Kucinich Says Obama Should Face 2012 Democratic Primary Challenge

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Nation

Congressman Dennis Kucinich will not challenge President Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries – “I’m focusing on being reelected to the House of Representatives” -- but he thinks Obama should face a foe for the nomination.

"I think primaries can have the opportunity of raising the issues and make the Democratic candidate a stronger candidate," Kucinich, who sought the party nod in 2004 and 2008, said Thursday. “I think it’s safe to predict that President Obama will continue to be the nominee of the Democratic primary, but he can be a stronger nominee if he receives a strong challenge in a primary.”

Kucinich won’t speculate on who could, or should, run against Obama, who has disappointed much of the Democratic base with moves to the right on issues ranging from last year’s health-care debate – in which he abandoned first the single-payer reform he had once backed and then the public option – to tax policy and entitlement reform.

But the Ohio congressman did suggest the issues that might be highlighted by a primary foe to Obama.

Read more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/158490/kucinich-says-obama-should-face-2012-democratic-primary-challenge

[tekisui]

1. I agree, he should.

Even if they have no chance at winning.

[Towlie]

41. USA Today: "Obama to propose slashing home heating aid for poor."

Sadly, if that's an accurate headline then I'm forced to agree. He should face a challenger for the Democratic nomination.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/02/obama-to-propose-slashing-home-heating-aid-for-poor/1

[dennis4868]

88. You read an article and believe it....

that's the problem with liberals...they always have this knee jerk reaction to things....with Obama you have to wait until he takes action and makes a decision....

[Lasher]

93. There's 573 Google news articles that say the same thing.

I don't think it's fair to accuse Towlie of having a knee jerk reaction.

[dennis4868]

121. there is also 1,0000000000000000 articles on the internet that say....

the world is flat....what's your point?

[ScreamingMeemie]

142. Actually...no, it's only 21,300,000

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+world+is+flat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a ;) :D

[Shining Jack]

276. Lol!

:D

[Lasher]

143. My point is, your reply to Towlie was crude and ignorant.

Need any more clarification?

[Towlie]

96. Who said I believe it? What part of "if" do you not understand?

[Phlem]

103. It's been my experience that

the wait and see approach stinks to high heaven.

What if the outcome is bad, then you wasted time waiting instead of doing.

That's the lazy approach of which I've seen people apply to their lives, with disastrous results.

How's this, lets do nothing on global warming to see if it's real....oops to late.

:eyes:

-p

[grahamhgreen]

124. "that's the problem with liberals". Sorry, but liberals have the solutions to all

Our problems. Tax the rich. End the wars. Medicare for all. End free trade.

[Ken Burch]

127. Those wouldn't solve all the problems, but they WOULD help a hell of a lot

BTW, are you endorsing those ideas or mocking them? I can never tell with you.

[grahamhgreen]

158. Endorsing

Taxing the rich I see as key, as this can pay for most of our other issues.

Closing the loopholes I see as also critical, so I am still harboring a modicum of hope that the Dems will be able to close some of them.

Taxing the rich, Medicare for all, and ending the wars, although propagandists as far left positions, are actually centrist, as they are held by the majority.

[Ken Burch]

159. Thanks for the clarification.

n/t.

[Enthusiast]

202. I like the clarification.

:fistbump:

[cannabis_flower]

164. The line from the song is...

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there no rich no more" by Ten Year's After


Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

Population keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees make honey, who needs money, Monopoly

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

World pollution, there's no solution
Institution, electrocution
Just black and white, rich or poor
Them and us, stop the war

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

[Ken Burch]

257. BTW...did anybody in that band ever answer the question:

"Ten Years After...er..WHAT?"

[KansDem]

174. You forgot "verifiable elections" -- paper ballots instead of electronic voting

Got to have that or we'll never have the solutions you mentioned!

[grahamhgreen]

178. Yes, I did! but again, the solutions are simple, obvious and ignored by the leadership.

[pam4water]

226. +1

[liberalmike27]

132. It's a Tug of War

Some use the representation of a ratchet wrench. When a republican gets in, they tighten the country to the right. Then a democrat gets in office, they act like they are turning back to the left, but the wrench just slips, doesn't turn, and click, click, click, it makes little to no change. Like the HC bill...hey, buy insurance, we'll throw you a crumb, but not deal with the real problem, those who don't have insurance and no job at any given time. The banking bill, lauded as a great accomplishment, but no "too big to fail," the BP disaster, a great time for new regulations, cricket noises on a quiet night on that. Ratchet, click, click, click, staying where we are, doing nothing. That was Clinton, and sadly in this time we didn't need another Clinton, or we'd have voted for her, yet he models his administration on Clinton.

I often use the Tug of War metaphor. What the no-primary advocates seem to be saying is do nothing, allow the tightening during republicans, and because Obama "might" (not at all convinced, am I) lose, we can't put up a primary challenge with someone who'll act a bit more like a democrat. We can't try for someone who'll try to get more votes from the 30-40 million poor folks who've come to realize Democrats don't seem to be doing much more for the poor, working or not, than Republicans, instead Obama tries to peel off a million or two upper-middle class voters from the center. Much, much better pickin's at the left, and a large part of the black, and Hispanic population lies in the 30-40 million to the left.

So I guess what I'm saying is, when we choose to not primary someone, or when democrats don't do much but stand their ground, when presidents don't loudly make the case for getting out of wars, for closing Guantanamo, kicking the Death Penalty to the curb, then we aren't really pulling on that rope that represents the continuum of the political spectrum. Believe me, if you are trying to hold the line, instead of pulling hard back to the left, then it is more likely that you'll end up being pulled into the mud in the center. That is what has happened. And what happens then? You lose your footing, no one can hold the line, and it becomes ever easier to pull us farther to the their positions on the right.

I play chess, have read a lot of books about it. One of the prime tenets is if you're not looking to attack, you'll surely soon find yourself defending. I believe this applies here too. By not throwing up a primary, by not expecting more from Obama, by Obama not pulling hard and unapologetically to the left, what we end up with is him and the rest of us being pulled along into the mud in the center of this metaphorical tug-of-war. I don't think that's where we need to be.

Run the primary--we'll still vote for him if he wins in the end. He'll get an idea of who Rahm and Gibbs insulted, and perhaps learn a bit about who the democratic party includes.

[eridani]

172. +1000 n/t

[ThomCat]

217. Our part has been so weak that we have been a ratchet,

only pulling to the right, and incapable of pulling to the left.

I very much wish we could pull to the left again. We need to. Our country needs to.

A tug of war would be a very good thing if it meant we had equal footing to pull too.

[rhett o rick]

221. Those in hear that hate liberals dont have the guts to state where they stand on the issues. Never

do they. All they do is criticize liberals.

[guyton]

134. I'm still waiting ...

I'm still waiting for him ...

to enforce our laws against torture
to close Guantánamo
to respect our civil rights
to defend the Constitution
to support health-care reform (vs. heath-insurance reform)

the list goes on and on, but I think you get the idea.

[ThomCat]

218. Yes, wasn't he supposed to restore the rule of law

at some point?

Wouldn't that involve real courts instead of tribunals?

And wouldn't that involve doing away with torture, instead of promoting it, condoning it, and actually doing it to an American in Custody?

And wouldn't that involve doing away with that policy of being able to assassinate anyone "suspected" of being involved in terrorism without a court conviction first? (even Americans)

And wouldn't that involve doing away with that policy of spying on American citizens?

[frylock]

169. stoopid libruls

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

220. If you aint a liberal does that mean you dont support a public option, do support war in the middle

east, do support the Patriot Act extension, do support bailouts for banksters, do support tax breaks for billionaires?

Explain your stand on these issues, i dare you. I have asked this time and again and not one of you liberal haters have answered.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

235. In between reading and believing is past actions.

Aka an educated guess.

[AlbertCat]

239. with Obama you have to wait until he takes action and makes a decision....

And THEN you can be exasperated, pissed, and just plain disappointed.

[Bluebear]

277. I've seen stupid comments before but this takes the cake.

[Patchuli]

251. Let him turn off his own heat FIRST!

I am disgusted. I hope that is just rightwing spin aka bull$hit.

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

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

[breadandwine]

68. Uh-oh! This might actually force Obama to LISTEN to us and move left. Can't have THAT!

Watch the White House complain that if Kucinich doesn't SHUT up it will be harder to compromise with the sacred Republicans!

We need to shut up and mind our business in the corner because we should have known that in 2008 we elected half a Democrat.


It's time to shut up the base, no primary challenge and lets get rid of some more progressive programs.

Yeah. That'll work.

[tpsbmam]

100. Yeah, yeah. He'll move left during the campaign and then, if reelected....

well, we know what to expect. Any diversion from the currently pathetic norm would surprise the hell out of me. Continuing to enact right-wing policies sadly wouldn't surprise me at all.

[defendandprotect]

112. At the least, we need to begin to demand signed PLEDGES about intended actions ...

and know exactly WHO the team will be -- what the administration will

look like -- the people, or the elites?

:)

[tpsbmam]

150. Legally binding pledges. With no threat of losing the presidency, losing money,

losing face, losing fat-cat money after the presidency....pledges would mean nothing without having a price to pay for breaking the pledge. Make it possible to hit 'em where it counts for these guys/gals...the pocketbook.

[defendandprotect]

185. Hey -- it's like voting on computers ... you keep doing it anyway -- make them steal the votes!!

yes -- signed pledges wouldn't really do anything EXCEPT bring a bit

more attention perhaps to the betrayals!!???

We all know that accountability of politicians isn't something discussed

by corporate-press -- and that the subjects of the PLEDGES wouldn't be anything,

either, they'd be interested in discussing!! :)

[dennis4868]

87. yep....

a challenge sure made Bush 41 stronger and it also made Jimmy Carter alot stronger a candidate in the general election....what utter bullshit.

