Anyone see BIG ED segment on getting in the Obama teams ass for not coming to Wisconsin

[bigdarryl]

GREAT!!! segment and I agree with him 100% there making a big mistake by not sending the PRESIDENT into Wisconsin

[movonne]

1. I think Clinton will have to do...

[monmouth]

2. Bill Clinton will be going there. I know WI is important but I'm thinking POTUS has a full plate.n/

[Laurian]

3. My concern is that if the recall fails, Obama might lose support in the state this fall.

Those who have worked so hard on this may just say to hell with it since they got so little support from the administration.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. He DOES have a campaign of his own to run

and a country to govern.

[Jamaal510]

5. ,

[Jakes Progress]

6. I notice the order in which

you placed his priorities.

Progressives and liberals think that supporting unions and the people over corporate-controlled politicians is part of governing the country.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. The ordering was entirely random

The point is still the same- he can't be everywhere doing everything for everybody at once fighting for every progressive/liberal cause that comes along. The fight against Walker is a state/local issue, not a national one. Is he supposed to be getting personally involved against everything bad that Republicans/teabaggers do in all 50 states at all times? I don't remember ANY modern President doing this.

[Jakes Progress]

11. So the goal is to be like any modern president.

Which ones do you want him to emulate?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. I want him to be him

If showing up at state-level recall elections is not what he believes is appropriate, I don't want him to do it.

[Jakes Progress]

18. What if he believes

in signing documents to kill American citizens without trial? What if he believes in trashing unions and teachers while supporting corporatized education as he doubles down on NCLB? What if he believes in extending the bush era war rules for homeland security?

I want him to do the good things he has done, but I don't think (like some) that his every whim is golden. He screws up. He should be called on it when he does.

In your reply, you didn't say that he didn't have a say about Wis because he didn't want to. You said he shouldn't because no modern president had done that kind of thing. I thought the whole idea of an Obama presidency was that he was supposed to be different.

Now you've changed your reasoning for his silence to being his whim. Sounds like whatever he does, some will come up with an excuse. When one is shown to be pathetic, they don't mind changing until they find an excuse they think works. I think the rights of citizens to organize and fight for their rights against corporate money is a fundamental part of a liberal platform and worth a president's attention. I can list a dozen activities he's been involved in the last six months that certainly deserve less of his attention than union rights.

I think is is weighing the whole thing politically rather than morally. Kinda sad.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Seeing that he is, you know, a politician

it's not surprising that he has to weigh the political implications of things sometimes too. Even if you want to make the "moral" argument, there is still only so many hours in a day and so many responsibilities he has as POTUS, it seems unrealistic to expect him to be involved in everything going on in every state or locality that might offend his (and our) sensibilities. We elected him POTUS to serve the country as POTUS, not an activist who shows up at every state and local controversy/election.

[Jakes Progress]

21. How very sensible.

Not very transcending -- or hopeful -- or changey. But very practical. So his motives are the same as romney's?

And the argument that I make is that he does best for himself and for the country when he is a better person than just another politician. People are tired of them. As an example, look at the months his political team kept arguing about the best time to come out supporting same sex marriages. While they waffled and planned and schemed, Biden opened his mouth and made it so the pres had to commit. People loved it. Democrats got a good public support against the nasty republicans. It actually gave the president more votes. Sure it hardened the jack ass vote against him. But he was never going to get those votes. He schemes to try to get the votes that he will never get, compromises to curry favor with those who vacillate between hating him and hating his guts, waffles to avoid offending those who find his very existence offensive. That scheming, compromising, and vacillating costs him the support and enthusiasm of those who want him to live up to the promise of what he could do. As he slowly turns off his base, he is wasting his time trying to turn on people he hasn't got a chance in hell of convincing to vote for him.

Supporting him in this is counterproductive to getting a Democrat reelected to the WH.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. The two situations aren't exactly analogous IMHO

I initially thought that his endorsement of marriage equality was kind of risky during an election season but he did it and I think that it has actually been a real positive for him and for the cause of marriage equality in general. Of course, that was more of a national issue with national implications. I'm still not sure that the President of the United States injecting himself into a partisan state recall election is appropriate and/or likely to be helpful. I suppose that I could be wrong, of course, but I would be concerned that him injecting himself into that race would likely shift the focus of the election onto him instead of the voters and grassroots organizers in Wisconsin.

[Jakes Progress]

23. But your HO is not turning out to be reality.

Your HO is the same view that the very sensible and very wrong WH advisors are going with. It is the conventional wisdom. It is the same thing every president has done for years. Careful and cagy. It is not going to work.

Like you, they thought it was "kind of risky" to support marriage equality. Biden's words pushed Obama into action and it has done wonders for him and his image. Can he never learn from what happens that he can't go with the ideas of the "professionally sensible" any more. He will just back himself out of office without ever taking a moral stand.

You are right that that is what all modern presidents have done. Look at where we are. Has it worked for him? Has it worked for us? Fish or cut bait. Fight or die. People are tired of wishy washy, mealy mouthed, same old Washington shit.

[noel711]

7. FRankly Darryl, I think Clinton IS the best strategy...

Much of Wisconsin is rural, blue collar, small town demographic.

Who is the Democratic party has a to-the-bone connection with
the blue collar mindset?
The Big Dog.

He can tap into their thinking, reach across the great divide
and speak to their needs and fears.

