Does a guy who bashes "the left" on Fox News DESERVE our party's nomination in 2012?

If we're supposed to be loyal to him, isn't he equally obligated to be loyal to us, at least when he's speaking on an enemy newscast?

Isn't it only supposed to be the OTHER party that talks trash about "the left"?

How is saying that certain things "the left" proposed are being left out of the bill because he didnt think it was necessary for the system, "bashing the left?"

From the transcript:

we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist. I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system.

Translation:
The ideas from the left are not sensible
We must tack to the center -- Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman
The left is disruptive

There's nothing quoted in the transcript that says: certain things "the left" proposed are being left out of the bill because he didn't think it was necessary for the system

because healthcare is a big part of our economy.

That is not "bashing". It is something that I completely disagree with, but it is not "bashing".

Someone else says To-mah-to

In the end it's all in how someone reads the comment

In a highly charged environment as this has needlessly become, he should pick his phrases more carefully

The way he uses sensible can suggest that the left is not being so

This conversation is ending a positive note
We both agree (I think) it's all in how the person chooses to interpret what was said.

I have just finished having the dumbest argument with someone who thinks they are Karnak The Great or something

And it's making me very tired and irritated

You have a nice day (or evening depending on where you are)

Take care


:toast: :hi: :fistbump:

Sorta.

Thank you for a nice, civil conversation. We certainly do agree.

Have a nice day :)

or needless because Americans must accept liars as their leaders or needless
because the left doesn't count here either. Like that poll yesterday that lasted at least 520 votes - but only until it tipped against the president, and was gone.

ever consider voting for him again.

I don't like his appointments. I don't like his policies. And his failure to make strong statements about the need for Single Payer Universal HC when he himself said that he KNEW it was the best and most logical solution to the HC crisis - when he turned his back on his own logic, he lost me.

And of course, the media shares a lot of blame. When Cronkite and Murrow were around, they would have parsed the hell out of the following from Obama: "Well, Single Payer Universal HC is the best solution -- if there is no system already up and running, but because there is, then we have to preserve that system, in a way that is uniquely American." In other words, we won't use a logical solution, we will use a sytsem that includes the system that we already have while we aim for reform.

But how is it possible to "reform" a system if you include that broken system inside it?

What a bunch of gibberish he speaks. He speaks it elegantly, but it is still gibberish.

And our media only blathers on about things like Tiger Woods.

:-) :hi:

We Progressives who elected this man are denounced by him on FOX TV. We are offered up expansion of an expensive war in Afghanistan that will further bring this nation to its knees economically. We are kept silent over a long summer while the Rahm brothers carefully craft the HC "Reform" Bill to the advantage of the Big Insurers.

Monsanto clones occupy high positions. Bernanke/Geithner give away Fourteen Trillion bucks. Some TARP monies get paid back, but only because of special tax breaks that allow the Banksters to look good in the headlines.

We have an extra special super duper RECOVERY while many are jobless, and/or homeless.

And on and on.

What we don't have is a neo- Nazi, snarling and inarticulate Republican in the WH. We have the kinder, gentler, more pleasant version of that. (While the bombs fall on civilians and the eight million new foreclosures go forward.)

But according to the Pew Survey on Voters, some forty percent of the voter sin this nation are no longer totally loyal to one party or another.

Forty percent of us want someone who is honest and will do the right thing.

Puhllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssse.

Come on!

There are REAL Republicans in the world! Have you forgotten them? Remember the 48% of the population that voted for Captain Combover and Caribou Barbie?

They have as much relationship to Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon as
cheese has to acorns.

Eisenhower would not support the current war in Afghanistan. He also would be appalled by Obama holding on to the Patriot Act. Nixon would not support the Bernanke/Geithner giveaways.

Rachel Carson is spinning in her grave, when she hears that Obama's Monsanto buddies are ripping up the organic farmers' crops as Monsanto takes apart the middle inocmed farm lands. (Coming soon: GMO beets, cauliflowe r and carrots. What other foods will join wheat, corn and rice as poisons to our systems?)

I suppose we frogs in the pot can applaud that the water is only being pushed to temperatures two or three degrees higher each year, while the neo Nazis woul demand we live with ten degree changes.

