Do you want someone to run against Obama in the 2012 Primary?

I keep reading alot of anti-Obama posts and am wondering if this will become the Democratic party's version of liberal teabagger movement.

Undecided

THIS would be good for Obama and the democratic party.

challenged him. :eyes:

but point taken..
But then I don't want to hear that Nader or some other third party - spoiled - the general election. I would rather have a primary where things like peace, universal health care, the drug war, and poverty can be discussed.
It may make Obama look more moderate to the general election voters.

>>>It may make Obama look more moderate to the general election voters.>>>>

But then again they're wrong so much of the time.

Nader can do whatever the blazes he wants. He usually does, no matter what the ultimate damage to the country is. Witness four years of bushco.

.... minus for Carter. He was a sitting duck when Teddy announced and Carter's approval rating did an about face almost immediately.

An extremely complicated year, 1980, in terms of electoral politics. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that what country in NOV 1980 will necessarily happen in 2012 when/if Obama is primary challenged by a dem.

HST vs. Dewey might be a better model... for all we know.

for the general. THAT was my point which apparently went over your head. Amazing what a little party unity can do. Unfortunately, Dems know nothing about that. That's why we keep losing.

He micro-managed the operation.

cause him to be labeled as the worst president of our time. The dems were horrid toward Carter. Just as they are becoming toward Obama. Tell me what purpose it serves for a member of the president's party to go before cameras and print to publically denounce the president. If they want to let him know their concerns there are better ways to do so. It seems all Dems want to do is grandstand to be able to say, 'I told you so.' But, what it really accomplishes is to undermine and diminish the public's perceived leadership of their own party. The Dems are idiots. They have yet to put two and two together. They seem to only be interested in serving themselves.

Amen to that.

for the wounds in local party organizations to heal. We do not need to go through that again.

Obama needs wake up call. He had opportunities no one has had in a long time to move the country in another direction. whatever his reasons he did not do it. he sees no moderate challenge from the right and has used that in his decisions. the war policy he is following is puzzling and i do not believe effective and is very costly. The war against radical Islam should be a very quiet war with few troops in uniform, an intelligence war, picking them off , without the collateral damage of drone attacks. now that Afghanistan has been expanded you can be sure Iraq will flair up again. this is hurting our economy. there is no money to lend. it is going to the government for everything. war products are mostly purchased by the government and do not produce an economy around them. America is stuck.

peace out..

No thanks, I prefer not to lose 49 states. He's the one Democrat that would even lose to Palin.

the challenger will lose. Then I will laugh. Hard.

a decision on a liberal/progressive challenge to Obama in 2012 Democratic primary cannot be properly made until after Congress passes the final version of LieberCare and the midterms.

The answer to question is predicated on finding a viable candidate. We no longer have a Ted Kennedy.

Didn't we lose New York for 8 years last time? This is the intellectual party? Really?

I'm not shocked. I'm not even surprised. But I want to support someone who shares by basic worldview. It's increasingly clear that Obama does not. So be it.

Even if a progressive challenger came along who shared your basic worldview, you have no assurance that those principles would be put in to practice if that person was elected. Sometimes when a person actually gets into office, they are confronted with reality and have to make certain compromises. We don't like that because we're comparing it to the ideals and inspiration of the campaign.

Is it really that President Obama doesn't share your worldview? If so, how is his presidency different than how he campaigned? I don't think it really is. Obama seems too conciliatory and too willing to compromise with Conservatives. That's a personality trait, though, not a shift in worldview. After 8 years of Dubya, a more conciliatory and less confrontational President seemed like a good idea. Now we're reaping that with the sense that Obama knows how to inspire, but not lead and that he gives in too much to the other side rather than bullying them to do his will.

* Obama campaigned that Afghanistan was the necessary war, no surprise he is escalating the conflict.
* Obama campaigned for universal health care. He never promised "single payer." It's true he opposed mandates during the campaign, but that's a detail (where the devil is, I know) and represents a "compromise" to "reality" rather than a reversal of major principle.
* Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo. It's happening, just a lot slower than we all wanted. There are certain legal complications and hurdles.
* In the campaign, Obama was against DADT. He still wants it ended, but his leadership has been absent.
* Obama campaigned as Pro-Choice. His first week in office he overturned the Gag Rule. That was an easy enough bone to toss to Pro-Choice activists.
* Obama is moving in the right direction on the environment, even if the Waxman-Markey bill is imperfect and if overall it seems the environment has taken a back seat to other issues.


so, maybe what we're really upset with Obama about is not being more heavy handed and ramming through the liberal agenda. Ironically, the Conservatives still see him as a dictator forcing a socialist/communist agenda on the country. We may not admit it even to ourselves, but it sounds like what many Liberals really want is some one with a far left agenda and Dick Cheney's personality.

