CA Dem Party progressives explore primary challenge to Obama

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

There have long been rumblings that the liberal base is ticked off at President Obama, but the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party just put that frustration into writing: They've passed a resolution exploring calling for a primary challenge to Obama.

Now, this is largely symbolic, but it's heavy nonetheless. They're ticked that Obama hasn't ditched the Bush tax cuts, has continued drone attacks overseas, and hasn't ended the foreclosure crisis, among other sins listed below. The straw that broke their collective caucus backs, Caucus chair Karen Bernal told us Wednesday, was Obama's -- as the resolution put it -- "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets."

"Our silence," Bernal told us, "is a price that's too high to pay."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=94646&tsp=1

[mwrguy]

1. Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, please

No more DLC.

[TheWraith]

2. Right. We don't want anyone who can win more than 5 states!

:sarcasm:

You know Obama is not and never has been DLC, right?

[IScreamSundays]

3. What freaking difference does it make, I mean really??

[AndyTiedye]

187. Ask the People of Wisconsin What Kind of Difference it Makes if the Repigs Win Everything

That's what they have in store for all of us.

[defendandprotect]

199. Ask Americans what difference if Bernie Sanders wins everything ---

We need two strong anti-war candidates --

How many more years of this war and bloodshed and bankrupted Treasury

do you want?

How many more betrayals -- ?

The mask is off -- it's over --

[BNJMN]

203. If they're gonna call you a socialist ANYWAY...[nt]

:D

[defendandprotect]

265. True -- we might as well enjoy the benefits of it -- !! :)

[jeff47]

243. And they'll get it with Obama.

If we're gonna have Republican policies, they might as well be enacted by Republicans.

[bluethruandthru]

349. Absolutely right! When the country is destroyed and the idiot public finally realizes it...

I want them to remember that a republican did it. Not a republican (obama) disguised as a Democrat.
This almost feels like yet another of the republicans grand plans. Put someone in the white house who Democrats will view as the savior of the party (obama) and then have him turn out to be republican who will dismantle and undermine every Democratic policy. When things go to hell, the republicans will be able to say "see, the dems did it!".

[earcandle]

380. great way to undermind the mental health and high spirit of a (person, business, family, country)...

trojan horses

[vanboggie]

245. Very, very true

The Rethugs take over this time and we're finished. Their long-range plan is coming to fruition. It's right on schedule.

[No Elephants]

253. Wisconsin Democrats who stood up and fought for them.

Where were Obama's comfortable shoes, or his bully pulpit, to help Wisconsin Democrats and union workers?

AWOL.

[cui bono]

259. And what do you think Obama has given us?

98% of what the Republicans planned to.

[erebusman]

374. I'm not afraid anymore..

The people of Wisconsin finally got it in there face enough they aren't taking it anymore; bless them that it had to get this bad that they woke up.

I don't need it to get any worse ... I'm awake, you can stop kicking me now.

Obama is not progressive ; he's throwing us under the bus.

I won't refuse to fight against him because I'm afraid someone else will throw me harder.

I'm no Ghandi but I know when I'm being abused and I know when to say NO MORE, and that time is NOW.

I'm done with Obama, I'm fully behind Sanders and Kucinich. I won't compromise on this.

I cried when I thought we had become liberal enough to finally elect a black man, and I thought he would show us some of the most amazing and strong leadership I that the world have ever witnessed.

I have been so let down, so dissapointed, so disillusioned so betrayed by this man.. the 2-3 peices of red meat he's thrown us are supposed to be enough?

We deserve better. And I'm not going to stop until I get better.

Thank you for listening.

[Politicub]

433. You're right -- Rick Perry would be peachy keen

Actually, people who think there's no difference between the parties have issues beyond help.

[Dems2002]

4. Actually..

Actually, when he joined the Senate, the DLC listed him as one of its members. There was a hue and cry from the netroots, and Obama was removed from their list of members, but in hindsight, I don't think the mistake was theirs. Active membership was a political liability (and likely would have cost him the nomination) so distance was allowed to be placed, but his natural alliance was out there for the moneyed people.

[TheWraith]

5. Nice revisionist history.

"Hue and cry from the netroots"? No. Obama asked them to remove his name because he was not and had never been a member, and didn't appreciate them appropriating his name.

[roxiejules]

7. Obama: 'I am a NEW Democrat'

from 2009:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html


President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.


“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.


The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

[SugarShack]

11. Right ...new democrat...no more the standard brand of soc sec and medicare. party killed by obama.

[No Elephants]

30. In fairness, Obama did not act alone. Plenty of people worked hard for many years

to turn the party of FDR, HST, LBJ and RFK into the party of Obama.

[defendandprotect]

201. Koch Bros. DLC was HARBORED within the party for 20 years ... !!

And, according to Wm. Greider in "Who will tell the people?" the Democrats

were colluding with the GOP as far back as 1978 -- with Democrats in full power --

to overturn the tax code for the benefit of the wealthy.

That book was written in 1992 --

There's a lot of information hidden from the public --

but often the public and posters don't want to believe their own eyes --

And, I think that's what happened with Obama after the election and as he began to

pick his team -- the poisonous Koch DLC Rahm Emmanuel -- and the rest of the Wall

Street/Financial crew who had organzied the meltdown we're suffering from now.

[No Elephants]

290. Longer. DLC founded formally in March 1985. And the conservative wing of the Democratic Party had

been working toward many of the same goals decades before that.

[dotymed]

362. I hate to say it defendandprotect

but I think the other financial shoe is about to drop.

There are a lot of unexplained (to me anyway) financial anomalies that have just begun to transpire. Like, all of the cash that is being withdrawn from the markets and put into banks for "safekeeping."

The sudden volatility (again) of the marketplace, including some penny stocks that are tied to precious metals. I just have a bad feeling that phase whatever it is, has already started in our financial system.

It would really explain why Jackals like Cantor are betting on the devaluation of the American dollar. It rally seems like that would be a treasonous act for a House member.

At the very least, if elections are more real than the tooth-fairy, he should not be considered re-electable.

[sabrina 1]

384. 'betting on the devaluation of the American dollar'!!

'It rally seems like that would be a treasonous act for a House member'. I would definitely say so. He should be impeached, recalled, thrown out of Congress. Why is this not a huge story? Betting against your own country while you are a member of Congress IS a treasonous act, and then attempting to bring down the country for your own benefit. Unbelievable. The 'enemy is definitely within'.

[midnight]

156. A Kinder gentler hedge funder.... Were all the funders are united under the

common goal of enough is never enough...

[AtomicKitten]

200. That has been taken completely out of context.

It was reportedly said at the end of a meeting with the New Dem caucus as people were leaving in the context of 'ich bin ein Berliner.' He said the same thing as in 'I'm a progressive' at the end of a meeting with the Progressive caucus just a couple weeks earlier.

I see the same badly sourced propaganda thrown out here at DU repeatedly but it means nothing and certainly nowhere in the ballpark of what people claim. The truth still matters to some people.

[defendandprotect]

205. We don't need labels to see what Obama has done ... from day one -- !!

[AtomicKitten]

209. You're moving the goalposts.

You're welcome to trash-talk Obama all you want here (apparently) but you are building your case on misrepresentation of facts, and the truth still matters to some people ... not that that matters to some here who continue to parrot the same lies over and over again.

