The recall effort against Mr. Walker was framed as a working-class rebellion, a broad pushback against those who seek to shrink the middle class so that the rich could enjoy even greater affluence. Mr. Walker was portrayed as a tool of scheming capitalists intent on destroying the benefits of public employees because the wealthy deserve lower taxes.

Of course, nearly everything Mr. Walker’s opponents said was wrong. And voters clearly agreed. Mr. Walker won more than 53 percent of the vote despite his opposition’s slanders and the efforts of public employee unions from around the nation, who apparently felt they had a duty to interfere in Wisconsin politics.

Mr. Walker’s victory is a victory for all public officials, Democrat, Republican or independent, who understand that public employee benefits are strangling state and local economies around the nation. Mr. Walker inspired the hatred of unions and their sympathizers simply because he demanded fiscal sanity at a time when his state was staring at a deficit of nearly $4 billion, with no relief in sight.

Public employees in Wisconsin—a state that prides itself on its progressive traditions—paid nothing into their pension system when Mr. Walker took office, and paid only about 6 percent of their health-care costs. Mr. Walker supported reforms that required public employees to pay about 6 percent of their pension costs and about 12 percent of their health insurance. That saved Wisconsin taxpayers more than $700 million.

These are precisely the kinds of reforms that have been put in place in many states, including New York and New Jersey, over the last few years. More reforms must come, but at this point, any reform is a relief.

Public employee unions have manipulated the political process to win sweetheart deals from legislators and governors. Their benefits have little to do with equity and lots to do with pure politics. But the game is up: Even private-sector unions are getting behind groups demanding reforms. The private-sector unions recognize that their brothers and sisters are bankrupting local governments, with terrible consequences.

Mr. Walker personifies a new kind of political courage: The courage to say, “enough.” Voters rewarded that courage in his recall election. And voters elsewhere are making it clear that they, too, have had it with public employee unions. Last week voters in San Diego and San Jose approved ballot measures that cut pension benefits for municipal workers—not just future workers, but for current workers, as well. Here in New York, concessions on benefits generally apply only to future workers. But that too must change.

Police officers and firefighters in San Jose were eligible to retire after 30 years of service with pensions equivalent to 90 percent of their working salaries. Luckily New York has never negotiated such a terrible deal with its public employee unions. Nevertheless, New York City has seen its annual spending on pensions grow from $1.5 billion to $8 billion in the last decade. That has to stop.

Scott Walker is not just a local hero. He is a national leader on an issue that is about to explode in every state and in every city across the nation.

Union officials here have portrayed their efforts against Mr. Walker as a battle for the middle class everywhere. This, of course, is absurd: Unions want to oust Mr. Walker because he had the nerve to implement limited pension reforms (see above) for public workers. Oh, and he also supported a measure that prevented public employee unions from automatically collecting dues from members’ paychecks.

So the battle is not about the preservation of the middle class. If anything, the middle class is suffering because of the lavish benefits that public employee unions extract from government revenues.

The battle is between a political figure who is trying to regain some element of control over his state’s finances, and public employee unions who believe that it still is 1965 and that taxpayers owe public employees gold-plated health benefits and a fully funded retirement after 20 or 25 years of service. These sorts of benefits are not available to the average middle-class resident of Wisconsin.

New York’s unions certainly have something to gain if Mr. Walker is ousted. It’s no wonder that they are investing resources in Wisconsin.

If they prevail, you can expect a new offensive against the treasuries of New York in the coming year.

Libya: Editors question leadership and "objective" of the mission there. [NY Times]

Libya: "[T]he nations have not really defined what they hope to achieve." [David Brooks]

Libya: Editors say critic Rep. Nadler has a point. [NY Post]

Ground Zero: Clyde Haberman links lawsuit against Islamic Center to Jerry Falwell. [NY Times]

Nuclear: Indian Point official "reassured the legislators that Indian Point had been designed to withstand an earthquake much stronger than any on record in the region, though not one as powerful as the quake that rocked Japan." [Patrick McGeehan]

2012: Pawlenty "needs to demonstrate to the chattering class of opinion makers that he's a top-tier candidate" says editor of Rothen Political Report. [Bill Salisbury]

