Another day, another suggestion to primary Obama in 2012. It’s almost like 1980 never happened.
I simply can not express in words strong enough that it would be an absolute disaster for the Democratic party if they actively attempt to primary a sitting President. You think the liberal blogs are at each other’s throats now? My word.
Why don’t we start with primarying all the blue dogs and all the intransigent Democratic Senators? That would seem to make more sense, and it might bring about a touch of party discipline. But to primary Obama? Disaster. It really should be unthinkable.
dan
Party discipline!
thanks for the laugh on this cold Monday morning …
4tehlulz
IT’S LIKE NIXON AND REAGAN NEVER HAPPENED
Joe Bauers
It would only be a disaster if he fought back.
For once.
Then again, he does seem a lot more eager to fight against his own side then the other side, so you’re probably right.
Tom65
Even funnier are the choices offered: Grayson, Feingold, Kucinich, etc. Who knew that unicorn withdrawal was worse than the DT’s?
stuckinred
Ha, it’s already a fucking disaster.
Svensker
I saw that this morning, as well. The guy goes on and on about the 60s but apparently never learned anything from them, since we all know how well the McCarthy presidential run turned out. And how losing it really taught the Democrats a lesson and they went strongly to the left after the loss. Yup, the good old days.
Too much weed, man.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Stupid is beating the shit out of smart so I wouldn’t put it past the dissenters to push for a primary opponent.
Kryptik
On the one hand, I sorta get the point. A lot of people are starting to feel that the only way to send Obama and many Dems a message is to give the sense that no, Dem and liberal votes are not a given, not to be taken for granted. On the other hand, like you, I recognize that primarying him will end in utter disaster, as it’ll only feed the ‘weakness’ of the Dems and basically say ‘See, no one agrees with Anti-Ameri-bama!’
But what the fuck do we do then? I’m desperately trying to cling on to some idea that we have a fucking chance for the next 10 years, because I’m honestly not seeing it.
August J. Pollak
Or you know the president could just stop doing everything Republicans want.
Lolis
The funny thing is there is nobody out there who would be more liberal than Obama. The names I have seen thrown around make me laugh, Webb and Feingold. Webb wrote that disgusting op-ed about white discrimination and Feingold voted against Gitmo closure funds and the financial regulation bill. Feingold just lost by a pretty big margin after trying to appeal to teabaggers all year.
Suck It Up!
Hey Obama, just walk away and see how they like Evan byah for Dem nominee and then a Republican for president.
Weak. weak. Fall back in default position of doing nothing but retreating to fantasy land.
Left Coast Tom
@Tom65:
Yes, by all means, let’s look to those who couldn’t get their supporters out to the polls for advice on how to…get people out to the polls. Let’s not look to Reid, Boxer, and Murray (who, apparently, didn’t run from Obama) for such advice.
david mizner
More democracy should never been “unthinkable.”
It’s not something I relish — the racial tension (assuming the challenger weren’t black) would be the worst thing of all — but if the President continues to perpetuate an immoral war, commit war crimes, go soft on Wall Street, fail to address the job crisis, and generally drive the party off the cliff — a lot of principled progressive would be and should be open to a challenger.
There are worse things that tension among Democrats.
Keith G
As things stand now, I would hate to see that happen. Seems like the road to ruin.
Yet, ideally political parties are supposed to be ground up (base led) organizations. The threat of being “primaried” needs to remain an attention getting device.
We know we got “No Drama Obama”, but good presidents change as they are confronted with new challenges. And the best presidents have fought hard to make important things happen. If the threat of a primary causes Obama to question the parameters of his comfort zone…fantastic!!
david mizner
@Tom65:
Well, opponents of a primary challenge can’t have it both ways. They can say simultaneously that a challenger wouldn’t get any traction and that he/she would be disastrous for the party.
Suck It Up!
@Left Coast Tom:
You don’t understand. When Progressives lose its never their fault.
Corner Stone
Dan Rather just said on MSNBC if the tax cuts for all deal goes through Obama will have a primary challenge.
steviez314
And Glenzilla likens a pro-Obama blogger to Leni Riefenstahl.
And Cenk Uyger calls Obama “stupid”.
And Jane Hamsher says Hilda Solis can “kiss her ass”.
I’m severely beginning to hate liberals with a hate that would make regular hate almost seem like love.
Ija
It doesn’t matter if Democrat lose. We would have shown that the liberal base is mighty and powerful. And when Republican wins, that’s even better. Everyone in the country will see how bad that is and will run to the liberals and bow and worship at the altar of our awesomeness. We’ll be worshipped like gods, I tell you.
Who cares if this plot hadn’t worked before? It’ll work this time for sure!
Odie Hugh Manatee
@david mizner:
No, but they can say it would be a disaster that would give the republicans a good chance to win.
I am sure they are ready to party like it’s 1980 though.
Mumphrey
They have it all wrong. What they should be doing is trying to get Ralph nader to run as a Green. Now that’s something that’s guaranteed to get them what they want! It went so well in 2000, after all…
Socraticsilence
@Joe Bauers:
Well I guess it wouldn’t hurt that much if he just ignored it- as he’d still win every single primary by 70-80% at worst, so if your point is that fighting back would be stupid as it would give undue attention to what would in effect be a vanity campaign I agree with your point. (Out of curiousity say this primary challenge happens whose your canidate and how do they avoid the rather obvious drawback- namely the shall we say ugly implications of primarying the first black president– because it’d be hard to justify it on the grounds of “he wasn’t left enough” after white democrats were cool with Clinton expanding the Death Penalty, folding on Health Care and losing both houses of congress– all of which occured prior to 1996).
Zifnab
Obama is pushing for Ben Nelson’s policy positions. So we should primary Ben Nelson, but leave Obama untouched? I’m not saying primarying a sitting President is smart. But why does the math change at the state level?
If Obama’s national policy is going to be dictated by the right-most Democratic Senator and the left-most Republican Senator… what the hell is having a “liberal” President worth? He’s just a placeholder for “Not-Bush” and that isn’t going to cut it in 2012, when I’m sure we’re going to see “I miss George Bush” bumper stickers popping up all over the country. Because people are stupid.
@Lolis:
Feingold lost to a well funded, well connected indie opponent in a wave election. Wisconsin went from 56-42 for Obama to 52-47 against Feingold. Citizens United beat Russ.
Socraticsilence
@Tom65:
So the choices would be failed Congressman, failed Senator and longtime quality congressman who is so unpresidential that despite being the best choice policywise to most Dems (according to values polling) is essentially our answer to Ron Paul in Presidential Primaries- yeah that’s quality (oh and note that all of them are white males- good times).
Zifnab
@Mumphrey:
Oh fuck off. Quit blaming Ralph Nader for the thousand different errors of the Democratic Party.
Republicans are elected regularly enough in every state with a “Libertarian” on the ballot. You don’t see George Bush bemoaning Pat Buchanan.
Suck It Up!
@steviez314:
When did Solis lose her creds?
Marc McKenzie
@Ija: Or, people can just read this by Robert Parry:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/101510.html
Pretty much sums things up even better than John could (No offense John–I agree with you wholeheartedly that it’ll be a stupid idea, and hell, it could be considered a slap in the face to African-Americans). Parry really lays it on in this, and frankly, having looked back at the past 40+ years of US history, he’s right….and those still spewing the “Teach the Dems a lesson!!” doggerel have been sadly wrong.
I am still fuming at the utter idiocy that Nader displayed in 2000, and while I believe that there are other ways to get the attention of Democrats, this “run a primary challenge against Obama” is not one of them. It didn’t work in ’68, didn’t work in ’80, and it sure as hell ain’t gonna work in 2012.
The flipside is that it does work–for the Repubs.
Ija
@Socraticsilence:
Easy. Just accuse anybody who brings the issue up of playing the race card. That always work in this country. After all, the worst thing in this country is being called a racist, not being a victim of racism. Throw in some references to the black people defending Obama as being “angry” and we are in business. This is not hard, people.
Left Coast Tom
@Zifnab:
Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer won against well funded, well connected opponents in a wave election. Whitman, in particular, spent $140 mil. or so of her own money to get clobbered.
I think it’s fair to observe that the “enthusiasm gap” wasn’t equally distributed around the country.
amk
It’s always “your fault” with the progressive whiners. Their track-record in electing even a fucking dogcatcher, let alone a president, is worth the dirt on my toe nail.
Whiny navel gazing losers.
Ronbo
John,
If Obama offically a Republican (not just taking action as if he were a Ronald Reagan-loving, left-hating, dyed-in-the-wool military expansionist, civil rights restricting Republican), you’d be up in arms leading the charge against him. But, because he has a (D) behind his name, he is OK!?
I know Carter was defeated after being primaried. But Democrats knew that Carter was a Democrat to the core. Over 40% of Democrats KNOW that Obama is a core Republican.
Even if Obama wins, we lose. Our best chance to save the Democratic party is to have an actual Democrat leading. If you have not noticed, Obama has given the Republicans AND the Corporatists EVERYTHING that they want – before he starts negotiating! If we don’t move him left with a primary, he will continue the flood of appeasment that is stalling our economy, killing the party and destroying the youth vote. Cheap South Korean goods are a great example; they certainly don’t trump American jobs.
I know it is crazy to take the same action (Obama) and expect different results. If he could only achieve marginal Democratic achievments with the House and Senate, why should we expect anything at all when the Republicans own the Senate and drive the media?
Obama has no presidential aspirations. He is a damp washcloth that is down for the count. It won’t be pretty trying to get unemployed, apathetic, disheartened and disrespected Americans to say “Yeah” for Chamberlain Jr. Maybe you have not noticed, but “hope” is dead in America. We want a fighter. No, we NEED a fighter! Obama is just pushing the broom.
steviez314
@Suck It Up!:
Because she’s trying to drum up support for the S.Korea trade deal.
david mizner
@Suck It Up!:
By trying to round up support for the job-killing, antiworker corporate trade pact with S. Korea.
On the one hand, she was just doing her job (that’s the problem when progressives go to work for a neoliberal president.)
On the other hand, what’s wrong with saying a public figure can’t kiss your ass? That used to be par for the course the ‘sphere. The mounting authoritarianism is creepy.
August J. Pollak
That’s not funny at all.
celticdragonchick
@Kryptik:
I’m about where you are.
Ajay
I havent looked at the link but why is it a bad idea to primary Obama? He is coming across as weak, out of touch with common people etc and if Repubs put up a viable middle of the road candidate, Obama would be toast anyway.
I do know Rs have no candidate meeting these requirements but they are extremely good at managing the media and they only need few disgruntled dems in key states to pull it off.
Its too bad Hillary ran a terrible campaign. I do think she has significantly bigger balls than Obama and is more politically savvy.
Mr Furious
Seriously. What viable candidate is going to challenge the first black man elected President in a Democratic primary?
Get a fucking grip. We sink or swim with Obama in 2012.
As it is, this weekend was the first time I started believing that Obama could/would lose to the GOP—even Palin. Any challenge that splits the party at all would absolutely guarantee it.
Socraticsilence
@Lolis:
The Gitmo thing needs to be mentioned whenever anyone brings up this “progressive champion” in the Feingold was a freaking coward and a sellout- sorry bud you’re criticism from the left schtick had a bit more credibility before it became obvious that it was all talk.
Marc McKenzie
@steviez314: Well…I guess one could say, “Forgive them, Father, they know not what they are doing.”
Still, I too feel the blood boil when I read stuff like this, and that’s not a good thing. While the Right organizes and is disciplined, we’re too busy blasting each other with verbal AK-47s. And also, another thing…if these guys know soooo much, why aren’t they in the Senate, or the House, or the White House?
Or is it a case of “it’s easier to talk shit about the inside, when you are safely on the outside looking in”?
Keith G
@Ronbo: WTF?
david mizner
@Socraticsilence:
This is one of the uglier aspects of the Obama protection racket, the smearing (and lying about) progressives from FDR to Feingold.
Admirers of Obama don’t want to compare his record to Feingold’s. Believe me, you don’t.
Kryptik
I also agree with the folks above, that Obama is pretty much the best we can get.
This is sadly not a good thing anymore. Fuck, I need a drink.
dan
@Mr Furious: Candidates challenged a black contender, why not a black president? Dems are so in love with his blackness that they won’t want anyone else?
August J. Pollak
Also I should probably point out that there is no way there will be an Obama primary challenge because there isn’t actually anyone who is willing to challenge Obama. If there was they’d have been doing it by now.
Who has pushed back against the president from the left with any meaningful (i.e. electable) political clout? Schumer and Franken are progressive but they still kiss the White House’s ass on all “deals” that need to be made. The House Progressive Caucus (both the ones still intact after 2010 and not) caved completely on the health care bill. Alan Grayson wouldn’t even be popular enough to make every state ballot. Dennis Kuchinch is a punchline.
ChrisNYC
I’m not seeing the disaster for the Democratic Party. I don’t think it’s the Democratic Party that’s agitating for resignation/impeachment/self-immolation/primarying. The people lobbying for these things have been saying for 2 years that they are NOT Democrats, right? They HATE Democrats.
1980 was Kennedy, the living embodiment of the Democratic Party. Alan Grayson is a one term rep who couldn’t get elected in the 2006 wave and who blamed the Democratic Party for his loss this year. No comparison to Ted Kennedy.
