So, I see the 2012 campaign has already begun at DU

Too bad it's mostly campaigning AGAINST our own President and party that's most popular here.

Sid

Oh and err... I see your rec and raise you another. :)

oh, the bullshit!

Repuke take over in 2012 - that is going to happen. I know, don't scare me. Oh well, it is your future and your children. Why should I care? I do, I have grandchildren.

Wake up people ---- look where the repukes are heading. I am seeing the take over of corporations in my own state.

The right really will take over unless our prez gets some balls FAST!

I am hoping they wake up in time to be honest. Otherwise, voting in the US will be worthless... yes I will still do it, but don't expect any good out of it.

Can you believe people feel free enough to counter conventional wisdom?

There's something happening here....

a bit of a clusterfuck, but, it's definitely happening. Democrats are accustomed to doing this kind of stuff at a national level. I don't see much evidence that it's statistically significant what DU is ranting about right now, so I'm not as convinced as you may be that the pseudo-anarchy here is reflective of anything more consequential than navel-gazing.

:wtf:

I certainly hope you're trying to be funny

It sure looks like a widely supported rebellion here at DU against the President and party on our political and discussion pages. I guess you think it's all benign and appropriate. Good for you.

I'm talking about outright hatred and lies spread in the name of politics.

Do you know what 'pseudo' means? It means a sham . . . :)

wtf is wrong with you?

:)

But you need to stop with the pseudo-redbaiting of DU members

just a lot of anti-Obama and anti-Democratic sentiment and rhetoric here that I'm much more concerned with than parsing words.

Sorry again. I really did lose the thread between the two of you until you spoke up.

END OF A POLITICAL COALITION.

For somebody who claims to know the system so well, you can't put your finger on it?

Yes one part of the coalition is damned tired of being ignored every step of the way. If the leadership wants to be a center right party , so be it. But that is what you are seeing.

Oh and good luck getting republicans to vote fer you... I mean the crazee has gone over the edge.

. . . sounds like wishful thinking the way you've promoted the idea though.


. . . according to a newly released USA Today/Gallup poll, Democrats favor compromise even though they don't believe republicans are willing: http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/Democrats-Republicans-Differ-Views-Compromise.aspx

___ When asked about the "best approach for political leaders to follow in Washington," 41% of Republican respondents maintain that "it is more important for political leaders to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done," while only 18% of Democratic respondents express the same sentiment. This contention is put in opposition to the claim that "it is more important for political leaders to compromise in order to get things done," which 59% of Democrats support versus only 32% of Republicans.

Overall, the findings suggest Americans generally prefer their political leaders to compromise (47%) rather than sticking to their beliefs (27%).

When respondents were asked about the Republicans in Congress and President Obama's "willingness to work with other side to find solutions acceptable to both parties," 64% expressed the belief that Obama would work beyond partisan lines, whereas only 43% indicated Republicans in Congress would act in the same manner.


Presidential approval, Nov. 8: http://www.gallup.com/poll/144347/Obama-Approval-Advances-Pre-Election.aspx

___ Support for Obama in the first week in November among various demographic and political subgroups is very much in line with where it was during October. He receives widespread approval from blacks (88% approve) and Democrats (81%) as well as majority support from Hispanics (63%), adults aged 18 to 29 (54%), and those living in low-income households (53%). By 49% to 41%, he also receives higher support from women than men.


. . . so, at least the President is still popular among Democrats outside of DU, despite the desire of some here to proclaim the affair over.

that is exactly what we are seeing. These things usually START as waves with VERY ACTIVE people...

Go on, continue to dream

And yes, the Democratic Party at the leadership level, BY ANY WORLD POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW is center right.

Oh and the US is NOT a center right country either... regardless of what the REPUBLICANS love to say... and their party is a FAR RIGHT party.

. . . outside of here. Insulting me won't change that. Maybe you if you work hard enough you can actually succeed in dividing the party, but for now, the majority of our party is united behind our president.