2012: Blind item says Trump decides by June. [Page Six]

Same-Sex Marriage: "The hope is Cuomo can get one GOPer to speak in favor of gay marriage to help break the logjam - and build momentum." [Adam Lisberg and Ken Lovett]

State Budget: Should Cuomo control $130 million in economic development funds? If so, it's "another diminution of legislative prerogative." [Jimmy Vielkind]

State Budget: Forcing legislature to pass budget piecemeal could hurt governor's relationship with legislature; passing bad budget would be worse. [Bill Hammond]

City Budget: Top aide misspoke; Bloomberg still opposes millionaire's tax. [Sally Goldenberg]

LIFO: Union ad links Bloomberg to "extremists like the governor of Wisconsin." [Carl Campanile]

NYC Schools: City plans to build 26 schools, down from 56. [Sharon Otterman]

NYC Schools: Paperwork delay slows funds for some schools. [Yoav Gonen]

Carl Kruger: Developer linked to tainted Senator removed from project. [Rich Calder]

Kevin Parker: "Slap on the wrist." [NY Post]

Kevin Parker: GOP colleague says chamber should consider removing him. [William Gorta & Brendan Scott]

Nassau Budget: Not leaking details of Mangano's revised budget, due at 5 p.m. [Sid cassese]

Oyster Bay Police: Very expensive, very Republican.[Paul LaRocco]

Scandals: Editors want Attorney General Schneiderman to probe Council members who got tax breaks for "primary residence" dwellings outside their district. [Daily News]

Drugs: John Flanagan wants to ban something Miley Cyrus smoked. [Glenn Blain]

Albany Arts: Cut in state funds forces 33-year-old iconic Egg art center to hold first ever fund-raiser. [Tom Keyser]

Media: Car deal helps readers circumvent nytimes.com paywall. [Email]

Embarrassments: "The unstated message of Fountain Day has always been an official endorsement of the binge drinking the event has always symbolized. The university might just as well hang up a sign that says, "It's spring; drink up and jump in." [Times Union]

If contract terms or labor laws from years past no longer make sense, we the people should renegotiate — or legislate — changes. Benefits agreed to 35 years ago that now are unaffordable should be reduced. Similarly, work rules that made sense 70 years ago but are now antiquated should be changed. [skip] To the extent that collective bargaining agreements or state laws are no longer serving the public, we should change them. That is what democracy is all about — and that is our responsibility. The job of labor leaders is to get the best deal for their members. The job of elected officials is to get the best deal for all citizens. Rather than declare war on unions, we should demand a new deal with them — one that reflects today’s economic realities and workplace conditions, not those of a century ago.

"There's no question about it," Rangel told Brother Bill from the Voice of Harlem. "This is not been the first time that we had heard that the Teabag Party--or the Tea Party--rather and some of the Republicans have wanted to drive the unions out of business."

Without unions, Rangel went on to say, America's middle class would not exist.

"At the end of the day, it's abundantly clear that management does not want unions at all, and I don't think they've made any bones about it," he said. "I think it's just as clear as you can see it."

When asked if there was a comparison between the protests in Wisconsin and the protests in Libya, Rangel said he understood the frustration people experienced in both countries when they could not provide for their families. According to Rangel, protests occur because "people have to use whatever limited tools they have to express themselves."

Listen to the full interview below:

Listen!

A lot, apparently. Or so he says. New York's senior senator, who rarely misses a chance to play the populist card, has seized on the fiscal crisis in Madison to raise his profile and a few campaign dollars as well. Mr. Schumer recently sent a mass email to supporters condemning Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's attempts to limit collective bargaining rights for public employees. He urged recipients to send checks to the Democratic Party to prevent Mr. Walker from taking "America back to the 1920s."

Presumably the senator's staff historian is aware that the 1920s were known in these parts as the Roaring '20s, a time of heady (albeit illusory) prosperity on Wall Street and Main Street alike. Taking America back to times of plenty may not be such a bad idea, but that's clearly not what Mr. Schumer had in mind. He is suggesting that Governor Walker and others like him are determined to turn public employees into serfs simply because they share Franklin Roosevelt's belief that collective bargaining rights shouldn't apply to public employees.