But I am tired of "Bad Cop, Good Cop," democracy. I want my nation out of the police station.

If we'd had direct presidential elections, like an actual democracy does, it would have been a very different story.

Judging by the ability of a well-funded campaign to affect emotions and thoughts, I am not optimistic.

I am old enough to remember Nixon. And when I see and hear the way that Obama uses his voice's cadence, when he makes his overly emphatic points, when he says "Now Look..." it all is so Nixonian I want to barf.

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

I am from Chicago. I was fighting for segregation way back before many here were out of diapers.

In my late teens, I probably lost a job due to the fact that my friends were black and I choose to sit with them at their cafeteria table rather than with the "white and approved" crowd that I was "supposed" to sit with.

This is like being told I am anti-Semitic because I don't like the fact that thirteen times as many Palestinians die for every Jewish person during the conflicts there. (I am, BTW, half Jewish.)

Also, Obama's approval of the Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner policies has crippled the lower incomed and the barely middle incomed people most of all. And many of those people happen to be black.

I voted for Obama in large part because never in a million years did I believe that he and Michelle would sell out their own. But there is no way that those on the edge are ever going to recover from the Fourteen Trillion bucks that Obama's Administration pretends it doesn't see going from Main Street to The Big Banks and the Upper Circle of the Elite.

Things will be even worse in five or six years when none of the food in this nation is edible because of Obama's approval of Monsanto GMO. Michelle may be all "I love organics" but so many of her husband's appointments are Monsanto/Novartis/-related that I can barely think straight when realizing how sold out our farmers are.

No wonder socialism was rejected in favor of the expensive corrupt private industry.

and use words 500 times as bad as what you perceive as an insult.

He told the truth didn't he? The Left wanted things,
and he didn't include them, although we wanted them.

The man's been called a failure by so many,
but don't let him have anything to say....
cause he should be licking your shoe, I guess.

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

As an acceptable political device, so slandering your own supporters is a thing you have long agreed is fine to do if Obama does it. You said hate preachers proved his 'bona fides' to some group that is intolerant.
So the President and his good friends stand against my rights, Frenchie, against equality. They say they are 'sanctified' and others are 'cursed by God'.
They discriminate against us, like bigots do. Actual legal discrimination. So, oh, poor Barack, getting back what he put out, reaping what he sewed.
Let me know when someone says he or his people should not have rights equal to others, then we can talk. Until then, nothing said about him comes close to the slander he has put forth, which you uphold and praise.

is that if Obama bombed Iran and Israel, put Wal Mart in charge of the Education Dept., drilled for oil in Central Park, outlawed all unions, and divorced Michelle to marry Sarah, a few here would still defend those actions and condemn DUers who discussed them. It's sort of a white noise background hiss that you get used to and disregard.

Lapping up all the "pretty speeches" makes the crap so palatable!

for by the left.

The argument put forth by the OP is that Obama insulted his base.

We have the right to feel slighted. We have the right to feel insulted.

And looking at the Big Four: 1)his policies, 2) his appointments, 3) his actions, and 4) now his words, we Progressives certainly can affirm that we have had the wool pulled off our eyes. He may have run as a Progressive (See his October 2008 YouTubes when he fer sure speaks the progressive talking points), but once in office, the only pledges (with the exception of stem cells) that he honors are those pledges made to the Big Corporate Interests.

Once he took office, this man saw us as so much offal to be scraped from his shoes, while he goes and talks to Faux about how we Progressives are the problem.

Centrist = bipartisan, i.e. not forcing your views on another
Disruptive = 100s of thousands of jobs in the health insurance industry lost
Sensible = doing the first and not the second

It's probably because most of the demands from the "left" or I would assume the far liberal group of the Dem party won't get a bill past. Bluedogs would shut it down fast. You know it as well as I do and anyone who knows the democratic process in washington knows it very well. You're being intentionally obtuse and misleading with your analyses.

It's just saying he didn't agree that all those proposals were necessary right now. And I agree with him. Am I left basher too?

Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are the center?