Btw, our political system is inherently designed for compromise. It shouldn't be surprising to find that most decisions are not made favoring either party's extreme.

If you're thinking that all of your predictions are going to come to pass in the next election, I think you're mistaken. President Obama will ultimately face a singular republican opponent which the same coalition which elected him will rally to his defense to oppose.

muffin1

you can pay the consequences-

to debate the meaning of words like 'pseudo'.

I think the poster meant GDdiscussion/President . . . I really don't know.

I'll vote and work for Obama....any current negative rhetoric only opens the door for another 8 years of hell....yea all remember the rape and pillage of *bush and Company??? Please don't forget. It will be worse!

win the hearts, minds, and votes of the majority that put him in power.

Your attitude towards the people you will need to help you reelect Obama is quite clear in your OP.

Unrec.

maybe not here at DU, I dunno. Any polls on this? (*acting as if they're reliable*)

My state (VA) that has been slowly turning purple over the last 10 years took a hard right turn again this election. This was after giving Obama 13 electoral votes. The first time in 44 years VA has gone to a Dem Presidential candidate.

Maybe Obama doesn't need my state. My fellow voters in my neck of the woods clearly have spoken, or failed to speak at least. I find a lot of that a reflection on Obama and his lack of convictions to be honest.

Many people I have spoken to who strongly supported Obama have said they will not vote for him in 2012. The reason given is his pandering to the right, sacrificing us on the left that worked so hard for him in 08. These people I speak of will likely choose to just sit out the next election or vote green. They have come to the conclusion that however much we need change, Obama can not deliver it. Sometimes things just have to get worse before they can get better is a phrase I hear quite often.

VA is only 13 electoral votes though. Maybe he won't need us. Is that a risk you're willing to take in your quest (and Obama's I might add) to offend rather than reach out and bring us back?

I know my state of MD was.

I'm just looking at polling which shows President Obama ahead of Reagan in popularity at this point in his term and even with Clinton:

"Barack Obama’s weekly Gallup approval rating is 45% right now. At this point in the Gipper’s presidency, his was 43%. Bill Clinton, who was also coming off a crushing midterm defeat, was also at 43%. Among the independents, with whom Obama has “little credibility”, his approval (42%) fits neatly between Clinton’s (44%) and Reagan’s (40%).

http://conversation101.squarespace.com/presidential-election/2010/11/13/on-the-washington-posts-one-term-obama-op-ed.html

Fairfax pulled it out for one district and the far SE corner stuck with Dems, but overall the state went almost completely red.

I don't think it was Republican activism that made that happen, but the disillusionment of Democrats in this state that simply did not turn out.

But, I do think that a bit too much can be inferred from a midterm election and misapplied to the upcoming presidential. Like the statistics show, the President isn't doing historically worse than two presidents who eventually went on to win re-election. Besides, midterm turnout is traditionally low, and the pent-up republican voters were determined to undo an historic election and historic legislative progress from Democrats. I think that was as much of a factor as anything else. Hard to tell what recalcitrant or absent voters were actually thinking.

Moreover, polling still shows overwhelming support from Democrats for the President.

is the time to bring Dems together, not find ways to divide them.

I love it!

The Dems made SURE that actual Health Care reform was never brought into the discussion... :hi:

why kvetch about a few deadenders here at DLCU?

After all, "Moreover, polling still shows overwhelming support from Democrats for the President."

I'm mostly upset that it's become hostile to almost any defense or support of the President. I think the board has collectively lost a great deal of perspective.

And, no, I don't see any of the animus that's popular here at DU in the polling from any significant amount of Democrats outside of DU.

I think it was done by 51 Secretaries of State, and it is believed to be VERY RELIABLE. Care to tell me who got smoked on that one?

You think change is something Obama has to "give us" and you complain when he doesn't. Change only comes from the people. We should have been organizing for change the last two years instead of whining that big brother didn't do it for us.

To me it says that Dems worked with Republicans to protect insurance companies first, drug companies second, reduce Medicare third and the people last.

