Rendell: Obama Could Face Primary Challenge Over Afghanistan

[depakid]

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell predicted on Tuesday that if the president escalates America's military involvement in Afghanistan he could very well face a primary challenger in 2012.

In an overlooked "Morning Joe" segment on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Democrat offered his distinct brand of eccentric, conversation-driving political foresight. He couched his statement about the possibility of a primary challenge by stressing that if Obama sticks to his current plans for Afghanistan -- a reduced military presence beginning in July of 2011 -- there would not be political insurrection within the party.

But Rendell clearly opened up the conversation as to how much capital Obama is working with when it comes to foreign wars. And for perhaps the first time in the course of the Afghanistan debate, the specter was raised that Democrats will really take the president to task for a military commitment that is too long, too costly, or too heavy.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html

Happened to Lyndon Johnson...

[davidinalameda]

1. I can think of more than a few people I'd like to see run

[Dinger]

27. Who? Let's Start The Conversation:)

I'm ready.

[dkf]

42. Howard Dean

[Dinger]

59. :)

:)

[davidinalameda]

66. I like Dean

I could definitely get behind his candidacy

[WI_DEM]

69. Dean's not going to challenge Obama. If he's challenged it will be on the right

by somebody like the blowhard Rendell.

[dkf]

77. Maybe Dean would over Afghanistan.

Remember he was the guy against the Iraq war.

[Sebastian Doyle]

91. How the fuck could you POSSIBLY make a case to primary Obama "from the right"

Would they claim that bailing out Wall Street, ensuring "Federal" Reserve control over the financial system, making privatized health care mandatory, escalating the so-called "war on terror", and attempting to privatize education and social security are signs that Obama is "too liberal" :eyes:

The ONLY challenge to Obama that would get anywhere would be one from the Left. Howard Dean has the track record of being on the correct side of pretty much everything since 2003, so he's the one who would be best positioned to challenge this administration.

Other challengers might pop up. Dennis Kucinich might try again. I don't see him getting very far against a sitting President. Alan Grayson would be interesting, but I doubt he would try a Presidential run at this stage, since he's still very new to national politics.

[Ter]

94. Is bailing out Wall Street right-wing?

The teabaggers seem to despise this. I feel it has the establishment's support, whether right or left.

[Sebastian Doyle]

95. If it helps predatory capitalism, it's right wing by definition

There is no such thing as left wing corporatism.

[JVS]

98. Because there are a lot of big egos on the party's right. All they need is the opportunity.

And Obama is going to offer them a lot of opportunity.

1. Economy in the toilet? If you're looking at unemployment, yep.

2. War going well? Obama said Bush bungled it, a challenger from the right can say the same.

But probably the biggest opportunity is that Obama's shift right since the primaries has smashed his coalition of African Americans, young liberals, and the Latte Liberals (i.e. educated white urban voters).

African Americans seem to be steadfast in their support of Obama, but lack of jobs for young people and his reversal on the individual health care mandate could easily dampen enthusiasm and might weaken their support in the primaries. Latte liberals are going to be pissed off about the war, gay rights, and probably also bothered by the state of the economy. Obama did not win the primaries of 2008 in a blowout, and since broad sections of his primary base are disgruntled, it would not be hard for a Conservative Democrat to re-assemble the women over 50 (who don't like people fucking around with social security) and blue collar (especially Southern) white voters (think people with friends who are teabaggers and often hear disparaging words on Obama) who voted for her in 2008.

[dionysus]

109. he's far too smart to humiliate himself.

next?

[PADemD]

99. Alan Grayson

[AtomicKitten]

2. Seriously if some of you are convinced Dennis Kucinich or Alan Grayson or Russ Feingold or whoever

can take President Obama in a primary, bring it.

Put up or shut up. Either way be prepared to live with the outcome.

