POLL: If you favor a primary challenge to Obama in 2012 ---

[defendandprotect]

What do you think of the idea of setting up a panel to look for

candidates -- ?


Please also suggest other members of the panel, but perhaps we could ask

Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Rep. Alan Grayson, Actor/Activist Matt Damon --

[polichick]

1. Feingold would be a good choice for the panel, though it's getting late...

...for a challenge.

[defendandprotect]

2. I think that Sen. Bernie Sanders could get this off to a fast start -- he's already done so ...

in some sense in his call two weeks ago on the need for a challenger

to Obama!

[libmom74]

88. Sanders would be my 1st choice as well.

http://draftberniesanders2012.org/

[defendandprotect]

121. .. and what do you think of Ed Schultz --- ?

[libmom74]

128. I like him on

labor issues.

[defendandprotect]

131. Here's a fuller idea on the panel ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1739418&mesg_id=1747645

And, of course WOMEN's groups and LABOR should be included --

I don't even know who the feminist leaders are any longer since I presume

Ellie Smeal left the stage --

And, certainly our unions have only been engaged in a downward spiral -- and they too

have frequently been infiltrated by Mafia -- and certainly not to benefit the union

or the workers!!


Love James Galbraith -- did you read his comments to the "Cat Food Commission" -- ??

and love Wm. Greider -- who has been trying to tell us what's going on for decades!!


And just want to comment how much I agree on Ed Schultz and his coverage of the Wisconsin

fight back has been terrific. Don't always catch him on TV, but do try to catch him on radio.


It's frightening how so many politicians have been removing the masks!! Thinking of Cuomo!

And John Kerry -- !!

[libmom74]

139. Do you think the individuals you listed

would be intersted in forming a panel? More and more I am sensing labor unions especially are fed up with the Obama administration and would welcome a primary challenge. What do you think of Van Jones? Did you catch his key note speech at the Rebuild the Dream event?

[defendandprotect]

140. Sen. Bernie Sanders has made it clear he would like to see a challenger come forward --

and Michael Moore as well --

Think many are beginning to express that view --

and kind of waiting to see how others feel about it, but if we really want

to do this I think we have to more actively try to find a candidate --

I don't know if any of these people would think the panel idea is a good idea --


And, again, as I related the panel is just the skeleton of it -- these members

would have to be expanded somewhat in order to contact various groups and get

this done in time -- HOWEVER, all primary panel members would have to be people

we feel we can absolutely trust --


As far as their contacting groups for feedback and picking up names ...

I don't really think it has to be a list narrowed down -- I think we just need

to pick up a lot of names and see which are the most often repeated throughout

the groups --


And I would continue to stress tha twe need two strong anti-war candidates -- !!


Since 111 DU'ers think the panel isn't a bad idea, I would go ahead now and try

to get the suggestion to some of these people -- originally I think with e-mail

-- and then phone calls?


If you have any suggestions on that -- how to go about this -- I'd be happy to hear it --

I'll try to get it to Schultz, as well --

Maybe Olbermann --

Needless to say, Bernie Sanders -- Michael Moore --


And, of course, we have to expect that these people would extend themselves to trying

to contact other groups -- women, environmentalists, etal --

Think most people would take a phone call from Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore!!

So -- I'll try to get the idea out there and see what happens.



:)


OH -- AND PICKED THIS UP TODAY -- GUESS WHO LEADS THE LIST OF PEOPLE AS A CHALLENGER?

http://www.stophoping.org/

YOU CAN VOTE THERE FOR YOUR FAVORITE CHALLENGER

[ooglymoogly]

171. Ed Shultz is smarter than most, but has no experience

and does not have the over the top I.Q. that Grayson and FDR has and had which IMO is just what we need right now. I think Sanders is way up there and so is Gore. The crackers from the south appear to have I.Q's baked in by the lower summer temperatures and except for the extensive and blatant cheating, lying, and bullying, should be easy to beat. I know, the pug thug cheating machine is huge and is a formidable challenge and has "won" (spelled stolen) more elections than any of us realize or care to face or examine, as we would then have to admit, out loud, that we no longer live in anything even remotely resembling a democracy.

[defendandprotect]

175. I'll give up Schultz, if you give up Gore - ???? :evilgrin:

But I think it's undeniable that Sanders is the overall favorite -- !!!

Some hee are very frightened of Perry winning!! I don' get it --

unless of course it's a steal -- and I agree with you on the odds of that!!

[Creideiki]

85. Feingold will be runnable in 2016 once he has been governor of Wisconsin a while.

I think he's staying out of everything eyeing the recall of Walker.

[cascadiance]

142. +1 - I think he with senator Elizabeth Warren in 2016 would be ultimate progressive ticket then

.. that would get the populist vote out for sure then and be the full revolution we seek when both Feingold and Warren will have had a term of those two offices respectively to pick up experience and credentials before that election.

The question for 2012 now would be the immediate question...

[cascadiance]

143. ...

(ignore duplicate post)

[Creideiki]

156. Conventional wisdom says that it's too early to announce for 2016

And it might hurt a gubernatorial run in Wisconsin, as people generally don't want their governors to view the office as a stepping stone.

However, Obama is such a disappointment to progressives that even starting rumors now can help keep us engaged with the Democratic Party.

[Fearless]

3. I don't need panels, just get candidates out there and let us move on.

[defendandprotect]

4. OK -- name a candidate --

[Fearless]

6. There are plenty of people I'd like to see as candidates... there are no candidates yet...

I would love to see:

Al Gore
Alan Grayson
John Kerry
Bernie Sanders

and probably several more if I thought about it...

However, what I was saying is that people should take the initiative and run. If I like their POV then I would support them. Currently I do not like the POV's of any of our presidential candidates, Obama or (obviously) the Republican goon squad.

[RC]

9. Scratch John Kerry. He had his chance and we saw how that went.

[Fearless]

15. And Gore did not?

This is what the Democratic Party DOES ALL THE TIME. We should be looking at content and not the past. Both are strong progressives. Particularly Gore as of late.

[defendandprotect]

50. Gore is really better ....

outside of the party than he ever was inside of it --

Consider that he co-founded the DLC with Clinton --

And while he obviously knew that Koch Bros was a major funder of DLC --

plus Pfizer and Chevron -- he listened to DLC in 2000 admonishing him not

to make populist speeches!! So he stopped.

Later he realized that in large part costs him many votes and he resigned from DLC.


And, yes, his Rolling Stone article pointing to our Goebbels' style corporate-press

and making clear that "Our Congress is under control of oil and coal industries" is

brilliant -- but this has been going on a long time and never heard Gore say that before!

PLUS, obviously he knew Lieberman well having served in Congress with him --

and still he took him on as VP?????

[ooglymoogly]

76. If Gore ran I would support him with all I have got.

I would go into debt for him.

[defendandprotect]

79. Well, I respect you for your determination ... and maybe it would work this time around?

[ooglymoogly]

122. My first preference is Alan Grayson

then Bernie Sanders and Al Gore or any combination of the three.

Of the three Gore has the best chance of winning.

Allan Grayson is the smartest of the three IMO and would be a redux of FDR;

though Bernie and Gore are close behind.

I would go to the mat for any of the three with hopes of an AG like Elliot Spitzer, to take down the crime cartels, who have blatantly bought our government to plunder everything in sight and turn the government against its own people.

[defendandprotect]

126. Agree --

Evidently the corporate pressure on Dems is so intense as to be keeping them

from citicism of Obama -- with Pelosi and Conyers two notable exceptions with

strong comments -- and from anyone announcing any opposition to him -- ????


It's occurred to me since I put the poll together that you really need input from

a variety of circles feeding back to the panel --


Political --

Anti-War --

Hollywood --

Health -- Nurses and Doctors who now support universal health care

Citizen polls -- just asking who they'd like to see run

Environmentalists --

[RC]

62. Well, when you get ruled against by the Supreme Court, that is the end of the line.

Kerry just walked away the day after the elections, while the votes were still being counted.

[defendandprotect]

63. It should have been the end of the line for the public -- should have been rebellion ....

but the public seems to wait in front of their TVs trusting that the anchor

or news reader will let them know if there's anything to really be upset about!!!


Agree re Kerry --


:nuke:

[ooglymoogly]

124. after begging his donors for money to place attorneys at polling places

and guard the vote count. Nope, beyond senator he does not have my support.

[ooglymoogly]

173. Speaking of Kerry not Gore who fought to the end of the line.

Kerry buckled at the first hint of a fight. Kerry in my opinion is a fair weather democrat.

