For those who denounce the idea of a primary challenge...what do you want progressives to do?

[Ken Burch]

It can't be progressive to just renominate the incumbent without challenge. That means a convention with no debate a platform dictated by the incumbent with no questions and no discussion, an incumbent who can't be trusted to be on our side without being pushed, and a fall campaign with no passion at all.

We now know that, even if Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter had been renominated by acclimation, the conditions they were working under(in Johnson's case, the unwinnability of the Vietnam War, in Carter's the late 1970's recession and the Iran hostage situation)would have guaranteed their defeat anyway.

This party can only win if it generates passion and energy among the grassroots. Barack Obama, running on a program of defending his existing policies, cannot generate that enthusiasm. And no amount of money can make up for that.

SO let me ask...if we don't have a primary challenge, how can we win with a permanently damaged candidate 2012? And how can we win on a platform that(if its drafted unchallenged by the administration)will embody the failed "bipartisanship" approach and will tell all progressives to shut up and know their place?

How can renominating the incumbent by acclimation lead to anything but electoral disaster in 2012? And how can it send any positive message to the millions of progressive voters who have to be won back to voting and who can ONLY be won back with a positive message, rather than endless scolding?

These are serious questions and those who are now demanding blind obedience and silence have an obligation to give them serious and respectful answers.

Those who call for a challenge or at least open debate on the party's direction have no agenda other than to try to save this party from defeat and irrelevance.

[emilyg]

1. k

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Don't underestimate the effect of money in 2011

1968 and 1980 were a different time.

Now, "activists" don't march on Washington. They rant on the internet and do what Madison Avenue is paid by political consultants to tell them to do.

[Ken Burch]

16. OK, I don't underetisimate the effect of money

but you can't truly argue that progressive opposition to Obama is controlled by Madison Avenue.

You know perfectly well we're sincere and driven by our own convictions.

[Capitalocracy]

231. Do you have their contact information?

I haven't been receiving my checks.

[bjobotts]

252. Keep the SC in priority;keep the goal in sight but lower expectations based on insanity of repubs in

congress. Focus on what has been accomplished for no dem could have delivered more in this climate.Even FDR's record would have pissed off progressives before it 'evolved' and if you don't know that then you don't know FDR's record.

Before you can beat the socks off someone you have to get their shoes off first. and...the second rat gets the cheese. Support Obama but pressure his agenda by getting as many progressive candidates in office as possible.

[gateley]

319. +1. Excellent. nt

[pezDispenser]

331. Well said

The US is a big ship that turns slowly. One of the best things Obama can do is build momentum.

[Ruby the Liberal]

256. Who, Madison Avenue?

I think you have to get a job there before the political machine starts writing you checks.

[OHdem10]

3. Agreed.

For example, is it true that the Democratic
Party, Once the party of working people,
is now conceding the Heartland Rust Belt
Ohio, Pa., Michigan etc to the Republicans.
We will hardly be participating there???
I had heard this and I read a post of Obama's
Bus trip and I did not see any of these listed.

This is shocking. Good Luck is all I can say.

[upi402]

4. Obama has very little base left and they are luke warm at best

and the side he courts and gives sway to - hates him with a venom I have never seen.

I dunno.

[ClassWarrior]

6. And those were the people who got the mushy middle out to the polls last time around.

NGU.

[Liberty Belle]

5. I wouldn't be surprised if he picks a new VP, someone who might excite the voters.

Any chance Hilary would take it? There are many with buyer's remorse from the primary who might get excited about seeing her a heartbeat away from the presidency.

[upi402]

7. ugh

really?

[itsnotaboutu]

292. Ditto

Hillary? :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Ken Burch]

14. No one would be excited by HRC as Veep.

How could anyone be energized by the prospect that, if Obama left office before his term expired, we'd get an even MORE militaristic foreign policy?

HRC has nothing to offer. It's not possible to be a progressive AND support a Scoop Jackson approach to the rest of the world.

[socialindependocrat]

234. Remember, she comes with a hubby!!!

Old Wild-Bill should have some tricks up his sleeve!!!!

[JDPriestly]

279. Wild-Bill got us into a lot of trouble with regard to the commodities

and stock markets.

[trud]

303. NAFTA

brought to you by Hill and Bill.

[socialindependocrat]

357. You think he's smarter these days? n/t

[trud]

361. No, Bill is just as venal. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

359. yeah, he's hung around with the Bush clan long enough to outdo his pet project NAFTA

Sorry -- but *wild Bill* needs to stay the hell away from the WH. He's done enough damage to this country.

[Beacool]

327. Speak for yourself.

There are millions of people who would vote for Hillary.

;)

[Tx4obama]

17. President Obama already asked Biden to run with him and Biden said yes.

And Hillary has said in the past she does not want to be VP, she wants to retire and be a grandmother.

And if you think that 'many' have buyers remorse then please post a link to that poll because I haven't seen it, thank you ;)

[Ken Burch]

24. The only good place for HRC in a second term would be the Supreme Court

There, she could be as progressive as she claims to be, without getting the chance to kill anybody else.

[Tx4obama]

29. No, she will be too old. By the time Ginsburg retires HRC will be 65 yrs old.

Any one that Obama appoints to be the next Supreme court justice needs to have been born in the 1950s or 1960s,
HCR was born in the 1940s.

On the link below half way down the page is a long list of possible nominees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_supreme_court

I hope the next nominee will be Harold Koh.

[Ken Burch]

33. If she's in good health, HRC could still sit on the court for 20 years or so

if nominated in the next term. He should have nominated her in his first. The 'pugs would likely have confirmed her just to get her out of the way.

Koh would be a good choice as well, though.

[vssmith]

291. Are Harvard and Yale the only schools that can produce good Supreme Court Justices?

[Ken Burch]

352. Of course not.

And my comments about HRC were not intended to slight anybody else, or any other law schools.

[gateley]

320. No matter who Obama appoints, he'll be met with obstruction.

Look at Elizabeth Warren - The Republicans decided they wouldn't approve her, so they went with someone else, who they STILL won't approve. Regardless of what we attempt, we are dead in the water.

[bvar22]

187. The Supreme Court is already STACKED with those

*who support Corporate Rights over Consumer Rights,

*those who favor Management over LABOR,

*those who support the Patriot Act over the Constitution.

Hillary would just make it worse.


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[antigop]

268. Yep. DLC sHillary would just make it worse. n/t

[Romulox]

197. Does she even have any substantial experience with the law?

:shrug:

[bjobotts]

254. Wal-mart attorney and on their board. Has family history too.Still, she sided with McCain against a

Dem...that's a no no. Shows character in search of power that will compromise against her own.

[Beacool]

328. She only said the truth.

McCain had experience and so did she, Obama had almost none. She was not siding with McCain. She was pointing out that she was more qualified to deal with Mccain than Obama.

:shrug:

[itsnotaboutu]

293. Hee..Hee...Hee

:applause: :applause:

[Major Hogwash]

57. End of story.

I don't see how you never get tired of slinging it back.
I really don't.

[CakeGrrl]

59. +1000

Why do people around here seem to have their fingers in their ears when it's been made clear that the VP has been chosen?

And last time I looked at national polling, Dems were 70+% for the President. THAT is "the base", not the people who would actually have a problem deciding between President Obama and ANY of the Republican field in the GE.

[Romulox]

198. That's a shame. nt

[AtomicKitten]

382. It is written: Obama/Biden 2012.

Breaking: President Obama Selects 2012 Running Mate, Former Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)
by Juli Weiner 10:10 AM, JANUARY 28 2011

Politico is reporting that President Barack Obama has selected former Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who’s previously served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees, to run as his vice-president in the 2012 election. “He asked me if I would do that over a year ago,” Biden told PBS in an interview last night, confirming frenetic speculation about the president’s running mate. “And I told him I would, yes.” The president has yet to officially declare his plans for 2012, although Biden’s statements suggest that Obama is considering a bid for re-election. Many Beltway insiders say Biden, who is the current vice president, is a solid, well-considered addition to the Obama ticket. He’s a popular and recognizable figure on the national political scene, thanks to his years of experience holding the country’s second-highest office. “Literally, today, we were talking about a matter relating to foreign policy,” Biden told PBS of a conversation between himself and the president. Indeed, his recent and well-publicized economic, domestic-policy, and legislative experience is likely to resonate with voters.

link:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/breaking-president-obama-selects-2012-running-mate-former-senator-joe-biden-d-de

[Proud Liberal Dem]

392. +/-80% of Democrats don't

apparently. Most of the others will still pull the lever for him in 2012 IMHO. So much for him being "damaged". :eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

21. I thought this thread was about progressives...why is Hillary in the conversation?

[Ken Burch]

27. Good question

If HRC had been our nominee(assuming she wouldn't have lost, which she probably would have)she'd be to the RIGHT of Obama on domestic policy(since her domestic policy would be Bill's all over again) and would have us in even MORE wars.

[BackToThe60s]

356. KB, it seems as though

you're arguing AGAINST a primary challenge to Obama. I mean, if not Hillary, who? (Reminder: Bernie Sanders is 70 years old.)

[defendandprotect]

173. +1 -- HRC is Koch Bros. DLC leadership -- Third Way --

[amborin]

236. +1

[cascadiance]

31. Someone with a first name that begins with an H would be right, but that would be Howard Dean!

Hillary is too much of a corporatist for me. Let her go take over the World Bank that she seems more interested in now. I'm all for a woman getting a VP slot at some point though.

Perhaps in 2016 we might have Governor Russ Feingold with Senator Elizabeth Warren as a campaign ticket! My mouth would be watering voting for that team!

Though Biden himself hasn't been that exciting either. You're right there. I didn't want him as VP when Obama picked him. He was too much in the back pocket of CC companies with the bankruptcy bill, etc. as senator of Delaware.

[Recursion]

79. Dean is more conservative than Obama

I still don't know where the myth that he's some huge progressive comes from.

[Ken Burch]

169. Progressives in Vermont never actually liked him.

n/t.

[Recursion]

175. He's anti-gun-control, pro-charter school, and pro-"trade"

Now, I personally like that gun control stance, but I certainly don't claim to be a progressive standard bearer on that, either. I've lately come to mistrust charters in practice despite liking the theory, which puts me to the left of Dean on that...

[Ken Burch]

251. Dean was never my idea of a progressive as candidate

He was better as DNC chair, and I personally feel that his removal from that post was as responsible as anything else for the disaster of 2010.

[swilton]

253. True

Dean is like a rah, rah cheerleader wanting to be a member of the insider's club.

[trud]

306. Dean

Yes, please. Honest and decent and with a spine. Saying he's more right than Obama is plain nuts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

336. He is conservative, yes, but he is NOT a corporate Turd Way sellout.

He is a genuine Democrat.

A genuine Democrat supports labor over owners. A genuine Democrat trusts the people rather than the party machinery. A genuine Democrat has the heart of a populist.

At least Dean knows who the other side is.

[JVS]

71. Not exciting.

[leeroysphitz]

88. Nothing like that has ever happened in modern politics but it wouldn't surprise you?

Besides Joe is the only one worth a fuck in this whole admin, including the president.

[Recursion]

130. It used to be normal -- FDR had four VPs

Off the top of my head I think the majority of pre-WWII two-term Presidents switched VPs.

[Ken Burch]

170. Hilda Solis, the only progressive in the Cabinet, is worth a fuck(so to speak)

n/t.

[leeroysphitz]

174. I stand corrected. n/t

[defendandprotect]

176. Joe Biden gave us Clarence Thomas --

by purposeful betrayal of the hearings --

Biden well knew there were witnesses who had worked at EEOC with Thomas

a half dozen or more -- who would give testimony verifying his sexual

comments to females -- extensively so! Biden assured the lawyers

representing Prof. Anita Hill that they would be heard.

In the middle of the night, Biden closed down the hearings.

The witnesses were never heard!


Over the last year, Biden has repeatedly called for Israel to attack Iran!

Biden says "Israel would be JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran" -- !!!


Is that really what you want?


Biden also represents cororate Delaware --

[leeroysphitz]

181. You're right. Fuck Joe too. n/t

[swilton]

255. Joe Biden is Mr. DLC

Plus he's a windbag!

[gateley]

325. I think Biden's doing an outstanding job, he's just being kept

behind the scenes. He was right about Afghanistan, but Obama chose to go with the Generals' recommendation. He was able to make progress and get agreement with the Republicans on his Biden Committee, and I think he's probably been doing covert international stuff because he knew all the players when he was the Chairman of the SFRC. I'm glad he's there -- Obama needs him. If only he would heed his advice more often!

[CrispyQ]

161. A new VP candidate isn't going to excite the left.

It's way past that.

[Donnachaidh]

186. Why? Progressives have problems with Obama's actions. What will changing the VP do?

That's like changing a dress on a mannequin. Window-dressing, period. And it would be seen as the same sort of action Obama is already known for doing.

That would be more of the same, and won't get anyone excited.

[defendandprotect]

196. +1 --

[Exilednight]

205. If you like Hillary in the primaries, then you should love Obama. He's incorporated almost

all her policies from economics, HCR to foreign policy.

True, I have voters remorse, but that's because I didn't want Hillary but got stuck with her anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

337. Exactly. I never expected Obama to be Hillary in drag. nt

[JDPriestly]

278. Hilary would not excite me. I have seen the video of her encounter with Code Pink.

She was cold and horrible to them. They were trying to warn her about going into war in Iraq.

That war was illegal and unnecesary, but Hillary supported him. I don't think she has ever seen a war she didn't like since Viet Nam.

[trud]

301. Hillary would guarantee I would not vote Dem.

I voted against Hillary because of her rotten DLC policies, and you think putting her on the ticket would win back progressives? Hell, we'd be in more wars than we are now if she were on the ticket.

Biden's the only decent person near the Oval Office.

[RaleighNCDUer]

334. Tweedledum to his Tweedledee?

How about someone who is NOT of the corporate wing of the party?

[jaysunb]

8. I want progressive's to continue to identify, recruit

and train progressive candidates at every level of government. A good progressive Congress is what's missing. After all, they write the laws.

[Ken Burch]

19. We'll be doing that as well(unlike the DCCC, which doesn't really want to retake the House

because doing that would weaken Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's gusano Republican friends).

It will be very hard to recruit such candidates if it looks like Obama will be renominated without challenge...because giving him a coronation would doom us to defeat(an uncontested LBJ renomination would have done in '68 or an uncontested Carter renomination would have in '80).

[defendandprotect]

178. Going with Obama will not only bring defeat -- it will bring the end of Dem Party -- !!

[Ken Burch]

26. And we can't GET a good, progressive Congress if our nominee is obsessed

with being a "bipartisan uniter". There will be no enthusiasm at all in the fall '12 Obama campaign-the fall '80 Carter campaign proves that, as did the fall '68 Humphrey campaign.

[RaleighNCDUer]

338. He's cutting away his own coattails. nt

[grahamhgreen]

92. The progressive budget has been ignored by the Pres.

[defendandprotect]

179. 2012 should also be fierce Anti-War resurge -- these are now Obama's wars ...!!

[swilton]

260. The Veterans for Peace Convention

3-7 August - initiated a resolution to Impeach Barack Obama for War Crimes

MPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA FOR WAR CRIMES
Whereas, Barack H. Obama is Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and the head of the Executive Branch of the United States government, and

Whereas, President Obama, on 19 March 2011, committed a criminal act by ordering the U.S. military to war in Libya without first obtaining the consent of the U.S. Congress in a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, and

Whereas, the illegal U.S. invasion, bombing and occupation of Iraq initiated by the Bush administration continues under the Obama administration; and

Whereas, the U.S. government is currently engaged in illegal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and President Obama pledged to increase the number of military personnel and tax dollars spent on the these wars, and

Whereas, the U.S. military used and continues to use depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs and white phosphorous in densely populated areas in violation of U.S. laws and international laws and treaties prohibiting the indiscriminate killing of civilians; and,

Whereas, the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of especially injurious weapons and materials causing unnecessary harm that remain active and lethal after battle, and over large areas of land, and

Whereas, large numbers of babies born in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer life-long illness and deformity like severe disfigurements and brain damage, Down’s syndrome, and weak hearts doctors state are caused by the U.S. military’s massive and widespread use of toxic and radioactive materials, and

Whereas, millions upon millions of Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Somali, and Libyan civilians have been maimed, poisoned, displaced from their homes, and killed in a direct result of ongoing, illegal acts of war by the United States, and

Whereas, illegal, immoral and counterproductive detainee torture and brutalization at the hands of the U.S. military’s Immediate Reaction Force continue at Guantanamo under the Obama administration and in particular, the torture of Pfc. Bradley Manning at Quantico, Virginia, and

Whereas, President Obama is an accessory after the fact in obstructing justice by failing to order the Department of Justice to initiate investigations into numerous and blatant U.S. war crimes committed by the Bush administration, for which it is manifestly accountable under the law, and

Whereas, millions of Americans, including Veterans For Peace and Prosecute Them Now, supported the impeachment of Bush/Cheney for the same war crimes that are being committed now by Obama in violation of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. federal laws, the United Nations Charter, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, The United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, and

Whereas, Veterans For Peace and Prosecute Them Now are committed to the stated mission to restrain our government from intervening overtly and covertly in the internal affairs of other nations, to seek justice for veterans and victims of war, to increase public awareness of the exact costs of war, and to abolish war as an instrument of national policy;

Therefore Be It Resolved that Veterans For Peace call on the U.S. House of Representatives to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack H. Obama for failure to uphold his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, and for his commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, obstruction of justice and the violation of numerous national and international laws, treaties and conventions.