[depakid]

8. That's essentially what was said about Eugene McCarthy....

n 1968, McCarthy ran against incumbent President Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, with the intention of influencing the federal government — then controlled by Democrats — to curtail its involvement in the Vietnam War. A number of anti-war college students and other activists from around the country traveled to New Hampshire to support McCarthy's campaign. Some anti-war students who had the long-haired appearance of hippies chose to cut their long hair and shave off their beards, in order to campaign for McCarthy door-to-door, a phenomenon that led to the informal slogan "Get clean for Gene."

McCarthy's decision to run was partly an outcome of opposition to the war by Wayne Morse of Oregon, one of the two Senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Morse gave speeches denouncing the war before it had entered the consciousness of most Americans. Following that, several politically active Oregon Democrats asked Robert Kennedy to run as an anti-war candidate. Initially Kennedy refused, so the group asked McCarthy to run, and he responded favorably.

McCarthy declared his candidacy on November 30, 1967 saying, "I am concerned that the Administration seems to have set no limit to the price it is willing to pay for a military victory." His candidacy was dismissed by political experts and the news media, and given little chance of making any impact against Johnson in the primaries.

But public perception of him changed following the Tet Offensive (January 30 - September 23, 1968), the aftermath of which saw many Democrats grow disillusioned by the war, and quite a few interested in an alternative to LBJ. McCarthy said "My decision to challenge the President's position and the administration's position has been strengthened by recent announcements out of the administration. The evident intention to escalate and to intensify the war in Vietnam, and on the other hand, the absence of any positive indication or suggestion for a compromise or for a negotiated political settlement."

As his volunteers led by youth coordinator Sam Brown went door to door in New Hampshire, and as the media began paying more serious attention to the Senator, McCarthy began to rise in the opinion polls. When McCarthy scored 42% to Johnson's 49% in the popular vote (and 20 of the 24 N.H. delegates to the Democratic national nominating convention) in New Hampshire on March 12 it was clear that deep division existed among Democrats on the war issue. By this time, Johnson had become inextricably defined by Vietnam, and this demonstration of divided support within his party meant his reelection (only four years after winning the highest percentage of the popular vote in modern history) was unlikely. On March 16 Kennedy announced that he would run, and was seen by many Democrats as a stronger candidate than McCarthy.

On March 31, in a surprise move, Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy#The_1968_campaign

[ProSense]

9. Who is running? n/t

[depakid]

14. Note the date McCarthy declared his candidacy.

Fast forward, and the date would be November 30, 2011.

[seattleblue]

78. McCarthy was able to be financed by Stewart Mott, a GM heir.

Plus a couple of other millionaires working with him. Under current campaign finance laws that is not possible. A challenger would have to start much, much earlier now.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I did not say nor did I imply they don't stand a chance.

In this exchange, you reached that conclusion all by yourself.

Food for thought.

[frazzled]

30. Um, and we got Hubert Humphrey as the candidate, and Richard Nixon as president

That worked out well, didn't it.

Oh yeah, and Bobby Kennedy got killed.

[depakid]

44. That's a pretty shallow way to look at it

But for a tragic event (whether predictable or not people can argue about) -America would be such a different society that people wouldn't recognize it.

Much more like Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Do you really think Nixon would have beaten Kennedy?

[frazzled]

46. Shallow?

It's the historical fact.

Would Kennedy have beaten Nixon? It was not certain that Kennedy would even have won the Democratic nomination. Kennedy was very popular with the youth ... but in 1968, you couldn't vote until 21. (That is why I couldn't vote in that election: I was 18). Would he have beaten Nixon? What is the point in asking that? All I can say is that racial tensions were never higher than at that time. It as much sunk Johnson as Vietnam did in some ways.

This whole thread is an exercise in futility. Vietnam is nothing like Afghanistan; counterhistories are impossible to reconstruct; and we live in entirely different times. But I can bet that a Democratic challenger to Obama, even if they could win, would have a tough time winning the election. We live in crazy times. It almost feels like 1968--probably the worst year I can remember in my lifetime.