This is the best idea yet... and I bet it came from the White HOuse.

NOt to say Obama wouldn't make a difference,
but this sounds strategic,
and might turn the tide.

Anyway, this morning I read that the Marquette poll that put
Walker 5 points over Barett had oversampled republicans,
and undersampled independents...
They don't play fair, do they?

Unleash the dogs... uh, the Big Dog.
We'll see who's boss...

[JNelson6563]

8. Really? Ed as clueless as the political novices of DU?

Disappointing but not terribly surprising. Sad.

Julie

[cliffordu]

9. Ed's wrong on this -

IF the Prez went there it would be the equivalent (in the press) of him running against Walker -

And if walker wins.....

[Bake]

25. The whole point is to make sure Walker DOESN'T win!

To do that, you have to pull out all the stops.

Ooh, but if Walker wins, it looks bad for Obama ...

So we write off Wisconsin rather than actually give it everything ... got it.

Bake

[jenmito]

26. Obama going to WI would fire up the Rs as much as the Ds. No point in him going there. And

Ed really shouldn't talk since HE said HE wasn't going to vote in '10. People like him help put Rs in power in the first place.

[Bake]

27. Well, let's certainly not do anything to offend the Rs!

They're fired up already. They poured money into WI. But let's not do anything that might offend them.

We've already lost.

Bake

[jenmito]

28. I never said it would offend the Rs. I said it would fire them up. There's a HUGE difference.

It would get them MORE enthusiastic about this election by making it a race between OBAMA and Walker.

[Bake]

30. I think everybody already knows that the President is a Democrat and a black man.

We don't have to hide him in the closet. He fires up the base. OUR BASE.

Bake

[jenmito]

31. Who said they didn't know that? Why do you keep setting up strawmen to knock down?

All I said is Obama would fire up the Rs in WI even more than they are now! Obama has his organizers there on the ground helping a lot more than a speech would. JMO.

[cliffordu]

32. You are not getting it.

If the prez shows and walker wins, it is a referendum on OBAMA, not walker.

[Bake]

33. Oh god, we couldn't risk that!!

What if WE win BECAUSE THE PREZ shows up?? I get what you're saying. I think the President has bigger cojones, evidently, than you think he does.

Or maybe not.

Whatever. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

Bake

[grantcart]

12. Lol half of the time Ed doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Remember that ad where he walks by a bunch of empty containers and bellows how they are sitting empty waiting to be filled to go back to the far east?

No container has sat around waiting for business from the soft side of the equation to fill it, the traffic is always determined by the busy side and not the slow side of the equation.

But it sounds good, makes people angry and he has a full throated bellow, which for some, is a filling substitute for substance and reality.

A high profile entry by the President has absotlutely no up side and is going to piss of people who are pissed at outsiders telling WI folks what they should do about their governor. It undermines the backlash against Koch brother mettling.

As has been documented on other threads OFA has mobilized their troops to work on GOTV.

There's a reason Obama is the President and Ed has a fill in time slot before prime time.

[milwaukeelib33]

13. Is that necessary?

We don't have much coverage of the issues that tilt our way. The largest paper in the state, Milwaukee Sentinel, is in the bag for Wanker. I'll give you that Ed is somewhat overzealous at times, but without his voice there isn't much to keep troop morale up. Sheesh!

[grantcart]

14. Do you think it helps when someone is very very loud but wrong.

Does Ed really think that if he yells loud enough he is going to compel the President to jump in and nationalize a local fight.

Does anybody think that the President's team hasn't done extensive polling that shows that high profile Presidential action would be counter productive.

But yes to answer the question, yes it is necessary.

If this thread was about Ed's enthusiastic embrace of the regular guy I would have been first on board but the topic is that Ed is right and the President should be on the front lines. Sometimes Ed steps in it, as he did this time. When you always swing for the fences sometimes you strike out.

[Happydayz]

16. +1

[Drunken Irishman]

15. If Obama isn't going, you know there is a reason he isn't going...

Ed can pretend to know that reason, but it's possible he's been told he won't be effective and having him campaign there might be a net loss. Remember, everyone said Obama needed to get up to Massachusetts in '10 to campaign for Martha Coakley, so he went up there and what happened? She lost.

It was damaging all around. Not only did it do nothing to energize Democratic voters, it played badly to the country because it showed Obama wasn't immune to the political problems facing local candidates.

In an election year, with so much on the line all around, going to Wisconsin, campaigning and then watching Barrett lose could be devastating not just to the Wisconsin Democratic Party as a whole, but his overall reelection chances - especially in a state he pretty much has to carry in November.

Look, I get that we all want him to do this or that and maybe his decision not to go is the wrong one. Still, Clinton is a big name there and it's hard for me to imagine that Clinton would be that much less effective than Obama. So, in the end, if Clinton can't bring this home, what makes anyone think Obama could?

[littlewolf]

20. I agree ... Bill Clinton will do good ...

I wanted some kind of support from the WH ...
I can understand not going to WI personally
the Tweet was good ... and having personal
work on the GOTV ... it will be enough
would more be good - something like a
robo call or a radio ad of some kind ... yeah
but has others have said.. he is running
for reelection ...

[center rising]

24. Ed should shut his mouth. Big mistake if he goes!!

[LiberalFighter]

29. This afternoon Ed said that this was for Wisconsin to take care of.

He has changed his tune. Besides, OFA has been on the ground in Wisconsin.