[defendandprotect]

263. Evidently noting what Obama actually has done is "moving the goalposts" -- how unfair of me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4946549&mesg_id=4947545

:rofl:

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

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

[JimDandy]

219. So which group did he lie to?

Don't bother-we know. Hence the call for a primary challenger. The truth matters to us, but as your post points out Obama is willing to lie to us, them, WHOMEVER, to get the votes.

[defendandprotect]

264. +1--

[AtomicKitten]

267. Neither -- it's an expression, not a literal statement. nt

[No Elephants]

293. I am a New Democrat is an expression, not a literal statement? Since when?

Since some people became uncomfortable about his admission that he is a New Democrat?

Not intended as a factual statement. Now, where have I heard that before?

Even used as Kennedy used "I am a Berliner," it would mean, I am with you; I share and support your goals."

And that is the whole point. His policies, not his label or the formal membership roster of any organization--though there is controversy about that, too.

If anyone is taking things too literally, it's people who are so quick to deny he is DLC or a New Democrat. Do you really think people who say that care if he paid dues and got a membership card or not?

[cui bono]

297. Oh, so it was "Not Intended to be a Factual Statement".

Where have I heard that before. Hm... oh yeah... Jon Kyl. Well isn't that special.

[No Elephants]

287. LOL! "In the context of Ich bin ein Berliner."

So, you were at this meeting then? And you know him that well that you knew he was using the term in that improbable way?

And do you have a link to something that said something similar a few weeks earlier to the Progressive Caucus?

At bottom, all you've proven is that Obama will say anything he thinks people want to hear, whether he means it or not. Yes, the truth still matters to some people. I'm one of them.

But you know what matters even more in this instance? He governs center right, at best.

[cui bono]

299. +1

[defendandprotect]

387. +1 --

"Obama will say anything he thinks people want to hear" -- !!

[mistertrickster]

337. Link? He who asserts must prove . . . nt

[No Elephants]

28. The appointments he made after election (and found no need to make) speak for themselves.

Clinton DLC retreads and Republicans abounded in his administration when he took office. Still do.

Put a Clinton re-tread in charge of D of J.

Found no need to fire the U.S. Attorneys, as Reagan, Clinton and Bush all did--and who knows how many Presidents before them.

Among many other things, left the D of J full of Bushbots who had been illegally cleared by Godling re: neo theo religious beliefs, discrimination against gays and women. And he's been nominating one Republican after another to fill vacancies.


With the nation in two wars and in economic crisis due to mortgage derivative securities, credit default swaps and other shenanigans, he appointed Republicans to head Treasury and Defense and a Clinton re-tread to head the SEC. Not to mention Rahm.

And Mrs. DLC herself as Secretary of State.

Appointed Tim Kaine, then New Democrat Wasserman Schultz to head the DNC.

Oh, yeah, we got a real liberal on our hands there. Nothing like a DLC administration at all, I agree. For one thing, Clinton didn't have anywhere near as many Republicans in his administation.

[eilen]

53. How about that TeaParty guy he wants to appoint to

the federal bench in Utah?

[No Elephants]

123. Yes, but I was only trying to prove he is DLC(ish). The Teabagger appointment goes beyond DLC.

Then again, Bubba did offer to help Ryan with his abomination, so maybe not.

[dmallind]

84. Clinton retread - aka Democrat with executive branch experience

Not a whole lot of high level Carter appointees he can tap into left.

[No Elephants]

124. No, it is not that simple. I made that exact same excuse when he first starting appoining people.

Rahm becamse Clinton's Chief of Staff with no prior Executive Branch experience. Lots of Presidents, Democrat and Republicans, have hired people with no prior Executive Branch experience. So ability to do a good job without it is well-demonstrated.

Conversely, Obama has hired Chicago friends who have no prior Executive Branch Experience, so that is not a sine qua non for him.

Finally, he's reached past the Carter Adminstration and into the Nixon adminstration for at least one very important appointment, so that's not excuse, either.

[RaleighNCDUer]

367. There are PLENTY of progressive low-ranking Dems who he could MAKE high

level appointees, if he chose. If he was a progressive he would have no problem passing over ranking DLCers to put in people who shared his ideals.

As it turns out, it's the DLCers who share his 'ideals'.

[dbackjon]

105. But, that is NO evidence - we have to judge him by his great speeches,

Not his actions - why are you being so mean to him??

[russspeakeasy]

149. You are known by the company you keep..

[lark]

Clinton raised taxes on the rich

Obama lowered the already catastrophically low tax rates for the rich.

Clinton shut down the government to save Medicare from disastrous cuts and got what he wanted

Obama put Medicare,Medicaid and SSI on the table rather than force the rich to share in the pain of this terrible economy. Repugs got more than they asked for.

You tell me who was more of a Democrat and who is "all in" for the rich and hurts the working class?

[brooklynite]

360. So then, you like DLC candidates...

[cui bono]

295. Exactly. And what about US Attorneys? Did he ever appoint any to get rid

of all the Bushies? I remember reading that he hadn't quite a while after he took office and that is common practice.

[leeroysphitz]

90. But you can understand their mistake. n/t

[Lasher]

133. You are the one who is guilty of revisionist history.

Obama had to be shamed off the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-obama-illusion-by-paul-street

[loudsue]

147. You are totally WRONG. Obama, early on, stated that Joe Lieberman was his mentor.

He has stated that many times. They fell out, of course, because Lieberman came out so publicly against the democratic party, and the other infiltrators didn't want it to be admitted that they were actually republicans. Joe Lieberman didn't try to hid the fact that he was actually a republican in the democratic party, just like all the other DLC members are.

[AtomicKitten]

193. Lieberman was assigned to be Obama's mentor in the Senate.

Every freshman Senator is assigned to a senior Senator. They don't get to chose. It doesn't mean much other than they had lunch a couple times as part of the orientation process.

[defendandprotect]

206. +1000% --

Thanks for the reminder -- !!


:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

210. And I'll remind you that he was assigned Lieberman, he didn't choose him.

You've already demonstrated that misrepresenting the facts is an integral part of your case against Obama and the truth is merely incidental.

[No Elephants]

289. Yes, I'm sure the incoming Senator is not consulted at all. Just assigned, like a homeroom.

[keepCAblue]

248. And yet his 1st appointment as prez was Rahm Emanuel. Doesn't take a rocket scientist...n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

364. They did NOT name him as a member, but as a person THEY ap;proved of.

He had his plan, and could see it shaking out to being between him and Hillary, and the biggest difference between them was HER membership in the DLC - on policies, ideology they are twins.

He asked to be removed from that DLC list to differentiate himself from the Clinton crown - not because he opposed their ideas. Then, upon being elected, HE PUT THE ENTIRE FUCKING CLINTON CROWD IN HIS ADMINISTRATION.

Not DLC? He's pure Third Way - the heir apparent to the defunct DLC.

DLC started the job. Third Way will finish it.