[depakid]

50. My point in asking was simply that the primary challenge itself didn't hand the election to Nixon

which seemed to be what you implied- though now that you've elaborated, I can see that assumption was mistaken.

On the other hand, they're similarities between the two wars- they're both long drawn out conflicts with illusory goals (and boogeymen) that drained the nations resources to the extent that eventually, even the more ideologically inclined grew weary of them.

[Jim Sagle]

101. So Eugene McCarthy got Bobby killed. Alrighty, then.

[RollWithIt]

100. And handed the Presidency to Nixon....

And we didn't get out of Vietnam until 1975 anyways.

[Radical Activist]

31. The peace movement is too "hands off" about elections to win a primary.

Groups like UFPJ are too pure and self-righteous about politics to get behind any candidate and make it happen. They'll continue to be politically irrelevant.

That being said, public sentiment is turning against the war. Obama doesn't have the stomach for selling a war the way Bush did. Consequently, public support will continue to fall. An anti-war candidate could present a serious challenge, even if the official peace movement isn't much help.

[JI7]

33. posting on the internet doesn't count ?

[Radical Activist]

lol No, it doesn't.

Neither does "street theater" unless you have something organized to follow it up with.

[janx]

105. Puppets!

:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

71. "The Peace Movement" died with the draft--once their butts were saved it

never was as strong again.

[Radical Activist]

74. I'd say there was an impressive movement before the Iraq war began.

We had rallies with hundreds of thousands of people in DC even before the Iraq invasion started. It took years before Vietnam protests were that large.

The breaking point was when UFPJ decided to stop working with ANSWER. The religious activists and hippie burnouts at UFPJ effectively shut out new young leadership and new ideas. They kept the movement limited to small, ineffective tactics designed to "raise awareness." The divided movement never had the strength it should have if its leaders had learned how to leverage power.

[Ignis]

86. Some of us worked our asses off in 2000, yet got Dems voting for the IWR in return.

Can you blame some of the unaligned peace groups for feeling betrayed?

[Radical Activist]

87. And that's usually the justification.

It's like a jilted lover who gives up on ever dating again because they can't get over a betrayal.

[Ignis]

88. Justification for what, exactly?

Your posts seem to have a repeat problem with jumping two steps ahead in the argument without filling in the necessary steps, yet with an assumption of what the other person is "really" thinking. Why does that happen so often? :shrug:

E.g.:
A: You should eat Hershey's chocolate.
B: Last time I did that, I found a rat claw in my chocolate. It was disturbing.
A: And that's your justification for never eating chocolate again?!?
B: Huh? I never said I wouldn't eat chocolate again.

[Radical Activist]

89. The subject of the comment you responded to

is about the peace movement having a hands off attitude regarding elections. So that's what I'm writing about. Try to keep up with the conversation.

[Ignis]

90. Well, you're free to imagine the worst about peace activists.

After all, the Republicans sure as hell do.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Jim Sagle]

102. A modest proposal: Truth in Internet Pseuds.

Then your handle would change to Five Buck an Hour DLC Hogwash Dispenser.

[Radical Activist]

103. Explain yourself.

How does wanting a peace movement that's more powerful and effective make me DLC? :crazy:

[WI_DEM]

70. they may wish it but not any of those people will challenge the president

they understand that Obama is popular among his party.

[kjackson227]

76. ITA! No one, and I mean NO ONE, is beating Obama out...

Wish as they may, it's not going to happen.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

96. Those three are smart enough to know better.

[BootinUp]

3. How did that work out for the Dems?

I fuckin forget.

[depakid]

5. With a political assassination that left a escalation apologist as the nominee

in an election that included a strong third party challenger and Nixon's Southern Strategy.

[BootinUp]

11. So you believe

an anti-war candidate will have a better chance this time?