Approved at the 2011 VFP National Convention

http://veteransforpeace.org/conventi..._2011a.vp.html

- and

these events are planned through 2012 - you're right, there is a peace momentum.

24-28 August – Democracy Convention in Madison, Wisconsin

Sept 11 – Bikes not Bombs Bicycle Tour from NY to Washington, DC

October 6 – Stop the Machine – Federal Square, Washington, DC

November 11-13, United National Anti-War Coalition Meeting in Stamford, Conn.

[grahamhgreen]

283. +1

[itsnotaboutu]

297. +1000 rec's

:patriot: It's time to start taking down the pyramid of lies, and starting with the top brick is the best action.

[swilton]

258. The Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus

It's just leadership doesn't listen to them - I wonder what their skeletons are.

[syberlion]

339. Finally! someone with an answer...

The only problem is to corral all the progressives and get them pointed in the correct direction...

As we have now seen, with a majority of the Grand Obstructionist Party in the house and enough of those idiots in the Senate, Obama could be a progressive's dream President and it wouldn't matter one wit.

The President is only one-third of the total formula. You can elect as many progressive presidents from now until Michelle Bachmann says something sane, and you're still not going to change things.

Until progressives start getting busy locally and getting progressive mayors, progressive state candidates, progressive congressional and progressive senatorial candidates elected, you are shouting at the rain.

The right's been working this type of plan for a long time. They've been working to get school board members, county commissioners, county judges, mayors, city council members elected. They realized these were the people with the ability to help re-draw district lines, push for certain projects, help get people appointed with their agenda in mind. It's time progressive people did the same.

This president isn't a solution and isn't the problem. The problem is the progressives are too far disorganized to help ANY president elected from the left. Fix it from the bottom up, not the top down.

Give him a majority in the house and senate. Get more Democratic state governors and state houses, etc. Then, if after that he isn't able to make you happy, at least you've got the ability to hand a truly progressive president a governing apparatus that can get things done.

[jaysunb]

369. + 1000

Now, if we only get the whiners and anarchist to see reality.... :)

[johnaries]

9. Something that will do some good - work on Congress.

We need to re-take the House. If we can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Sentae, too, then you will see some real Progressive legislation. But I don't know how feasible that is.

[ClassWarrior]

10. So they should concentrate on Congressional races instead of the President's campaign?

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

NGU.

[bluestate10]

12. That is not what the poster wrote.

Every democrat must work for re-election of President Obama. It is just the bigger prizes come from taking control of the House and keeping the Senate, with a pipe-dream of more than 60 good democrats in the Senate.

[tblue]

20. Talk about missing the point.

Q: "What do you say if we don't want to do X?"
A: "Do X."

Wanna try again?

[stklurker]

111. Missing the point

Talk about missing the point.... How many progressive bills made it to his desk to sign the way progressives want it... I will wait for the list. He would sign them, so that isn't the core problem.. The core problem is the congress. If progressives focus on the presidency it will be a disaster.

[Ken Burch]

22. Why should we concede renomination to a man

who conceded the survival of the whole torture thing from the get-go? Who authorized the drone bombers in Afghanistan that mainly kill innocent people? Who has kept us in Afghanistan when he knew the whole time that there was no good reason for us to stay(he knew from the moment he got in that Bin-Laden was in Pakistan)?

Who NEVER fought back against the right-wing propaganda attacks?

Who NEVER stood up and said it was actually a good thing to be progressive?

Who has given up on any efforts to fix the nothingburger healthcare and financial reform bills?

Who doesn't care about the base?

Who is obsessed with trying to impress a center that doesn't exist anymore?

[hfojvt]

32. perhaps because of the bitter truth

that he cannot be beat. He has too much money, too much name recognition and too much black support for anybody to beat him. Once you realize that you cannot punch through a brick wall, isn't it better to not break every bone in your hand trying, and to instead do something constructive?

For myself, I think it would be helpful to have a primary. Let's say Jesse Jackson decides to take Obama on, to stand up for his rainbow coalition that Obama has ignored, insulted and refused to fight for. That would, in my mind, do a couple of things 1) it would give dissatisfied progressives a way to cast a protest vote against Obama, and thus make it easier to swallow our bile and vote for the back-stabbing caveman in November. We'd have a chance to express our unhappiness and perhaps release some of it. The second thing it would do, is the same thing it did in 1998, get a bunch of progressive Jesse Jackson delegates to the convention where they could influence the platform in a progressive direction.

But I am not under any illusion that he can be beat. He came from semi-obscurity in 2008 and beat two very strong candidates in a primary. And most M$M fed Democrats are not very unhappy with him. I don't see any Bobby or Ted Kennedy's in our party now either.

[Ken Burch]

34. You've illustrated a way that a challenge could help the party

It's also possible, in at least some states, to do a non-candidate challenge...a "Peace and Justice Democrats" slate or something like that(or progressive favorite daughters or sons could be used in particular localities, which would also take it out of the realm of personality politics).

This would be a way to get progressives back in to having some kind of say in this party without having the divisive effects some fear.

[defendandprotect]

199. Presume you're saying he is corporate backed so ... "run away" ... "run away" .. .???

He's too heavily armed with corporate money so doin't even try it?

Isn't this what we need most to be fighting against?

Don't we constantly see posts calling on our Dem elected officials to have

"backbone" ---

and yet you're calling for us to wave the white flag of surrender -- ???


Rather the more you vote for the "lesser evil" the further you move the party

and Congress to the RIGHT!

[hfojvt]

222. it's more a matter of "pick your battles"

rather than spending $50 million in a primary in a futile effort to beat an incumbent President, wouldn't it be better to put that money and effort into Congressional races where it might have a more positive impact? With $50,000,000 you could spend $5 million each in ten congressional races, put ten more Alan Grayson's in the House, send Boehner back to the minors. Elect some progressives to the state legislatures who might be future congresspeople.

Maybe it's better to not try for a trip to Mars when driving across town is more practical and productive of better results than a failed effort at a trip to Mars. Tilting at windmills will just get you slammed to the ground when there are smaller evils that might be defeated by your/our efforts.

[defendandprotect]

225. We can do both -- Obama's "team" is directing the nation ... to the right ...

Obama's appointees are all foxes in charge of the hen houses!!

Obama is pushing these wars --

[hfojvt]

233. I am not sure we can do either

some victories in 2010 would have helped. Grayson and Feingold winning, for example. Clearly doing the latter is hard enough without being distracted by Presidential politics, although I do tend to think a Jackson run or a Feingold run for President would help, but neither of them are showing any interest.

[Number23]

262. Good God. Jesse Jackson has not been relevant in DECADES

You'll have to pick another Magic Negro to go after Obama. Maybe Will Smith or Harry Belefonte?? :shrug:

[hfojvt]

273. yeah whatever.

I voted for him in the 1988 primary and I still like him a lot better than I like Obama (even though he does seem to have made himself rich at least he still talks the talk as well as anybody I know). And yes it would be nice to have a black challenger so it was not seen as somehow white vs. black instead of progressive vs. corporatist.

[Number23]

280. I like Jesse too. Or used to like him before the biggest thing

he became known for in the last 15+ years was having a child with a woman who was NOT his wife.

And yes it would be nice to have a black challenger so it was not seen as somehow white vs. black instead of progressive vs. corporatist.

Yes, can't have it be too obvious, now can we?

[guruoo]

52. Yet to see any evidence of torture occuring under Obama's watch nt

[Divernan]

67. CIA renditions, "interrogates with water" : Can you say "water boarding"?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162591/jeremy-scahill-no-accountability-us-torture

Many "detention centers" claim that they don't practice torture tactics—for example, instead of "water boarding" they "interrogate with water"—and get away with it. As Jeffrey Kaye explains in a new report at TruthOut, during the Bush administration, the military used waterboarding-style torture at Guantanamo and other detention sites throughout the world. Despite Obama's claims that closing Guantanamo would take priority on his agenda as president, infamous Bush-era policies have quietly expanded under his administration. There is little to no accountability for these actions.
Media

* Jeremy Scahill

http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia
The CIA's Secret Sites in Somalia
Jeremy Scahill

As part of its expanding counterterrorism program in Somalia, the CIA also uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, where prisoners suspected of being Shabab members or of having links to the group are held. Some of the prisoners have been snatched off the streets of Kenya and rendered by plane to Mogadishu. While the underground prison is officially run by the Somali NSA, US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners. The existence of both facilities and the CIA role was uncovered by The Nation during an extensive on-the-ground investigation in Mogadishu. Among the sources who provided information for this story are senior Somali intelligence officials; senior members of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG); former prisoners held at the underground prison; and several well-connected Somali analysts and militia leaders, some of whom have worked with US agents, including those from the CIA. A US official, who confirmed the existence of both sites, told The Nation, “It makes complete sense to have a strong counterterrorism partnership” with the Somali government.

The CIA presence in Mogadishu is part of Washington’s intensifying counterterrorism focus on Somalia, which includes targeted strikes by US Special Operations forces, drone attacks and expanded surveillance operations. The US agents “are here full time,” a senior Somali intelligence official told me. At times, he said, there are as many as thirty of them in Mogadishu, but he stressed that those working with the Somali NSA do not conduct operations; rather, they advise and train Somali agents. “In this environment, it’s very tricky. They want to help us, but the situation is not allowing them to do however they want. They are not in control of the politics, they are not in control of the security,” he adds. “They are not controlling the environment like Afghanistan and Iraq. In Somalia, the situation is fluid, the situation is changing, personalities changing.”

According to former detainees, the underground prison, which is staffed by Somali guards, consists of a long corridor lined with filthy small cells infested with bedbugs and mosquitoes. One said that when he arrived in February, he saw two white men wearing military boots, combat trousers, gray tucked-in shirts and black sunglasses. The former prisoners described the cells as windowless and the air thick, moist and disgusting. Prisoners, they said, are not allowed outside. Many have developed rashes and scratch themselves incessantly. Some have been detained for a year or more. According to one former prisoner, inmates who had been there for long periods would pace around constantly, while others leaned against walls rocking.

A Somali who was arrested in Mogadishu and taken to the prison told The Nation that he was held in a windowless underground cell. Among the prisoners he met during his time there was a man who held a Western passport (he declined to identify the man’s nationality). Some of the prisoners told him they were picked up in Nairobi and rendered on small aircraft to Mogadishu, where they were handed over to Somali intelligence agents. Once in custody, according to the senior Somali intelligence official and former prisoners, some detainees are freely interrogated by US and French agents. “Our goal is to please our partners, so we get more of them, like any relationship,” said the Somali intelligence official in describing the policy of allowing foreign agents, including from the CIA, to interrogate prisoners. The Americans, according to the Somali official, operate unilaterally in the country, while the French agents are embedded within the African Union force known as AMISOM.

[bluestate10]

126. When Obama took office, he instructed the CIA and Army to use

the Army's interrogation manual when questioning detainees. Rightwingers like the Cheny's went insane over the change. It saddens me to see that even after Obama eliminated torture as something our country does and after Obama having to overcome the hatred and activities from the Right, that the Left is clinging to insane notions that torture is still happening.

[RaleighNCDUer]

340. Funny you should post decrying the 'insane notions that torture is still happening'

in answer to a Nation article that describes that torture still happening.

Do you think The Nation was lying? Or do you think they know something that the President does NOT know?

[grahamhgreen]

89. Failure to prosecute makes him complicit. Plus, rendition.

[defendandprotect]

201. Minus 1 ---

[defendandprotect]

180. Going with the "lesser evil" will only move party and Congress further to the right -- !!

[ClassWarrior]

104. So what are we supposed to do, clone ourselves?

Can't have it both ways.

NGU.

[bluestate10]

132. No. Do what can be accomplished.

Get back a progressive House. Increase the number of progressives in the Senate. Set up for 2016 where a progressive will have a better chance of being nominated. Don't get me wrong, I contribute to President Obama's campaign, but I am by no means happy with his preference for reaching compromises with republicans instead of fighting the bastards to the last breath. But I am also rational when I look at politics, a primary challenge and the distractions that would cause will damage House and Senate democratic candidates, giving republican extremists the room they need to maintain their agenda of destroying the country.

I spend Sunday morning reading through yahoo blogs. After Obama was elected and last year in particular, those blogs were caustic anti-Obama and anti-democrat sewers. What I see not is more anti-republican sentiment. The change tells me that the worm has turned with a lot of independents and some republicans, democrats must drive home that advantage. getting bogged down in fraternal fights is not the way to take advantage of the winds of political change that is happening out there.

[susanwy]

238. +1

...I assume you mean "what I see NOW is more anti republican...".

Rational defense of not so defensible president. I agree we must take the most pragmatic and practical approach, just as the President has tried to do, but with methods and a "negotiation" skills that have been infuriating. I was not a supporter of Obama until the general election, but I supported him in 2008 and I will support him in 2012. However, what I liked in the first year of his administration, the desire to forge bipartisan solutions that moved us forward and moved us passed divisive rhetoric, failed completely. I don't blame the President for that failure, that is squarely on the shoulders of the republican right and tee bagger pukes, but I blame him for not adapting. He did not figure out how to come out swinging, to defend the middle rather than move to the right. He did not figure out that he needed to spur congress to push things like the debt ceiling through in a lame-duck session, even after the republicans behaved so despicably during the health care reform fight. After the republican's win in 2010 he did not go after the middle in Congress, instead he seems to keep trying to appease the right. I will never understand why it took the debt ceiling crisis for Obama to tell Americans to contact congress and pressure their representatives to stop being obstructionists.

But, the poster has a point. How do we get the base fired up? How do we get young people, women, Latinos and African Americans fired up? Without them we are toast. I'm a progressive and I'm as disappointed as anyone with continued war, torture, no public option, cuts to SS and Medicare ect, ect., but a President Bachcmann or President "Cowboy from Texas who thinks God told him to run" scares the living daylights out of me! It isn't really a choice between two evils because I do not believe Obama is evil, just misguided. Splitting the democratic party with a primary fight is not the answer, IMHO. Rather push the meme of how important it is to vote, push to give Obama a more liberal congress....we will at least see if he is really republican lite or a progressive that underestimated the right.

One last thing that drives me nuts - why can't the democrats have effective spokesmen that stay on message? Where is the Frank Luntz of the left - who will repeat the TRUTH long enough for the masses to believe it? I swear every time I see David Axelrod on TV I want to just scream - the guy maybe a smart guy, but he is a putz. And why does he not unleash Biden? I can't name any other members of the administration that stand out as effective spokespersons....except Elizabeth Warren, and she is not now a member of the administration.

Susan

[bluestate10]

11. Focus on finding Progressive candidates for the Senate and House

that can win a general election. A progressive candidate that has rational arguments for fair taxation, protecting Social Security and Medicare can win even in the South. What the progressive can't be is a person that mouthes mantra and has no practical ideas of how to move forward. Two states where progressives can have an impact are Nebraska and Missouri. Nelson and McCaskill must be replaced with more democratic leaning, vibrant democratic candidates for the party to have a chance of holding those seats.

[bvar22]

218. "Can win even in the South"

except we have to also fight
*the White House

*The DNC

*the DSCC/DCCC

*and Former DLC Centrist Presidents

...who ALL support the BLUE DOGS, Pro-Corporate Conservative Democrats in the Primaries.
If Progressives/Grass Roots DARE to Speak Up in a Democratic Primary,
they incur the full wrath & ridicule of the White House.

SEE: Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JDPriestly]

282. We probably have to just let them win or lose without our help.

And then prepare ourselves to take over when things fall apart and they and the country are ready.

[Hippo_Tron]

367. See the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, 2010

The establishment can be beaten if you have enough support for a challenger. In 1990 Paul Wellstone didn't even have the state party behind him, let alone the national party and he still managed to win.