[No Elephants]

26. And he did call himself a New Democrat when he spoke to that caucus of the house.

However, since there is no video of the event, some are claiming that it is only hearsay. I guess the theory is that some Democratic member of the House who was present lied about what a Democratic President said to a meeting of a large group of Democrats.

Of course, no one has ever denied that rumor--and Obama's appointments after his elections speak volumes. But, as I said, no video of the man mouthing the words.

Of course, even a video can be tampered with, so even that would probably not be enough proof.

[AtomicKitten]

202. See #200.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4946549&mesg_id=4947474

[No Elephants]

320. I saw it. And I responded.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

65. Yup, let's keep suporting conservative assholes who stand for nothing. Look how well

that's worked so far.

[truedelphi]

221. Yep, you speak the truth. And to those of watching carefully

Trying to ascertain if the man with the Golden Tongue was the real deal, or a tool, the fact that Obama's first interview with "Sixty Minutes" last Sunday in Nov 2008, has him stating: "Hank is doing a good job," which was, I assume, his signal to the Powers that Be to relax. That whatever they have on him, he is going to make sure it doesn't come out. ("Hank" being Hank Paulson.)

Then by Jan 2009, we got Geithner appointed to head the US Treasury, despite the collusionary (if not outright criminal activity) when Geithner, as head of the New York Fed, allowed for the manipulations and maneuvers that sank Lehman Bros and bolstered AIG and Goldman Sachs.

If Geithner was an ordinary mortal, he would have been tried under RICO for his activities in the Fall of 2008. But apparently once you head the Federal Reserve, even if you ONLY head the Federal Reserve of New York, no one can touch you.

[No Elephants]

25. Well, not technically, anyway. And he is governing to the right of Bill Clinton, who was DLC

even technically.

But, as you know well, "DLC" is shorthand for a center right Dem, not necessary a reference to someone who was a dues paying member of the DLC before it took over the Party.

BTW, as long as no labels are used, all of the U.S. polls very favorably to liberal idoology.

[dotymed]

82. Actually, it seems that when "no labels are used"

The polls actually lean very close to Socialism. IMO, that says everything. The majority of people want:

1) an end to the wars

2) to withdraw the tax cuts for the wealthy

3) to leave our social programs alone

4) an end to the wealth disparity in America, which IS the largest disparity in the world

5) universal health care for every American

Bernie Sanders has been fighting for all of these goals for many years. If the propaganda machine can be overcome and the word "Socialism" viewed for what it actually is, Bernie Sanders IS the person to primary Obama.

Bernie fights (and if he had the "bully-pulpit" of the CIC, he would use it effectively) for the same goals as the majority of U.S. citizens. he is repeatedly marginalized by the MSM because of the "I" behind his name and his admission that he is, indeed a Socialist.

Dennis Kucinch is much the same, only he chose to remain a Democrat, even though "his" party has repeatedly thrown him under the bus. Dennis was allowed to participate in only one Presidential debate.

The MSM portrayed him as a "kook" because he claims to have seen a UFO. Quite a few Presidents have claimed the same experience. A UFO is, by definition, unidentified.... yet the MSM acted as if he claimed little green people were here.

Only after the manufactured emergency in Ohio did I stop supporting Dennis' presidential bid. If only we knew then what we now know, most of the people that I worked with to secure an Obama win, have changed their minds.

We have to stop letting the MSM and PTB determine our candidates, until then we will keep getting the choice of the lesser of two evils.

I along with many other Democrats, strongly believe that the President should be primaried. Not because we want an admitted rethug as our President, but because we want an actual, old style Democrat as our president.

A "peoples President" in the tradition of LBJ and FDR. Hell, if the rethugs had a candidate like IKE or Teddy Roosevelt, we'd be better off. All of these politicians of old were much more progressive than the "New Democrats."

If America, by some miracle, were allowed to elect Bernie or Dennis or both, IMO w/in 8 years we would again be the country that other countries strive to be.

[No Elephants]

129. The difference between us is that I would say your points are all liberal, not Socialist.

And not even very far left liberal.

Socialism involves the government owning the means of production.

When government gives Medicare for all, that's a liberal program. When government owns and runs all hospitals and medical practices, hiring and firing doctors, nurses, janitors, etc., that's socialized medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[SteveM]

291. Yeah, the "dialog" today makes Hubert Humphrey sound like a Trotskyite.

[Frisbee]

144. Excellent post...

I agree with everything you said. I would LOVE to see Bernie as President, but fear the fact that he himself identifies himself as a socialist would kill his campaign before it got off the ground. Too many of our uneducated masses think Socialism = Communism. I guess it would be possible to educate them that that is just flat wrong, but you'd be fighting the media, PTB and ignorance. And the right would do everything in their power to absolutely destroy Bernie, and I wouldn't underestimate their ability to succeed. Still, if there is to be a Democratic challenger, and I pray there is, no one would get my support more than Bernie. He is on the side of the working person, and seems to be on the right side of just about everything. He is what this country needs, but I fear will never get. And Dennis, who I supported as long as he was running in 2008, wouldn't be bad either, though I suspect his chances of success may be even somewhat less than Bernie's. Still, we need someone who is an old school Democrat to step up and challenge Obama, and there don't seem to be many of them left.

[lark]

175. How about Franken?

He's a reliable liberal, doesn't call himself a socialist and doesn't have the negative press already out there on Kucinich.

[Frisbee]

181. Yup, and I am sure there are a few others out there...

as well. Franken would certainly have the potential to be entertaining during any debates!

[mwrguy]

197. Franked definitely beats the status quo

[defendandprotect]

207. +1 --- True -- yet we ended up with a president who is anti-FDR/New Deal ... !!!

Here's the problem ---

We are being given the candidates the Elites/corporates/Koch DLC want us to vote for --

and then there are the "just in case" computers -- !!


The entire Democratic Party is in question now -- not only Obama -- !!

We've had 20 years of Koch Bros DLC being harbored within the party -- influencing

its agenda and its candidates -- even its presidential candidates.

[marasinghe]

230. agree w/Frisbee: Excellent post.

goes to illustrate what i've always found to be true, from my personal experience: the ordinary men & women in the street, have magnitudes more compassion & common sense, than 80% of the elitist assholes - immaterial of whether such a*holes enter the exclusives club by inheritance, good fortune or personal effort.

people like FDR & the Kennedys, are rare exceptions.

like with wild animal packs, the majority of the human herd tends to follow the most arrogant, savage, heartless motherfuckers among the alpha group. at least among animals, the alpha has to keep fighting to maintain its position. the human animal, of course, hands over its destiny on a platter, to the sociopaths.

here's to a real Lincolnesque candidate answering the call of her, or his, country.
:beer:

though i'm not at all optimistic on that account.

[angel2]

354. Bernie Sanders 4 President

I just bet that he could be the first Independent President!

[trud]

48. 5 states

The Tea Partiers have managed to achieve some of their aims with a small representation.

[valerief]

57. Their billionaire creators have achieved fame for them. nt

[defendandprotect]

218. They are funded by KOCH Bros. - run out of a PR firm which guarantees them coverage -- !!

Money - capital -- is the enemy of democracy now --

This is corporate/fascism --

And, as Al Gore made clear in his recent Rolling Stone article ...