Mr. Schumer should stay out of Wisconsin's business. What's more, he and like-minded people ought to bear in mind that 21st-century voters are less concerned about the 1920s than they are about the 2020s. They are wondering if states and the nation itself will be bankrupt by the end of this decade because public-employee unions have demanded and received benefits that are simply unaffordable and increasingly unfair.

Governor Walker has his sights set not on the next election, which generally is the extent of Senator Schumer's vision, but on the next generation of Wisconsin taxpayers. He knows what nearly every other governor knows--that state governments (and local governments, and the federal government) must reform their pension and benefits systems now. Not next year. Not in 2016. Now.

Governor Walker argues that the only way to achieve radical change is to eliminate collective bargaining for most state workers. It is an extreme idea, but these are extreme times. The main flaw in the governor's proposal is that it doesn't go far enough--he wants to exempt firefighters, state troopers and police officers, who, generally speaking, tend to have the most generous benefits. In Wisconsin, the police and firefighter unions also tend to support Republican candidates.

Still, Mr. Walker has shown the courage to challenge the status quo and recognize reality. Unlike Mr. Schumer, he isn't worried about 1920. He is looking ahead to 2020--just nine years away. And he doesn't like what he sees.

Public-employee unions have far too much power--often their political clout allows them to choose who will sit across from them at the bargaining table. It's time for a reality check. Governor Walker is doing just that in Wisconsin. Senator Schumer would be wise to watch and learn.

editorial@observer.com

“Let’s get real,” she said in a Hunter College auditorium that seemed to be packed mostly with the middle-aged women who make up her base. “Let’s get real about this election. Let’s get real about our future.”

With the must-win contests in Texas and Ohio looming, Clinton’s task of exorcising Democratic voters of their enchantment with Barack Obama seems more difficult by the day. This morning, she continued to try to turn Obama’s eloquence against him by suggesting, once again, that he is all fancy talk and no action.

“It is time to get real, to get real about how we actually win this election,” she said, adding, “It is time that we moved from good words to good works, from good sound bites to good solutions.”

That line brought the crowd to its feet. It was less enthusiastically received when she went immediately back to the just-words well, repeating that the country needed a president “who relies not just on words but on work -- on hard work” and “we need to make a choice between speeches and solution” and “the best words in the world aren’t enough unless you match them with action.”

“This,” she added, “is becoming more apparent every day.”

But that message has yet to catch on with primary voters. He won by wide margins last night in Wisconsin and Hawaii and he has narrowed Clinton’s lead in Texas and Ohio. The media is circling.

The enthusiasm at today’s small-dollar fund-raiser was supposed to be an answer to that.

After a Broadway star belted the national anthem over crackling speaker feedback, shouts of “we love you Hillary” and building “Hillary” chants filled the music-less interval before Clinton and Chuck Schumer took the stage.

“It’s great to be home,” Clinton announced, to applause.

Then Schumer, who is balancing his roles as a critical Clinton supporter and Democratic Party leader, gave his Senate colleague an emphatic introduction that notably did not say anything negative about Obama.

Instead, he focused on John McCain.

“Make no mistake about it, this man follows Bush’s policies 95 percent of the time,” said Schumer, removing his glasses. “We have to beat him. To me it is a moral imperative.

“And we know who the candidate is who can beat him,” he said as the crowd rose to its feet and Clinton stood at his side with her hands folded in front of her.

Schumer echoed Clinton’s talking point that she was the only candidate who had withstood the assaults of the Republican attack machine and could do so again. He demonstrated this physically.

“When they take out their 2 by 4,” he said assuming a batter’s stance. “She’ll be ready with her 4 by 8 to hit them back.” He swung his imaginary lumber. Clinton seemed to approve.

He attested to Clinton’s knack for comebacks, and announced to Ohio and Texas: “Get ready, because here she comes.”

Clinton then took the podium. Rows of young enthusiastic people sat behind her, in the camera’s frame. In front of her the audience was mostly middle-aged. Many of the contributors were women with graying hair.