Marc McKenzie
@Ajay: Ajay, trust me on this–even if Hillary won, the Repubs would act the same way, perhaps even moreso. After all, look what they did to her husband….
And let’s not forget–a lot of liberals did not like Hillary during the primaries anyway. Some, like Robert Scheer, felt that she was a warmonger, responsible for the Iraq invasion, and that she was only going to continue the policies of her husband (you know, that guy who actually got the country on a pretty decent footing before the Dim Son drove the bloody car off the cliff). Yep, she would have been the first female American President…but would the country have been ready for her? Hell, we’re not even ready for our first AA President….
“I do think she has significantly bigger balls than Obama and is more politically savvy.”
Nice of you to say that, but how long would take before this is twisted into the meme that she must be a lesbian?
Mike Jones
I don’t think primarying Obama is necessarily a great idea, but neither do I think it would necessarily be a disaster. A more liberal candidate who could demonstrate the ability to draw votes, then deliver that support to Obama (because I don’t really believe any primary challenger could win) could actually be an asset to the Democratic ticket (did someone say Howard Dean? Maybe another term as party chairman in exchange for his support?)
One thing that does annoy me is the Democratic habit of looking at the glass as not only half empty, but leaking. Feingold is “a failed Senator”, but Newt Gingrich seems to have more political lives than a cat. Yeah, Feingold lost an election. But that’s not the only thing he’s ever done, and it shouldn’t define him. We’re always far too willing to throw our own under the bus.
Personally, I think a liberal (“progressive”, if you insist) bloc spearheded by, yes, Feingold and Grayson, and perhaps Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean as well, *threatening* to primary Obama could be a Very Good Thing for both his Presidency and the Party. I don’t think an actual primary would be such a great idea, but again, not necessarily a disaster.
Socraticsilence
@Ronbo:
I’m sorry but seriously this is so fucking dumb I don’t know what to even say- seriously the man went to the freaking mat to HCR through- you think most Dems wouldn’t have just rolled over and given up- think again (see Clinton 93) but hey he doesn’t fight ever! Seriously, I swear some of you people live in another goddamn universe where the US is like Sweden and Obama is holding us back from our progressive destiny,
Socraticsilence
@Ronbo:
I’m sorry but seriously this is so fucking dumb I don’t know what to even say- seriously the man went to the freaking mat to HCR through- you think most Dems wouldn’t have just rolled over and given up- think again (see Clinton 93) but hey he doesn’t fight ever! Seriously, I swear some of you people live in another goddamn universe where the US is like Sweden and Obama is holding us back from our progressive destiny,
Suck It Up!
@david mizner:
First of all I never said she couldn’t say it, but I’ve noticed when members of the administration gives it right back people like Hamsher lose their shit. So………..
steviez314
Forget a 2012 primary. Don’t you think they could squeeze in an impeachment during the lame duck session?
And let’s keep in mind starting in 2011 it’s: Obama, Biden, Boehner, Inouye, Hillary, Geithner, for those keeping track of such things.
rickstersherpa
Listen, I read blogs where what Jane Hamsher calls President Obama sound like testimonials (see Yves Smith’s “Naked Capitalism” and “Jesse’s Cafe’ Americain,” for example), as well as Glenn Greenwald. And frankly, any President who did not dismantle the National Security State at once would be regarded as hypocrite and enemy of the Constitution by Glenn. But a primary challenge is music to Republican ears.
I note the article sings (actually sings) with nostalgia for Gene McCarthy’s primary challenge in 1968. Most of you don’t recall that horrible year I expect (as I was 12 turing 13 in June). What this guy in the Huff Post forgets to say is that Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968, an election that pretty much introduced all the memes and characters that plagued the U.S. since then (including Roger Ailes and Karl Rove, who Dan Rather interviewed as a Youth for Nixon worker in 1972). That did not turn out so good for liberals over the next 40 years as we have been pretty much divided, on the defensive, and in retreat ever since. (See Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland.”)
Also, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. You see, NO ONE IS DRAFTED TO GO TO AFGHANISTAN. And the people who do go there (and I know quite a few since I am former Army) want to keep going there to kill “bad guys.” I know people are not exactly happy about the war, they don’t see it going well, but they also don’t particulary like the idea of the Taliban back running Kabul with Osama and Zawhari plotting to get their hands on a Nuke and take over Pakistan from that base. This ambivalence about a war that directly affects only a portion of the population, and that portion of the population being the most pro-war, does not lead to a successful primary challenge.
However, if the President decides to throw Social Security under the bus to show his “deficit” hawkishness, then I think someone could step forward with a primary challenge. It would undermine his support among the Black as well as white and hispanic working classes. And then I might support it if for no other reason then to restore Social Security to 3rd rail status.
By the way, Digby had an excellent account about how the Democrats loss older voters, especially retirees, over the Health Care Debate, as Republicas were able to pose ad the defenders of Medicare. Which is pretty ironic given their plans for Medicare.
Marc McKenzie
@Kryptik: Welcome to the real world. We do the best with what we have, not with what we wish we had.
Christ…to think that I had to paraphrase Rumsfeld (what’s he been up to lately?). I think I’ll join you for that drink–hell, make it a double.
Joe Beese
@Ronbo:
Of course. That’s what Party Over Principles requires.
Joe Bauers
@Socraticsilence:
I didn’t really have an actual point, just snarking that if he were primaried he’d probably just cave and agree to not run, so the circular firing squad would be avoided.
In reality, I think it would be a horrible idea to have a primary challenge. I’m just immensely disappointed and frustrated with him for not realizing what the Republicans are doing to him. He’s not even taking a knife to a gun fight, he’s taking Robert’s Rules of Order. If he would punch back instead of earnestly trying to win Broder’s Medal of Meritorious Bipartisanship, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
david mizner
@Suck It Up!:
This is a substantive policy disagreement. Hamsher disagrees with Obama and Solis. She says so in a colorful way. Isn’t this what want from the liberal critics?
ChrisNYC
@amk: Yes! I’m so tired of this “oh no the mighty professional left is going to unleash its power”!!! Can we keep the track record in mind? Halter, Grayson, pot in CA, Lamont. I mean, their entire argument is, “We are pissed because we NEVER win. So, be really scared of us.” Bizarre.
Chrisd
Let Obama run again and let the moderates who truly appreciate his transitional politics carry the water for his re-election. They are his true constituents. The left can sit out the campaign and pull the lever for the guy if they are so inclined on election day. Why people expect the left’s support of candidates to be independent of policy or action is beyond me. Who would make the same demand of fickle “independents”, or for that matter, the right?
Dennis SGMM
If the economy isn’t substantially headed in the right direction by ’12 there won’t be any need to primary Obama. Regardless of what we think of Obama’s achievements to date, they were insufficient to motivate voters in the recent mid-terms. Yes, the party in power often loses seats in a mid-term but, the Dems lost an exceptional number of seats this time. It appears that elements of the coalition that put Obama into office just didn’t show up.
The Republicans know just as well as we do that if the same malaise obtains in ’12 then Obama will likely lose the election. They will use their control of the House to starve Obama of anything on which to run.
Suck It Up!
@david mizner:
Man, what is up your ass this morning? now people are going after progressives? the left never ever fails to play victim. never.
I can’t speak for others, but I’m pretty confident in comparing Obama’s record to Feingold’s, or Kucinich or Grayson or anyone else you can name. He’s not a no name from Chicago anymore.
I’d also hate to disappoint some of you, but Feingold has publicly stated that he sees what he believes to be a deliberate effort to destroy Obama’s presidency so I hope no one is fantasizing about a primary from Feingold.
Socraticsilence
@Ajay:
based on what? Her Senate record- nope, her failure on HCR in 1993? Seriously, I’m curious where this fantasy comes from- is it because she was reasonably popular as first lady (which is basically a given)?
Marc McKenzie
@Socraticsilence: Well said…it’s amazing how quickly we forget.
Of course, a lot of the “fighting” is done behind closed doors, in meetings and such…maybe people were expecting a steel cage match?
Malcolm Johnson said a few things about this here:
http://fortmchenryii.blogspot.com/2010/10/problem-i-have-as-liberal-with-liberal.html
and PM Carpenter says similar stuff here:
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2010/12/welcome-to-1948.html
Ija
@Ajay:
I hate to be a feminist scold in this forum, but seriously, can we maybe relax with the “bigger balls” thing. Bravery is not a virtue related only to manliness and the size of you balls, whether the balls are literal or metaphorical. If HC is braver or wiser or more heroic or more whatever than Obama, I’m sure it has nothing to do with metaphorical balls. If a woman is brave, it’s really not because she has suddenly stop being a woman and has “grown a pair” or has “bigger balls”.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@david mizner:
Yeah, Feingold really had Obama’s back on the Gitmo bit, eh? He helped to put the knife in deep. Progressive champion my ass. More like take-the-safe-vote when you can ‘progressive’.
He lost, right? Let’s keep listening to Russ!
bystander
I don’t see any way in the world that the Democratic Party will allow a viable contender to challenge Obama. I could see the Democratic Party allowing a kabuki-type exercise that would give the appearance of a primary challenge, but only if the outcome could be largely predicted. If anything, a primary challenge to Obama – as things are currently organized – would likely only serve to entrench the current Democratic Party’s power structure, and power elite. Much needs to happen within the Democratic Party itself before the idea of a challenge to Party preferences has a chance at success.
It is the Democratic Party that supports the presiding Senate and largely determines what our choices are there. The People might have a bit more influence on members of the House. But, again, I look at those places – when it comes down to the wire – where the Democratic Party maintains support and where they withdraw it.
There is something seriously misaligned within the voter’s choice set. We can talk about getting out the vote, and inspiring disaffected voters, but that disaffection and apathy has to be addressed. I’m not fully convinced that the Democratic Party is all that distressed by disaffected voters. There are days when I fully believe the Democratic Party doesn’t even want those voters. If I frame it in terms of “market share,” the Democrats and the Republicans are chasing essentially the same market – despite the Democratic Party’s protestations to the contrary – and that market might only comprise 35-40% of eligible voters. The Democratic Party can’t win with those numbers, so they need to appeal more broadly. The items on which they issue that appeal, however, are easily traded – as we have witnessed.
Suck It Up!
@david mizner:
.
you call “kiss my ass” substantive? I don’t want any critic to do anything except debate the facts. I’m not interested in emotional rants and nonsense to rile up their readers.
Socraticsilence
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Hey man Gitmo’s an abomination and we need to close it now- wait what’s that you want to bring the prisoners to Wisconsin to hold them awaiting trial? Um……
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Ija:
She has huge ovaries?
Ok, for some reason that sounds disturbing.
Tom Q
If anyone here is familiar with Lichtman’s Keys to the Presidency book — an overly formulaic but, in the broad outlines, greatly insightful look at the parameters for presidential elections — you will know there are two Keys that have always been fatal if turned agains incumbents. The first is a recession during the re-election period; the Republicans are moving heaven and earth to bring that about. The second is a intra-party (primary) challenge — and it’s maddening to see “true progressives” firing that on up.
Look at 1912, 1952, 1968, 1980 — it’s a 100% re-election killer. Anyone who says “I don’t believe it’d necessarily be bad for the party” is exposing themselves as historically ignorant.
amk
@Chrisd: It’s exactly the I’m-taking-my-ball-home-since-no-one-lisens-to-me poutrage schtick that makes the left irrelevant to the pols and makes them seek those “mindless” indies and even reasonable repubs. If you’re not gonna vote because you didn’t get your pony, why the fuck any pol would even glance at you, let alone listen to you ? The continuous sidelining of the left is being done for a reason.
El Tiburon
A very smart lady who I had the pleasure of meeting before she departed this life had this to say about Bill Moyers running for President:
Here’s what we do. We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It’s simple, cheap and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there.
The poor man who is currently our president has reached such a point of befuddlement that he thinks stem cell research is the same as taking human lives, but that 40,000 dead Iraqi civilians are progress toward democracy.
Do I think Bill Moyers can win the presidency? No, that seems like a very long shot to me. The nomination? No, that seems like a very long shot to me.
Then why run him? Think, imagine, if seven or eight other Democratic candidates, all beautifully coiffed and triangulated and carefully coached to say nothing that will offend anyone, stand on stage with Bill Moyers in front of cameras for a national debate what would happen? Bill Moyers would win, would walk away with it, just because he doesn’t triangulate or calculate or trim or try to straddle the issues. Bill Moyers doesn’t have to endorse a constitutional amendment against flag burning or whatever wedge issue du jour Republicans have come up with. He is not afraid of being called “unpatriotic.” And besides, he is a wise and a kind man who knows how to talk on TV.
Now, Molly Ivins said this in 2006 talking about the 2008 Presidential elections, but it still makes sense to me. Get someone up there to at least change the trajectory of the conversation. It is obvious Obama is not going to lead us out of the wilderness on his own.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060724_molly_ivins_bill_moyers/
Admiral_Komack
Go ahead, primary President Obama.
Who’s going to do it?
Saint Russ?
He says he’s not interested.
Glenn Greenwald?
He’ll infer somebody is a Nazi, get pilloried for his stupidity, weasel out and say he REALLY meant Teen Beat magazine.
Fuck him.
NOTE: I liked ABL post on GiGi; now runtellthat.
Bill Maher?