"Our Congress is under the control of the OIL and COAL industry -- "



Capital always had that potential -- that's why our Founders fear the power

of capital --

while embracing elites!

Our Founders were at best schizophrenic -- just look at the Constitution!

[merbex]

52. he self identifies as a "New Democrat"= same thing n/t

[AllyCat]

68. But he sure acts like the "best" of their members, doesn't he?

[leeroysphitz]

88. Correct. He is further to the right of the DLC. n/t

[LanternWaste]

126. I imagine many people value pragmatic politics over their own convictions...

I imagine many people value pragmatic politics over the strength of their own convictions...

[No Elephants]

132. The definition of "pragmatic politics" seems to be whatever Obama wants to do.

Was it pragmatic politics for Obama, not Boehner, to put cuts to Social Security on the table, which cuts Obama has been talking about for years?

Or does he simply believe Social Security should be cut?

And how would we know for sure?

Why can't we judge him on his actions, instead of imagining hypothetical excuses?

[mwrguy]

195. if it walks like a DLC duck, and quacks like a DLC duck

it's a fucking DLC duck

[No Elephants]

325. Bingo! The issue is not whether he attended DLC meetings. No one cares about that.

[defendandprotect]

389. +1000% ---

[caseymoz]

261. If this economic pain becomes too bad

People will be willing to try something different. And, considering our government has bought into the austerity argument, things will get worse. Let's see how it looks next November.

[paulk]

285. he's a self described "new Dem"

that's newspeak for "old Republican"...

The new Dems are to the right of the DLC, imo

[PassingFair]

321. You would prefer Feingold?

I think THAT would make this interesting....

[Downwinder]

14. Anybody for Al Franken?

[No Elephants]

31. Tom Harkin?

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Harkin voted for DOMA and he speaks of cutting Social Security

as a possible desire of his. Fuck Harkin. I will never vote for a bigot again. Homophobes are bigots,those who vote for and support discrimination are bigots. Why replace one with another?

[karynnj]

76. Harkin was up for re-election in 1996 when the DOMA vote occured

and he was representing Iowa. Only one Senator, up for re-election, voted against DOMA and that was John Kerry. Though I am never one to deny Kerry credit he is due, the fact is that it had to be easier voting that way because he represented Massachusetts.

[No Elephants]

134. And Massachusetts was the first state to recognize same gender marriage.

(no elephants posted proudly, and at every opportunity.)

In fact, a vote against DOMA was not only easier for Kerry, but a vote for it may have given Kerry problems when he ran for re-election here.

[No Elephants]

135. Thanks, Bluebear. I did not know that. I have never knowingly voted for a bigot and never will.

Human rights, and equal human rights, for absolutely everyone is number 1 on my list of political priorities.

And it isn't a bad marker for all other issues, either.

[No Elephants]

185. Too late to edit, but I meant to type Bluenorthwest and it somehow came out

Bluebear. Sorry.

I really did know to whom I was replying. Guess my fingers didn't, though.

[defendandprotect]

224. Amazing ... I'd lost track of Harkin ... Koch Bros/DLC CANCER growing in the party ,... !!!

Think we have to find out how much of the party is left -- if anything!

[aquart]

39. I don't know why folks don't realize the problem immediately.

You are NOT going to get the first Jewish president by going after the first black one. It's a Klan wet dream.

Unless Franken is say, Baptist?

[lark]

177. Me, me - I'd love to vote for Franken over Obama

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

229. After, Obama ... who came out of Dem Party ...

what we have to figure out is how big a Koch Bros DLC cancer is growing

within the party and how many members has it effected?

Koch Bros/DLC was influencing the party and the slection of candidates for

twenty years!!

[swilton]

278. What is Franken's position on the Middle East/US imperialism?

[swilton]

279. More specifically, what is his relationship with AIPAC?

[defendandprotect]

388. We might know, except that ....

AIPAC seems to be another one of those taboo subjects here!!



:hi:

[Jim_Shorts]

303. Al Franken is a really smart guy and he would never sell us out

On the down side, he really wears his emotions on his sleeve and can you imagine all the material for adds the repigs would have from his SNL days.

[demosincebirth]

16. Kucinich??

[Rincewind]

17. Bernie Sanders is not

a democrat. And Kucinich can't get more than the middle single digits in a democratic primary, he would get slaughtered in a general election.

[No Elephants]

32. I think Sanders would get slaughtered as well. However, see Reply #3.

[swilton]

286. I don't think Sanders would get slaughtered at all -

that Sanders would get slaughtered is a talking point iterated by campaign operatives supporting the status quo.

At least the positions that Sanders supports are supported by the public in opinion poll after opinion poll....And I think the election of so many conservative/tea-party Republicans in the 2010 election was a reflection of the disappointment with the Democratic Party and its inertia and lack of accomplishments 2008-10 - especially with the bank bailout.

I also don't think that the American public is as stupid as they are portrayed by using the tea party (small, small minority) as an example....Playing the public as 'dumb' plays into Obama's and corporate Democrats' hands. Just look at the mobilization in Wisconsin rather than the tea party. The public is more informed than ever due to the internet and they can mobilize via the internet.

I think that Sanders would be very popular - he is getting more and more visibility in the press on news shows and he does hold his own.

The big question is will he run?

His website has opinion polls soliciting public comment - to me these polls seem to address an audience more than just his constituents in Vermont.

I also think that the issue of his not being in the Democratic Party is a red herring....I think if he were to run, the Democratic Party could be lucky to have him on their ticket and they should thank him for bailing out their asses....They will be lucky if he doesn't go to the Green Party (which by the way has its convention this week and whose convention will address a labor-green caucus) and take the 'Democratic wing' of the Democratic Party with him.

[No Elephants]

441. I don't have a lot of faith that most Americans will vote for someone

his age, from the Northeast, who speaks with a Brooklyn accent. Sorry if I am underestimating voters and how superficial they are, but that is my assessment.

I, however, would vote for him in a primary or in a general in a heartbeat, even if I thought he would lose. And I agree with your last sentence. Democrats should have been groveling to Sanders, not traitor Republican Lieberman.

[cascadiance]

343. I would think for Bernie to practically win, he'd have to become a Democrat...

I'm not necessarily *advocating* that, but for him to avoid problems trying to run an independent campaign against Obama and a Republican in the general election AND defend his Senate seat in the same election against both a Republican and likely a Democrat, since the DNC won't leave him untouched like Howard Dean did in his last election, especially if Sanders is running against Obama in the general election.

If he were to run in the primaries and primary Obama, I think it would still allow for a progressive voice to come out, maybe him a win, but not such that it damages the Democratic Party's chances at beating the Republican later, and if he doesn't win the primary, he'll do fine in his primary for senate against a Democrat, and he'll then subsequently do fine in the general election for his senate seat.

Now, if he wanted to seriously contend for the White House, perhaps one thing to do if he were to win the primary might be to consider a very populist independent. Maybe someone like Jesse Ventura, as his running mate. Now I'm not saying it has to be Ventura, as I'm sure there are some things that many of us would have to know first before supporting a ticket with someone like Ventura on it. However, I think Ventura or someone like him is one that certainly is not a big friend of the corporatists and has been pretty outspoken about that recently (maybe to make himself an "available" running mate?), and I think would help bring more independents who are also interested in shedding off our corporatist monarchy that could win.

