I'm told even mentioning Obama being primary challenged is a bad thing

[Nuclear Unicorn]

And I understand the principle -- Obama has done a lot, if Obama is challenged it shows a lack of unity when his leadership needs bolstering, it wastes resources best saved for the general election, it gives the GOP a thousand free ads, it splits the party, weakens the vote, anybody but Perromneylin, etc etc etc

OK, I got it and I don't think any the less of anyone who makes these very valid points.

But those who say Obama has disappointed them on principle are treated in such nasty terms. It's as if the subject is a blasphemy and those who dare utter it are declared anathema. This is not to imply the PUMAs are without stain, the rancor on both sides is pretty distressing, IMHO.

Ralph Nader is blamed for 2000 and some of the threads about him are rather disappointing. Apparently Mrs. Clinton's name draws even more ire than in 2008 now that a certain former VP gave her props (Whatevs -- I'm thinking more Russ Feingold mahself).

What I want to know is: is there ever a point where the past is the past and a person can dissent and still be thought of in polite terms? Case in point -- unless I miss my mark, former President Carter is fairly well-received and so too is the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Do people still rail against Kennedy's challenge of Carter in the election that saw Reagan come to power?

I understand the rising sense of dread many people feel about the upcoming election but this whole "we need a unified front" thing is a 2-way street. Don't run around calling people a dirty, rotten, scab bastard for suggesting Obama's vulnerabilities are just that, vulnerabilities; and then expect those same people graft themselves to your cause. Nasty invective towards your target market is a poor selling tool.

If Sen. Kennedy can be considered a lion of the progressive movement even after his challenge of a Democrat president in 1980 that saw Reagan gain the White House then please show a little courtesy for those who hold sincere reservations about the course of the current presidency.

THAT would be party unity.

[William769]

1. Nice thread.

Recommended.

[frazzled]

2. Try loosening the clutch on your strand of pearls

Shocked at the "nastiness" when one suggests a primary? (Which, as you know, Dick Cheney has encouraged everyone to suggest.) Try looking at the nastiness expressed in those "disappointed in the president" comments. It's way way worse. Yes, everything is a two-way street.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. See, this is what I'm on about. "Pearl clutching" that's been used so much its threadbare

I would also note people were talking primary challenges long before Teh Dick reared its ugly head. It seems the real effect of his statement was to be used as a cudgel to silence dissent. Frankly, it's sad that Teh Dick can still do that to progressives even after he has left office.

[frazzled]

11. I'm simply saying that you need to acknowledge the venom ...

on the other side, as well. If you don't see it, you need to go back and read again.

Whenever people disagree about politics there is rancor. This is about real disagreement. But you can't say one side is all buttercups and roses and the other side is meanie meanie. It's just not so.

The sad thing is that one side's bold pronouncements (you must primary this corporate shill who kills babies every day!) must be met with loud denial by the other side (insert one of the examples in the OP above). Like a noisy restaurant where each table must speak louder than the next one, pretty soon no one can hear each other.

There really will be no agreement between the two sides on this issue. And no one will convince the other. But there's one thing for sure. There is not going to be a primary. So maybe we should just all stop arguing?

[frazzled]

7. Deleted: posted in wrong place

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. I never said that. On the contrary I wrote,

"This is not to imply the PUMAs are without stain, the rancor on both sides is pretty distressing, IMHO."

As for "There really will be no agreement between the two sides on this issue." I dunno. Things will be more unified as the GE draws closer and some folks, perhaps a statistically insignificant amount, will be swayed one way or the other.

But my point is -- if the progressive movement is big enough for both Carter and Kennedy then it should be big enough Obama supporters and those who would see him challenged.

[Bucky]

14. I don't think you get to call posters "pearl clutchers" while blaming concern about Obama on Cheney.

You get to be the wry sarcastic character or the paranoid panic monkey. You can't play both parts.

[frazzled]

23. I'm versatile

No, but truly, this thread was not about "concern" or policy disagreement. It was about being "concerned" enough to call for a primary. And that is what brings us into Cheney territory: you can't deny that this has been part of the news cycle of late. I don't suggest the OP is paying heed to Cheney's directive, just that various talks of primary coincide, no matter what the intention.

And no, the Kennedy– Carter primary was not romp in the park. It really tore apart the party for a long time.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Pab Sungenis]

4. I think we're seeing him start to come around.

I don't think we need a primary challenge now.

[William769]

6. It's all smoke & mirrors.

Reelection time.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[emulatorloo]

9. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

But try not to take other folks with you as you jump off the vanity vote cliff.

[William769]

15. I'm sure other folks are like me.

I don't follow anyone & do not expect anyone to follw me. Some of us are still free thinkers, we don't drink the kool-aid.

[emulatorloo]

41. The problem with that is the rest of us will have to suffer the consequences of your "free thinking"

Best of luck though. But not if you are going to try to discourage voters from voting for Democrats.

[William769]

42. Thank Our Lucky stars for Democracy!

Dictatorships are so passe.

[Angry Dragon]

5. ........

:popcorn:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. All that butter is going to go straight to your hips

[Angry Dragon]

16. The hips went to hell a long time ago

[phantom power]

8. Obama won handily in 2008 with a very hotly contested primary challenge from HRC.

2008 clearly doesn't support the argument that a strong primary challenge would weaken the 2012 campaign.

If Obama is the 2012 candidate (and I'd be pretty shocked if he wasn't), there's clearly an argument that voting Obama is far preferable to one of the GOP lunatics on tap.

I don't see any such argument regarding a primary challenge. Those are two very different things.

