ED SCHULTZ: President Obama rolled over today and he was steamrolled by the election.

[BigBearJohn]

Now there is an undercurrent of liberal distrust, disgust across the country with how this White House is handling the whole thing.

His base is wondering tonite if he has the fight in him at all.

WATCH THIS VIDEO. VERY POWERFUL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3B6NssnaS0

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[BigBearJohn]

2. If I am, then so is Ed Schultz. I will stand next to Ed Schultz anyday.

Watch his video, then repost your thoughts.

[Raine]

7. I'll stand with Ed too! nt

:thumbsup:

[DFLforever]

12. I guess I'm too old-fashinoned

I tend to trust the word of the Democratic president of the US against a cable television commentator - one who only a couple of years ago was voting Republican for president.

Ed's a great defender of the working man. I'll give him that. But little else in credence.

[BigBearJohn]

14. It's not a matter of trusting one man's word over another's. Ed makes an observation and I agree

that the President needs to take off the kid gloves.

[DFLforever]

24. I trust what the president says over what Schulz

claims the president said. That's what I mean by 'word'.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. A couple years ago Ed was promoting progressive values

Ed became a Democrat in 2000.

[DFLforever]

19. Well I heard from a well-placed ND Republican

he was still one of them as recently as 2007.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Well that is not true

[DFLforever]

21. Ed might just have been putting this person on

since there is no way to check - one does not registers party preference in MN or ND.

ND Republicans and Democrats aren't remarkably different from each other though Republicans veer tougher on betrayal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. He would have had to have been putting on quite a show on the radio as well

I've been listening to him daily since 2003. Met him at Camp Casey in 2005.

[DFLforever]

25. I don't think I listened to him until later in 2004.

Some on DU didn't regard him as a true progressive and called him a DLCer(No one's immune!) Quite a change of tone and presentation from today.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. A couple of years ago? Ed was a wild Obama backer.

A couple of years before that, he was for Kerry. Interesting to smear a man with falsehoods, while claiming it is he who can not be trusted. Let me remind you that dozens of DUers supported Crist for Senate, and he was an elected Republican at the time. Ed was a Republican many long years ago, or as you frame it, in 08. A really cheap tactic. Expected out of the Obama 'faith based' crowd, lots of slander and McClurkin style invective.

[AndrewP]

38. I've been listening to Ed since the 1980's here in Fargo and I know he's a progressive leftie

He was a right winger in the 1980's and most of the 90's.

He started to move left in 2000. He has been a hard core leftie since 2002/2003.

I'm not sure how many times he has to explain this for people to believe him. If it was all "a fraud" then he was even doing it locally many years ago. Because he didn't like Bush from the beginning.

[AndrewP]

39. I've been listening to Ed since the 1980's here in Fargo and I know he's a progressive leftie

He was a right winger in the 1980's and most of the 90's.

He started to move left in 2000. He has been a hard core leftie since 2002/2003.

I'm not sure how many times he has to explain this for people to believe him. If it was all "a fraud" then he was even doing it locally many years ago. Because he didn't like Bush from the beginning.

[AndrewP]

40. I've been listening to Ed since the 1980's here in Fargo and I know he's a progressive leftie

He was a right winger in the 1980's and most of the 90's.

He started to move left in 2000. He has been a hard core leftie since 2002/2003.

I'm not sure how many times he has to explain this for people to believe him. If it was all "a fraud" then he was even doing it locally many years ago. Because he didn't like Bush from the beginning.

[regnaD kciN]

17. Then you and Ed are both wrong...

I like Big Ed as much as anyone, but, if he thinks Obama's press conference performance was capitulation, I can only wonder what alternate reality he is living in.

Look, it's expected procedure for Presidents whose party just lost a Congressional election to accept that defeat and graciously promise to "compromise" with the new winners. It's expected even when -- especially when -- you know full well it's not going to happen. Part of the political game is to make your opponents appear the intransigent ones, so that, when your (for show) efforts at compromise fail, and you have to go toe-to-toe with them, you appear to the voters to be the reasonable "good guy" and they the extremists. One of the British papers made that point earlier today -- the more gracious Obama appears in his first post-election address or press conference, the more it means he's expecting to go to war with his opponents soon.

But look at what else happened in that press conference. Over and over, reporters tried to draw him into a statement that it was his policies that were to blame for the defeat, or that he had "learned his lesson" and would be altering his agenda to be more "moderate" or "move to the center." Most of our prior "leaders" in his position would have jumped at the chance. But Obama never gave an inch. When pressed, he asserted that the defeat wasn't due to his administration's policies, but to the positive effects of those policies taking too long to fully materialize. Was there any policy or program that he wanted to take back, some piece of "socialistic liberalism" he would like to renounce? No. His refusal was so striking, reporters kept asking variants of the same question over and over, but Obama didn't give an inch. Even the specifics on which he was willing to offer compromise (such as the Form 1099 reporting issue in the health care law) were on such minor matters, it's hard to believe the Boner Gang would take them seriously. On the big items, he saw no reason to offer concessions.

These were not the words of someone ready to "capitulate." These were the words of those who know a standoff is inevitable, and who is prepared to win the P.R. war when that happens. It's a shame neither Ed Schultz nor you could see that.

[DFLforever]

22. Exactly

I didn't hear any words along the lines of the days of 'big government' are over like that fighter Bill Clinton intoned.

I don't know what the game is with people like Schulz. Maybe they mean what they say, maybe they don't. But I think they all pay a price to stay on the air. He seemed more honest and sincere before his TV days when he was on radio only.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. "People like Schutlz"?