He won’t get gangsta, believe it.
Michael Moore?
He. Won’t. Do. It.
Ed Shultz?
Keith Olbermann?
Rachel Maddow?
Chris Matthews?
They’ve all got cushy jobs that they WILL NOT give up to run a campaign, let alone deal with the criticism upon taking a position on an issue.
So…WHO is going to primary President Obama?
fraught
“I think that’s why yellow makes me sad.”
Kryptik
@amk:
I see this a lot, and yes, progressives saying they’re going to stay home and not vote is annoying.
But at the same time…what was the trend like from the election? I could very well be wrong, but it seemed like ardent liberals and progressives were the ONLY people that came out and really voted for Dems, with the mushier folk both demographically and ideologically being the washouts.
Mithras
The only kind of serious primary challenge to Obama could come from the right, by a candidate who could appeal to those older, white, conservative disaffected Democrats who weren’t that keen on him in the first place. In that case, I expect black Democrats will turn out in droves and white liberals will have a change of heart and do the same.
There is no viable challenge from Obama’s left because (a) as others have pointed out, there are no viable challengers, and (b) all the disaffected white liberal Dems who are turning on him don’t have the money or the organization skill.
So, in either case, Obama wins the primary. It could hurt him in the general, or it could help him, depending on how it fits into his kumbayah shtick.
Chrisd
@amk: You display way too much passion for the actions of a “sidelined” group. If the left is irrelevant, then you don’t need its votes. Win your elections without them. There’s nothing to get worked up about. Ignore them.
If you need left support, however, treat them like any other essential block of voters. Democratic candidates are no more entitled to left votes as they are those of more moderate voters.
Tom65
Hamsher and the other professional grievance farmers have spent the last two years creating their own reality, where anything short of free health care and legalized pot – within the first year of the administration – is considered a complete failure. This of course feeds their second-favorite activity: saying “I told you so” when none of their magic pixie dust fantasies come true.
Now we get to hear long-winded lectures about how purging the impure (Bernie Sanders among them, according to one Jane’s infamous screeds) will somehow “save” the party.
Mr Furious
@dan: There’s a world of difference between an honest competition in an open election and trying to remove him from office.
This would hold true in most cases, but in Obama’s case, the message it would send to minorities would be that “Trying out the black guy was a mistake. We need a white guy to take over.”
Are you fucking kidding me? The black vote would absolutely evaporate for not only 2012, but likely a generation. Not to mention the enthusiasm of the very large number of young people who supported him and aren’t wetting their pants over this ongoing stuff like we are.
He has done a fucking terrible job strategically of late, but almost NONE of the failures of the past two years are on him alone.
A primary challenge would really be a scapegoat job.
Ija
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Yeah, not so much, that does sound disturbing. Maybe I’m being silly and overly sensitive. It’s just that I’ve seen references to HC’s bigger balls all over the place. The thing is, I don’t think the people using that phrase is really trying to build up HC, it’s more an effort to neuter Obama IMO. Plus, I really think there is something unhealthy in prescribing gender neutral virtues to something so gender specific.
Suck It Up!
@Ajay:
Hillary is great at witty comebacks, if that’s your definition of bigger balls then whatever. However having a mouth doesn’t mean people will do what you want them to do. That may work on you, but it won’t work on a party that hates powerful women and despises her and bill probably even more than they despise Obama.
And let me say this then I’m out. The reason why I did not support Hillary Clinton is because she was always trying too hard to be one of the boys. Several people wrote the same thing after the primaries so I’m not alone in this. I want a woman’s woman, not someone trying to show she has bigger balls than a man. One of the reasons I can’t stand Palin either.
For those talking about Grayson, Feingold, Dean or whatever the liberal hero is of the moment. I will never understand why this one simple DUH fact has not sunk in: we have a conservative/center right congress. someone to the left of Obama is sure as hell not going to get more from this congress than Obama. And they sure as hell won’t get anything if the Senate goes red in 2012. Unless of course that lib president compromised which I bet they will eventually because no president wants to leave office having achieved nothing but a pat on the back from a handful of bloggers. but hey, if all you are interested in is someone who talks a lot of smack to the Republicans, then primary Obama.
Chrisd
@Kryptik: Yeah, but it’s a lot easier to blame the left for its tepid support than address the problems with building a party around independents, isn’t it?
martha
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Feingold lost because he wouldn’t fight in exactly the way the wacko left is complaining about Obama–he wimped out. I ought to know. I live here. He was all purity and sunshine and refused to take a gun to knife fight. So he got beat by a manchurian candidate/teabagger who was going to change Washington who just hired a new chief of staff…a lobbyist. Well knock me over with a feather…
cat48
Dennis SGMM
@Chrisd:
It’s also easier to blame the left than it is to blame the party for its decades-long failure to come up with an effective and persuasive counter to the Republicans’ anti-tax message.
kay
I object to this. It’s a dodge. If anyone wants to be part of the “Democratic Party structure” there’s a process in place for that. It starts at the precinct level, then goes to the county level, then goes to the state level. It involves winning elections, and it takes a long time. I don’t really understand complaining about mysterious “Party elites” when we’re talking at the most basic level about people who are, say, county chairs.
Active Democrats vote for Party leaders. They choose to participate in selecting the people who make up what constitutes “the Democratic Party Leadership”. Active Democrats may run for Party offices. If they choose not to take part in that process, I don’t really buy that their will was somehow subverted by “Party elites”.
You could do it, if you so choose. You won’t be an “elite” (whatever that means) in a week and half, but it’s silly to pretend the elected leadership of the Democratic Party got there by fiat. It isn’t true.
david mizner
@Suck It Up!:
I don’t think there’s a chance in hell Feingold will run; I was just making a point about Feingold, who, unlike Obama, is anti-Afghanistan war, anti Too Big to Fail Banks, anti-corporate trade, anti-indefinite detention, anti-illegal wire tapping, anti-death penalty, and pro-gay marriage. That’s the short list.
What’s up my ass? I don’t know. The usual, I think. Anwyay, I’m making an effort to stay out the Obama wars — unsuccesful this morning — so I’ll see you elsewhere.
Marc McKenzie
@El Tiburon: Tiburon, I also liked and respected Molly Ivins very much, and miss her greatly.
However, and I’m sorry to say this, I respectfully disagreed with her on this. You seem to forget the 800lb gorilla in the room–the MSM, and by extension the Republican smear machine. If they could take a solid, hard-working public servant like Al Gore and a loyal soldier and anti-war figure (as well as a solid, hard-working public servant) like John Kerry and twist them into something truly odious, then imagine what they would do to someone like Moyers?
Or for that matter, Feingold? Or Kucinich? Hell, look at what they’ve done to Obama (sadly, with some help from the liberal blogosphere).
Best thing to do would be to read this:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/101510.html
…and this:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/102010.html
To some, a primary challenge against Obama to “teach him a lesson” or “toughen him up” may seem invigorating and awesome. Yet history has shown, time and time again, that it all turns to ash and defeat. And you wouldn’t want the taste of ash in your mouth.
And before you add, “But I taste defeat already!” just take a look at the accomplishments of this administration. Yes, he isn’t perfect and they are not perfect and the whole damned world isn’t perfect. But that’s how it is–there was, and will be, no utopia. No perfect world. We live–and deal with–the flawed, f’ed up one we have, and try to make it a little better for all, one step at a time.
meh
what do you call a Democratic President, Senate, and House that enacts the GOP’s #1 legislative agenda? You call them Republicans. At which point, I decide to sit out of the game considering that it is so utterly corrupt and broken that there is no point in playing. My beef with Obama isn’t getting hamstrung an obstructionist minority, it’s his inability to voice that problem in a cogent way so the American sheeples understand it. For being such a bright guy and orator, he is really a lousy communicator sometimes. I think the “primary him!” calls aren’t about finding someone to the left of Obama as much as it is about finding someone that can better articulate the goals of the left, the obstructionism of the right, and to show a little spine when deciding that letting all cuts expire because the GOP refuses to let Millionaires and Billionaires pay 3% more on their taxes. I’m mad because he’s gutless – he’s afraid to throw elbows – He’s the ED Kain of modern American politics. A spineless punk and he’s lost my vote.
Marc McKenzie
@Dennis SGMM: Dennis, take a gander at this:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/102010.html
…we cannot stand above it all and wash our hands of this. We are all at fault for not striking back at the 30+ years of Republican bullshit memes. Stabbing ourselves in the back and engaging in circular firing squad actions (or turning into Firedoggers) just makes it even worse.
amk
@Chrisd:
Yes. It is. If the left is constantly sniping at your toes. Throwing public tantrums would only alienate adults.
Dennis SGMM
@Marc McKenzie:
Excellent link. Much food for thought there. Bookmarked the site.
Chrisd
I’ve got a solution for you–ignore all the sniping and re-dedicate your efforts to building a successful Democratic party around pragmatic, process-oriented, responsible, adult independent moderates. That will really fire up the masses.
I wish you the best with that.
jwb
@Marc McKenzie: And smart Gooper money will be funneling money to anyone who seems to have a remote chance. I’m sure smart Gooper money is already heavily invested (if also disguised) in funding the dissident left.
Dennis SGMM
@jwb:
I’ve been a member of the dissident left since the mid-Sixties. Where’s my fucking check?
kay
I would also add that Obama himself is proof-positive that an “insurgent” candidate can win, with or without mysterious “Party elites”.
I’m active in a state party, and Clinton was the hands-down, overwhelming favorite of “Party elites” (in my state, anyway), if by “Party elites” we mean elected representatives at the State Party level. That’s reality. That happened.
I think primarying the President is completely insane, and I’ll be actively engaged in beating you- fair warning :)
But. Just don’t tell me you can’t. You can.
Scott de B.
Sure we do, because both are highly accomplished liberal politicians.
You can, of course, do what you like, but I’ll point out that the Republicans didn’t primary Bush in 2004.
Oh, that’s right, Bush “gave the Republican base everything they wanted.” Like a ban on abortion. Privatizing Social Security. Deporting all undocumented immigrants. Blocking Medicare part D. Ending all foreign aid. Criminalizing gay marriage. Outlawing pornography. Drilling in ANWR. Vetoing the Real ID Act. Reinstituting school prayer. Posting the Ten Commandments in every government building. Yep, he gave them everything they wanted.
amk
@Chrisd: 80 to 85% of “the base” is with the democratic party and the prez. It’s the clueless, eternal malcontents that are bleating about primarying.
bystander
kay,
Who controls the money in the Democratic Party?
I don’t dispute your notion of how one can become involved in the Party’s apparatus. What I’m arguing is that for those who think they can successfully primary Obama, with someone very much different than Obama, there needs to be a shift within the Party itself.
Obviously, you are correct that it works from the ground up. That’s why I think the kind of challenger many are looking for is years – if not decades – away. It will take years for the Party to support someone other than a neoliberal for President, and it’s probably going to take equally that long to find a viable non-neoliberal candidate.
imho, neoliberalism is what’s for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in both of our major political parties. The “cultural” stuff is just the window dressing at the margins. It’s not inconsequential, but it’s not central to either party. It’s central to the voters who are affected (like LGBT issues), and those who support them (like me), but to the two parties it’s just the beach ball they amuse themselves with at a concert. They’re real good at keeping it in the air.
Chrisd
@amk: Again, why do you care?
bystander
@kay:
Okay. Now I understand. Thanks.
Marc McKenzie
@Tom65: You’ve gotta be kidding–they’re going after Bernie Sanders?
Jesus…talk about a living, breathing version of the Oroborous…
colby
I mean this as a sincere question: what, substantitvely, are Hillary’s “toughness” bona fides? I mean, I like her quite a bit and think she’s doing a good job at State, but I feel like her Senate career was marked by a constant aversion to rocking the boat. And while, again, I like her a lot at State, I haven’t seen her pounding her shoe on the desk with Netenyahu. Sure, she talked tough in the campaign, but that seems like a very different beast to me.
kay
@bystander:
I don’t care if you work within that structure, or burn it down, or whatever.
All I’m saying is I don’t want to hear that “Party elites” subverted your chance to run a liberal. You’ll have to show me something before making that allegation, like election results. Is fundraising important for a primary challenger? hell, yes. Definitely a hurdle, I agree. But that’s the existing process.
Don’t dodge. If you want to challenge the President, there’s a process for that. If you want to shift Party leadership to the Left, there’s an existing process for that, too. You can reject it, your call, and say the game is rigged, but you’ll have to show me, and I don’t know how you do that if you’re not in it.
Kryptik
I would like to point out…if the ‘dissidents’ in the Democratic party are so small and minute…why the fuck are ‘mainstream’ Dems going out of their way to hippie punch them at every turn and blame them for all the ails of the party, while simultaneously tucking tail and bending over so the Republicans can swing their heavy steel-toed ‘Fuck You’ boot into their ass again?
Yeah, some of the ‘far left’ are annoying, but…since when have they had any honest to god power to sway fucking anything? They’re not the ones compromising away every fucking ticket the Dems have had. So if the “far left” or “professional left” are really having this kind of deleterous effect on the party? Maybe the issue isn’t them. Maybe the issue is the party being so fucking worthless that even a ‘minute’ wing of the party has the power to destroy it from within.
amk
@Chrisd: ‘cos I love smacking down bullshite.
rickstersherpa
I also note that neither Gene McCarthy’s primary challenge (or even worse, his undercutting of Humphrey during the general election) ended the Vietnam War. Nixon and Kissinger continued it for over 4 more years, primarily because Nixon found it politically useful and he did not want to appear to have lost the war on his watch and Kissinger thought that killing larger and larger numbers of people would get the Russians and Chinese to take us more seriously. So they carried it on with even more ferocious violence then LBJ had.