>>>>Ironically, the Conservatives still see him as a dictator forcing a socialist/communist agenda on the country. We may not admit it even to ourselves, but it sounds like what many Liberals really want is some one with a far left agenda and Dick Cheney's personality.>>>>

... that it undermines what is otherwise an intelligent ( but not *compelling*, imo) case that you make. I *ALWAYS* regard electability as #2, when evaluating candidates in primary season. Compatibility with *basic* world view as #1.( note emphasis on "BASIC") I backed Mondale over Hart; I backed Clinton over Brown; I backed Gore over Bradley. I may have preferred the #2 candidate on most issues but felt they'd be chopped up by the media et al in the primaries and get swamped in the general. The reason: I felt that the world view of Mondale, Gore, Clinton, was "compatible" with my own, despite clear differences on specific issues.

I've no such sense about Obama. Reaffirming commitments to two ill-conceived Republican wars may or may not have been promised in the primaries. It's besides the point. I voted for someone intelligent enough to formulate a better policy than he has formulated thus far.... which policy seems essentially to keep REPUBLICAN WAR A simmering on into perpetuity, escalating REPUBLICAN WAR B in a way that seems to those of us who were alive and conscious during VN to be preordained to alienate ever-increasing #s of Afghans, at the cost of tremendous( uncounted and uncountable) loss of life, and to set the rhetorical groundwork for WAR C ( Iran).

That's just foreign policy... and just the middle east. And not even all of that.

He's beyond disappointment. That's not the problem; I EXPECT to be disappointed.

He's really not a DEMOCRAT... in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Certainly not in the sense I use it. Ergo, I'm looking for someone else.

...gone downhill steadily since then.

I remember watching Vietnam on television every night. I remember chanting, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?" What will we chant at Obama over Afghanistan, and so far Iraq too?

Like you, I expect to be disappointed. I know who runs the governmental show. I know a "new JFK" will not be permitted to survive any more than the original was. I know that when you own all the ponies in the race you can't lose, and the International banksters and corporations own them all.

But like you I need to be convinced that he's at least trying. It infuriates me to learn that he's sold out to Big Pharma and Big Insurance behind our backs before the thing even gets started, and that single payer never was even allowed to the table. We all know darned well the Democrats in the Senate could go for the nuclear option and then pass single payer with a drug import clause and include 100% of the people. Let's not pretend they couldn't. Wouldn't, yes, but not couldn't.

We need to fix the system from the ground up where it's broken. We need to amend the Constitution to define a "person" as a living human. Then and only then could we get real campaign finance reform without clashing with the First Amendment in court.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

Like you I'm not expecting fabulous. I'm not expecting great. But I would like to see at least an honest effort made. Signing the Lilly Leadbetter Act was nice but it only takes you so far.

I want U.S. Americans to stop watching unmitigated shit on cable news and television network programming. I want them to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh while driving around every afternoon of the week, I want them to stop letting him and other right-wing radio hate hosts stoke their anger and validate their bigotry.

I want pro basketball to be as interesting and worthy as college basketball and high school basketball.

I want anyone who doesn't like Emmylou Harris to be put to death.

I want high-speed rail coast to coast with multiple feeder systems from major metropolitan areas in part because it reduces our dependency on foreign oil imports but primarily because the romance of train travel is indispensable in a mature culture.

I want Kurt Vonnegut to come back to life because I miss him.

I want Bella Abzug to come back to life because I miss her.

I want more nudity in Hollywood films. And better soundtrack music.

I want the Bible's many books to be reconsidered, most of them tossed out, and replaced with transcultural texts of widely acknowledged import and beauty.

I want voters to consider Barack Obama's accomplishments and what he represents to History instead of squawking like barn animals every time something doesn't go their way.

He's a damned impressive soul and deserves better than he is getting, on this site and elsewhere, and he deserves renomination. If Dean or Kucinich or someone else challenges in the primary in 2012, that is their right, certainly, but if they challenge and Obama prevails, I expect them to endorse him with enthusiasm and commitment and their supporters to understand the process of that outcome.

I want just about everything you want, with the possible exception of Emmy Lou and basketball, both topics I don't much care about.