[depakid]

21. That's not what I said

I'm only positing historical facts and repeating what a Democratic governor stated on the record.

[burning rain]

24. Wallace undoubtedly took more votes from Nixon than Humphrey, though.

In a two-way race Humphrey would have lost even worse.

[depakid]

26. Maybe, maybe not- there's no way to go back and analyze the dynamics

of a two party vs. three party race.

Can't do it with Clinton, Bush & Perot, either.

[theoldman]

4. A week is a long time in politics.

The last time I looked at my calender it was August 27 2010. I am fairly good at math and it looks as if it is over two years till the 2012 election.

[saltpoint]

6. Rendell thought he was heading to Washington with

a major plum pie on his plate.

When his ticket to ride didn't survive the primes he had to ratchet down the glory profile.

If the U.S. economy were to take a turn upward, Afghanistan would shrink in a hurry as a political issue by contrast. Rendell manages somehow to avoid that possible scenario.

[Jennicut]

13. Yup. This is the same guy who was pissed at Obama for not doing street money.

Does anyone think Rendell cares about Afghanistan?

[saltpoint]

18. Hi, Jennicut. I have a negative reaction to Ed on

just about any topic, but then again, not every Democrat can be one's favorite Democrat.

His endorsed candidate won the Pennsylvania primary -- I'll give Rendell that at least.

But she also lost the big picture, and the nomination. I thought Rendell would wind up as her Chief of Staff or political advisor -- something of that sort. A very high-profile control position.

When it was clear she had lost the nomination Rendell must have realized that that truck had broken down and he was stranded in his swing state with no discernible political future.

I agree with Depakid that the primary challenger scenario is possible, and that AFghanistan could possibly be the tripswitch, but Rendell is manipulating events through the filter of HClinton, who would in his scenario offer him that juicy job.

[Jennicut]

23. I just cannot stand the guy and this goes back further then 2008.

I know it is good PA had a Dem Governor but still....

[YvonneCa]

79. Yep. n/t

[Radical Activist]

35. Is that what they call "walking around money" in Chicago?

I hadn't heard about that being an issue in PA but it doesn't surprise me. Obama decided to reject the machine a long, long time ago.

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. BS. Rendell was not hoping for a DC job

His Lt. Governor, Catherine Baker Knoll, was too old and unstable to take over for him. She has since passed away, so now a Republican in next in line.

[saltpoint]

106. I disagree. Rendell saw a Clinton nomination as a

Clinton election and considered it his ride out of town to a position in the administration.

I don't believe the Lt. Gov scenario was remotely in Rendell's mind, not even for half a second.

[ProSense]

7. "Happened to Lyndon Johnson..."

This isn't Vietnam. Seriously, people are acting like this is all a big surprised so they can live out their fantasies that they never got over.

[depakid]

10. Oh, it's every bit the quagmire Vietnam was- and then some

Afghanistan's taken down empires (and superpowers) in the past. Repeatedly.

And economic circumstances during the Vietnam war were a whole lot more favorable to guns AND butter.

[ProSense]

12. Hyperbole. n/t

[depakid]

15. Denialism n/t

[ProSense]

17. Who's running? There is an election in three months

Maybe you should focus on that instead of wishful thinking bolstered by hyping Wikileaks as the Pentagon Papers.

Obama ran on just what he's doing. He'll likely shift the strategy to accomodate the realities. The reality will likely look a lot different in two and a half years.

Who's running?

[Jennicut]

16. There are similarities and differences.

The quagmire situation is similar, the body count of the soldiers is not and there is no draft. Now, I want us out of Afghanistan but there are plenty of critics of Obama's policies there are legitimate. Ed Rendell is not one of them. Old Eddie is interested in power and sees he has no influence in this WH. Does he give a crap about Afghanistan?

[depakid]

19. "Old Eddie is interested in power" Yep.

So was Eugene McCarthy.

And Bobby Kennedy.

