One Thing is for Certain, Obama Will Not Be Primaried (at least not by a credible challenger)

Given his amazing record of accomplishments as President, in particular the events of last week, he will have the full, united, and wildly enthusiastic support of the Democratic party behind him heading in 2012.

...in my humble opinion.

I was a precinct captain for Obama in '08, and I still believe that he is a good man.

However, I continue to be concerned with my number one issue: The fact that we no longer
have a democracy because the corporations control every aspect of our government (and 95 percent
of the politicians) through campaign contributions (and probably loads of other under-the-table malarkey).

Obama let me down when he kow towed to Wall Street and named several entrenched Wall Streeters to cabinet
positions and other important posts (e.g. Geithner). I was also let down when he allowed the health-insurance
companies to remain at the epicenter of our healthcare system. I'm bothered by his connections to big Pharma
and I was disturbed at how BP got a free pass and continues to get a free pass. Obama appoints GE CEO
Steve Emmelt to his business counsel--and big energy gets their way with downplaying Fukushima in the United
States.

And the endless war--which is a neocon/corporatist travesty of greed, pillagingand profit-taking--has continued
(and significantly expanded) with Obama.

There are many, many examples of Obama continuing (and in some instances, worsening) the legacy of corporate
corruption and quid-pro-quo deals that I hoped he would at least TRY to temper.

There has been no progress. There can be no democracy as long as our government is run this way.

I continue to support any effort Obama makes to change this malignancy on our government. I am not an Obama
hater. I want to support him, but I won't be distracted by shiny objects (with long beards) while we slide
into Fascism. I will hold ALL Democrats and Republicans accountable for this sick mess, and I'll never
applaud a lack of candidates who really do care about these fundamental issues and are just as disheartened
by all of this, as I am.

without a sustained long-term effort, particularly at the local level. The Democrats are, admittedly, far from perfect themselves but keeping the country bouncing the country back and forth between reasonable and moderate Democrats- whom promise (and in most cases, achieve) gradual progressive change (while helping to protect vulnerable populations)- and Republicans- whom seem to be seeking to enshrine some kind of fusion between corporate power and state power (and church power) in our country that either controls and/or punishes all but the top 1% and best connected individuals- every four to eight years is NOT going to further the progressive cause. What we need to do IMHO is continue to support the current Democratic Party at the top-keeping a Democrat in the WH as long as possible- and build a more progressive infrastructure at the bottom that will bubble up to the top at some point.

This is long term. And, it does take building a more progressive infrastructure at the bottom.

.... of his promise to escalate the Afghanistan war.

I know, I know ... just because he said it doesn't mean you have to approve. But you cant blame the man for doing what he said he would. (As some are quick to point out when he didn't)

I agreed with Obama during the campaign--that we should have focused on Afghanistan, instead of going into Iraq. I also
agreed that further resources needed to be committed to Afg to ensure that bin Laden and Al Qeda didn't re-group there.

That's one issue.

My main issue with war is the neocon plan that Obama is continuing. It started with Bush, when they lied us into
war with Iraq. In case you haven't checked out Project for a New American Century--you might want to Google it.
PNAC (or the neocons) laid out their grand plans for big, big war in the Middle East. The purpose of this war is
to dominate the resources and the people in this area of the world.

The bastards were brazen enough to detail the plan on their website. They even asked Bill Clinton for war with Iraq in 1998, and he refused.
They had to wait until Bush was President--before their 'plan in the sand' could be realized.

They laid out which countries they wanted to invade and in what order: Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria. They tried to
initiate Iran, but their justifications for war were so absurd that they couldn't; and Iraq was a disaster and public
sentiment was dropping for it, so their Iran plans were halted. So, they're skipping around now.

Sure enough, we're in Libya now and soon to be involved with Syria. Obama is spearheading all of this and is the
mouthpiece behind getting the public on board. This is part of the neocon plan. No mistake about that. It's
a fact.

And by the way--I have said before and I'll say it again--Obama is the only shot we've got. He's a good man. He's not
a narcissist or a sociopath, like most of our public officials. He's most likely the only grown up in the room when
he's working with Congress. What the Obama Administration has taught me is that the power of the Presidency is incredibly
limited--and in some respects--nonexistent.

Neocons and corporatists in the Democratic and Republican parties have all of the power. They slowly amassed it during the
the past few decades and our entire government has been engulfed. They're in the CIA, the Pentagon, the DOD, the NSA. They're
like the mafia--and they're working in tandem with and beholden to powerful corporations. The President is just one man, and there's
no way one person can break up this power structure.

I understand his limitations and I don't attack him personally--but for Pete's sake--can I be at least be disappointed that it
has come to this? Do I have your permission to be just a tad bit upset that our democracy is NO LONGER and that a President
in this country is basically ineffectual up against these marauding psychopaths who view us (that's you too) as useless insects?

Campaign Obama DID promise to send an additional "3 Brigades" (about 12 thousand) to Afghanistan to
1)"protect American interests" &

2)"Pursue Al Qaeda in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan"

This promise (3 brigades) was fulfilled in Jan-Feb of 2009.


Obama said NOTHING about an additional SURGE of +30,0000,
or expanding the WAR to Pakistan and other regions.
This is WAY over & beyond anything Obama "promised" during the campaign.

a difference of what 18000 troops? That is very trivial imo.

since Obama sent them to fight this needless war.

less lives than Bush, right?

I am debunking the myth that this is what Obama "promised" during the campaign.

...and it is an additional +30,000 troops,
and Mission Creep to include frequent Drone Attacks in Pakistan.

Those of us who paid attention during the campaign KNOW this.

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

The only thing that will is a strong progressive movement which entails electing more progressives to office.

Start electing progressives, from the local level on up, and we'll grow a progressive government.

and maybe I am just tired of the same ol, same ol.

Until we elect some folks that bring some "REAL" change to our government, we will not see anything new. We might win a few battles here and there and that's great. As long as the lobbyist have control, and the FED prints money for wall street, we won't see any change that matters.

People are all excited about Bin Laden taking a dirt nap and that's great, or adding 240k jobs, when 60k of those were from McDonald's (yeah, 60k minimum wage jobs). It's all good news but lets get real folks. We all know who runs country.

Oh, and have a great week all!!!

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

I am not quoting anyone, did mcdonlads not say they hired 60k people?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/mcdonalds-hires-62000-us-_n_855650.html

Simple math. Maybe those numbers were not counted in the total. I am not saying they are bad jobs, but minimum wage in this country is very low, and that's what they get paid.

And no thanks, talk radio will put me to sleep at the wheel.

I don't pretend to be anyone, I speak my mind and call it how I see it. If they did not count those numbers, then I apologize.

When I speak of real change, I mean overhaul. Maybe I don't fit in here, just not sure. I agree with most things progressive. But, I am tired of voting people into office who are bought and paid for by bankers, lobbyists, wall street and the Federal Reserve. If you think those "agencies" have your interests at heart, then good luck. I am no conspiracy nut, no need to be. It is in the open and they don't care.

I think this video sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgwUEIGLypg

Yet so far it's only been Limbaugh and YOU who claim that is the only reason for the upturn in jobs.

And then you down-played the capturing/killing of OBL...more right wing spin.

Tell me how Obama did something in two years that Bush couldn't do in eight! The simple truth.

Why do you assume it is just Limbat and myself? I don't even listen to the guy and don't know why you would.

I guess its Limbaugh, me, Thom Hartman and Andy Kroll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3wgIkN87w

Please, watch the video. I am only echoing what they have said. Is it so wrong that certain news articles strike people a different way? With friends and family out of work and barely making ends meet it's tough.

As far as Bin Laden, I am grateful to the SEALS that took him out, the military that supported them, and the Commander in Chief (Obama) who made the hard decision. I give Bush zero credit, and give him 100% credit for dropping the ball.

n/t

Agreed.

I believe democracy and the interests of the American people are better served when primary elections are a forum in which the critical issues and policy choices facing our nation are thoroughly debated on the basis of facts and ideas by more than one serious contender for the office.

With an unchallenged incumbent president the nominating convention is an extravagant coronation following a primary "election" bereft of real substance. The party's nominee has little need to defend or modify any policy. Power is enhanced, and accountability is diminished.

Why does our democracy and political process have to focus on the political career and personaility of an individual so much more than it does on the functions of government and how they impact the lives of American citizens? My hopes aren't pinned on the person who is president -- they are pinned on the long term well being of the United States and the health of the planet we depend on for our survival.

In my opinion, those hopes stand a better chance of being fulfilled when our electoral process at every level consists of robust intelligent debate among a group of potential leaders.

President Obama showed very good judgement in the decisions that led to the elimination of Osama bin Laden, but that should by no means eliminate healthy challenges in the Democratic primary.

sounds to me you want Obama to persecute every living thing that is not progressive.

...vegan, Jewish but pro-Palestinian State, voted Green in college, huge Dean and Kucinich fan before it was cool.

I asked her about the wisdom of a Democratic primary recently, and she made noises of disbelief. "It's crazy to think that would help any liberal cause," she laughed. "I don't agree with Obama all the time, but what good would a primary do, other than making him look weak in the General Election? That's exactly what the Republicans want!"

Now I'm aware my cousin doesn't represent all progressives in the country, but I just don't sense a huge grassroots effort to make this happen.

>>>>>what good would a primary do, other than making him look weak in the General Election? That's exactly what the Republicans want!">>>>
>>>

If they didn't they'd pursue policies that are consistent w. the Dem Party tradition and reflected the sentiment of the Democratic base.

I don't think the OBL killing has much effect on prospects for a 2012 primary. The basics are the same:
(1) Much of the Democratic left sees Obama as a centrist who has followed his stated commitment to "bipartisanship" or "post-partisanship", with the result that he has not been a forceful, confrontational progressive in the FDR mode. Instead, he has been far too cautious and far too willing to accommodate right-wingers.
(2) Most Democrats, however, are just glad to have someone who has a D after his name and who isn't nearly as bad as Bush was or as McCain would've been.
(3) Even among the dissatisfied progressives, many wouldn't support a Kucinich-Dean-Grayson-Feingold-whoever challenge from the left, because they'd fear losing in November.
(4) Perhaps because of all the foregoing factors, it's highly unlikely that there'll be a credible challenger. None of the four I mentioned will do it, for example.
(5) Obama might be challenged by somebody -- maybe the mayor of a very blue town or city, maybe an author who can benefit from the publicity. Such a person would run as a protest candidate and register in the single digits in some of the primaries and, especially, caucuses.
(6) Obama will be the nominee. Of the dissatisfied progressives described above, a handful, especially those living in safely blue states, will decide that, as a matter of principle, they can't vote for someone who escalated in Afghanistan or wimped out on the public option or whatever other conservative Obama policy upsets them. They'll vote third party or stay home. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the dissatisfied progressives will vote for Obama. They will NOT, however, be wildly enthusiastic, or even mildly enthusiastic. Instead, they will look over at the Republican line, shudder, and vote Democratic. (My authority for speaking for this group is that I expect to be among them.)

Obama will pay a price for his conservatism. Some of us who were enthusiastic in 2008 will not be so in 2012. We will vote for Obama, but our money and our time will go to lower-ticket races where there's a candidate about whom we are enthusiastic. Obama may nevertheless show a net gain, if he more than outweighs the defections on the left by finding enough donors and campaign volunteers among wildly enthusiastic centrists.

All of the above is unaffected by the bin Laden killing, except that Obama will probably find slightly more enthusiasm among centrists than he otherwise would have.

At this point, more than halfway through his term, it's probably too late for Obama to do anything to generate wild enthusiasm among those of us on the left whom he's alienated.

Then they didn't vote for him the first time, right? As he did exactly what he promised he would. You guys are just making up shit now. Vote for him, don't vote for him. But don't try to turn candidate Obama into Kooch, because that is the height of dishonesty.

..... I missed it if they did.

Surely everyone realizes that the JSOC team was not based out of San Diego. ;)

I can see a justification for the initial invasion of Afghanistan, to oust the Taliban. After the victory of the Northern Alliance, however, we should have left (over the course of several months). The Afghan civil war was not our concern, except to keep Afghanistan from being used as a base against us. Our message to the Taliban would be: "If you guys manage to get back in power, you can go back to eliminating religious freedom, controlling the press, oppressing women, etc., and we won't do anything about it, any more than we do in Saudi Arabia. If you let al-Qaeda run free, though, the most powerful military in the history of the world will again come down on your asses."

Probable results of this alternative policy: A thousand or so American soldiers are alive instead of dead; billions of dollars haven't been spent on "Operation Enduring Freedom"; and, for lack of an American base in an Afghan vassal state, bin Laden is still alive and at large. (Of course, it's possible that, even without a full-scale presence in Afghanistan, we could have bullied or bribed the government there to let us base JSOC there, but I'll assume the worst case, that bin Laden wouldn't be caught.)

I would take that tradeoff. Nothing bin Laden did since 9/11 did us as much harm as we did to ourselves by getting bogged down in Afghanistan.

I think you're responding to somewhat related positions taken by other DUers but not by me

First, I said that of the dissatisfied progressives, a handful would decline to vote for Obama, and that some of them would cite Afghanistan as their reason. I also said that the vast majority of the dissatisfied progressives (including myself) would vote for Obama.

Second, I certainly didn’t confuse Obama with Kucinich. I thought it was laughable in 2008 when the right-wingers called Obama a socialist. If only it were true. I would've settled for "the most liberal Senator" (another right-wing meme from 2008), but I didn't expect even that much when I voted for him. I thought that both the right and the left were overstating his liberalism. (That might have been partly because of his race. Black politicians as a group are certainly well to the left of Democratic politicians as a group.)

BUT it's certainly not "making up shit" to say that Obama's actions have been even more conservative than what many of his supporters expected. You can argue that some of those expectations were unreasonable in light of his campaign statements, and that people who expected a genuine progressive were kidding themselves. As I’ve said, there’s some truth to that. Still, it would not have been unreasonable for a 2008 voter to expect that, in 2011, Gitmo would be closed, the government would not be supporting expansion of offshore drilling, the tax system would have become more progressive, etc.

In any event, whether or not those expectations were realistic, they were real. That affects the enthusiasm level in 2012. Please remember that I wasn’t calling for people to vote against Obama – I said I’d vote for him again. I was disputing the OP’s assertion of “wildly enthusiastic support” from a unified Democratic Party. Even among many people predisposed to like Obama, there’s been a considerable cooling of enthusiasm. It doesn't do Obama any favors to pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

Many of his "supporters", as you call them, have tried to rewrite history, and it happens right here on this board. Things that this president never said or intimated during his campaign are somehow twisted into "broken promises". It's otherworldly to read some of the claims by some on the left, and I'm not even convinced that they are who they say they are. Afterall, it is the internet.

"......it would not have been unreasonable for a 2008 voter to expect that, in 2011, Gitmo would be closed",......

It would certainly be unreasonable for those who know what the hell they're talking about. Perhaps you could show them these? :shrug:



If folks are looking for a reason not to support this president, they'll find it, no matter what evidence is presented. But I'm not here to convince them otherwise, just to point out blatant half truths & untruths when I spot them. :hi:

You assert that many people on DU are twisting Obama's words to accuse him of "broken promises" -- and let's assume that at least some of those are actual DUers/progressives who voted for Obama in 2008. It follows that you agree with me that the OP is wrong to expect that Obama "will have the full, united, and wildly enthusiastic support of the Democratic party behind him...."

You're entitled to think that those of us who voice disappointment in Obama are just looking for a reason not to support him. I disagree, but let it pass. The point is that, whether the disaffection on the left occurs because Obama has moved to the right or because all his critics are biased idiots, we agree that there is disaffection -- unless you want to contend that everyone who's criticized Obama on this board is really a false-flag Freeper.

So, while I appreciate your research work in assembling links about Gitmo, they don't really address my point. On the specific subject of Gitmo, I agree that Congress deserves a lot of the blame. I also believe, however, that Obama could have been much more insistent. The same is true of things like the public option.

A good example is gay rights: Obama is now acting more in line with his campaign promises, but the LGBT activists have a legitimate gripe about how long it took their "fierce advocate" to get around to it. What's more important -- the end of DADT and the refusal to defend DOMA, or the delay in getting to this point? Given that the Republican nominee in 2012 will probably denounce the "the gay agenda" and openly oppose equality, I think most LGBT activists will vote for Obama. But they won't feel the way they did in 2008.

Oh really? Another argument shot all to hell.



Don't buy into everything you read on the internet, mmmmmkay? As if the president didn't have a full plate, what with staving off another Great Depression, insuring a few million uninsured folks, saving the auto industry, and conducting two wars, but here's to everyone getting that pony, and it only took a half a term to do it. He's one smooth mofo. ;)



So you believe that all the president had to do was throw a Kucinich style hissyfit, and all his wishes would have been granted? How old are you that you need to hear fiery red-faced speeches, no matter the outcome?
:rofl:

I write that "Obama could have been much more insistent." You realize that I really meant to write "that all the president had to do was throw a Kucinich style hissyfit, and all his wishes would have been granted."

If you want to continue, you can go back over my other posts in this thread and creatively re-interpret something else I said.

You're also free to believe that everyone who pitched in for Obama in 2008 will show up again in 2012, as "wildly enthusiastic" as ever. My statement that I won't be repeating my door-to-door work shows only that I'm a Freeper mole. If you want to think that, think that. We'll just have to disagree on this one. I've agreed with comments of yours in other threads, and I look forward to doing so again in the future.

Maybe the price Obama will pay for his conservatism...is that he will get more conservative supporters!!! Maybe he'll have just as many people working for him and voting for him as before, only it will be different people.

He won't have the progressives 100% and he won't have the teabaggers at all...but he'll have the grown ups!!!

It's one of the tradeoffs; he'd love the netroots-echo-chamber votes, but staying pure enough to keep one of them alienates 10 centrists. So there we are.

Would he have alienated 10 centrists by insisting on a less corporate-oriented health care bill, or by reducing our involvement in the wars, or by standing firm against tax breaks for millionaires? The polls I've seen suggest that each of these positions, while pleasing to those much-derided "netroots-echo-chamber" voters, would also have commanded majority support from the electorate as a whole.

There's no way to know for sure. One point I am confident of is that he's hurt himself with the centrists by playing the Republicans' game about the supposed deficit crisis. For example, his freeze on federal employee pay was a big mistake. Of those 10 centrists you mention, at least 5 will now go into 2012 asking which party will do more to cut spending on domestic programs. That's an argument the Democrats will lose.

Would he have alienated 10 centrists by insisting on a less corporate-oriented health care bill

Almost certainly. Most people who have insurance like their insurance and, as anathema as this is to DU, trust that corporation more than the government.

or by reducing our involvement in the wars

He has greatly reduced our involvement in Iraq, and, as he promised on the campaign trail, increased our presence in Afghanistan until this summer. Both are fairly popular among centrists, and the killing of OBL at least for now seems to have given him a lot more room to do the scheduled drawdown in Afghanistan.


or by standing firm against tax breaks for millionaires?

That would have been popular, but he judged getting unemployment benefits extended was worth more than soapboxing. I suppose we'll know next year if that was a good decision or not.

One point I am confident of is that he's hurt himself with the centrists by playing the Republicans' game about the supposed deficit crisis.

Well, like a lot of midwestern progressives (even Feingold), he legitimately is a deficit hawk and isn't "playing" to anything. The Federal pay freeze takes some oxygen out of the "overpaid public workers" thing (which, you'll notice, is now pretty much only acting at the state level).

I'm not sure whom you consider to be grown-ups. I personally think it's childish to be a purist. That's why I said that "the vast majority of the dissatisfied progressives will vote for Obama." I still expect to be among them.

As for the rest of your comment, please remember the context of my post. I was responding to the OP's assertion of "wildly enthusiastic support" from a unified Democratic Party.

In both parties, the wild enthusiasm tends to come from the side away from the center -- conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. So, yes, this time around, Obama will get different people, as you say. I was raising the question whether those new supporters will fill the gap left by the alienation of many of the progressives who went beyond voting -- who donated and volunteered in 2008. I predict a lower enthusiasm level in 2012, even factoring in however many wildly enthusiastic centrists actually show up.

A STRONG Democratic Senate & House, with as many progressives as can be managed! "Blue Dogs"? Depending on the locality, some might be the ONLY viable choices! With a strong enough hand, Obama will be able to manage them.

(Lapsed anarchist for Obama)

K&R

This means we simply continue down the path we're on now, and it isn't one of amazing accomplishments.

Given his track record, I also doubt he'll have the entire Democratic party, especially the liberal wing of it, behind him.

My prediction, we're going to see a sharp rise in non-voters come 2012 as people simply sit out on a choice they are too disappointed and depressed to make.

You think Congress is going to become more Progressive by wishing it so?

Where are the Progressive grassroots? Doing a "woe is me" routine while the crazy-ass Republicans wait in the wings?

If someone doesn't vote, it's no one's fault but their own.

Obama probably won't face a strong Republican challenger, I mean really now, look at the field, nuts, kooks and goons. The sanest is probably Pawlenty, and he's going to get run through the Teabagger wringer.

But without a strong Democratic turnout, Obama will lose, it is that simple. The left is looking at Obama and seeing 'Pug lite, and thus, they are disgusted and wanting to send a message. If they do that in sufficient numbers, and so far, Obama has yet to give them a solid reason not to, Obama will lose.

Instead of berating and belittling the left, Obama needs to cater to the left a bit. Throw them a bone or two. FDR had the great good sense to do that, why can't Obama?

If Obama loses, he will have nobody but himself to blame.

He will return to his family and a substantial living.

You're assuming that a loss of the White House will devastate HIM. It would be a disappointment, but it will not destroy his life.

If you want to talk about destroying lives, I wonder what happens to the American public when the Republicans get their hands back on the levers of power for real?

If voters don't have enough brain power to get to the polls, then they'll find out the hard way.

You think insane government policy will impact a former President Obama? Not a whit.

Have you ever listened to what he's tried to say on the road? During the Healthcare battle, he reminded everyone that he HAS healthcare. He doesn't have to be doing this. He's trying to do what he can for America with what the Congressional cards he's been dealt.

But again, if people want to sit on their asses and pout, they're going to let a FOR REAL "abolish the government" type walk into the WH. Good luck to them when that happens.

I'll get you started:

http://simplifythepositive.blogspot.com/2010/03/100-accomplishments-of-president-barack.html

And here's Rachel Maddow on his accomplishments:

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/rachel-maddow-on-the-accomplishments-of-obama-democrats/1293/

His first accomplishment is being the first black president.

Maybe you need to consider the huge obstacles he has had, unlike any other president even.

If the liberal wing doesn't support him, if there is a sharp rise in non-voters...then we will deserve exactly what we get....a republican president.

When unions are busted, when social security, medicare, public schools, are gone. When healthcare goes back to the way it was before, existing conditions not covered, etc. When everything is privatized...then you might reconsider how much Obama has accomplished.

Instead they look at the big things, like Obama's failure to close Gitmo, or to bring the troops home, or step up the attack on teachers and public education, or the failure to fight for the public option, or the extension of tax cuts for the rich, and let's not forget the big one out there, jobs.

A list of relatively minor accomplishments(I mean really now, "Answered questions at the first online town hall from the White House that were submitted and voted on transparently by the public at WhiteHouse.gov:":wtf:) is not going to get out the vote. Obama needs to do something big for the left, and while he has had his chances, he hasn't taken them, and thus the left is becoming disillusioned and discouraged, which means more will stay at home.

You may not like that reality, but it is reality none the less.

This is another problem with the American left. Middle America thinks we're snooty, and your dismissive attitude does nothing to improve that image.

You speak as if 2012 will be a mid term, where young folks & minorities typically don't show up. This is a presidential election, and a whole different ballgame. The POTUS will be on the ballot. So your predictions of doom & gloom for this president are highly questionable.

My nieces/nephews can't wait to cast their first vote for this president in '12, as they were very active in the last campaign, but weren't yet old enough to vote. And if the organic gatherings we saw at the WH & Trade Center & college campuses around the country were any indication, they're not alone. :hi:

But that aside, yes, Obama is going to require massive voter turnout. The reason he won in '08 is because he got just that, 63% voter turnout, the highest voter turnout since 1964. That is the kind of turnout he will need to win again in 2012. But if Obama continues to alienate his base, the turnout will be way down, and he will lose.

We'll see, it is Obama's election to lose.

Besides, anyone who's "disillusioned" and/or "disappointed" should just do what their conscience requires, stop with the threats, and live with the consequences, much like 2000.

You folks speak as if you'll be hurting Obama personally, and nothing could be further from the truth. Do you realize how many avenues will be open to the first AA POTUS? The possibilities are limitless, and I have no doubt he'll go on to do much good in the world, much like Carter & Clinton.

I've come to realize, these past two years, there's no one who will please that tiny fraction of "the left". I'm convinced that's why Bernie doesn't run himself. Bernie knows it's much easier to critique than to actually govern. :hi:

"My prediction, we're going to see a sharp rise in non-voters come 2012 as people simply sit out on a choice they are too disappointed and depressed to make."

Liberal/progressive democrats are not the center of the political universe! The votes that really matter and make a difference are centrists on both sides. These people care most about what directly effects their lives and their ability to care for there families. Not the laundry list of progressive concerns.

The people of Wisconsin have seen the consequences of sitting out an election. Middle class people don't want unions gone. Even republicans eyes are opening as they see their side wants to get rid of social security and medicare.

Don't assume that your priorities are the priorities of the majority. Nobody who's a union member or has parents on social security is going to say...I'm not going to vote because Obama didn't close Gitmo!!!!!

P.S. I'm not disappointed or depressed. I don't know anyone is. Of course, we all wish we had a president with a magic wand...but since we only have a mere mortal, most people I know are very happy and proud of President Obama.

I predict those that never supported him and probably didn't vote for him in the first place will clutch their pearls and talk about sitting out the election in an effort to persuade and manipulate, but I doubt they will muster much support with Bush Jr's reign still fresh in people's minds.

There will be no challenge. There never was going to be a challenge.

Republicans will nominate a fringe right wing lunatic. The choice will be abundantly clear

The right wing will bring progressives to the polls and they will vote for President Obama just to assure that the wackaloon run by republicans has no chance. Others will vote for him because he is competent and simply not insane by comparison.

People on the left love to think these elections are all about the policy. This thought is generally how we lose. Within reasonable bounds, it is not about policy. One could perhaps create a policy position to assure defeat, but one can never create one that assures victory. The best status you ever get to with policy positions is "not objectionable".

One wins these things with personality and communication skills. No one on the right is a serious threat in this dimension, so they will craft a radical policy position candidate as a substitute. They will lose bigger in 2012 than they did in 2008.

The economy is getting better and a clear majority still hold Bush accountable for its shortcomings. The President killed OBL, and will have a massive personality and communication skills advantage. The republicans will not even come close.

while the crazies seem to be driving the bus these days, when the dust settles the nominee will be someone who, by comparison, seems rational -- Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty or Huntsman in all likelihood.

The normal reaction for a party that has taken defeat this poorly is to seek a "purist". Everything about the dynamic of 2010 and the actions taken by the newly elected governors suggest that they believe they lost because McCain and before him Bush, were not "pure" enough to the "conservative principles". Not Romney, maybe Daniels or Pawlenty, Huntsman worked for Obama - not happening. Curiously, I think Bachman has a very real shot. The Tea party loves her and she is well loved by the Fundamentalist Church as well, she is a serious threat in Iowa, and has a good shot in South Carolina, both early contests, where it goes from there???

She would make the debates with President Obama much more entertaining.

that there won't be a credible challenger. I'm sure somebody or another will run, but they won't be a serious challenger.

In 2012, obviously, a goal is to get President Obama reelected, regardless of whether you agree with him on everything or not. We agree on a lot more things with President Obama than we do with the right-wing lunatics that are running against him.

But what we really should be pushing hard to do in 2012 is retaking the House. I don't know about you, but Boehner needs to be sent packing, in tears, from the Speaker's office. I WANT PELOSI BACK! In 2012, the Republicans are vulnerable. They can't do governance and shot themselves in the foot with the Ryan budget, the fucknuttery around Obama's killing of bin Laden, the attacks on Medicare and Social Security, etc. Start working on throwing them out.

Only a strong progressive congress can.

The President can do just that, he can put the whole damn place on his shoulders and reset the parameters of debate by standing strongly for the change this country needs instead of the change his corporate funders will allow. By doing so, he would give cover to the more progressive instincts in Congress. The President is a huge force in defining the overall political hot spot.

It would add legitimacy to a 3rd Party Challenge from The Pro-LABOR/Anti-WAR/Anti-WallStreet/Anti-Free Trade/Pro-Health Care Left who already don't feel represented by the current Centrist Democratic Party Leadership.

If the Democratic Party has the guts to discuss these problems in public,
and let The Left air their views within the Party infrastructure,
they could prevent defections to a 3rd Party.

The current Centrist Party Leadership has created an even BIGGER Vacuum than the one created by Bill Clinton in 2000.

and he is the only Pro-LABOR/Anti-WAR/Anti-WallStreet/Anti-Free Trade/Pro-Health Care Left politician in America.

Make it $10 and its worth the risk.

:)

And do you think that the fact that the repubs don't have a solid candidate to rally around makes it more or less likely that when all is said and done there could be third party candidate on the right?

With maybe the exception of Nader's perpetual losing campaign.

With a credible challenge from the left, Obama would spend the primary season defending himself against the attack that he's too conservative. Then, in November, all the money he spent on such advertising would redound to his benefit, as it would undermine Republican charges that he's too liberal. He would look like the sensible mainstream choice between the extreme left and the extreme right.

As against that, a serious primary challenge would leave behind some bitterness on the part of the supporters of the unsuccessful challenger.

I haven't really thought much about whether it would, on balance, be a good thing or a bad thing, because I see no chance that it will happen. None of the people who could do it will do it. A challenge by a total unknown will be ignored by the corporate media and won't do any significant good or harm.

America is a lot bigger than the bubble of a world you live in and so is the Democratic party and the whole of self identified liberals and progressives.

But I still doubt he will be the next nominee. And, no, I'm not predicting anything tragic like an attempt on his life, another terrorist attack or suspended elections. Even after the Bin Laden killing, he faces serious obstacles to reelection, not the least of which are these failed policies.

Your dream fantasy of him stepping down out of deep shame is not going to happen. You do realize he intends to run, don't you?

So short of wishing something dire on his presidency, how do you figure he's not going to be the nominee if he's not primaried?

Can't wait to hear this "explanation".

You're too funny.

"But I still doubt he will be the next nominee."

Just too funny.

Put down the bong and take some deep breaths!

Can you elaborate?

My guess is that from reading their other comments, this poster strongly wishes he'd go away, but there doesn't seem to be a way that will happen other than continuing to hope for it.

:crazy:

I think you're right. No competition from the left of President Obama. He'll be able to win the White House back easier than he did the first time. While Republicans rip each other to shreds, he can spend more time looking presidential and tackling big issues...while they look like quarreling school kids on a playground.

There is no one who could challenge President Obama on his left who could win the White House. I do believe President Obama is a progressive president. I just think we disagree on a few issues. For me...Arne Duncan for starters. The country wants a certain kind of person at the helm.

As a nation, we may like the Kucinich and Ron Paul types of the world. But, if you can't close your eyes and see them shaking hands with world leaders as President...it ain't gonna happen. Sure we're not all that obtuse...but, hey.

Remember, I think with Bush it was...who would you rather have a beer with??? At least with President Obama, we get a thoughtful, decisive, leader. Not a beer buddy, frat boy. Part of that...he lectures and comes across as professorial meh, meh, is an effort to portray him as elite...and disconnect him from working (or right now) non working America.

People we consider far right...and people conservatives see as far right...are not in danger of winning the White House. They can move the conversation left or right...but that's about it.

But..it does lead one to wonder where Dems who think he's on the wrong course..Repug Course will go to protest. Perhaps all avenues to express their angst have been cut off from them.

I think there are many who will see this as an incredible Move by Obama to CUT OF HIS ANTAGONISTS at the PASS...like some Cowboy Movie from the Last Century.

But, I think he's done that. So ...it's what it is.

It hasn't worked so well for us in the past (consider Carter vs. Kennedy in the 1980 primary campaign).

No sitting president has gotten a decent primary challenger since 1992, and none have gotten a really good one since 1976 and 1980. Way too long, it livens things up and makes it interesting. It's also not against DU rules to support one, since the challenger would also be a Democrat.

I'm still stunned there were none in 1996 and 2004, but none this time won't shock me.