[defendandprotect]

11. OK on Grayson and Sanders ....

Kerry is at least DLC if not Third way and is also calling for changes

and/or cuts in entitlements --

PLUS both he and Gore have been through this before and have failed to fight back

on their alleged "loses" --

Gore also gave us Lieberman -- !!! That would have been great!

Gore is better out of office than he is in office!!


Agree re Dems taking the "initiative and run" -- HOWEVER, why would we want a bunch

of pre-bribed and pre-owned Dems self-selecting and confusing things?



Remember that both Michael Moore and Ralph Nader backed Obama -- !!!

So we have something very wrong in our selection process -- indeed, we are being given

the candidates who corporations want us to vote for -- whom they are backing.

And even that isn't working out entirely for them -- evidently they feel the need to

bring all their riches to the political arena -- i.e., Citizens United!!


If you look at the POLL also notice that 4 or 5 responders are saying that Obama is

so heavily corporate-backed that we shouldn't even bother -- just surrender!!


Actually, we may need something more like a voters' strike where we all PLEDGE to NOT

vote for any candidate who IS BACKED BY CORPORATE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!! ????


:evilgrin:

[Fearless]

16. I would be fine with any kind of popular uprising...

In general even. Corporations are holding too much power and that needs to be changed now.

[defendandprotect]

22. Agree -- :) n/t

[ooglymoogly]

127. I disagree about Al Gore

He fought right up to the supreme court and that constitutionally is the last battle. I thought he should NEVER have conceded even then and should have caused a constitutional crisis, calling the Supreme court out for irregularities and criminality and overstepping its constitutional boundaries, through the bully pulpit he had at the time. Not sure what would have happened then, but then that is how history and great men are made.

Kerry is another kettle of fish that now has the stink of rotting capitulating at the first sign of battle, so in my book he is out and with extreme prejudice. The other three, many of us seem to agree on, I agree with.

[defendandprotect]

133. Not exactly .... Gore called off the protesters in Miami-Dade County ....

Jesse Jackson had gone done there to give leadership for either a new

election vs the "butterfly ballots" or to have the votes assigned from Buchanan to Gore --

There was a rather large protest growing -- as I understand it Gore sent

Jackson home --

And, when word came down from "elites" allegedly, he didn't go any further --

Elites didn't want a lot of noise on the Dem Party side --


Right about John Kerry who is also DLC/New Dem/Third Way -- and also has put Social Security

and Medicare "on the table."


One thing I would say for sure is we need the public to understand that no one

has made the Supreme Court the final arbiter on all Constitutional issues!!

That's just being taken for granted, it seems!!


:hi:

[defendandprotect]

150. k/r

[No Elephants]

95. Kerry-Charter Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition (Edwards, too!)

The New Democrat Coalition was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (California), Jim Moran (Virginia) and Timothy J. Roemer (Indiana) as a congressional affiliate of the avowedly centrist Democratic Leadership Council, whose members, including former President Bill Clinton, call themselves "New Democrats." <s
The Senate New Democrat Coalition was founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana), Bob Graham (Florida), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), and Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas).<2> <snip>

<snip> Many in the Democratic Party's left-wing criticize the group, however, accusing it of ignoring social justice and the poor.

Much more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition#Disaffiliated_members


See also: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252427&kaid=131&subid=192

[defendandprotect]

117. "New Dems" and "Third Way" are offshoots of DLC ... and are RW ... not centrist -- !!

We also have Kerry out now also putting Social Security/Medicare on the table!!

[No Elephants]

93. As far as anyone now in Congress, I wll be glad for any candidate who

voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Other than that, I think any challenger who is not tied to the DLC, the New Democrats, the Third Way, No Labels or their policies would also be fine.

[defendandprotect]

118. Was just mulling over the fact that I've never seen a poll asking citizens who they'd like

to see run for president --

Maybe it happens -- but I've never seen one!

Would think there would be regular citizens polls on that question --

and I don't mean feeding names to the public -- I mean asking the question

and letting them respond.

[spanone]

5. brilliant, let's splinter the dem party right at election time...fucking brilliant

[Fearless]

7. Brilliant, let's all become Republicans to protect party unity!!11!

:banghead:

"Party names mean nothing. The tradition of liberty means all. The common people will let it go, oh yes. They will sell liberty for a quieter life. That is why they must be prodded, prodded—"

— A Clockwork Orange

[Kurmudgeon]

12. I'm sure the Republicans will love you when help them back into the White House.

However, expect to get bent over, HARD, like always.

[defendandprotect]

14. Right -- letd's encourage Democrats to be frightened rabbits -- "run away, run away" -- !!!

[Kurmudgeon]

24. I'm sure you will have plenty of excuse when the next GOPer is elected.

[defendandprotect]

39. This is a liberal nation -- GOP will only get elected if DEM voters stay home ....

which is the threat in another Obama candidacy!!

[ooglymoogly]

72. That's right, '0' cannot win re-election.

The people of this country are starving for an FDR Democrat. If we do not provide one, a pug will win in November. The folks of this country are fed up with fake Democrats. Witness the last elections when bluedogs lost half their number and we lost elections we should have won because "leadership" supported bluedogs and third wayers. We have a good slate to choose from, any one of them will do, if they just throw their hat in the ring. Bernie has an exploratory group now operating. "Draft Bernie Sanders"....Grayson is waiting for grassroots support before he commits, a dangerous step for any politician. The present leadership is very vindictive and their support will go only to bluedog third wayers.

[defendandprotect]

81. .. and thank you for the additional info ....

Didn't know about this ....

Bernie has an exploratory group now operating. "Draft Bernie Sanders"....

Grayson is waiting for grassroots support before he commits, a dangerous step for any politician.

The present leadership is very vindictive and their support will go only to bluedog third wayers.

The constitution is the red line in the sand. Cross it and I will fight you with every


Love the idea of Bernie Sanders running on a Dem ticket -- or dual ticket --


The candidate would have to be a very WHITE HAT obvious to anyone who heard the name --

vs the GOP BLACK HAT --


We need two strong anti-war candidates --

Also actively supporting univeral health care --


:)

[Kurmudgeon]

99. Where were you from 2000 thru 2008? It was hardly a liberal nation then.

[defendandprotect]

119. Did you miss the steals in 2000 and 2004?

Or maybe you missed that after the nation gave Obama a landslide mandate in 2008

-- probably even biggeer than was reported as some say we should have had 24 more

Reps in the House based on the size of the vote -- that Obama proceeded to throw

away the mandate in favor of resurrecting the GOP from the ashses?


There is only one way the RW can rise and that via political violence --

and we've had more than 50 years of that here in US!!

[Donnachaidh]

96. why? This administration has already done that quite well

Capitulation to republicans and aiding and abetting the tearing down of the Social safety net has already shown that giving a second term is just as dangerous as voting in a republican.

The only difference is Dems will be called whiners when he hands more of our money and rights to the corporate owners.

[defendandprotect]

120. Exactly --- and some are making the Supreme Court argument ....

in fact Thom Hartmann has been doing that --

but if you can't trust Obama on universal health care or the wars or

Patriot Act or tax cuts for the rich -- wiretapping -- oil drilling in

Gulf and Arctic -- subsidizing a new generation of nukes in US --


how could we trust him with Supreme Court appointees --

What Obama has made clear is that he is only moving further and further to the right -- !!



:hi:

[Fearless]

18. Obama is already acting Republican. And don't knock getting bent over until you've tried it.

:rofl:

[Kurmudgeon]

25. Maybe if you can't tell the difference between subservience and assault, maybe you should stay home.

I'm sure the Republicans will thank you for your support, and think the same about you as always.

[Fearless]

28. The difference between allowing preventable assault and assaulting?

Either way we'll have a chance to elect a real Democrat in 2016. If Obama wins, we will elect a Republican in 2016 because the sheeple will think that Democrats screwed the country up.

[LooseWilly]

84. A detail that bears consideration and repeating...

"If Obama wins, we will elect a Republican in 2016 because the sheeple will think that Democrats screwed the country up."

Given that a recent NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/politics/14econ.html?pagewanted=all) summed up Obama's plan for the economy as:

... Administration officials, frustrated by the intransigence of House Republicans, have increasingly concluded that the best thing Mr. Obama can do for the economy may be winning a second term, with a mandate to advance his ideas on deficit reduction, entitlement changes, housing policy and other issues.

... securing a second term so he can push through the cuts in Social Security, Medicare and overall spending that the Republicans blocked this time around...

A second term is looking increasingly bleak, to say the least.