Additionally, the establishment doens't get behind centrists because they're centrist. In non-incumbent races they get behind the candidate with the best fundraising numbers and usually those people are centrists.

If you field progressive candidates that can raise money, the establishment will back them.

[Lyric]

13. All we ever hear is that "PRIMARIES are where progressives should make their stand"

I've heard it countless times--that primaries are where we should stand up for progressive issues, because general elections are too important to risk. We've ALL heard it.

Now, apparently, primaries are ALSO inappropriate opportunities for progressives to take a stand.

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that primaries AND general elections are off-limits to people who care about progressive issues and vote with those issues in mind. If you don't support progressives during primaries, then you have zero standing to lecture ANYONE if things don't go well during general elections.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Its just stalling. They just want to hold shit together and have no intention of doing anything

different other than be less bigoted, less theocratic, less abrasive, more rational, and more serious Republicans.

It is all four corners, all the time. We are to be useful idiots coming up with the blood, sweat, and tears for our own slaughter and we'll keep up the work, money, and votes as long as we fall for the stall.

[JVS]

72. They don't want progressives to take a stand.

They want progressives to STFU

[Chisox08]

131. +100

They want progressives to sit down, shut the fuck up and vote for who ever they put in front of them because "we don't want President (Insert GOP flavor of the week)".

[MessiahRp]

158. Obama: "Hold my feet to the fire" (whispers to Rahm and Gibbs: "Go get them.")

That's it in a nutshell. We are here to be taken for granted robo-votes for the Democratic Party. Anything we ask for or want or even beg to discuss is unrealistic, unreasonable and not worth discussion (though they say it more rudely, ie ponies and such).

Rp

[defendandprotect]

182. True -- a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$ involved for the party and those supporting it -- !!!

[Gin Blossom]

78. Right. "Primaries you fall in love, Generals you fall in line"

or something like that. The extended contest between Obama and HRC only helped to GOTV in 2008. I don't buy into the meme that Kennedy sunk Carter. And I'm starting to think that a visible split in the Democratic Party is a good thing, and no, that's not good news to Republicans.

[susanwy]

243. We need to take a page from the tea baggers

....support strong progressive candidates even if that means bucking the DLC etc, etc. If we could demonstrate the kind of pressure that scares the crap out of moderate republicans like the tea baggers accomplished, maybe we could win a few of those battles. But our problem is $$$$? We need to take it to rich progressives, and they do exist, and tell them to show us the $$$. It is only going to get tougher in the battle ground states like WI and OH where Governors have successfully trashed unions...we need to find a new funding structure.

Susan

*edit* to clarify - strong progressive candidates for congress. I believe a primary fight against Obama will do more harm than good.

[tblue]

15. It's telling that no one is answering your question, isn't it?

Beyond excuses, admonitions, bullying, and fear-mongering, I've yet to hear anything persuasive that could answer that, and none that showed any respect for people who are truly committed progressives. I've tried to be nice, but I really don't want to hear it anymore.

[Rex]

18. A lot of it comes from a few here that hate liberals and our ideas.

They cannot help themselves, it is how they were raised as kids imo. Just expect negativitiy even to the absurd from them and move on to more important things.

[defendandprotect]

183. That's my recommendation -- we saw how inane the comments were from the first ....

the very first days that Obama began to reveal himself in eloping into

the White House with Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel --

and picking his team of Wall Street/Banksters who were the very people who

created the meltdown --


We've been thru the chess game, the poker game, the magic wands, the "fringe" leftists --

the "idealists" -- the "purists" -- the "pink ponies" --

All of the alibis which seek to cover up --

But beyond alibis there's no there there -- !!


I'd mention again, there is a lot of money involved even beyond corporate politics --

many don't want to admit what's going on because it effects fund raising for Dem party --

including here at DU!


And many others are frightened about what will happen if they lose hold of the voters

who have reliably kept voting for the "lesser evil."


Time for some courage -- we ask our elected officials to have some backbone --

some balls --

but too often the plea here is to not face up to what's going on -- !!!

[AngkorWot]

23. Oh, I don't know. Campaign against Republicans?

"It can't be progressive to just renominate the incumbent without challenge."

The hell it can't.

[Ken Burch]

25. Not when it's a bland centrist incumbent who can never inspire enthusiasm again

besides, you know damn well we'll be fighting the Right in '12 anyway. The question is, will Obama be fighting them?

You can't fight them from the middle of the road.

A fall 2012 Obama campaign with no challenge or debate in the primary would have to be a passion-free zone. No one can actually care about a lesser-evil race.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

35. When you stop using your words

You've admitted you lost the argument.

[Poll_Blind]

37. I think they were slipping into Ingsoc. It happens when they get frustrated.

:shrug:

PB

[Tesha]

75. That would be double-plus ungood! (NT)

[bluestate10]

135. Better focusing resources on building a progressive Congress.

And setting the base for a bona-fide run in 2016. I have been one of the harshest critics of DU progressives. My criticism is not coming because of hating progressives or having fallen on my head as a baby. The reality is that some very extreme forces are amassing behind republicans, if we are not disciplined, we will be defeated by those forces. One lesson that I learned from Wisconsin on Tuesday is that extreme republican voters get out the very last vote for their candidates, while too many democrats sideline themselves because they don't like a few things about the democratic alternative, that mindset is hurting democrats, Wisconsin and the country.

[Sheepshank]

177. I'm disappointed that so many forget how to work together for a goal/majority

It's like so many are disappointed in their special projects, they are willing to forget the whole ideal of working togther as a body.

I agree that working TOGETHER to change the political majority of Congress is a huge step in the right direction. Lord knows there are things that I hate that my local Congressional Dem leaders do (as in conservadem), but the alternative is to end up handing more the the Reps...since they tend to vote en'masse any way McConnell tells them to vote, I cannot aid (even indirectly) a Rep. At least with a Dem, there some hope they will vote sometimes in the correct direction and NOT actively work to demolish the nation, the the Presidency.

[susanwy]

245. +1000 n/t

[grahamhgreen]

90. How bout campaigning against those who are fostering Republican policies? Like war and tax cuts and

free trade?

[defendandprotect]

185. 2012 in America should be a renewal of ANTI-WAR campaigns -- !!!

If we don't want "austerity" that's the place to begin -- !!

PLUS finding a democrat who isn't pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations

to run for pres on the Dem ticket !!

[hfojvt]

36. I think we (or should I say you?)

are supposed to celebrate all the accomplishments of the Liszt and to quit demanding instant ponies and realize that Obama is really the most progressive President of the current millenium.

[Ken Burch]

49. "the most progressive President of the current milennium".

That's sort of the political equivalent of being "employee of the month", isn't it?

:eyes:

[hobbit709]

69. Not even that. The only other president of this milennium is GWB.

[Ken Burch]

70. I assumed that was part of the joke.

Calling somebody "the most progressive president of the milennium" is like declaring a person to be "the world's tallest midget".

[McCamy Taylor]

38. I want them to contemplate a Rick Perry presidency.

[Ken Burch]

39. We don't have to settle for a lesser-evil campaign this year McCamy

It's absurd to say that our only option is to rally 'round the center-right status quo or get something worse.

Our principles are not unpopular. With a candidate who fought for them without shame and with courage, we COULD win.

And the fact is...Obama is a dead loss as to any chance of getting the things you fight for in your threads. He's never going to go any farther than he has so far. He's guaranteed that with his fatal obsession with "bipartisanship".

[bluestate10]

136. Are you serious? WHO, other than Obama can defeat the extremes coming from republicans?

The entire argument that is being fronted for a democratic primary is damned foolish. I wonder about the true intentions of the people pushing that view. THERE IS NO CANDIDATE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OTHER THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT HAS A Fing CHANCE OF KEEPING THE PRESIDENCY IN DEMOCRATIC HANDS. What is it that people don't understand about that truism?

[swilton]

299. The extremes coming from Republicans?

Many of them are coming from Democratic campaign operatives who want the fringies to get in because the more wacko they look the better chance Obama has.

[defendandprotect]

195. Constant call for Dems to have backbone/balls ... but voters should act only on FEAR -- !!!

:rofl: -- :rofl: --


:evilgrin:

[hay rick]

321. +1000000

[defendandprotect]

194. Let's contemplate an end to wars, universal health care, defeating the fascism in America ...

[TreasonousBastard]

40. The first problem is every other asshole with a grudge or a gripe self-identifies as..

"progressive" but I still have no idea what a "progressive" is. Is it anything like a "liberal"?

So, after all the "progressives" eventually agree on what they are, as if that could ever happen, we're stuck with the problem that the US has never, ever elected a "liberal" or "progressive" or anyone else identified as on the left as President. OK, Teddy Roosevelt, maybe, when he was a Republican, but he couldn't make it on the Progressive line when he tried. And no one ever called him a leftist peacenik. FDR need Communist support, but it was all very hush-hush, and he never admitted it. Besides, the Depression broke all the political rules. LBJ didn't really run as a liberal, but the anti-Goldwater. Who knew he's be a warmonger?

So, who's the Great American Progressive Hero now-- the one who can energize and unite the Left (all 6 of them) and con enough independents, not-so-left Dems, and a few Republicans into winning the election? You got yer Kooch, who can't get 2% of the vote in a primary, much less a general, yer Sanders, who's no playing, maybe even yer Franken, who's also not playing.

Nope-- what you really got is Obama. Not good enough for you? Tough shit-- he's the best your gonna get and the alternative once again is some teabagging schmuck, or schmuckette who's currently bragging about being responsible for bringing the country down while blaming it on Obama.

Obama's the guy who tried stimulus but the teabaggers shot it down for purely cynical politics. Obama ordered Gitmo closed but the states and Congress refused to allow the inmates to be held in the US. Obama came up with withdrawal plans for Iraq and Agfhanistan but both sides complained and stalled. Everybody hates Obamacare except those now benefitting from it, but it's the only healthcare reform we've seen since Medicare. Need I go on?

The guy's taking it from the other side like no other President has, and now he's taking it from us, too. Is it asking too much to give him a break and at least support some of the good stuff he's done. Or tried to do? Is it asking too much to accept that the job of President is not to do our bidding, but to try to hold together a nation of over 300 million people who do not agree on much, if anything?

This constant "honest criticism" (really whining and bashing)is not holding anyone's feet to the fire or teaching anyone a lesson-- it's just dividing us and reducing our chances of keeping the White House and either Congressional house next year.

[Ken Burch]

43. As your post illustrates

"Assholes with grudges and gripes" are found throughout the political spectrum.

(hint: you don't exactly win friends and influence people when you posts read like Rahm Emmanuel with a Wild Turkey hangover.)

And it's not clear that Obama is the only non-Republican who could win next year(nor is it acceptable for him to ask for our votes if he goes any further right on any issues, especially since none of his rightward tacks have ever been politically effective).

You are still stuck in the 1989 "end of history" meme.

We are NOT a permanently center-right nation. And the days are gone when the people thought that Ceo's were the natural leaders of society.

We could win with a candidate who committed to getting out of the wars(especially since nobody supports those wars anymore and since even in Libya we aren't doing anything worthwhile)who commits to fighting for the have-nots against the haves, and who supports openness over secrecy in government. The people are in support of all of those basic things and we have nothing to lose by being a party that unashamedly supports the powerless against the powerful. These days, even the 'burbs no longer identify with the powerful-especially since Wall Street and the banks have been emptying out the 'burbs through massive home foreclosure.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just that you are thinking about...

this primary silliness shows you exist only out here in the wilderness of the internet and are not a factor in next year's election. I exist here only to point out that there are other points of view. Ones that tend to work a little better than whining and believing in fantasies.

FWIW, around here, where we're trying desperately to get more Democrats in town and county government, we hate primaries. They cost money and sap energy, and if you've already got someone in office there's rarely any reason to attack from the inside. Among people actually running campaigns and involved, the thought of a Presidential primary is abhorrent. Even if it should happen, the chance of getting anyone "better" (and by whose definition...) who will actually get anything done without also changing Congress (or even with changing Congress) is pretty much zero.

Talk of a "better" Presidential candidate is just pissing in the wind, and a monumental waste of time. Remember what happened in Obama's first year and spend your energy trying to get the House back

[JDPriestly]

288. We need better, more progressive leadership at the top of the Party.

We do not need anti-labor, I-answer-to-business leadership at the top of our Party.

Business leaders are not the friends of those of us out here who are not millionaires and are not climbing up the corporate ladder.

We need a pro-labor leadership that cares about the majority of Americans.

Obama does not fit the bill.

The Progressives in Congress do fit the bill.

When Obama had a choice between appointing Progressives and appointing conservatives to his cabinet, he overwhelming chose conservatives. He made almost no space for anyone with a progressive view among his close advisers. When he had the choice between supporting a progressive candidate or a conservative candidate for office, he always supported the conservative.

And now his supporters say "Poor Obama. How can he do anything progressive with this conservative Congress."

Obama wants all these conservatives. He likes them. He chooses to hang out with them, to take their advice, to cooperate with them. And then you expect us to support him.

I support the members of the Progressive Caucus in the House -- Jan Schakowsky, Xavier Becerra and the many others in the Progressive Caucus.

Obama? Why should I support him beyond the election day vote if there isn't anyone better to vote for?

[ElboRuum]

228. No one is trying to win friends and influence people here...

...not for a long time.

[GeorgeGist]

123. Progressives don't need your approval.

[bluestate10]

139. Excellent post. One thing that I notice about the anti-Obama crowd on DU

is that not ONE post incessantly holding republicans responsible for damaging the country. Every single one of the anti-Obama crowd is anti-Obama and anti-democrat. I read incessant third way posts, posts bashing the DCCC, post bashing democratic Senators. Seldom, if ever do I see posts ripping Boner or McConnell, or calling for a strong vote to get back a democratic Congress, UNLESS, those calls are coming from posters like you, MineralMan, ClarkeUSA, KittyWampus, the very people that the anti-Obama crowd desperately want to marginalize. Why is that happening if the anti-Obama crowd are true progressives, as opposed to being wolves dressed in sheep disguise?

[Kermitt Gribble]

190. Let me get this straight...

In your world, DUers who stand in support of traditional Democratic Party policies that have been the pillars of our party for decades (those you refer to as the "anti-Obama crowd") == republican, DUers who attack the above posters for not supporting a right leaning agenda (you, and the DUers you specifically mention above) == Democrats?

[Dream Girl]

191. Strange isn't it?

Makes one wonder who is backing the bashers...

[JoeyT]

193. Empathy is what's behind the "bashers"

We care more about what terrible policy does to the middle class and poor than we do about a single politician's happiness.

[JDPriestly]

289. At this point, I can't change or influence what Republicans say and do.

I would like to see Democrats in office succeed and be re-elected. Obama has not been successful in achieving that goal. I would like to influence what he says and does so that our Party can succeed and be re-elected.

That is why I criticize Obama and not the Republicans at this time.

I don't want to help or advise Republicans. I want to help and advise Democrats like Obama. That is because I am a Democrat.

I would rather let people like Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann mess themselves up without my pointing out to them what they could do better.

I say what I say about Obama in the hope that he will stop and question whether he could be doing a better job.

[spooked911]

312. BS-- every Dem against Obama hates the Repugs-- the problem is that way he fucking caves

into those hateful people, and gives support to their policies.

It goes without saying that Rethugs are horrible. We do have SOME control over Obama-- in theory anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

341. Let me try to say this without swearing.

We attack the DLC, DCCC, DSCC, Turd Way assholes and corporate sellouts because they are supporting Republican stances on war, the economy, education and any number of other things Democrats should despise.

We don't attack Republicans on those things because they are REPULBICANS. It is their job to be assholes and idiots, and they do that very well. Democrats' job is to OPPOSE REPUBLICANS, not be bi-partisan with them.

As Harry Truman said, "when somebody tells me he is bi-partisan on an issue, I know he is going to vote against me'.

As Democrats, we have no control over the Republicans. We EXPECT them to do the wrong thing. Bashing Republican may be fun, but it's pissing into the wind. We should, however, have a say in what Democrats do, so when Democrats support privatizing SS, or privatizing the school system, or expanding the wars, are cutting taxes on the rich while increasing them on the poor WE FUCKINIG CALL THEM ON IT.

Is that so hard to understand?

[Number23]

265. You just killed this thread.

Good. :thumbsup: It kind of needed killin'...

[eridani]

41. Focus on getting members of Congress who will defend the New Deal

And start NOW to work on the infrastructure to support someone more progressive for president in 2016.

[Ken Burch]

45. To do that, we'll have to dump Wasserman-Schultz

She doesn't WANT the party to nominate pro-New Deal candidates. She only wants Blue Dogs and will be as ugly about it as Rahm was.