Nice post-cheered me up! :hi:

Emmylou Harris.

But not much!

:hi:

on the Emmylou Harris thing. I could get behind that platform. :rofl:

I see your musical instincts are at LEAST as good.

Bartender! The coldest beer in the house for my pal from up north! And make it snappy.

My offer for you to join up with the Six Broads Abroad for the next art junket still stands...

the floor here if I realize that you all are going and I'm not.

It would be a pity party second to none.

Can I enjoy it vicariously? All good steps and much inspiration to you. Continue to kick butt.

Next deal is Florence. Gotta go back. Talk about kicking butt...the Italian Renaissance done did that. It's heavy, dude...

of my closest friends are art nuts.

Actually MOST of my friends are art nuts.

Hoping for early April but it may be September...either way, it's fine.

Much appreciated -- and whatever else, have a sensational time.

care if you like her, why care if I don't. other then that I agree.

---

:thumbsup: :hi:

:toast: :bounce:

I agree about the train travel saltpoint!

:fistbump:

you and I be on board looking out the window at our fellow Americans' lives.

:toast:

and I want frogs to fly and not bump their ass, but I'm having a hard time seeing any of this shit happening in the real world. Lovely post...pass the joint man.

Swear to god.

The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES

Fun game :)

P.S. Forgot to say...pass the joint man & quit bogarting

Key West as we speak.

It's true.

Look it up on the Google machine.

Also one of the cats made a cameo appearance in THUNDERBALL, the 007 thriller.

Swear to god.

now look up TS Elliot, then we can play some more.

P.S. You are still wrong your previous post. :)

But a part of him was always bankeresque.

I read Sexton and Gluck and Bly and Adrienne Rich and simply acknowledge Eliot as a key landmark. His poetry is 'Modern,' anthologized appropriately, and taught reasonably well.

But often to unappreciative audiences. It is very difficult to explain to a high school student the context and import of why a given man in a poem should or should not eat a peach.

It is more difficult yet to persuade a college freshman, for example, that Art predates consciousness and that it is the privilege of the poet, the painter, the pianist, etc. to dissolve Self into the greater psychic landscape of art. How else, Eliot reasoned (correctly), may we commune with the dead or honor their lives and work, except to bear the burden of their navigation through beauty and loss. As bankers go, it seems to me that Eliot used his lunch break very productively.

I would hope from the deeper bones that more banker-types consider the same landscape that Eliot tried valiantly to live. But also that contemporary readers will not short-change the "lesser" lights -- Rich, Sexton, Gluck, Bly, etc.

Honest to Christ, those cats are multi-digited.

but to quote verbatim is still not learning or to actually listen. I appreciate your attempt and think that is a "good thing" as Martha would say. Should we move on to ee cummings?

Frenchie...may I call you Frenchie? I think "ye very smart" but we mustn't try to make a sow's ear into a silk purse. It has in the past never proved be the answer to a better existence for any of society. There are those of us who must never give in, or pretend that frogs can fly, or that lesser is better.

To capitulate to the "immoral dog eat dog world" is never a good thing and is a very detrimental mental sickness that brings great grief to humanity. Some of us can't color inside those lines, and we most assuredly shouldn't. We absolutely cannot, especially if we have deep convictions and an unwillingness to "write off" the poor and the lesser among us who have only desperate, marginal sad pathetic, poverty ridden, hopeless lives. The status quo of "I've got mine....so to bad for the rest of you" is not okay or sustainable. It is a recipe for the downfall of all of us. A downfall that is globally snow-balling and is bigger than any of us can perceive. It is as hard to perceive as trying to count the number of stars in the heavens.

Progression is the only acceptable answer in order to create a better world for ourselves, our off-spring and their off-spring ad infinitum.

If this seems to be a "rant" to your posts, please forgive me, for this has turned into my own personal diatribe of what I think to be the pathetic solutions our generation/era has failed to comprehend and to make strides to correct.

spew such nonsense as you've done. And it was your idea to bring in Eliot, not mine. I do bring in Sal Mineo downthread in in a concurrent thread, not least because he was an underrated player.

If you want to begin a thread on e.e. cummings or anyone else I'm unable to name a soul who can stop you. Fire up the grill; e.e.'s a good man.

If you are able to pinpoint moments and projects in which I have brought "great grief to humanity," kindly point them out and I will publicly apologize to the victims.