I've done what I can to fight for the peoples needs. You're free to assume otherwise though, this is America after all.

that was decided on a long time ago.

:thumbsup:

. . . that's been so engaging for me.

IF you meant to imply that I would go to some right-wing site for solace, you don't appear to know me at all.

Besides, a few folks who share my desire to support this administration have appeared and are attempting to become part of the discussion here. I'm interested enough, I think, to hang around, but the tone and content of some of the posts has gotten really trying for me. (I'm writing this as if you actually care)

happen to know you from your posts here. I was suggesting you find a Democratic site that adheres more closely to your way of thinking. You are right, however, that the level of discussion found here would be extremely difficult to find anywhere else.

"...but the tone and content of some of the posts has gotten really trying for me", hence my advice.

And just so you'll know me a bit better: I supported Obama right from the start (I told him so in person in Dallas), ahead of all others, including Hillary, whom I admire and with whom I have a much longer history than most DUers considering I was a resident of Arkansas when the Clintons showed up on the scene, voting for Bill twice for governor. I am proud of the good things that President Obama has done. But, he has fallen way short of my expectations regarding other matters that I know he was capable of accomplishing, leaving me disappointed in his overall performance. So much so that if there were a viable challenger for 2012, I might have to take a good look at that choice. If there isn't a viable challenger, I will continue to support the President.

I used to write to the newspapers before I got a computer in 2003. I would write a letter, wait, and sometimes get published. Beyond that day of publishing, there wasn't a bit of satisfaction. I really like to talk politics. I like to write about politics. I'd drive folks at home crazy if I didn't have an outlet. Now that I've taken myself to this level and amount of discussion, I just know I'd be hurting without this forum. It's a trying time for me, to be sure . . . I'm not certain how it all shakes out for me personally here, but I do really need the dialogue.

I'm going to be awfully upset if a challenger gains ground on the President; not so much because I support him (I certainly do), but because I think it's a losing proposition for Democrats in the upcoming election. Is it really a surprise to find folks desperate to hold on to what we have now and grateful for it? I shouldn't think so.

Please check out the http://www.thepeoplesview.net/
If you like the blog please spread the word. The owner is awesome and he writes some great articles.

since 2003 should go away, but I can't really figure out what it is you're trying to say. Can you explain?

matters at all to me, you're sadly mistaken.

. . . for either of our party's candidates who would potentially get caught up in one. It may turn out great for hyperventilating, but it's just a prescription for dividing the party and losing to the republican opposition.

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

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

Do you ever get tired of it?

How Orwellian. I'm arguing for supporting our Democratic President and party and you find that divisive?? Bizzare.

Nah, just triangulating, right?

“oh, the bullshit!”
“…a clusterfuck,…”
“…the pseudo-anarchy here… reflective of anything more consequential than navel-gazing.”
“…widely supported rebellion…”
“…wrap that challenge in all of the populist rhetoric you want…”
“…agitation for agitation's sake.”

You wouldn’t have a link to any examples of these, would you? You do understand that some folks tend to get bent out of shape when they FEEL they have been betrayed, don’t you? Just checking, because common ground when having a discussion is important.

. . . that's a shame. It would help to provide context for the quotes you posted, but I don't expect that you actually intended to make a fair point, just one that you believe supports your bizarre claim that my defense of this Democratic President and party is 'dividing' DU.

but all I see is rhetoric, and negative rhetoric at that.

I did not mention your opinion, I pointed out examples of your words here, were, empirically, divisive.

The context you seek is somewhere in your "opinion," but I don't see much of that in this thread, only rhetoric without links, without examples, etc. You have just come out swinging at some perceived element here, obviously a continuation of the diatribes listed herein on other similar threads these last few days. I posted examples of your rhetoric to make my point about your being divisive. That pertains to your words. I have no idea about your opinions, as you haven't stated much of any of them, only emotional rants and rhetoric.

At least you did spell bizarre correct this time.