[eridani]

46. Or flat out quit donating to DNC, DSCC, etc

I've had that policy for three years now, ever since Dean stepped down. I support only progressive individual candidates.

[defendandprotect]

203. Dean was the last candidate I $$$ supported -- except $25 for Obama ... that's it!!

And, we should also understand that DU is a big fund-raising site for Dems --

when popularity drops so do the donations!!

Don't know the total given to Obama and Dems in 2008 -- but do know that

DU'ers gave $280,000 to Obama as he entered the White House!!!

Often it is about the money and trying to keep the party afloat --

which is something I'm only willing to do when we get corporations out of the party!!


What is left of the party, btw, after 20 years of Koch Bros. DLC infiltation of it --

and influence over it -- and over its candidates -- even its presidential candidates?

[BigBearJohn]

313. Me too.

[bluestate10]

140. The reality is that only bluedogs can win in the South and interior West.

It is foolish not to recognize that fact. Elect bluedogs now and defeat them when those parts of the country have finally seen the light. Wasserman-Schultz and Emmanuel are guilty of being nothing but realists and of trying to lay the framework for the day that you claim you want to see.

[Ken Burch]

155. That's not true

the South and the interior West have seen the foreclosure crisis and the betrayals inflicted by the banking system, and they're no longer deferential to corporate power. Those regions will respond to a "haves vs. have-nots" campaign...especially since few people in those places are haves anymore.

Most of the Blue Dogs Rahm recruited lost, btw. We took the House in '06 and expanded our majority there in '08 IN SPITE of Rahm. And if we take it back in '12, we'll do so in spite of Wasserman-Schultz.

Nobody's going to support candidates whose theme is "throw the bastards out-and replace them with other bastards that are more or less the same"-which is the way most Blue Dogs run.

[Recursion]

217. What I love is seeing this board praise the 50 state strategy and then bash the Democrats it elects

You can't have one without the other.

[Prana69]

305. Those parts of the country aren't going to just magically "see the light"!

We need to shine the light on progressive candidates, so they are seen as a viable alternative. How are these states going to change when they are never shown the potential value of a change to a progressive?

P69

[RaleighNCDUer]

344. If you had any sense of history you'd know that the great hotbeds of

progressivism in the US were, in the not distant past, in Michigan and Kansas, Minnesota and Ohio. They weren't any less socially conservative then than they are today - more so, in fact. But repeated recessions from the 1880s on taught them that progressive politics created prosperity. The sign of those times persist everywhere you see a "Farmer's Co-op", created and organized to by-pass getting bank loans.

Yeah, that was then, this is now - but it is living proof that 'facts' are less than permanent. Opinion can change, and change quickly with the right impetus - but it will only change if people are willing to take on the discomfort to TRYING to change. Claiming an acceptance of 'reality' is nothing short of cowardice in the face of adversity.

[defendandprotect]

202. GOP has long targeted not only liberal/progressive Dems, but their own liberals/moderates!!

And it's exactly what we should be doing in reverse ---

[swilton]

307. The Democratic Party does a pretty good job of bashing

its progressives as well! Just look at Connecticutt - I think Obama went up there and campaigned for Lieberman over Ned Lamont....

There was also another case in Florida.

[susanwy]

248. Do we?

Did the tea baggers get much support from Micheal Steel? I would argue no and that behind the scenes he was not happy with the whole rise of the tea baggers....they drove him out of the leadership position the minute the felt they had the power to do so.

What they did is get media coverage - follow the money. I'll never understand how 100 tea baggers at a rally would garner TVeee coverage all day long, but over a million march against war and we got CSPAN. We can get behind progressive candidates without the DNC or DLCC, but we need some powerful progressive $$$.

Susan

[joshcryer]

42. Do the primary challenge, stop spouting it in a threatening manner. Do it.

A primary challenge is well within the Democratic Party's rules.

[Ken Burch]

44. I'm not threatening anyone

This isn't the "Dump Obama Or I'll Beat The Crap Out Of You, Punk!" thread.

[Kalidurga]

51. Ok I am going to pretend I am totally against the idea of a primary challenge...

Here are a couple of things that could be done instead of a primary challenge, but probably could be done along with a primary challenge.

1. Keep the pressure on Obama to be the progressive that he ran on being. He has finally used the podium to show he was listening now he just needs to follow through and do something besides talk. That is where the phone calls and emails come in handy. Let him know that people are aware of what has already been done and give him your ideas on what needs to still be done.

2. Focus winning the House back and winning more Senate seats. And focus on making sure that Democrats are elected on the state level.

3. Get ready for 2016, because if a Republican takes the White House it's going to make what Bush did look like a picnic in the park. I am not an alarmist, but this would be so bad that even I know it would be bad...and that is really really bad.

4. Get ready for 2016, because even if a Republican doesn't win the White House, things are still going to be really really bad, that is how bad Bush screwed things up. It might take decades to fix things. It is going to take a long time not just to fix the economy, but to fix our culture, 8 years of fear has taken a toll and the road to recovery is a long one.

5. Be proud of being a progressive, take that pride with you wherever you go. Be local and vocal. Let people know it is ok to be tolerant of other people and that no one ever lost anything, by not hating their neighbors even the weird ones that where lederhosen (I actually had a neighbor once that did this and he was weird in other ways) most the time tolerance breeds peace. It really is ok to not hate people for being a different religion, skin color, and sexual orientation.

[Ken Burch]

54. That's a thoughtful response. I appreciate the respectful effort you put into it.

Thanks for that.

Whatever happens with the presidential nom...progressives will be working hard on bringing down the Boehnerhaus.

[bluestate10]

143. Good Ken. Immense energy must be put in retaining the Senate and regaining the House.

Along the way, progressives can replace democrats like Conrad, McCaskill and Nelson with more progressive democrats that can be counted on to defend progressive legislation. President Obama is only as good as what hits his desk, and even if he has urges, good progressives that are elected can send him bills which he may not like, but have no choice but to sign.

[joshcryer]

56. It is a threat! An empty threat, but one none-the-less.

You pretend that a "primary challenge" is a viable or realistic option. Hey, I'm behind that, do it! Let democracy work! But so far it's been just empty posturing that's just embarrassing.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Trying to frame the OP as a 'threat' is an affront to the language

and in addition, it is an avoidance of actual discussion. Other people on the thread have managed to discuss with civility. Sarcasm and snark are not persuasive in the least.

[joshcryer]

302. I disagree with the premise that a primary challenge is a viable route, but if there exist a...

...viable challenger, I say go for it. Until then it is meaningless posturing for some Messiah that doesn't exist.

[defendandprotect]

207. We are saying CONSCIENCE and not party should be our guide ....

and that fighting corporate/fascism is about democracy and freedom --

Do you seriously think this right wing corporate push over the party and our

candidates will end will destruction of Social Security and New Deal and all

safety nets?

Of course not -- fascism is all encompassing --

you can't be a little bit pregnant -- and you can't be a little into fascism!!

[joshcryer]

304. And I'm saying that until you have your "conscience Messiah"...

...stop posturing as if these ideas have any usefulness. They don't. They marginalize those who call for the Messiah.

[RaleighNCDUer]

345. There is not now, never has been, nor ever will be a Messiah.

But there CAN be better progressive politicians than the not-Messiah currently in the WH.

[defendandprotect]

378. What you're saying is the same ole same ole -- "you want a pink pony" ....

"you're a purist" -- if not a "fringe leftist" --

Those times are over here --

The mask is off -- it's over --


I didn't offer any "ideas" here -- I just simply stated why I won't vote

for Obama -- I stand against corporate/fascism and that's not going to change.


Let's stop posturing as if Koch Bros. DLC control over the party for 20 years

and more -- along with the criminal contributors Pfizer and Chevron -- isn't

a cancer still running deep in the party -- or that our candidates haven't

been effected by it -- John Kerry being one of the lastest to take off the mask

to reveal his DLC/New Dem/Third Way agenda -- putting Social Security/Medicare

"on the table" --




In event you're not familiar with New Dems and Third Way --

And make no mistake about the role of Third Way. Third Way runs the policy apparatus of the Democratic Party. In Congress, staffers attend regular Third Way policy briefings, where the group hands out pre-packaged legislative amendments in legal form, generic press releases, polling around those policy ideas, and talking points. It’s a soup-to-nuts policy apparatus. Most of these ideas are harmless – like increased volunteerism – but some are not, like various tax proposals.

The group has enormous juice. On the Congressional side, it has six honorary Senate co-Chairs, and seven House-side co-Chairs. Jim Clyburn, a co-Chair, is in the House Democratic leadership. Two current cabinet members are former co-Chairs. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, held regular briefings for the freshmen member staff in the last Congress.

On the administration side, former Third Way board member Bill Daley is now White House chief of staff. Ron Klain, who was Biden’s Chief of Staff, is now with Third Way. The White House is pretty much full of Third Way-style apparatchiks.

Third Way also echoes, nearly entirely, the White House’s political line (though it is slightly ahead on gay rights). Here’s Third Way praising the Gang of 6 talks, opposing cut, cap, and balance, encouraging entitlement cuts, pushing various free trade agreements

Finally, most of the Board members are from the FIRE Sector (Wall Street and real estate), including the head of equity trading for Goldman Sachs and one of the heads of investment banking for Morgan Stanley.

It’s a highly optimized political operation for the White House and Congressional Democrats, with PR muscle, elite validators, access, and policy-making infrastructure.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html

[Bluebear]

63. StoP threatening!!!

:scared:

[joshcryer]

65. Aww, primary challenger not showing up?

S'what I thought. ;)

People love to bash Obama for his platitudes with no action, but the same can easily be said about the people who ramp up the rhetoric against him without anything to back it up.

[Bluebear]

73. Awww enjoying your little Internet power play? So cute!

[bluestate10]

145. Josh is being sane. But on DU, being sane has become passe. nt

[defendandprotect]

208. Obama's security rests only on corporate backing -- illegitimate power ... !!

[joshcryer]

298. Then primary him! I fully support it!

[defendandprotect]

204. "Threatening manner" -- I thought it was rather nice to even ask why there is resistance here?

Further -- if there is any "threatening manner" around here, it certainly

is those who post one after another "fear-based" comments about Bachmann or

Palin or McCain being the result of primarying Obama --


And, it's even more interesting because there is always a constdant call here

for Democratic members of Congress and Majority leaders to have "backbone" --

have "some balls" ---

Yet the constant cry here is ... PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE FOR THE LESSER EVIL !!!


Let's move on from the "lesser evil" which only moves the party further to the

right and the Congress further to the right!

[cali]

47. lol. your op is amusing.

you make one pronouncement after another with zippo to back them up. And apparently your knowledge of American political history is lacking.

Look, I don't care if there's a challenge to Obama from the left, but pretending that it gives dems a chance at the WH, is ignorant.

[Ken Burch]

48. How can you support renominating Obama without a fight

when you know that doing that is giving up on working for any meaningful progressive change?

He's not on our side now, and never will be. He proved that when he appointed Geithner, Summers and Rahm.

[CarmanK]

58. Experience is a good teacher, Obama is learning and so are

Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz, and others. Harry Reid not so much. We have to put our energies where they count. At this point, Obama is our best best to beat any of the TBAGGER FREAKS: Bachmann-ideologue wants to get rid of SS and Medicare, Perry and secessionist, state's rights advocate and wants to get rid of SS and medicare, Romney a flip/flopper wants to repeal ObamaCARE and get rid of SS and Medicare, Paul a liberationists who has little respect for the US constitution and wants to get rid of SS and Medicare et als. We have to take back the House and the tbaggers have worn out their welcome. They have not produced, but introduced 16 amendments to the US constitution, a document they love, but can't tolerate and they voted to get rid of SS and Medicare. We have to give Harry Reid a backbone or get him replaced. He really has been a weak negotiator and defender of the people's rights according to DEMOCRATIC principles. And we have to DEFINE what those principles are. How can we hold Obama accountable, if we are not sure what bucket of wants contain our real priorities as a people. Obama is good where he is. The House needs to be put in order, it is in disarray.

[yarn_chick]

152. What evidence are you putting forth to say that they've learned anything? It looks like they're

doing the same thing when it comes to negotiating with Republicans but expecting different results. I see nothing that says they've learned anything and are still trying to negotiate with Republicans in "good faith" when it's painfully obvious that Republicans have no intentions to negotiate.

This has been going on for two years now. Not exactly evidence that they've learned a damn thing. Unless you mean they've learned how to spit on their base with a smile. That's not a lesson worth learning.

[defendandprotect]

209. Evidently you're ignoring Obama's attacks on Social Security and Medicare ... ???

You're also only producing over and over again 'FEAR-BASED' reasoning -- !!

You want Harry Reid to have "backbone" but you want the voters to be frightened rabbits?!!


Obama has been betraying the voters since the moment after the election --

unless you think that the voters were voting for Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel and

Wall Street/Bankster control over the administration????

[cali]

62. As I said, I don't care that much one way or another.

that doesn't equate to supporting renominating Obama without a fight. But I do know that a challenge doesn't enhance the opportunities for progressives to gain power. That's what's known as a no-brainer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

347. It's a "no brainer" because it is accepted as given wisdom with

no thinking behind it.

As anyone who has REALLY looked at it knows, every campaign, every election is different from every other one. If you say there are 'rules' that hold true, you are only looking for patterns after the fact which somehow never were apparent as existing during the elections, and those patterns are always 'discovered' by people with a specific agenda.

Bush 1 was beaten after going back on his 'no new taxes' pledge - the anti-taxers thereafter claimed he was beaten ONLY because of that one issue, and they've harped on it ever since to keep any Republican politican from considering raising taxes, no matter how needed. Never mind that Reagan ALSO raised taxes and still got re-elected.

Anti-progressives claim that Jimmy Carter was beaten in 80 ONLY because he was challenged from the left - never mind that 99% of Dems who opposed him in the primary went on to vote for him in the general, and that he was beaten instead by an illegal deal made by the Repubicans to stop all movenent on the hostage negotiations with the most radical elements of the Iranian government (who held a grudge against Carter for him not turning the Shah over to them). His defeat had NOTHING to do with the challenge from the left, and EVERYTHING to do with the first overt stirring of the BFEE, who wielded Reagan's strings. In fact, it could be argued that the challenge made Carter stronger, as he was able to hone his message, and his approval numbers actually went UP as he got more and better press - people were talking about him and the campaign, not about "Billy Beer" and coke-snorting WH aides at Studio 54. Going by that example, a primary challenge is exactly what Obama needs to improve his numbers.

So you might be careful about proclaiming anything as being a 'no brainer' in politics - except, of course, the idiocy of threatening SS.

[joshcryer]

66. OP explicitly thinks that a primary challenge doesn't marginalize the challengers.

Talk about hilarious.

[defendandprotect]

211. Rather, it should marginalize the right-wingers in the party ....

those who support corporate control of the party --

from Koch Bros DLC to criminal corps like Pfizer and Chevron!

[joshcryer]

309. The key is that Obama's impotence is due to his middle of the road approach.

And because of that, he falls in line with whatever the controlling party wants.

Hint: the controlling party is Republican.

[bluestate10]

147. Democrats better spend their time on Congressional races. nt

[WCGreen]

50. Go out and get behind local progressives in order to get more

candidates in the systems that are progressives.

that's what I plan on doing.

[Ken Burch]

55. That's what a lot of us will also be doing.

It's a good idea.

[bluestate10]

148. That is too commonsense. nt

[annabanana]

60. PLEASE see this post. Citizen's United has sold us to our debtors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1736320

[RFKHumphreyObama]

61. This statement:

"We now know that, even if Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter had been renominated by acclimation, the conditions they were working under(in Johnson's case, the unwinnability of the Vietnam War, in Carter's the late 1970's recession and the Iran hostage situation)would have guaranteed their defeat anyway"

No, we don't "know" that. That's an assumption you are making and it may be a reasonable argument and you are of course entitled to your opinion but it is nevertheless just that -an opinion. It should not be regarded as a statement of fact. And, in fact, the new evidence that has come to light over the past few decades contradicts your statement that "we now know" that LBJ would have lost

LBJ knew about Nixon's efforts to sabotage the peace negotiations in Vietnam and actually gave the evidence to Vice President Humphrey to use against Nixon in the campaign. When Vice President Humphrey demurred, LBJ made it very clear that he would have had no qualms about releasing the information and destroying Nixon in the process had he been running for re-election. Don't you think the revelations that Nixon was effectively committing treason against his own country and the evidence produced to support that rationalization wouldn't have had an impact on that campaign?