[Kurmudgeon]

98. If you want liberal bills sent to the White House, Get some Dems into Congress.

[defendandprotect]

115. Corporate Dems aren't any more liberal ....

than our corporate president --

[defendandprotect]

13. +A ZILLION --!!!

:rofl: -- :rofl: --

Unbelievable, isn't it!!

[Lorien]

49. +1,000. I will NOT vote for members of the DINO party who are repugs to their core

The push to the extreme Right needs to stop NOW. Voting for the status quo then being unhappy about what we get for that is insane. WE need to be the change that our Nation needs!

[defendandprotect]

134. As though Koch Bros. DLC infiltrating the party didn't split it -- !!

Just 20 years of Koch Bros. DLC influencing the party, its agenda and its

candidates -- including its presidential candidates!


:nuke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. But..but...that would be too democratic!

Shouldn't we just let the bosses decide who the best candidate is? It's the American way.

[man4allcats]

10. I'm up for the primary challenge, but I'm not sure I like the idea of a panel.

It seems we're always thinking in terms of a small group to represent us, a group that, for all we know, may be influenced by people with agendas. Why not just have a national poll? Send in your vote. Winning candidate gets it. Could the people do worse than the corporatists that currently run the show? It might be argued that a lot of common folk thought Bush was a good idea, but you know, we're not Republicans. We do have brains. For my own part, I'd be in favor of Kucinich, Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson at least. I could probably come up with some other names if I thought about it. I don't know too much about Damon, but if he thinks anything like his character in "Good Will Hunting," I'd at least have to consider him.

[defendandprotect]

17. Kucinich should definitely be on the panel ---

We need to make it clear that there is a CALL OUT for challengers --

and that we want to encourage challengers and back challengers --


HOWEVER, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT PRE-BRIBED AND PRE-OWNED DEMOCRATS TO

BEGIN TO SELF-SELECT THEMSELVES .... DO WE?

[man4allcats]

26. I agree we don't want DINOs to be able to self-select.

I would want Kucinich's name in the hat, but not as a panel member if being on the panel would preclude his being selected as the nominee. Again, he's not the only one I consider a good choice, but he's certainly one of them. If being on the panel precluded being the nominee and Kucinich, Sanders and Grayson were all on the panel, it might be like shooting ourselves in the foot. On the other hand, I wouldn't want it assumed that getting on the panel was a pit stop on the way to the nomination. I'm not sure how best to handle that part of it. I still like the direct approach sans the panel, but I'm open to other ideas.

[defendandprotect]

40. Think anyone is eligible to be drafted --

I love Kucinich -- but, he's been in already and we saw what happened --

unfairly, but it did happen!!

To be fair it also happened to other populist Dems who weren't gold-plated

with corporate money in their campaigns -- and btw 80% of that goes to MSM

for ads!

[man4allcats]

45. I agree, but I think all it proves

is that the corporate model is faulty; not the populist Dems as realistic candidates. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I think that, not only at the electoral level but also at the level of a socioeconomic model, it's time to reject the corporate/capitalistic approach. It's not working, and if it ever did, it never did so in any way that might be considered moral. There's that old saying, "Do something, even if it's wrong." I think it's time we did something, and I believe one thing we must do is to claim a populist approach at every level. Similar ideas were killed off in the early years of the 20th century, but that was then. This is now, and now people are seeing that capitalism is failing. I think it's time to try teaching that old populist dog some new tricks.

[defendandprotect]

59. Exactly -- Capitalist/corporate model is finished ---

Capitalism is dead -- we just haven't buried it yet --

If the nation actually PLEDGED to not vote for any candidate who is taking corporate

$$$ -- what might happen?

Or any candidate supporting these wars? 80% of the public wants an end to the wars!!

Or any candidate who isn't giving their full support to MEDICARE FOR ALL ?


Henry Wallace's EPIC program is interesting to look at -- that was California --

might be some ideas there for us --

But when we're getting pushed around by the aggression and violence of the corporates

we see what happened to Wallace as he was pushed out -- and left office 4 months before

FDR died -- and in the change up, Truman got the spot!!

[man4allcats]

90. I think it will get very ugly.

I wish it were possible to just, as a nation, vote ourselves back into a rebirth of the New Deal, but regrettably I don't think we can. I'm now reading Zinn's A People's History of the United States (I'm sure you've read it, but I include the link for those who have not and may wish to), and as I read I note with sadness that in almost every case where the people seriously challenged business, government (state and/or federal) brought in troops or police and opened fire. The spilling of blood was standard operating procedure when it came to protecting corporate profits and the means of production. Even when other options were readily available, shots were fired, heads were busted and people often served long prison sentences for having exercised First Amendment free speech rights in defense of labor.

Unions were supposed to alleviate the violence of the strikes by getting grievances resolved through arbitration, but in today's deregulated post-PATCO business climate, management feels tougher and perhaps more aggressive than ever. If they were willing to rely on government for muscle back in the early part of the 20th century, I've no doubt they will do so now if we rise and stand against them and their failing enterprises that put us all in jeopardy. "What might happen?" is a valid question, and I think we know the answer. It's happened before. I'm not a religious person, but in a secular sense I pray now for us all, a prayer perhaps to whatever goodness and decency may be left in the human spirit to bring us all to a more civilized and humane view of life.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. One quick question - I was not familiar with Wallace and the EPIC program (I note that Zinn mentions him - I'm not quite that far yet), but with regard to EPIC, I assume you're referring to End Poverty in California, correct? I'd like to research it so as to follow through with your suggestion that it might be worth a look.

[defendandprotect]

109. True --

but eventually you have to fight back -- and I don't mean use violence --

even if it's only for the sake of your children or the planet?

The challenges to government did end slavery -- and did end Segregation --

and eased some of the oppression of women here in states --

and the battle waged by gays/lesbians for human rights and civil rights has

been largely successful -- and non-violent --


Granted, with the rise of the right we have seen a rise of violence and renewal

of attacks on unions and wages, renewed exploitation of women and children in

sexual slavery -- that's typical of the rise of the right.


And, of course, the right can only rise via violence and we've had more than 50

years of rw political violence --


Loved Howard Zinn -- and evidently he was a neighbor of Matt Damon's -- who has

been mentioned as being one possibility for president ---

And yes, it is EPIC in CA which I was speaking of -- though it's been some time

since I looked at it --

but, it also comes to mind as we consider peak oil and the need to unite as

communities again --

and, of course, re Global Warming --


Think we are all in for some huge waking up -- !!!


:hi:

[Synicus Maximus]

61. Of course the Repubs would not vote in the poll to insure we pick the

least electable candidate.

[defendandprotect]

67. You mean this poll?

[Warren DeMontague]

19. If people want to run, let 'em run. That's why we have primaries.

A "panel". Give me a break. While you're at it, why don't you form an exploratory committee to dither as to who could be on the panel. Then, convene a consciousness raising group of authoritative experts to consider all the pros and cons of who should form the exploratory committee.

When you disappear completely into your own navel, you WIN!

[shellgame26]

20. My vote: UNREC

[CakeGrrl]

21. What is this, a Primary Super Committee?

Why do you need to go looking?

If the destruction of the Democratic Party was as imminent has has been claimed, why aren't people CLAMORING to come forth and save it?

[defendandprotect]

23. Did the public "clamor" in 2010 or did they just stay home -- ? Think about it --!!

[CakeGrrl]

27. I'm not talking about the public. I'm talking about these mystery primary challengers.

The two who have publicly supported the IDEA of a challenge have no intention of actually doing it themselves.

My point is this: For all the destruction some people think President Obama is wreaking on the Democratic Party, where is the moral imperative of someone willing and able to assume the Presidency to stop him from doing so?

[defendandprotect]

34. Think there is a need to show that there is a serious effort underway ....

to find a candidate --

I LOVE CANDIDATES WHO REFUSE TO DO IT THEMSELVES ....

ALL THE MORE REASON FOR WANTING THEM TO DO IT!!


We have lots of people with "moral imperative" who want to stop the president --

we need a candidate we can trust to back and get it done --


Remember when DU and voters thought that Obama had "moral imperative" -- !!!!



:evilgrin:


:nuke:

[JI7]

29. so who is going to make this suggestion ? and how are you going to get Sanders, Grayson and Damon

to participate.

this is why all the primary challenge threads are a joke. it's just people looking for attention and wanting to go off on whatever without doing any real work.

i mean, do you really think Sanders is going to agree to some panel on getting a primary challenge to Obama ?

you will complain about those who are opposed to a primary challenge and most of your anger seems to be at those people. but those people aren't legally preventing you from doing it.

[defendandprotect]

35. Let's see who thinks it's a good idea, first --!! An idea you're against, btw -- !!!

People are just looking for attention?