After quickly acknowledging the way things have actually gone for her (“I want to congratulate Senator Obama,” Clinton said, adding, “He has had a good couple of weeks”) she insisted the race was not supposed to be easy, was far from over and would come down to the primary states of Texas and Ohio, where, she said, “We are going to be squaring off.”

She did her best to attack what her campaign argues is a silly meta-narrative about Obama’s candidacy that has obscured the real issues.

“This campaign is not about a campaign,” she said. “This campaign is not about a personality, this campaign is about hundreds of millions of Americans.”

To reinforce the notion that she was the candidate most tethered to reality and the plight of working people, she added, “Now others might be joining a movement -- well I’m joining you on the night shift and the day shift.”

After the speech, some of Clinton’s supporters in the crowd picked up on that theme and expressed anger with the way things have unfolded.

“She’s changing her strategy because there are a lot of people who have fallen into the wake of Barack Obama and those people have to get real,” said Mary Ann Dellabadia, a 52-year-old nurse, who added that even if Obama made it through to the general election, “I’m not voting for him.”

“It is a cult and it’s mostly the college kids and they’re stupid,’ she said.

Her friend, Mary Jo Pane, interjected.

“I will vote ‘present’ if he is the Democratic candidate -- everyone I know feels that way,” said Pane, a 55-year-old nurse jewelry designer. “The press has made him what he is. It’s a very irresponsible election cycle when the press has this much control.”

Faced with an opportunity in Wisconsin to halt her devastating post-Super Tuesday skid and to head into the critical March 4 primaries with newfound confidence and momentum, the former First Lady came up short tonight. Very short.

Barack Obama’s decisive victory in Wisconsin—where just six percent of the population is black—was enabled by narrow but significant pluralities among groups of voters that, earlier in the primary process, had been loyal to Clinton: women, lower-income and less educated voters, union members, and registered Democrats.

This marks the second straight week that Obama made inroads into Clinton’s base, powerful evidence of a national shift in mass opinion among Democrats. And Obama’s win came in spite of a concerted push by Clinton, who blitzed the state with negative ads and personal campaign appearances, against a backdrop of last-minute accusations of plagiarism against Obama.

None of this bodes well for Clinton as the race now shifts to Texas and Ohio, which will vote on March 4. Since Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign has identified both states as part of their “must win” firewall, a characterization that they have clung to even more fiercely as their February losses have mounted.

But even before Wisconsin rendered its verdict tonight, Clinton’s standing in both March 4 states was imperiled. After leading both by more than 25 points for most of the campaign, Clinton in the last few days slipped into a tie with Obama in Texas and has seen her Ohio margin shrink to just over 10 points in some polls.

She badly needed to engineer a surprise victory in Wisconsin, or at least to finish close enough to Obama to declare some kind of moral victory. Now she must contend with two straight weeks of stories about her losing streak—it should reach 10 when Hawaii’s results come in later tonight—and the do-or-die stakes of March 4 for her campaign.

And the news figured to only get even worse between now and then for Clinton, because tonight’s result essentially guarantees that she will not pick up any new superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks. No Democratic official will want to explain why he or she is jumping on board with a campaign that seems to be losing the confidence of the party’s rank-and-file. It also makes more high-profile defections from Clinton to Obama—there have been several since Super Tuesday—likely, which will further reinforce mass perception that the good ship Clinton is sinking.

Clinton is still well-positioned for Ohio, where the demographics are suited to her candidacy better than in nearly any other state. But Texas seems to be slipping from her grasp by the hour, in part because Obama also seems to be erasing her previously lopsided advantage among Hispanic voters. Now that she has fallen so far behind in the delegate count—the gap could be 150 after tonight—and the popular vote, a split verdict on March 4 might keep the Clinton campaign alive, but it wouldn’t do much else. And after March 4, there just won’t be many opportunities for her to catch Obama. Realistically, Clinton must find a way to win both Ohio and Texas.

And that means she will be mightily tempted to step up her negative campaigning, something that almost any candidate in her position would do. But her attacks on Obama in Wisconsin were louder than ever—and they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Obama seems to be protected by the same Teflon that insulated Ronald Reagan.