Obama has been for marriage equality, then against it for 'religious reasons' and says this, then that, and never, ever explains his change of heart toward the more conservative and discriminatory. Maybe he means it and maybe he dosen't? He has said one thing, then the opposite, and still tries to pretend to be 'thinking about it'.
No profession has a more tentative relationship with the truth than politicians. Obama said any bill he signed would have a strong public option, then later claimed he never said that at all.
Ed wins.

[StandingInLeftField]

27. The only thing wrong with your scenario is that it's been tried before

From the time of his inauguration, President Obama came to the table ready and willing to be the "good guy", the "reasonable guy". He was very gracious and made it a point to reach out across the aisle. In return he received nothing, nada. Granted, he succeeded in passing health insurance legislation that the vast majority of Americans do not like or want by compromising with the insurance industry and big pharma, but I do not consider that a big win for our side.

All I'm saying is that he needs to stop playing politics and start working on some real meat and potatoes legislation, or try to get some of the stalled legislation through the Senate during the lame duck session. I truly believe his heart is in the right place, but his methods are in serious need of a re-examination.

[azurnoir]

8. I live in MN too and I agree with Ed I tlked to people

friends relative neighbors and you know what the only Dems that bothered to vote yesterday were me and my SO, now most save a couple are Dems and you know what they told me in a nutshell it was a giant WHY BOTHER they're all the same, they're all on the side of banks, corporations, what have they really done to help us? on a national level Dems better listen up and do something if they still can get rid of Bushs tax cut we're tired of paying our bosses taxes help with the mortgage crisis there was a headline on election day that screeched HOME OWNERSHIP LOWEST IN 10 YEARS why is that and more importantly what can be done it's not '94 or '96 and it can not be done Clintons way not anymore

on a side note

unfortunately some in MN are about to learn the real hard way as Pawlenty gets to rule over a "trifecta" and gut what little is left health care, social programs and gerrymander the state, Emmer will stall until they're done

[inna]

9. lame and uncalled for personal attack; a projection perhaps?

:thumbsdown:

[w4rma]

18. I don't think you realize that most people are pissed off and don't want to see the President acting

like a goddamn wimp in the face of opposition. And I don't mean from his supporters. I mean from the nuts on the right who will *never* support him and everybody knows it except the DLC.

[tblue]

3. Michael Moore said a similar thing on Lawrence O'Donnell.

You have to be a TROLL to want a Democrat to act like a DEMOCRAT? People are so flip. I appreciate your post. I want solutions not a Dem civil war! I am so tired of Dems picking on Dems who really are trying to hang in.

[tblue]

4. IOW: Thanks for this post.

I didn't see it today on the tv and would have missed it.

[BigBearJohn]

10. Thank you so much. I'm tired of treating the republigods with kid gloves

[Lost4words]

30. sorry, you dont get it yet, you were screwed, lied to, taken advantage of

lather rinse repeat.

[FirstLight]

5. just watched and posted too!

i wholeheartedly agree...i WANT some FIGHT!

[Raine]

6. YES, it was POWERFUL

Ed really tells it like it is and sticks up for the liberals and progressives. :thumbsup:

[RiverStone]

11. I agree with Ed 100%

If our ass kicking does not give the President a clue, then he will be challenged from within the party in 2012. I worked like hell to elect Obama, now he has to fight for those of us that did - or he will breed more apathy or an in-house fight that could split the party.

Rec'd!

[sabrina 1]

13. So many people are saying the same thing. So many people

are asking the same question 'what is it with this president and his need to compromise with the worst, most reactionary Republican party ever'? He doesn't have a problem tearing into Progressives so we know he can do it. Just not to Republicans?

Even when they tell him they are going to spend the next two years trying to take him down, he still says he will probably be willing to compromise??? That really scares me too Ed! So many serious issues, which ones is planning to compromise with these crazies on?

Is there something we don't know? I do not understand it at all. As everyone is telling him 'they hate you' every blog I've read, every talk show, everyone sees it, HE must see it, but still he will not fight them. He has power they do not have, but he won't use it.

Ed is right, if things continue like this, Democrats will be destroyed in 2012.

I wish I understood it. The only thing I can think of is, someone is threatening him. How else do you explain it? Unless he's really one of them, there is no rational reason why he is not ripping mad right now after the way they have behaved.

[butterfly77]

31. I have to agree with you..

I have thought about this every since he took office:

"I wish I understood it. The only thing I can think of is, someone is threatening him. How else do you explain it? Unless he's really one of them, there is no rational reason why he is not ripping mad right now after the way they have behaved."

[xiamiam]

34. when i heard the afghanistan surge speech i was dumbstruck as it was exactly the speech i heard from

bush..not an obama speech..i felt he could barely get the words out ..first, abandoning the bankruptcy bill right out the gate which WOULD HAVE stemmed this foreclosure mess and which was changed in 2005..and then the surge speech...eyes wide open after that..and heart broken..i dont expect much and that is scary

[Lorien]

42. Yep. Sadly so. nt

[AndrewP]

36. +1

[Lorien]

43. Simple answer: he has more in common with them than he does with us

and favors their agenda over ours. It's the old "good cop, bad cop" routine. The wealthy and big corporations win, the rest of us lose.

[DrDan]

15. got to agree

[Poboy]

26. Yep. -nt

[Dappleganger]

28. Ed is right!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

32. He's right. nt

[ncdemocrat1976]

37. Not all Americans feel this way, just the ones who voted. n/t

[we can do it]

41. Backbones Needed NOW - No More Wimpy Bullshit

Don't like us REAL LIBERALS?
where's the fire? where's the passion ?