[Ken Burch]

99. It's not a choice of "back the incumbent no matter what or lose".

He's getting very, very close to the point where he can't move ANY further right and still retain any moral right to call himself a Democrat. You CAN'T be a Democrat and ever cut LIHEAT or Head Start. Those ones ARE sacred. And even the independents aren't demanding that we throw the POOR under the bus.

SOME of us have core values. If you accept that "everything is on the table", you have NO core values.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

Thats the great thing about Centrism!

You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!
:party:

[tomp]

289. very astute point. nt

[CrispyQ]

199. Very well stated.

Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us 'democratic' candidates that are anti-choice, anti-labor & free market. What the fuck? They count on "Who else will they vote for?" logic, but like you state: If you accept that "everything is on the table", you have NO core values.

I don't know what I'm going to do in 2012. I'm looking forward & I can tell you, Obama has lost my vote.

[ZombieHorde]

213. What do you get if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils?

There is a reason we would love to see the Tea Party actually become its own party.

[tekisui]

136. I'm not concerned with making Obama stronger. Not at all.

I want his centrism to put on full display during a primary challenge, in hopes of pushing him to the left. And, opening people's eyes.

[PoliticAverse]

234. If his rhetoric moved left during the campaign do you believe

it would mean his actual policies would change if reelected?

[AnOhioan]

2. He is right

[subsuelo]

166. as usual, for Kucinich. n/t

[LiberalEsto]

3. He should be challenged by a real Democrat

from the Democratic wing of the so-called Democratic Party.

[FLPanhandle]

4. Right. It sure helped Jimmy Carter...

All the republicans had to do was replay the Kennedy ads.

Facing a challenger does not always make for a stronger candidate, it can also make for a severely weakened one.

No thanks Dennis.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Or is it the other way around? A weakened incumbent is what draws a primary challenger in the...

...first place? I think it's the latter.

NGU.

[FLPanhandle]

21. Even so, it would make a weakened incumbent even weaker; not stonger

His premise is that a challenger would make Obama stronger. History says the opposite.

[Horse with no Name]

35. The point is

He is WEAK because he doesn't reflect Democratic values.
Give ALL of US a candidate we can vote for (whether it is a progressive Obama or someone else) and he wins. Simple enough.

[FLPanhandle]

47. Sorry, but you are wrong

A serious challenger to Obama in the next primary is paving the way to a Republican presidency. Recent history is littered with examples.

[Dokkie]

52. I uess its time

to make new history. Anyone coming out of the battle with Obama (assuming he faces a credible challenger) will make the ticket stronger.

[FLPanhandle]

63. "Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it,"

No way the ticket is stronger. It'll be doomed.

[Ken Burch]

184. We all know Carter could never have been re-elected in 1980 anyway.

He couldn't have beaten Reagan no matter what. Face reality. Carter doomed himself by moving sharply to the right after 1978, by his "life is not fair" comment on abortion rights, and by embracing a hawkish foreign policy at a time when their was no reason to do so.

Blurring the differences always leads to defeat when a Democratic incumbent does it.

And even if Carter had been re-elected, he'd have spent his second term being nearly as far to the right as Reagan was.

[FLPanhandle]

212. Maybe

But the tenacious fight with Kennedy didn't make him stronger, in fact, just the opposite.

So Dennis is wrong.

[dbmk]

279. Yes

Because all the people that worked hard against Obama will just be itching to go work and vote for him on election day.

A challenger has an extremely little chance of generating a net surplus of engagement - but a humongeous potential for generating a devastating lack of engagement. Regardless of who comes out the winner.

[Bandit]

73. The way Obama is behaving, the Republicans will celebrate his victory.

He has lost my vote..Things can always change but that is how I feel now. It would make zero difference IMO whether he is President or some Republican.

[CrispyQ]

200. Maybe they will put him on their ticket . . .

there will be a corporate party (the DLC dems & the sane repubs) & the tea bagger party. The liberals will be left out.

I actually see this happening - not Obama on their ticket - but the merging of the sane repubs & new dems.

[swilton]

49. +++++

[defendandprotect]

129. Jimmy Carter was so weakened -- and I presume by CIA + MIC -- that ...

he would not of made it with or without a challengers --

in fact, had no one stepped forward to challenge him, the

Dem Party would have looked dumb, deaf and blind!

Our people's government had been under attack by right wing

political violence in the open from 11/22/63 and it is still

on going.

Whatever Carter's intentions -- and he certainly knew that

CIA/Brzezinski had created the Taliban/Al Qaeda and our troops

had gone into Afghanistan 6 months before the the Russians came

which was done to BAIT the Russians into Afghanistan "in hopes of

giving them a VN-type experience" --

Also questions as to WHEN Carter knew about the sabotage of his

desert rescue missions -- helicopters in the desert which OOPS!

didn't have the required filters/screening to keep sand out of the

engines! The missions were headed up by Ollie North -- second in

command, Secord!

Obviously, there was also an "October Surprise" carried out by

Reagan forces -- Poppy Bush and Gates playing primary roles!!

Carter was too weak to stand up to these forces, seemed at times not

to understand what was happening --

We sent Obama to the White House to create CHANGE -- not to play

footsie with corporate elites who are screwing America.

If we don't fight this and move to take back the party, we look nuts!

Or like we're not paying attention! Worse, yet, we look like we approve!!



:nuke:

[Ken Burch]

131. Carter would have lost WITHOUT a primary challenger

Teddy's challenge made no difference on that score. Carter had no chance of regaining majority support in the 1979-1980 period. What he SHOULD have done was just not run again. Anyone else we could have nominated would clearly have done better.

It was Iran that doomed Carter, not Teddy's challenge(a challenge that I don't think Teddy himself should have made, though, because from the way he campaigned I don't think his heart was really in it.)

[RedCloud]

163. That or bribe the Iranis to keep our hostages until AFTER the election.

[defendandprotect]

186. "October Surprise" .... Poppy Bush and Gates prominent in that -- !!

[ProSense]

5. More

irresponsible fairy tale nonsense:

Kucinich’s comments echo those of Rabbi Michael Lerner, who wrote last fall, in the aftermath of the mid-term election setbacks for Democrats, that: “There is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support - as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success - this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway.”

The goal of this it to get the President re-elected?

[ClassWarrior]

7. The goal of this it to get a progressive elected (or re-elected).

After all, progressive values are the best American values:

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

13. If? One thing is certain

a challenger can't run on "if."

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

28. So

do you think that any such decision is horrible idea?

It's likely to expire.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[swilton]

51. Serious Question

So Obama campaigns in the primaries on a more progressive platform because he's forced to by this more left challenger....As a voter in the primaries, how do I know whether to believe him or his challenger?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic - and as a member of Veterans for Peace, I have already seen their guidance for the primaries....

[Lasher]

97. That, swilton, is a very good question.

And for that matter, how can we believe any candidate? Make them swear an oath? Nah, that wouldn't mean a thing unless there were enforceable penalties.

I guess the best answer is, we have to go by the candidate's past actions. Which means Obama wouldn't be pushed to the left at all, even if he talked like it during the primary campaign. He is what he is.

[swilton]

113. Wish someone

more articulate than I would elevate this question to a post for General Discussion.

I personally think that the 'actions' not in the policy sense but in the promising (very eloquently I might add) and raising hopes on the one hand and the behavior on the other are very telling about Obama...and sort of cast his dye.

I also think that I am not the pessimist to believe that 'Obama is the best we're going to get' and that one man or woman once in office with a will and a backbone couldn't start putting things on the right track. There are courageous political visionaries out there.

Thank you for addressing this very pressing question!

[Lasher]

118. You're plenty eloquent enough, go for it!

No guts, no glory!

BTW, will you share the Veterans for Peace guidance for the primaries?

[swilton]

160. Here is the link - not exactly 'official' but close to it

Elliot Adams, President of Veterans for Peace is at the top of this list of prominent peace activists....This has not become official 'Veterans for Peace' policy that I know of. But the list of prominent peace activists are good enough for me. My thanks to David Swanson for posting this...Here is the link; yes, I have signed this. I regret that this post did not get more support here on DU

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/1167

[defendandprotect]

189. Egyptian revolution has certainly taught us lessons, has it not?

Took them 30 years ... how long have we been under thumb of MIC - CIA -- and right

wing political violence -- ???

Since 11/22/63, at least!!

[Enthusiast]

206. Yes

[defendandprotect]

188. Good question ... "Who do you trust?" And where is your BS-meter set ... ?

Think we all need our BS meters set waaaay higher --

especially in regard to Obama -- and sadly now in regard to taking the

Democratic party and its candidates for granted as people working for

GENERAL WELFARE any longer!! They're beginning to declare themselves

more and more as part of the millionaires and multi-millionaires club!!


:nuke:

[Lasher]

216. We need to rebuild the party.

There are some things that should be sacred if you get to call yourself a Democrat when you run for office. But thanks to Rahm and others, the only standard is having a chance of winning. It's not just Obama's fault, he's a product of a process that places too much emphasis on electing Democrats, any Democrats, and too little on principle. Hillary would have turned out pretty much the same.

If we do a better job of standing for something, more people will stand with us.

[defendandprotect]

256. Well, first I think you have to kinda prove that there is anything left to rebuild on ....

And, maybe it's a better idea to just walk off with the party --

Call it Democratic Party-II?

[defendandprotect]

187. You know by Obama's past performance ... seems pretty obvious--!!

How does that go ... "Fool me once -- ?"

You know that tongue-twister W kept screwing up!!

:)

[lonestarnot]

287. Like a cheat'n spouse, trust is hard to regain once it's lost.

[Enthusiast]

204. I don't want him re-elected.

I have had it with Obama. I hope he can be defeated in a primary challenge. So there. :popcorn:

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

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

[rhett o rick]

222. What issues of the left do you disagree with? nm

[earthside]

8. Obama and Duncan.

One of the main reasons why Obama should be challenged is graphically displayed on your post: Obama's sell-out of teachers, students and parents to the corporatization of education.

