch60]

41. Clinton is coming, and he will do a great job, he is a great speaker, Obama is doing

the right thing.

[nanabugg]

52. How long would it be for you and others to call Obama "Dictator in Chief" for interfering in

state government business? Obama is damned if does and damned if he doesn't. The Federal government needs to tend to Federal business not state re-calls. I hope the recall is successful but I do not think it is the President's place to get involved in a state's recall actions.

[EOTE]

87. Let me make this easy for you.

Sicking DEA attack dogs on voter mandated MMJ facilities: bad thing. Going to Wisconsin to show support with labor and putting on those comfy walking shoes like he said he would: good thing. There's no "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't here" unless he's trying to appeal to republicans. You know damned well and so does he, what he can do to appeal to actual democrats.

[roguevalley]

58. bookworm, I hear ya. that first response was truly ignorant

I wish he would. I defer to you as a resident what you feel you need but don't expect him to step up. He isn't that sort. He doesn't feel heat works. Too bad. The pugs know it does. I hug you and hope for the best in Wisconsin.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. Leadership....Obama....

[tired of signing up]

17. We'll find out soon enough

if the first gay president doesn't get his KEISTER to Madison anon!

[sabrina 1]

21. What does that have to do with the OP? Looking at the polls, it seems it would help defeat this

Republican tool of the Koch brothers if the President showed up for a rally. Two polls from the same source, which do seem strangely contradictory btw, one gives Obama an 8 point lead over Romney, while that other says Walker is several points ahead.

So, are Democrats who will vote for Obama going to vote for Walker? That doesn't make sense. How do you explain that disconnect in the polls?

But if we assume that no Democrat is going to vote for either Romney or Walker, but that some Democrats need a push to get out and vote against Walker, then imo, the President should go to a state where according to the polls, he is ahead (who is going to be mad at him if he goes, Democrats?) and help a fellow Democrat beat one of the worst teabag morons in a position of power right now in this country. And to help the people in Wisconsin who have put up an heroic fight against the Kock Brothers buying our elected officials, which is a national issue.

[MNBrewer]

29. What a MORONIC comment!

Does the awfulness of Mitt Romney in any way change the shortcomings of President Obama? NO! They are his own. Romney or no Romney.

I'm hoping you left off the sarcasm tag.

[liberal N proud]

34. No sarcasm

What is moronic is expecting the Present to get involved at every turn and then acting all pissed off and some going to go so far as to not support him. That is how you get a MORONIC selection for President in November.

As far as I am concerned, Wisconsin just lost my moronic support. NO SARCASM INTENDED!

[EOTE]

89. I'm eagerly awaiting which states WILL receive your moronic support.

Yours is the kind of support that I can see really flying in Kansas or Oklahoma. Wisconsin doesn't need your moronic support anyway. NO SARCASM INTENDED!

[liberal N proud]

107. Maybe we should all stay out of affairs of other states so as our statements are not attacked

as moronic or stupid.

Obama is staying out of the state fight because the second he would jump in, the right wing assholes you are so willing to give an opportunity to would jump all over him about states rights.

But as always we get this moronic attitude on this board that if the President doesn't address any particular members crisis dejour, it is an all out attack on the man, in the middle of an election year no less.

Hope you all enjoy the continued aggression of the right wing.

[EOTE]

114. Then he should stop acting like he plans to do something.

Very few people get angry for Obama when he doesn't do something he never said he would do. We do get very pissed off when he completely goes against a position he's held in the past (I.E. LYING). Apologists like yourself will take Obama's position of cracking down on state voted MMJ facilities and approve of it. They do so because they say that not cracking down on MMJ facilities, giving the DEA extra ammunition, would give the right too much ammo to use against the president. Funny though, they seem to forget that Obama was ELECTED in part by saying that he'd let MMJ be a state issue. No one is asking him to legalize weed, just keep his fucking promise.

It's the same thing in Wisconsin. If he thought that supporting workers would be such an incredibly polarizing issue, then he should have kept his mouth shut instead of talking about putting on his comfortable walking shoes. But the apologists will let anything stand and the political spectrum keeps moving further to the right. Eventually, assholes like GWB will be considered center or center left, but we'll have to vote for them, because the apologists will scream "Would you rather have Senator Hitler as president?!?!? Well... would you?!?!"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. I honestly don't think that's a valid excuse

First, Obama has insinuated himself into state elections in the past. That's fine, all presidents do it; he's just as entitled.

Second, state's rights is not an applicable bludgeon. If "state's rights" were his concern ACA never would have come to pass.

Third, WI is 10 electoral points. If it goes red that a 20 pt deficit Obama has to make up. It's just as much his crisis de jour as it is ours.