The primary challenge by Senator Kennedy diverted endless amounts of resources and energy away from Carter's re-election campaign that could have otherwise been spent much more constructively if it had been poured into a united Democratic effort against Reagan at a much earlier time. Reagan was pretty much assured of the Republican nomination relatively early on and had the advantage of mobilizing a united Republican Party against President Carter while the latter had to fight the Kennedy forces all the way up to the convention. Had Kennedy not run, the Democratic Party would have been much more focused and disciplined in its main goal of returning to a Democrat to the White House. And, because of the primary challenge, several Kennedy supporters cast votes for John Anderson which allowed Reagan to win many states which he otherwise would not have won (it would have been a much closer election). Even with the Iran-hostage crisis and the economic malaise, Reagan's elevation to office was not a done deal -he was still perceived as a right wing extremist and he was prone to making gaffes and missteps -and President Carter and the Democrats could have more effectively campaigned against him and discredited him had the Democratic Party been united behind its political leader

[BzaDem]

64. What to do? One thing would be to stop thinking about entirely flawed premises.

For example, you ask, "if we don't have a primary challenge, how can we win with a permanently damaged candidate 2012?"

But that is an entirely flawed premise, since Obama is the most popular president among Democrats since JFK. Obama certainly has a problem with centrist independents, but he does not have a problem with the left.

There will always be some people on both the left and the right that will be unsatisfied with any elected nominee their party ever makes. This has always been the case (including with FDR), and will always be the case. In ANY democracy, there will always be some people on all sides who are satisfied none of the time. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop gravity; it won't work, because the property is a fundamental aspect of the system in question.

This isn't to say that opinion on the left is something that Obama should ignore. Quite the contrary. It is simply to say that Obama's position on the left is as high as it has ever been with any modern President, so it isn't even a worry for him.

[Tesha]

76. "Most popular presdient among Democrats since JFK"

We're going to find out about that, aren't we?

I'm afraid you'll be in for a real shock.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

91. The thing is though that we already have found out. Every single poll (partisan, nonpartisan, media,

non-media, 2010 exit polls, daily tracking, weekly tracking, etc) says the same thing: vast supermajorities of Democrats approve of Obama, and for the ones that have previous data points to compare to, Democratic approval of Obama is above and beyond the approval of all modern Presidents.

Now, if the "shock" you refer to is Obama losing re-election, that very well could happen, and wouldn't necessarily be a shock (depending on the economy). But what will be eminently clear on election night (when we have later pre-election poll data and 2012 exit poll data) is that whatever the topline result, it won't be negative due to "opposition from the left" (which in historically relative terms really doesn't exist). It will be due to opposition from the center and the right -- just like the 2010 exit polls indicated for Congress.

Given this, if you believe that the result of an Obama loss in 2012 will be even a slight shift to the left for the Democratic party (as opposed to an unfortunate lurch to the right), let me just put it this way. One of us will certainly be in for a real shock. But it won't be me.

Now, some people (especially on FDL) who claim they will vote against Obama from the left really wouldn't mind a lurch to the right for the country. In fact, some of them openly claim that they want the country to move to the right. Now, they say that the reason for this is that it will somehow get America to "see reason" and then elect some Ralph Nader clone (as opposed to simply another Obama or a Democrat to the right of him once they get sick of Republicans). But this is mostly a smokescreen; these people (despite their protestations to the contrary) were never actually liberal. They are just as conservative as those who claim they are on the right, and they need to be opposed and electorally defeated just as much as those who claim to be on the right. Complaining about their vote against Democrats is about as useful as complaining about Karl Rove's vote against Democrats -- neither would ever vote for Democrats in the first place, so there is no point in worrying about their views on anything (any more than there is a point of worrying about Karl Rove's views on anything). But my point is that even if you assume wrongly for the sake of argument that these "we need destruction" folks are actually even slightly liberal, adding them all up results in a historically negligible number of people relative to past Presidents, under any metric or measure.

[Tesha]

120. Polls are one thing. Many of us lie to polsters. (It ain't just Republicans who know *THAT* trick!)

Votes (and work to obtain votes) is something else
entirely.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

134. I doubt that very many people who want Obama defeated tell pollsters that they support Obama.

It would seem that the people who lie to pollsters (I.e say they approve of Obama, even when they don't) likely do so because they do not want to make it look like they support the Republican over Obama. But if they don't want to make it look like they want Obama defeated at the hands of a Republican, they are probably going to vote for Obama (however grudgingly).

[Number23]

269. "Many of us lie to polsters."

But you tell the truth on anonymous web sites. Right? :eyes:

Anyone who thinks that lying to pollsters is an intelligent, reasonable or even vaguely logical exercise, well... let's just say I'm not surprised that someone who proudly admits to doing this is so fervently in favor of a primary challenge to the president.

[Tesha]

272. Believe what you wish; it doesn't matter to me. (NT)

[Number23]

281. Whew. Thanks for that. Now I can FINALLY post what I want.

[Recursion]

81. DU often confuses structural issues in our democracy with personal faults of politicians

eg, the fact that a President can't really do much to initiate policy is interpreted as Obama's not wanting to initiate policy.

[Raksha]

125. Do wars count as "policy"? What about the Patriot Act?

Or is the definition of "policy" only confined to budget issues? It seems to me that with a broader definition of "policy," the President can do more to initiate it than anyone else.

[Recursion]

128. Well since I opposed the Libyan adventure you might be asking the wrong person

Libya is exactly what I find dangerous about the War Powers Resolution.

And what about the PATRIOT act? That came from Congress, not the White House.

[B Calm]

68. Kicked and Recommended

[piratefish08]

74. and it goes a little somethin' like this.......

step 1 - raise $1 Billion

step 2 - ??

step 3 - win the election




we need to step back. they've got this one covered.

[NorthCarolina]

77. You'll get no argument from me.

I would love the opportunity to vote for a true peoples advocate instead of a corporate/Wall Street servant.

[Recursion]

80. Name someone more progressive than Obama who can win nationally (nt)

[Lyric]

82. Elizabeth Warren. nt

[Recursion]

83. Bwah!

Sorry, I thought you were serious there for a second.

If you're serious, you greatly, greatly overestimate the number of progressive voters in the country.

[bluestate10]

150. Warren is not well known, even in Massachusetts. The republican lie machine

will savage her, attributing every possible ill to her. By the time voters figure that out, a Romney or Perry will be gearing up for a second term, with the country long screwed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

348. And Obama WAS well known a year before the election?

When you come down to it, ONLY the unknown get a fair shot. Obama got elected because he had no history to run against him.

What would the Republicans use against Warren? That she was a tenured professor?

How can you say such a thing against her, without applying it equally to Obama?

[grahamhgreen]

95. Anyone who touts the policy positions Americans want can win.

Tax the rich, end free trade, end the wars, public option, etc.

[Recursion]

97. Then why does Kucinich get 3% in statewide primaries?

When people actually vote for progressive candidates, progressive candidates will win.

[grahamhgreen]

100. I thought you said nationally?

[Recursion]

102. It's even worse nationally

Primaries are where the base has the strongest voice and he can't even get above 3% there.

[grahamhgreen]

285. Only because he's massivly outspent. He had to fight to be allowed in the debates as i recall...

[bluestate10]

151. Once Kucinich wins a battle with an olive wrap, he has my vote. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

349. If you like what he says, vote for him.

Then, he will win.

That's the way it works.

[grahamhgreen]

99. Feingold. Everyone told us Obama couldn't win either.

[Recursion]

117. Feingold couldn't keep his Senate seat

That doesn't exactly bode well for his national chances.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

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

[grahamhgreen]

287. Because of citizens united, and a mass attack by Rove &Co, I believe.

[cascadiance]

358. I prefer Feingold as Wisconsin governor for five years first...

... after he kicks Walker's butt out of there perhaps this coming year. And if he's been serving five years successfully as governor on top of his career as a senator, I think that would be a very good resume for running in 2016, and a decent career as governor fixing what Walker screwed up would more than make up for his Senate loss then. I do think him running for president in 2012 is probably premature, won't succeed, and I'd rather him win where he can in Wisconsin first. I think in 2016 though, he'd be us progressive's wet dream then.

The big question though is for 2012, do we stick with Obama or at least challenge him to get him to lean to the left int he election more. Probably needs to come from different quarters.

[Little Star]

393. Matt Damon.

[MineralMan]

84. Before you can mount a primary campaign, you're going to

need a candidate. Who did you have in mind? So far, all the people who have been mentioned either have said they're not interested or have no chance in Hell of winning even one state's primary.

So, go find someone who will run and who has even a slim chance of getting nominated, and we'll talk some more. Until then, talking about a primary challenge against President Obama is a total waste of time.

[JoePhilly]

85. You need to go and build some candidates.

You don't start screaming about running a primary unless you actually have one or two people who actually want to run. One or two people who have the policy positions, and the ability to actually win the general election.

The daily DU thread calling for us to "Primary Obama is a masturbatory fantasy. There is no candidate. None. Zip. Nadda.

Progressive need to get busy thinking about 2016. Find that candidate now, and start building.

Here is a non-Obama example. I live in NC, And in the 2008 election, we voted in Kay Hagen and outed Liddy Dole. Now, is Kay the most progressive Senator around, nope, not even close. But she is better than Dole by 100 miles.

Should the folks in NC who put Kagen in the Senate now spend the next 2 years screaming "primary Kay!!!" No. That would be pretty stupid. What we need to do is find another Dem that can win, and remove Richard Burr (R).

The more Dems we put in office, the further to the left they, and the government can move.

I don't want to just hold the Presidency in 2012, I want it back in 2016, and 2020.

And the calls for a primary are going nowhere.

[TNLib]

86. I think that even if we wished a viable primary challenger would come forward

there wont be. It just doesn't look like any viable progressive is willing to challenge Obama.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

93. Liberals support Barack Obama more than moderates and conservatives. n/t

[PragmaticLiberal]

94. I keep hearing about how the "base" wants to primary President Obama etc etc.

Has anyone even considered how the "true base" (imo) of the Democratic Party will react to an Obama primary?


And by "true base" I'm referring to African Americans.



Just something to consider....

[bluestate10]

156. African Americans would likely go ape-shit over a primary.

A primary of an effective, african american President would confirm everything negative the naysayers among african americans have been pushing for decades. And if the primary caused Obama to not be re-elected, forget electing anyone remotely progressive for the next century.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[swilton]

296. Cornell West doesn't think so

and neither does Tavis Smiley...In fact, both of them think Obama should be primaried.

[FrodosPet]

351. Article about Cornel West and Tavis Smiley

The Black War Over Obama

African-American leaders fear academic rebel Cornel West’s fierce attacks on the president could spell trouble in 2012.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/14/cornel-west-and-the-black-war-over-obama.html

...

West and his longtime friend, radio host Tavis Smiley, have taken their criticism of Obama to the streets, launching a two-week, 15-city “poverty tour,” aimed at forcing the powers that be to once again focus on the “least among us” and getting the president to “wake up.” Their efforts are increasingly stoking fears among some African-American leaders that West and Smiley could discourage black voters from turning out when the nation’s first African-American president stands for reelection in 2012.

“The negative discussion Dr. West is having can only put more apathy in the hearts of African-Americans and could ultimately cause them to lose more faith in the entire political process,” says the Rev. Otis Moss III, pastor of Obama’s former church in Chicago. “Where will that leave us?”

Lately, Obama’s supporters in the black community are fighting back. As West and Smiley pulled up aboard their “Call to Conscience” bus in Detroit in early August, a crowd of hecklers awaited them outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center. “We will not stand silent as Smiley and West criticize the man who brought us health-care reform, one of the greatest accomplishments for the poor in this country’s history,” says a spokesperson for Detroiters for Better Government.

...

End Excerpt

[RaleighNCDUer]

350. Yeah - African Americans will rally behind Obama no matter what.

After all, they don't collect SS, send their kids to public schools, or depend on Medicare or Medicaid.

Are you really saying you think blacks don't vote the issues?

[uponit7771]

365. Blacks wouldn't vote against Obama for the reasons BASHERS state

[RaleighNCDUer]

380. And what reasons are those?

From what I've seen, the 'bashers' are Democrats who object to his surrendering on Democratic principles; who object to his entire economic team being made up of Goldman execs; who object to his promoting the dismantling of the public school system; who object to his putting SS, Medicare and Medicaid 'on the table' so that when the republicans begin dismantling them they can point to him and say 'he started it' - 'he thought it was a good idea'.

What are the 'bashers' here, at DU, saying?

[ecstatic]

96. Elect more democrats into the congress/senate. NO democratic

president can rule as a dictator. I don't care who we elect. Presidents are not magicians. Obama would have been more than happy to sign progressive legislation that made it to his desk.

[sufrommich]

98. So what is stopping "progressives" from primarying Obama? nt

[BzaDem]

101. Perhaps the fact that most progressives don't want to primary Obama.

One way to look at this is through the lens of the healthcare bill. The progressives who want Obama primaried mostly oppose Obama's healthcare bill. But every single elected progressive voted FOR Obama's healthcare bill. Opposition to Obama's healthcare bill from the left literally didn't exist among elected officials.

That immediately gives you two reasons why there really isn't much talk about a primary challenge. One is that all progressive elected officials supported major pieces of the Obama agenda (the Stimulus, HCR, FinReg, etc), and candidates for President often are elected officials. But the other is that to the extent a progressive wants to primary Obama, they (for the most part) must also be opposed to multiple big voting decisions of every single elected Democrat. That should give you a sense of their numbers (or lack thereof), especially relative to opposition among past Presidents.

[Bluenorthwest]

113. And yet when Franken voted for the budget deal, an hour later

he was explaining that he did not like the deal, but felt he had no choice in a hostage like situation, so a vote for a bill really does not mean they did not oppose it, and certainly does not mean they would have drafted it that way themselves. With health care 'reform' they settled for a mediocre bit of crap that they are still having to defend on the stump because it was the best the bipartisan orgy could produce. When they voted for it, you may recall the large number of Democrats, including Pelosi saying they would 'fix it later'. They voted for law they also say is already in need of fixing. How strong is that 'support'? 'It is as good as he can do, we will fix it later, forgive us please'.

[bluestate10]

157. The fact is that NO health care bill even had a chance of enactment prior to Obama.

Progressive complaining over the bill is like complaining that one was handed a ham sandwich when the only thing that was fed to them prior was a shit sandwich. Too many people love to look to the lens of dreams not happening when those dreams were impossible to accomplish to start.

[woo me with science]

105. Where is our anti-corporate, anti-criminal bankers, anti-war candidate?

Dammit, even the *Republicans* have one.

[upi402]

107. Yes, where is our Democrat in the Democratic Party?

:wtf:

[Recursion]

110. Waiting for voters to show any inclination to support that platform

Remember Gravel's showing in the primaries? Or DK's?

[woo me with science]

115. ....

It is 2011 now. There is a hunger for it, if anyone would articulate it. Even Ron Paul nearly came in first among Republicans in Iowa of all places.

[Recursion]

116. Those numbers were similar in 2008

People don't vote on policy. Or at least not on those policies. If they did, DK would be President.

[woo me with science]

118. You are dreaming if you believe people are not angry about being sold to the highest bidder.

The problem is that both parties are corrupted at the core.

[Recursion]

119. Right, which is why the tea party got so much traction (with the same people who liked Perot)

The most common solution the American public seems to see to corruption in government is to tear down government.

[woo me with science]

121. The tea party was hijacked by the neocons and religious right

as soon as the oligarchy saw the potential in it. It started out much closer to what Paul represents.

The initial protests were protests against the bailouts.

[Recursion]

133. What does the tea party have to do with neocons?

Your run of the mill teabagger (to the extent this exists) is socially conservative, isolationist, and a deficit hawk; your run of the mill neocon (this certainly exists) is socially liberal, interventionist, and doesn't care about deficits.

[MessiahRp]

164. Bushco were Neo-Cons. And no they were NOT socially liberal.

Unless you think running against gay marriage is liberal. Or torture.

And if so, you couldn't be more wrong.

Rp

[Recursion]

168. Neocons are called that because they were socially liberal hawks

Kristol (the elder) marched with MLK. Andrew Sullivan was the first national voice arguing for gay marriage. Fukuyama supports deficit spending for social programs. Somehow on DU the word "neoconservative" has lost its actual meaning and just come to mean "conservative".

(Neither Bush nor Cheney were neoconservatives; that was Wolfowitz and Feith, who are socially far to the left of their old bosses.) For that matter Bush is pretty far to the left socially of the GOP "mainstream"; his immigration reform fiasco is a good example.

[okieinpain]

106. So if u had a as u say a progressive president, u would be ok

With moderates primaring him.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Describe and define 'moderates'. What would the specific

differences be? Are moderates just closer to Republicans? Always down the middle, no matter where the middle might fall? How does it work? Explain it.