I am sorry that you, someone that appeared to be so passionate about our criminal activities on the other side of the globe, would fail to see some measure of criminal negligence as per the stewardship of this country and its current problems. Can you blame me for being confused about the cherry picking of what you choose to diss and that which you choose to support? That just seems so schizophrenic to me.

Did you see the latest estimates on the foreclosure debacle? What is seriously being done about that?

Care to bash some lefty bloggers while you are at it? That seems to go hand in hand with the strategies laid out thus far.



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!



rdb

. . . into your own opinion of me. Whatever. it's hard to tell what you're really arguing against since you've managed to mangle my views into the worst of whatever you oppose. I have a journal and it's full of what I think on a myriad of issues. This post is a rant against the prevailing cutthroat attitude here at DU against our President and party. I think it's interesting that supporting the President against spurious and exaggerated charges is seen as 'divisive' by those who insist there's some noble cause behind the smears they cheer on.

As I related to another poster, there actually aren't ANY issues or concerns supported by the progressive community that I don't also support, defend, or advocate on behalf of. But, you go on and posture as if you care more about those concerns.

that you feel that way. My "conflation," as you refer to it began with an attempt to point out how your language here was divisive, with the several examples of same I gave you. That is why I bothered to list your comments here, to "conflate," them into one place for all to consider, including you.

Then for you to begin the negative rhetoric about mangling your views, etc., well, that is just disingenuous. I cited the actual record right here, on this thread, without adding anything to your words. I literally cut and pasted what you wrote as numerous examples. I was trying to reason with you, to see if you could see how divisive and dismissive your language is on this thread. But you did not see it. You became defensive and continued to rant (your own words again). That is really really curious. It brings into question YOUR motives, not mine.

That was combined with what I have seen written by you over the past month or so in the run-up to the mid-terms, and since the internecine battles about criticism of Obama, versus what I had always read from you before that time, which was, by the way, always fierce criticism of our "war," in Afghanistan. If that is conflation, then that is what it is. I see it as confusion for me, but nevermind, I don't know you and I have not lived your life. It is not for me to pass judgment on your opinions of others, even if they are some un-named, un-linked individuals that have, in your eyes, been traitorous to your party.

The rhetoric then, smearing anyone's criticisms of Obama as spurious and exaggerated charges, thereby authorizing you to go over the top and call all of these criticisms "smears they cheer on," just didn't fit with my image of where you were coming from.

I don't cheer what Obama has done, nor do I cheer those that cheer the smears. Nor do I cheer any over the top narrative that seeks to as you say, bring him down. I think a lot of others beside me have been flummoxed by the disparity between Obama the candidate and Obama the president. I voted for him, but I doubt I would again. I was originally an Edwards supporter, but he was exposed as politically unviable, at least for the time being. Get it? I voted for him. I have been let down. I don't intend to get fooled again. I fear it will just get worse for the rest of his term with the inability to fulfill campaign rhetoric. There was the parody thread today of Obama changing parties while in office, and I had to admit, I entertained that as a possibility at first blush.

I would take a lesson from the head football coach at my alma mater. He had come in to the job as the wunderkind, able to take the team to the promised land, as it were. He began ok, but then after 3 years he had a disastrous season, and well, folks were calling for his head. He was using the prior coach's players, he could not coach, he could not recruit. They wanted him fired. He was a big disappointment. He hung in there, and lo and behold, once he had a supporting cast of capable athletes that could execute the game plan as anticipated, he turned it around, is winning again, and now the haters are eating crow. I also think he sobered up a bit and matured somewhat from his beginning arrogance.

Just goes to show that sometimes it is the employees that are the problem and with that team, that simple passage of time and new faces altered the chemistry and performances soared beyond everyone's expectations. You can't have a passing game if you don't have a quarterback that can throw a pass. You won't have a good running game if the defense doesn't have to worry about the pass. You won't win if you can't run or pass. Now, that team has a very capable quarterback, they can pass or run with equal effectiveness, and defenses never know what is coming. Success! They scored 83 points yesterday. Half of which was scored by the third and fourth string players on the field. And all it took was a capable quarterback to execute the game plan. I sure hope we have a similar turnaround in results for this administration.

