On the Primary Season

In the past, I have generally avoided the OP/threads about the topic of a potential challenger to President Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary season. I have predicted that there would not be any meaningful challenge to Obama's path to renomination, and pretty much left it at that. What discussions I have read on General Discussion on this topic seem to be a source of hostility between two groups of of forum members. I am going to talk about my thoughts on this now, and do so in hopes of finding some common ground between what I think is a growing divide, and not only on this forum, but within the Democratic Party.

At this time, it appears that the republican party has less potential to produce a meaningful challenger for the 2012 general election, than the liberal-progressive wing of the Democratic Party has of identifying a meaningful primary challenger. But appearances are often deceiving. For example, it appeared to many that the phenomenon known as the Tea Party would divide the republican party. This was true even in the final weeks of the “debt ceiling crisis.” Yet, the apparent resolution to this crisis is the Tea Party's wet dream.

President Obama began the process by making it clear he was willing to compromise. For many Democrats, it appears that Obama was as willing to compromise our party's strongest values, as he was to compromise on details of the proposed agreement. Hence, we are seeing our President advocating that we accept what is nothing but the compromise between the establishment and Tea Party wings of the republican party.

A few of the Democratic members of both houses of Congress who spoke on television last night made clear that there is nothing in this proposed agreement that could be mistaken for the President standing firm for our democratic values. When you compromise the truth with lies, you merely come out with a variation of those lies. And to attempt to sell those lies to the democratic base as a “good thing” requires more lies, a process that can only dilute the truth and make it weaker.

The result is that the republican party becomes stronger, and the Democratic Party grows weaker. Now, some people – and I include a significant number of my friends, both on this forum, and in real life – believe that the best option that we have is to simply work harder to support President Obama and those Democrats in Congress – and also democratic candidates looking to unseat republicans in the House and Senate. I believe that there is some merit to this approach. I definitely would not ever advocate any position that undercuts a democratic politician who advocates for our party's principles. Nor would I seek to advance any action that would benefit the republican party.

But there is a split in our party. Ignoring it cannot help. Nor can attacking either those who support President Obama or those who are experiencing a deep disappointment in him. In fact, it is foolish to engage in much of the nonsense that we too often see here, on an internet forum that is supposed to be a meeting ground for liberal and progressive Democrats, and which openly encourages the participation of those to the left of the party, as well as those who are moderate and conservative democrats. We can ill afford, at this time in our nation's history, to have people literally despising one another as people, thus crushing any potential for seeing the value of each others' point of view. For, while our current individual circumstances may be different, we are not sitting on some fence, where some will be not only safe, but prosper, while others we dislike pay the price for the low level of being on display in Washington, DC.

I hope that there will be an individual from within our party who will challenge Barack Obama on the national level in the Democratic Primaries. Further, I hope that individuals from within various states will enter and contest those individual primaries. I believe that only this can help to increase the interest in the 2012 presidential election. Only this can allow for varying viewpoints to be expressed, examined, and evaluated by not only the citizens who vote, but the democratic politicians from each state, including those who serve in Washington.

Without that level of interest during the primary season, there is a very real risk of the loss of both interest and participation by a significant number of party members. This may not be significant in those states that we know will be safely for President Obama. But presidential elections are won state-by-state, and there are plenty of “key battleground” states which could go to a republican next November.

Primaries encourage people to not simply sit at the sidelines, but to become active advocates for a candidate who represents their values, hopes, and dreams. Certainly, primaries can create strong disagreement – I remember some from 2008 even here on the Democratic Underground. One or two of these pitted the supporters of Barack Obama against the supporters of Hilary Clinton. Yet, after the general election, those two politicians ironed out their differences, and agreed to work on the same team.

I do not think that a challenge in the democratic primaries would result in President Obama losing either the party's nomination, nor his re-election. But it could provide him with some insight on the level of disappointment there is among democrats for him. And who knows – maybe, just maybe, he would consider even compromising with us for once.

It is beyond debate that President Obama cannot run on the “Hope and Change” platform he did in 2008. Without a primary challenge, I fear he will approach the upcoming general election as the Candidate of Compromise. I say that fully aware of the polls indicating people want compromise. And that liberals support Obama. And I remember well when Gene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy challenged President Johnson in the 1968 primaries, and Ted Kennedy challenged President Carter twelve years later.

Yet somewhere, somehow, our party and our nation needs to hear the inner-Democratic voices that advocate for our values.

Peace,
H2O Man

First, let's be realistic: there is no serious candidate willing to undertake a Primary campaign. If there was, it would be prohibitively late in the season to get organized and secure the necessary financial support to mount a serious campaign that would push the issues that the "Primary Obama" contingent thinks need to be raised.