We don't have millions suffering here with no health care because Obama trampled

it in back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry -- and then

Koch Bros.DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" about Obama having done that -- saying how

"grateful" business should be to Obama!!! :nuke:


80% of the public want an end to the wars -- Obama is ignoring the will of the people --

but we just want attention -- :nuke:

76% of the public - 83% of Catholics -- want single payer, government run health care!

Obama is not only ignoring the will of the people, he's crushing it!! :nuke:


This nation -- and internationally -- people are opposed to these wars which Obama is

taking into the second decade -- !!


We have Global Warming which urgently equires shutting down the use of fossil fuels --

yet we have Obama/MIC in the ME to control OIL --

Not to mention increased Obama drilling in Gulf and Arctic -- :nuke:


We have Fukushima while Obama is still pushing a new generation of nuclear power plants

here in the US -- :nuke:


BUT, HONESTLY ... NONE OF THAT IS ANY BOTHER OR ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT --

WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR ATTENTION!!


:rofl: -- if it wasn't so sad!

[JI7]

37. see, this is why you aren't taken seriously with the primary crap

you gave no serious answer to what i asked. instead you arej ust pissy because you were called on rather than just given a rec and agreed with.

[defendandprotect]

41. You are AGAINST the idea -- however, presume the usual means of contact ...

phone, letter, e-mail --

If Bernie Sanders liked the idea, presume he could put the word out to others --


And, pitiful that you don't think the issues I raised are "serious" ---

[JI7]

46. i don't think you are serious about them

you really think SAnders is going to be on some panel to pick someone to run against Obama ?

[defendandprotect]

48. Right ... nor is the nation serious about WAR or MEDICARE FOR ALL -- !!!

Keep dreaming --

[CakeGrrl]

57. Agreed. This isn't realistic.

Grayson seems reasonably accessible.

Has anyone straight-up tried to contact him or Sanders and ask point-blank what he thinks of this idea?

[Karmadillo]

30. This is not a good idea.

It is a great idea. It would allow those in the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party to come together to assess the strengths of various candidates and develop an effective strategy for publicizing a genuine Democratic response to the current crisis instead of the Republican lite to heavy approach the administration is currently taking. In addition, the publicity generated by the coverage of a panel would create instant publicity for any candidate willing to run. While one would hope any effort would result in a liberal winning the nomination, the Democratic Wing of the party would still benefit from a primary. It would be able to promote and hone its ideas in a challenging contest and supporters would be mobilized to support candidates from the Democratic Wing in the next midterms and the next presidential election. Sitting back and waiting for the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party to lead us to the promised land is certainly not working out very well.

[defendandprotect]

78. +1 ---

We have 65 votes for the panel -- and no recs!!

But I'm thinking that a panel may be a good approach -- unless someone contributes

a more constructive idea -- plus it gives us pressure on the party from outside the

party.

I think Bernie Sanders is serious about looking for a candidate -- and certainly

many others are, as well --

Michael Moore -- and many others --


Granted the money and megaphones will be on the side of the corporate/fascists --

so we have to have someone who is an obvious WHITE HAT running against the BLACK HAT --

corporate candidate!!


The candidate would have to carry a very strong liberal -- and anti-war -- and

pro universal health care identity ---



Now all we have to do is find that candidate!!!



Thanks for your comments!


:)

[upi402]

31. panel, as long as it doesn't get populated by corporatists as always. n/t

[defendandprotect]

32. Object is to get people like Sanders, Grayson, Michael Moore on the panel ....

to ensure that we don't pick up corporatists --

especially corporatist-Democrats -- Koch Bros. DLC/third way Dems --

and it was amazing that Kerry came out a week or so unveiling his desire to

change/cut "entitlements" -- !!!


We need a lot of people involved who are familiar with the records -- this is the

job that the party itself used to do before they opened it up to corporations to

pick our candidates, by FINANCING THEM!! When do we get to pick the board members

for these corporations?


Also -- keep in mind how many "zipper problems" we've had with Clinton and Edwards --

these are the problems that used to get weeded out in those smoke filled rooms under

control of Dem party -- !!

[defendandprotect]

33. What ever happened to Kweisi Mfume, who used to head the NAACP....?

He'd be good on a panel like this --

This time around, I'd keep in mind the joke about the woman buying the chicken --

remember that one?

We'd really, really have to know what we were buying this time around!!

[upi402]

38. I was in one of those smoke-filled rooms fighting against Clinton's nomination

and we were squelched by party bosses blinded by big money. Brown's delegates were stolen and attributed to Clintoon. I'm done with that crap. Pointless due to corruption.

my .02

[defendandprotect]

43. Agree re Jerry Brown ---

in fact, I was a delegate for him --

However, the smoke-filled rooms were over long before Clinton ---

I think ... ???!!!

[Divine Discontent]

36. at some point, progressives have to stand against the capitulations of each Dem president, the

question is, when is the time? If we, in such a horrible economic state, push for a primary candidate to run and it harms Obama even more, and Obama still wins the primaries but loses the general, what horrible candidate from their side are we gonna be stuck with for 4-8 years?
UGH... such a mess. President Obama really could secure his re-election if he just fought hard for the people, it's as simple as that.

[defendandprotect]

44. "President Obama really could secure his re-election if he just fought hard for the people" --

Sadly, Obama has clearly shown that he will fight for corporations/elites --

not the people --

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

Now, we can vote for more of the same or we can decide not to vote on FEAR-BASED

thinking -- which will only move the party further to the righ and the Congress

further to the right --

We want "backbone" from Congress -- I'd say it's about time the voters decided

to show some courage!!

[JoePhilly]

42. Oh this is RICH ...

Why not get this list of awesome folks working on 2016??

That MIGHT make sense ... but you think you can SELECT this "super panel", and draft a candidate in 6 to 8 months?

And then get the funding to make that candidate relevant?

And then let's imagine that Obama crushes that candidate in the fantasy primary ... then what does the angry left do? Are they MORE energized to help Obama? Or do they feel defeated, even more angry, and simply stay home?

The folks who want a primary have 2 problems ... (1) You have no candidate, (2) if you had one, Obama would STILL win the nomination.

Yes, yes ... I know that the FANTASY has this mythical primary challenger WINNING. This mystery person beats Obama AND the GOP nominee.

But that is all very highly unlikely ... most likely, the primary challenger gets their ass kicked by Obama, the angry left stays home. Obama loses, and the rest of the Democratic party blames the LEFT.

Lose Lose Lose ... except for the GOP, for them it is win win win.

[NeedleCast]

148. Exactly

This post should have put this thread to rest.

[Lorien]

47. Recced to zero. Those little corporate foot soldiers have been busy today! nt

[defendandprotect]

56. 50 votes for the panel -- and not one rec -- !!!

THIS is certainly a subject the pro-corporates here don't want to see raised!!

[swilton]

51. Great Idea!

Although I voted 'good idea' - we'll end up having to draft someone....But there is power through the people. Plus lots and lots of events/opportunities happening in the fall - ANY OF THESE FORA would be great places to discuss primary candidates.

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.

[defendandprotect]

54. Wondering where the women's groups are on this ... ???

They're certainly also dumped under the bus --

Well, they're dumped under the bus and run over!!!

They'd be nuts to stick with Obama --

[No Elephants]

97. I like October 6, 2011 in D.C. And, if people cannot get to D.C. that day, organize something at

your state capitol or your city hall or town hall or whatever.


Plenty of time to prepare, notify media, etc.

[defendandprotect]

116. +1 --

[Historic NY]

52. Just start your own party....I'm sure you can come up with a billion.

[defendandprotect]

55. Or we can take the party back from Koch Bros. DLC ... !!! Whatever's left of it --!!!

[Raine]

53. GREAT Idea! nt

:kick: :thumbsup:

[woo me with science]

58. Kicked and recommended.

I am open to any good ideas for drafting a real Democrat to run against these corporatists.

[Karmadillo]

60. Rec'd to 0. This would be a good post to keep kicked for a day or two.

nt

[defendandprotect]

65. 54 votes for a panel and not one rec !!!! Certainly a subject some want NOT to be discussed!!!

:evilgrin: --

[Autumn]

64. I think it would be a great idea

I agree with the 3 you listed but I would add Al Gore too.

[defendandprotect]

66. We need suggestions ... we need 2 strong ANTI-WAR candidates ... !!!

We have huge liberal votes against the wars --

Huge liberal votes for MEDICARE FOR ALL --


What's kind of worrisome is how much liberal leadership has been suppressed --

not only here in America, but someone was commenting on this the other day

re GB -- Europe in general!! It's frighteningly true!