Something to think about, but I do think the right combination with Sanders heading the ticket could win, and make some significant good changes to our system that is needed.

[Whisp]

67. Obama never was in the DLC

annoying little facts like this won't bother you much tho

[No Elephants]

That's already been more than covered on this thread.

[defendandprotect]

232. Obama made a point of distancing himself from DLC because the stench was

picking up ----

Nonetheless, Obama's corporate decisions speak for him --

trampling universal health care -- keeping these wars going in the second decade --

destroying public education, teachers, unions.

The mask is off -- it's over --



Though since Hillary was DLC I couldn't figure out why anyone would be back her? Not only was she

DLC -- she was part of DLC leadership!


On the other hand, the DLC has deep connections to the far right -- especially via Koch

Bros -- and Third Way and PNAC !!

[Dr Fate]

280. Silly Liberals are always confusing the DLC with Blue Dogs, centrists, New Dems & 3rd Wayers.

Which just goes to show that they cant see all the nuances & vast differences between all these gropus that make up the modern centrist movement.

You are right- they will just ignore these annoying facts.

[No Elephants]

284. Next up, No Labels

[onpatrol98]

416. Maybe we shouldn't have labels

People would vote their circumstances then...most aren't paying attention to who does what...they go in looking for a letter beside a name.

[sabrina 1]

386. All those groups that make up the 'Centrist' movement

have a few very important things in common. When you read all their various websites, there is little difference between them. All want to privatize SS eg or 'reform' it. They are the Democratic Versions of the Republicans' various Think Tanks and although they may differ on a few minor points, like the Republicans' orgs, basically they are all the same.

And they end up being so close to Reagan Republicans on economic issues, it's hard to tell the difference. All have similar views on Foreign policy. Deficit Hawks and War Hawks. They all give lip service to some 'liberal' issues, like Gay Rights and Womens' rights to give them the appearance of being Democrats, but really don't care much one way or the other. I know Republicans too who are for gay rights and womens' rights.

The party has been infiltrated and it's almost complete. Many people were puzzled over the behavior of so-called Democrats, but now it's all clear. They were stealthy about it and we had Bush to contend with, which they used, and then became his best friends and protectors later. I will not forget seeing Bush and Clinton together, or Hillary invited to a party given in her honor by Rupert Murdoch. None of it made sense, including Obama's choices for his cabinet, but now it does.

We knew something was wrong, but it took a while to figure it all out.

[defendandprotect]

390. +1 -- and what could be good about a DLC funded by Koch Bros. --- !!

Harbored within the party for 20 years -- !!

Also the connections all the way to PNAC -- PPI -- Third way --

Obviously this astroturf RW all the way -- all built on money to buy movements!!

Re this ....

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html

Also mentioned in an OP last week, efforts to defund the FDIC --

which would mean that next financial coup would rest completely on taxpayer bailouts

for banksters -- while all of the once "insured" deposits would be gone!

Up a few steps from S&L theft and embezzlements and Keating !!



:hi:

[progressoid]

310. If it walks like a DLC duck etc.

[Action]

106. Then it will be President Romney

Don't know if folks know the history, but when a sitting president is challenged in a primary, then that sitting president loses the national election. Think Carter. Think President Romney. You might say you don't care, but you will if Romney wins.

[No Elephants]

146. One time doesn't equal "history." And, yes, I would say most posters here either

remember or know about Kennedy's primary challenge to Carter, perhaps even learned about it on this board.

HTW, you are assuming that Kennedy's primary challenge was the reason Carter lost to Reagan. Ain't necessarily so.



"You might say you don't care, but you will if Romney wins."

I give my fellow DUers more credit than that. I think the ones who are saying that have thought it through for themselves, SCOTUS and all.

[defendandprotect]

236. +1 -- and we need less fear-based thinking and more positive thinking -- Sen. Bernie Sanders!!

[FiveGoodMen]

213. You SURE we'll be able to tell the difference?

(One difference would be: when the public became outraged at the terrible legislation and deal-making, they'd blame the pukes)

[defendandprotect]

235. Think Sen. Bernie Sanders ...

Carter lost the presidency because he was weak -- and, imo, naive --

Carter lost the presidency because he was being undermined by CIA --

Carter lost the presidency because of the hostage situation which was

manipulated by the rw -- see "Nightline/Ted Koppel" --

Carter lost the presidency because his administration even failed at getting

a rescue attempt off the ground -- do you recall the two or three helicoipters

lost in the desert? Those missions were headed up by Ollie North in command --

and Secord was second in command!!

Carter lost the election pretty much the same way that Humphrey lost to Nixon --

i.e., TREASONOUS back channel deals by the GOP contenders --

In Nixon's case making deals that would keep the peace talks in VN from going forward.

And in Reagan/Bush case, secret "October Surprise" deals with Iran to not release

the hostages until Reagan was sworn in!



Also note, that it was made clear in the brief Ted Kennedy attempt to run against

Carter that any effort to keep the PTB's candidates of out of the Oval Office will be

met with even violence when necessary --

And that may have included Chappaquiddick which prevented Ted from successfully

opposing Carter --

[swilton]

306. +++

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4946549#4947815

[swilton]

281. Well at least with a Republican in the WH

what's left of the Democratic Party will act like an opposition.

[Avalux]

161. No Dennis. n/t

[desertrat777]

An Independent and a Progressive Democrat

Sure. We could have Bernie Sanders for president and Dennis Kucinich running for vice president. Dennis Kucinich has a short stature, so best let Bernie Sanders run for the presidential position. To a progressive's point of view - and I am a progressive social Democrat - the combination has a certain appeal. A modicum of honesty and integrity and outspokenness, thank you.

Of course, the corporatists in both parties will do their best to derail this one. At this time in American politics especially, the uber rich with their multinational corporate assault weapons dominate global politics. This is part of the reason why President Obama visited the Bilderburg empire in Europe, and got their stamp of approval. In my humble opinion, President Obama has aligned himself with the corporatists, along with all of the Republican Party and perhaps half of the Democratic Party. So where does this leave a presidential primary?

I don't see any evidence that President Obama is going to become a populist any time soon. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich might be able to prompt President Obama to make more populist sounds in his reelection campaign, but then, he did plenty of that while he was running for president. We can see where all those hollow phrases, like "Change we can believe in," and "Yes we can," ended up, on the cutting room floor.

We have a tall order. We need a president who is responsive to the citizens of our great nation, to actual human beings, and this means a progressive and populist president who has the guts to stand up to the failings and predations of unregulated capitalism. As a realist, a progressive, and a social Democrat, I can't imagine that Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be able to win the primary, nor would they be able to win the election - except maybe against the ilk of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

One friend of mine hopes that there will be an intervention by wise space aliens. Good luck America, no longer home of the brave, land of the free.

[Xithras]

242. I think we'd do better with a governor.

The Rethugs are going to push the idea that Obama is inexperienced, and that he's "demonstrated" that he doesn't have the skill or experience to lead. If we're proposing candidates, it needs to be someone with leadership experience. I think we'd do better with a governor.

Someone like Chrisine Gregoire of Washington, Peter Shumlin of Vermont, or Deval Patrick of Massachussetts, or any of the other non-DINO Democrats. I'd offer up Jerry Brown, but we need him here in California too much to let him go :)

[No Elephants]

346. I'd cross Deval Patrick off that list.

Clinton D of J, then a corporate type; Axelrod ran his 2006 gubernatorial campaign; longest and most lavish inaugural in Massachusetts history; started spending big on his office (drapesgate), limo and an assistant for his wife as soon as he took office, then had to backpedal; served as Obama's 2007-08 campaign co-chair; huge no strings "incentives" to Fidelity Investments, which happily took them, then left the state, etc. Also has a Dukakis like incident re: a prisoner and some unsavory bankster connections. Some good things, too, no doubt. You can check out his wiki for the good and the not so good.

According to Daschle (piece of work), Obama said he wanted more experience before running for President. Daschle told Obama that was a mixed bag. When you served, you got a track record and something in a track record can be held against you when you run.

And, indeed, Obama even had a track record of voting "present," on tough issues, like reproductive choice, and that was held against him. However, it probably was not held against him as much as if he had voted yea or nay.

Anyway, my point is, experience cuts both ways.

And it doesn't really matter what Republicans say. They'll say bad things about any Democrat, no matter what. We just can't live by what Republicans may say. If they're wrong, enough people will see through it. If they're right, enough people will get it.


ETA: Patrick also praises Romneycare on pragmatism grounds.

And: "His two legislative battles to implement casino gambling failed: he could not win the approval of the House of Representatives in March 2008, and he vetoed a bill passed by the legislature in August 2010 for going too far."

Mind you, our legislature is about 96% Democratic, so he could not convince his own Party to go along with him.

[defendandprotect]

391. After W Bush, there are no arguments of "inexperienced" they could possibly make -- !!!

And then follow it up, perhaps, by running Palin -- ???


:rofl:


The only reason any of these rw'ers go anywhere is money --

and a lack of challenge from corporate press --

If there was any real challenge, these people would be gone in 5 minutes!!

[swilton]

308. That Sanders could NOT win

is a talking point iterated by campaign operatives supporting the status quo. These are the same crowd who want us to believe that the tea party (vice Wisconsin democrats) represent the American public and hence we need paternalistic leaders like the DLC who need to tell us to eat our peas.

At least the positions that Sanders supports are supported by the public in opinion poll after opinion poll....And I think the election of so many conservative/tea-party Republicans in the 2010 election was a reflection of the disappointment with the Democratic Party and its inertia and lack of accomplishments 2008-10 - especially with the bank bailout.

I also don't think that the American public is as stupid as they are portrayed by using the tea party (small, small minority) as an example....Playing the public as 'dumb' plays into Obama's and corporate Democrats' hands. Just look at the mobilization in Wisconsin rather than the tea party. The public is more informed than ever due to the internet and they can mobilize via the internet.

I think that Sanders would be very popular - he is getting more and more visibility in the press on news shows and he does hold his own.

The big question is will he run?

His website has opinion polls soliciting public comment - to me these polls seem to address an audience more than just his constituents in Vermont.

I also think that the issue of his not being in the Democratic Party is a red herring....I think if he were to run, the Democratic Party could be lucky to have him on their ticket and they should thank him for bailing out their asses....They will be lucky if he doesn't go to the Green Party (which by the way has its convention this week and whose convention will address a labor-green caucus) and take the 'Democratic wing' of the Democratic Party with him.

[defendandprotect]

392. Agree -- and think we need to keep asking Sen. Bernie Sanders to run -- !! PLEASE ... !!!

Actually, we need two strong anti-war candidates --

there are tons of democrats around -- I love Wm. Greider -- and

think Tom Hayden might do it ---

Do you have any suggestions -- Maybe a Green who would move to Dem Party?


Or maybe we need to begin to think more in the way of the Democratic/Socialist

Party and leave those who support DLC Koch Bros thinking behind?

[on point]

6. or Feingold. There are real meaningful choices out there who can win!

[karynnj]

83. Feingold tested the waters breifly in 2008, and found them too cold

I really like Feingold and think he was one of the consciences in the Senate. However, even if like 2008, this were an open seat, I really don't think he has any chance at all of winning. I also doubt he could or would raise the money needed for a primary run.

NO ONE serious is going to primary Obama. The fact is that the primaries are less than 6 months away.

[No Elephants]

150. Yet, Obama was 40 points behind Hillary when primary season began.

[defendandprotect]

237. Thing about Sen. Bernie Sanders is he could raise citizen $$$ .....

and he could run on a Dem ticket --

Question is, how much of the Dem Party can we trust after 20 years of Koch Bros

DLC infiltration?

[Me.]

8. I Guess The Days When Progressives Will Sit Down & STFU Are Over

[OffWithTheirHeads]

9. About fucking time!

[primavera]

94. Hear, hear! - n/t

[frylock]

10. word up

[leftynyc]

61. And I guess we're going

to have to go through another 49 state blowout in favor of the pukes for people here to understand this is not a liberal country - only 20% even label themselves as liberals. Maybe another Nader-like third party candidate because that worked out so well.

[leeroysphitz]

93. It could have been avoided but what choice is there now? n/t

[leftynyc]

215. There is a choice

you just happen not to like it. Sadly, sometimes an election comes down to "who is going to suck less". In my mind, that isn't even a contest but my issue is the Supreme Court. More Scalia's and we're done.

[defendandprotect]

240. Every time you vote for the "lesser evil" you move Dem Party and Congress furtheer to the right-!!

Vote your consicence --

And if you understand corporate/fascism and Global Warming --

we are pretty much done!!

[shellgame26]

294. Yea right

I heard enough of that crap on my college campus back in 2000..and we ended up with Bush. Hey guess what: ELECTIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!

[No Elephants]

318. And haven't we been going further and further right since at least LBJ?

(Yes, I know about the Vietnam War.)

[defendandprotect]

381. Well, we're far right since your college years, obvious ly... so who was right?

Voters had nothing to do with outcome of 2000 --

Only Jon Ellis/Fox News recall, GOP sponsored fascist rallies and Supreme Court

decided that one --

However, an actual counting of the votes by Journalists made clear that Gore won --

no matter how the votes were counted.

[Me.]

143. You Don't Have To Be A Liberal To Understand What's Right For The Country

For far too long progressives have allowed their voices to be silenced for the very argument you presented. Well how's that working out for everyone? As to only 20%, what percentage of the country is into teabaggery, you know, the ones who are ruling the roost, the ones who held the country hostage?

[Liberalynn]

176. +1

[leftynyc]

217. You don't have to

convince me that both the President and the Democrats in Congress behaved like cowards and got rolled - I agree and think the President should have used the 14th and let the courts duke it out. That would have shown strong leadership. Unfortunately, our political system is designed to only have two candidates with any real chance of winning - a Democrat and a Republican. I simply cannot throw away my vote or, even worse, not use it because I'm not happy. That's what the teabaggers want.

[Me.]

330. While We Agree On The 14th

I must point out I did not advocate voting against Obama. As the article pointed out the vote was symbolic and a way to try and get the President's attention and I do advocate that. For too ling we have been sidelined and ignored. As they say, the squeaky wheel is the one that gets oiled.

[defendandprotect]

247. This is a liberal nation ... but it benefits rw for people to believe otherwise ....

The majority of registered voters are Democrats --

that's why the GOP had to purge the rolls before the Bush election --

That's why we have computer voter since the late 1960's --


If this wasn't a liberal nation, the rw wouldn't need to destroy our free press --

We wouldn't have had 50 years of out in the open rw political violence which took

our president and our people's government in 1963 --


We wouldn't have our FDA run by Monsanto --

We wouldn't have our Congress under the control of the oil and coal industry --

as Al Gore recently related in his Rolling Stone article --


We wouldn't either have GOP trying to suppress the vote --

but all of these things and more do happen -- because it is a liberal nation!


80% of the public want an end to the wars --

76% and more -- 83% of Catholics -- want government-run health care -- MEDICARE FOR ALL.

Americans want to be Finland and Norway!! That's socialism --

Americans are waking up to the evils of capitalism, as well --

and the "theater" put on by both parties --



It's all faked -- from the fact That the GOP financed the start up of the Christian Coalition

Richard Scaife financed Dobson's group - other rw wealthy financed Bauer's org.


GOP/"pro-lifers" -- financed by white Christian militia groups

GOP/NRA -- they radicalized the NRA to not only target liberals and moderates in the

Democratic Party, but also liberals and moderates in their own party to move the Congress

to the right.

GOP/T-baggers -- another Koch Bros invention to move party and political arena to the right --




PATRIARCHY -- and its underpinning =

ORGANIZED PATRIARCHAL RELIGION --and its economic invention =

CAPITALISM =

THE UNHOLY TRINITY

[No Elephants]

152. Please se Replies 35 and 82.

[defendandprotect]

239. That's nonsense -- this is a liberal nation ... that's why GOP has to gimmick everything ...

and have total control over our press --

Do you think Koch Bros. had to fund the DLC to infiltrate the party because

it was rw? And that Dem voters were rw? ROFL


Do you think they have likely burned down the Wisconsin Recall HQ because

Wisconsin is rw?


Do you think they've been stealing elections by computer since the late 1960's

because the nation is rw?


Do you think Obama may be a one term president because the nation is rw?

Do you think Koch Bros has funded the T-baggers and runs them out of a PR firm

because this is a rw nation?


Every iota of truth is a threat to the GOP house of cards -- every tool they

have has been created by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of the rw elites.


Do you think that when Al Gore tells you in Rolling Stone recent article that

our Congress is under control of Oil and Coal industry that that happened because

this is a rw nation?

Did corporations have to buy $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ our govenrment because this is a

rw nation?

Have we had more than 50 years of rw political violence out in the open because

this is a rw nation?



ROFL

[bbgrunt]

312. hear here! Think about what Defend is saying. Why is

all the malfeasance by the right-wing? Even when the curtain is pulled back there are many who refuse to comprehend and believe their own eyes. This is total class war and right now we are losing badly.

[defendandprotect]

383. It is important for the RW to make Americans think this is a RW nation ... that's why

they spend so much money to try to engineer that move to the right --

and catapult so much propaganda to confuse the public --


And, as you can see, those who believe it's true are depressed by it and made

to feel hopeless.


:hi:

[onpatrol98]

417. If all the malfeasance is by the right wing...

Why are we trying to primary President Obama?

[sabrina 1]

414. Labels mean nothing, people get pushed into these 'left' 'right'

boxes by political entities in order to control the electorate. But when only issues are in question, this definitely IS a liberal country, overwhelmingly. Which is why an Independent, without the party label so trashed by the far right, could generate a lot of interest, IF he had enough money. That would be the main problem. Not to mention the real rulers of the country, the huge money interests who apparently control our elections and decide who gets to even run for office.

[PADemD]

108. Yes!

[Pooka Fey]

269. I sure fucking hope so.

[rury]

12. HELL. NO.

Or rather HELL! NO!

[leeroysphitz]

86. Says YOU. n/t

[SoapBox]

13. Bill Maher on The Ed Show tonight said it all...

Here's hoping that HISSYSPIT will post that.

He let Obama have it.

[classysassy]

15. " I am only following orders"

of the money men that put me in office.Mr President as a person of color you are a huge disappointment.

[saorsa]

18. What it means to see people get up off of their knees

no matter how shaky or sad or scared they are, that they have to face the fear and anger of their own friends, it's a very good sight to see.

[quaker bill]

47. Welcome aboard

However, being a "progressive" in California is not a very risky position.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. If you were to learn the history, you would know how to be like

CA. The fact is, taking a stand is always risky. Would you tell Harvey Milk or George Moscone how easy it is to be progressive in CA? Jackie Spiere, D-CA has a bullet in her from her work. And Florida says 'it is easy for them, we could never'.
Noted.

[defendandprotect]

249. Thank you Bluenorthwest -- and a good reminder that rw political violence is always with us -- !!

Was watching a very old movie the other day --

"Johnny Belinda" -- perhaps you've seen it --

but there's a character in it played by Stephen McNally

who very much is emblematic for me of the rw mentality --


It's the old story -- we've never learned how to deal with the violence

of the few among us --



:hi:

[quaker bill]

327. Be serious now

running a primary challenge to Obama in CA would be applauded by the right. The only thing you could do to make them happier is run a third party in the GE. Comparing this to Harvey Milk is an insult to his legacy.

[No Elephants]

339. Not Blue Northwest's point at all.

[No Elephants]

165. What's your point? That a poster has to move to a red state to earn the

right to make the post saorsa made? For that matter, what is so brave about any of us posting anonymously about anything?

And what a way to "welcome" a new DUer.

[defendandprotect]

250. K/R -- Thank you! ... Imo, too much fear-based posting goes on at DU ... !!

:hi:

and welcome!!


:)

[Tiggeroshii]

19. I would really like to see Kamala Harris run, personally...

But I mean, I think it will just take one person to completely step into the fold who hasn't already kind of done so to get a sort of domino effect like the whole 1968 thing.

[tblue]

22. Really? What do we know about her?

Not being snarky, I'm just wary of making assumptions. I have not studied up on her yet, though I did vote for her.

[Tiggeroshii]

227. She's the first major candidate I know of who is openly against the death penalty...

She had a case when she was DA of San Francisco where there was tremendous pressure for her to pursue the death penalty, and she refused. She's been a major help at solving the recidivism rate in San Francisco with her Back to Work program that cut their recidivism rate substantially. Here's her wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us

[defendandprotect]

254. Don't know her ....

but well recall ....

Former State Rep. Shelia James Kuehl -- one of my favorites -- "Zelda" --

Sheila Kuehl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biography|Politics|References|External linksAs a young actress with the stage name Sheila James, she played Jackie, Stuart Erwin 's ... 1960s TV show The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. The running gag was Zelda's ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Kuehl - Cached


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0473861/bio


Glad to see she's still around and active --

[SteveM]

298. Rabid and activist gun-banner; lotta luggage on that issue. nt

[RickFromMN]

20. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We haven't been squeaking. The Tea Party has.