[Jennicut]

22. So Ed Rendell is on par with Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy?

Come on! There are great critics you can name who are Dems that are far better then Rendell. Dennis Kucinich is one.

[depakid]

25. No- politicians seeking power or influence is what drives these things

every bit as much as the principles, beliefs and values that they may (or may not) hold- or policies that they may or may not support.

Of course, popularity is also a determinate. In the event that Obama's poll numbers are mired in the low 40's or high 30's in key electoral states, a challenge becomes much more likely than if he's hovering around 50% or higher.

[ProSense]

29. "In the event that Obama's poll numbers are mired in the low 40's "

Did someone challenge Clinton or Reagan?

Obama's numbers are higher. Obama isn't at the halfway mark yet. It's seems excessive wishful thinking at this point is a bit premature.

[depakid]

38. Reality check- Clinton in 1996 presided over peace & prosperity

Reagan was a Republican- also during a time of peace and increasing prosperity.

Had there been a quagmire of a war- and had the economy remained mired, rather than trending up, might have been a different story. That "morning in America" bit wouldn't have been the narrative.

[ProSense]

40. "Clinton in 1996 presided over peace & prosperity"

Then why was his approval in the low 40s?

Reality check.

[depakid]

43. For similar reasons to Obama's

Pandering to the corporate right and losing support and enthusiasm among traditional Democratic constituencies.

Some of whom he's since apologized to.

The popularity numbers are only one factor among many (though they did in his political soulmate in Australia, who was also seen as unwilling to fight for his' policies). Rendell raised a galvanizing issue- a quagmire of a war, with the implication being guns over butter.

With the economy likely to be stagnant on Main Street- that's a populist issue an opportunistic candidate could easily run with.

[ProSense]

45. "Pandering to the corporate right and losing support and enthusiasm among traditional Democratic"

So why wasn't Clinton challenged?

[depakid]

47. I've already told you- peace & prosperity (did you read the OP & the rest of posts in the subthread?

There was also still a Perot organization as well as Nader's first run to help fill the political vacuum created.

Indeed, that void became serious enough after four more years of pandering that it turned Oregon (of all places) into a "battleground state," where the Greens took almost 6% of the vote.

[ProSense]

49. Why wasn't Clinton primaried? Did he lose? n/t

[bornskeptic]

58. Clinton beat Dole 47-39 in Oregon. Calling it a battleground seems odd.

Calling Nader's 3.6% almost 6% is rather excessive too.

[depakid]

60. I'm referencing 2000

Not 1996 -though since you mentioned it, the 3.6% was an early warning sign to those of us paying attention. Failing to heed it damn near cost the Dems a safe state.

[oberliner]

80. What is the source for your claim?

I believe Bill Clinton's approval rating was above 50 percent during the time of the 1996 primary.

[StevieM]

83. Well, by 1996 I think his job approval numbers were way up again after the showdown with

the GOP congress over their unpopular budget and the government shutdown.

[Vattel]

61. Another big difference

is that in Afghanistan the insuregency is very unpopular. It is worrisome, though, that its popularity seems to be growing in certain areas.

[fujiyama]

41. Untill we have almost 17, 000 troops killed in ONE YEAR

this isn't Vietnam. We've lost almost 1,200 during the entire Afghanistan conflict. People that have their sons or daughters in the military are concerned, but most barely even remember we're still there.

I'm not saying this conflict isn't dire and that the long term foreign policy implications aren't important. Or that the civilian and military death count should be dismissed. I'm also not defending our idiotic strategy of just throwing more troops at a situation that isn't showing results.

But it's not the same thing as Vietnam. Historical analogies don't always work. Sorry.

[onenote]

53. its not even close to the situation that vietnam presented when mccarthy ran

In 1967, when McCarthy decided to run, the US had nearly 400,000 troops in Vietnam with an escalation in place that would take that number to nearly 1/2 million the next year. There were over 11,000 US soldiers killed in Vietnam in 1967 and over 16,000 killed in 1968.