Who are the anti-war leaders of today -- I don't even have a clue --

but I do know that Obama is about to take us into the second decade of these wars!!

[Autumn]

68. The anti-war leaders seem to be missing in action

The last one I heard that was protesting was Daniel Ellsberg when he was arrested at the White House.

[defendandprotect]

70. Well, there's one prominent name -- !!!

I'm wondering if Tom Hayden is still active -- doubt the corporate-press covers

him much -- !!


:evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

69. Tim Kaine was right. The only primary challenge to Obama will come from the fringe...nt

Sid

[mazzarro]

102. Is this the former DNC Chairman?

Oh for goodness sake, he helped emasculate the democratic party that Howard Dean built up!

[McCamy Taylor]

71. Corporate money won in 2010 with Citizens United. All we get to do now is pick which

corporate candidate is least offensive. I am still sticking with the Democratic incumbent, unless some more electable Democrat comes along, maybe one supported by a SuperPac of ice cream, video games and porn. The world would be a better place with more ice cream, video games and porn.

[defendandprotect]

74. Or -- we can pledge NOT to vote for any candidate funded by corporations -- ???

Or any candidate who isn't actively supporting MEDICARE FOR ALL -- !!

Or any candidate who isn't against the WARS for control of oil in ME -- !!


But that would mean not being frightened of corporate/fascists so guess

that's not going to happen -- !!



:evilgrin:

[democrank]

73. What we should be setting up

is the mechanism by which the progressive wing of the Democratic Party can be heard over the din of the party corporatists.

For years progressives (from the Paul Wellstone wing of the Democratic Party) have been laughed at, spit on, taken for granted and muted like our ideas for social and economic justice were just some kind of lunatic fringe nonsense. (Read some of DLCer Al From`s old memos.) We`ve been treated like freaks within our own party because we marched against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and because we believe affordable health care is a basic human right. We`re apparently fringe-y because we are against torture and fringe-y because we`re pro-union. We`re fringe-y because we didn`t accept Obama`s foot-dragging and demanded action on DADT. I could go on and on and on about our fringey-ness.....outsourced jobs, boarded-up factories,back room deals with Big Pharma,crumbling infrastructure, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Apparently we`re still supposed to contribute to and vote for Obama even though he has shown next to zero consideration for anything we hold dear. What`s that definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over and over but expecting a different result?

Our vote is an equalizer, our very own counterbalance to the big-donor mentality that has our party by the throat. Obama has not earned my vote again because I don`t just automatically hand it off...regardless of broken promises...as is instructed by party insiders.

The mechanism by which to be heard. That`s what we need. If the support is there, the candidate will eventually follow. If all those Hope and Change people who stand for social and economic justice stayed home in 2012, someone would sit up and take notice. As it stands now, our "leaders" have been shown that they can cave in and sell out and nothing happens to them. Nothing.

[defendandprotect]

77. They may hate liberals .... but they still want their $$$$$$$$$$ ...

We can fight to be heard in a corporate party, but I don't think it will work --

think we have to act from outside of it --

And, after 20 years of Koch Bros. DLC infiltrating and influencing the party and its

candidates, I don't know what's left of the party?

Imo, Al From is the freak --


Trust someone else will give some thought to a "mechanism" by which we can be heard in

the party -- but I think it's much like trying to deal with out Goebbels' style corporate-

press?

Especially, imo, that there is very little resistance among elected Democrats to the

corporate money and corporate way??? But I'll try to give it some thought.


Clearly what I think we are seeing is that this is a liberal nation -- with a huge liberal

voting bloc -- but no real leadership representing them -- Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson

are among the few speaking out -- yeah -- notable that John Conyers spoke out loudly last week,

but I'm sure he's been under a lot of pressure NOT to do so.

Pelosi occasionally lets out a bash at Obama -- but obviously she's also under pressure.



And, as I listened to a news report from Great Britain about the riots there, one of the

commentators was saying that it is a shocking time in history for them because they are so

bereft of liberal leaders contrary to former times when liberal leaders of long standing

would be commenting. It shocked me because we're seeing the same thing here --

liberals are being disappeared even before they get a chance to rise.

And I'd include Wellstone in that comment!!



Repeating this for others to read -- damned good post!! :)

For years progressives (from the Paul Wellstone wing of the Democratic Party) have been laughed at, spit on, taken for granted and muted like our ideas for social and economic justice were just some kind of lunatic fringe nonsense. (Read some of DLCer Al From`s old memos.) We`ve been treated like freaks within our own party because we marched against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and because we believe affordable health care is a basic human right. We`re apparently fringe-y because we are against torture and fringe-y because we`re pro-union. We`re fringe-y because we didn`t accept Obama`s foot-dragging and demanded action on DADT. I could go on and on and on about our fringey-ness.....outsourced jobs, boarded-up factories,back room deals with Big Pharma,crumbling infrastructure, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Apparently we`re still supposed to contribute to and vote for Obama even though he has shown next to zero consideration for anything we hold dear. What`s that definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over and over but expecting a different result?


The mechanism by which to be heard. That`s what we need. If the support is there, the candidate will eventually follow. If all those Hope and Change people who stand for social and economic justice stayed home in 2012, someone would sit up and take notice. As it stands now, our "leaders" have been shown that they can cave in and sell out and nothing happens to them. Nothing.

[ooglymoogly]

75. I just KR'd and the rec count stayed at zero.

The '0' patrol is on to this like white on rice.

[Renew Deal]

80. Focusing on Obama is a waste of time.

He will win whether there is competition or not. People should focus on electing a more democratic congress.

[defendandprotect]

82. We can do both -- nation is in a mood to totally overturn Congress -- !!

And there is very high disappointment with Obama -- as we saw in 2010 --

[Renew Deal]

83. It has to be "very high" with Democrats

And it just isn't. He's something like 77-23 with Dems and that's not a bottom for him.

[defendandprotect]

86. Have you actually seen the polls?

80% of Americans want an end to the wars -- !!

76% of the public -- 83% of Catholics -- want single payer government-run

health care --

74% of the public see government as "dysfunctional" --


:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

87. Here's the poll that almost matters

"Do you think the Democratic Party should renominate Barack Obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic Party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?"

Renominate Obama Nominate a different candidate
Unsure % % % 8/5-7/11
70 28 1

Now name a Democrat that wants to take that on.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12dem.htm

[defendandprotect]

89. Look more carefully at your link --

In the CNN poll, the number keeps dropping in support for Obama --

and increasing for a challenger --


Meanwhile here's the McClatchy poll ....

and don't see that Obama did anything to redeem himself since end of last year --

It's only gotten worse!!



McClatchy-Marist Poll. Nov. 15-18, 2010. N=371 Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independent voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 5.


"Do you want another Democrat to challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president in the 2012 primaries?"


Yes No Unsure
% % %
11/15-18/10
45 46 9



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and try this link --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4961044

[defendandprotect]

91. 73 votes for a panel to pick a candidate for 2012 -- and not one rec -- !!! ?????

[tweeternik]

101. yawn!! n/t

[defendandprotect]

106. 84 votes for a panel and still not one rec -- !!!

[tweeternik]

110. ahhh .....

:nopity:

BUT, I still defend your right to not be happy about 'things'. peace!
It will get better ..... :fistbump:

[defendandprotect]

135. 102 votes for a panel and not one rec ---!!!

[defendandprotect]

158. 120 votes for a panel -- and still not one rec -- !!!

[Karmadillo]

92. Kick

nt

[No Elephants]

94. If no good candidate presents, write in someone who represents your views, unless

Obama is your ideal.

For those on the left especially, registering some kind of protest at the primary polls is critical.

Something has to stop the rightward slide of the nation. At least be heard on it, for pity's sake.

[defendandprotect]

174. "Write-in's" are a good idea, but to be effective, I think the candidate still has

to have official status --

that would probably be a good question for a new OP--???

I've seen some here with some knowledge of it commenting -- but don't

recall all the details.

[defendandprotect]

176. Anyone here know the answer to the possibility of a "write in" winning?

[kctim]

100. Would this panel

ask themselves what they will do when a large portion of Democratic voters refuse to vote for a progressive candidate?

[defendandprotect]

104. They might ask why 80% of the public who want an end to wars would vote for Obama?

or why 76% and more of the nation which wants government-run health care

would vote for Obama --

You might also ask yourself why Democrats stayed home in 2010 --

[kctim]

107. Why ask those things?

Of course most people want an end to the wars, but they also realize that it won't happen overnight. No matter who the President is.