I am doing this from memory (as a quick google search has not been successful), but Reagan had low approvals and low polling numbers except among true blue (or is that now “red”) Republicans and Conservatives in 1979 and early 1980. Yet, a very unhappy America voted him into office in 1980. The primary challenge certainly did not help Carter, but Carter’s lack of focus in his economic policy, and eventual tilt to neo-liberalism (laissez-faire and hard money), and the resulting economic slump with high inflation probably did not most self-injury. Primary challenges are in the end a symptom, not a cause of the disease that leads to defeat.
Why the Carter turn to neo-liberalism in economic policies (“free” trade, degulation, and mild hostility toward unions (as opposed to Republican “deep seated hatred”). Carter was a “New South” moderate Democrat, a liberal on civil rights (although relatively conservative, at least at the time) on abortion. But like most Southern Democrats, conservative or moderate, he had a distaste for unions, and the unions had opposed him in 1976. And the unions and liberals were still at best in an uneasy truce since the great clashes of 1968 and 1972, when the AFL-CIO remained hawkish on Vietnam and had in effect supported Nixon 1972. He was also under the influence of Duttonism (see Fred Dutton and “Nixonland”), which considered unions obsolete and reactionary given the the overall level of rising affluence and prosperity (those were the days, eh), and hence liberals did not need them or the dirty industries in which they worked. Carter turned from the New Deal and Government interventionism and toward laissez-faire as result. He also put a subsidary issue (Energy) ahead of the primary issue (the economy).
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Dennis SGMM: So Obama thinks appeasing the Republicans is ’12 electoral salvation?
kindness
You can link this a Black Jimmy Carter but….President Obama’s actions have consistently sucked. And I don’t mean damn I’m not happy with the guy. I mean, Damn, is this some undercover Republican? Is this guy a secret Blue Dog who wants Sarah Palin to be President in 2012?
Look, I’ll vote for the Democrat over any listed Republican in 2012, but I honestly think primarying the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave might be what is needed. He’s fucked me over on every single issue. He blew off the Public Option without any compromise or gains made. He’s screwed the gays by saying he wants DADT to be ended by the legislature (knowing it never will be). He’s nominated centrists as judges, one liberal is all I’ve seen and he’s still locked up in the Senate. Now he’s bargaining away tax cuts for gazillionaires so he can get….well, I don’t think he’ll be able to get what ever it is the repubs will agree to give him because I firmly believe they will pull a Lucy to Barak’s Charlie Brown.
The Repubs a loathsome neanderthals….but President Obama is clueless as to how this game is played.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Scott de B.: He gave them the most important thing of all: the Supreme Court. As Vice President Biden said: “That’s a big fucking deal!!”
Hal
She’s so politically savvy, she ran a bad political campaign? Isn’t that a contradiction?
ricky
We must have a primary challenge. Without it some of the liberal blogs might let loose of their choke holds allowing the weaker in the herd to survive but be left wandering around aimlessly with scarred necks. Can’t have that. We need a lean, mean opinion machine to fight corporatists on both sides of the same aisle.
ricky
@Kryptik:
Uh, who is going out of their way to punch hippies and blame them for all the ails of the party?
theturtlemoves
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: Um, he made those appointments in his SECOND term. The one after he didn’t get a primary challenger from his own party for not doing all the stuff Scott de B. mentioned he didn’t do.
Hal
@kindness
Um, that is how congressional laws are ended, by Congress. Not blocked from being implemented by an Executive Order, but truly and completely ended.
Cain
@Mike Jones:
OK, say you did get a more liberal candidate. What will this liberal candidate do as president? Will they be able to get all their positions filled in government? Will they be able to pass any bills at all?
Basically, you’ll be wasting your grand candidate on a term that is already hopeless. You might as well let Obama keep it for the next 4 years (if that happens). Congress is utterly hopeless right now. If you can’t manage to fix the country when you own two houses of government something is fucked up. Our elected officials, are all center right and we’re not able to do anything about it.
cain
Kryptik
@Hal:
Yeah, my rage at Obama has been at an alltime peak here, but that’s just bullshit. It has to be done by the legislature or courts because it’s fucking federal law. at best, all Obama can do is say in an executive order that ‘we’re not going to enforce this anymore’, and that 1) sets a bad precedent, and 2) can easily be undone by the next wingnut prez.
ricky
@rickstersherpa:
What is pretty ironic is how many “politically active” commenters around the liberal wing of the blogosphere
fail to notice simple, glaring facts like this one. To hear some tell it, the Dem’s trouble from health care came because it was not strong enough. In actual votes at the polls, it was because it took money out of Medicare.
Actually, it is not ironic, it is disgusting. It is not simply why some self proclaimed REAL progressives are not taken seriously, it is why they shouldn’t be taken seriously.
WarMunchkin
How’d that Bull Moose party turn out for you, anyways?
Semi-related but since it hasn’t been covered in the thread:
Anyone have an explanation ready for African American voters about why the first black president is going to be primaried by (probably) a rich white guy?
Scott de B.
Because in the Democratic Party, both sides are forever reliving the 1968 Chicago convention.
jayackroyd
@August J. Pollak:
What August said.
But, given that he won’t, what else can you do?
I have a friend who thinks Liberal Democrats should support a Bloomberg candidacy–at least he doesn’t pretend that he’s not a centrist. Moreover, supporting Bloomberg would rob Obama of his perceived independent, Village loving constituency–forcing him left.
But even THAT’S a problem, because, well, we won’t believe him. The relief he feels at getting rid of the Democratic majority house and weakening the party hold on the Senate is all too evident.
ricky
@WarMunchkin:
African American voters. Are your talking about people
who are, in fact, the REAL base of the Democratic party?
ricky
@Scott de B.:
I do not want to dispute your suggestion of the source of hositilities among various factions. But I will again reiterate my challenge to Kryptik and pose it to you as well. Just who is it among “mainstream” dems that keep going aout of their way to punch hippies and blame them for ills?
And to get even pissier. why should those punching hippies be called “mainstream’ if the hippies they go out of their way to punch are, in fact, THE base. Shouldn’t the professional left borrow a page (or tweet) from Palin and call them “lamestream” Democrats?
Nick
@Ronbo:
If Obama was a Republican, I probably never would’ve left the Republican Party.
Now I’d consider voting Democratic because that candidate would be to the left of Obama and there wouldn’t be any risk of electing anyone further right, but I’d still seriously consider, even to the point actually doing it, voting for Obama the Republican.
Jo
I’m all about primarying BlewDogs and intransigent Dems (start with Dickhead Durbin), but somehow, someway BHO has to be reached to make him understand that he’s the most destructive force within the Democratic Party since the Dixiecrats opposed Civil Rights. I think it’s his fundamental credibility problem… who the fuck believes what he says any more?
It’s funny, but I honestly wonder sometimes what he would have done in the 60s if he had been faced with the decisions LBJ made. Would he have balked at signing Civil Rights legislation or implementing some of the changes that LBJ tried to facilitate with the “Great Society” programs.
Nick
@Mike Jones:
except that candidate won’t draw votes. He or she will draw 20%, not win any states, but will suck up the media narrative enough that it creates a divided Democratic party meme. And when he loses, that 20% will stay home in November because they would say the establishment is the reason for his loss.
Elie
@Joe Bauers:
His own side? He has champions, a trusted base? Dont see he has many friends on any side and perhaps least of all, on the left…
I don’t think that he has a side — esp on the left.
Omnes Omnibus
@jayackroyd: How is that link evidence that Obama is feeling relief?
Scott de B.
So you’re saying the left should be imitating the unstoppable political juggernaut that is Sarah Palin?
Rob
Dear Liberal Base: Everything you care about is “fantasy land”, “a unicorn”, “a pony”, etc.; and if Obama loses, it’s All Your Fault.
Did I leave out anything?
Scott
Geez John! Forget your history much?
Carter carried 5 states and DC for a total of 49 EC votes versus Reagan’s 489.
To imply as you do that Carter’s loss was due to a primary challenge simply doesn’t wash.
Carter got hammered by Reagan because of the perception by the American voting public that he sucked as a president NOT because Teddy primaried him.
In fact, I’d posit that one of the main reasons Teddy primaried Carter was because of the perception of the voting public that he sucked as a president.
That seems to me to be as good a reason as any to primary a sitting president.
And to imply as you and others do that you shouldn’t primary a president simply because he’s your guy and he may be less bad than what the other guys run ignores the main purpose of the primary — to engage in a family argument over the direction of the party and the country and in so doing perhaps to adjust the direction of the party platform so that it stands a better chance of winning the general election.
The concept of a sitting president somehow being possessed of a magical anointing that should make him impervious to a challenge from within his party is very republican John. But then, those are your roots so perhaps that explains your attitude.
Elie
@ricky:
I have problems with calling a population a base, if they indeed do not support the candidate.
Obama may have a base. But I would argue that it is not on the left.
The base that you refer to, by the way its behaving, doesnt seem to feel that it has a leader that it can support and is going about defeating this other dude, Obama. It could be very successful in defeating him. It would most assuredly give us a really excellent right winger like Palin.
That would I am sure would make you happy and all will be good with your world once that is accomplished
Konrad
Please allow me to make a distinction in the types of political discourse we’re seeing here.
For some people, politics is a pasttime. A hobby, a passion, a job, something to occupy your mental faculties, a game. The Republicans won Congress? Glenn Greenwald still has a job. Jane Hamsher can still pay her bills. Cenk Uygur has a place to sleep in. Do they care? Absolutely! They will spend hours talking and organizing and discussing and pondering the reasons for this turnaround. Did Obama betray his liberal base? Were the Blue Dogs the architects of their own demise? Were the Republicans too enthusiastic, or were the Democrats not enthusiastic enough?
It’s ultimately a game. They take the game seriously, more seriously than many people take their jobs, and they do a lot of good through their efforts. However, they have the luxury of saying that the Health Care Reform Bill was a handout to health insurance corporations. They can say that we should follow Feingold’s example and vote against all of the tax cuts. They can say that Democrats are sellouts to corporations and that they are disappointed at the expansion of the national security state, and they’re not wrong!
But at the end of the day, they can leave that mindset. They can go out to eat with their spouses, friends, or family, and not think about politics, and it’s nice to take a break sometimes.
Are there people who can’t take a break! Absolutely! They’re our nation’s poor and lower-middle class people. HCR was a sellout to our professional left, but for people earning too much for Medicaid but not enough for private health insurance, it’s one less life-breaking thing to worry about. The households making $50,000 a year could really use that extra couple hundred dollars that they get from the Democrats’ tax cut. These people are who the Democrats are fighting for. We’re not fighting to win. Hell, we can’t agree what victory is. But we, as a party, can help people that need it.
And what will we get for our efforts? Many of our urban poor won’t vote, despite being the beneficiaries of government programs. Many of our lower-middle class will vote for our opponents, because of Jesus and Mooslims. Many of the people we have given hours of our lives to through organizing will not spend 10 minutes to vote.
So why do anything at all? Because you know that you are doing the right thing.
Li
Haven’t you guys figured it out yet? Obama used to work for Business Corporation International, a CIA front group and general facilitator of economic warfare. If he isn’t a Republican in disguise, he is at the least a toady for big business. And the corporate goons are currently destroying the economy, the environment, and our international standing, if you haven’t noticed. Given that the only alternative to a primary challenge for Obama is to have Republicans (or something like a Republican) running for president for both parties I don’t see how not running a primary challenge is good for Democrats. Wouldn’t that be a capitulation, the party finally rolling over and conceding their status as Republican Party II, even while the populace is sick of the policies of Republican Party I? Having R policies coming out of a “D” president only gives the Republicans a scapegoat for the enacting of their own preferred policies! Christ on a soda cracker, how is continuing that good for Democrats?
ricky
@Scott de B.:
Either that or suggesting an intellectual kindred. She is the R base they aspire to be among D’s.
BombIranForChrist
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … Carter didn’t lose because of Kennedy. I know that fits the argument you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t fit the facts.
Konrad
@Li:
See, you’re not working towards a solution of any sort. You’re just complaining.
elf
ahh where is Pelosi when you need her..too bad it would never work tho because she has the cajones to get it done
Dennis SGMM
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
I have no idea what Obama’s plan is or even what he stands for these days.
LTMidnight
A Primary Challenge of Obama from the left will be the Biggest Display of Liberal Racism Ever
If disgruntled liberals who talk about primarying Obama are really serious, they better be prepared for what a serious challenger to the president will have to do.
Said challenger will have to be white (notice all the names thrown around are white men and woman).
President Obama has an 89% approval rating among African Americans. That number has never dropped below 85% at any time during his presidency. Barring some cataclysmic event, any serious primary challenger of Obama from the left will have to realize that African Americans aren’t going anywhere.
