Dean 2012

Is all I have to say about what is going on right now.

this too...will pass..

I am not saying that Dean in 2012 is not possible. But it's over two years until the 2012 campaign begins, and there's not much to be gained by opening this kind of dialog this soon, IMO.

President Obama started running for President in 2006. In order to organize an operation you need to start this talk now and let a person know you are behind them.

In addition, the CitiGroup revelation today, of the TARP repayment was funded by tax breaks has pretty much erased any faith I have in President Obama. I'm sure investigative reporting will find similar antics with Bank of America and Wells Fargo and the other Too Big to Fails.

The tough talk on Sunday, was bullshit.

I don't want to see you get the axe here for being too belligerent too soon with the president.

Politics is the art of timing. The difference in leading a successful revolution and getting lined up against the wall and shot is often TIMING. Less than 11 months into the first year is too soon to start planning on backing a different presidential nominee in 2012. Too soon for comity, that is, among those who think in terms of a Democratic majority in congress.

I don't want to see us get our butts kicked in 2010 mid term elections, even though I think that's becoming more likely. And if it happens, it will be due to the party not delivering on the liberal promises made in 2008 elections. We said we would do certain things, and we have not done so.

I'm very methodical, and I think long term. The time to start talking about the 2012 presidential election is December of 2010, IMO.

I'm advocating following the process. If democratic underground wishes to move in a direction of fealty to one particular democratic politician than I will no longer belong on democratic underground and that is Skinner's choice in which direction he takes the website. I will respectfully leave.

Sorry this TARP repayment and that Sunday interview was the last straw with him, talking tough on Sunday, only to find out you were aiding the banks paying back the TARP on Wednesday?

If anyone wants to question me, I'm more than happy to provide links of my donations in 2008, Newspaper articles I have been quoted in locally, and even a TV debate show I appeared on in April.

As for 2010, I will be fighting Toomey, Dent, and Reichley and quite frankly the President offers no help politically in those fights right now. If anything he has become a liability.

There is a line here, and it has been defined lately by some sanctions imposed by the site ownership. The line has to do with legitimate criticism versus that deemed excessive.

Your approach may work fine, but advocating for a different nominee for 2012 in 2009 seems a tad early. It's important to make your points and it's important to avoid being excessive in criticism of elected Democrats while doing so.

2nd term, but other than that, no way.

You'd think such a thing would be pulled from the site immediately.

:toast:

:dunce:

probably wouldn`t stand a chance. He`s too straightforward and not an ass kisser.

I'm with ya!

Surely they both lost, but that's a very big stretch indeed to say that Dean's 04 run (which I supported, BTW) resembles Nixon's 1960 run in any but the most general sense of the final result. Dean did win ONE state primary (Vermont) after having departed the race, however.

I understand some are frustrated but this doesn't help.

Obama is our president and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Posts like these are better saved for when reelection begins and that won't be for a while.

The biggest obstacle to Barack Obama, is Barack Obama.

I really have no idea how so many are shocked at his actions, or lack thereof as president.

I'm not.

The expectations level raised by this President were high...and in some cases higher than what he promised or he could ever deliver. Since the world didn't turn from right to left overnight, he's obviously a failure. It's sorta like the winning sports team where the fans cheer for them on the way up, but then start playing Monday morning quarterback thereafter. In short, reality sucks...

Now we have to deal with what we have.

Perhaps next time we will choose a candidate based on actions rather than speeches.

Some here were expecting President Obama to be the anti-booosh...a unitary executive in reverse either using signing statements or going around Congress in getting things done. Thus high expectations soon faded as the "sausage making" of the legislative has turned this healthcare "debate" into a fiasco.

The problem is far more systemic than one person...it's a Congress that puts money ahead of voters. When it costs over $1 million to win a House race and over $10 for the Senate, the K Street dollars are hard to resist. In many cases, people looked the other way as "moderate" and "conservative" Democrats were elected and then they expected these people to vote like an East Coast liberal? Many of the gains were in "purple" areas where there are different values and thus has led to a Democratic caucus that covers the true political spectrum (compared with the rushpublicans who have gone so far right they're nearly off the radar). The effort now has to be in electing and supporting more Progressive candidates and win because we stand for the right issues and values. It's not an impossible goal...just one that requires a lot of hard work and cooperation. I'm not sure people are ready to take that step.

Cheers...

Everyone was yelling "hope and change" but never really discussed the obvious issues and whenever you would confront them on it you were immediately alerted on or ganged up on.

In my opinion the party is weak as a whole, all they do is make promises and argue with each other.

What disgusts me most is that I thought that the Dems would pass HCR immediately during the first few months of his presidency when everyone was singing the praises of "a new day in America".

I always hated the saying "meet the new boss same as the old boss" but it seems apropos.

Why do you think I went ape shit over the mandates.

The blessing of the Democratic party is its diversity...it's also its curse. It's truly a big tent now that have similar values but not in the lock-step, doctrinal way the rushpublican do. In essence, the Democratic party is the political center these days where left and right are balanced out...or at least that's how this administration is playing it. And, again, they play this both ends game at their peril as neither side is satisfied and feels the administration has caved into the other. As the old saying goes, when you try to walk the middle of the road, you're likely to get run over.

Our political discourse has become platitudes...soundbites. Words that are meant to be vague so that it can fit whatever device the campaigns choose to take. While I was hopeful, I've remained skeptical, not as much about President Obama, but of the beltway "conventional wisdom" culture that has become the real powers in today's political world. The President's problem is he no longer use platitudes and must deal with specifics that are conflicting with the "hopes" many ascribed to him.

I'm sure of all people, President Obama would have loved to have signed an HCR bill last August...but he misjudged the beltway culture and how organized his opposition was. He also tried to accomodate and thus began to alienate those who had those high expectations and felt he had sold them out. There's plenty of blame to go around.

I don't see the party as weak as it is conflicted. There is a definite need for new leadership in the Senate...as we're seeing this is the most dysfunctional part in the government.

If you go on 60 minutes on Sunday and rant and rave about the big banks, and it is discovered, that you have been aiding them with TARP payments behind closed doors through the IRS and your Treasury department, how does that fall into the left/right argument.

Sorry, it isn't about what he hasn't done with me, it is what he says, than does.

...and my point here is to discuss and not "cheerlead" nor come up with excuses. Many looked at Obama as being anti-corporate...he wasn't and it became even clearer when he supported (with many other Democrats) the TARP bail-out. And I supported it as the alternative was a full financial collapse that (while my inner anarchist would love to see it all come crashing down) had to be dealt with immediately and Obama went to the "tried and true"...or at least those he felt know "the system" and "the game" to prevent the markets and banks from totally imploding.

If Obama has shown a major weakness so far, it's his ability to get rolled and played by those he sticks his neck out for. He hoped by bailing out the banks this would open spigots on the credit front and go towards wiping out the large debts that are at the heart of this recession/depression. He got played...but himself in a weak position in the get-go to push reforms and now that the "crisis" has supposedly died down, the urgency for regulation, or should I say re-regulation is far less.

When Obama was elected, I saw how high expectations were and also those just chomping to take him down...see him fail. Many on his left were pushing for a big agenda of things...not just healthcare but also card check and DADT and reforming the military and so on...while those on the right, as we know, will criticize him for what he had for breakfast this morning. The biggest mistake President Obama can make right now is taking the attitude that if he pisses off both ends that somehow he's found the middle ground. It's weakening him instead.

Cheers...

Time to cut him loose if you want to hang onto the white house.

Obama has to go at this point.