Oh, that's hilarious! :rofl:

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

due the way the party has rigged the nominating process to keep the people out in the cold since the 70's)will end up BEING the nominee.

I don't dispute that.

But does such a person DESERVE it if he or she treats the party's base as the enemy(which is what Obama's Fox News slams on the left were doing)?

Is there any good reason for us to have a nominee that acts as if she or he is ABOVE the party and is somehow doing the party a favor by deigning to allow its insiders to choose her or him as the nominee?

We need the 1972 delegate selection rules back. Slowly leeching the democracy out of the party has done nothing but make things worse.

you certainly don't speak for liberals like myself who support Obama.

Wow, so my vote didn't count? Talk about jaded.

You've jumped the fucking shark.

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

:rofl:

Had he lived, Bobby would have backed the 1972 nominating rules. Those rules didn't cause our loss in '72, Nixon's dirty tricks did. And Nixon had it rigged so he'd have taken 49 states against Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey or Ed Muskie too.

Giving the insiders control is what gave us Mondale and Dukakis.

:rofl: at him.

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

We were going to be forced to accept the corporate candidate. You know perfectly well that everything he's done since getting elected was a deliberate gesture of contempt towards the people who elected him.

Worse yet, he's discarded the Obama movement. He treated them like a one-night stand, getting what he wanted from them and then sending them on their way. It's this guy's fault if the young give up on politics again. Obama owed it to THEM not to go centrist.

Now the door is closed again, no one feels enthusiasm anymore, and the "pros" are laughing at us for letting ourselves get played.

Face it, this proves that none of us mattered to the party.

His one term will wend in Jan 2013.

The rest of his 1st term will be a real cluster fuck after Nov 2010

If the new speaker has an R behind his name Obama will be able to work with him quite comfortably. In fact - there will be less stress on the WH to get anything/something done.

will wend its way into a second, if we are lucky enough to get him.

I don't want Mitt Romney sitting in the Oval Office, thank you very much.

Olbermann to similarily bash the right? Not in a million years. Would never happen.

Illustrates the amount of respect Obama has for the people who worked their asses off to get him elected. And saying it on FAUX, IMO, makes it even more of an insult. Have no idea who Obama thinks is going to step up to the plate for him in 2012, but he sure as hell won't have the full support of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

"I rejected many ideas from the right" in trying to make the case that whatever bill they are promoting is not crazy partisan.

or gloat about not doing what his base wanted(which was also what the majority of the country wanted).

There's no good reason for any Democratic president to ever do anything to give aid and comfort to the meme that politics in this country should only consist of "the right and the center".

It is a ridiculously centrist bill. I think it would have been better if he *had* pushed from the left on it. But he didn't and what we've got is a centrist bill. Calling it a centrist bill is not "bashing" anybody.

Why even bother with them?

Nobody who watches Fox votes for this party anyway, or ever will.

There's never a good reason to try to appease the enemy like that.

There's a huge difference.

You took one line out of the interview and made a post about it.

Chill out please.

"It's not an attack on blacks".

And when it came to a "Democratic" president signing Rush Limbaughs "Death To The Dispossesed" bill(I.E. "welfare reform)you'd have said "it's not an attack on the poor".

There would have been the same remarks about some of us "not knowing how the game was played" as somebody else put it in this thread.

No reason for him to be on there in the first place. But going into that vile liars' den and then using the platform to bash the ideas of your party's base is just low. So very disappointing.

President Obama's agreeing to appear on Fox only lends them credibility and dignity they do not deserve.

much, you will make yourselves believe the most innocuous statement is somehow directed, personally at you, as an insult.

while most people think he went on fox news and kicked their ass, you've managed to find a way to be outraged. it's hillarious. he could tie his shoes and get you into a snit fer chrissakes. "he tied his RIGHT shoe first!! impeach!!1!!!"

Can not bear criticism of a President who opposes even basic human rights for minorities he despises. Obama is against equal rights for all. He favors discrimination under the law against some groups of people.
Simple statements. Now, continue stomping on the desk and frothing at the mouth.

:rofl:

which he has explained clearly. If you think treating minorities differently under the law is emoticon funny, that is your choice. But Obama states clearly that his religion teaches him to favor discrimination against some minorities.
Do you see the promotion of discrimination and bigotry to be funny? I don't.
Bigots are bigots. I don't find them funny. You seem to.
Enjoy the laugh.

He couldn't possibly be clearer. He wouldn't accept what the left wanted because he didn't want to upset the system. THAT's the insult, as far as I'm concerned. And he admits it. That's not an "innocuous statement," that's a damning statement.

You're not fooling anybody.

I'm honestly a loyal Democrat who doesn't want to see our party lose by giving up its principles.

You've got no reason to think anything else of me.

And it's not cool to start sounding like Bencheley.

They know what he, like, meant. And stuff.

Great.....

but the same bunch who always bash Obama on here must have been upset Obama did well in that interview and made the Fox guy look like an ass.

so now they are trying to turn that whole interview into something it wasn't.

But he never does well when he gets centrist. That path never ever works.

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

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

1994 was caused by centrism. We all know that. Why repeat it?

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

This seems like Dawn Johnsen v.2, the insanely ridiculous flak that Obama received here over the New York Health board's decision to distribute the H1N1 virus to Wall St. before anyone else, Obama bowing too low to the Japanese emperor, wearing clean clothes that aren't full of parasites and disease as proof of his "elitism" etc. in that it's another excuse for those who will never support or give this President credit for anything looking desperately about for something to scream about. Sweet Jesus, this mess has gotten old.

I wonder what Giordano, Cesca and a few others will have to say in response to this new idiocy. This is weak even for chronic Obama haters.

Because it won't be happening in the real world. Have you been paying attention?

Easily corrupted, and that should he please the Corporate Masters often enough, then they will see to it that it all works out.

Having electronic voting machinery means you never have to consider your base.

Of course Bush would never admit the right did not get all it wanted in any bill. The right wing never admits to any realities.

into the lions' den.

I have absolute respect for Obama going there and taking them on.

Of course Bush would be too cowardly to appear on MSNBC.

I certainly would like to get some things I believe I deserve,
but I'm also very happy that I do not get other things that I likely deserve as well.

Obama will get the nomination.

And it starts at the top.

Seriously, I've got to wonder if some DUers are just fucking with us. I've been here a long time and never have I ever thought many on this forum were stupid - so I'm pretty sure this is all just a joke.

We're probably being played. To show how utterly idiotic an extreme can look. You know, like those websites that mock far-right religious Republicans (Landover Baptist, comes to mind).

haha

:eyes:

Which is a surprise, because I really don't think you're dumb. A big reason why I don't believe you when you act like this. Only an idiot would post some of the stuff you've posted lately and you're far from being an idiot.

So I feel you. ;)

Clever, but not because I think, unfortunately, some DUers actually buy your psychotic-like rants.

I think her whole schtick is just that, a moneymaking schtick and she doesnt believe any of it. She just knows it appeals to the knuckledragging right and makes her a lot of money.

What you have pointed out here seems very similar even if the underlying ideology is different.

There are people here that have jumped the shark and thrive off the negativity that they promote.

It's sickening. :puke:

and didn't begrudge banksters their bonuses to Bloomberg, while comparing them with baseball players!

No telling what will happen after a year or two of this- especially if the poll numbers keep dropping.

Look, you wanted revolutionary reform. You wanted to upset the whole apple cart and go with single payer. You wanted and even demanded that the system designed for massive insurance company profits be, dare I say it, disrupted.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, we celebrated our disruptiveness. Disruption of a flawed system was the whole point.

Grow a bit of skin and own your disruptiveness. Wear it as a badge of honor. Take having your ideas being called disruptive as a compliment, because that is what you intend to do.

i hardly know what to make of DU anymore

Right now, not doing well at all.

I swear the idiocy here gets worse by the day.

a centrist bill - something you very likely agree with.

Now, consider who he was talking to - the possible not completely ideologically bound Fox listeners, who have heard for months that the bill is a socialistic, extreme left, Un-American bill. What you take as left bashing is an attempt to get these people to see what the plan actually is.

and the Democrats. I feel that is patently false. Republicans best interest is to vote NO on everything, obstruct everything. So who was the compromise with? It was a compromise between the interests of Health Insurance Corporations and the interests of the people.

I am not happy about that compromise but I think you bring up a good point about the audience Obama is dealing with. He isn't talking to rational people here.

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

He's admitting his Change(TM) rhetoric is just that.

would want. Both the far right and far left bury their heads in the sand, I guess, and pretend each other does not exist, therefore thinking their views are mainstream.

in this forum, if not in the whole party.

The term "mainstream" is a rhetorical bludgeon, designed to make an artificial distinction between the ideas our rulers accept as legitimate and the ones they refuse to tolerate. It's only a term Republicans should be using. Our party should be above it, since its use only harms this party.

when President Obama smiled during the interview the left side of his smile was lower than the right.


Obviously he was dissing the "left"!

Carter and Clinton were. Even FDR was. This is part of being a Dem. It is a big tent party. The left is not the enemy but I doubt you would win an election in 2012 by being Dennis Kucinich. He did not do it two times before. Let's face it, this is a center right to center left country. There is always other 3rd party-type candidates if he is not progressive enough for you. I really have no problem with those on the left who don't want a more centrist President. That is fine. Do what you want, it is a free (sometimes) country.

sometimes by very substantial margins.

People complain about their taxes being too high but also don't want to cut services (look in CA). Constant complaints in my state too. In Connecticut we have some of the highest taxes around and people constantly complain that cost of living here is too high. And yet in education and other areas, we are far and above one of the best states (# 2 in best educated in this list: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index). When Lowell Weicker introduced the state income tax in the early 90's here, people flipped, and yet CT survived and is better for it. We still have a Repub governor though as people have wanted a divided government here between the liberal legislature and more moderate Governor. Gov. Rell wants to cut more programs. People essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. We can move towards more progressive action if people bite the bullet and actually decide that wanting a better standard of living takes some extra costs. In many ways, the costs can be cut by regulating the big corps. We have expenses that come from areas other then taxes. Also, people have to stop voting against their interests. John McCain was not going to help the middle class in any substantial way and yet millions of middle class voters decided that they wanted to vote for him anyway. People say one thing and do another constantly in the United States. Which is way we are a center left to center right country. Obama is right there on the spectrum. He moves an inch to the left and people freak out. The US is dysfunctional when it comes to what they want. I mean, plenty of people voted for Reagan and Bush who were "moderates".

And virtually every worthwhile thing FDR did was in response to left pressure. If he'd stayed with what he was comfortable with, FDR's policies would have been exactly like Woodrow Wilson's...I.e., absolutely useless to a country facing economic collapse.

Indeed, the main reason Dems lost seats in the 1938 congressional midterms was that FDR did what Wall Street wanted and tried to balance the budget, thus pushing the country back down into depression(when the spending had pretty much lifted us out of it). If he'd said "fuck balancing the budget, I'm going to stick with saving the country" The party would never have lost enough seats to allow the right wing of the Democrats to join with Republicans in stopping the New Deal in its tracks.

1938 is further proof that for our party, centrism always leads to defeat.

:hi:

That is the kindest thing I can say right now without it being deleted.

And trusting, believing that in the end the Health Care Bill can be "Fixed" later.

You've jumped the fucking shark.

i can't wait!

:toast:

So I really wonder WHO exactly they WILL be voting for in 2012 if not Obama. Palin? Pence? Romney? Oh wait, maybe Ralph "the Savior" will run again and split the vote, then they can all throw their votes away and hope a republican wins so they have something to be happily unhappy about for another decade.

It's so much easier to BE like the republicans and say no to everything. But to actually affect positive change is a hard lift. We all know people in our day to day lives (though I CHOSE to pretty much stay away as much as I can) who are only happy when it rains (thank you Shirley Manson) and they carry their resentments around with them everywhere they go. I don't want to be like that, I don't want to LIVE like that.

:hi:

I'm sure there will be a few tears of joy choked back this Sunday at 2PM-my family NEEDS this bill to pass.

Over the well-known shark without a surfboard..... :eyes:

Hekate

Obviously there are some idiots among the left.

Fox Noise was a perfect place to say that. The idiotic contingent on the left expect no strategy from a politician, no outdoing the other Party and undercutting their arguments.

Yesterday these same idiotic types were attacking Kent Conrad for allowing a state-run bank to be included in the student loan package. Conrad asked that it be taken out. Who knew the left was against state-run banks?

Here's one thing on the right the President rejected: the Stupak amendment. Now he could have said that on Fox, but what would that have accomplished?

Are you serious?

Surely, you're not serious.

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

I can't speak to "our" obligation... merely my obligation, and my obligation is to support the candidate and the party which most closely aligns with my own sense of morality, civic duty, and national agenda.



However... I imagine if that "trashing of the left" is indeed as high on the list of our priorities, anyone who holds Obama to that standard would necessarily hold themselves to that standard also-- with nary a bad word or criticism from their own mouths in regards to any member of the left, else they would most likely be guilty of...

left wanted because he thought they would be too disruptive to the healthcare system as a whole?

It seems some peoples' sensitivity meters are set on "sub-atomic" and everything Obama says will be misconstrued as being anti-liberal in some way.

on that score.

If there actually were a Faux in Reverse on the left it would sound like this.

That's how you know you've hit the nail on the head. The guy comes right out and says he's rejected the left because he doesn't want to rock the boat. How much more clear could it be and they still defend it. Obviously they're either hopeless or agree with the center-right approach, all other options have been stripped away by the actions and inactions of the last year.

Ignore list, give me strength!

Not everything is about you. Suck it up.

It was about the country's progressive majority.

If this country was truly that progressive, they'd VOTE that way.

A few people on DU does not constitute a majority of the country.

its no less stupid when folks on the left do the same.

I don't for an instant believe that a majority of the nation subscribes to "progressive" views as they are defined by those who describe themselves as progressives on DU. Can I find polls that show support for progressive ideals? Sure. BUt restate some of the questions in a different or more specific way and you'll find a different result.

to support a healthy third party choice that would mount a significant challenge to the two major parties' tickets. It's been tried before. It has not succeeded.

There is more progressive agreement on key issues than a FOX News poll would suggest but that by no means translates to an apparatus by which a progressive ticket could represent a potential victory in a coast-to-coast election.

Cynthia McKinney is about as left as it gets on presidential tickets and she was crushed. The coalition demographics which would comprise a progressive voting block were not drawn to her candidacy, did not feel that she represented their progressive votes, and a huge percentage of those votes were cast to the man your post denigrates.

Obama bashing the Left?

Oh yeah, that happened.

:crazy:

and I figure he's going to have a lot of fun trying to rally all of the finger-in-the-wind moderates and "independents" he seems to love so much to hit the streets for him when he runs for re-election.

:puke:

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

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

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

that the left did not get all it wants.

Have you ever talked to real life right wingers? They think this bill is going to lead to a new Soviet Union in the U.S. The end of freedom. Communism and Marxism.

No Faux Noise viewer is ever going to grow a soul anyway.

Do you think the crazy right are the only ones that watch Fux? You do know there's a CENTER that helped him get where he is, right? I hate to break it to you, but not every viewer is a frothing at the mouth conservative. Who are you to tell the President where he shouldn't spread his message? Obama's decisions doesn't just affect us, it affects them too. You complained about lack of leadership, here it is. It really isn't all about what you want.

the only people who ever watch it are the ones whose minds are locked forever.

you're on a roll with making wrongful assumptions. Considering your inability to see the difference between centrist dems and conservative republicans, I'll simply smile and nod each time you make a claim for the center.

in the 2012 cycle.

No indication to date that Obama is not interested in a second term.

No indication to date that there is a viable challenger on the left.

There is a possibility of Evan Bayh running as an independent, but also a possibility of someone running to Romney's right, were Romney to become more inevitably the Pukes' nom than he is now.

Obama. Romney. Bayh. Palin. A Green candidate. All stronger possibilities, IMO, than Dean or Kucinich or someone else running to Obama's left.

Why would "A Green candidate" be a stronger possibility than Dean or Kucinich? Especially since said Green candidate would also be running "to Obama's left"?

for 2012, barring, that is, some unforeseen drastic turn of destiny.

Politically, he seems well-positioned.

The USA Greens are a great bunch of people but they have not been able to make the case as the Greens in Europe have. They'll likely run a ticket, and certainly it will be to Obama's left, but it will also be unpersuasive to many million of voters and they'll do little better than they did in 2008, which was comprehensively awful.

Dean and Kucinich -- both names come to mind and it is not out of the question that one or the other or both run for the Democratic nomination -- or try a third party effort if they want. Were either of them to ask me I would suggest that they reconsider either notion unless they want their asses kicked.

He got the message when he went all over the country and tens of thousands of people cheered for him, but refused to vote for him. It's shameful that a person like Dennis would be given THAT message, but that's how it seems to work these days.

that an appointment for him could be down the road -- possibly one he has wanted a while, maybe.

The case for Kucinich as a focused, principled, public servant is extremely strong. There is no apparatus to make it felt, and no money, and significant media resistance.

If Kucinich and others introduce legislation after tomorrow to make the country's health care policy more humane and more comprehensive, I think the Democrats who pressured him to vote yes on this bill should co-sponsor those initiatives. Kucinich may be better at coalition-building than he thinks, but he first has to try it.

What do you bet that this evening at John Boehner's house there is both melancholy and some serious booze being consumed?

As for Dennis...if here were to do anything else at this point, I'd like to see him stand for Voinovich's Senate seat. If Sherrod Brown could win statewide, Dennis could take it.

and in a statewide election, I think Kucinich would be defeated.

Would I prefer him to the all-but-worthless Voinovich? Of course. But an open seat is going to require one of the two Democrats currently in the running for the nomination. Kucinich likely knows he has no realistic chance to be elected to the U.S. Senate. He would run well in many but not all of the northeastern districts, only moderately competitively in Franklin County, and he would be destroyed south, southeast, and especially southwest of I-270. He'd have residual support in Montgomery County, which was the only SW Ohio county hat went for Kerry in 2004, and then only by a modest margin. All the rest of that part of the state, which is vote-rich for Republicans, would make a bee-line to the polls to defeat Kucinich. No totals he could run up in his stronger NE districts would offset the percentage he'd lose by in the southern part of the state.

Are they worthwhile or are they "centrist"?

politics.

"Worthwhile" is an arbitrary value on your personal system. There are 300 million some people in the United States. Of the adult voting population, your personal "worthwhile" is not someone else's "worthwhile," or the next person's, etc.

That construction is going to lead you to hypertension, heart attacks, dissociative events, and many enemies among grassroots organizers.

The major contenders for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Ohio are Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher. Rob Portman is expected to be the GOP nominee.

And It's not like it was a comment about you, so I'm not sure what you're being so touchy about.

Let me try this another way:

Which one would be the progressive candidate then(of the Dems)?

And would there be any possible reason to nominate the less-progressive one?

distance. I don't even live in Ohio, thanks be to almighty god.

"Any possible reason" is the language I was singling out. You appear to forget that the process has long been in place by which primary voters make decision on which candidate they wish to represent them. Sometimes your candidate wins; sometimes someone else's candidate does.

Brunner and Fisher are both good candidates. Unfortunately Ohio is almost tailor-made for Rob Portman. Either Democrat would have an uphill fight against Portman. Kucinich would have had little chance at all.

There is a refreshing contrast between Sec. of State Brunner and the man who held that office under a Republican administration -- Ken Blackwell.

By definition; the "left" is far away from consensus.

When pragmatic consensus is what you seek "the left" is no help to you.

under the guise of "pragmatism"? Or does that not apply to the right?

what can be agreed upon is all that matters in the end.

Those who refuse to compromise, on any side,in order to proceed, place themselves on the sidelines.

That's been obvious for a long, long time.

HCR would be dead now.

If the current bill had the republican name attached, republicans would be hootin' and hollerin' right now. They aren't unhappy with the substance. Indeed, the substance of the bill is exactly what they, themselves, would have passed. They're unhappy because the name democratic party is attached to it instead of republican party.

do you think its kidding myself to say... if they had the votes the dems would have passed it last July?
conversely the republicans would have killed it, if they had the votes.
its a victory for the citizenry who have been clamoring for some action for decades.

neither side could hi-jack it completely, which I see as an affirmation of our national common sense.

by the republican party. The fact that the democratic party is passing it doesn't make it acceptable or less abhorrent.

What you call "middle" today, is what we called Republican a few decades ago.

at least 90% of the Democratic party have any idea how the majority of the party feels?

You have the right to say this, but I think the vast majority of the left is happy that the President is out there fighting for Healthcare.

I can't find the link to the transcript, other wise I would do a CTRL-F to see.

speaking to your audience.

oh wait nevermind that was Candidate Obama.

You're confusing it with everything else one sees on Fox.

anyone who was paying attention knew that

See, that's how elections work.

He met the qualifications to run per the Constitution, and he arguably ran the most brilliant campaign in the history of this country.

He won fair and square.

Your opinion doesn't have any bearing on the facts, and the op shares your disdain for this president with this evening's episode of Provocative Context-Free Tales.

I'm not disputing he won fair and square - but if you think this is the best we could have had, well, that's pretty much how we get what we deserve....people who paid attention have not been surpised at ALL how this presidency is evolving - I voted for Obama but I would have voted for a ham sandwich if they'd run it against a repuke - this HCR circus is just the latest episode making me cringe

in several states and turns out, Obama got more votes.

You're not going to make me into "the enemy", no matter how much you want to. The enemy is the Right, not the left.

But explain again, if you'd be so kind, how a thread entitled "Does a guy who bashes 'the left' on Fox News DESERVE our party's nomination in 2012?" helps a single stinking thing at this point. Your explanation or apologia would be a hell of a lot more interesting than your OP above.

The President's remarks on this, regardless of your rhetorical burlesque, were a little disquieting, though objectively pretty ambiguous. Your remark by way of this OP, on the other hand, was quite straightforward. So please, help me and perhaps others out as to how your effort here is intended to achieve anything but demoralization and apathy. Having read some of your recent posts, I'd have to say that despite the high regard in which I've always held you here, I'll take whatever you have to offer on this issue with a big damn grain of rock salt. But please, put the rest of your cards on the table. So far in this round, you haven't shown anything very impressive. I have to think you're bluffing.

And this thread was started days ago, right after that interview happened. I wasn't the only person who felt enraged about what was said.

What I was seeing in that interview seemed to be a moment when we, the progressive wing of the party, were finally being discarded. I'd be glad to see the Prez take steps to correct that impression.

Who do you think could take on a sitting democratic president in a primary and win? Not only that, but then have a good chance at winning the general? Who do you suggest has that ability?

on Fox to get his message out to conservatives to assuage their deep fears that this bill will be a catastrophe to their health care. Fear is the message that Fox has been pumping nonstop wrt to everything but especially this bill.

Here's the quote: "Now, we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist. I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system."

Obama's message to conservatives: The left is adamant about what it wants and is unaware or doesn't care that it would disrupt the entire system and cause greater harm. Don't worry. We're centrists. We're practical and sensible. We're not going to screw up your health care like the lefties would if they had their way. Don't be afraid of this bill conservatives.

It's a swipe for sure. I'm not all that bent out of shape about it. But it is what it is. I'm not going to pretend it it didn't happen. Is it a bash? Semantics.

Again, it was a comment meant to relate to conservatives. That's the context. The problem is that it does reinforce the "looney left" stereotype in America when a Democratic president says that.

and I'm not entirely sure that I would say that what Obama said constitutes "bashing" although I can understand why inartfully adopting the Republicans' "the left" wording might bother people a little (including myself). I got his point, though, which is that he both accepted and rejected ideas/proposals from people on both sides when crafting his HCR proposal.

However, as to your question, yes, President Obama deserves our party's nomination in 2012 unless he completely loses his mind and begins speaking in tongues or like Rush Limbaugh.

Constructive criticism is where you say "Here's what you might try doing instead of what you're doing now".

That's not what any of this has been about.

It's been about infantilizing us and treating us as a junior partner in the coalition, when we've done nothing to deserve either.

say anything nice about liberals?

this is still Amerca after all.