Today, there are under 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and its more likely that the number will decrease or maybe stay the same than it will increase; moreover, the number of US fatalities in Afghanistan for the past 9 or so years combined is less than the average number of fatalities per month in 1968.

In 1967 and 1968, fueled by opposition to the draft (not applicable today) there were beginning to be sizable protests against the war in multiple cities. Today? Not so much.

I'm not suggesting that even one death in Afghanistan is acceptable. I'm pointing out the reality that the two situations are not even remotely comparable from a political perspective.

[depakid]

62. You must missed the previous posts- it's not JUST the guns- but the butter

relatively speaking, the US could afford a quagmire then- but its much less able to now (and I'd note that technically speaking, Afghanistan is already a longer war than Vietnam and we're no closer to "winning" than we were 5 years ago).

Every time one of these 30-40-60 billion dollar appropriations comes up- while the nation's economy stagnates, teachers are being laid off and talk of cuts to Social Security and Medicare are in the air, the worse it's going to get.

[Radical Activist]

32. LOL

People need to stop trying to relive the 60's and 70's. They said Iraq was just like Vietnam too. The comparisons to Vietnam get in the way of understanding what's really happening today. We can learn from the past without wallowing in it.

[depakid]

34. Well, look at that a "radical activist" taking a swipe at real activists!

while missing the point entirely.

[Radical Activist]

36. I'll take a swipe at bad tactics that don't help the movement.

I make no apologies for that.

[depakid]

39. What movement(s)?

Your posts generally reflect the most orthodox, "centrist," administration line arguments on the board.

They might as well come from The New Republic half the time.

[Radical Activist]

48. My posts

about Obama usually challenge exaggeration and hyperbole. My posts about issues aren't centrist at all. I don't share your opinion that recognizing progressive accomplishments by Obama makes someone centrist.

[depakid]

51. I guess we see matters differently

as evidenced in our colloquy's.

[Radical Activist]

56. And anyway, I posted three comments criticizing Obama so far today.

I'm not dogmatic about being for or against someone. Have you posted something positive about Obama lately?

[dionysus]

108. except he didn't

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

28. Good assesment.

Obama probably will have a primary challenge if he doesn't start the Afghanistan withdrawal close to schedule. And it may be a serious one.

This is the right message for progressives who want to get out of the war. I would like to get out faster, but it's hard to see that happening. I don't see the point of parroting the Fox News talking point about this being "Obama's War." Yes, it is now, but what does that prove? Pressuring Obama to stick with his 2011 target is the strongest message to make it happen.

[fujiyama]

37. And what is Rendell's fucking alternative?

Unless he's advocating immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, he's not providing anything productive at all - and he's not saying anything new about Afghanistan either. I'm really amazed, how Afghanistan is a clusterfuck all of a sudden after it was neglected for 7 long fucking years by that motherfucker in office before Obama.

A "reduced presence" just means the troops there are facing more fire, with even less backup. The drone attacks will still occur, killing a large number of civilians, pissing off a bunch more people. The Pakistanis will still be playing their shady games, milking the US of billions of the dollars in military "aid".

Fuck off Rendell. You bitter ass hole. Your candidate lost and you still feel it. You don't know a goddamn thing about foreign policy. We'd be in the same fucking situation regardless of any of the major candidates being elected because everyone of them had this asinine notion that more troops would magically fix the situation (note, I mentioned major - IIRC Kucinich was the only candidate pushing for a withdrawal - unfortunately he had no chance).

[bvar22]

52. As far as I'm concerned,

he should face a primary challenge over the Health Care Reform failure.

Up is Down
Black is White
We have always been at war with EastAsia
"I did not campaign on a Public Option."