[defendandprotect]

190. Absolutely ... sheer and purposeful destruction of public education .... !!!

Purposeful attacks on teachers and their UNION -- !!

[regnaD kciN]

9. Johnson 1968, Ford 1976, Carter 1980, Bush 1992...

All of them primaried -- all of them saw their party lose the White House come November. Every. Single. Time.

Hope you all enjoy President Huckabee! :puke:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[polmaven]

64. Do you care

what happens to the country? This is not about President Obama. This is about the future of the country as a whole. Are you really saying you would prefer that a Republican be elected? You can't really think that would be better in any way, do you?

[swilton]

203. It might be better if we had a core

and principled party whose positions were the opposite of Huckabee's. I don't see that we have that now.

[polmaven]

282. Well, you go right ahead

and keep those blinders on. I prefer to look at the whole picture.

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[FLPanhandle]

22. "President Huckabee, President Obama, is one really worse than the other? "

I have to assume you posted this in the heat of the moment, because it's absurd.

YES Huckabee is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than Obama.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. In the sense that falling off a cliff

is worse than sliding down a slippery slope.

The latter alternative buys you a little time to avert total disaster.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[sharp_stick]

48. Just a little paranoia here

I find it interesting when people start calling him out on stuff he hasn't even proposed but hey what the hell it's a free world.

[leftynyc]

30. More "there's no difference" bullshit

Very simply put - do you want more Scalia's on the court or more Ginsberg/Kagan's on the court. If you say it doesn't matter, you're wrong and lying.

[kath]

128. More Scalia's what? More Scalia's asshatery?

or did you mean "more Scalias (plural) or more Kagans"?

[leftynyc]

177. Ah - the grammar police

When out of arguments, it's the cowards way.

[sharp_stick]

44. If it wouldn't completely screw up

the country it would be interesting to see your posts about a week or two into the new theocracy of Mike Huckabee's America.

Pretending there is no difference between the extreme right now having their little CPAC shindig and the current administration is dangerous and pretty damned close to delusional.

[swilton]

53. Even if Huckabee were president

It would be mitigated if we got some vertebrate Democrats in the House and Senate.

[rfranklin]

81. They have the backbone to back their financiers...

and it isn't all those little people on the internet.

[sharp_stick]

110. That is a tall order

and not as much mitigation as you may hope. After the shrub years and the era of Unitary Executive the Executive branch of Government has more power than they have in decades.

I would never bet my future on any chance of that fundie asshole or any of his CPAC buddies actually taking the White House.

[RufusTFirefly]

180. It would. Especially since the President has so little influence

Or so we're told time and time again when the current one lets us down.

We get Poli Sci 101 and are reminded that the Congress -- not the President -- makes the laws.

Perfectly true, but a strong President defines the vision. Thanks to TR, a strong Republican, it's known as the bully pulpit.

If this isn't the case, if the bully pulpit is not a significant factor, then we shouldn't have to worry about President Huckabee.

On the other hand, if this is the case, then the lame excuse the President's apologists have repeatedly been giving goes out the window.

[frylock]

conversely, it would interesting to watch all those who are okay with torture, endless war..

tax breaks to the upper 1%, etc. have to flip 180 in their views because it's a republican rather than a dem in the white house.

[sharp_stick]

107. What makes you think they would switch

A Republican would simply re-open the secret CIA prisons and happily ask Congress to fund the wars and Congress would do it.

Pretending the Dems are just the same as the Republicans on any measure is ludicrous.

[frylock]

168. i'm talking about DU's SWAT team..

the one's that defend obama's every act, even those that fly in the face of traditional democratic values.

[Arkana]

62. Hahahahahaha wow.

This post is amazingly ignorant of all the good Obama has done in the two short years he's been in office, as well as the political realities in Washington.

[Myrina]

76. ... at least we'd know what we were getting ...

... instead of the bait and switch 'Time has come for change' ... oops, no same ol' shit, can't rock the boat ... that we've gotten for the past 2 years ....

[liberalmike27]

79. This MIght Be More of an Indication

That often presidents are primaried, than anything significant.

I think we need a primary too. I agree, he needs to see how much he's alienated his own base, to understand there are many who are dissatisfied with his performance, how he's not spoken out for progressives, and how we don't like him nuzzing up with corporate power.

That said, I'd have to take that Obama bumper sticker off the car, but I suppose I could manage that. I'm just so tired of being disappointed, elect a democrat, get all happy thinking "Yea, now something is going to happen," then waiting, waiting, waiting, as the disappointment creeps in.

Christ, the guy can't even appropriately make the case. It's pretty clear under the wraps he believes corporate power is the problem, to us, and to corporate power. But he just can't seem to stay on topic for the things that matter to us all.

And I think he'll get reelected. Who are we going to pick, Newt, or Sarah, or even Mitt, sickly souther Barbour??? I don't think so.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[dflprincess]

262. Johnson would have lost becasue of Viet Nam

Eugene McCarthy's strong 2nd place showing in New Hampshire proved that.

The Democrats lost the White House in 1968 because Robert Kennedy was murdered which led to the party endorsing Hubert Humphrey and Humphrey lost because he didn't break with LBJ's Vietnam policy until it was too late.

[Le Taz Hot]

292. And Egypt has never had

a Democratic revolution so they shouldn't even start one because, you know, it's never been done before. :eyes:

[onehandle]

12. I think that would be bad and hurt his dwindling chances of re-election.

I know he's even more center-right than we ever imagined, but if he loses, it's likely that the GOP would take the Senate and extend their hold on the House.

Then teabaggers would have Everything.

[sasha031]

17. I keep thinking the same thing

I don't like the direction we are going now, I fear the tea party more.

[defendandprotect]

191. Obama is not "center right" ... we have one right wing party now and one radical right wing party ..

That's puts Obama far to the right --

Meanwhile, can't we here at DU finally begin to leave FEAR behind in our

decision making --

Didn't any of us learn anything from the Egyptian protesters ??

Dealing from FEAR is not the way to go -- dealing from COURAGE is the way to go!


Obama has embraced corporatism -- am I wrong?

[Le Taz Hot]

293. His dwindling chances of reelection

rest squarely on HIS shoulders. He had enthusiastic support when he started. It was his to lose, and he has.

[sasha031]

14. I love Dennis, maybe it would move the president back towards the center

[cascadiance]

228. From right of center?...

[sasha031]

230. yes that is exactly what I meant

:)

[yodermon]

15. This is only true IF it is a credible challenge.

If it's a foregone conclusion that Obama will be the nominee, then Obama can continue to run to the Right during the primaries, further building his "cred" with the "middle".

[JDPriestly]

18. I agree with Kucinich. We need an honest candidate.

Edwards was not honest, but he did challenge the other candidates to move toward more equitable, morally defensible policies.

Unfortunately, Obama, in the first campaign, said a lot of things that he either did not really mean or did not carry through on or even apologize for not carrying through on once he was in office. Raising Social Security taxes on upper income recipients in order to save Social Security was one of those policies. There are too many to enumerate here.

But at least if we have a credible challenger candidate, Obama will required to explain some of the horrendous mistakes he has made.

[karynnj]

59. That Edwards moved anyone to the left is a myth that many Edwards supporters

trying to claim a value for all their efforts claimed. Look at the various issues and you will see that on none of them did Edwards actually move anything.

The issue where he was given the most credit was on healthcare. The claim is that he put out a plan that was more comprehensive than any previous plan. In fact, his plan differed little from the 2004 Kerry plan and even less from the "tweaked" plan Kerry spoke of in 2006 at Faneuil Hall - which incidentally would have started without a mandate, improved what was available and then added one in 2012. When Hillary put out her plan a few months after Edwards, there was very little difference. The Edwards people claimed that Clinton copied, but the ideas in both plans were well within what Democratic healthcare experts were speaking of. Obama's plan was not that different either. The fact is that all three Democrats had basically the same plan on healthcare - and NONE of them would have gotten his/her exact plan out of Congress. This led to the debate being on the few differences - mainly the individual mandate. Obama NEVER shifted to Edwards' position. The current plan has a mandate because Congress found that was needed. The big difference in 2008 on health care was between ALL the Democrats vs ALL the Republicans.

On the environment, I stand with Teresa Heinz Kerry, who said in 2007 on their book tour on This Week, that NONE of the 2008 candidates had a good enough plan on the environment. That included Edwards, who did not have Gore's or Kerry's record here. The fact is that any influence on Obama on this issue is far more likely to have come from Kerry or Gore.

On foreign policy and the wars, Edwards had no expertise and influenced no one.

One awkwardness of 2008 was that Clinton was a former First Lady. That led to Obama and Edwards having to question the accomplishments of a prior Democratic administration. That came at a cost, but because this was part of what Hillary was running on, it couldn't be avoided. A viable opponent in 2012 would have a similar, but more dramatic cost - they would be fighting over the achievements of the current President, who will likely be the nominee.

Fortunately, there is no high profile Democratic Senator, Governor, Representative or non-elected leader who has expressed any willingness to run against Obama - and most mentioned here - Dean, Feingold, Kucinich - all have said no - and they polled very poorly against him any way. (Hillary, who has been the strongest, is to his right on foreign policy, which has been her current job, has also said no.)

Fortunately for us, Edwards, who if he saw a shot at it - likely would, is so disliked and discredited he likely could find very few towns where he could be elected dog catcher.

[JDPriestly]

71. I was shocked to read on Huffington Post that the proof of

Edwards' affair was discovered because they traced his whereabouts by following him by satellite. I would like to know how they had the right to do that. Especially since he was located in California, and our privacy is protected by our state Constitution. We value our privacy in California.