[Recursion]

114. I consider myself a moderate and I think it's more about means than ends

ie, I want single payer insurance, or even government run health care, and I want a progressive tax structure, and I want a strong social welfare system. But I think rapid, nationwide, systemic change is dangerous and often has unintended consequences -- I think the Great Society was an example of that. And what's more if there's another solution that can be shown to work I'm willing to go against my preference for the form of the solution to health care (or whatever). I suppose in classical terms that makes me a "conservative" (in the Edmund Burke sense), but I think a lot of being "moderate" is about not trusting big, sudden fixes to problems and wanting policy to change incrementally and based on empirical results. That's also why I see "moderate" as different from "centrist" -- it's actually possible to be a radical centrist, but not a radical moderate.

But in general I think moderates can be nudged in any direction as long as the policies doing the nudging are incremental and competently executed.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. So a moderate denies the fierce urgency of the now?

A moderate says 'let's let the problems exist longer, so as not to shock the status quo'? Do moderates, as part of opposing 'big sudden fixes' oppose all wars, which are nothing but pursuit of a big and sudden fix? Instant Libya action was big and sudden. Was it therefore 'bad' in moderate land?
I also wonder if 'moderates' have that same languid view of how to run their lives, for example, do they raise their children with very slow, easy changes, and always avoid any push to learn more, slower the better? Is it the same in business, you would refuse any sudden or large boost in income, due to the lack of graduation in the process?
Do moderates also take their time dealing with emergencies? If the house is on fire, is it bad to suddenly make a big move for the door?
Just trying to make sense of how this plays out in life. In a nation that intentionally passes power every few years, all on one day, it is hard to see how 'sudden change' can always be seen as bad. If we sought 'moderation' and lack of progress in our founding, would they not have left power sitting where power sits for long, extended periods? A House member gets 2 years. That does not imply the founders had much biding of time in mind. How gradual can you be in 2 years, or in 4? Or in an entire human life, brief and without a known end date? I say the span of our lives and reproduction indicate that gradual change is beyond our natural bodies.

I'm with Martin Luther King Jr on this:
"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy."
–Martin Luther King Jr.'s

[Recursion]

127. In broad strokes, yes

And I fully agree that's a weakness of moderate-ism (or whatever we want to call it). I think a society entirely full of moderates would have a lot of problems, but I think a society devoid of us does too.

A moderate says 'let's let the problems exist longer, so as not to shock the status quo'?

More positively, a moderate says "don't rush a cure forward since it might end up being worse than the disease".

Do moderates, as part of opposing 'big sudden fixes' oppose all wars, which are nothing but pursuit of a big and sudden fix?

I have opposed the wars of my lifetime (even the one I was in) and I think with very few exceptions they cause more harm than they prevent. There are calls to war from the right (Iraq) and the left (Libya) and I think both were poorly-thought-out (and I consider Libya far and away the biggest mistake Obama has made so far -- particularly given how he stretched the War Powers Resolution, which was already a bad law).

do they raise their children with very slow, easy changes, and always avoid any push to learn more, slower the better?

I don't have kids yet, but I don't think I would rapidly change how I parent like my own parents did; always coming home with a new parenting-philosophy-of-the-week. There's something to be said for stability, and change can be in itself bad even if it's correcting something also bad.

Do moderates also take their time dealing with emergencies? If the house is on fire, is it bad to suddenly make a big move for the door?

Of course not; and the political analogy fails because there's rarely universal agreement on what constitutes a given emergency. Right now is it structural deficit levels or cyclical economic weakness? I think the latter is more pressing, but then again it is cyclical whereas the structural deficit levels are not -- I mostly oppose attempts I see to tie the two together, both from the right (pretending the debt is the cause of a cyclical phenomenon) and the left (pretending countercyclic growth will somehow solve our structural problems). To use your Libya analogy, that certainly was an emergency, since the population of a large city was likely about to be massacred. But have we created a situation that may end up being worse? We don't know yet. This is why moderates put a lot of stock in things that attempt to avoid crises in the first place, since crises usually lead to bad decisions being made.

. If we sought 'moderation' and lack of progress in our founding, would they not have left power sitting where power sits for long, extended periods?

The House is important, and changes rapidly, but it was tempered by a longer-term Presidency and a Senate constructed as a continuous body with long terms (and for the first century of the country not directly answerable to voters). It's a system with a lot of implicit or explicit vetos and the whole point of that is to keep massive sweeping change from happening quickly. Which of course causes problems, but then again so do massive sweeping changes, usually.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. Thanks for the reply. I note you skipped the one about income.

Don't blame you. The whole things sounds like a gussied up way to say 'fearful and risk averse'. All about what 'might' happen.
I offer that 'moderate' leanings are utterly without merit if you do not practice them in business, that is, deny yourself any rapid growth or increase on the basis of it being 'too sudden' rather than only denying changes that would help others on that basis. Moderates seem to be moderate unless they profit from being otherwise. In that case, sudden, huge change is embraced. A 'moderate' who is offered more takes it, I expect, and never considers the moderation or gradual change they claim to prefer. This means it is not a principle or a point of view, but rather a situational ethic. Moderation is important when others are involved, but sudden boons and profit windfalls are great for me!
Why are the 'moderates' not complaining about oil company profits, suddenly so large, so huge? If being 'moderate' is what is important, why do we never hear about moderation in business and profit?
"moderates can be nudged in any direction as long as the policies doing the nudging are incremental and competently executed." Which means, of course, that 'moderates' would go hard right, slowly, gradually, just as easily as to the left. Any way the wind blows, as long as it is a slow breeze.
The idea that it is not what you do, but how slowly it is done that matters is deeply unprincipled.

Would you refuse an increase in income for being too sudden or too large? If not, you are not a moderate when it counts. That is how a principle works. A political affectation, however, can be selectively employed.
Ever refused a good offer for being 'too much, too fast'? If not, what is so moderate about how you live?

[Recursion]

138. Sorry, I missed that sentence and it's a good point

In my brief days at a .com, we did pass up some huge growth opportunities because it was too much too fast, and I had seen a lot of .com's die from growing too fast. Variance in business can be a very bad thing.

But look, if you want me to acknowledge there are problems with the "moderate" world view, I did in my first reply. There's a large opportunity cost associated with passing on some chances to make things better. It's a cost that in most situations I consider to be worth it.

I'm certainly uncomfortable with the levels of profits in American businesses -- I think it's one of the biggest problems facing our economy. Higher progressive taxes would help some, but won't fix it. That's a social change we need to make, and those take a long time.

[Bluenorthwest]

165. The only thing which is a constant is change. The world is in flux.

I understand the urge to seek control but nature is not gradual, nor are our lives. What is called 'moderate politics' is like getting a face lift and claiming to have turned back the clock. Change always happens. Social changes take a long time because of those who resist them, which is usually motivated by fear or clinging to a perceived advantage.
Now, in business, you have made moderate choices. As have I. But not always. My choices are individually considered. I offer that if, in business matters, you are not always moderate, then politics should be the same way. Sometimes it is best to be gradual, other times are rip off the band aid moments. Sometimes we are planting a garden, other times we are escaping sudden natural disaster. One means slow, the other means fast.
You yourself say moderates would go any direction if it was incremental. That is danger. Again, I offer family life, would you advise a younger person that as long as a behavior is slowly adopted, it is a good behavior? Of course not.The principle can not be about the pace, but about the plot.
"Always go slow" is simply not good advice in every life situation. Very limiting.In a world of quakes and strokes and floods and love at first sight, an aversion to sudden change seems most ill advised. Almost impossible to attain. Never becomes always overnight on this planet.
Very interesting things you said, and to think about for me. Thanks for actually answering. I do understand where you are coming from. I just don't think we get to pick 'always slow and easy' and still get to the dance on time. Sometimes slow, always as easy as possible, but the point still has to be getting to the dance on time. That will upon occasion call for swift, even abrupt actions. On others it calls for a meander down the block with time to stop for a drink. But it is still about getting to the objective in a timely manner.

[Ken Burch]

144. The problem is, moderates took that approach

when it came to ending segregation or getting the U.S. out of Vietnam. A lot of people died from that moderation.

[yarn_chick]

167. Moderates always want to move at a slow pace. They consider glacial speed to be "too much too soon"

of course they have the luxury of waiting because generally speaking moderates don't have skin in the game in those areas where they are oh so moderate. It's a position of comfort. Those directly effected are supposed to be patient while ignoring the fact that lack of action on certain issues is literally a matter of life and death.

Although to be honest at this point in the game I'm more inclined to believe that moderate=coward.

[bluestate10]

159. I am a moderate. I despise the republican prescription for this country.

I consider people like Bachmann and Palin to be closet traitors. Do you feel me now?

[Ken Burch]

142. Yeah. Of course.

I'd only ask that the race be on the issues, not on the personalities. Which is what I'd ask of progressives seeking to primary a moderate-to-conservative Dem.

[oldlib]

108. A Primary election

would generate some passion. As a liberal I am disappointed with some of the actions of Obama. I do think that a healthy debate in the primary would expose his thinking on many issues. I will, however, still support him in both the primary and general election.

[bluestate10]

166. You like me.

I am not happy with Obama's desire to compromise with people that can't do anything but throw shit into his face. I wonder when he and his close advisers will realize that he has to fight those bastards to the bitter end. But I would contribute to Obama and vote for him in a primary, because I see no better alternative for the country. The fact is the names that progressives are throwing around, while those names make them happy, CAN'T win a general election in this country. Do we put up a Feingold, a candidate that could not win re-election in a blue state? Do we forward a Kucinich, a person that can't win a House seat in his own state in 2012? Do we put up an Elizabeth Warren, an unknown with unknown skeletons in her closet? Folks, it is better if we let republicans commit suicide by nominating the Bachman's, Perry's and Romney's of america. Our focus should be on keeping the Presidency and taking back the House while building larger numbers of solid democrats in the Senate.

[Timbuk3]

112. What do I expect progressives to do?

It would nice if we'd recognize that, if we had a progressive congress, Obama would sign the bills they pass and someone like Perry or Romney would veto them.

Did you see Ron Paul's answer to how he'd get his agenda passed "in a divided congress"?

Deer in the headlights look and crickets chirping.

So I expect progressives to try and elect a progressive congress that will pass a bill extending the middle class cuts, but end the cuts for the wealthy, like Obama has called for too many times to count.

It would be nice if progressives would work to elect a progressive congress (Senate) who will approve Obama's nominees to head up agencies and the courts.

Maybe if progressives worked to elect a more progressive congress we could see the debate switch from "more cuts to government" to "we need to fix our infrastructure and put people back to work", or "we need more green jobs" (how many times has Obama called for that?), or "we need to close the loopholes that allow Exxon and GE to pay less in taxes than the average American family" instead of "cut, cut, cut, deficit, cut, debt".

Or is someone here arguing that Obama wouldn't sign a "progressive" bill (and ANY of the batfuck insane GOP candidates would) if it was sent for his signature.

Congress is broken. Why is all the focus on the POTUS, who controls SCOTUS nominations (among other things)?

[whistler162]

122. Stop trying to out Republican the Republicans for a start.....

one group of idiots trying to destroy the President is enough.

[Jim Lane]

129. Lacking a strong candidate, a primary might do us more harm than good.

Polling of the electorate, especially of the Democratic electorate, shows it to be well to the left of Obama. Nevertheless, if we run someone with little or no name recognition, he or she will draw well below 10% of the votes.

The correct explanation is that most people don't vote on the basis of an ideological scorecard. The MSM explanation will be that progressive taxation, reduced military spending, etc. are "extremist" ideas that have almost no support.

So what do we do? We vote for Obama in the general election but devote our time and money to progressive candidates in downticket races. If, in the presidential primary, there's a symbolic challenger (some state legislator or the like), I'll vote for him or her, just to show the flag, but I won't expect anything significant to come of it.

[Cleita]

141. We need to concentrate on getting progressives back into

Congress. A strong Congress can override Presidential vetoes and can have the effect of pulling a compromising moderate President to the left.

[tabasco]

146. Accept steady but slow change for the better

rather than screeching for overnight utopia.

If pukes get in, you can kiss the slow change for the better good-bye!

[TheKentuckian]

224. We are not being offered that, we are getting steady change for the worse.

This is not about speed but about direction.

This is not about speed but about direction.

This is not about speed but about direction.

[tabasco]

227. What's getting worse?

I might agree but I'd like to hear some specifics.

[TheKentuckian]

271. Corporate capture of government, wealth disparity, quality public education, poverty,

acceptance and implementation of right wing econonomic policy, incomes for most, quality and access to health care, health care costs, military adventurisim, our sewers, our water mains, our roads, our bridges, our ability to compete with other industrialized nations due to antiquated infrastructure.

Seems like a start. I'm not sure what is actually and functionally better or is even holding steady.

[tabasco]

286. LOL.

Who's your man/woman to get all these things fixed in four years?

[yarn_chick]

322. You continue to miss the point. It's not about the speed it's the direction.

Going slowly in the wrong direction is still going in the wrong direction. He's not even halting the rightward shift. THAT is a problem.

[TheKentuckian]

363. You asked for what I saw as the problems not a time frame for resolution.

I figure 20 years, at best, but that assumes a steady effort to turn it around. The present Administration is still digging the hole so matters are worse. The current trajectory won't resolve the structural issues in ten thousand years.

Direction is everything.

[WillyT]

149. Great Question !!! - K & R !!!

:shrug:

:kick:

[loyalsister]

153. Organize

and do the work Obama said we would need to do to make this work.
Obama did not run as a revolutionary savior. His message was let's get to a place where people behave civilly and solve problems together and- yes "we" can includes us.
We have to be acting locally. Getting congressional and senate Democrats elected as well as working on the pipeline. The tea party just got loud. We should get our message out with dignity. I've said before not just local elected office. State, county, city, even neighborhood boards and commissions.

[swilton]

261. We elected Democrats in 2008

and they did diddly squat

[True Blue Democrat]

160. The key thing in primaries, that people seem to forget, is to share ideas and platforms

Just because Obama is the President does not mean he doesn't need to be primaried.

Right now, he's running WAY to the right of the teapublicans just to get the Republicans on his side.

However, that is not what being a Democrat is about. It's about working with the people, for the people, and being accountable by the people.

when people say that Obama is ripe for a primary, that means he's gone too far to the right. Many of the DU'ers may not like the argument, but it is always very important to remind Obama how he got in, and who PUT HIM THERE. Not the other way around.

I would welcome challengers to the party status quo, even if it's just Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, to remind Obama where his roots lies, and why he should return to the Democratic principles.

[Zorra]

163. Let's just go with the primary challenge. Bernie? We really need ya.

Harry Reid has gotta go also.

[defendandprotect]

172. We can save Obama -- or we can save the party? Not both --

[Sheepshank]

184. I disagree strongly on this point especially going into 2012 this later into 2011.

There is no strong Dem candidate that has come forward and that can defeat the Bush III crowd. And to beg and whine for another presidential hopeful is definintly playing to the Reps desire to put the Dems into an even bigger disrray.

Your continued defeatist meme throughout this thread is not conducive to any Dem unification, any Dem possibility of a win. You want a Progressive anti war direction? Even when it appears you are ignoring the direction the wars are already movin in? Then work towards providing the Dem Congressional base that will support and press Obama in that direction.

[defendandprotect]

219. Do you recall 2010 and its message --- ? Do you want to try for another 2010 -- ???

there is no candidate as yet because no one has begun working on it --

but we seriously should begin now -- we have about 6 months --

The Bush crowd is insane -- and easily beaten --

IF you have a Dem party which stands up to them --

IF you want more of a SILENT Dem Party under control of Koch Bros./DLC then that's

what you'll vote for --

Odd that you see "beg and whine" in the suggestions that Obama be challenged because

pretty much the only argument those opposed have to a primary is FEAR-BASED!!!

Let's just be frightened rabbits and admit that Obama has immense corporate back and

admit that we are defeated? :rofl:


The only reason the GOP even still exists after the landslide of 2008 is because Obama

resurrected them from the ashes!!

80% of the public wants an end to the wars --

76% and more want MEDICARE FOR ALL --

There is no support for Obama -- nil!!

[Sheepshank]

267. Your stand has no realistic purpose other than reproducing 2004 and 2008

You are working on channeling and enabling the Republican route to a repeat of that debaucle, I cannot believe you cannot see the fruit of your actions.

The proof of your idle musings is in the fact that no seriouly viable Dem has stepped forward to date. How long is a viable candidate supposed to wait before announcing? Yet here you are trying to dismantle the current Presidency as an unftil 2012 contender. I have no use for anyone that works actively to hand the next election to any republican, by actively working towards dividing the party.