By the way, just my take, but when you name-call you might want to avoid involving the names of registered users on this site as well as national ancestries. Again, just my take.

There are strides made. Ask the men and women who marched in Selma and other Southern cities in the not-so-distant past on whom governors loosed police dogs. Dr. King spoke of an arc, a trajectory. And Dr. King was right.

In no post I've rendered here do I endorse your suffering or anyone else's. You might want to clarify that point for your own records.

serving free beer, too.

Love the MM quotation in your sig line, by the way.

:9

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

loss.

Hope all's well your way.

:hi:

:D Though I think the Bible is plenty interesting on it's own.

but I hope he gets his act together soon. So far I'm not impressed.

Let the people decide. If the incumbent wins, great. At least we would have a choice.

First, its disrespectful to the party and the office. The Presidency should be respected.

Second, if he doesn't have a chance of being re-elected, I'd prefer he'd be "talked to" and persuaded not to run. Unlike Carter, who didn't listen. THAT changed our history forever and resulted in Reagan for 8 years.

Third, I might vote for the opposition, so I'd prefer the prior Prez be the one running, since he'd have the most stuff to attack.

Fourth, it would be pointless. The Dems would rally around Obama against any Democratic opponent.

...and ask questions that try to gauge how angry people are at a particular point in time. It will be fun watching attitudes change as the election draws near.

unless you are a clueless fucking IDIOT.

He's given solid evidence for my judgment in the '08 primaries, when he ranked dead last on my "not even in the running" list. He's now definitely on my "do not resuscitate" list.

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

Ya'll are too much.

regardless of the hatin' OneTermers

and derided, bad news is cheered and the glass is always, always at least half empty.

:crazy:

One over a quagmire of a war- another over healthcare and economic policy.

Moral of the story: Create enough of a political vacuum and someone (or some third party) will fill it.

to be the first to congratulate you when the Republicans take over the country once again and the courts are stacked with those who don't give a shit about people.

Or maybe, that's what you'd prefer?

And the SCOTUS. That is reason enough to leave the Democrats in, even if one thinks they are corporate whores and all that, at least they aren't going to appoint Scalias and Thomases to decide our future.

The gop scares us with terror and the dems scare you with courts.

The courts are real. And Republicans filling them with neo-cons is real.

I understand that you're having a hard time with facts but maybe you'll take the time to study a bit to see what the consequences will be if Republicans are allowed to regain control of Congress and the White House. You may find it boring but real Progressives/Democrats/Liberals find it quite real.

You're rather bored by the truth. Meanwhile, you have no problem spreading as many lies as you possibly can.

It's a fact. You'll get shit with Republicans in charge. But I'm really starting to believe you'd be a-ok with that.

Unless they are 100% in favor of the Second Amendment. That's all I ask from any Democratic president. Obama's appointment was not good on the issue, although good on almost everything else.

People with blind party affiliation in this day and age baffle me.

Democrats are the new Republicans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPDhQAeMYmI

If Obama feels the threat of a primary that should convince him to govern with the people in mind.

being on this site in 2012 and when a Republican regains the White House and those who think Obama should go start whining and bitching my only response is going to be "shut the fuck up, you didn't vote in 2012 so you don't have shit to say".

evenings.

That must account for the 'impeach' vote.

campaign committee for a run at the nomination, I would be hard-pressed not to support the effort.

This is, however, entirely unlikely inasmuch as it would involve his having to rise from the grave.

I see absolutely no one in the field (at this time) that would be able to seriously challenge Obama in a primary in 2012.

Dean? Are you kidding?

Sharpton? Are you on bad acid?

Kucinich? That's got to be one serious splif you're smoking...

Who else? Biden? Hillary? Bayh?

:rofl: :crazy: :smoke::rofl: :crazy: :smoke:

caucus demonstrates the president's command of the majority of Iowa Democrats.

Biden, capable a man tho he certainly is, is not going to move toward a power play against his boss.

HClinton's time has come and gone if indeed it was ever here to begin with.

Kucinich is likely to face a primary challenger in his district and will have to be on his toes for that match-up; he certainly has no chance at the presidency, as Democrats coast to coast have soundly rejected him in 2004 and 2008. He is the most marginal Democrat of my lifetime, in fact.

Dean is the only one with the pragmatic sense to mount a challenge, but that same pragmatism, which is very strong in Howard Dean, would also be what tells him he would be smashed at the polls. Absent a complete fall-out in Obama's public approval, Dean is almost as electorally marginal as Kucinich. They are very different kinds of Democrats but neither has a stage to act on as a lead player.

Good to see you knockin' around the boards this morning, zulchzulu. You were in on the Obama effort at those farm markets very early on. At one point you reported that only Obama and Edwards had any presence there in one of the nation's most liberal cities. The Dean freaks and the Kooch freaks should take note of that. It's an important vein running through grassroots politics. Obama's and Edwards' people showed up for that market, and many other similar venues. Nothing from the Kucinich campaign came close. If Kooch couldn't muster even a token grassroots effort for a venue like that it seems surreal for his supporters to imagine he'd gain traction in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids.

And sure enough, the guy from Illinois swept Iowa.

You people that voted yes just don't fucking understand the world. You just don't.

:puke: Congrats on the new Repuke President for 2012.

Too often we fall into the trap of thinking that because a president serves 4 years, they are <i>entitled</i> to the party's nomination and campaign funds for the next election.

I'm glad lieberman was at least challeneged, even though we didn't get the outcome we wanted. I hope he will be challenged again with better results next time. Unfortunately the DLC and DSCC felt he was <i>entitled</i> to their support simply because he was the incumbent.

Power protects and reinforces power.

But how realistic is that?

You could imagine Feingold in the role of Senator Gene McCarthy, but Obama is not LBJ - and McCarthy alone would not have defeated LBJ. As to Dean, he really did not stand up that well in an OPEN race in 2004. He simply could not get enough votes in the primaries to win anything but Vermont. He was stronger then than now and, in President Obama, there is a strong incumbent, who will have most of the party support and much of the media support. He lost badly in 2004 when he had far more money, more media support and more party support than Kerry.

believed that, they shouldn't be here.

We are disagreeing with what the president, congress, and the Democratic Party are doing, are concerned that the motive is corruption, and suggesting how to get the party back on track. In the case of the public option or single payer insurance, we have the precedent of all our European allies and Canada, and have Nobel prize winning economists behind us like http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/">Paul Krugman and http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/25/stieglitz">Joseph Stiglitz.

If you think that is equivalent to the racist, know-nothing teabaggers, you are either in the wrong place or paid to be here.

Go for it.

Let's divide the party and hand the repubs another victory. That's the ticket! :sarcasm:

Entering the 1968 election campaign, initially, no prominent Democratic candidate was prepared to run against a sitting president of the Democratic party. Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota challenged Johnson as an anti-war candidate in the New Hampshire primary, hoping to pressure the Democrats to oppose the war. On March 12, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%, an amazingly strong showing for such a challenger. Four days later, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York entered the race. Internal polling by Johnson's campaign in Wisconsin, the next state to hold a primary election, showed the President trailing badly. Johnson did not leave the White House to campaign.

Johnson had lost control of the Democratic Party, which was splitting into four factions, each of which despised the other three. The first consisted of Johnson (and Humphrey), labor unions, and local party bosses (led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley). The second group consisted of students and intellectuals who were vociferously against the war and rallied behind McCarthy. The third group were Catholics, Hispanics and African Americans, who rallied behind Robert Kennedy. The fourth group was traditional white Southerners, who rallied behind George C. Wallace and the American Independent Party. Vietnam was one of many issues that splintered the party, and Johnson could see no way to win Vietnam<50> and no way to unite the party long enough for him to win re-election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#1968_presidential_election


I guess some folks literally want Obama to be like LBJ.

for beliefs and values that have been tossed cynically by the wayside.

That's usually how it happens.

One over a quagmire of a war- another over healthcare and the economy.

No reason that this ephemeral president won't see something along those lines. Indeed- in the age of the internet, as the pattern continues, it's ever more likely.

if not at the primary stage then through a 3rd party in the general election.

No reason whatsoever to think it won't happen again- and the way things are going, lots of reasons to think that it will.

And maybe it should.

He's thrilling -- I'll give him that. Nice outfit.

And the ATTEMPT to embody a creature of the night, a nocturna darter and flier -- the bat -- doesn't quite work, since Bruce Wayne comes back home in that oil-sucking super-sedan with all the techno-gadgetry to a huge mansion that would make Donald Trump blush.

No can do with Bruce and his expensive toys. At conflict here is his impulse to do good for society coupled with his obvious luxuriance amid stinking wealth and privilege.

SpiderMan on the other hand also tries to co-opt a crawling thing - a spider -- but when he subdues the bad guys he takes the subway home, or a bus, and he ives in a working class Queens neighborhood. No big car. No big house.