And who cares if 76% of the nation "says" they want government run health care when less than half of that 76% are willing to pay for it.

Some Dems stayed home because it was 'just a mid-term,' some stayed home because they didn't get the impossible and some voted for the Republican because of the mandate.

I have no problem working and voting for President Obama again. Somebody like Sanders or Grayson? Good chance I would not.

[defendandprotect]

108. Obama is taking wars into their second decade -- that isn't "overnight" ....

Also see Pelosi video morning after '06 --

"Democrats were elected to end the wars!"


We are paying more than any other nation for health care -- so that's inane.

Same with drugs --

And "who cares" -- ? Certainly not Obama who trampled MEDICARE FOR ALL -- and

then Koch Bros DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" about it saying that busienss should be

"grateful" to Obama!


2010 was a strong message sent to Obama and Dems about his administration and Dem Congress --

and Obama's immediate reaction to it next morning was to announce that he was ready to

"compromise" even further with GOP! :rofl:


My conscience won't permit me to vote for Obama -- time to move on!

[kctim]

111. Even IF Pelosi was right

hell, even if Pelosi was President, there is much more to ending war than simply packing up and coming home. I would love for all my brothers and sisters to come home tomorrow, but that is not how it works.

It doesn't matter how 'inane' you believe it to be, the fact is that the majority of Americans are not willing to pay for a government run health care plan at this time. You want that to change, you convince people to vote for progressives.

Yes, 2010 sent a strong message to President Obama: the people do not want another government mandate. That is why people to the RIGHT of those candidates won and not people to the LEFT of those candidates.

I am sorry you're conscience won't permit you to vote for our President again, and I respect your choice to 'move on' to a candidate who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.
Luckily, the conscience of the vast majority of us permits us to vote for President Obama in 2012, and hopefully give him a Senate and House to get things done.

[defendandprotect]

113. Stop funding the wars and see how quickly everyone comes home ... Afghanistan

and Iraq survived quite well before our attacks on them --

And, our main mission there is for control of oil and drugs -- which, as one

British military official noted ... "America loves to sell" --

We're paying $1,000 per gallon for gasoline to KBR which would keep a helicopter

in the air about a minute --

We're paying more for air conditioning for our troops in ME than the NASA budget!

The entire MIC couldn't be more corrupt -- and ever more so as it is privatized!



Your comments on "paying for health care" is INANE because we are already paying

for the health care -- we're just not getting it -- and we pay as much as the Swiss

pay for their luxurious health care! Again -- we are already paying for it!


2010 was a defeat for Obama and the Democrats based on Obama's trampling of health

care -- Democrats stayed home --


The nation is ready to overturn the entire Congress -- and Obama's numbers are low --

and given the sad reality that Obama has only moved further and further to the right

since his election, I would imagine those figures will continue to fall.



And as Pelosi also made clear -- "Obama was for a lot of things when he was

campaigning that he is no longer for" --

[kctim]

141. Ah, emotion rather than logic

We are in Afghanistan and Iraq, it no longer matters what it was like before. We must deal with the present.
Americans want the troops home and yes, we are tired of paying $400 for a toilet seat. There is no question that the government spends way too much.

Those are not MY comments on paying for health care, they are the voters comments and they are not 'inane.' Other than high premiums, the vast majority of people are satisfied with their current health care plans. That would not be the case IF they were not getting health care.
Yes, we are already paying for it, but right now, with less than half of those who support a government run plan willing to pay for such a plan, the American people would rather keep their choice and pay for it than they want to pay for a government run health care plan.

In 2010, Democrats lost in purple areas. They lost to people to the right of them, not the left. Saying people voted for more right leaning policy because they didn't get more left leaning policy, is ridiculous and devoid of the facts.

Yes, the nation is ready to overturn Congress, it has been for a while now. Yes, President Obama's numbers are low, but not due to progressives believing he has moved too far to the right. The public is tired of the bickering and they are really tired of the economy. Hopefully, those numbers will rise as the people learn the truth about obstruction and accomplishments over the course of the next year.

Pelosi is a gas bag. She knows damn well that a candidate can be 'for' anything they want to be 'for,' but that does not mean they will have free run when elected. President Obama said he would represent ALL of the people and you do not do that by having the attitude of 'all or nothing.' You get what you can to help as many as you can. If not, you get nothing and help nobody.

[defendandprotect]

147. What's more emotional than warmaking -- ?? Attacking other nations -- ??? ROFL

True -- we might look back and say, we're here on this continent now and it doesn't

matter what it was like before . . . Before we destroyed it in a brief 500 year period!!


This is far beyond a $400 toilet seat -- this is criminal privitization of the military.


The comments on health care costs are INANE -- again, because we spend far more than other

nations and get pretty much no care. 76% and more of the public who want MEDICARE FOR ALL

understand that! Read some of the comments here at DU.

And this ...

the vast majority of people are satisfied with their current health care plans.

very sadly reveals you as being hugely underinformed.


Democrats lost in 2010 because Democrats stayed home and didn't come out to vote in protest

of Obama's betrayals -- especially on health care -- in his back room deals with Big Pharma

and the private H/C industry.

The public is moving further and further away from Obama as Obama moves further and further

to the right --


If Obama was representing ALL of the people, he'd be reelected --

Unfortunately, Obama is a corporate president representing elite interests -- and

in fact Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel has "crowed" about that telling business how

"grateful" they should be to Obama!

Pelosi is a "gas bag" -- ?

Nice --




If you're sincerely interested in anything but a corporate future --

here are two article that might enlighten you --

This is a liberal nation -- with more than 70% of the public wanting to legalize

Marijuana --


Majority of Americans Want Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF at link) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/25/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/


and ...


Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!8/12/10

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the escue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care

preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18FE-70B2-A835FE1E7FA8D74C


If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach -- nothing will --

especially given that we have 50 million now in America without health care --

an immense amount of suffering in homelessnes, those without health care and those

suffering unemployment which is at 21% levels when we consider the long term unemployed

and those working part time rather han full time -- and those who are working jobs they

are overqualified for and the loss of earnings involved.



http://www.stophoping.org

[kctim]

162. It doesn't matter what's more emotional, it's about the facts

The military itself is not being privatized. Defense cuts have turned some things over to civilians, but that is a long established relationship. And of course a case can be made that the government pays too much, but as the $400 example shows, that too has been the case for a long time. To be honest though, neither of us know how much it costs to provide the troops with AC. You have the cost of the thousands of units and of shipping them overseas. Then you have the costs of running and maintaining them in a very harsh, unforgiving climate. You then of course have to pay people good money to do this in a warzone.

The comments on health care are not "inane" because everybody does not believe money trumps rights. That is why the polls that show "76% and more of the public who want MEDICARE FOR ALL" also show that not even half of that 76% are willing to pay for it.
A minority of us "get pretty much no care" and, other than paying for premiums, most are satisfied with their current health care plans. That is not an "underinformed" statement in the least. That is taking what is known instead of what is desired, in order to support an opinion. Convincing people that EVERYBODY is suffering because EVERYBODY does not have "free" government health care is a good political talking point, but it is not the truth.

"Democrats lost in 2010 because Democrats stayed home and didn't come out to vote"

Hogwash. Democrats lost in 2010 because people voted to the RIGHT of moderate Dems who supported the HCR bill. IF they favored the bill, they would have voted to the LEFT of the moderates. The few who sat out in "protest," provided only support for the bill.
Besides, IF there were enough progressives in those areas, they would not have a moderate rep, they would have a progressive rep who would have supported a government run plan.

"If Obama was representing ALL of the people, he'd be reelected"

He WILL be re-elected. Why? Because he DOES represent ALL of the people. If he did not, he would say "universal health care or nothing" and he would have gotten nothing for ALL of the people.
IF the people wanted a government health care plan, they would have given President Obama reps to get it, NOT to vote against it. They have that same chance in 2012 and I suggest that if you want such a plan, you concentrate on giving him reps to get it.

We are not a conservative or liberal nation, we are a moderate nation who see's the need for some of both in a controlled, effective way.
More than 70% of the public may want to legalize marijuana, but that makes us no more a liberal nation than more than 70% want stricter immigration laws to stop illegal aliens makes us a conservative nation does.
Of course people want a better form of wealth distribution. That is until it affects their own pocketbook and their freedom of choice. That is why elections do not support the fantasy of the American people wanting more government. When they do, the elections will show that and THEN you will be correct.

Until then, you are only arguing with emotions based on desires.