I worked very hard to try to get Kerry elected in 2004, but somehow, he did not have the personal strength to overcome the brute animal force of the Bush supporters.

We need someone to challenge Obama. His conduct in office has been pathetic, especially his failure to reign in Wall Street.
Obama has failed millions of Americans. His trade policies, I should say his continuation of the failed trade policies of his predecessors, continue to waste the talents and wealth of Americans. Shame on him.

[liberalmike27]

109. Kerry Never Understood

The old saying "Now, try it again, but with feeling!"

I notice this weird thing with democratic voters, a lot of them anyway that if a democrat actually shows feeling, even if it's spot-on truth, that they get upset with the candidate. Alan (edit) Grayson's comments were a good example. If you watch PBS, you'll see that people die all the time, or have their deaths hastened by lack of health care. Watched a story about a woman who got surgery to remove a tumor in her breast, but wasn't able to maintain her insurance payments, then after losing insurance, wasn't able to get chemo, or radiation therapy. So in effect, she had no means to get it, thus was more likely to die.

Of course this is just one instance. But while a few of the core democrats liked this rare truthfulness, this rare "feeling" from a candidate, who spoke out strongly, showed some enthusiasm for getting votes, many in the media who tend toward centrism (the only more liberal voices on most television)found his straight out truthfulness off-putting.

It's called passion folks. Huey Long, FDR, Trueman had it, the last at least a little. They saw the problem, and they attacked those unrelentingly who they saw as the problem. Reagan and Bush did the same. It is a regular and accepted quality in republicans, the media doesn't usually raise a stink at all. But let a democrat issue an enthusiastic Yeeaa-haaaw at a campaign event, and the "liberal media" plays it 3000 times, and democrats sheepishly go along and quit supporting him. I know, I ran a Dean group. It went from 60 to 13 the next time we met after the scream. Dean made the mistake of showing passion, enthusiam.

Seems we've got some stuffy democrats that don't seem to understand emotion is a good thing, and that our media is displaying a double-standard not allowing it in democrats, but welcoming the "lock and load" in republicans. We need that passion, and we don't need Kerry types who bland us to sleep. Hard core democrats need to understand that a lot of those cross-over voters respond to emotion and an evaluation of how strongly those they listen to believe in what they are saying. Democrats need to understand that, and tolerate more feeling in our candidates.

[JDPriestly]

120. Excellent comment, liberalmike22

We have to support our leaders when they react with emotion. It's our own fault when we end up with an Obama.

[ProSense]

137. "Alan (edit) Grayson's comments were a good example.

If you watch PBS, you'll see that people die all the time, or have their deaths hastened by lack of health care."

It's always interesting when Alan Grayson is quoted on health care, especially since he is one of the biggest supporters of the law.

[politicasista]

247. Bam! Facts! n/t

[politicasista]

244. Want to say that to his face? He didn't "bland" little kids to sleep n/t

Love people who buy into GOP spin.

[liberalmike27]

274. Come On Now

Seriously be honest with yourself--who is bland if it isn't Kerry? Comedians had a field day imitating him.

Hell I voted for the dude, even in Alabama where I could've chosen Nader again, and with only 35 percent of our poor and stupid state voting Democratic, it wouldn't made a damn bit of difference. But the guy showed very little passion--it just wasn't in him.

And like I said, sadly a lot of Democrats don't like the guys with the vim and vigor. I had a conversation the other day with a girl on FB, and have seen many other instances, where they seem to not like Democrats who actually show emotion or anger. The way I see it, if this shit that is going on, exporting jobs, lowering wages, attacking private unions, now attacking the public sector, lowering taxes on the rich while raising them on everyone else by a thousand means of taxation, then you are messed up, your feeling centers are missing.

[politicasista]

302. LOL! You sound like Faux news

a "Democrat" buying into GOP spin? :rofl: You might want to go prop up Nader at another site, since this is a forum that supports real Democrats and a Democratic President. Just sayin.

[midnight]

265. I had not heard they found Edwards via satellite? I want to know

why Kerry collected money for a recount and then walked away......

[politicasista]

246. Facts never get in the way of Kerry/Obama bashing n/t

[swilton]

23. Glad this is coming out sooner rather than later

Many opportunities to find a spokesperson for values that affect mainstream Americans and our planet.

[NorthCarolina]

25. I couldn't agree more. If there is a verifiable Liberal/Progressive challenger in the primaries

I'll be like...Obama who?

[Botany]

26. Dennis Dennis Dennis

Weaken Obama so we get a republican President now that will show 'em.

[William769]

33. With friends like President Obama who needs Republicans!

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. ...

:evilgrin:

[dionysus]

61. rofl

[politicasista]

181. + 1 n/t

[Dragonfli]

270. We kinda' have one now, a cross between Reagan and Clinton. Pay attention to policy

And try to keep up.

Many of us are desperately still trying to put Democratic policies in the oval office, we don't want another Reagan (and one who is too scared to raise taxes no less, unfortunately)

[wowimthere]

29. Kucinich has lost me at this point... He is starting to remind of the wizard of oz. Blowing all

that smoke and thunder and Toto pulls the curtain. I like Dennis but sometimes he goes off the rails. And this is one of those times. Does he just like seeing his name in lights every so often?

[wowimthere]

32. If Dennis were that candidate... once he got into office he would do much of the same. All

candidates talk a big game until they become the president. It's always different. Stop the hyperbole.

[tavalon]

34. I can't believe he said that

We can't do it, well, we could if we could get Howard Dean, but Howard Dean won't do it. Anyone else, and we're just going to be handing the White House to the other side. But then, 10 years later, I'm beginning to think Nader wasn't all that far off in his assessment of the similarities between the two parties.

[karynnj]

65. They polled Obama/Dean - and it was a landslide for Obama

Nader was extremely off. Are you saying President Gore would have led us to where President Bush did?

[tavalon]

72. I'm saying it's been a shitty two years

and that the teabaggers in the house, of all people, got rid of the Patriot Act. Obama is better than Bush but really, is that the bar we want to be measuring by? A drunk chimp probably would be better than Bush. Obama has been the corporation's best friend, not so much ours. Obama should be so much better than he has been.

[ProSense]

145. "Obama has been the corporation's best friend"

Hyperbole.

HHS releases $200 million in emergency funding to states for energy assistance

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today the release of $200 million in emergency contingency funding to help eligible low-income homeowners and renters meet home energy costs. These Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) contingency funds will provide states, territories, tribes and the District of Columbia with additional assistance to pay heating and other home energy costs.

“During the cold winter months, heating your home becomes more than a matter of comfort,” said Sebelius. “The release of these emergency funds will help low-income families and individuals afford the high energy costs rather than force them to make cutbacks on other essentials.”

LIHEAP helps eligible families pay for home heating, cooling and other energy costs, as well as helping to weatherize eligible families’ homes.

The $200 million in emergency contingency funds released today are in addition to the basic LIHEAP funding made available to states under the continuing resolutions since October 1 totaling $3.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2011.

“Low-income individuals and families are hit hard by energy costs,” said David A. Hansell, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “We are releasing these emergency funds to states to help meet the critical needs of vulnerable children, seniors and families.”

For a complete listing of state allocations of funds released today go to: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/fy11_liheap_funds.html

HUD AWARDS $1.4 BILLION TO NEARLY 7,000 LOCAL HOMELESS PROGRAMS – PART OF ADMINISTRATION PLAN TO PREVENT & END HOMELESSNESS

HUD, HHS ANNOUNCE JOINT EFFORT TO ASSIST NEARLY 1,000 NON-ELDERLY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TO MOVE FROM INSTITUTIONS TO INDEPENDENCE

President Obama's Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative


This mess wasn't created overnight, and the expectation that all the problems, including two wars, would be resolved in two years is ludicrous. Spinning his policies as all pro-corporate is nonsense. He created the CFPB.

This President has done more to improve the country than anyone in at least forty years. His record speaks for itself: here, here, here, here and here and on his vision here.

[sharp_stick]

36. And out come the regulars

At least it's easy to figure out who's who.

[midnight]

37. Anything opportunity to raise issues and make the Democratic candidate stronger....

[polmaven]

74. In what world

would this possibley make the Democratic candidate stronger?

[midnight]

264. In a world were people are not transparent, but the govt. is!

[polmaven]

283. You know what they say

about ignoring history.

[pnorman]

38. "he can be a stronger nominee if he receives a strong challenge in a primary.”

I'll go along with that, but no further. Some of the Obama-bashers here are having ORGASMS at the thought of seeing him "primaried OUT" in 2012, REGARDLESS of the consequences! There, I draw the line!

[Mosaic]

40. Absolutely

I've been saying this for quite a while now. 6 months maybe, msnbc played with the idea one night with Grayson and a Sanders supporter, and a couple of others. I'm also a Sanders supporter, and even if he didn't win he would move Obama to the left where we want him.

[MrScorpio]

43. I love Dennis, but this looks bad.

He was was on the losing end of his own primary campaign to Obama… I do love the disclaimer about him wanting to stay in Congress, though.

However, something like can easily look like nothing more than prolonged PUMAesque sour grapes on his part.

Besides, an incumbent primary is a guaranteed formula for handing the the White House to the GOP next election. Who wants that? Certainly not me.

Job ONE should be getting the House back into Dem hands and keeping the Republicans out of power in the Senate.

Where are our priorities here?

[KoKo]

80. We already HAD Dems in White House and Senate..What happened?

Getting "More and Better Democrats" is what we tried to do. Once they get there the Lobbyists and Old Guard take over.

Been there and done that...bought that line. All those e-mails, phones, faxes that we Democrats did year after year after year. Did we get anything? Some basement hearing by John Conyers was all we got have Kerry lost because of the voting machine screw ups and voter intimidation in Ohio.

So many Dems worked their butt off during and after the Stolen Election. What the hell did we get for it... Iraq Invasion, Wall Street and Bank Bailouts....endless corruption and cronyism and NO ONE ever held accountable.

Enough is Enough. Primary him.

[MrScorpio]

101. AS many of have said before, a Dem primary is a sure fire formula for giving the the GOP the WH

Things are screwed up so bad because it was the GOP who gave away the farm and attached ALL of our asses to it.

Like it our not, the crooked banks and Wall Street were leveraged over us in order to keep them extant.

You want to revolutionize the economy by dumping the banks and Wall Street? Have at it... But when the angry mobs come beating down your door, looking for food and a handout don't come looking for me... I'll be in Costa Rica.

President Obama made a priority of stabilizing the economy broken by the malfeasance, the competence and the outright thievery of the GOP first. Everything else can come later.

Like it or not, he stopped things from getting worse than they already are. And he did it, pretty much, while having to deal with all the BS and complaining from the sidelines on the left that can't get its shit together and win elections... Not to mention ALL the crap that he's had to deal with from the Republicans.

(On a side note, I'm sure that the GOP loves to see a left that constantly mad at Obama, because it has made their job of retaking power that much more easier when we're divided against him.)

And about the getting "More and Better Democrats" in Congress situation... What's stopping us from trying again until we succeed? What happened, we ran out of "More and Better Democrats?"

So, "primary him", as you say, knowing full well that THAT could give the White House BACK to the Republicans... Hmmm... Sort of makes your complaint about the "Iraq Invasion, Wall Street and Bank Bailouts....endless corruption and cronyism and NO ONE ever held accountable" ring pretty hollow.

[defendandprotect]

193. Differences between the parties are FADING fast -- and has a lot to do with Obama ... !!!

We need to stop permitting DU thinking to be lead from FEAR --

Let's take a lesson from the Egyptian protesters and begin to deal from COURAGE!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

192. Actually, it makes Kucinich look sane -- where are the rest of the Democrats?

Millionaires and multi-millionaires who like the way things are going --

If you want more corporatism, they go for Obama --

My conscience won't permit me to vote for anyone still supporting these wars which

are bankrupting the Treasury - attacks on Social Security and Medicare -- $500 billion

to be cut in his deal with the GOP!

DU will either live in FEAR and keep on moving to the right or --

it will decide to learn some from the Egyptian protesters and starting dealing from

COURAGE instead!

[tomp]

290. yeah, 'cause the house in dem hands was so effective before. nt

[ixion]

45. Without question, he should

His performance has been poor, and there has been no change.

[ColesCountyDem]

46. Thank you for your brilliant political insight, Congressman...

Based on your own monumental successes in the presidential primaries and caucuses, I'm certain that the President and his advisors will give your thoughts the deep consideration they deserve.

/sarcasm off

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

278. He's calling for a challenger, why would Obama "consider" this thought? Stupid.

[ColesCountyDem]

297. Not nearly as stupid as calling for someone to emulate his own behavior.

The Hon. Rep. Kucinich can hardly point to his own successes as good reason for others to do what he has done, can he?

[tomp]

294. wow, one of the more lame comments i've read lately.

if that was sarcasm it was lame.

if it wasn't it was way lame.

the president isn't supposed to listen to kucinich's call for a primary. he's supposed to listen to the person who runs against him (presumably from the left) and the votes that person gets and the money obama has to spend defeating a candidate from the left to bring him around (hopefully), to a more balanced democratic position (of course anyone who is not politically naive and has had their eyes open the last two yearswill realize that a candidate can talk left and act right). it's already obvious he is not listening to kucinich or kucinich wouldn't be saying what he's saying. in my opinion, kucinich is talking to the left more than he is talking to obama.

although, the fact that kucinich is saying it at all has some significance too. there are a lot of unhappy democrats right now. kucinich has already stated that he will not support war as an instrument of foreign policy. i think obama has already crossed that line, and the dems are famous for their support of war.

what is disappointing to me is that kucinich isn't willing to take it on himself. who's going to do it, literally? grayson maybe, but i don't think so.

the other thing i think people who call for primaries of an incumbent don't realize is that unless the incumbent loses, his platform is defended. he may be weakened financially but he can always claim that his position won out, i.e., is a "popular" position. i can pretty well assure you that that is how a primary against obama would turn out.

we need an independent party to the left of the democratic party. i think that was at least in the back of kucinich's mind.

[NewJeffCT]

50. There will be no serious challenger to Obama for the nomination

And, no, Kucinich is not a serious challenger.

[struggle4progress]

54. He's talked about seeing a UFO, too. I like lots about Kucinich, but sometimes I can only cringe

when he speaks. A primary fight in 2012 can only suck up time and money: it won't put issues on the table or move Ds in a useful direction -- the only way to move folk is by grassroots organizing

[defendandprotect]

194. Are you serious? Reagan talked about seeing a UFO! So did Carter!

So have our astronauts -- so have many pilots -- start with Arnold in '47!!

So have people of all walks of life!!

However, I think the way to go is to DRAFT Sen. Bernie Sanders -- he can run

on a Dem ticket and would draw LIBERALS from all other third parties!!

[Enthusiast]

208. Yeah, make sure you

point out the UFO thing. Just like a Republican.

[struggle4progress]

266. Hoping for a 2012 D primary fight is something like seeing UFOs, I think. And

a 2012 D primary fight certainly won't help anybody but the Rs. And a 2012 D primary fight will help the Rs a lot more than a remark about Kucinich's UFO

:shrug:

[impik]

55. I agree. It should be fun to win 90-10.

Hee. La-la-land.

[Ian David]

56. I'd like to give Kucinich a Primary Challenge for his wife. She's hot! n/t

[impik]

57. "disappointed much of the Democratic base".

That's why he's got 85% approval among Dems. God, you're bunch of clown completely detached from reality.

[eridani]

175. So why did we get creamed in 2010? n/t

[glinda]

269. Partly because of cheating.

[eridani]

271. True, but only partly. The real truth--

--is that the administration diddled with partial solutions to the economic crisis and displayed zero empathy for the fact that the "new normal" is a disaster for so many of us. Inadequate stimulus? Why not admit it and blame Republicans for not being able to do what was and is necessary?

[dbmk]

280. Because..

..the Democratic base is not the entire voting population and people aren't doing to good.

Next weeks program:
Why does the Sun rise in the east?

[Democat]

288. The entire other 15% is posting in this thread!

And they see what they want to see.

[craigmatic]

58. I agree he needs to learn to fear and respect the left

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. It would be a signal that the left is exceedingly pissed off

I mean really, I have Republican acquaintances who are talking favorably about Obama. If he were doing his job, they wouldn't be.

[Arkana]

69. I keep hearing about "the left".

And then I see figures where 85%+ of self-described liberals support the President.

So I have to wonder--who are these people and why do they think they speak for all Democrats?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. How was the question phrased? What is "support," exactly?

1. "Would you still rather have Obama than McCain in the White House?"

2. "Would you vote for Obama over any Republican?"

3. "Do you agree with everything he's done?"

4. "Do you agree with most of what he's done?"

5. "Do you think he's the best we can get under the circumstances?"

6. "Do you think he's the greatest president since FDR?"

7. "Do you think Obama is good-looking and has a cute family?"

A "Yes" to any of those questions could be construed as "support," but they mean very different things.

[eridani]

176. That's just bullshit. In any public poll, I always say I support the president

--even though I think he totally sucks as a leader in dealing with our economic problems.

[rhett o rick]

227. I would be interested in whose poll says that 85% of liberals support Obama.

I need to see the question asked. Also, what liberals say they speak for all Democrats? Or did you pull that out of your ear?

I dare you to tell us what issues do you disagree with the liberals? Health care? War? Patriot Act? Fair Elections? Helping the unemployed? Which of those issues do you differ from the left?

[craigmatic]

70. Exactly. Bush didn't go to the left when he lost congress yet they expect dems to.

No that's not how it works. If you lose congress you're supposed to advocate for your side and get the best deal possible. I don't feel like Obama is doing that. It feels like he's getting deals just for the sake of doing something or so he can have something to run on.

[polmaven]

78. His job

is to be the president of the United States of America...all of it. not just the left side.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. His job is to do what's right for the country

and that does NOT include tax breaks for the rich or continuing Bushboy's wars for ever half his term or even THINKING about cutting Social Security.

[polmaven]

98. So I guess you think

it does include allowing UI benefits expire after 26 weeks, and allowing the tax cuts expire for everyone so the rich will pay more.

He is doing exactly as he said he would do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have no idea what he is considering regarding Social Security. When he tells us, then we will know. Until then, we don't.

This president has done a lot for the country. And like it or not, Republicans are actually Americans. I don't like them any more than you do, but it is a fact.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. Yes, I would rather lose my own tax cuts than see the rich get coddled yet again

Just because he's doing "exactly what he said he'd do" on Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean that it's the RIGHT thing to do.

And don't tell me he's not thinking about cutting Social Security, seeing that the commission that i]he appointed was heavily weighted toward privatizers.

[polmaven]

154. I want to thank you for your concern

about my well being over "coddling" of the rich. A roof over my head and the ability to buy food with my unemployment benefits pales in comparison.

May I assume that you did not vote for him in 11/2008 because you disliked his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan?

And may I come to you each time I need someone to read someone else's mind?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

157. If Obama hadn't shown weakness earlier, the Republicanites wouldn't have

even tried to tie tax cuts to unemployment benefits.

That's what happens when you give in to bullies. It emboldens them. Clinton had the same problem, which is why he went for DADT instead of just opening the military to GLBT people. He was trying to appease the Republicans.

[polmaven]

171. Exactly what is it

you would have had him do? The Republicans had the numbers, with the help of a few DINOs to effectively stop votes in the Senate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. Twist the DINOs' arms, not the progressives' arms,

go on TV and tell the American people to contact their Republicanite reps ("Do you favor the fat cats or ordinary Americans who are down on their luck?"--yes, be that rude), and then state in no uncertain terms that he would not sign a bill that contained tax breaks for the rich.

That's how you deal with bullies. You show that you're tougher than they are.

[Enthusiast]

209. Great post.

I agree completely.

[swilton]

205. It would be more than a signal

and long overdue as far as I'm concerned.

[Arkana]

60. Kooch is a poor student of history then.

Tell me, Congressman, how did President Carter fare after a primary challenge?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. I'd love to see a challenger who knew how to talk to ordinary people

not with Obama's vague and meaningless rhetoric (the reason I never trusted him) but in specific terms that would explain what the problem was and a few concrete and feasible ideas for fixing them.

Example: "As soon as I am elected, we will start lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare by five years every year, so that next year, 60-year-olds can enroll, and 55-year-olds the year after that, and 50 year-olds the year after that and so on till everyone in the U.S. is covered. The problem now is that Medicare treats the oldest and frailest Americans, but the addition of younger, healthier people will help balance its budget."

[sharp_stick]

141. Someone you can have a beer with

you know, a regular Joe, the kind of person I am. Maybe Dr. Oz or Oprah they seem nice?

Personally I'd rather have someone that knows what the hell their doing rather than some asshole that can spout platitudes to the masses.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. You need someone who can do BOTH

That was my point.

Take the 2004 election. John Kerry should have mopped the floor with GW Bush, instead of having the election close enough to steal. It should have been Johnson versus Goldwater all over again. No question that Kerry was more competent than Bush, even though he wasn't my first or even second or third choice. I still spent all of a bitterly cold Election Day doorknocking, as well as a couple of days before the election.

Here's what went wrong:

You'd go to Bush's website, and all his platitudes were laid out right there in simple language. Deceptive, yes, but still simple.

You'd go to Kerry's website, and there'd be information about his campaign schedule and some bio information, but what about his positions on the issues? They were about two layers down in the website on PDFs and written in policy wonk language.

In other words, he did nothing to appeal to the people who weren't already disgusted with GW Bush. Most Dems didn't need convincing, and a lot of Independents were still living in the fools' paradise of the expanding real estate market and saw no reason to switch presidents.

That's what I found while doorknocking: the convinced Democrats were rarin' to vote for Kerry. They couldn't wait for Election Day. The Republicans were hostile. The Independents were like, "I guess Bush is all right. I don't know if Kerry would be any different."

Of course you have to be competent, but that does no good unless you can convince the electorate that you're competent.

The two qualities are not mutually exclusive, for heaven's sake.

[Lorien]

237. +1.

I'll be voting for a write in candidate if there is no challenger. I simply won't vote for republicans or anyone who behaves like one.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

305. He has done that.

He's explained things in layman's terms in his press conferences and other events, but then he's criticized for being too wonky. So he has to fall back to the inspirational rhetoric for mass appeal, then gets criticized for being too vague.

But shouldn't the standard be what he actually gets passed? Because otherwise, he's just giving "pretty speeches."

[RoccoR5955]

75. KUCINICH/SANDERS in 2012!

That's a ticket for a better America!
or Sanders/Kucinich, either way, the country would be a whole lot better off.

[polmaven]

82. There is absolutely

NO WAY that ticket, either way around, would be elected. The country is no where near being that liberal. That is why DK, or anyone else that much to the left, has not even gotten past the primaries.

[RoccoR5955]

89. If people were properly educated, and de-brainwashed

into believing everything that the Cons have drilled into their brain, it would be the ONLY ticket that would win.

[polmaven]

102. Well,

have fun in your fantasy world. It ain't gonna happen.

[RoccoR5955]

215. It's not fantasy if you accomplish even part of it

If people would help to educate others, it wouldn't be a "fantasy."
I have a name for people who do nothing and call it a fantasy. They're called slackers in my book. Just hide behind keyboards, and screens, not interacting with people, and showing them the real truth and real history. These things don't take a couple of weeks. They take years, decades, even longer. I have been educating people as to the real verifiable truth for more than 40 of my 56 years. Yep, it takes dedication. It's not fantasy if you accomplish even part of it.

[kath]

138. Yep. When you actually poll people on ISSUES, with no names attached, it turns out they

support Kucinich and liberal ideals more than anything else. The Right Wing propaganda machine has been so, so successful, sadly.

[defendandprotect]

195. +1000%

[RBInMaine]

243. Spot On. Kucinich/Sanders is a joke of a pipe dream in this CENTRIST nation.

[MrScorpio]

106. What's that going get us in the General? Like two states (maybe)?

You do understand that this is America, right?

[defendandprotect]

77. Kucinich is right -- and Bernie Sanders could run on a Dem ticket ...

We also need Dem members of Congress who do want to support the ideals of the party

and work for the GENERAL WELFARE to begin to separate from the CORPORATE-DEMOCRATS --

from the DLC and from the "New Dems" who want corporate control --

then we'll know if there is anything worth saving of this party!!!

[JNelson6563]

94. lolz

Yeah, that's the ticket! rofl

[tallahasseedem]

148. Seriously...

LOL!

[Ozymanithrax]

111. Bernie Sanders is an Independent that caucuses with Democrats..

He is not a Democrat.

So, unless he changes his party affiliation and runs as a Democrat, he will not run as one.

Also, as an incumbent, he is heavily favored for the Senate. Entering as a primary opponent against Obama is going to hurt him in a Senate run, because both are gigantically expensive, and doing both will be incredibly difficult. A primary Challenge to Obama would quite possibly cripple him and make a well financed Senate Run more difficult.

[defendandprotect]

196. Sanders could run on a Dem ticket -- and he would draw liberal votes from other 3rd parties --

We don't have to accept "dems" who are pre-bought and pre-owned by corporations --

pluck any Dem -- Tom Hayden -- whatever!!

We need Bernie Sanders --

Sanders/Hayden would make a great ticket!!

Cripes -- I'd take Wm. Greider -- !!

Give me anyone but these "new Dems" -- or DLC Dems - or millionaire and multi-millionaire Dems!

[cascadiance]

231. If he were to run for president in 2012, Sanders would be better off running as a Dem...

I do like his sense of independence from the Democratic Party, but hey, Tea Partiers claim they are "independent" even though they are running inside the Republican Party too. If they ran outside the Republican Party, they'd get lost in the shuffle.

I think Bernie would especially be better at leading other third party liberal voters in to the Democratic Party (to take it over as Thom Hartmann would say), than he would at having to defend both his senate seat as an independent and running at the same time for president. He'd have to give up his senate seat most likely if he were to run independently for president in 2012.

However, I don't think anyone could touch him for Dem nomination for his Senate seat, and he could focus then on trying to get the nomination for president in the primaries. Then if he lost that primary, he could go back to running for Senator successfully in the general election.

I think though if he challenged Obama in the general election, you could be damn sure that a Kaine-lead DNC would not give the hands off treatment that Dean did when Bernie first ran for the Senate when he was in charge of the DNC.

As for running mates, I'd like to see someone like Feingold get back in the mix. Would love to see a Sanders/Feingold ticket! And if we felt we need to draw more independent voters, perhaps even someone like Jesse Ventura as a running mate, if they could find a way to work together on a ticket with enough common ground. The key campaign issue for a Sanders campaign, whoever his running mate is, would be a populist anti-corporatist control campaign, which I think WOULD be a REAL centrist position with the voters, even if it isn't what the corporatists want to define as "centrist"!

[defendandprotect]

259. Interesting point about the Koch Bros' T-BAGGERS ...

I think a candidate can be on more than one party's line up -- can't they?

Is Sanders' seat actually up in 2012?

Agree with Thom Hartman ... we've been co-opted left, right, up, down and sideways --

about time we did the same to them!

Feingold's OK --

[glinda]

268. Love Bernie but if there aren't enough progressives elected overall, why would you want

him to be powerless?
And for the record, I would like a better President also. But I would also like more power in the House and Senate, Governors and Reps.

[cascadiance]

301. I don't think those goals are mutually exclusive...

That's why if he were to run, I'd like him to pick someone like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, or Alan Grayson as a running mate, who wouldn't "cost" us a position in another part of the country. Look at whst he sacrificed putting in Napolitano in his cabinet with the mess that's in Arizona now! I'm with you on that now.

However, if you have a corporatist as president, and an entire Republican party of corporatists, as well as enough corportist Dems in congress cowtowing to corporate rule and others on the fence being "pushed around", those lone progressive voices in congress have their voices get lost, and don't have enough power. I think if we had someone like Sanders as president, enough of those on the fence as well as the core progressives will feel more bold in supporting Sanders and forming a better bully pulpit to better be able to overcome the corporatist majority now along with a corporate press, etc. that structures what is visible to the nation.

That's also why I want Sanders running as a Dem, because I think that's his best chance at taking a legitimate shot at getting the presidency, and at the same time, bsrring him doing that, holding on to his seat in the Senate, which can't be sacrificed if he doesn't become president.

We need a big grass roots movement nation wide both locally and at the level of the presidency.

First we replace Jane Harmann with someone like Marcy Winograd... Then replace someone like DiFi with Debra Bowen... Get a decent progressive who could get a shot in Virgina going for Jim Webb's seat NOW!

And poor, poor DELUDED William Bennett lamenting the influence of "moderate" (in reality CORPORATE) Democrats in the Democratic Party! Suck on it sir!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/11/bennett.whither.moderate.democrats/

The Democratic Party is getting STRONGER by putting more progressive voices in it, and will force these corporate Dem's hands at some point to either work with the progressives or see their political careers die! Obama should be paying attention, but unfortunately is not!

Bennett misses that it is HIS party and other corporatists that are the ones that are pushing too many EXTREME right wing positions both economically and socially on us as if we "have" to accept them that is the fault of these bums being kicked out of our party or forced to read the tea leaves themselves that they are no longer welcome!