[defendandprotect]

300. 2004 election was stolen ... and I think you mean 2010 instead of 2008?

Democrats lost in 2010 because Dem voters stayed home in opposition to Obama's

leadership -- trampling of single payer in back room deals with Big Pharma and

the private H/C industry -- about which Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" ...

telling business how "grateful" they should be to Obama!


You are surprised that few Democrats are standing up to Obama's corporate-agenda?

I don't think that most of us are -- certainly not after 20 years of Koch Bros/

DLC influence over the party!! Very few Democrats are standing up for anything --

leave alone against Obama. Only 70 or more from the progressive caucus.



The primary leadership for what used to be the ideals of the party is given by

Sen. Bernie Sanders -- who isn't a Demcorat!


Which is probably why someone from outside the party who can run on a Dem ticket is

our best bet!!

Too many Democrats are beholden to corporate interests vs the interests of the nation/

public.

In that I agree with you!

[swilton]

316. I disagree with your assumption that Obama is a strong

candidate. His polling numbers are not good (39/54 - Gallup) and the economic situation will not be improving....especially given that the gang of 12 are going to make their policy announcements before the 2012 election.

[elana i am]

188. i'm a progressive and i don't want to primary obama.

no i'm not stupid, i'm pragmatic and i see the reality of the situation. let me break it down into bullet points:

1. obama is not nor has he ever been a liberal. why so many liberal dems got suckered and had such unreasonable expectations i don't know and can't explain.
2. while he was the furthest left of all the candidates, and he had a lot of default votes from people who would never vote anything but democrat, he was certainly helped by being black. many moderates who don't vote along party lines and the apolitical/typically apathetic probably voted for him because he was black and they wanted to vote for the first black president. he was helped by these people, meaning we liberals needed that help to get him elected.
3. liberals are roughly 30% of the voting populace. progressives are a subset of that group. on what planet is a progressive president going to get elected? it sure as hell ain't this one.
4. tea party - the koch brothers didn't do it all by themselves. public sentiment, delusional and manipulated as it is, clearly is headed in the opposite direction from progressive at the moment. the amount of influence the the tea party has managed to obtain is hard to deny.
5. repugs - "our priority is to make obama a one-term president."
5. blue dogs - people have been whining about obama being weak and not getting shit done. no dem president, especially a progressive one, is going to get shit done the way it should be in this current climate. a sizeable enough to be influential contigent of his own party works against him when they should be working for him, and works for him when they should be working against him.
6. compromise is not a dirty word when the populace is rougly 30% liberal, 30% moderate, 30% conservative. and by the way, the president is not a dictator. (it's also not lost on me that any repug that gets in there WOULD act like a dictator, so we have to make sure that doesn't happen - see #5)
7. we've got about another 20 years of attrition before the racist/homophobic/reagan acolyte riff-raff is mostly gone.
8. obama cannot perform miracles. FDR couldn't get the new deal through this congress, no way no how.
9. liberals have got to stop overestimating their numbers and their influence. i think the wisconsin recall bears this out.

i remember obama himself saying, even during his campaign, that change was going to have to happen from the bottom up. we've got work to do because the repugs have been pounding us.

[stklurker]

216. well thought out.

Well thought out and reasoned post.... you know that wont get you anywhere on DU.. right?

;-)

[swilton]

294. I don't know where you get your figures for point #3

30% are liberals???

According to Rachel Maddow's figures posted here prominently
81% of the population want taxes raised on millionaires
68% of the population want elimination of the tax cuts
74% of the population want cuts on the tax breaks for oil/gas corporations
77% of the population favor public union bargaining....

[elana i am]

314. oh come on

don't be daft.

81% of the population is going to break down to most if not all liberals, a majority of moderate/independent and the more moderate conservatives. it doesn't mean 81% liberal. it means that 81% of the population holds a sane and reasonable position. that's good news, but not an indication that this country is overwhelmingly liberal.

i based my 30% figure on shrub the war criminal's approval level. it never really dropped below 30%. so 30% repugs regardless. so roughly 30% each for the political parties and 30%ish for the moderates/independents who go either way depending on which way the wind blows.

my evidence...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx

[swilton]

362. "Don't be daft'

Do you feel threatened by logic - your polling numbers are very dated.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

375. Good point-by-point response

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

189. I STAND with the California Progressive Caucus.

Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!!



Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[defendandprotect]

212. +1 -- and every Dem progressive caucus should start working on a challenger -- !!

[gulliver]

192. The vast majority of liberals and progressives are behind Obama

Most progressives/liberals denounce a primary by a huge majority. If anyone should be questioning their right to call themselves liberal/progressive, it is the people who give any serious thought to a primary. It's one thing to merely think about a primary. Like leaving the wife and kids and moving to Acapulco, some ideas are just bound to cross the human mind. But it's quite another thing to consider a primary option serious enough to be worth mentioning.

For the intelligent, authentic, non-masochistic, non-sadistic, temperate progressives/liberals, the answer of what to do instead of primary-ing Obama remains what it has always been. Support your team. Fight the other team. Persuade. Compromise if necessary and possible.

We've got some serious, unprecedented problems in this generation and for foreseeable future generations. Obama's got the right ideas, talents, and demeanor. Anything that jeopardizes his presidency is bad.

[defendandprotect]

213. 2010 WAS A CLEAR MESSAGE -- voters do not support Obama ...

In fact, 80% of the public want an end to the wars --

And, 76% and more of public want government-run health care --

83% of Catholics want the same -- including full reproductive services/abortion --


74% of Americans say our current system of government isn't working --

Corporations have made it "dysfunctional" --

Al Gore is telling us that "Our Congress is under the control of the oil and coal industries" --

and that we have a Goebbels' style corporate-press --


Constant posts here calling on Dem elected officials to have "backbone" and "balls" --

but when it comes to voting we're all supposed react to fear-based posts like

frightened rabbits?

[ecstatic]

221. Obama wasn't on the ballot. By your logic, 2010 was a clear

message for Obama to adopt teabag policies.

[defendandprotect]

223. Obama's administration was certainly included in the message from voters -- !!

[TheKentuckian]

229. He doesn't have the right ideas at all, that is the problem. I'm not sure about the temperament

since it drives him to assimilate the very positions we are supposed to be opposing as well as lending credibility to the very people and policies that fucked us.

The talents are wasted as they are applied to selling bad policy and cornering liberals into cutting our own throats with his corporate enabling nonsense and are not used to refute the TeaPubliKlan ideology or the Reagan-Bush policies destroying or nation at its roots.

See my team isn't a letter by a name but the workers, poor, and destitute of this country. My team is clean air, water, and food. My team is about better incomes not wage destruction. My team is for fiercely protecting our natural rights.

If you want to single minded be for a team and against another, turn on some ESPN politically it is a distraction from what our people need to prosper and from passing on a better nation than we inherited.

[gulliver]

232. You should be on our team.

The workers, poor, destitute, clean air, water, and food don't self-organize. We aren't likely to be able to pass on a better nation than we inherited. I don't think we got that deal either. Climate change, overpopulation, and locust economics don't solve themselves overnight. We are a long, long way from a sustainable, human centered utopia, but we can only start toward it from where we are, not from where everyone wishes we were.

I appreciate what you have said tho and definitely sympathize. I just think Obama's the only game in town, and I'm damned glad to have him.

[TheKentuckian]

275. We won't get where we need to be in ten generations on this trajectory.

I am not under the impression we are even making baby steps in the right direction, in fact it seems we are going deeper into the rabbit hole.

Keeping in mind that I'm not a utopian minded soul, don't even believe such a thing is is part of the human experience in our current state of being just that we can grow, change, and improve. All paths lead to darkness from here and no I am not thankful for neoliberal machinations no matter what personality is pushing them.

I agree we can only go from where we are, I don't hold with keeping on digging since we will have further to go when ever we stop making a deeper hole and attempt to climb out. Reducing demand in a dearth, continuing to funnel resources to the wealthy, more wars, Walmarting public education, continued failure to hold the wealthy, connected, and powerful accountable, and merging corporations with the state is not even a tiny step in the right direction.

Obama is a willful part of the problem rather than a centerpiece of the solution and I am ashamed of the part I played in giving him the wheel. He appears to be a multi-generational mistake that is more dedicated to allowing his failed predecessor's policies to take root and become American policy than repudiating them. He is functioning as an endorsement of failure than a corrective force.

[spooked911]

311. the problem is that Obama doesn't seem to be on the Dem team

seriously. You've got a lot of nerve with your labels there.

[MisterP]

200. "no questions and no discussion": a lot of them LIKE that:

% these are the machine Dems: they are unquestioning, zealous, and at the same time infinitely flexible and excusing (when it comes to those higher in the food chain); their solution to a President making conservative proposals is more of voting blindly ("we need a Dem House!")
% "pragmatists" in the sense of "the other side's worse": since Stalin had a higher gross death toll than Hitler, they'd rather face Amon Göth than Beria; they'd sacrifice Sharon Tate because Manson was "better than" Jim Jones; they'll tell you to work within the party, but then that we can't afford any internal challenge like voting. In other words, if someone tells you "work for change" but then "you shouldn't work for change," that means they don't want change, and were being insincere.
% the Believers: they're the Bieber fans, the TwiHards, the Larry Laytons, the zombies who say we have nobody left in Iraq, everyone has universal healthcare, and that Obama's to the left of FDR--and if you question this, you're harming America and deserve to die
% outright ConservaDems: they thought Haig was a weakling for not personally invading Nicaragua and Cuba; they're FOR killing millions, letting Granny die of common illnesses, deregulation, big tax breaks, low wages, union busting, &c.: none of this, however, stops them from saying the GOP is for all this, and that that's what'll transpire if you don't unquestioningly vote for ConservaDems. The other groups listed, and the Teabaggers (funded by the Kochs, who also fund the DLC) exist to give this ruling group a fig leaf. They call anyone criticizing conservativism in the party a secret conservative, or tricked by "fauxgressives."

[defendandprotect]

214. +1 ---

and summing up they are either extremely frightened rabbits --

or they're very confused about what the Democratic Party allegedly stands for !!

[chillspike]

206. I certainly am open to a primary challenge

as long as people vote democrat in the end.

[LWolf]

210. They want us to shut up, get in line, and vote.

Or they want us to experience a transformational shift in brain function, and wake up in a cloud of euphoria, excited about donating all our money and eating and sharing bullshit propaganda throughout the campaign season.

[defendandprotect]

215. Mainly they want us to be frightened rabbits and keep voting for "lesser evil" ....

[LWolf]

226. Yep.

I don't vote for lesser evils.

I'm not always pleased with the choice I end up making, but I draw the line at voting for someone whom I perceive to be harmful.

[RegieRocker]

230. I fire the guy or gal that lied to me no matter what.

[LWolf]

360. So do I. nt

[BigBearJohn]

342. Well said. We need more people like you!

[mahina]

220. I think we should go find and support the most progressive candidates we can find for house & senate

and move the machine back from the cliff.

[MrScorpio]

235. Simply focus on Congress and local elections

Go back to the grass roots and build support for progressive policies from the bottom UP!

No matter how progressive a person is that you put in the White House, that president will come up against the same (or even more) intransigence from a Congress that itself isn't progressive.

People keep saying that America is a progressive nation that supports progressive policies, but why isn't this reflected in a progressive Congress?

We should focus on the branch where laws are actually made instead of the president (in this election year where we already have an incumbent). Any president is bound to enforce laws that are on the books, whether he/she supports them or not. Presidents aren't kings who by fiat. They have severe limits to their powers.

Let's work on changing the nature of those laws by changing the nature of the Congress that passes them.

Let's put those millions of progressive voters to work at the base of progressive support, instead of expecting progressive action to trickle down from on high.

[Warren DeMontague]

237. Vote for Obama and try to give him a Democratic House for the next session.

Okay, you asked.

[pnwmom]

242. AND a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Without that, we'll always having to be compromising with an increasingly far-right Rethug party.

[totodeinhere]

250. Getting a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2012 will be virtually impossible.

In 2012 the Democrats will have 23 seats up for election, including 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats, while Republicans are only expected to have 10 seats up for election. For the Democrats to get to 60 votes they would have to defend each and every one of their 23 seats plus win 7 out of ten of the Republican seats. That's an almost impossible task if you ask me, especially since five of the ten seats that the GOP will be defending are in solidly red states.

[BigBearJohn]

343. I think that even if Obama had a filibuster proof senate and a clear majority in the house

he would still find excuses to not act like a Dem. He would
still try to work with the Republicans.

[pnwmom]

239. A primary challenge will INCREASE the chances of a Democratic defeat

in the general. History has shown us this, time and time again. How many times do we have to learn this the hard way?

The way to move the country to the left is to move Congress to the left -- strongly. If the Dems control the House and have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, we will have the chance for a strong progressive agenda. As long as we don't, we'll be having to compromise with the far right -- with results no one is unhappy about.

[rainlillie]

240. The anger and frustration is justified...

But we need to take that anger and channel it into something constructive not destructive. It would be destructive to primary Obama and sit the election out. As of now Republicans are only in charge of the House and they're throwing their weight around, can you imagine if they had the White House and the Senate too? Liberals/ Democrats need to step back from the ledge, take a deep breath and calm down. Mistakes are made when people don't think clearly and act out of anger and not out of necessity. The generations that fought before us didn't give up; they didn't take their ball and go home when things didn't go their way. They came back stronger and more determined, with a new approach.


We should keep Obama in place and go after blue dogs and weak Democrats in the House and in the Senate. Elect people who will not only fight the president as hard as the republicans have, but will also work with him on polices that reflect our wants and needs. We need to seek out folks who will make sure that the things we hold dear; like Medicare and Social Security will be protected. For lack of a better phrase, folks who will fight for the "liberal agenda." The president can't and obviously won't do it alone, he needs all the help he can get. Let's take the advice that LBJ gave MLK, when asked to pass the Civil Rights legislation -"Make me do it."

[lindalou65]

241. there is no one who can beat Obama in a primary

I don't think a progressive candidate can gather enough votes to beat Obama and even if he/she did, they could never get elected. They could not draw enough indies and certainly not many Repubs. I don't believe Obama is a bad choice. He is still my number one candidate and even if I like some progressives, I certainly don't see them getting elected. Possibly later on----2016? The repthugs have worked hard to undermine Obama and I, for one, will not give up my support of him. THEY WANT HIM TO FAIL AND WE CANNOT LET THEM SUCCEED! That is their priority. If the Democrats are a divided party, and don't pull together, we can lose. Who can do better? It is always easier to sit on the sidelines and say Kucinich or someone else could do better---I truly doubt it.

[pam4water]

244. I think they want us to go off ourselves. :(

[swilton]

246. Thank you Ken for posting!

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

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

[Jim_Shorts]

249. Just wait until the super duper committee writes a bill

making cuts to SS & Medicare and Obama signs it. People are going to be looking for blood.

Seems to me when it comes to primarying Obama, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, but the whole system is so broken I don't know if it even matters anymore. May as well vote for Roseanne Barr and show how insane the whole process is.

[Historic NY]

257. A primary will insure a puke take the office what part of that isn't understood...

No president primaried has won the office. So I imagine that the aim to bring on total apocalyptic fail....Do you really have someone who would step up.......forget Sanders he isn't a Democrat. Do you think the party would dip into his funds for this ?? Think how FDR felt in 37.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

259. What are you doing to find and organize a primary challenger then?

Just do it already so we can get on with it! If Obama is really so bad, weak, and unable to generate enthusiasm then it should theoretically be easy to find a primary challenger and maybe even win the primary! Why is everybody just sitting around talking about it? Anybody here running? Nearly everybody here seems to know how to do the job better than President Obama. What's the hold-up?

[Number23]

270. I thought someone else killed this thread

Actually you just did.

Why is everybody just sitting around talking about it? Anybody here running? Nearly everybody here seems to know how to do the job better than President Obama. What's the hold-up?

:thumbsup:

[fascisthunter]

263. Third Way Ideological Extremists taking over the Party

like the good little fascists they really are.

No.... you leave, you worms.

[hulka38]

264. I don't care what they want me to do.

I have a few suggestions about what they can do though.

[elleng]

266. Recognize harm of primarying, and keep pressure up on admin.

[Bluebear]

355. They could give a shit about our pressure

[MineralMan]

274. Fix Congress and it will all fall into place.

Strong Democratic majorities in BOTH houses will send the legislation to President Obama, who will gladly sign it. It is the only solution that can possibly work.

[RaleighNCDUer]

387. If he would so 'gladly sign it' why haven't we seen him advocate for it?

He's repeatedly supported blue dogs over progressives; he appoints a 'deficit commission' made up of people who have been wanting to shut down SS for decades; he appoints an economic team straight from the boardroom of Goldman Sachs -WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU SEE A PROGRESSIBE THERE?