If they were both on the ballot I'd cast my support for the Amazing SpiderMan.

I am a little surprised.

Hmmmmm

left, then maybe that alone will be enough for him to move away from a lot of the right wing positions that he has taken. And if that happens, then a potential primary challenge might be a good thing.

On edit - That might be the reason why some have voted yes. It's not that they necessarily want Obama to lose in 2012. They just might want him to move in a more progressive direction. A good start would be for him to cancel that surge in Afghanistan. And he could also stand up more forcefully for LGBT rights and fight for true health care reform that includes a single payer system.

How about we don't get fooled again and write-in a democrat if worse comes to worse?

If nothing else, it might force the man to be the person he said he'd be if he actually had to fight for the nomination.

One possibility...if he takes the Florida Senate seet, maybe we could have Kendrick Meek run.

I sure as HELL will not be voting for President Obama again ... well unless he brings our troops home from two countries of occupation. ... I will NOT vote for President Obama in 2012.

I am tired of Democrats, "progressives", and "liberals" who just want to win. With Obama we won. What did we win? Bush Light. The government is still embracing the beginning notions of fascism including not just the apparatus of a functioning police state, which has been in place since the 1950s, but the ever growing practices of a police state that include anti-democratic infringements on privacy and a back story that implies that we are unpatriotic for standing up for our rights. The Constitution has been and continues to be violated without challenge, and Obama continues to break promise after promise. It's not just the promises. He has broken faith. Either we return to the liberal democracy that was instituted by our founding fathers or we are lost. Anybody who thinks that America cannot handle democracy and therefore needs a president who secretly panders to the left while doing nothing to change the awful direction that Bush has taken us is ideologically and morally flawed. Those people are just what the Republican demagogues claim: They do not stand for anything. Congressman Grayson's attitudes are mine and he is correct about everything he has said so far about the direction the country is headed. I am not sure he has the experience to become the President, but that didn't stop the Republicans from nominating and getting 'W' elected nor had it stopped the Dems from getting Obama elected. The fact that Obama has turned out to be a liar and an agent for the forces that had gotten our country into the trouble it's currently in, is something we have to take responsibility for. Let's remedy that by mounting a real primary challenge that is rooted in our principles and guided by the sureness that comes from a conscience that is unmuddied. Let's get a candidate that not only represents our true views as liberals, but actually represents the progressive attitudes of our founders and our people.

The public will be reminded of the stark contrast between the promises made by candidate Obama in 2007 and 2008, and what President Obama really did during his term of office.

The issue will not be that the President tried and failed, but that the President didn't even bother to fight for what he promised.

Kooch? :rofl:

the intersection of no, what a waste of time, why bother because no one is going to get more done, and undecided.

Lots of wrecks happen at those kind of intersections.

some of us are fed up with big business trampling on the rights of us all.
If Obama wants to sell us out to insurance companies and banks and big pharma, he ought to know most of us object to that sort of thing.


Of course, I will vote for Obama after the dust has settled, (could NEVER vote against him), but won't want him to think we just lie down when he promised change and didn't deliver that much of it.

Obama knows you won't vote against him. Clinton knew you wouldn't vote against him. That's why real liberals and progressives continue to be left in the cold. Democrats know we have no alternative. I think a different strategy is called for. I am thinking new party or rising up and demanding our due within the Democratic party. Either way, I am tired of having my vote taken for granted. If you knew Obama was going to be the man he has turned out to be, would you have voted for him? I thought Hilary was going to be like Obama. That's why I didn't vote for her.

Oh, man...you SO captured exactly what I was thinking during the primary.

that I already planned to vote against him in the 2012 Democratic Primaries. That was part of how I convinced myself to vote for someone who I strongly disliked.

I have since had a change of heart. I think Obama is doing his best under very difficult circumstances. I think he gets blamed for a lot of things that aren't his fault. And I definitely believe that he has made major changes that our country has desperately needed for a long time. We appear to be on the brink of health care reform passing. The president has given us an outstanding Supreme Court Justice in Sonia Sotomayor. There's a whole bunch of other stuff too: the Budget, the Stimulus, and various Democratic bills in a variety of areas.

Obviously, the 2012 election is a long way off. But I think Obama will be re-nominated and re-elected.

Steve

We got our hands full this year and next trying to get good people elected.

As a matter of principle, anyone can run in the primaries, and no one should be barred from running.

In post 6 you voted undecided