Second, assuming this was possible, what would it accomplish? The argument is that it will "pull Obama to the left". Why do you assume that? Either he believes in his moderate policies, or he believes they're necessary to accomplish what he wants to get done in a partisan atmosphere, or he has no principles at all other than getting re-elected. Only in the later case will a Primary challenge have a hope of changing his positions, and if he did, why wouldn't he be seen as another "flip-flopper" who can't be trusted to stand for anything?

While there's no problem with intellectual discourse on this subject, you're likely to be fare more productive working through advocacy groups or your own writing to candidates, election committees and the President himself about why his positions are problematic, both on policy b]and political grounds. And to those who will, at this point, chime in with "but they only listen to the corporations", let me suggest that, if that's seriously your position, then you should also believe there's no point in trying anything.

Wow that was a "d" loaded reply! :)

The purpose of the primary challenge might not even be that we "change" Obama, but to make sure that progressives have a bully pulpit to put forth our values, since no one else on the national stage seems able or wiling to do it, and we have a corporate media that is set up to make sure that these values also get kept from us too.

Obama's taking advantage of this and either being forced, or as someone who used us, willingly is taking the right side of the fence and trying to make it look like "the center".

Even if this person doesn't win... Even if he/she doesn't change Obama's public stances, etc. They still will be able to put forth our messages. Which will be important at the congressional race level to help newer challengers echo those sentiments and serve as a rallying cry to change congress to one we haven't seen in ages to get rid of both wingnut Republicans and worthless blue dogs so that we can have a body that has some power and clout so that hopefully at some point, they can be the ones to tell Obama what's going to happen, instead of the other way around.

Even if that person lost the primary, if that person inspires and helps a new set of Democratic freshman in the congress and reinforce the backbone of the veterans like Grijalva, Kucinich, and DeFazio, we will have won, and perhaps also establish early on who we want to run in 2016 to make big changes, if Obama fails to help get things going in the 2012-2016 session. People will see in that case how Obama failed us, and how we need someone new like the person that ran against him. If Obama surprises us and starts doing a lot of the things this challenger advocates if and when he becomes president, once again, that will help establish the challenger as a front runner for 2016 too I think.

Staying out will leave us a vacuum and allow the DLC to manipulate our choices again in 2016 like they've done in the past elections.

...but will cover your "progressive protest" campaign? and if it does, it'll cover the "issues" as opposed to the "horse race" coverage it uses for every other candidate?

than if there wasn't one to cover at all.

If Obama's unchallenged, the media certainly will advance the notion that he's the "unanimous" choice of Dems and therefore isn't challenged.

But with a challenger, despite whatever means the corporate media will try to distort the coverage, they still will be forced to give air time to a challenger to speak. Otherwise, the public will see through the media's attempts to stop these messages and the meda knows that.

It's not perfect, but do you have better suggestions on how the progressives should get their message out? Or are you suggesting we should just capitulate to the DLC types and accept what we're getting?

It is possible, I believe, for there to be a meaningful primary challenge, without any help from the corporate media. In fact, such a challenge can only result in strong opposition from that media.

The people in this nation need to break free of the hypnotic spell of the media. It injects novocaine, rather than knowledge, into the political process.

They'll give a Democratic primary challenge plenty of attention to sow the seeds of discord and make it more of a horserace with the GOP candidate.

What they cover are personality stories (Bachmann's kooky husband), and horse race stories (Mittens won't compete in the Iowa Straw Poll).

I'll use a May 9, 1965 quote that your response brings to mind:

"Some forty years ago, G. K. Chesterman wrote that every time the world was in trouble the demand went up for a practical man. Unfortunately, he said, each time the demand went up there was a practical man available. As he pointed out, usually what was needed to deal with an unpractical muddle was a theorist or philosopher."

I understand that, even after the past few days, many Democrats -- including many here on DU -- believe that President Obama is doing a practical job. I appreciate the fact that he is dealing with a broken Congress. And I know why people such as yourself think a primary contender is either unlikely or perhaps a potential danger. Also, as you note (in one of your posts on this thread, which you deem a waste of time), the corporate media is would not treat such a possible challenger fairly.

Indeed, a primary challenge -- even by an individual state's less than "favorite son" -- is downright impractical.

Thus, I'm not suggesting that a practical man/woman mount a practical challenge. Not at all. I am hoping that one or more theorists and/or philosophers will. I'd even be pleased if a marginal representative of the Democratic Left would run in the primaries. That would allow people such as myself the option of actually investing time and money in the presidential race -- an investment that surely isn't going to be made for Obama. Of course, I will end up voting for him in the November, 2012 election. But I'd like a vehichle to voice my strong dismay at his actions -- and lack of actions -- since moving into the White House.