Face it - he's NOT on our side.

[JDPriestly]

276. K&R

[truthrocks]

277. I voted for Obama. I admire and respect him. BUT ...

the thought of another 4 years of Obama's unwillingness or inability to deal with the reality that the Rethugs' ONLY priority is to destroy him, is almost too disturbing to contemplate. The Rethugs have openly declared this to be true and their actions are repeatedly consistent with this declaration. That Obama continues to interact with them as if they had another agenda (like the good of the country, let's say)is absolutely pummeling us. The debt ceiling debacle was the final blow for me. Obama has had many chances to step up to the plate and rightfully go head to head with them. Sometimes he even gives a hint of an appropriately forceful response, but then backs off. If O is elected in 2012, the whole dynamic will only escalate. It's like an abusive relationship in which the abusee keeps saying, "Oh, it'll be ok - I'm sure this time it's not gonna happen like before - I trust that it'll be different." What do we do with someone like that? An Intervention, that's what! Obama needs a freaking INTERVENTION!

Yes, it will be a thousand times more destructive if a Rethug gets elected in 2012 and I plan to work my butt off to make sure that never happens! But, perhaps, putting forth a viable primary challenger to Obama would be just the Intervention he needs?

Quote from Ken Burch posting:

"Those who call for a challenge or at least open debate on the party's direction have no agenda other than to try to save this party from defeat and irrelevance."

[swilton]

317. I think your reasoning is sound and I also think

looking at the long term picture, the party could only be stronger for 2016 with such a catharsis.

[Veracious]

284. Convictions be damned... Its about being effective.

If we lose heart now, if we doubt ourselves then, all is lost. The Supreme Court for years, renewable energy initiatives and any hope for progressive change. President Obama very well maybe a moderate conservative, but he is as left as we have. I wish he would have prosecuted the Bushies for torture, and given us a public option, and invoked the 14th Amendment, and fought for Elizabeth Warren's appointment but these are all things possible. If we don't gain heart now and rally behind the president, this guy we all fought so hard for then I guess President Perry, and VP Palin will run the country. Its not about the President its about us and how we are effective. If President Obama was primaried it would hurt his reelection chances. If he loses then we get nothing ZERO, NOTTA. Who could challenge President Obama? Seriously its time to saddle up and ride and quit all the crying. If President Obama loses then we lose its simple. After silly blue dog dems, a record number of filibusters, and an irrational reactionary Tea LOL Party using kamkazi tactics we should wonder about President Obama?

[Ferricadouzer]

290. Bernie Sanders and

nationalisation of all US industries.

[Lorien]

295. Well said Ken. And since Obama''s idea of "bipartisanship" is to give the repugs

98% of what they want and then tell us that we should shut up and just be happy that he didn't give even MORE to them, then I don't see how anyone on the Left can vote for him, knowing that as a lame duck he'll have even less to lose. It's like being told "hey, the hostage takers shot your family and took the cash, but at least they didn't take your microwave too"! Give us SOMETHING to vote FOR, already!

[BigBearJohn]

346. Isn't it amazing what unlimited money can do? Hell, it can even persuade us to vote for Obama AGAIN.

As FDR said,

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

[Taverner]

308. Give up on the White House and work to get progressive local candidates elected

Look - I know Obama has had his moments, but also his failures

He is the best we will get for now

So move on

Elect local candidates who share your progressive ideals

[Proud Liberal Dem]

315. We need him in the WH too

Congress with a President R isn't going to do us much good either.

[Taverner]

364. Well yeah, but by "give up" I mean give up on any hope of it fighting for us

[Proud Liberal Dem]

371. I guess I misunderstood

Still, we can't just expect one person to fight all of our battles for us. When he was first elected/inaugurated, he didn't let the rest of us off the hook in terms of doing our own part in fighting for the change we want.

[Taverner]

372. But he hasn't really fought for anything

Still, move on I say...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

373. He's fought for stuff

It just isn't always 100% to everybody's liking.

[Taverner]

374. Like fought against Single-Payer?

Or fought against raising taxes?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

376. As to your arguments:

a.)He never pledged to fight for single-payer in his Presidential campaign (to my recollection) even though he spoke favorably of it (I believe he was referring to wanting it if we could start all over again). At any rate, it wouldn't have gotten through Congress unless it had a progressive supermajority, which it did not. You can say he's weak for not trying to do something like that but you can also argue that he's just not into fighting battles that are going to be doomed from the start, which is usually prudent given the amount of time Congress has to actually focus on a single issue, particularly when you consider the state of the nation when Obama became POTUS.
b.)He has fought for raising taxes on the wealthy but doesn't have any means of pushing for it at the moment. The Dems made some attempts at removing some subsidies in the previous Congress that were, of course, filibustered by the Repubs in the Senate. He had to swallow the Bush Tax Cuts (for the rich) so that he could get some more unemployment benefits for people and get some other important things done before the end of the last Congress. Was that really such a massively awful deal? :shrug:

[Taverner]

377. Well sounds to me like I should forget Obama fighting for us then...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

383. "us" is who?

I guess if you define "us" to be whatever it is that you define yourself and you don't feel he's fighting for what you think he should be fighting for, then I guess not. To say, plain and simple, he hasn't been fighting for the vast majority of Americans, is inaccurate IMHO.

[Taverner]

384. Um, those of us who aren't independently wealthy nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

385. He loves the wealthy so much

he thinks that they should pay more in taxes and have to be regulated more by the government.

[Taverner]

386. How come their taxes haven't gone up then?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

388. So, what's your theory?

Mine is Congress

[Taverner]

389. Theory? Look I know Obama is the best we will get

We have to accept that

But work to elect local progressives

That is our only trump card

[Proud Liberal Dem]

390. I agree with that 100%

n/t :thumbsup:

[certainot]

310. your father is a whore and your mother is a thief - if you're a liberal

and that's what 1000 think tank coordinated radio stations have been screaming for 20 years with NO response from any organization on the left.

how can anyone evaluate obama's performance without knowing what the right's best weapon is? because of that the democrats play politics without a front line and young and new voters for obama are disappointed.

this is supposed to be a democracy and he isn't a king- unlike the republicans he has to stay in the law and play fair and compromise according to the strength of the opponent which is double because the left ignores the right's best weapon.

a bunch of new voters expecting super obama to waltz into the white billonaires house and kick ass while allowing karl rove's best weapon to beat the crap out of the guy who's back they promised to get. if you think this same republican machine with unchallenged radio dominating mainstream media is going to let you elect dennis kucinich you're fucking crazy.

to me, until the left stops ignoring the radio, most of the obama criticism sounds like it's coming from trolls, politically naive whiners, or strongly principled uncompromising liberals. and there aren't many of the latter.

[RyanPsych]

318. I'm thinking something like Paris circa 1789

minus the blood. Lets behead the plutocracy.

[MadMaddie]

323. I would ask first who is damaging him more

the true opposition or his own team?


I would also refer back to the saying, "there is a time and place to pick your battles". Many of you may get what you want in a primary challenger but what the country will get is a depleted money chest wasted on a challanger. If a Republican wins then you will claim you had nothing to do with it.

You wanted to punish President Obama in 2010 and you punished the country.

There is more at stake then the presidency and it appears many continue to overlook this fact. The Supreme Court is at great risk and if we (note I said we) lose the WH we will lose any chance of correcting the future of this country.

Am I saying we should be happy with everything that President Obama has done? No, we should be angry and we should voice that anger.



What should the party do?

1. Reelect our sitting Democratic President
2. Elect major Progressives to the House and Senate
3. Instead of sitting on our asses start identifying and grooming our 2016 presidential candidate...

If nothing we have learned that it is not always the short game that reaps immediate results, it's the long game......Ask the Republicans how well it's been working for them. This country has turned right for the last 30 years and we have stood by and watched it happen thinking it wasn't a big deal. Well it is a big deal.....

So if you choose to risk our future please, please do not complain when we are living in a Republican dicatorship.

I am not going to quit on my team, you may choose to do so. I am a big sports fan and I have always believed that the supporting cast is as important as the super star even more so.

[a2liberal]

324. K&R (n/t)

[a2liberal]

370. My bad

I forget to rec so I guess that was just a kick

[Name removed]

326. Deleted message

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

[hay rick]

329. "...defeat and irrelevance."

The Obama-led Democratic Party is already irrelevant. Frankly, I do not care if such a party suffers defeat at the hands of an even more repulsive Republican Party and candidate.

A political system that can't do any better than offering a choice between Obama and a Republican is broken. President Perry? The worse the better.

[ImOnOne]

330. Would anyone do me a favor?

Hi, I'm new here and cannot post a thread. Would anyone be willing to start a thread and ask the simple question, do you think the United States should place sanctions on Iran?

Thank you.

[customerserviceguy]

332. While I don't denounce the idea of a primary

for Obama, I just recognize it's impossibility. That's probably a good thing, because if there were a progressive primary candidate who could hit the ground running with just a few months available until primary season, it would suck up a LOT of money that we're going to need to take back Congress.

History's shown, Barack Obama will sign anything that Congress sends to him, we just have to make damned good and sure that he has the best Congress. I shudder to think what might happen if we had both the House and the Senate in Rethug hands.

[TrollBuster9090]

333. I disagree with your second premise. Carter was NOT guaranteed to lose with or without a primary

The challenge from Kennedy indicated that the Democratic party didn't have confidence in Carter. If his own party didn't support him, why should anybody else? Why the hell would independents vote for Carter when his own party thinks he's crap?
Progressives always underestimate the value of team work and support. Amazingly (considering the gaggle of selfish pricks that constitute the conservative movement), Republicans never do, and that's how they manage to kick our asses time and time again.

My opinion, for what it's worth:
Carter would NOT have lost to Reagan had his image not been tarnished by a challenge from his own party, and we wouldn't STILL be living under REAGAN APPOINTEES to the Supreme Court, and Reaganomics trickle-down economics. Weakening the progressive candidate, and handing the bully pulpit to a radical conservative for the next eight years was a terrible mistake.

It's very hard to successfully unseat a sitting Democratic president. Any attempt to primary him would PROBABLY fail, leaving him in place BUT WEAKENED. Weakened enough to let some idiot like Rick Perry win by a razor thin margin, and then we're back to Bush 2.0, and the SEQUEL to that horror movie will be even worse than the original.

Here's the bottom line:

Scalia 75
Kennedy 75
Ginsburg 78
Breyer 72

Four of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s. RUTH GINSBURG IS HANGING ON BY A THREAD!
Whomever is the next president will probably get to make two or three appointments to the Supreme Court.
THOSE APPOINTMENTS WILL BE THERE FOR 30 YEARS!
Challenging Obama will not unseat him. He'll still be the nominee in 2012, but he'll be considerably weakened by the challenge.
Do you want THREE MORE SONYA SOTOMAYORS or THREE MORE SAM ALITOS on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years?
The choice is really that simple.


So, what should progressives do if not challenge Obama for the nomination?
Simple: work to shove the Overton Window back to the left.
Presidents, by their nature, have to run as "centrists." The problem is not that Obama is advocating policies that are what we USED to call "conservative" policies. The problem is that CONSERVATIVE IS THE NEW "CENTER!" How did it get this way? By conservatives loudly boosting conservative ideas, conservative news outlets, conservative think tanks, and funding conservative candidates. (With one notable stumble: namely when they tried to primary George HW Bush because he wasn't conservative enough.) After 30 years of relentlessly doing this, they've succeeded in pushing the Overton Window further to the right. Our job should be to push it back to the left. It's better to push the Overton Window back to the left, where it belongs, than to try to push a sitting Democratic president to the left of where the "center" now lies (for better or for worse).

You do this by:
1. Supporting the hell out of the Congressional Progressive caucus. Boost everything they say and draw attention to every proposal they put out. (alternative progressive budgets, progressive bills etc.)
2. Supporting progressive media outlets like the progressive shows, like Maddow and Shultz on MSNBC and Olbermann on Current TV. GIVE THEM RATINGS! MONEY TALKS!!! (Sadly)
3. Support progressive think thanks like Media Matters, ThinkProgress, MoveOn etc.
4. Support progressive politicians like Sanders, Leahy, Franken, Cucinich, Frank, etc, and work to get MORE of them nominated for House and Senate runs.
5. Encourage the progressive senators and representatives to NEVER YIELD AN INCH on progressive policies.
6. Start making Democratic Congressional nominees sign a Bizarro Norquist pledge in front of witnesses to NEVER CUT SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE.
7. Primary the shit out of Democratic party traitors like BAUCCUS, NELSON and LANDRIEU. Take THEM down in the primaries! If you want to blame the loss of the health care PUBLIC OPTION on somebody, you can blame it as much on them as you can Obama, because, with the Republicans saying no to everything, it only took three "conservative" Democratic senators to scuttle the whole deal. Get rid of them! I'd rather have real Republicans in those states...and the more extreme they are the better. Sure, we'll lose Nelson and Bauccus' seats in the Senate, but we can make up for that by going after RINO's like SNOWE and COLLINS in Maine. Getting rid of high profile "centrist" Democrats like Evan Bayh was a good start!
8. Support the nomination of ELIZABETH WARREN in Mass. She'll take down the male model for sure.
9. Encourage Paul Krugman to run for Senate in New York against Gillibrand.
10. Encourage the Senate to get rid of Harry Reid as Majority Leader. Get somebody more progressive in there. Pelosi is fine for the House, but the Senate could use a stronger dose of progressivism.

In other words, allow the president to play "centrist" by giving him a TRUE left wing to be "to the center" of.

[EndElectoral]

335. Excellent post...what will Obama run on to excite voters? We're better than othe other guys?

It won't work. We need a return to progressive ideals.

Seriously, we now live in a nation going backwards primarily due to globalization and automation.

We're told we can't compete. Well, not if we give up all our hard fought battles with "Gee, willikers, they were nice for the greatest generation folk, but we can't afford them anymore. Oh, and we can't raise taxes on the "job creators" even if those jobs are sent overseas. Oh, and we must cut corporate tax rates because of those damn unions, even if our CEO's are making more as a percentage of the labor force than they ever have. They are the "job creators".

Seriously, we are doomed on more rhetoric of hope, change, and we're better than the alternative arguments. We need really different radical ideals rather than watered down Bush policies.

If people here seriously bleive in polls that show the liberal base ready to turn out en masse for Presidnt Obama in 2012 they are deluding themselves. While most people tell me they will not vote Republican and prefer Obama, most that I talk to also tell me they are disillusioned, and that the promise of hope and change has led to cynicism. Most tell me unless the Republicans nominate a real nutcase like Bachman or Palin, they might sit this one out.

I just don't know what Obama's platform is that he's going to run on. I'd seriously welcome a primary challenge.

[Name removed]

354. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

353. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

366. I have no problems with the primaries all I ask is this...

after the primaries are done and the nomination is selected that we all unite together and get the democrat presidential nominee elected.

[trayfoot]

368. I want progressives to

work just as hard and as enthusiastically for President Obama as they did in 2008! I also want them to try and oust the republicans in Congress who have obstructed progress!

[Major Hogwash]

379. "It can't be progressive to just renominate the incumbent without challenge."

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

I'm laughing in YOUR face!!!!

[AtomicKitten]

381. Pull up your socks, assess the field, and vote.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

391. Well, if you want a primary challenger in 2012

Anybody whom meets the basic requirements for the office may choose to run and legally can't be prevented from doing so. I don't agree with you that Obama is a damaged candidate since nearly all Democrats continue to support him and even those whom claim to disapprove of him now will pull the lever for him in 2012 over whatever clown the GOP puts up.
I also believe that we need all of our resources focused on keeping the WH and Senate, as well as cleaning the teabaggers out of the House. Getting bogged down in a quixotic primary challenge seems like it would cause more trouble for us at a time we can ill-afford it IMHO. If more Democrats were dissatisfied with President Obama, then people calling for a primary might have more of a point but if 80% of Democrats haven't given up on him yet then what exactly would the point of said bid be exactly? :shrug: If the Republicans put up a batshit insane candidate for POTUS (and, let's face it, the GOP is going to shoot itself in the foot), the independents (and maybe even a few Republicans) will come back to President Obama. Let's stay focused on the prize: Returning some semblance to sanity in states overrun by teabaggers, as well as Congress. Why would we want to make it easier for the right to damage the Democratic Party going into a very rough election. 2012 will probably make 2008 look like a picnic.

All this being said, if you still want to nominate somebody (or yourself) to challenge President Obama, nothing nor nobody can legally stop you, so go for it! :shrug: