Those of you wanting to primary Obama would be better served focusing on Congress. . .

. . .Obama will be as progressive/liberal as Congress lets him be. If Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and if Harry Reid had 60 Senators this would not be happening.

If we have divided government in 2013 with the exact same leaders in place this shit continues, if we regain the House and strengthen our position in the Senate this shit stops. I know you guys will point to health care and claim that is not the case, but I'd remain you any of the gains we experienced in 2009/2010 is because we controlled both chambers and the White House. Its not as much as many of you wanted, but its a hell of lot more than we get with divided government.

As soon as more progressive candidates start getting primary support, you and others will be haranguing people about "electability" and "strategy" and "liberals can't get elected!" We'll be yelled at to support these moderate incumbents because otherwise the GOP will control more of Congress. Nothing ever changes.

. . .a Democratically controlled House. If we supported the the conservaDems that lost, Nancy Pelosi is still speaker and the debt ceiling debate DOES NOT HAPPEN. They (the conservaDems)might not have moved us forward like I would like but they sure has hell wouldn't move us BACKWARDS like a Boehner led House has.

Remember Blanche Lincoln? Supporting her challenger was stupid! How dare we! We're killing the party!

I would take you at your word that you "want more progressive candidates" but the fact is, when we get them and they challenge Democratic incumbents, all of a sudden it's a bad idea.

. . .Dan Lipinski is a conservaDem, I can't stand his ass, BUT given the Demographics of the 3rd CD (A TON OF REAGAN DEMOCRATS) a more progressive candidate won't win. I won't pretend to know Arkansas (I live in the 2nd CD of Illinois aka Chicago) but I am not too sure how well a progressive can do in Arkansas and that needs to be considered.

unless we get a strong Democratic candidate.

Mr. Obama has clearly alienated progressive voters so his base is wishy-washy moderates who may or may not vote. Good luck with that approach.

. . .and with the GOP being batshit crazy he will regain the middle, which makes a big difference.

If some progressive (I am a progressive myself) stay home or support someone else just to get back at Obama they are biting their nose off to spite their face.

Seriously. I see this cite time and again as if it were fact. Please show me a credible poll that backs up your assertion.

:rofl:

Yeah, OK. :eyes:

"Best Actor In An Empty Suit Award goes to.....(drum roll)....Mitt Romney!"


(cheers)

Romney has a ton of negatives to surmount within his own party.

he is very good at winning elections. He is not batshit crazy like Palin or Bachmann. He is not a fundamentalist, grant you, but he is Protestant which puts him ahead of Romney with old school Repubs. He is definitely a threat, and I think more so than Romney. He's a very popular president in a huge state with the goal of helping big business as much as possible. I think your "tons of negatives" is incorrect and hopefully you'll take him seriously before the campaign gets going, because he is very reactionary and y'all are not going to like him one bit as president.

But, what do I know? Y'all are behind this president cutting SS and Medicare so possibly I misinterpret your intentions.

Romney has tons of negatives. I suffered through him as governor of my state.

And what makes you think I'm behind Obama cutting anything?

The Republicans still stalled everything with their filibuster games. Pelosi did her job and had progressive legislation that went to the Senate to be turned into mush. If the health care reform, financial reform and economic stimulus plan had been stronger and more progressive, if the focus had been on creating long term job growth instead of a box of bandaids and handouts to corporate interests, Obama's base would be psyched and the country would be better off. As it is, there is a "why bother" attitude from progressives and a "you are expendable" attitude from the White House. It's not just about a primary. It's about a base that is apathetic and will not get out the vote. Heck, they may not even vote.

"You didn't just lose me, Mr. President, you lost my vote!" - Sydney Ellen Wade The American President

that's the way to make sure we keep SS, Medicare, Medicaid, pell grants, UI benefits, etc, as well as making sure DADT is not reinstated, or worse, it's predecessor. Let's just all stay home and pout so we can be sure Rick Perry, or his ilk is elected, and Congress gains more (R)s. Yeah! that's the ticket!!!

NOT!!!!

in healthcare too. Oh wait......

Really?

But I don't think that is what they want. They want a leader they can follow embodied in one person they think of as President. It is boring and beneath them to worry about Congress. So they'll waste their time advocating Bernie Sanders or someone else who is not even running.

Does that mean I get to focus on primary-ing Obama instead?

They are just full of the other thing we flush down the toilet.

That needs to br priority number one.

No other group would've held the US economy hostage.

There is absolutely no evidence that suggests this is true. And even if it were....This is leadership????

We need to field populist candidates (instead of Blue Dogs) that pledge to vote along party lines on procedural votes and NOT join the rightwing in filibustering Democratic policy.