So that serious challenger of Obama from the left will have no choice but to try to win over as many white liberals as possible, even if that mean marginalizing or even suppressing black voters. In other words, they will have to engage in the “Southern Strategy: Liberal Edition”. Such a run will make the racism that occur in the 2008 Democratic primary look like Sesame Street. Only this time, the racism will be condoned by Liberals.
And let’s all this occurs and the primary challenger ends up winning, the supporters of that challenger will want to go “Okay, now let’s put this behind us, let bygones be bygones, and come together to win the general”. It will be at this point where you will find out what the loudest “Fuck You” ever heard sounds like. It will also be at this point where Liberal will be reminded that they can’t win a fucking pie-eating contest without African American support.
So when the Republican Candidate wins, in very much the way gays blamed black people for Prop 8 passing in California, white liberals will blame blacks for costing them the electing. It will be at this point they will find out what the second-loudest “Fuck You” sounds like.
So it’s time to ask these disgruntled liberals if this is the road they want to take.
Scott de B.
It certainly didn’t help. Most candidates get a bump from their party convention. The 1980 Democratic convention — during which Kennedy refused to withdraw even though he was certain to lose the nomination — was one of the nastiest in recent memory.
And I’ll note that that primary challenge did absolutely zero to get more liberal policies enacted in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. That has to be some kind of record.
We had that argument. In 2008. We’ll have another one in 2012 if Obama loses, or in 2016 if he wins. That’s how the political process works in the 21st century.
LTMidnight
And for the really clueless moonbats that say “it wouldn’t be racial”, guess what, it already is.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/12/pccc-enters-full-race-baiting-mode-with.html
Gus diZerega
The emphasis on whether or not to primary this pretty pathetic guy seems to me off track. And I have come to despise him because he has blatantly broken promises he did not need congress to achieve. (For example, greater transparency anyone?). So I do not have any very positive words on his behalf.
Even so, it would be better, far better, to put that energy and money into primarying Democrats who do not act very much like Democrats who are in districts where a decent candidate could win, and also to push for a end to plurality elections in favor of majority elections in states with initiatives. Only changing the basic rules so as to allow for more than two political oligopolists might make a significant difference.
To my mind Obama is a disaster and a liar, and I’d like to see him pay for what he’s done. But the opposition is far worse and as some have already pointed out, we do not at the moment have a very good set of alternatives. We should not go for the “man on the white horse” strategy. It’s a bad strategy.
What we need is to deepen the talent pool of decent candidates, and that means pushing for ending plurality in states where it can be done and getting a bunch of better candidates where the current crop of losers can be ousted.
ricky
@Scott:
You accuse John Cole of forgetting history? Why?
Because he said “It’s almost like 1980 never happened?”
You assume the only lesson that year was that division led to the election of Reagan? The larger lesson to the left ought to be that Jimmy “weak- ass out-of-nowhere Southern boy” Carter,who pissed off the left with his failed Presidency, beat the last of Camelot in Ted Kennedy when the left primaried him.
Earlier I asked Kryptik who is was he thinks keeps punching hippies. To you I will point out that, whoever it is, they do it because 1980 taught them that even inside the Democratic Party, punching hippies is a win.
plasticgoat
2nd terms are not a given, they have to be earned. President Obama is not doing himself any favors by throwing over the American public to keep the top 2% happy. He has brought this on himself.
Larv
@Ajay:
Do you not see a bit of an internal contradiction here? A big part of that terrible campaign was a lack of political savviness, like putting so much faith in Mark Penn. Or do you mean the political savvy she displayed when she was in charge of the Clinton health care reforms? Most of the analyses I’ve read of its failure put the blame on a failure to correctly read and shape public opinion. Which is the exact same shit people are criticizing Obama for. So color me unconvinced about her savvy.
And I could care less about “balls” or being a “fighter”. Unless you have the rock-solid support of your party in Congress, it’s way too easy to go from being a “fighter” to being a “loser”. And the simple fact is that Democratic pols (and, to a lesser degree, voters) just don’t agree on any of the major issues – the banks, the economy, Gitmo, etc… There is nothing like the Republican unanimity on taxes or the expansion of US power or even immigration. Hell, look at the comment threads here – we’re pretty much all Dems, and we don’t fucking agree on anything except cute pets. We’re simply a more diverse coalition than the Republicans, and that makes consensus much, much harder to come by. There’s no real point in coming out fighting for a position that a significant portion of your base will hate you for, and where your nominal allies in Congress will stab you in the back.
@david mizner:
Hmm, I must have missed the Feingold presidency. News-Flash: It’s a lot easier to retain your partisan cred in an essentially partisan position like senator than as President. Every president in my memory has been attacked by members of his own party as being insufficiently partisan. It’s part of the job.
Nick
@plasticgoat:
I’m sure the unemployed who will continue to receive benefits are going to feel like the President “threw them over” for the rich.
Kay
@rickstersherpa:
And it’s doubly ironic that liberals didn’t defend them there, because they cut from the conservative privatization scheme for Medicare, and allocated the funds to the uninsured. In other words, they tried to UNDO the conservative program that was bleeding Medicare dry. Liberal enough for ya? Apparently not. Woosh. Right over liberal heads.
But keep talking about “messaging”, because that’s what’s important. Not, ya know, what actually happened.
cat48
@Dennis SGMM:
He’s giving a speech on the Economy right now…….maybe that would be helpful to see “what he stands for”
ricky
@Konrad:
No. Li is doing more than that. Li is pinning the
“Punch me. I am a hippie” sticker on his/her own self.
And on the front.
ricky
@Kay:
Your analysis of the policy implications are absolutely correct.
Unfortunately it was the political implications of “cutting billions from Medicare” that the Republicans were able to exploit unanswered. Democrats did not regonize the danger, having torn themselves apart infighting over the public option (which even if adopted would not have had practical benefits until two elections later).
ricky
@plasticgoat:
Plasticgoat has captured Li’s flag…er sticker.
Elie
@plasticgoat:
Himself?
Man, think of the alternatives? Do you think Obama will care? If he loses, he still gets to go home to his retirement pension and publish books, etc..
What do WE get? You think that the Republicans are going to give us someone like Obama? Really?
Man, you are a fool and so are many of your other foolish lefty team… You will destroy this guy to satisfy your foolish ego and your arrogant ignorant view of what is actually capable of being done through governance in this country right now.
You are like the fool that gives ten dollars to a guy who asks you to swap for his quarter. You don’t know the value of what you have any more than the fool in this example and so are more dangerous (in aggregate with your other friends), than almost anyone else could be. You will do what Obama would not do — consign us for sure to a true right wing fascist government through the republicans. .. and you are too stupid to get that. Also.
Ron
@Ronbo: Wow, there are no words for how fucking idiotic you sound. Obama is a republican? What the fuck are you smoking?
MikeMc
@Elie: I agree. There seems to be a large number of progressives who are completely unable to see anything good Obama has done. The auto bail-out saved a million jobs. The healthcare reform got 30 million people health insurance. How many jobs has Jane Hamsher saved? Also, I’m having hard time recalling how many people Paul Krugman got health insurance.
ricky
@LTMidnight:
You went from right and righteous in you earlier comment
to trying to steal the “punch me” sticker with the link you provided in the second. Spending that many column inches
of commentary on skin tone in an ad is purile nonsense.
bcw
@ konrad
You said:”Are there people who can’t take a break! Absolutely! They’re our nation’s poor and lower-middle class people. HCR was a sellout to our professional left, but for people earning too much for Medicaid but not enough for private health insurance, it’s one less life-breaking thing to worry about. The households making $50,000 a year could really use that extra couple hundred dollars that they get from the Democrats’ tax cut. These people are who the Democrats are fighting for. We’re not fighting to win. Hell, we can’t agree what victory is. But we, as a party, can help people that need it….
So why do anything at all? Because you know that you are doing the right thing. ”
I don’t agree.
The permanent deficit from the tax cuts will create momentum for far worse government spending cuts – further stagnating the economy. This has been Krugman’s argument. Even the unemployment benefits that may be tacked on are for a small fraction of the people being cut-off. Those who have already lost their benefits are SOL.
The Republicans are already using the expected cave on this to set up the next hostage cycle – where they use the physician reimbursement rate fix to defund the new health plan.
Oscar Leroy
Wow, I didn’t know a politician as skilled as Reagan was waiting on the Republican bench.
And we all know a primary challenge was why Nixon was elected. Well, that and the sitting president choosing not to run again and the next-in-line being assassinated.
Oscar Leroy
@steviez314:
I respect your stand, because of all the times you call out pro-Obama people for calling someone “stupid” or “motherfucker” or “buffoon”.
“What they should be doing is trying to get Ralph nader to run as a Green. Now that’s something that’s guaranteed to get them what they want! ”
You’ve obviously completely forgotten why people voted for Nader in 2000.
plasticgoat
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding amongst the left when it comes to unemployment benefits. I suggest you visit the GOS are read the diary on the rec list by Frisbeeterian.
Gozer
@Marc McKenzie:
You don’t remember that? After Sanders fought for (and obtained) billions of dollars for community health centers in the health care bill he committed the crime of voting to let the bill go forward.
For that Hamsher called for him to be primaried.
Jules
@Ronbo:
This is such a load of bullshit that I could not read any farther without saying…this is just bullshit.
But I’m sure that when President Palin wins the progressive/liberal Dems who decided to primary President Obama will get some very nice thank you cards.
lol
Maybe the media gadflies on the Professional Left like Sirota and Hamsher will back a primary challenger but they’re just two votes and the actual base of the party is pretty happy with Obama.
Oscar Leroy
@rickstersherpa:
Does everyone get that? Pointless wars that bankrupt our country and kill innocent people are alright IF the army is all-volunteer.
Kevin
This kind of comment shows that the two sides are talking right past each other. Taking them one by one:
Except that it set up a two tiered wage system, making those jobs substantially worse than they were and weakening one of the few pieces of national infrastructure that back Dems. Not a complete win by any stretch of the imagination
Technically, it has gotten a few thousand people health insurance, as it doesn’t start until 2014 to appease the CBO and the deficit hawks. And when it does kick in, there are still serious questions about how effective that insurance will be and Obama traded away the most effective check on private insurance, the public option. Again, not a clear cut win.
This isn’t about that nitwit Hamsher or even Krugman. Defenders of Obama paint him as some sort of progressive god, when, in fact, his results have been at best moderate Republican. Not all of that is his fault, of course, but he doesn’t lose well. There has been no threat to blow up the filibuster. Heck, I haven’t even heard the words “up or down” vote out of the Administration. He weakened union in this country. His education policies are Bush’s on steroids. His foreign policy while better is still very neo-liberal. His record on civil rights and the police state, Gitmo aside, are not much better. He constantly gives away negotiating pieces, and he has done a very poor job articulating a counter vision to the “government bad!” screeching from the right.
You want two things from a politician: advancing as many of your goals as possible and advancing, even it means losing some individual battles, your institutional power and the terms of your arguments. Obama has not been good at either, really (though HC might be read as making it the government’s responsibility for making sure citizens have access to health care). HCR probably gave more money and thus power to private insurers. Auto bailouts almost certainly weakened unions, and thus the institutional power of the left, even assuming those two items are wins. progressives have lost ground in civil rights, the police state, arguably in education (certainly they have seen Obama advance the ‘testing is god!’ and we are in an education crisis! notions), lost ground in the austerity vs. investment arguments.
I think primarying Obama would be counter productive, but stop blowing smoke up my ass about how wonderful a progressive he has been. Has has not really achieved progressive goals, he has not increased progressive institutional power or weakened conservative institutional power, and he retreated from progressive principles more often than he has defended them. If you consider all this a win, collectively, for progressivism, than I don’t understand your thought process at all.
lol
@Oscar Leroy:
Because “Bush and Gore are EXACTLY alike.”
How’d that work out for the Greenies?
Oscar Leroy
@Jules:
She’s such a good politician! And so many Americans like her! She’s bound to win if we challenge Obama! It makes perfect sense! ! ! !!
lol
@Kevin:
Auto bailouts almost certainly weakened unions
Because if we let GM liquidate, the unions would’ve been so much better off.
Li (Aaron Fown)
@Konrad You presume too much, my friend. I have, in fact, given up on making money with my degrees for a few years and taken it unto myself to devote my life to finding sustainable technologies and workable, democratizing methods for growing food, producing energy, and providing useful media for people. It’s been my full time job for more than a year now, because I SEE NO SOLUTIONS COMING FROM OUR ‘LEADERSHIP’. They are allowing our world to be destroyed, our families to be robbed, and our birthright to be squandered, and if we don’t pick up the slack and start working for a better world ourselves, and in so doing make sure that those boobs become increasingly irrelevant, then we are dooming the human race with our apathy.
Check out what I am doing here. I am producing a TV show, with my meagar funds, all by myself, and putting it out there for free, I am so concerned with what is going on. If you’d like, you could contribute on my ‘store’ page, I would appreciate it.
Summarizing, complaining isn’t all I am doing, not by any rational measure; in fact, I bet I am doing far more to fix this problem than you, but I wouldn’t be so rude as to presume that is true.
Complaining isn’t my job, it’s just a hobby.
Oscar Leroy
LOL! Does anyone “farm” more grievance than the people here at BJ? “Look, the Washington Post said something dumb!” “Look, the firebaggers are at it again!”
Oscar Leroy
@lol:
Okay, I should have explained: in 2000 it was pretty obvious that Bush was such a trainwreck that Gore would get more votes (like half a million more). So lots of people voted Green instead, hoping to build support for a more liberal party.
If you knew back then that butterfly ballots and the Supreme Court would decide the election instead of votes, gosh I wish you’d said something.
Kay
@ricky:
Well, we disagree. Democrats did “recognize the danger” but it’s a tough argument to make (all people were going to hear was MEDICARE CUTS!) and they decided to leave it alone.
Which is a judgment call that people have to make when they’re being hit with a fucking massive onslaught of lies. They have to pick battles. Digby may have done better. We’ll never know. She wasn’t in it.
You’re comfortable second-guessing that tactical decision. I’m not. I think it’s easier to sneeringly spout advice than actually do something so I generally avoid advice-giving, in real life, and I stopped the “I told you so” bullshit” when I reached adulthood. It’s useless.
Oscar Leroy
@amk:
“Yes. It is. If the left is constantly sniping at your toes. Throwing public tantrums would only alienate adults. ”
What “tantrums”?
@amk:
Like George Soros. What does HE know about anything?
Oscar Leroy
@Kryptik:
It’s like someone said before: no one cares what the Left thinks, they are powerless ninnies. . . who also have the capability to totally destroy the country.
Elie
@MikeMc:
These folks aren’t progressives. They are con men and women. They are doing a job. That job is to fracture the progressives.
Oh of course, some are bonafide lefty ideologues who think they know what they are doing. But others are hired and recruited to do exactly this. Why is it worth the effort? Because real change, the change that is so being dearly sought and hard won, would threaten some very very powerful interests in this country. They cannot have this administration be seen as even remotely successful and will pull out all stops to assure that does not happen. Who better to do the damage than our own side? If the right was even more vicious, who would notice? They used up all that crazy during the election. Naw, have our own side do us in… at least the perception of our own side..
Not saying that some of the Glen Greenwalds or Hamshers etc are in the pay of the opposition. Just saying it could be and I truly believe, something like this may be happening, maybe not driven by them personally, but by others. Nothing else explains the extremity and negativity in the face of the obvious consequence for this — and the willingness to slit our own throats on some bizarre notion that the alternative to Obama would be the same as him or maybe better, to hear some of you in your fantasy world.
Some of you are dangerous — every bit as the most rabid tea party clowns. You suggest reckless and self destructive alternatives and completely overlook any positive progress for our progressive agenda. That is not only inaccurate — it is devastatingly damaging to the very thing you say you want — progress and success..
There is definitely a skunk at this garden party and it is NOT Obama, even with all of his deficiencies and imperfections noted… NEVER thought I would see this day — me — a person who used to tout my socialist values and beliefs… to feel betrayed by my own folks…
LTMidnight
@ricky: Yet liberal do that all the time, and would be doing it all the time if this wasn’t a “progressive” organization doing it.
There are more than enough examples to prove my point.
Oscar Leroy
POLL ANALYSIS: NADER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GORE’S LOSS
http://prorev.com/green2000.htm
I guess that was because of Nader?
Oscar Leroy
@MikeMc:
Probably the same amount as you.
@Ron:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=
________________________________-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/04/60minutes/main7021844_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Elie
@Oscar Leroy:
And here is where ignorance makes all the difference.
Gore lost FLORIDA because of Nader — not the country. That unit of analysis (and remember, we have a state by state, winner takes all electoral system), was the critical stratification.
You are wrong. He DID
Oscar Leroy
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/04/60minutes/main7021844_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
wengler
Primary challengers need money. Who is going to give it to them?
Add to that Obama will have no problem kicking the shit out of a challenge from the left with the corporate media at his back. And then he will go back to doing the exact opposite to the Republicans.
Oscar Leroy
@Elie:
Well, the facts you present to refute my argument really made me think twice.
Did you even glance at the study I linked? There was no correlation whatsoever between Nader’s level of support and Gore’s–in Florida.
Li (Aaron Fown)
I really need to stop using my favorite synonym for idiot in this comment thread, as the filter apparently confuses it for a bit of female anatomy and holds things up forever! Let me try again with a different word.
@Konrad You presume too much, my friend. I have, in fact, given up on making money with my degrees for a few years and taken it unto myself to devote my life to finding sustainable technologies and workable, democratizing methods for growing food, producing energy, and providing useful media for people. It’s been my full time job for more than a year now, because I SEE NO SOLUTIONS COMING FROM OUR ‘LEADERSHIP’. They are allowing our world to be destroyed, our families to be robbed, and our birthright to be squandered, and if we don’t pick up the slack and start working for a better world ourselves, and in so doing make sure that those idiots become increasingly irrelevant, then we are dooming the human race with our apathy.
Check out what I am doing here. I am producing a TV show, with my meagar funds, all by myself, and putting it out there for free, I am so concerned with what is going on. If you’d like, you could contribute on my ‘store’ page, I would appreciate it.
Summarizing, complaining isn’t all I am doing, not by any rational measure; in fact, I bet I am doing far more to fix this problem than you, but I wouldn’t be so rude as to presume that is true.
Complaining isn’t my job, it’s just a hobby.
Oscar Leroy
@wengler:
“We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line,” he said, according to several Democratic sources. “And if this president can’t do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.”
That’s George Soros. He has a few bucks to his name.
Oscar Leroy
Link to that quote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/George-Soros-If-Obama-Cant-Please-Left-They-May-Look-Somewhere-Else-5858
News Reference
I’ll work for and vote for Obama in the 2012 General Election.
But let’s not delude ourselves about what exactly that means:
Expansion of (unpaid for) Republican wars, expansion of Republican economic policies (that hurt 98% of Americans), expansion of repugnant Republican ‘civil liberties’ policies, and the overt protection of abhorrent Republican war criminals.
Add appointments of Republicans to run the DoD, the Fed, the DOT, the Ambassadorship of China, and an attempted appointment of a Republican to run the Commerce Department.
And then there is the long list of right-wing ideologues that Obama has surrounded himself with: Summers, Geithner, Fowler, et. al. who have protected Bankster’s fraudulence and Corporatist’s rapaciousness.
And don’t forget the Republican Nixon/right-wing Heritage Foundation “health” insurance legislation that Obama’s supporters demanded ‘the left’ cheer for.
And now Obama has gone behind the Democratic Congress’s back in order to help Republicans increase the deficit with gifts to millionaire and billionaire.
Is there any self-awareness amongst Obama’s more aggressive supporter’s of their extreme right-wing-authoritarianism?
Admiral_Komack
@kindness:
WHO, in your opinion, should primary President Obama?
Elie
@Oscar Leroy:
I don’t have the data but it was by a percentage point or two – he took just enough to prevent Gore from taking Florida outright. Nader had no impact virtually when looking at it nationally, just in Florida — as you recall the critical state, hanging chads and all.
LTMidnight
@Oscar Leroy:”Mr. Soros fully supports the president as the leader of the Democratic Party,” said Vachon. “He was not suggesting that we seek another candidate for 2012. His comments were made in a private, informal conversation that was about the need for progressives to be more forceful in promoting their agenda. He was stressing the importance of being heard by elected officials.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/george-soros-obama_n_785022.html
NR
@LTMidnight: I was waiting to see how long it would take the accusations of racism to show up (and about a challenge that hasn’t even happened yet, no less!) It’s pretty much all the Obama apologists have left at this point.
NR
And as for the question of what would a primary challenge accomplish, it would tell the Democrats that you can’t govern as a Republican and expect to get the support of the Democratic party. Pretty simple.
Hal
I would blame Gore’s loss on the Media [He sighed! Let’s enhance and play that sigh 8 million times on the nightly news!] big brother Jeb and his concubine Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court, hand picked by Daddy Bush to hand little Bush the Presidency.
Suck It Up!
@elf:
She’s in Obama’s office along with Harry Reid that’s why you don’t hear from her. you think these three do whatever without consulting each other?
Carol
In my more cynical moments, just who is going to primary Obama? Everybody that even has a remote possibility of getting significant Democratic support has already said a loud, emphatic no, and with good reason. It’s a fool’s errand at best, and absolutely masochistic at worst. The primary challenger has the dubious prize of not winning the nomination and then watching the Party lose the general. There’s no consolation prize either: only Ronald Reagan went on later to win a nomination of his own, and then the Presidency. Everybody else never wins anything other than what they won before, and never really gets appointed to anything either by a subsequent winning President either.
Also, back in 80, 76, 68..the funding sources were different, the media was different. It was possible for an insurgent against a sitting President to get some funds. Not any more. How is this challenger supposed to raise money when both the party Establishment and the netroots won’t give it to him/her?
So, no money, no chance of winning, and watching the President lose in the fall is a great attraction for an ambitious politician who wants a future in politics. :(
Li
OK, I bet the long post delay is because I changed my ‘name’ at the top to include my real name. I will fix that too. . .Here goes try three. Moderators, just kill the older versions, I guess. .
@Konrad You presume too much, my friend. I have, in fact, given up on making money with my degrees for a few years and taken it unto myself to devote my life to finding sustainable technologies and workable, democratizing methods for growing food, producing energy, and providing useful media for people. It’s been my full time job for more than a year now, because I SEE NO SOLUTIONS COMING FROM OUR ‘LEADERSHIP’. They are allowing our world to be destroyed, our families to be robbed, and our birthright to be squandered, and if we don’t pick up the slack and start working for a better world ourselves, and in so doing make sure that those idiots become increasingly irrelevant, then we are dooming the human race with our apathy.
Check out what I am doing here. I am producing a TV show, with my meagar funds, all by myself, and putting it out there for free, I am so concerned with what is going on. If you’d like, you could contribute on my ‘store’ page, I would appreciate it.
Summarizing, complaining isn’t all I am doing, not by any rational measure; in fact, I bet I am doing far more to fix this problem than you, but I wouldn’t be so rude as to presume that is true.
Complaining isn’t my job, it’s just a hobby.
Nick
@Oscar Leroy:
Boy are you wrong. Not only was there a correlation there, there was one in New Hampshire as well.
In both states is 25% of the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, just 25%, he would’ve won both and thus the election.
Nick
@NR:
and when Obama wins the primary, then what? Liberals just accept that you can govern as a Republican and get the support of the Democratic party?
Socraticsilence
@Scott de B.:
Privatizing Social Security was the GOP equivalent of Climate Change legislation or closing Gitmo (not HCR where only a handful of Dems thought the bill went too far and/or dragged it rightward)– the GOP talked big but outside its absolute core that shit was toxic (Climate Change is basically a non-starter in any resource extracting state- thus MTs Senators, WV Senators, etc will at best back minor legislation- the kind that the base terms as a “sellout”; Gitmo was extraordinarily revealing– nothing cut through the B.S. and grand standing more than when Obama actually attempted to close Gitmo and found all funding block by a nearly unanimous bi-partisan consensus, and any attempts to shift prisoners to the US to await trial subject to yellow-bellied NIMBYism).
LTMidnight
@NR: Except I’ve already posted where it’s already happening, so the “he’s playing the race card because he’s desperate” bullshit don’t fly with me, kid.
Moonbats like you are just as guilty of not remembering African Americans until you have to as anyone else.
So unless you have an explanation for primarying the first African-American president that can’t be boiled down to “he didn’t turn America into MY personal utopia”, then you’re in danger of alienating the most loyal Democratic voting block to your moronic cause.
Elie
@Oscar Leroy:
In the interest of honesty, I don’t think that there was ultimately a consensus on whether Nader was fully responsible for Gore’s loss in Florida and there has been apparently a lot of unsettled debate.
Lets put it this way, it is unclear that Nader did not cause Gore’s loss but it is not 100% clear…
Oscar Leroy
@Elie:
“I don’t have the data ”
You’re right. You don’t.
@Nick:
“In both states is 25% of the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, just 25%, he would’ve won both and thus the election. ”
And if 25% of people who voted for Bush voted for Gore instead, he would have won the election.
“If this” and “if that” are easy to say, but you need facts to support a theory. You make it sound like if Nader had never been born, his voters would have flocked to Gore instead. But there is no data to back up that claim.
Nick
@Elie: Nader definitely caused his loss in New Hampshire, which would’ve clinched the election with or without Florida.
a1
All you Obama-fellating stooges get the order wrong about what happened in 1980. The order isn’t:
1) Carter gets past his primary opponent.
2) Many people consider Carter a milquetoast uneffective wimp who can’t get the job done and have no interest in voting for him.
3) Carter loses the general.
It’s:
1) Many people consider Carter a milquetoast uneffective wimp who can’t get the job done and have no interest in voting for him.
2) Carter gets past his primary opponent.
3) Carter loses the general.
Get it yet, you professional followers? If Obama actually gets a primary challenge, it’s not going to cause him to be a weak candidate to win the general election, it’s a result of him being a weak candidate! So all your circle-jerking about the dangers of a primary challenger is completely useless – unless Obama can get voters to think he’ll actually fight for them, they’ll look to someone else to represent them. All this talk of a primary opponent is doing is showing that they’re starting the search early.
Nick
@Oscar Leroy:
I don’t know why you need data to back this up, it’s pretty clear many Nader voters would have gone to Gore, maybe not all, but he literally only need less than 1% of then in Florida to win.
Oscar Leroy
@Elie:
“there has been apparently a lot of unsettled debate”
I don’t know why. If Gore’s support (or lack of it) bears no correlation to Nader’s support, the debate is settled.
Look at the chart I linked:
http://prorev.com/green2000.htm
Gore’s support goes down, Nader’s doesn’t go up. Gore’s support goes up, Nader’s doesn’t go down. It’s simple.
NR
@LTMidnight: Yeah, I looked at your example, kid. To call it a stretch would be putting it mildly. Kos said exactly the same thing about the Clinton campaign’s ads back during the primary, and it was pretty soundly debunked. So, again, we’re left with baseless accusations of racism as the Obama apologists’ last refuge – which says a lot about the merits of their position.
And I’ll also point out that African-Americans are criticizing Obama, too. Not sure how that fits into your “racist” narrative.
cat48
@NR:
So you run the Democratic Party & you get to decide who runs I see. Well, I get to decide who votes in my home and I’m really done with this party. The amount of hate and venom spewed at one man throughout the blogosphere & the media by folks who claim they’re “progressive” somehow is astounding. It’s been 4 years of HELL b/c of the primaries, et al. You can have your party. Just done with it! Since you now have VERY HIGH STANDARDS for your candidates that you’ve NEVER had before based on the damn record!
ricky
@Kay:
You mistake me for being critical of you and of the Democrats. I agree with you from a policy standpoint,
but I disagree with your political analysis. I don’t think Democrats did see it coming or the effect it would have.
The political corpses of Democratic congressional incumbents littering Florida would argue I am right.
The fact that the huge gains made by Republicans among voters over 65 is still rarely discussed is also an indicator that it was not recognized then or now.
You say Democrats recognized the danger but did not respond because either the argument was too tough to sell or they had bigger fish to fry. I would love to see some evidence of that recognition. I just have not so far.
Scott de B.
That’s not true. Nader deliberately campaigned in states where Gore and Bush were close, and avoided states where Gore was blowing out Bush. The whole strategy was to throw the election to Bush. Nader succeeded.
Except that there is the thing called a vicious circle, where A leads to B which reinforces A which leads to more of B, etc.
Nick
@NR: HAHAHAHAHA! The Black Agenda Report! They were criticizing him during the campaign.
ricky
@Nick:
I beg to differ. If just 25% of New Hampshire Naderites had voted for Gore all 100% of them in Florida could have gone to the beach. There they could sit with the Gore voters, the Bush voters, and Buchanan voters and count sea shells and butterfly ballots for the next four years without anyone giving a rats patootie.
Socraticsilence
@elf:
And because she has an even worse approval/disapproval split than Sarah Palin- I mean there is that whole thing- seriously, Pelosi wouldn’t crack 20% against Obama in California- or 40% nationally in the General.
Oscar Leroy
On the other hand, compare Sarah Palin’s approval raiting to McCain’s approval in the 2008 election. When hers went up, so did his. When hers went down, a day or two later so did his. It’s a vacuum-tight correlation.
Explanation here:
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/johnston_thorson.php
Oscar Leroy
@Nick:
“I don’t know why you need data to back this up”
You aren’t a political scientist, I bet.
News Reference
CNN’s last exit poll for 2010 showed:
90% of self-identified Liberals voted for Dems.
I’ll concede that that last 10% can be crucial in a tight election, but no other group is as loyal in voting for Democratic Party leaders.
Obama’s authoritarian follower’s impulse to piss on the most loyal Democratic voters is sick.
Socraticsilence
@Oscar Leroy:
I’m assuming you want a primary simply for a messaging standpoint- I mean unless you think theres a politician as talented as Obama on the Democrats bench?
Hal
@NR
And by African Americans, you mean the handful of people on that website.
LTMidnight
@NR:
So a “debunked’ 2008 ad means that acuusations of this 2010 ad is wrong as well? How about we let other people be the judge.
I’ll see your blackagendareport and raise you:
Jack and Jill Politics
Wee See You.com
Average Bro.com
Black Politics on the Web
….and the fact that Obama enjoys an 89% approval rating among African Americans
This isn’t amateur hour, kid. you’re gonna have to come better than that.
Oscar Leroy
@Socraticsilence:
Obama’s a great politician. Too bad he’s a disaster as a president.
Socraticsilence
@Kevin:
I’m sorry but given the most likely alternative- bankruptcy in which pensions and Union contracts are effectively arbitrated in order to satisfy creditors- there is literally no way to read the Auto bailout as bad for Unions– seriously, lets pretend Obama does nothing- best case scenario: hundreds of thousands of union employee’s lose there jobs. Awesome! Man Obama sure screwed the unions over.
Socraticsilence
@Oscar Leroy:
By that measure literally every single president in the last 50 years has been a disaster.
Elie
@Oscar Leroy:
There is nothing like relitigating an old issue…
What is your point Oscar?
If you are saying that Nader did not damage Gore — you can’t from the data you are presenting. You are saying that polls are the same as actual numbers from the election. Just because the polls did not move in the way that would suggest a relationship does not mean that actual voters behaved as the polls, pulled from a sample, would do exactly the same. That is why polls have error stats — there are some facts they cannot reflect — polls are predictors and less so explainers after the fact…
Lot of energy you putting out there to justify knee capping the incumbent from your party so that you can assure election of a true right winger tea party favorite.
Methinks you are crazee. We used to complain that white, working class right wingers were stupid and couldnt determine their own self interest. Apparently you can’t either. Either that or you somehow think that after primarying Obama you are going to end up with a winning Democrat. See? Just nothing you can do with that level of stupid.
Oscar Leroy
Oh, I meant to share this earlier. It’s about how we can’t accept mediocre leaders for fear of Sarah Palin, because mediocre leaders create Sarah Palin:
Critical Mass: Dem Agenda Opens Right-Wing Doors
Socraticsilence
@NR:
Its not an accusation of racism- I don’t think race is a concious motivator for many progressive not content with Obama- that said from an imaging standpoint its pretty freaking blatant how it would look– Clinton- white southern man (sells out Dems on every concievable arena, his single major achievement is essentially raising taxes to balance the budget- not a bad thing but not great either- he gets no primary challenge), Obama- black guy, gets a major if moderate HCR bill through the single largest progressive achievement in 40 years according to most political scientist and historians- the progressives primary him. Huh, can’t see why African-American voters might think there’s a double standard- they must be crazy!
Socraticsilence
@News Reference:
You mean Black People? Because I don’t think its Obama followers pissing on them.
Oscar Leroy
@Socraticsilence:
“By that measure literally every single president in the last 50 years has been a disaster. ”
Since Nixon, it hasn’t exactly been a murderer’s row, has it?
@Elie:
“There is nothing like relitigating an old issue.”
Tell it to the people who brought up Nader in 2000. It wasn’t me.
@Elie:
“Methinks you are crazee.”
Because that’s what crazy–excuse me, crazee, I would hate to be behind on the New Spelling–people do: make calm, rational arguments based upon the facts at hand.
One thing delusional people DON’T do: believe whatever they want, no matter what actual information may say.
“You are saying that polls are the same as actual numbers from the election. ”
Really? When did I say that?
“Lot of energy you putting out there ”
Not really. Googling stuff and typing words are surprisingly easy.
“Apparently you can’t either.”
You’re right: I just can’t figure out that my self-interest lies in trickle-down economics, perpetual war, presidential assassinations, forced purchase of health care coverage whose co-pays I can not afford, tax cuts for the wealthy while schools, police departments, and bridges are underfunded, reining in Social Security, and radical expansion of offshore oil drilling.
“Either that or you somehow think that after primarying Obama you are going to end up with a winning Democrat. ”
I know–it’s nuts to think an insurgent candidate can beat the heavy favorite. I’m sure Barack Obama would tell you the same.
Oscar Leroy
@NR:
Come on, NR! Where’d you get the zany, nutty, wacky idea that black people are criticizing Obama??????
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/time-to-think-to-unthinka_b_792237.html
News Reference
“LTMidnight”, that snotty Ed Kilgore piece at NPR you cited uses a lot of hyperbolic language to attack strawmen.
Ed Kilgore essential says “It’s time to smack down” the “”angry left,” which thinks Obama has been too eager to compromise with Wall Street and the Republicans, and considers itself the representative of the Democratic base.”
Ed Kilgore’s ‘hippie punching’ metaphor: “Smack down”.
Ed Kilgore’s strawmen: The “”angry left””.
Ed Kilgore’s delusion: Thinking that the vast compromises that Obama has eagerly given Wall Street and the Republicans isn’t obvious to anyone seriously paying attention.
And Ed Kilgore managed to pack his first paragraph with that nonsense.
Elie
@Oscar Leroy:
If you looked at the link that YOU provided, its POLLING DATA!!! Not actual results from the election. There is no way to show actual election results from the months leading up to the election, that the article presents. It is POLLING DATA. POLLING DATA by definition is a sample used to predict, not explain a result. You were using polling data and using that as a means of saying that this proved that Nader did not impact Gore. But you can’t. The error in every poll does not necessarily allow that — moreso in this case where the differences were small but could have been enough to give Gore the election.
Google over to some of the polling sites like 538 and try to learn a little.
Oscar Leroy
@News Reference:
Once again, we see that the “angry left” are unimportant–they consider themselves representative of the Democratic base? ha!–yet must be smacked down.
Oscar Leroy
@Elie:
“POLLING DATA by definition is a sample used to predict, not explain a result. ”
Alright–what would you predict if, in a poll, Candidate A’s support doesn’t change when Candidate B’s support goes up or goes down?
ricky
@Oscar Leroy:
“You’ve obviously completely forgotten why people voted for Nader in 2000.”
Many of us have never understood why anyone voted for Nader ever. I do not, however, pretend to know if that number is greater, smaller, or correlated to the number who could not give a damn if he had ever been born or not.
NR
@Oscar Leroy: Don’t you know that everyone who criticizes Obama is a racist?? Come on, get with the program! So that means that Clarence Jones is a racist too – against his own race! Because we all know that racism is the only reason that anyone might be unhappy with Obama. Everyone who criticizes him is a dirty, dirty racist. Never mind that these same people donated money and volunteer time and fought like hell to get him elected just two years ago. I guess they just forgot they were racists… for almost an entire year. But now they’ve remembered, and they’re gonna get Obama! Because they’re such racists!
Translating from batshit crazy is hard work, but I think that pretty much sums up what LTMidnight is saying.
Oscar Leroy
I’d just like to say I’m amazed at how many people on this board will just come right out and say they don’t believe in using facts to form their beliefs. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I am.
Oscar Leroy
@NR:
Well said. But I don’t think he’s crazy, just mistaken.
About race: I sit here, as a white guy, in a white town devastated by unemployment and foreclosure. But I know, as bad as things are here, they are 5 times as bad in most predominantly black towns. For that reason I don’t think black voters would reject a better candidate in 2012 out of hand.
Oscar Leroy
One more thing: if you aren’t reading Ian Welsh, you should.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/
ricky
@Oscar Leroy:
I’d be embarrassed to say what you have linked to are “facts.” They are a demonstration that Naderites can play with numbers to cover up their guilt for engaging in political vanity.
If a member of one of Nader’s organizations in their heyday had produced those numbers for a document being prpared by that group to impact ploicy, the great Ralph himself would have PIRGed that person from his midst.
LTMidnight
@NR:
I’ll give you half an hour to figure out for yourself why this statement would have to make sense just to be considered ignorant.
Except not once did I ever said that people who criticize Obama are racists. please re read what I wrote.
a1
But that’s not what’s going on here. For one thing, right now there’s no “B” (Obama’s primary challenger) going on right now, just “A” (people are getting less likely to give their votes to Obama). Besides,this site’s Obama Excuse squad isn’t suggesting a vicious circle either. They’re making up this magical fantasyland where Obama would be hanging in there for re-election, if it wasn’t for the “disaster” of a primary opponent ahead. No acknowledgment of how Obama’s actions directly leading to people wanting a primary opponent for him, but a nice cheap scapegoat will be ready to go if he loses.
Finally, B doesn’t have to lead to A, you know. Obama doesn’t have to become more of a spineless accomodationinst in the face of a primary challenge (and especially not to Republicans, for fuck’s sake).
ricky
@LTMidnight:
I didn’t think you called him a racist either. But I will call him a white missionary liberal imperialist.
PDQ
Obama has been an abject failure. The only speech we need to hear from him is “I will not run for re-election”. He’s in over his head. Give him his damn pension and tell him he needs to go away.
Change we can believe in???? Really???
From http://www.barackobama.com
Sept. 24, 2007 Press Release:
New ad calls on Granite Staters to believe in their own ability to make change happen
Manchester, NH — Senator Barack Obama’s New Hampshire campaign will begin airing its first television ad tomorrow. The sixty-second ad, entitled “Believe,” calls on Granite Staters to believe not just in Obama’s ability to bring about real change in Washington-but in their own.
SCRIPT – “Believe”
Every time I speak about my hope for America, the cynics in Washington roll their eyes.
You see, they don’t believe we can actually change politics and bring an end to decades of division and deadlock. They don’t believe we can limit the power of lobbyists who block our progress, or that we can trust the American people with the truth.
And that’s why we face the same problems and hear the same promises every four years.
My experience tells me something very different.
In twenty years of public service, I’ve brought Democrats and Republicans together to solve problems that touch the lives of everyday people.