Maybe I do care more about those concerns.


Tough shit




rdb

. . . especially without context. They belong where you took them from, to be confronted or resolved there, in context, not as part of some diatribe on this thread.

As for your observations about the future 'success' of the President, I really appreciate the optimism. I think we should be optimistic about our own ability to influence our legislature to influence the presidency, to influence our legislators . . . I've always expected a renaissance in this presidency because, President Obama's inevitable realization of the fleeting nature of his position and influence should compel him to act more in the mold of his idols (MLK, Gandhi) in this second-half of his challenging term than concern himself with the folks he's trying to persuade in the opposition. Good for you for caring. We'll see.

maybe so many of us wouldn't jump all over him?

I don't personally view his actions so far outside of Democratic orthodoxy or principle to define him as anything but a Democrat.

one who goes in bed with the corporations. In that case, Obama fits right in.

I'm talking about the FDR Democrats, what Democrats SHOULD be.

just the type of president he himself said he would be

"Republicans may think that their midterm triumph bodes ill for President Obama's reelection hopes, but such beliefs are not borne out by history. The incumbent president's party typically does poorly in a midterm election. This time, however, there was an ominous hint of a potential problem for Obama. In his concession speech, the media thought that Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold may have been referring to a presidential bid when he said, "It's on to 2012!" Although Feingold's spokesman rejected that interpretation, a primary challenger would be the absolute worst sign for Obama for 2012...

...Primary fights aren't necessarily bad; for a first-time candidate, it can be a positive experience. It gets the candidate out in the public eye and allows him to test his ability on a new stage. But for an incumbent, it can be catastrophic. A president who gets challenged may be damaged before the race because of scandal or policy problems. But the primary challenger takes it one step further, as he or she is able to show the president as weak and unable to fully unite his party. It also gives the disgruntled members of the party an outlet for their frustration. And even if the incumbent goes on to win the nomination, a poor result in a primary, such as George H.W. Bush's in 1992, is embarrassing.

Taking Feingold as an example, we could see how hard it would be for a primary challenger to actually win the nomination. Even Feingold's fiercest defenders probably do not believe that he would stand a chance in a presidential race. He is too far to the left, too idiosyncratic and too willing to actually follow campaign finance rules — perhaps the last official in the country who took them to heart. There is little chance that he would raise the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds that would be the minimum necessary to defeat a sitting president. But that doesn't mean he, or another prominent name, couldn't fatally damage Obama's reelection hopes just by running in Iowa and New Hampshire.

A bad midterm election is something that any president should be able to shrug off. With some presidents, such as Bill Clinton, it can be an energizing event that creates a new strategy for reelection. But a primary challenger — even one who has little hope of winning the presidency — is something to fear."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-spivak-primary-challenges-20101112,0,3610218.story

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9556799

But don't worry, in spite of this...

http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

He'll get renominated and probably re-elected since it's the turn of the near-right-wing of the Corporate War Party to appear to be "in charge"...

. . . how many Democrats around the country have expressed continued support for this President, compared to the hyperventilating here at DU. That's why he'll likely get re-elected.

:wtf:

myopic

have a nice day, btw; i hope you'll get your vision back at some point.

. . . I don't see that.

No the prevailing view of DU is not reflective of the dem party. Some here on DU would like for you to believe that by pointing to the mid term election. Which is quite funny because midterm elections always have low voter turn out. This is what happens when a forum becomes an echo chamber. People start to believe that those on the puter really are the populace. "Because my friends on the DU all agree with me so it must be true." LOL, I would not worry about the president and 2012. If anything worry about DU and what it is becoming. Hell don't even worry about DU it is what it is. I placed a link to a blog that I think you and others might enjoy in an above post. Here it is again.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/

of other progressive groups, bigtree, before you decide it's somehow just DU.