[emilyg]

65. I'm so tired of that dumb question.

[liberal N proud]

75. I will remind how dumb that question is if Romney wins in November.

Trust me!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

99. Same here. I wish that they would come up with new dumb questions or new dumb statements.

[sudopod]

68. You've never been a leader of any sort, have you. nt

[liberal N proud]

76. Some times being a leader is knowing when to stay out of a fight.

But I a sure that wasn't taught in the leadership school you went to.

[sudopod]

81. I suppose we should continue the beatings until morale improves, huh? nt

[EOTE]

90. If a leader is judged by staying out of fights, Obama's doing damned well.

Unless, of course, you're talking about the fight between DEA agents and MMJ patients dying of cancer. If that's the case, Obama's one hell of a fighter. Or the fight between unarmed civilians and unmanned drones. He's kicking ass in that fight as well. Yeah, you keep all that leadership knowledge coming.

[EOTE]

84. I strongly suggest you lookup "non sequitor". NT

[fascisthunter]

96. grow the fuck up and create some something new already

[Marr]

102. HOLY shit! First shot out of the gate and we already get the cliche gold star.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. If WI goes red you might just find out n/t

[quinnox]

132. you need to get a new shtick, badly n/t

[movonne]

2. Maybe because it might be wrong thing for him to do....

[TheWraith]

12. Exactly. This isn't about Obama.

And people need to stop expecting Obama to do everything for them, like Daddy keeping an eye on the kids.

[morningfog]

24. It has jack shit to do with Daddy. It has to do with where he stands.

He is the President and does have power and influence. He chooses when to use it.

[Marr]

104. I thought he was 'wildly popular with liberals'...

What possible downside could there be for Democratic GOTV efforts if Obama is truly so wildly popular with his labor base? What could possibly justify ignoring this fight if his help would be so valuable?

[bahrbearian]

18. Ya, you wouldn't want to show people where you stand

we must reach across the Aisle.

[freshwest]

37. It might do more harm than good by energizing the Teabagger base. IMHO.

And I'm disappointed to read that some union people are going to vote for Walker or not vote at all, thus ceding ground to the union busting Walker. That is reminiscent of the Reagan Democrats who were enjoying the advantages of being in unions who voted GOP.

They had full bellies and thought they would continue to prosper from years of collective bargaining and could indulge themselves on social issues. When you are hungry, you know social issues are diversions from the real power for good and evil in our lives, equality in income and workers' rights.

I know because as a steward I argued with my fellow union workers, who refused to believe that he planned to gut their rights. When he fired the PATCO workers, they were shocked, but not as shocked as later when their own benefits were reduced.

Did I tell them 'I told you so?' No, I didn't. I understood the passion of the religious among them as that was growing, and that we are all subject to being made into fools.

So those in WI who are union and feel they have the luxury of voting on religious issues, may regret not coming out to defeat Walker later, as so many stalwarts there have.

All my love and hugs to our WI heroes.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Focus on our elections and get involved yourself.

Then you'll see how hard OFA has been working on the recall.

Or, wail and gnash teeth, if you prefer.

[BlueToTheBone]

5. Thanks PeaceNikki

I wanted to say something along those lines, but don't live in the state. Usually when people complain about others, they need to do that something themselves and haven't.

[PeaceNikki]

7. OFA Wisconsin has been dedicated to this recall.

http://www.facebook.com/ofa.wi

[book_worm]

13. Yes, to a certain extend except, as Ed said tonight, the President himself

whose missing in action in the most important election in a long time.

[DFab420]

19. Extent... Certain extent... Also just because Ed is on tv

Doesn't make him you know... Correct.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. This kind of thing pissed me off about Ed. He runs on pure emotion. He doesn't know the facts.

I had to turn his radio show and the t.v. show off tonight because it was pure, raw emotion. No facts! OFA has been on the ground. President Obama may believe that he'd hurt Barrett's chances rather than help. And there are still several days left. How do we know for sure that Obama and/or Biden won't show up? We don't! But the problem with us liberals is that we want our pony when WE want it! The world doesn't fucking work that way!

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Ed? Is this the same Ed who was asking folks in the midterms, why bother? He has since....

apologized, but give me a fuckin' break. Ed didn't help in the midterms, and the union folks he claims to care so much about, probably took his advice. That's their fault. Why visit their idiocy/complacency on Pres. Obama? Perhaps Ed should apply to be the president's scheduling secretary, that way he can ensure that the president pops up wherever Ed deems necessary.

I have no doubt you mean well, but your hyperventilating over an issue that is clearly for the people of WI, seems a bit overly dramatic to me. These people voted for, and unions even endorsed Walker, and according to polls, 40% of "union households" plan to do so again. Now, if the recall organizers haven't made their case by now to the people directly involved, then I don't think "a visit" by Pres. Obama can fix stupid. I mean, what made WI Democrats think that the guy who already lost to Walker once, was best suited to face him again? That's a headscratcher for me.