I’ve taken on the drug and insurance companies and won. I defied the politics of the moment, and opposed the war in Iraq before it began.
This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe-not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours.
Kevin
And this is another tick of the hard core Obama supporters. Screw the unions to the extent that they did and nothing were not the only two options, as reporting at the time made clear.
It is also another example of not losing well. At no point did the Obama admin make it a point to mention that the GOP gave wall street everything it wanted with no restrictions but demanded the victims of wall street get screwed. Even if Obama had to screw the unions in exactly the way he did – something not in evidence -he did it such a way as to reinforce right wing talking points.
matryoshka
I only read down about 40 comments, but it’s my impression that Obama doesn’t intend or want to be a two-term president. If that’s the case, doesn’t it render the primary question moot? I’m not being a smart-ass here, so if I’m missing something, set me straight.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
I don’t understand why they forced President Obama to enact Republican policies and thereby invite a primary challenge from a Democrat.
.
.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
I can tell you this with absolute certainty-
If a rich white guy primaries Obama and wins, the Democrats will lose the African American vote for at least a generation; quite possibly permanently.
We won’t go over to the Thurmond/Duke/Palin Republicans… but as was said earlier in this thread, be ready to hear the single loudest “Fuck You!” ever voiced. Only it will be more like “Fuck you, you sorry-ass motherfuckers. The guy got handed the biggest fucking shit-sandwich in god-knows-how-long and accomplished good things, but that wasn’t good enough. AS MOTHERFUCKING ALWAYS, the black guy has to be twice as good as any fucking white guy to EVER get a goddamn speck of credit for it. Let us repeat ourselves– FUCK YOU!”
Triassic Sands
@Left Coast Tom:
There is no comparison between what happened in California in 2010 and what happened in Wisconsin.
Democrats lost “everything” in Wisconsin.
The governor was a Democrat; now a Republican.
Feingold (3 termer) lost to a Republican (with millions).
In the House, a 5-3 Dem advantage, flipped to a 5-3 GOP advantage.
Democrats lost control of both houses of the Wisconsin state legislature.
My sister lives in Wisconsin and in addition to be a strong supporter of Feingold, she is distraught over the changes 2010 brought. Feingold’s loss was not a sign of personal or professional weakness, it was a sign of statewide insanity
Triassic Sands
@Mr Furious:
Glub…glub…glub.
cat48
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
I’m sure one of your firebagger friends will explain it to you.
Scott de B.
Obama’s actions aren’t leading to people wanting a primary opponent for him, any more than they led to the teabaggers opposing him. The folks calling for a primary opponent for Obama called for primary opponents against every other Democratic President in the last 50 years. And if they found a magic lamp and got President Kucinich, they’d be demanding a primary opponent for him as soon as they didn’t get their magic ponies.
cat48
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko:
You are damn right. We got a SPANKING waiting for them in the SC Primary! CANNOT WAIT! OFA friends have been called & we are making calls & will be knocking doors early!
My last DEM VOTE will be for OBAMA!
LTMidnight
@Oscar Leroy:
The 89% of African American who still support Obama says they couldn’t give a damn what you think, and probably will curse you out for trying to tell who you think they should vote for.
LTMidnight
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: I think most will be content with just saying “Fuck You”
News Reference
Right-wing ideologues like Obama and his authoritarian supporters have done tremendous damage to the Democratic Party.
Instead of focusing on effective POLICIES, Obama has been driven by right-wing economic ideology that has served the wealthiest while crushing the poorest.
Obama is giving millionaire and billionaires gifts that will increase the budget deficit by at least $700 BILLION while at the same time he’s demanding that the poorest amongst US tighten their belts another couple of notches.
And Obama’s authoritarian supporters not only keep cheering but demand that everyone else clap louder.
cat48
@News Reference:
LIE
Larv
No, this is a tic of the hard core reality supporters. What option do you imagine was possible that did not involve union workers feeling some pain? Or at least less pain than they actually did? Please enlighten me.
Yes, this would explain why the right wing was so supportive of the plan. What’s that? You say they went fucking nuts about how it was a bailout of Obama’s union supporters? Hmm. Maybe not such a good explanation after all.
And stop with the fucking strawmen. I haven’t heard anybody say that they think Obama is a “progressive god”. Most of us think he’s a pragmatist who’s trying to deal with a giant shit sandwich bequeathed to him by Bush. If you thought he was some sort of progressive warrior king who would right all the wrongs of the Bush administration, you weren’t paying attention. His m.o. has always been to try and find common ground and accomplish incremental change for the better. He’s done a lot of that. He’s also made plenty of mistakes, just like every other president before him. But much like Carter, those mistakes are refracted through the lens of a shitty economy so that they appear larger than they really are.
News Reference
“LTMidnight”, to spin your words differently:
“The” 90% of Liberals who voted for Democratic Representatives in the 2010 election say “they couldn’t give a damn what you think, and probably will curse you out for trying to tell who you think they should vote for. “
Many of those consistently loyal, Liberal Democratic voters feel they should have a strong voice in who is or isn’t challenged in a Democratic Party primary.
News Reference
“cat48”
Extending the tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy will increase the deficit by $700 BILLION dollars over ten years.
The true fiscally conservative action would be to stop ALL of the tax cuts which would DECREASE the deficit by TRILLIONS.
Obama is handing Republicans several victories simultaneously: Gifts to millionaires and billionaires, grounds for Republicans to attack him later for raising the deficit, which will then be used to demand further belt-tightening from the least of US.
Handing Republicans victories has become the cornerstone of Obama’s Presidency.
a1
That is some awesome collection of nonsense right here. It’s like you’ve not only built a strawman, but given him his own house of straw in Wild Imaginistan.
Really? It’s the fault of a collection of people who’ve been calling for primary opponents for 50 years straight, huh? How interesting. Hey, by any chance could you name 20 members of this vast conspiracy of 50+ year-olds that have so much influence on Democratic voters? 5 members? 2? 1-1/2? And in 1980 Ted Kennedy got 7 million votes in the primaries – what % of those voters do you think were part of these far-left fanatics you’re imagining? Seeing as how Jerry Brown was also on the ballot, I’m thinking that number was pretty much zero.
Face it – the vast amount of votes cast for a candidate come from ordinary voters making a judgment about whether their circumstances are going to be helped by choosing that candidate. And if they don’t see any improvement in their situation and see their Democratic president capitulating on issue after Democratic issue, then all the calls on those voters to “clap louder” are going to fall on deaf ears. (And it’s not even ‘Democratic’ issues! 67% of the country doesn’t want the richest 2% getting a tax break – those aren’t all Democrats, not by a long shot).
Pangloss
@NR:
Are you talking about the guy with the machine gun at the town hall last year? And Michael Steele, also.
LTMidnight
@News Reference: You do know that 85% of self-identified liberals/democrats approve of Obama thus far, right?
mclaren
Since Cole has been consistently wrong since 2002, whatever he suggests, we should do the opposite of.
Primary Obama’s ass. Primary him hard. Primary him from the far left.
Obama isn’t going to win in 2012 anyway. Yes, folks, you heard it hear first. Hear it now, believe it later. You can take it to the bank. Obama will lose hard in 2012 if he runs.
Why?
Because every president who has ever run with unemployment over 7% since WW II (except Reagan) lost big-time.
And unemployment is projected to be over 8% when voters go to the polls to re-elected Obama in 2012.
Yes, 8%.
No president has ever run for re-election with unemployment over 8%. It’s the kiss of death. It makes Obama radioactive. With unemployment over 8%, Obama is dead. He’s a corpse. He’s the living dead. He’s going nowhere.
So we’d goddamn well better primary Obama because if we don’t, he’s going to lose in a landslide. 8% unemployment in November 2012 spells death, disaster, fratricide, catastrophe, and a gigantic loss for Obama if he runs.
Hear it now, believe it later:
The bastard screwed up the economy and he has to be replaced. If the Democrats don’t run someone else instead of Obama, it’s a historic landslide loss in 2012.
News Reference
“LTMidnight”
You do recognize that first post above clearly stated that I’d work for and vote for Obama in the 2012 General Election, right?
That’s technically ‘approval’ of Obama, but if that’s the only thing you are measuring then it’s not a realistic poll result for any potential primary effort, which is what is being discussed (which I’m sure you know, right?).
Show me the poll that asks the question: “Would you consider supporting a primary opponent of Barack Obama?” And then breaks down the results by “liberal” and “Democratic Party member”.
Rekster
Cole:
I have not read all of the comments on this thread but I think you have not considered the writer of the HuffPo blog that you are so “upset” with.
Mr. Jones is not just some “progressive” blogger. His creds far outweigh any of the creds of any of those bloggers around since the inception of blogs.
I think he deserves a little “respect”. He is not just some mad liberal. He actually has “walked the walk”, so to speak. I think he has some smarts.
Flame away, Juicers!!!
JMY
I’m tired of this whole “Obama has failed us” meme that’s been going on for a while now. Done. Over. It’s tiresome. Everyday its, “He didn’t do this,” “He screwed us”, “He hates liberals”, etc. If Democrats in Congress had balls and voted on the middle-class tax cuts before the mid-terms, this wouldn’t be an issue. But they choked. They got scared of Republicans making it a campaign issue. When will people learn that this president is about results and not all the theatrics that some seem to care too much about. All that fighting and showing balls don’t mean shit if nothings gets done. I guarantee you that if Obama were to lose a primary and a more liberal Democrat won the presidency, we will be going through the same bullshit we are going through now. The same people who scream at Obama for screwing the base will do the same to the next potential Democratic president.
So yeah, I’m done. I have my disagreements with certain policies of his administration, yet I don’t have to make those tough decisions. I’m glad I don’t b/c I don’t think I could handle it as he has done. And I don’t go ape shit like these other people such as Hamsher, because I don’t expect the president to do everything I want or do the right thing all the time. So yeah, primary him. Do what you got to do. I’m done with it all.
LTMidnight
@mclaren: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/demotivational-poster-lion-facepaw.jpg?w=500&h=400
Larv
@Rekster:
Umm, he’s a lawyer, investment banker, and academic who was an advisor and speechwriter for MLK a half-century ago. He has, AFAICT, no political cred at all. So maybe you should make an actual argument instead of some bizarre appeal to authority-at-one-remove. “He knew MLK” is not in itself a reason to respect his opinion.
MNPundit
@Ija: It did work until Obama revealed himself as gutless.
Triassic Sands
Can you imagine how effective it might be if Obama called Senate and House Democrats together and called on them to do the right thing — end the tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course, he wouldn’t frame his case in a soft voice and make sure the audience knew he would not lose a wink of sleep if they wimped out. He might yell a little. He might threaten a little. He might demand a little. He might paint unflattering comparisons. In short, he might LEAD his party.
Can’t imagine it? No, neither can I. Obama has no idea how to use the inherent powers of his office. He came into office believing that if he sounded reasonable and compromised with Republicans they would eventually see the light and go along. Of course that was delusional in January 2009. Today it is simply criminally stupid.
I don’t remember ever hearing so many members of one party excuse the president — who is a member of that party — by constantly claiming he has no power. There have been weak presidents and powerful presidents and for the powerful ones the power began with the force of their own personalities.
Ronbo
@Ron: I measure a man by what he does (not what he says). Obama is a Republican from start to finish – as measured by his actions. He isn’t even a good one, like Nixon (Title IX, EPA, Opening up China, etc…). Obama is a bad Republican in the shadow of Bush – much like someone who is CIA-friendly. Get the drift?
Kevin
Oh give it up. Obama can do no wrong – -everything he does is the most progmatic thing that ever could have been imagined! Woo pragmatism!
Except thats not the case. He bungled the stimulus badly and he did so in ways that were obvious at the time. He didn’t need to gut to union pay, as reporting at the time showed. Your line about the GOP not supporting it is nonsense – -they weren’t going to support anything. But Obama NEVER tied the two votes together to show just how the GOP felt about working people. He lost in a way that advances conservative values, not liberal values. There is nothing pragmatic about that.
Have we gotten progressive policies? No, not really: Ledbetter Act (his one unambiguous win as far as I can tell), no change in the WOT, no change in the security state, no change, a stimulus that was too small because he asked for one that was too small, a HRC bill that is ambiguous at best (and I say that as a upoorter of passing the bill), an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, no DADT (though still pending so maybe this will go as his second unambiguous win), no climate change legislation, no immigrant reform, no re-prgressivizing of the tax code.
Granted, not all of those are entirely his fault. But I can think of not one area where he advanced the cause while losing. On climate change, he gave away the oil leases, furthering the notion that we can drill our way out of the problem. On the stimulus, he went around saying ti was enough and it was helping, when it clearly was not enough and thus made it easier for the GOP to demonize government assistance. He created and then thanked the Catfood Commission. He announced a pay freeze for fed workers, giving ammo to the notion that austerity is they way to get our of our economic mess AND that the problem is that fed workers make too much.
So he hasn’t delivered on the policy front (again, not entirely his fault) and he hasn’t delivered on the rhetorical/ideological front while losing. He has been a failure, that failure mitigated only by the fact that his opponent would have been a catastrophe. That may be enough to rule out a primary challenge, but its no where near enough to make think he is anything other than a failure.
I refuse to accept that progressives should just accept Obama as the outer limit of what can be done.