No, the Democratic race isn’t over yet. But the end may be very near.

Hillary Clinton

This is the last chance Clinton will have to avoid heading into March 4 on a 10-contest losing streak. Certainly, she is vastly better-positioned here than in any of the states she's lost since Super Tuesday. Most polls show her trailing Barack Obama, but only by a few points—a sign that the base that has fortified her for most of this campaign (working-class voters) has not jumped ship in large numbers.

Victory is within reach for her if working-class turnout (especially among women) is high enough to off-set Obama's strength among the progressive-reformer-types who also loom large in Wisconsin Democratic politics. If there's any last-minute fallout from her campaign plagiarism charges against Obama—and if that fallout hurts Obama more than Clinton—then she might also be able to overcome his advantages.

Working in Clinton's favor is the element of surprise: Given the grief her campaign has taken since Super Tuesday, expectations are low and a Wisconsin win would be greeted as a tectonic event.

For the Clintons, victory in Wisconsin means heading into Texas and Ohio on a high, with the press asking questions about whether Democrats are about to leave Obama at the altar. A loss means two more weeks of media stories about losing streaks, superdelegate defections and her exit scenarios if March 4 doesn't go well.

Barack Obama

A win in Wisconsin is vital to preserve the carry-over benefits of his post-Super Tuesday successes, which have vaulted him into the lead in national polls and into contention in Texas. A loss creates the possibility that the next two weeks will be as rough for him as the past two were for Clinton.

Certainly, the expectations game hasn't been set up so unfavorably for Obama since before New Hampshire, where the only question in the media's mind was how lopsided his triumph would be. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has been penciled in as Wisconsin's presumptive winner, thanks to the state's tendency to back reformers and insurgents. But while he surged into the lead in the state in the past two weeks, his poll growth seems to have flattened out. In other words, defeat here is very possible for Obama—and the media is only starting to realize it. Losing a state you're expected to win is much worse than losing where you never had a prayer.

Obama has clearly profited from his heady string of victories in at least one of the March 4 states—Texas, where he has pulled even in some polls. But the game changes—radically—if he loses Wisconsin. Clinton will claim an upset victory, momentum will shift in her favor, the press might wonder if plagiarism charges had anything to do with it, and Obama's apparent Texas surge might fizzle. And just like that, Clinton would be in position to start a winning streak—in big states—of her own.

The Obama campaign will be relieved if they walk away from Wisconsin with any kind of win.

Now, five weeks later, the vultures are back. She's lost eight straight contests since Super Tuesday and most pundits have penciled her in for two more next Tuesday, in Wisconsin and Hawaii. And her grip on Ohio and Texas (in particular) may be slipping, and if she can't win those states on March 4, then the end will be at hand.

Sounds like the perfect set-up for Clinton to pull another rabbit out of the hat. And, several polls now show, she may be moving into position to do just that in Wisconsin. Both Research 2000 and Rasmussen have Obama leading the Badger State, but only slightly—by five and four points, respectively.

That's a clear improvement for Obama from Wisconsin surveys taken before his recent charge, but could it also be his high-water mark? It seems like his post-Potomac Tuesday bounce has peaked, and now Clinton is up on the air with a negative ad and is set to spend the weekend barnstorming the state. A win is not at all out of reach for her.

On paper, Wisconsin is a winnable state for Clinton, filled with the working-class Democrats who have formed the backbone of her coalition in other states. But the math is more complicated for her in Wisconsin because it is also home to many progressive reformers who naturally gravitate toward Obama. The difference—as in New Hampshire—could be made by women: They flocked to Clinton at the last minute and saved her in New Hampshire. With her back against the wall, will they give her a super-lopsided margin in Wisconsin, the kind that could tip the state into her column?

A Clinton win in Wisconsin would dramatically alter the Democratic race, killing Obama's perceived momentum and halting the Clinton slide in Texas and Ohio. No matter what they say publicly about being happy to keep it close, the Clinton campaign surely realizes the opportunity they have to pull off a surprise next week.