An anti-war candidate, such as a Gene McCarthy, would attract a lot of support from progressive democrats and the Democratic Left. It would also get some support from liberals, who want to send a clear message to a President who only seems to respond to the republicans and right wing maniacs. Of course, he is also reacting to the Pentagon and war machine, although the corporate news media has done a fine job of removing the many wars from the public discussion. They've done such a thorough job, that republicans can pretend to take a less pro-war stance than President Obama, and he can't prove otherwise.

The type of impractical candidate that I'd love to see would not waste a second hoping for any fair corporate media coverage. He or she would rely upon the grass roots and the internet to promote such a campaign. And such a campaign would not rely upon the suggestions or advice of either the pro-Obama people, the republicans, or any establishment groups or individuals. That way, there would be the very real possibility of igniting the energy of the grass roots.

and this talk is serious in my view at this point.

time, right now, I hope that a challenge in the democratic primaries would lead to the President's loss of the party's nomination. I've got to simmer down a bit.

For me politics today cuts at core standard of mine: no lies, falsehoods, deceit in anyway. I am experiencing a period of being shunned by my family after I called them out on lies they told me. It's something I just can't tolerate but I am paying the price. If I can't allow this in my personal life I certainly can't tolerate it from elected "representatives".

from a number of relatives, friends, and associates who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

There are always democrats who respond by saying, "Yeah, well, how would you like a President McCain?" Or that failure to support Obama will lead to a President Bachman. It's a shame that they view the possibilities as being so restricted. The fact is that there are a heck of a lot of democrats who could do better than Barack Obama as President.

Can we draft Dean? Or will that spoil him for 2016?

Maybe Kucinich, but then all we will hear from the party is how can you take that woo woo seriously? The issues raised by him will be ignored and shouted down with cat calls of WOO!

Bernie is an independent. So I doubt he would primary Obama, but I would certainly be violating DU rules if I express my true feelings about him running. He is one I consider trustworthy.

:shrug:

-Hoot

that someone with a conscience from a minority caucus answers the call. Or someone who isn't even a politician.

07.27.11: "We've Had It" Rep. John Conyers Calls for Protest on Obama on Jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op66HTJdf-U&feature=player_embedded#at=209

He sounds like he's all fired up, to expropriate an old phrase from back when most of us had hope.

IIRC John was an early endorser in the last election.

I'm really mixed on JC. He's disappointed me numerous times during the shrub.

-Hoot

remember that there isn't any perfect person who is about to step up. There are only imperfect people .... we need an ordinary person who is willing to take an "extra-ordinary" stance. Conyers would serve the purpose quite well.

as well as local. I'm not going to pull punches. I have little interest in the Presidential election without one as I will look upon it as a lost branch. I say that as a former Obama delegate on the state level. I do that because I have lost so much and would like someone in my corner and I know I'm not alone. I know I'm not alone in being able to see through the politics. It is people like me the party needs to be concerned about because my time, effort and money in elections has always been there in the past. We may be a minority but we matter when it comes to victories. But right now, I have little to go and am not motivated by fear of the other party any longer enough to vote against my interests and well being by matter of degree. Currently, I"m concentrating on local where I have a better chance of affecting my life in a positive way through my actions. It's up to the national Democrats I have at my disposal to actually vote for to convince me it would be in my best interest and the interests of my family and community to vote for them. Locally, I know who is and who isn't.

and SOMEONE needs to STEP UP or BE Compelled to "STEP UP"...as duty to National Honor and Integrity.

What you say...but this I needed to snip from your worthy, warning post:

But there is a split in our party. Ignoring it cannot help. Nor can attacking either those who support President Obama or those who are experiencing a deep disappointment in him. In fact, it is foolish to engage in much of the nonsense that we too often see here, on an internet forum that is supposed to be a meeting ground for liberal and progressive Democrats, and which openly encourages the participation of those to the left of the party, as well as those who are moderate and conservative democrats. We can ill afford, at this time in our nation's history, to have people literally despising one another as people, thus crushing any potential for seeing the value of each others' point of view. For, while our current individual circumstances may be different, we are not sitting on some fence, where some will be not only safe, but prosper, while others we dislike pay the price for the low level of being on display in Washington, DC.

up to what the reality is out here... but I dread a primary challenge. I can't see how that would be helpful but only more divisive. That last primary season just about tore the DEMs completely apart. Another one where the challenger splits the support for the President - too dangerous. If for nothing else, the SCOTUS seats are what will make the difference in the next 5 years.

You make a great deal of sense. My only concern would be, how strong would the party be overall to defeat Romney/Bachmann/etc ? If we could have that progressive primary candidate and still be strong enough to defeat the Republican, I'm all for it.

The experience of 1980 makes me hesitant. Maybe I don't understand the history of that election well enough.