People are passionate here but their concerns are not unlike what is being discussed at many progressive outlets. There really isn't anything remarkable about it.

I don't think I could be as upset with the SOA here if I didn't love the opportunity for such freewheeling dialogue that DU provides; not to mention the diversity and number of folks who happen by to exchange ideas and chat with. You must know that there isn't anywhere close to an equal site (progressive or otherwise) if this is what gets your motor running. It certainly does mine. I think there must be some sort of chemical reaction to discovering and disseminating info that I love so well. Politically, I think I must have some ghost inhabiting my mind that drives me to care so much about it all at once.

The difference I see between here and 'out there' is stark. I'm not talking about some other blog, I mean where we live and work. I just don't see folks as informed or interested in this stuff as we are. That's a major part of the difficulty in attracting support for our Democratic agenda. It's also the reason why so many folks are just oblivious to the inside baseball of what the president supports and such.

I see people who just hate the hell out of the President and curse him at every opportunity, but not once have I had one of them express any progressive concern behind all of their bitterness. Conversely, most Democrats that I know who supported the President still do and identify the republicans as the problem, not the White House (and my state and town is overwhelmingly Democratic).

In the last election, Democratic turnout was expected to be traditionally low for the party in power and because of the general indifference to these off-season elections. Republicans were energized to the polls because of our historic political and legislative victories in the past two years. Democrats had a respectable showing for a midterm, but republicans had better turnout in a smattering of key states that got them the House and a closer Senate. It was more of a republican victory than some progressive-engineered defeat. At least that's what I see.

The outside polling bears me out. Throughout the election, the President polled well among Democrats; well enough for a midterm. He's certainly holding about the same approval rating as two other two term presidents at this point in their presidency.

That makes all of the hubbub here seem curiously isolated from the support that's been registered among the Democratic community outside of DU. That difference is what I find 'remarkable', if you will.

a good deal more than would seem proportional given that he's not the only person in government. :)

Unless Democrats decide to fight, then this party is going to be replaced by some version of the Republican Party. That is what is happening now. Myself, I'm ready to fight this administration. I reject this Obama administration and want to work to defeat it in 2012. Only then will America be able to see that the Democratic Party still stands in opposition to the Right, in support of American Labor, and in support of Human Rights.

I strongly disagree with you, but I appreciate your candor on this thread. I think a primary challenge will be the folly that defeats us, not continuing with and fighting for this President. I think it would be a long-shot that would end up dividing our party and with a weakened President Obama still winning the nomination.

I think if we cave in the same ways we did during Clinton and NAFTA, it will wave the white flag to Conservatives that the Democratic Party will only exist to offer token opposition that is ready to capitulate to any and everything in the end. Labor has always been the mainstay of this party and we sacrificed them at the alter of appeasement in the NAFTA legislation. If we sacrifice the remaining survivors of the middle class now, by allowing cuts in social security and Medicare so that comfortably wealthy Americans can enjoy tax cuts they do not need, then what principles do we really have left to maintain this party on? The Republicans would have successfully ripped the very soul from this party.

Then, as a consequence, we would all be questioning the validity of the existence of any true alternative to the Republicans. The skeptics who believe there is only one party now will gain more confidence that they are right.

. . . a sufficient number of Democratic voters who would be aware enough and concerned enough about the issues you believe should motivate them to the polls.

Do you really believe that you will find a sufficient majority of Democrats to prevail; or, do you anticipate falling short? What do you think would be the consequence if your primary challenge failed? What do you see as the outcome of the race if that failure occurs?

that I believe they will follow with the Republican House, a very slightly Democratic (but Conservative) Senate, and a weak President whose loftiest goal seems to be a bipartisan Uniter ready to compromise, I believe the Obama administration will become ever more unpopular as the 2012 campaign kick into high hear this time next year. I really see him losing to a weak Republican candidate almost by default. That's assuming a 2 candidate race (Obama versus Republican) candidate.