[defendandprotect]

165. If you want to accuse others of "emotionalism" then you have to deal with it ....

It doesn't matter what's more emotional, it's about the facts
The military itself is not being privatized. Defense cuts have turned some things over to civilians, but that is a long established relationship. And of course a case can be made that the government pays too much, but as the $400 example shows, that too has been the case for a long time. To be honest though, neither of us know how much it costs to provide the troops with AC. You have the cost of the thousands of units and of shipping them overseas. Then you have the costs of running and maintaining them in a very harsh, unforgiving climate. You then of course have to pay people good money to do this in a warzone.

The comments on health care are not "inane" because everybody does not believe money trumps rights. That is why the polls that show "76% and more of the public who want MEDICARE FOR ALL" also show that not even half of that 76% are willing to pay for it.
A minority of us "get pretty much no care" and, other than paying for premiums, most are satisfied with their current health care plans. That is not an "underinformed" statement in the least. That is taking what is known instead of what is desired, in order to support an opinion. Convincing people that EVERYBODY is suffering because EVERYBODY does not have "free" government health care is a good political talking point, but it is not the truth.

"Democrats lost in 2010 because Democrats stayed home and didn't come out to vote"

Hogwash. Democrats lost in 2010 because people voted to the RIGHT of moderate Dems who supported the HCR bill. IF they favored the bill, they would have voted to the LEFT of the moderates. The few who sat out in "protest," provided only support for the bill.
Besides, IF there were enough progressives in those areas, they would not have a moderate rep, they would have a progressive rep who would have supported a government run plan.

"If Obama was representing ALL of the people, he'd be reelected"
when it's tossed back at you --

The nation is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens -- not serve

the elite interests which is what Obama is doing -- especially re trampling universal

health care!


This is a liberal nation which wants legalized marinjuana by 70% --

Wants an end to the wars by 80% --

Wants universal health care by 76% -- and more --


If indeed the nation is being fooled on the immigration isssue it is simply because the

Democratic Party is not countering the lies of the RW -- so what's new?

The public well understands the disaster of a nation with 50 million with no health care --

and how that effects all of us, eventually.


"Emotions based on desires" -- ? Again -- there is nothing more emotional than warmongering

and warmaking -- and Obama taking us into a second decade on these wars.

[Octafish]

103. I'd like Obama just fine if he'd done what he said he was going to do.

End the wars.
Restore Equal Justice for All.
End Welfare for Wall Street.
Create a New Deal for 21st Century.
End Trickle Down Economics and Boost the Middle Class and Poor.
Fight the Status Quo.
End Corruption.

That was the "Change You Can Believe In" stuff.

[defendandprotect]

105. ... is there a "but" in there somewhere .... cause none of that happened ... !!

And we will come face to face with 2012 shortly ---

My conscience is not going to allow me to vote for Obama --

[trayfoot]

112. NO PRIMARY TO PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!

[defendandprotect]

114. Matt Damon for president? UK Guardian ....

Matt Damon for president? In US politics, they have seen crazier scriptsThe line between Hollywood fame and political power is often blurred, so suggestions that the liberal actor might run can't be dismissed


So why is Damon's name being mentioned in the context of the 2012 race for the White House and a possible liberal challenge to Barack Obama? The simple answer is to blame leftwing firebrand Michael Moore.

Moore, in a discussion with the liberal politics blog Firedoglake, raised the issue as he talked about his frustration with Obama, who many American leftists see as ignoring them while compromising with the Republican party. Moore called Damon's political stances in recent years courageous and urged him to run, despite there being no hint from the actor himself that he would care to. In a nod to the acting past of two-time Republican President Ronald Reagan, Moore said: "The Republicans have certainly shown the way that when you run someone who is popular, you win. Sometimes even when you run an actor, you win."

The suggestion quickly spread across the media, generating a lot of chuckles as well as predictable outrage from conservative pundits. But the suggestion showed two things that are not so easily dismissed. First, quietly and with impressive charm, Damon has emerged as an eloquent and fierce spokesman for a slice of liberal America. On everything from the Iraq war to education policy, he has been happy to take a stand and, rather than praise the president, he has come out publicly to say Obama has "mishandled his mandate".

Second, it showed that America, more than any country in the world, has a fluid boundary between the worlds of entertainment and politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/14/matt-damon-us-presidential-race

[Little Star]

172. I think Matt would make a great democratic president because

he really is a democrat!

In my opinion he would be a very viable challenger. He's got the brains, the looks and the character & more.

DRAFT MATT DAMON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quick!

[madinmaryland]

123. Un-recced for a serious WTF??? An Independent, a one-term representative, and an actor???

:wtf:

SERIOUSLY, :wtf:

[defendandprotect]

125. No . . . to replace a corporate-president with a liberal --

[madinmaryland]

129. That's what I meant. Those three telling us who we should ask for???

Just confused. Who are they going to recommend, Dennis Kucinich or Alan Grayson?? Neither would stand a chance against just about any repuke.

I would prefer someone who would actually have a chance. I think we tried this exercise in 1984 and 1988.

[defendandprotect]

130. No -- imo, a Panel would be contacting various groups - Political, Anti-War,

Health -- Nurses and Dcotors who support MEDICARE FOR ALL --

Hollywood liberals --

Run citizen polls actually asking what liberals they would like to see run --

Environmentals --


and then make recommendations --


Meanwhile, here's the really frightening part -- it's been obvious that RW political violence

took our leaders and our government -- but they've also one way or another limited the rise

of liberal leadership in every field --

And what's even more frightening was hearing someone in Great Britain also make that obvservation

about their own country the other day!!


We always have talented liberals who will support anti-war positions, universal health care,

economic democracy, open government -- and especially to stop capitalist exploitation of nature

and to stop the burning of fossil fuels -- but they are not getting a chance to rise to leadership

as they normally would --


And, btw, James Galbraith, I think would be wonderful to have on any panel --

As well as Wm. Greider -- author -- who has tried to tell the people what is going on in

America for decades!

[madinmaryland]

137. I guess maybe I misunderstood you. I thought the primaries were

designed to be a democratic way of determining the candidate for a party. These primaries were designed to take the power away from the party bosses.

Now yes, we see that it has been convoluted to the system it is now. But is going back to what was, any better?

My issue with your idea, is that we are left with candidates of the fringes of the party, which would have no chance in any general election.

The thought of panel, as interesting as it sounds in your explanation, scares the shit out of me. I see us as democrats turning into the mirror image of repukes as they already have that sort of echo chamber and the whole Norquist gang.

Just scares the shit out of me.

[defendandprotect]

138. Oops! NO --- the primaries are where corporations push $$ and levers to bring up their candidates ..

If you recall, John Kerry was at the bottom 3% way below all of the populists which

the country wanted nominated! But, who popped up!! DLC/New Dem/Third Way Kerry who

is now also putting Social Security and Medicare "on the table" -- !!



Taking the ball away from the Democratic Party leaders was only a way of passing it to

corporations. When do we get to pick the board members for corporations? Think ExxonMobil

would let us do that? :rofl:


The party bosses in smoke filled rooms weren't ideal -- but they were trying to run a candidate

who supported the Democratic Party platform -- not a corporate platform.


And, of course, they've always tried to infiltrate the Dem party and move it to the right --

Certainly that goes back to the weird events which removed VP Henry Wallace from the ticket

just a short time before FDR died -- and Voila! Harry Truman was president!!


PLUS what I'm talking about is a simple panel -- it doesn't need the blessing of the Supreme

Court or the Catholic Church -- an informal panel which would come up with names and

recommendations --

They could put the question out to various groups --


Anti-War Groups --

Women's groups that support ERA and Roe vs Wade --

Labor, unions, liberal political groups --

Doctors and nurses who support MEDICARE FOR ALL --

Liberal thinkers and economists like James Galbraith --

Author Wm. Greider -- "Who will tell the people?" -- and his other amazing books --

Environmentalists -- from Robert Redford to scientists --

Legal organizations which want to see our Constitutional rights restored --


Would only take a couple of weeks -- on the other hand, I'd go with Bernie Sanders right

now -- Alan Grayson -- Ed Schultz -- Matt Damon --


An informal panel is quite different from a National Democratic Party Convention -- !!!

And don't quite understand your misunderstanding of that --


If you're suggesting that liberals are the "fringe" of the party you've been listening to

too much rightwing propaganda --

Rather, this is a liberal nation -- every serious poll shows that --

And the fact that the RW could rise only on political violence which we've had more than

50 years of, is another bit of that reality.

The RW has nothing that it has structured itself and bought and paid for -- from the

Christian RW to their "pro-lifers" -- from the T-Baggers to the NRA which they radicalized

to attack liberals and moderates in the Dem Party -- and in their own party!!