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[depakid]

54. Health care was a major reason behind Kennedy's challenge to Carter

[WI_DEM]

72. yeah, but Obama delivered where other dems have failed on HCR

they may not have gotten single payer but most dems voted for it and had Kennedy been alive he would have voted for it too. Even DK ended up voting for HCR, so who is this mythical democrat who will take Obama on HCR? Rendell!? he's a party hack and is anything but a liberal.

[bvar22]

75. Delivered?

If you mean Obama "delivered" you and your children's financial asses to a predatory Health Insurance Corporation, then YES, Obama "delivered".

[Hawkowl]

82. Delivered for the Insurance Companies!

Wait till everyone's premiums increase by 50% in the next couple of years. Then the MSM will blame Obama for pricing the middle class out of health care.

[CakeGrrl]

55. He gets more accomplished on HCR than the Clintons or anyone else,

in MANY years, but because it didn't meet the progressive ideal out of the gate, he needs to be tossed out.

Wow.

[jefferson_dem]

64. Well, first you would have to find a qualified Democrat who opposed health care reform.

Anybody come to mind? Is "Firebagger" Jane Hamsher a Democrat?

[Thrill]

57. Democrats say some of the most stupid shit

You wouldn't catch one Republican saying anything close to this when it was time for Bush to run for re-election.

[jefferson_dem]

63. 1968? Ha. Show me an RFK ... or even a Eugene McCarthy ... and I'll start paying attention to this.

[BeyondGeography]

65. Today the Mourning Mopers were lamenting the fact that no one cares about Afghanistan

Another way of saying that Rendell was talking out of his ass on their show yesterday.

[MerryBlooms]

67. Well, I suppose anything is possible

but it would come from the 'fringe' and not taken seriously. I'm amazed how many on the left are supporting this war ... there's no way we're getting out of this mess anytime soon. :*(

[WI_DEM]

68. thankfully that blowhard Ed Rendell is leaving office this year

he's as popular as a butt cyst in PA, too. Obama hasn't given any indication that he is going to change his policy in Afghanistan and yet there is Fast Eddie on msnbc not only suggesting such a thing but also saying Obama could face a primary--and then to add salt says that Obama is unpresidential if he appears on THE VIEW!!

Maybe Rendell is planning a run in '12--he wouldn't get anywhere, not even in PA. The president would win the black vote overwhelmingly and do well among rank and file dems.

[paulk]

73. it's kind of absurd to be making political predictions about 2012

before the 2010 elections have even taken place. That goes for the "there won't be a challenge under any circumstances" crowd also.

[Hawkowl]

81. LBJ redux indeed

I fully expect a repeat of the LBJ fiasco, with Obama deciding not to run again after drawing out Afghanistan another two years. The way Obama has been undercutting his base on multiple fronts is also a substantiating factor in my belief.

I think Obama is just itching to get on the lecture circuit and be a statesman, like Bill Clinton, pulling down tens of millions of dollars a year. His place in history is already assured so he has nothing to gain by running for re-election.

[StevieM]

84. Regardless of what decisions are made pertaining to Afghanistan, I don't see a primary challenge to

President Obama emerging. He's done too much that Democrats are extremely happy about, from health care to the stimulus to financial reform to superb Supreme Court appointments.

Steve

[LWolf]

85. That would be good. nt

[Unvanguard]

92. That would have certain virtues.

For one, it is a rational tactic for ending the war, unlike most of the other offered reasons for primarying Obama. The Afghan War is a place where he actually has a lot of discretion.

Probably won't happen though. Not sure how I would feel about supporting it if it did.

[bigwillq]

97. Obama should face a primary challenge

no matter what. Not that I think anyone has any real shot of winning, but I feel all incumbents, on every level, should face a primary challenge. It's what democracy is about. May the best man or woman win.

[dionysus]

107. no matter how much your desire burns for obama to go down... ain't happening.

maybe larouche can save your dreams.

[Skip Intro]

110. Wow. I thought such talk was confined to DU. nt