. . . know well how to advantage themselves politically using the republican House as a poster for whatever they posture to oppose in the next campaign.

While I'd expect the handful of conservative Democrats to bend to the republicans on taxes, most of the action is going to come from the republican House where legislators will pitch their political balls to the Senate to bat down. The Democratic-controlled Senate may even manage to send a few the House's direction.

At any rate, the Democratic legislators won't let the President play himself out of position politically because their asses are on the line as well. We are back to a mostly liberal make-up among the Democratic legislators who remain and most of their initiatives should reflect that (despite the predictions that they are set to adopt some republican-friendly dismantling of SS and the like).

Moreover, this President is as politically-oriented as any in recent history. Led by David Ploffe and Axelrod, the last presidential campaign gears up again and all of the networking and organizing that advantaged our party the last time will respond appropriately to the dearth of any viable republican. I wouldn't underestimate the power of the incumbent president campaigning against the new batch of House republicans absorbing their share of the blame for voter angst.

As of now, the President is in just the same political shape (better legislature) than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their term. This President has the added advantage of an energized base of minority voters who haven't moved off of their personal support. Democrats don't yet appear to be fleeing the President to the degree that you expect.

I think you're a bit optimistic about the political landscape accommodating a primary challenge, but, we'll see.

I think that you are pretty close to what may happen.

My concern will be the country which will continue to try and cope with the country's problems.

whiner police?

they should vote for someone else. That's what I do. Nothing wrong with it. It's called DEMOCRACY! Don't you just love it!?!? :P

with all further elections CALLED OFF and no CRITICISM ALLOWED. and YOU are NOT THE BASE!!!

:shrug:
Yes, I've been told many times I am not the base. Hurt my feelings. :rofl:

Democrats who support the president are going to fight to keep him in office, just as fiercely as any sentiment critics and those who oppose him express. That defense of the President against criticisms is the flip side of the animus expressed by so many here. That's democracy.

And I'm not talking about all 'criticisms' as some would like to characterize my objections, I'm talking about the over the top crap (don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about).

My concern is that a primary challenge is a fool's errand which would threaten to put the election in the hands of republicans. That's why I'm opposed to the campaigning against our President and party here. I won't participate in that, because it just isn't relevant to what the vast majority of Democrats outside of DU express or feel. It's an echo chamber here transfixed with a counterproductive message to the issues folks claim to be so concerned about. It'll do no good at all to those concerns if the actions proposed do nothing but enable the opposition by weakening support for the President.

This is what happeens when President and Congress do not what needs to be done.

In 2010, the Democrats did it to themselves.

In 2012, it can happen again.

I think a lot of people, perhaps the majority here, would like to guide the President in a different direction? It's not that they are so against the President or want somebody else to take his place. They want him to be a Democrat. Nothing more and nothing less.

like, uh, unemployment, foreclosures, the impending bankruptcy of municipalities?

obama is president. he's supposed to be able to take the heat, not wither like some fragile flower because some blogger criticizes him. he's the PRESIDENT, not your 5-year-old daughter.

get a grip.

. . . on a political board. Folks do presume that their advocacy here means something, even if you might think it's inconsequential.

I didn't see you on the 'Obama Switch Party' thread telling those folks cheering that sentiment on to 'get a grip'.

& threads saying "you hate the president! you haters are ruining everything!"

The DU membership has generally found the president's first two years to be disappointing in ways that it should not have been. Recent statements from the White House suggest he'll move further in the wrong direction for many here.

Having a primary with a strong candidate other than the president may be the only way to keep many voters in the Democratic primary. It should not surprise anyone that discussion of primarying the president has begun.

Never got over it, and have been sharpening their knives ever since.

For some, it started when he carried the Bush war policies forward.

For some, it started when he failed to act forcefully on DADT.

For some, it started when he gave in to the GOP on the deficit issues.

For some, it started when he reneged on his promise to have the Feds leave alone med MJ states.

And the list goes on and on.

Ain't it grand?