If this wasn't a liberal nation through and through there would be no need for the RW to

control our press -- infiltrate our party with Koch Bros. DLC --

Fact is every iota of truth is a huge threat to them -- like a pebble hitting a mirror --

shatters their myths!



Well, if Bernie Sanders, Daniel Ellsberg, and Matt Damon "scare the shit out of you" --

ain't much more I can say!!


We have enough scared rabbits around here without creating any more of them!!




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

76% and more -- 83% of Catholics -- want government-run health care MEDICARE FOR ALL --


If you think that's the "fringe" you need a calculator!


:)

[No Elephants]

169. The "Democratic liberals are like Teabagger clones" meme is ridiculous.

As far as being scared, the lack of any counter to the rightward slike of the Democratic Party is the scariest thing of all.

Republicans alone could never have taken our country this far right.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

136. Corporate pressure is against anyone opposing Obama ... if this is to get done ...

we're going to have to have a strong push to DRAFT someone --

Think the idea of a panel which would get feedback from various groups and make

a lot of recommendations is a good idea --


Anti-war groups -- Health/Nurses and doctors now supporting MEDICARE FOR ALL --

Environmentalists -- Labor groups fighting for union rights -- Teachers --

Those involved in protecting public education --

Women's groups which support ERA and Roe vs Wade --

Citizens polls simply asking them what liberals they would like to see run --

Hollywood liberals -- and journalists like Olberman and Ed Schultz -- Rachel Maddow --



Would love to see people like Daniel Ellsberg and Wm. Greider involved -- and

James Galbraith who made quite some presentation to the "Cat Food" Commission --


I'd love it to be Bernie Sanders -- but like a lot of others as well --

Ed Schultz, for one !!

[cascadiance]

144. How about RFK, Jr.? He wouldn't have as much to lose and would bring a lot to the "discussion"...

... as he has for so many years with Mike Papantonio on the Ring of Fire and with his solid activism in many areas like the environmental protection from fossil fuels like coal and oil. And his article in Rolling Stone looking back at voting anomalies as well.

Since he's not intimately in the party as an existing politician now, he wouldn't have as much to lose with the current Democratic Party establishment in challenging them on these many issues that he's been very skilled at talking about to progressives through the media for many years.

[defendandprotect]

145. Absolutely -- love Bobby Kennedy, Jr. --

Plus, the idea of the informal panel would be to get feedback from liberal groups

on every issue --

Anti-war movement -- and have no idea of who is in leadership there

Health -- doctors and nurses who support MEDICARE FOR ALL

which would be our two main issues -- i.e., ENDING THE WARS and MEDICARE FOR ALL


Plus --

Women's groups who support ERA and Roe vs Wade --

Labor -- teachers, unions -- those who support a living wage, etal --

Environmental groups --

Liberal political groups --

Legal groups who are fighting for human rights and restoring Constitutional rights --

Citizen polls -- simply asking which liberals they would like to see run as a challenger --


And would be fantastic to see anyone like Daniel Ellsberg or James Galbraith or Wm. Greider

take an interest in trying to find us a challenger --

but first this idea has to get out there -- and second, people have to like the idea.


Thought I'd have a chance today to try to move this idea to at least Bernie Sanders but

looks like it might be tomorrow, instead --


If you have any ideas on contacting any of these people let me know --

Otherwise, presume it's e-mail, telephone and maybe trying to get heard on one of the

radio talk shows -- Ed Schultz --

Sanders is on Hartmann on Fridays -- I think -- unless he's on vacation this week?








Vote here --
http://www.stophoping.org

[ooglymoogly]

153. +1 nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

146. no. Obama is my candidate

[NeedleCast]

149. Circular Firing Squadddd....anddddd

GO!

[ooglymoogly]

151. Democratic self preservation squad...andddd

go for it, or just buckle under and become a pug and forget about the New Deal...its so yesterday.

[defendandprotect]

155. +1 -- Corporate/Fascism and Global Warming breathing down our necks ....

but by all means we should be watching the pretty pictures -- !!!


:rofl: -- :rofl: --


if it wasn't so sad!!


How many here think when they get Social Security and Medicare that will be

all they want -- ???

History is something we should be paying attention to -- this isn't the first

time around with the RW - they took over half the planet last time!

[ooglymoogly]

152. Amazing how this pole mirrors the overall national polls

70% unequivocally for finding a new way...30% for "0" and the status quo and even that 30% is a mixed bag, strongly for, to I don't knows and undecideds.

[defendandprotect]

166. Interesting point ---

I have now sent out a few letters to Bernie Sanders, etal --

not sure if they will get thru --

I will pursue with some e-mails tonight --

and I think Bernie Sanders is usually on with Thom Hartmann on Friday's --

"Brunch with Bernie" -- so will try to see if I can get the idea to him in one

of those ways --

You know they are still withholding mail from Congress since the "Anthrax" deal --

Takes 3 weeks for a letter to reach your Congress member!!

They radiate it -- and then it takes 3 weeks to dry!!

Convenient for finding out what's being sent to members of Congress --


:evilgrin:

[spedtr90]

154. 81 congressional members of Progressive Caucus

There must be some possibilities there!

Sadly, Bernie is the only senate member....

[defendandprotect]

157. Since I stopped watching C-span ....

I couldn't even begin to name any of the members of the progressive caucus --

except Maxine Waters and John Conyers --

and one of the liberal radio shows about a month ago started to talk about

a return fight by Maxine Waters and Rangle against the Ethics Panel --

where evidently they've mainly been attacking AAs???

Didn't hear any follow up on it.

So this corporate rule of the party, I would imagine is not only sexist but

racist, as well --



Not sure but wasn't there more like 125 members of the progressive caucus at

one time? And primarily these are the people who wrote the letter to Obama

saying they wouldn't vote for any cuts/changes to Social Security?

[spedtr90]

163. Caucus members: Their budget did not touch social security , etc.

Co-Chairs
Keith Ellison

Raúl Grijalva

Vice Chairs
Tammy Baldwin

Judy Chu

William “Lacy” Clay

Sheila Jackson-Lee

Chellie Pingree

Whip
Hank Johnson

Senate Member
Bernie Sanders

House Members
Karen Bass

Xavier Becerra

Earl Blumenauer

Robert Brady

Corrine Brown

Michael Capuano

Andre Carson

Donna Christensen

Yvette Clarke

Emanuel Cleaver

David Cicilline

Steve Cohen

John Conyers

Elijah Cummings

Danny Davis

Peter DeFazio

Rosa DeLauro

Donna Edwards

Sam Farr

Chaka Fattah

Bob Filner

Barney Frank

Marcia Fudge

Luis Gutierrez

Maurice Hinchey

Mazie Hirono

Michael Honda

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Marcy Kaptur

Dennis Kucinich

Barbara Lee

John Lewis

David Loebsack

Ben Ray Lujan

Carolyn Maloney

Ed Markey

Jim McDermott

James McGovern

George Miller

Gwen Moore

Jim Moran

Jerrold Nadler

Eleanor Holmes Norton

John Olver

Frank Pallone

Ed Pastor

Donald Payne

Jared Polis

Charles Rangel

Laura Richardson

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Bobby Rush

Linda Sanchez

Jan Schakowsky

Jose Serrano

Louise Slaughter

Pete Stark

Bennie Thompson

John Tierney

Nydia Velazquez

Maxine Waters

Mel Watt

Peter Welch

Frederica Wilson

Lynn Woolsey

[defendandprotect]

164. Thank you -- on quick count -- that's 74 ...

Yes -- I know the budget they submitted didn't touch Social Security --

and of course, no budget should.

Thanks for the list --

Are their numbers dwindling, or is that my imagination?

Thought there were originally 125 members?

[No Elephants]

168. There were about 100 of them not long ago. Rahm stocked the House with DLCers in 2006, when

he chaired the Committee that picked Democrats to run for the House.

[defendandprotect]

170. Thanks for the information -- sad -- but thank you!!

[ooglymoogly]

177. But on the plus side, he can run as an Independent on his own two

feet without a primary challenge to "0" and does not have to kiss the rings of the Dino Dons who have co-opted our party.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. I think we should convene the psychic action team that diverted NASA's moon bombing attempt

and saved the star folks lunar colony.

Ask them.

[No Elephants]

160. Over 175 votes. Interesting.

[BirminghamExaminer]

161. No viable candidate wants to run against the first African American president n/t

[defendandprotect]

167. No viable Democrat wants to breech the wall between Dem Party and corporate $$$$$ -- !!!!

And it's corporate $$$$$ that will be back Obama --

[deacon]

178. Dumb. n/t