Get Russ Feingold out on the stump, he's a popular WI Democrat, right? As a matter of fact, why wasn't Feingold drafted for the recall? Last week, it was the evil DNC that weren't doing enough. Now it's Pres. Obama's turn under the bus. Who's next? This bullshit sounds like classic CYA and preemptive blame in case this recall goes south. Ed's got a lot invested in the outcome since he has made this "his cause", and he's got a lot of face to save.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. I hold Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann partly accountable for 2010. I don't care what they say NOW...

They really hurt the Democratic Party with their demoralizing rhetoric during the run up to the midterms. See, that's why Democrats always fucking lose! When Republicans don't get what they want, they don't run home, crying and shit. They come back HARD!! And they don't stop until they achieve what they want. You have to admire the determination. We liberals? All we fucking do is WHINE! I'm sick of this shit! Really, I am! Wisconsin voters turned their collective back on Russ Feingold. That is a fact. They use President Obama as a scapegoat, but the truth is that they didn't vote and now face the consequences of that failure to vote.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Spot the hell on!

They are indeed "partly responsible". I couldn't believe it when Ed Schultz was using his radio & teevee shows to actually depress turnout in the midterms. His mea culpa, notwithstanding, a lot of the blame for shock jocks like he & Thom helped make 2010 possible. That, and complacency. Thom & Ed's bread and butter is uber partisanship. Like Limbaugh, they have a financial interest in making sure that words like "bipartisanship" & "compromise" are stricken from the lexicon.

[book_worm]

9. and people havn't been working here you say? Why isn't the president showing leadership?

he goes to how many states in off term elections to help Dem candidates and why not Wisconsin in this election?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. It may be that the issue is whether to replace an anti-union Governor with a pro-worker Governor

and someone might ask Obama, generally, why he hasn't made a serious effort to keep a campaign pledge to overturn NAFTA or modify it to benefit the working class.

Also, someone might ask him why the Administration is working on another wage-lowering, anti-union, "free trade" agreement while allowing lobbyists to have access to the details but not Senators or Represenatatives. They might ask, when so many working-class households are suffering, whether he favors another "free trade" agreement. And, if not, what is he going to do about it.

[uponit7771]

4. Is the upside bigger than the downside? If Barret loses and Obama has pulled for him...

...you don't see any negative ramifications for this campaign?

TIA

[book_worm]

10. The downside would be worse if he doesn't come...

labor and activivists might not work as hard for his election in November as they have been for this recall.

[RKP5637]

8. I can see why Obama might be advised against this. That said, I bet if

the tables were turned, Bush/Cheney would have wasted no time showing up to oust a democrat. Bush/Cheney plowed through things like bulls, just taking authority and F*** everything/anyone else.

[Tx4obama]

11. Please read comment #7 on the LINK below

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014131931#post7

[book_worm]

15. thanks

but I don't buy it. This is not a typical recall election. We are being assaulted by the corporate interests and this is an opportunity to even the field a bit.

I am hopeful that Clinton will make it. If not the president, why not Biden?

[FSogol]

28. Exactly correct. n/t

[patrice]

14. If I were he, I'd want it to be about YOU, not him, so that you will survive no-matter-what.

His presence would attract people who might not have come FOR YOU alone. His power attracts the ambitious, when what Wisconsin really needs for Wisconsin, ir-respective of him, and no matter WHAT else happens, is itself, the bond between its own people for themselves.

[julian09]

27. You have something he doesn't, a " VOTE"

instead of asking for Obama, ask your friends, relatives and coworkers to go vote with you.
It would be nice if Obama went but you know how important this recall is and you will still be living there June /6 /12 after the election. So knock on one more door, call one more person, offer someone a ride if needed. Start now and be ready to help. Good luck

[dembotoz]

20. this has been going on for ever--the troops are tired-a pep talk would have been nice

[woo me with science]

23. DU Rec. nt

[xchrom]

25. Dems have an irrational fear of nationalizing

Anything that might be perceived as local.

[TheKentuckian]

30. "pragmatic" is just a kind way to say cowardly or ready, willing, and able to sell out

or serving the whims of the wealthy and powerful or up to shady self serving shit or collaborating with the TeaPubliKlans.

[benld74]

26. I guess you're correct, YET I cannot help but ask,

HOW THE HELL

DID

WISCONSIN

LET WALKER

GET ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!!?



Did it have a bad day?

FIX IT

[PeaceNikki]

31. Because 125,000 people who voted for Obama in 2008 had something better to do in Nov 2010.

It's that simple. Democrats do a dismal job of showing up in mid-term and special elections and the GOP here does well.

We need to change that. All boots on the ground to GOTV these next 6 days.

[patrice]

45. Listen to Thom Hartmann shows from that time. He was getting call ins. They were listening to

stuff like some of what we see in this thread, TTE: "Show Obama who's boss, don't vote for 'the lesser of two evils'" There had also been stuff about crossing over during the primaries to get the wacky Republican so everyone would run away from them. Wrong.

There's a very backward notion about politics out there that the way you get your issues done is to threaten the vote in order to get compliance. It doesn't work that way. It works the reverse of that notion actually. If people'd think it through they could see that threatening the vote doesn't occur in a vacuum, the opposition knows whats happening and all they have to do is hold out and they get the whole enchilada.

Unless you just kill off all of the opposition, genocide them, it's ALWAYS the lesser of two "evils" and anyone who says otherwise isn't living in the real world. The real questions are about just how much and PRECISELY how, as in what manner, lesser. The problem is that there's a bunch of people around who don't want to do the long hard work of working that out.

*rhetorical "you", of course.

[joshcryer]

47. Great post!

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. You're exactly right. We saw this in 2000: "don't vote for 'the lesser of two evils'".

That turned out beautifully didn't it? And we got two unfunded wars to show for it. I wonder if Pres. Gore, would've been the lesser evil? This purity crap is dangerous for all of us, and the people of WI are experiencing the pitfalls of getting political advice from folks on the radio/tv.

[SoCalDem]

100. and far too many are complacent when they think about having a republican governor

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how so many BLUE states are fine with republican governors..my own state included

[bahrbearian]

32. He Lied ,

[patrice]

64. And you know everything you would need to know about everything you would need to know in order to

come to that conclusion rationally.

Otherwise, you're just guessing without a whole boatload of information, that you apparently want the rest of us to assume is all completely ir-relevant to a conclusion that doesn't seem to be aware that it doesn't know what it doesn't know.

[joshcryer]

46. Because people like the OP suppressed the vote and demoralized the base.

Simple as that.

[sudopod]

70. He portrayed himself as much more moderate, initially. nt

[AJTheMan]

33. Obama is the leader of our party.

It would be a disgrace if he didn't show up in Wisconsin to support Mayor Tom Barret. This election is so clearly a matter of millionaire interests versus the interests of the people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. See post #31, and lay the blame for Walker where it actually belongs.

[Marr]

108. And you think that's an argument for Obama staying OUT of it?

Huge numbers came out to vote for him, but the enthusiasm was lacking in the mid-terms. Seems like his presence would help then... right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

122. I'm sorry, but I'm an adult, I don't have to be "enthused" to vote in my own best interest.

Sadly, the people of WI got what they "voted" for. The fact that they now regret it, and it wasn't what they thought it was, is not the fault of the President. And since we're on the subject, if they weren't "enthused" enough in the midterms, when Russ Feingold was on the ballot, what the hell is an impromptu visit by the president supposed to do now?

You guys have adopted and thrown around the M$M meme about the midterm "enthusiasm" and "disillusionment", but fail to recognize that people who are easily influenced by the folks on the teevee, bought into the narrative. Ed Schultz, Cenk Ugyur (sp), and Thom Hartmann were all telling their fans that the midterms really didn't matter because the administration hadn't made all their dreams come true in 18 fucking months. Give me a break.

[Marr]

127. Sorry, but the general doesn't get to blame the soldiers for losing.

If voter turnout and interest is low, then their "leaders" have been employing a losing a strategy. That is almost a tautology.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. Is that why Russ Feingold lost? And if you're referring to Obama as "leader". He's running ahead..

of Romney in WI, and Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in the midterms. And if "progressives" are as right as they think they are, why are two "progressive" darlings locked in such tight races with their competitors? In both WI & MA, the president has a lead, and we're talking 25 pts. in MA, but Elizabeth Warren, who was once a progressive icon, and we rarely hear her name anymore, continues to struggle against a teanutter centerfold. Can you explain that?

If it's all about progressive ideals, why are these two struggling, where the president is trouncing? Looks like "the general" is in pretty good shape. You? Not so much.

[Marr]

135. You aren't making a lot of sense.

I understand you don't like politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold, but that's not what we're talking about right now.

I was saying that, if Obama is as popular with liberals and his labor base as you claim, then there's no excuse for his not going to offer his support on the ground.

*edit, because I got side-tracked*

[Tarheel_Dem]

137. I understand you're given to hyperbole and false assertions, so I'll make this plain EVEN for you.

Can you point to anyplace where I made this claim?

"I understand you don't like politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold"......

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension. What does this even mean?

"I was saying that, if Obama is as popular with liberals and his labor base as you claim, then there's no excuse for his not going to offer his support on the ground."

[Doctor_J]

38. He's afraid to come and campaign

If he shows up, and then Walker wins (a near certainty), he will look weak and foolish.

Sadly, we campaigned for and voted in a follower instead of a leader. The president and the party would be in much better shape today if he'd governed like a president instead of a TV host.

[Honeycombe8]

39. Presidents don't usually get directly involved with STATE politics. That's for the pollitical PARTY.

Did Bush get involved with the recall of Davis? I'm sure he was in favor of it, but I don't recall him ever saying a word about it.

State and federal elections are SEPARATE. They endorse other candidates state to federal or federal to state. But they don't show up in state recall elections and campaign to remove someone. ESPECIALLY Presidents.

This election is important politically, and we all know Obama cares a lot about it. But it would be unseemly for him to show up and start campaigning to recall a governor in a state. It's none of his business, frankly. He has NATIONAL issues to address.

I hope you get it. Think about it. Have you EVER seen a sitting President campaign to remove a STATE politician from his elected post in that state?

[loyalsister]

143. exactly

The role of the federal governments is to be supportive of states. It is not only unseemly to get involved in partisan politics it would be destructive.
States are constantly competing for funding and attention from the federal government. No matter which party is in charge, the president has to work with them. I don't think we want to see the funding and support for states that experienced emergencies become fodder for RW propaganda. The last thing we need is the conflict that would result.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. wish he would go to WI too. start standing up for something important. worker's

rights. the hell with the press -- just do something just because it's the right thing.

[doc03]

43. People in Wisconsin should know how important the recall is without

the president holding their hands.

[sad sally]

44. This says it better than I ever could:

MAY 30, 2012
"Now Make Me Do It"
Obama’s Wisconsin Betrayal
by ANDREW LEVINE

When all else fails, Obama apologists conjure up what FDR is supposed to have said to some of his liberal supporters: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” In the early days of the Obama presidency, this was a call to action. It quickly degenerated into a blame-the-victims excuse.

If you are among the multitudes who are “disappointed” because the Nobel laureate morphed into President Drone, champion of perpetual (and secret) war, or because the banksters and Bush (and post-Bush) era war criminals are not just unpunished but still marauding shamelessly, or because the Constitutional Law professor turned out to be even more disdainful of Constitutional protections than George W. Bush, or because he’s done nothing or almost nothing for the “progressive” constituencies who voted him into office or for poor people or for organized labor, or that he deports “illegals” at record levels, or that the last time he did anything positive for African Americans was when he and his family, “the next first family of the United States,” stepped out onto the stage at Grant Park – well, it’s your fault. You didn’t make him do it.

Then came Wisconsin – masses of people, from all walks of life, including all sectors of the labor movement, rising up against Governor Scott Walker’s brazen, corporate-driven assault on public sector unions. It was of a piece with the (contemporaneous) Arab spring and a direct inspiration for last fall’s Occupy movements and their continuations to the present moment.

What happened in Wisconsin – and then in Ohio and elsewhere — was as sustained an effort to make him do it, to make him stand up for those whose interests he is supposed to champion, as could be imagined. And yet the Change and Hope President remained serenely detached.
-snip
One would think this would be a no-brainer for Obama and the DNC. A Walker defeat would all but insure that Wisconsin, a battleground state, would again go Democratic. It would demoralize the Republicans nationally, and (re)energize the forces that put Obama in office in 2008. But there’s the rub.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/30/obamas-wisconsin-betrayal/

[ecstatic]

49. I now think he should go, but let's be clear:

It's your fellow Wisconsinites who might let you down. Are they that superficial that it takes a star to show up and tell them who to vote for? Will the polls magically change if President Obama shows up?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. You let yourself down by not going all out for Russ Feingold and Barrett in 2010! STOP BLAMING OBAMA

[phleshdef]

54. Getting involved in a heated state recall during his own election year with a pending investigation.

...of the Republican incumbent and everything else thats involved... it would be gloriously stupid and end up politicizing the recall in ways that probably wouldn't help Wisconsin Democrats at all. Staying out of it is the politically smart thing to do, for Obama and for Barrett.

[Wait Wut]

55. And then...

...he needs to go to each and every state to get Democrats elected. This is how he should spend the next four years. States and their citizens are incapable of taking care of themselves.

I've talked to more people from Wisconsin that DON'T want him involved than do. For our President to get involved in such a close contest would be a death sentence for Wisconsin. It would energize every right-wing nut, including Walker. They'd all start whining about how he's being a "bully". Money would flow in from every friggin' corner of this country, every corporation, every anti-union asshole.

I live in Arizona, I support our President 99% and would NEVER want him to get involved with our state's politics.

[upi402]

56. well yes

he sure did, in many ways

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. For some of us who are not Wisconsinites, we don't understand why Walker won in 2010.

Do you have any insight?

If so, it would be appreciated.

[jeff47]

97. Low turnout among D's. (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

61. I agree with you

Obama needs to get to Wisconsin. Fear of losing the recall shouldn't trump fighting for what's right.

[Go Vols]

63. +1

he needs to go there

[emilyg]

66. +2

[AngryAmish]

83. Exactly

[WiffenPoof]

67. Geeze, Why Should He Go?

It's not like he promised to put on his walking shoes and join the people during the campaign or anything. Oh wait. Never mind.

-P

[Proud Liberal Dem]

120. Is it possible that he wasn't being mad literal about that?

There are lots of things he can do (and has done) as POTUS that helps ordinary folks but have you actually ever heard of a President actually literally walking a picket line? Could you see a President- any President- actually doing that? Did progressive icons like FDR and LBJ ever do that?

[WiffenPoof]

142. Yeah...you're right.

It would be absurd for him to keep any of his campaign promises. In doing so, he would be the exception to the rule. Whatever marginal belief I had in my Party has been ruined by the current occupant of the White House.

-P

[AtomicKitten]

71. I'd like to know why 39% of WI union households support Walker.

If you can answer that, I'd also like to know how the hell he won in 2010.

For the record, the president vis a vis OFA has 60 offices in Wisconsin dedicated to GOTV next week.

link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/obama-announces-organizing-for.html

President-elect Barack Obama announced the formation of a new group known as "Organizing for America" that aims to continue the grassroots advocacy that the former Illinois Senator began in his presidential campaign.

"As President, I will need the help of all Americans to meet the challenges that lie ahead," Obama said in a video message e-mailed to supporters (and reporters) this morning. "That's why I'm asking people like you who fought for change during the campaign to continue fighting for change in your communities."

The new group will be the flagship of "Obama 2.0" as many people have taken to calling the transformation of the political organization created during the 2008 campaign.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. "I'd like to know why 39% of WI union households support Walker." Good luck.

I've been asking this question since the first attacks began on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC. Why are "union households" supporting Walker? I mean, have the recall organizers not made their case to the people of WI? And, do Mayor Barrett and the recall organizers deserve any responsibility for this? Or is all this handwringing the work of people trying to get out in front of what might be an embarrassing loss?

The president can read polls like the rest of us, and inserting himself into what looks to be a loser, would only damage him. Of course, the people screaming for him to go don't really have his best interests at heart, and judging from their posting histories, could care less about his reelection.

[LiberalFighter]

85. Personally, I don't trust those numbers.

I've been going through our members and their voting history in a state that is considered big red. Yet, out of a couple thousand registered voters there were probably less than 100 that had a tendency to vote Republican. But it also probably depends on the type of workforce.

[Marr]

109. While others seem to care about nothing *but* his reelection.

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. You're damn straight I care about his reelection. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. You?

[RBInMaine]

72. No scapegoating please. It is YOUR election in YOUR state. YOU folks need to make YOUR choice.

[pstokely]

73. Has the Wiscosnin Dem leadership asked him to come?

If did come, that might take the focus off Walker

[LaydeeBug]

74. Walker's ahead right now by like 7 points or something...

That gap will have to diminish for a POTUS visit. if Obama were to come to Wisconsin AND THEN WALKER WINS THE RECALL, it would be a disaster for the reelection campaign.

Maybe a better contender should have emerged from this? Because right now, it doesn't look like ANY of this is going to matter one lick. Walker might beat this thing, or they already have enough corruption in place to steal it, and they know it.

[milwaukeelib33]

91. I don't think he's up that much

By looking at multiple polls and averaging them I think it provides a more accurate picture. No way Wanker is up 7. I also don't believe it's a dead heat. I'd say it's in 3-4 pt range.

I agree with everything else in your post. There is too much at stake being an election year, and the negative impact if Obama shows up yet Walker wins could hurt in the Fall.

As far as the candidate we put up, that will be thoroughly dissected. IMO, I don't think we put up the strongest candidate considering Barrett just lost in 2010.

[lynne]

77. Thinking it's not politically smart for him to go -

- during an election year with the recall being so close. In the event of a loss, it will follow him throughout his campaign. Possibly things would be different if this wasn't a reelection year for him.

[datasuspect]

79. He knows he will already be reelected.

[bigtree]

80. I'm not sure the visit or involvement would have a positive effect

Did the Democratic candidate even ask for this? It would be kinda goofy for him to jump in with both feet if the candidate, himself, wasn't down with it.

[LiberalFighter]

82. Obama can't be going everywhere just because people want him to.

This is something that Wisconsin needs to take care of themselves. It is not a federal issue. Someone recently suggested that Walker be impeached by Congress but it was pointed out that he is a state elected official. At best they might charge him with perjury.

Now I am sure he has surrogates and discussions on the Wisconsin matter. And probably has volunteers from the campaign mobilized in Wisconsin. Overall, it is better if this is a grassroots campaign of the people that makes this happen. It will bring more fear to right wingers if it appears that Obama was not part of it.

[Bake]

86. He could come and energize -- hell, electrify -- the grass roots!

Clinton will be a big help, but as Prez, Mr. Obama is the head of the Democratic Party! He could stop by for a speech ...

Wisoncsin is CRUCIAL.

Bake

[jeff47]

98. He would energize the Republican grass roots too.

It would not be a net positive for the Democrats.

[Bake]

139. We don't have to shy away from this President!

Oooh, he might piss off the Republicans!

Guess what? They're pissed already. We need to be more pissed. We don't have to worry about energizing them. We need to energize US.

Bake

[jeff47]

140. This is a grassroots battle. Bringing in Obama is not going to excite

the people who have been working on this for more than a year. If they weren't excited, they wouldn't have spent the last year+ working on it.

On the other hand, bringing in Obama lets the right say "He's interfering in a state election! States rights!!". Which gets out their base.

Think of it this way: Why isn't Romney there? Wouldn't the exact same argument you make for Obama apply to Romney too? He's the "leader" of their party.

[Bake]

141. Fine. Let's see what Wisconsin does.

If you guys don't want any outside help, fine. The Pukes have all kinds of outside help. Hope it turns out OK for you.

Bake

[treestar]

88. Why would that make a difference?

Seems to me people are not going to change their vote on a state election due to an Obama appearance.

To me it's just obsession over some alleged "magic" of the Presidency. But in reality it takes GOTV in that state.

[PeaceNikki]

92. As a Wisconsinite, I am glad that Obama has not tried to make our fight about him.

I am happy that his OFA resources are dedicated to the recall, but I know damn well that if he were to have come or were to come, it would be turned into an event about him, and not even by his own choice. This is a grassroots movement and I, for one, am glad that it's remained so.

[librechik]

93. Bill Clinton is going there for him--You have to know

how dangerous politically it would be for Obama to show favoritism to unions, or rather to blatantly embrace communist thugs, as his appearance would surely be characterized by his enemies.

Clinton is great. Obama's hands are tied. It's a disappointment, but Obama's physical appearance wouldn't help Wisconsin any more than Clinton can.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. It would be dangerous for Obama to show favoritism to unions? FDR did. n/t

[leftstreet]

95. Obama is no FDR n/t

[JoePhilly]

103. Give him 4 terms and maybe he would be that, and more.

He hasn't even had 4 years yet.

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. Atta boy Joe. Hell, FDR himself wasn't even "FDR" until about his 3rd term in office.

[SoCalDem]

101. Unions were in their heyday back then

Last I heard, union jobs these days account for less than 10%, and since so many of those are public sector jobs, probably many of that group are republicans who are piggybacking on the "real" union workers for the benefits, but they vote republican.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

105. Yes, the unions were in their heyday back then because FDR supported them and did not

support wage-lowering, anti-union, "free-trade" agreements.

Do you know that there is another so-called "free-trade" agreement in the works? One that is already being called a NAFTA on steroids?

FDR would have never supported such a job-exporting agreement, and he never would have allowed anyone in his Administration to participate in the crafting of such an agreement in secret.

FDR was responsible for getting pro-union legislation passed and signed into law. It is not too late for any president to follow the lead of FDR if they want to do so.

[librechik]

106. FDR could--Unions were vastly more popular than they are now

after 70 years of demonization and attack from the right.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. Excuse me, but I think that unions were demonized by the right back then as well.

What we had was a President who was willing to stand up for the working class and the unions. This was important to him.

Unionization became more popular after FDR took office and stood up for their rights. Without FDR, we would not have had the unions that developed during the last 70 years.

[librechik]

115. How does Obama not stand up for unions?

I would like some examples of his undermining them or speaking out literally against them. Obama is not FDR, and he is supportive in his own way.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

116. Good question. Outstanding question.

The offshoring of American jobs has a known negative effect upon American unions and American workers.

In contrast to his campaign promise in 2008 to renegotiate NAFTA where no known effort has been made to do so, President Obama's Administration is currently negotiating another wage-lowering, anti-union, "free-trade" agreement with the participation of about 400 A-Team lobbyists but not Democratic Senators and Representatives.

As recently noted, on May 23rd,

the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced legislation to require the Executive Branch to allow his staff and members of Congress with appropriate clearance to have access to information otherwise being made available to "the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association" regarding the latest free-trade agreement being negotiated between the US and eight Asian-Pacific countries.
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/iycmi-wyden-statement-introducing-congressional-oversight-over-trade-negotiations-act

A one-sided secrecy which has reportedly allowed about 600 corporate advisors (or the "A-Team of corporate lobby groups&quot to review and comment on the details being negotated while elected representatives for the public, as well as unions, environmental or public health groups, have not had such access has been criticized as being undemocratic and contrary to the public's best interest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robertson/trans-pacific-partnership_b_1476261.html

There is concern that, in addition to costing more American jobs, the negotiations for the free-trade agreement (1) are covertly attacking the internet freedom rights that spurred online protests over ACTA and SOPA, (2) would make it more enticing for corporations to offshore jobs by opening our market specifically to Vietnamese labor, (3) would increase the cost of medications outside of the United States, and (4) would ban capital controls and impose limits on financial regulation, including post-recession checks on firm size and risky investments.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002723257

It is known that these "free-trade" agreements have a negative effect upon American unions.

You want words? Sometimes words actually reveal what a person is thinking. But, as frequently said, actions speak louder than words.

[librechik]

124. This is murky

you don't say what Obama's actual position is regarding these Congressional proposals. My impression is that Obama is clearing the floor for a debate from both sides about these free trade headaches--which are impossible knots to untangle, especially in a first term like he has had.

I can't blame Obama for not doing the impossible. Actions can only become actions if they are fully supported by both sides of Congress. But I do hear him say supportive things about workers, families, and their plight--and unions support him.

http://www.uaw.org/page/obama-administration-supports-workers

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/197511-public-workers-union-endorses-obama-only-choice-for-the-99-percent

[AnotherMcIntosh]

130. Sen Wyden's position is that legislation is necessary because the Obama Administration is

secretly negotiating the details of another wage-lowering, anti-union "free-trade" agreement while allowing the details to be known and understood by about 400 members of the A-Team of big corporate lobbyists but not the Senators and their staffs nor the Representatives and their staffs.

How bad can the terms of this in-progress "free-trade" agreement be if the terms cannot be disclosed to the Senators and Representatives?

You want me to say what "Obama's actual position is"?

Does anyone other than Obama know this?

I can say that actions speak lounder than words.

[white_wolf]

111. If Obama won't favor Unions why should they favor him? n/y

[rusty fender]

129. Where are the communist thugs? And who has asked

Obama to embrace them? You are

[GObamaGO]

117. In case you have not noticed, President Obama is also running for re-election right now.

[HereSince1628]

138. We noticed. We also note that the economic recovery is used in both Walker's and Obama's campaigns

Conflicted messaging is one of the complicating factors that have really stymied national help here in Wisconsin.

Our issues are
Failure on Worker's Rights
Failure to support Schools
Failure on Environment/Natural Resources
Failure on Health care of children, elderly and unemployed
Failure on Women's Health

If you were Axelrod, which of those things would you have Obama come and talk about?

Seems to me, and it's obviously just my perspective, that Obama can't challenge:

Right to Work or he puts at risk his support in the South,
Obama can't challenge Walker's treatment of teachers and schools as that is too much like what his buddy Rahm has done,
Obama can challenge on the environment, because he too has eased or delayed standards to try to get the economy going
Obama can't talk about healthcare in Wisconsin without energizing his opposition here to scream about the evils of ObamaCare

It's really a messaging conflict that reduces Obama's opportunities to find a Win-Win for his campaign and the recall.

[quinnox]

125. I understand your frustration, lets just hope the Dem does win because

otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of unhappy Democrats in Wisconsin, and they may just take it out on President Obama in the election by staying home on election day, and Wisconsin is considered a swing state.

[LiberalAndProud]

126. How often has a sitting President electioneered for a state election?

I wonder if he wouldn't be roundly criticized for politicking rather than governing. In fact, I'm sure the charge would be leveled. I wonder if his appearance would be the difference between winning and losing the recall elections. All questions I'm sure would have to be considered when Obama makes the decision to rally in Wisconsin or not, I suppose.

I was glad to see Clinton made the trip, though.

Best of luck in the special election book_worm. I don't disagree on the importance.

[cliffordu]

128. Well, then you are not paying attention.

If Obama comes to "help" then it's seen as Obama versus Walker.

If Walker stays in, it looks like the Prez has been defeated by that scumsucking shithead of a governor you people have out there.

The whole mess becomes a referendum on Obama, not your state's voters.

Don't quibble this point, it's the way the Press will play it, and joe and jolene ABC news watchers will believe it.


The president cannot afford to stoop to a recall election concerning some halfwit governor YOU couldn't keep out of office.

[Raine]

134. He should have gone a year ago, it's too late

now. If he went now it would possibly do more harm than good. I think at this point Clinton is the best one to be there.

[guardian]

136. K&R

President Obama should make a speech from the WI state capitol building on recall election day!!!