[Pab Sungenis]

10. People usually cite 1976 and 1980 in the argument against primary challenges.

In 1980 Ted Kennedy wasn't the big problem for Jimmy Carter. The big problems were John Anderson (who split the moderate anti-Reagan vote) and the fact that the night before the election was the first anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Hamilton Jordan wrote in his book about the crisis that polling up until that night had the race too close to call, but a wall-to-wall media orgasm about the anniversary finally pushed people to blame Carter for it and vote Reagan.

As for 1976? Gerry Ford was his own worst enemy. It wasn't Reagan's challenge that lost him the election, it was "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Again, up until that major gaffe the polls pointed to a Ford victory.

[Solomon]

17. I dont see what the problem is.

If you dont want to vote for the man, then don't.

It's the trying to convince others not to support the man that gets me.

You can always tell when Obama is doing well. You get a slew of these posts whining about being criticized for destroying morale.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Are you asking if I am still mad at the people who allowed Reagan to be elected twice?

You, fucking A right I am still pissed off about that.

[Bucky]

28. You hate everyone except Washington DC and Minnesota?

Damn, you get busy.

[JVS]

47. Yup, moderates are no good.

[DCBob]

19. very unlikely anything good will come of it...

and its possible something very bad will result.

[Vincardog]

20. Net recommendation: +5 votes (Your vote: +1) Quit clutching your pearls and work to make him more

electable by making his policies more DEMOCRATIC

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Folks try

Thanks for the rec.

BTW - pearls aren't my thing. I'm a more of a torquoise kind of girl.

[quinnox]

21. it looks like we are stuck with Obama

no matter how weak and wishy washy he seems, we Dems are stuck with him. Oy Vey.

[DCBob]

24. you should hope and pray we remain "stuck" with Obama..

the alternative is frightening.

[Bandit]

43. There is No Other Democrat of quality in the entire country?

People here are so desperate they grasp at any straw. Obama needs to answer some questions and the ONLY way he will do that is if someone asks him those questions.. Who is going to do that, the Media? ....Right.... Obama needs to be in a Debate with a Progressive so he can explain why he has such disdain for Progressive causes....Anyone that believes anyone is above such a thing is imo simply a tool.

[DCBob]

46. There are plenty of good Democrats out there but that has nothing to do with primarying Obama.

President Obama was legitimately elected by a sound majority. He still has very high support from members of his own party. He has governed in much the way most of expected.. at least to those who were listening to him. There is no legitimate justification for trying to primary him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I've argued that at least a strong challenge would preserve our credibility

even if it fails to provide a new candidate.

Obama has done good but he's also done some really distasteful things. Without challenging him we're essentially saying, "My candidate, right or wrong" and that seems so unprincipled as to almost appear mercenary. If he is defeated next year what will progressives say in 2016 as a rallying cry? "No, really, this time we mean it!"

[DCBob]

27. your "credibility" is not as important as winning this election.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. So when the GOP expands the CIA assassination program and indefinite detentions

claiming Obama set the precedent your response will be?

[DCBob]

30. I wouldnt worry about anything the idiot GOPers might or might not claim..

They will lie and exaggerate no matter what.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Extra-judicial killings and indefinite detentions are not lies or exaggerations

They are current policy.

Denial of fact is not a response.

[DCBob]

32. Please document all your claims with credible links.

your word is not very "credible".. imo.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Predator drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

Killing UBL when there is a reasonable claim he might have been taken alive?

Gitmo?

Have you read a newspaper lately?

[DCBob]

34. Sometimes people get killed in warfare..

were you not aware of that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Yeah, I've read that. I've also read that some people are cavalier about

the lives of others in the name of political expediency.

When you're standing in line at the clinic mandated to you by the insurance company you were mandated to patronize so the CEO can count his profits at the lower Bush-era tax rate try not to trouble yourself with thoughts of those "others" being slaughtered in their homes as they sleep or hauled off to Bagram or the Phillipines because -- hey -- at least it's not a Republican that gave you your shiny new nation.


wow

[YellowRubberDuckie]

36. What hacks me off the most about these Obama Bashers...

...is that they didn't listen to him. He said when he was elected that he was inheriting an economy so bad it wasn't going to be fixed quickly. It took 20 years to drive it into the ditch, it is going to take longer than just a month or a week or even a couple of years to fix. And he's had a lot of opposition. And there's the issue with the party not growing a backbone until recently.
i don't know. I just think they all need to stop worrying about getting reelected and do the job they were sent there to do. THEN they'd get reelected.
But then again, the Republicans are tying their own nooses by the bullshit that is coming out of their mouths, like whining that they only have $400,000 left over after they pay bills and feed their families, when a shit ton of people in this country don't have jobs and are on FOOD STAMPS!

[William769]

37. 20 Years? You sure about that?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

40. No.

Normally when I mention a specific number, I pulled it out of my ass. But 15 wouldn't be crazy talk.

[Bandit]

44. During the nineties the USA experienced

"The Greatest Economic Expansion in History" Then along came Bush*/Cheney and the Republicans and the USA experienced the greatest economic turn around in history...

[YellowRubberDuckie]

48. I know....

However, the mortgage bullshit started back then...

[hulka38]

38. Stop talking about it.

That which should not be mentioned should not be mentioned unless you want President Perry.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[JTFrog]

45. A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.

Since we're drumming up the primaries around here again. :eyes:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/264

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.

[uponit7771]

49. ****DICK CHENEY AGREES WITH NADER AND WEST ON PRIMARY CHALLENGE****