Real Democrats haven't had a choice for MANY years even before Carter. Carter ran as a born-again Christian, and though in his retirement has done many admirable things, had done many things that started the unrest in Afghanistan, and has started some of the economic policies that Reagan went full tilt with that have destroyed our economy since then. Howard Dean would have been our choice as a progressive (NOT John Kerry, who if not pushing for recounts should have at LEAST sued the asses off of the swift boaters to keep them from doing the crap they are doing now without fear of consequences to folks like Acorn, etc. now). We didn't have a choice last election when John Edwards drew the votes away from a real progressive in Dennis Kucinich as a "practical" progressive alternative to the two corporate candidates at the top of the race, I believe mainly to draw them in to a trap when insiders probably knew already of his personal liabilities.

[Enthusiast]

211. I would vote for Bernie.

I might even write him in anyway.

[JTFrog]

123. Bernie supports President Obama. n/t

[mvd]

133. I don't think Sanders runs. He's really good in that Senate

But, since the President abandoned the public option, appointed a one-sided commission on debt relief, wants to cut funding for important programs that help the poor, compromises at every turn, supports the Patriot Act, continues the war, caters to corporations when they are making record profits, etc. - a challenge from the left would maybe help keep him honest. The Repukes are so crazy that Obama (who has been at least as conservative as Clinton IMO - maybe more) looks liberal in comparison, so I do support Obama. And I expect I will vote for him since I see this challenge as more keeping him honest than being successful.

[Action]

83. Do you homework

Please study up on how Carter was weakened because of a challenge. It all comes down to this: Do you want to win or send some useless message that only helps repubs?

[defendandprotect]

197. Your homework is based on FEAR -- take a lesson from the Egyptians ...!!

[bigwillq]

84. Every incumbent should.

That goes for Obama, and for Kucinich.

[ScreamingMeemie]

144. +eleventy billion.

[CakeGrrl]

85. Basically: "*I'm* not gonna do it, but SOMEbody should!"

:eyes:

[JNelson6563]

91. Sometimes Kucinch is an idiot

This is one of those times.

Julie

[cascadiance]

233. Nope!!!

!!!!!

[OhioChick]

92. Agreed n/t

[avaistheone1]

95. Agreed.

:kick:

[dkofos]

104. I agree, and if Dennis runs he will get my vote.

[salinen]

105. That would be a REAL democrat

facing off against a DINO.

[begin_within]

108. Howard Dean, will you please pick up a white courtesy phone

[readmoreoften]

114. K&R

[AngryOldDem]

115. Agreed,

I don't want to see him get renominated without some kind of fight. I want a choice. Kucinich is right -- perhaps a challenger will wake Obama up.

His suggestion of cutting LHEAP is just one more instance of how I'm finding it harder to support him.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mvd]

117. I agree. Nothing wrong can come from..

someone on the left reminding the President of that spirit he had in the campaign that drew so many progressive followers. It's not that I expect every liberal principle enacted into law. It's that Obama completely acts like they are just ideals and doesn't even keep defending them. I doubt there will be a serious challenger, but a challenge couldn't hurt.

BTW, I'm fine with Kucinich not running. He's tried multiple times, and he has to battle those Repukes who want to re-district his district out.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[grahamhgreen]

125. Yes. And let Egypt be a lesson. Listen to the people.

[mvd]

149. I think Obama has handled Egypt pretty well. If he was more..

vocal, then Mubarak might not have resigned today. He let the demonstrations run their course. Despite too much war, foreign policy has been a lot more reasonable than under Bush. And despite disappointment, there are plenty of reasons for me to vote for Obama over the Repuke.

I agree, though - the U.S. is one of the most passive countries on earth. Of course we shouldn't be anything like Egypt (different circumstances here), but more of that spirit would force our politicians to be more responsive to the people.

[RufusTFirefly]

135. Some people who disagree with Kucinich have their cause and effect confused

Facing a primary challenger won't cause an incumbent to become week.

Incumbents generally face primary challenges because they are perceived as weak.

[ProSense]

139. Actually

no

"Incumbents generally face primary challenges because they are perceived as weak."

Obama isn't going to face a primary challenge because he is perceived as weak. It's that the people advocating a primary challenge are flinging bullshit about him being weak.

There's a difference.

[RufusTFirefly]

140. Sorry. You're right. He's strong.

A strong Republican.

[ProSense]

146. " A strong Republican."

You're still wrong.

[Wait Wut]

151. And, you're still right

"Right" meaning "correct"...not --------->

[zipplewrath]

153. Actually

"Incumbents generally face primary challenges because they are perceived as weak."

This, is true.

Obama WON'T face a primary challenger because he is not perceived as weak, despite people advocating for a challenger.

Clinton wasn't perceived as weak, despite DADT, the failure of his health care reform, amongst other actions. He was perceived as strong because he was able to rack up legislative "wins", even with a GOP congress. Obama is doing the same thing. Racking up wins, regardless of what they actually are.

[ProSense]

236. "Obama is doing the same thing. Racking up wins, regardless of what they actually are."

I complete disagree.

That statement only makes sense if someone ignores the President's entire record: here, here, here, here and here.

Also, the volume and quality of President Obama's legislative accomplishments far exceed Clinton's

Clinton's first two years:

February 5, 1993 — Family and Medical Leave Act, Pub.L. 103-3, 107 Stat. 6
May 20, 1993 — National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77
August 10, 1993 — Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312
November 16, 1993 — Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub.L. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488
November 30, 1993 — Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill), Pub.L. 103-159, title I, 107 Stat. 1536
November 30, 1993 — Don't ask, don't tell (as § 574 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994), Pub.L. 103-160, 107 Stat. 1670
December 8, 1993 — North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057
May 26, 1994 — Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Pub.L. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694
September 13, 1994 — Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (including the Violence Against Women Act), Pub.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796
September 23, 1994 — Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, Pub.L. 103-325, title I, subtitle A (§101 et seq.), 108 Stat. 2163


Obama's first two years

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291, H.R. 4783
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296, S. 3307
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751

[AllyCat]

147. Agreed. I am very disappointed.

[Bryan]

152. Why shouldn't Obama have a primary challenger?

A lot of my fellow Obama people are wigging out about this, and we all need a nice wigflip now and again, but it's not a big worry.

I mean, if an elected Dem want to put their life on hold for a year to go around the country hitting up strangers for money just for the privilege of being ground into a fine paste by the world's most popular politician, then why not let 'em? I'd just as soon somebody with that many loose wires be out in public, where I can keep an eye on them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

156. Don't be so confident

I know a lot of people who were quite star-struck over Obama in 2008, and one by one, they're waking up and saying, "This isn't what I voted for."

At the very least, Obama needs to know that it's not only Republicans who are unhappy.

[creon]

155. Why not?

It may help to clarify the issues. But, I tend to consider a challenge to be a distraction from the necessary task.


It is much more important to elect a majority of liberals to Congress.

The 111th Congress did not do a good job of passing effective legislation.

That was not the fault of Obama. It was the Congress that did not do the job.

I think that would be far more useful to elect liberals to Congress.

[emilyg]

162. k/r agree

[grahamhgreen]

165. Kick.

[delightfulstar]

167. K&R, I'm with Dennis.

Given how irritated everyone I know is with Obama (including so many of my Dem friends), I think we need to see a strong voice on our side of the aisle who won't cave to the whims of Orange Glo and his cronies. If he's going to win another term, he needs to make things right, and do what he promised to do when he ran in '08 (REAL, positive, more progressive change), instead of going Raygun-esque on us. Sadly, I don't see that happening, and at this point, I think I will be supporting another Dem candidate.

[NYC Liberal]

170. Totally delusional. Name an incumbent Dem president in the last 100 years

that faced a strong challenger from within the party and came out stronger because of it.

If someone wants to do it, that's their right. But the idea that a strong challenge makes the incumbent stronger is total nonsense.

[liberalmike27]

275. FDR

Huey Long had a thriving and growing Socialist Party and if hadn't been shot by the judge's son, he might've won.

In fact, he's an illustritive example of how a guy making noise to the left, can move an incumbent president to be more active in addressing the terrible conditions of a depression, much like the one we once again find ourselves in.

No, he hadn't signed up yet, but it was clear he had intentions of running for president against FDR. There are even conspiracy theories (probably untrue) that FDR or his acolytes had something to do with his death.

Seriously this whole worry about someone getting primaried and losing is bogus. If anything it was the already existing dissatisfaction and exhasperation with the president, not the primary challenge, that gets them beaten. Did Rahm Emmanual, or Gibbs have to attack the leftmost part of the party so openly, and create these problems? Could Obama not at least have spoken out better, and tried to fix some of the more obvious problems better? Yes he could've, yes he could've, yes he could have.

[NYC Liberal]

281. Except he didn't run. And it's doubtful he would have gotten

the Democratic nomination if he had. He might have formed a third party, which might have split the Dem vote. Not exactly what I would call strengthening the incumbent. Nonetheless, he didn't run, obviously, so it's all conjecture.

"Seriously this whole worry about someone getting primaried and losing is bogus."

Well, yes, in Obama's case it is bogus since there won't be any serious primary challengers, if there are any at all. But in reality, incumbents who face strong but unsuccessful primary challenges do not fare well. Many times it has little to do with the strength of the incumbent and more to do with the strength of the challenger. It's certainly possible to have a strong challenger to a strong incumbent.

The only way a primary challenge actually works is if the challenger actually defeats the weak incumbent who would have done poorly in the general election. Otherwise you have an "also-ran" challenger and a nominee who has had to spend months fighting a primary instead of focusing on the general election opponent.

[Kolesar]

173. F#$k. I gave Dennis money because he faced a primary challenge last cycle

thanks for nothing, Kooch

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

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

[The Second Stone]

183. Two good Supreme Court appointments, DADT repeal

and the economy is not worse and will probably recover. He doesn't appear to be torturing people, he's got two idiotic wars going on one of which he promised to end, hasn't shut down gitmo and gave huge tax breaks to people who don't need it and paid for that with future taxes on working people. He appoints only Wall Street approved people to WH posts.

Yeah, I'll vote for him in Nov 2012, but I'm not happy about it.

[defendandprotect]

198. Deals with "Big Pharma" and PRIVATE health care to trample MEDICARE4ALL -- !!

And a ton of other deals for corporations -- billions from stimulus went to

business contracts -- Obama/Dncan attacking public education all over the map!

Teachers and their unions -- and Rahm crowing about all of this and more!!

Obama should go -- let's make sure we get a liberal Demcrat to replace him --

someone like Bernie Sanders can run on a Dem ticket --!!

[RBInMaine]

242. You are out in ultra-left field if you think someone more liberal could win. Find the planet please.

[defendandprotect]

260. Wow -- sounds like you're really anti-liberal ....

However -- America is a liberal nation --

every poll shows that --

We've been taken for a ride by right wing political violence --

and right wing co-option of the party --

not to mention right wing computers and stolen elections.

[Lorien]

272. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren run, or Weiner, or Feingold

I'd vote for Sanders in a heartbeat but he's probably a bit on in years to manage that kind of schedule.

[Enthusiast]

201. K&R

Someone has to challenge Obama.

[DCBob]

207. Thats about the dumbest thing any Democrat could say..

Thanks Dennis.. you earn your nickname "Kookchinich".

[politicasista]

210. What did Obama do to him?

:shrug:

[Dystopian]

214. KandR.

peace~

[mother earth]

219. It's all just BS until campaign finance reform & election reform

are conquered. Is it any wonder our Hope & Change man brought us very little hope and very little change? We are the USA, Inc., bought and paid for by big monied interests who are the real movers and shakers...democracy is window dressing for the peons...give them some bread crumbs and let them believe they have a voice....but make damn sure we own the voting machines and buy the candidates.

I love Kucinich, and I never wanted ever to believe Obama would ever or could ever bring such disillusionment. Fuck hope and change, GW could still be in office except for a few good things done with health care "reform", but so much was stripped away and given away right at the start, and still we wanted to believe. We the people must be blind to continue to believe in anything at this point...what a game...it's truly sad for what might have been, what we truly hoped for and the change that could have taken place. All the millions and billions spent on war and death, what a difference it could have made. We deserve what we get, we've been moving along like sheep to the slaughter...American slavery, and we don't see it for what it is, still hoping for those crumbs.

[rhett o rick]

223. Someone said that if you are doing too good in the battle, watch out for the ambush.

The corporate powers that run Washington the DC, decided to back off in 2008 and let the people get what they thought they wanted. Didnt anyone get suspicious when Bush and Cheney left Washington the DC with out a fight. Someone told them to back off and slip away. Then for four years the Republicans, media and corpAmerica would do everything to disparage Pres Obama. Then the ambush in 2012. I predict Jeb Bush will ride in on his white horse and save the country. KKKarl Rove will squish the Brown Shirt Tea Baggers like ants.

[Lorien]

238. The corporate powers don't need another repug

the current office holder is serving them quite well.

[rhett o rick]

295. When greed and power is involved "quite well" will never do. We are close to the endgame

of capitalism in America.

[MJJP21]

224. agreed

Absolutely their should be a challenge to Obama from a true progressive.

[pam4water]

225. Yeah by someone who was a Democrat int eh real sense of the word! Bight size hug for Dennis ;) K&R

[mvd]

248. Another hug - proud to be a DK supporter

I prefer there to be no challenge. But I think the only way Obama hears the message and responds without brushing the left off is a challenge. I fully expect it won't be successful, and the right kind of challenge will make the President hear us without having a bruising campaign. Too many New Democrats these days; even in Montgomery County PA, Hoeffel was too liberal for the Democratic county leadership. The left needs to take part in the debate.

[faz]

229. Go for it Kucinich!

Be a man!

[MasonJar]

232. I prefer someone challenge him who could beat him. He did not

keep his campaign promises of change. Obama thinks that he can screw us liberals because we have nowhere to go. He could be proven dead wrong. In the first place we were the ones who worked so hard for him. Will the independents do that? We gave him financial backing. Will the independents do that? Certainly his buddies, the GOPers, won't, and neither will the corporations he favors. But this time, neither will I. If he gets my vote, it will be all he gets. I do NOT like being lied to and taken for a fool.

[RBInMaine]

240. Another Kucinich candidacy? Yawn...

[AlbertCat]

241. I'm more worried about....

... who's in the houses of Congress than who's President.

Obama is proof the President is still a PR stunt.... just like Bush was.

[pnwmom]

245. Good reason not to vote for Kucinich.

No sitting President has ever gotten stronger because of a primary challenge. Kucinich is dreaming.

[Caretha]

285. If you don't vote or support Kucinich

You're going to get a Palin or Huckabee type....

Isn't that the threat DLCers use when anyone talks about not voting for Obama? Works both ways ya know.

[20score]

249. Of course there should be a serious challenger. Progressives don't even have a seat at the table.

How is capitulation to everything important, a winning strategy?

I truly do not understand people that profess certain ideals, but have no problem selling out those ideals - in bulk, no less - when it's their side brokering those ideals to the highest bidder.

[sellitman]

250. In a Utopian world Dennis is spot on.

In the real world this idea is madness.

Pass.

[jobycom]

252. Dennis Kucinich in a nutshell, right there. "Someone should run. Hope someone else does it."

I was one of the first "Kucinich for President" people around here, back in his "Prayer for America" days, but this guy does nothing but pretend a superior morality while refusing to do anything that could dirty his hands. He ran for the nomination twice, both times refusing to do anything to turn his campaign into a serious effort.

He wants attention, he wants people to love him and tell him how pretty he is, and he wants to be known as a principled, true, liberal, and yet he isn't willing to do the work it would take--or face the opposition it would generate--to actually accomplish anything. I've known a couple of people who have worked with him in the legislature on various things, and they all say he's very smart, very capable, and ultimately, afraid of being disagreed with.

So he won't run. He'll just drop mud on whoever does for not being as perfect as his Beatific Kucinichness.

I still love him. But sometimes I really hate him.

[Beacool]

253. Got to give it to Kucinich.

He likes to shake things up. Since we choose presidents as if they were American Idol contestants, I have no doubt that Obama will win reelection. Although, kudos to Dennis for rattling the Democratic party's cage.

:D

[woo me with science]

258. K&R. nt

[slipslidingaway]

261. Issues - jobs, protection of SS and Medicare, healthcare for all ...

“I’m very interested in making sure that creation of jobs, healthcare for all, protection of Social Security and Medicare, those things are fundamental—and education,” Kucinich explained in a C-SPAN interview. “Those are issues that certainly should be brought up in primaries. And, finally, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have to stop roaming the world looking for dragons to slay—we’ve things to take care of right here at home.”

Kucinich’s comments echo those of Rabbi Michael Lerner, who wrote last fall, in the aftermath of the midterm election setbacks for Democrats: “There is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support—as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success—this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway.”

[Dragonfli]

263. Agreed, the party must decide if it should be led by a right-winger or a "classic" Democrat

This continued Reaganesque leadership is hurting the party as much as it is hurting the poor and working class.
I say the rich have enough allies in the other party and do not need two parties at their whim like they have had these past two years.

[Hardrada]

273. This is entirely correct. Primary challenges keep one honest.

[MuseRider]

300. I might even consider re registering

as a Democrat to vote for someone else. Now, well we have seen how this one is, I think I will stay where I am until I see someone who inspires the liberal in me.

One of the saddest things I have heard in a while was from a friend of mine who works for various causes in our statehouse. He came home despondent and said that we have now lost even the moderate Republicans, they have turned into Democrats....scared stupid and whimpering, caving in and hiding from the big bad Republicans. (paraphrased, I was too stunned hearing this from him to remember the entire thing)

Primary Obama. I don't think even for a moment that if he gives voice to more liberal ideals because of it he will hold to them if re elected. He will turn his back once again, pretend he did not say them and do as he has been doing.

[Ukridge]

284. Obama

We could probably do better than Obama, but I have not seen anyone yet I'd like better. As for coming through with my main goals, no more torture and wars like Iraq, I'm very satisfied.

[polichick]

286. Sure hope it happens - I remain a registered Dem to vote in the primary...

This president adopts yet another Republican talking point each week - maybe he can run for them; they need a good candidate.

[Le Taz Hot]

291. And I agree with Kucinich.

This IS a Democracy, after all. (wink, wink)

[Gman]

296. Well go ahead and make a fool out of yourself again, Kucinich.

[BlueIris]

298. I think it is ludicrous for anyone to believe Obama can be renominated.

So the question of "Should there be a primary challenge?" is a stupid one to me. The Party has to nominate someone else and it will. Will that person be able to pull out a victory over the Republican challenger is the question.

At this point, I don't know if that's possible either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

303. What potential candidates are capable of defeating President Obama in the primaries?

[robcon]

304. Obama will win the General Election by a bigger margin than he won in 2008.

He has/will have a greater number of independents - no party affiliation - than he had in 2008.

Elections hinge on the independents. Obama's got the election in the bag, IMO.

[pettypace]

299. 152 people do not have a crush on Obama

[jxnmsdemguy65]

306. I live in the Deep South, am fairly conservative on some things...

but I would vote for Kucinich in a heartbeat over Obama in a primary challenge.

[KillCapitalism]

307. I wish a real progressive would beat Obama in the primary.

We need a candidate who better represents progressive values. If Obama gets the nomination again, which he most certainly will, it's just going to be a republican vs. another republican in the 2012 election.