The Tea Party was willing to bring the country to a standstill, and still is.
The Tea Party wheel is stuck; it needs lots of grease.

I say this sarcastically. I don't know how to do the sarcastic emote.

Seriously, if we want President Obama to hear us, I'm afraid we have to get his attention.

When he tells us to be good little children and be quiet and behave, what should we do?
We need to get President Obama's attention like the Tea Party does. We need to squeak.

I honestly don't know how far we have to go when we squeak.
Will we have to threaten the country like the Tea Party does to get President Obama's attention?

I haven't decided if President Obama is a conservative democrat getting what he wants,
or a real Democrat afraid to fight for us because he thinks we are afraid to fight.

In either case being quiet isn't working. We have to do something else. We have to squeak.

A primary challenge will fail. President Obama will still be our Democratic nominee.
I will still vote for President Obama in the general election.

A primary challenge will send President Obama a message showing how upset we are.
A primary challenge will show how much support (or how little support) we have.

Of course there are downsides to a primary challenge.
President Obama may lose the general election because of the primary challenge.
Money will be siphoned off fighting the primary challenge that could fight Republicans.

If we are lucky a primary challenge will help us learn what President Obama stands for.

When I voted for President Obama in the 2008 primary and general election,
I thought I knew what President Obama stood for. Now, I don't know.

I need to know what President Obama stands for. I need to know what principles he has.
I need to know there are things he will not compromise away. At this moment I am uncertain.
I can't think of anything he won't compromise away.

Is Social Security a core principle? Is Medicare a core principle?
Is Medicaid a core principle?

Reading DU, I come away with the impression President Obama put Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid on the table. How can he do this if these are core principles?

In 2008, I thought a single payer health system was one of President Obama's core principles.
Foolish me. We didn't even get a public option. To be fair to President Obama,
I don't know what fighting he did behind the scenes.

I have the following impression of President Obama. He makes great speeches.
He is a behind the scenes kind of guy, preferring to do things out of sight.
He doesn't like to fight. He doesn't like to use the bully pulpit.
He doesn't like to make the opposition pay when the opposition doesn't play nice.

He strives for compromise. He thinks the Republicans will play fair and compromise.
He doesn't seem to get it. The Republicans want him to fail. They don't want to compromise.
Why should the Republicans compromise when they can get 98% of what they want?
They've come to expect he will capitulate.

When I ask myself what core principles President Obama has,
I feel like Sergeant Shultz of "Hogan's Heroes", and want to say, "I know nothing!"

[No Elephants]

33. The Tea Party has been decades in the minds of the Koch brothers and their billions

have funded it.

I can't afford to hire Dick Armey to start a fake grass roots movement.

Besides, the Tea Party wants to eat the Republican Party, just like the DLC (also a recipient of Koch money) has eaten the Democratic Party. We are the unfunded eaten in this scenario, not the well-funded eaters. And we have no Fox News or other corporate, establishment media to help us the way they help the Tea Party and center right Democrats. (Hell, look what the media did to Dean when he ran against Kerry, the DLC-approved candidate). And now the DNC and the DLC are one, almost.

To this day, few Democrats who don't post on political message boards ever even heard of the DLC. They have no clue what happened to their Party and are still loyal to it, though maybe some may be confused.

If we had a level playing field, we'd do fine. But we don't.

[karynnj]

100. The DLC approved candidate in 2004 was Leiberman

You forget that in the second half of 2003, the big DLC money people were NOT working for Kerry, who loaned his own campaign money to stay in the race. You ignore that before Iowa, Dean had far more superdelegate support and Al Gore's endorsement. (Clark was seen to have Clinton's endorsement.)

As to the media, the ONLY press Kerry got in fall 2003 was speculation of when he would quit the race. As to Dean, in August 2003, he was simultaneously on the cover of three news magazines. Dean had far more media support than Kerry did. In fact, the only magazine that I saw with Kerry on the front in that critical time frame was that there was a December cover of The Atlantic, which contained an excerpt of Tour of Duty. I like the Atlantic, but it is not among the highest circulation magazines and that article really did not cover anything past 1969. Kerry won Iowa through retail politics. Face to Face he was convincing. Pre Iowa, it is silly to say that Dean was in any way disadvantaged by not having a level playing field - he had more establishment endorsements, more people in the media advocating for him, and he had far more money - having raised $40 million in the last quarter of 2003.

He lost because he and Gephardt exchanged nasty, ugly commercials targeting each other - and Dean had Trippi leading his campaign. The odd thing is that the thing that the Dean campaign is most remembered for may have been a mixed blessing. He genuinely did have a stronger internet "campaign" than anyone else. This, of course, raised huge amounts of money and gained him many impassioned supporters, but I think that Trippi (and the media) may have gotten so intoxicated by this new, interesting phenomenon, that less energy and thought was given to the local, Iowa grassroots organization.

I often wondered in 2004, if the soft spoken, moderate Governor of VT, who had progressive opponents in elections, might have connected better with Iowans than the image of the dynamic, angry, iconoclastic Dean that was pushed by some of his supporters in 2003.

[Recursion]

122. The netroots also could ignore how conservative Dean actually is

Dean is against gun control, for charter schools, was against marriage equality until very recently, pro tax-cut-led "growth", etc.

[karynnj]

137. I think marriage equality is unfair on that list

This is an issue where the country moved enormously in the last 20 years. When Dean was Governor, there was no state that was had gay marriage. The Vermont legislature was responsible for VT getting civil unions, but Dean did sign it into law. He also was a force for acceptance of that when he said on Meet the Press in 2003, that he signed it because he could not look himself in the face in the mirror if he didn't - that it was the right thing to do.

There was no way - in either 2004 or likely, 2008 - that someone openly for gay marriage could win the general election - it might actually have hurt in the primaries. (Acceptance is more correlated to age than political ideology.) Both Dean and Kerry took positions that were beyond the position of any prior viable candidate.

Dean is a very interesting man and it is sad that at various points, he became defined by what his supporters wanted him to be rather than the more complex man he is.

[Recursion]

140. That's a fair point about marriage equality

But I do think the amount of projection by his supporters was astounding, and there would have been hell to pay (of the type we're seeing now) if his campaign hadn't fizzled out.

[SteveM]

302. Sorry, being "against gun control" is pretty liberal to me....

Gun-control is almost a card-carrying requirement to be a 3rd Way/No Label/DLC Dem.

BTW, William Bennett was allegedly the author of the original AWB.

[Recursion]

313. I'm not particularly a fan of gun control either

But a large segment of the left is.

[SteveM]

338. I don't know about that, but I've always found those folks strange...

If they think the Far Right is so dangerous, so irresponsible, so repressive and authoritarian, why in the hell are they for gun-control? At some point they have to put down the remote and let reality sink in.

[No Elephants]

155. The DLC endorsed Kerry.

" You ignore that before Iowa, Dean had far more superdelegate support and Al Gore's endorsement. (Clark was seen to have Clinton's endorsement.)

My post said "DLC," not Gore, not Clinton and not superdelegates. So who else supported Dean and who Clinton supported were not at all relevant to my post.

I was 100% behind Kerry in 2004 and had yet to hear of the DLC. However, when I saw Dean's "yelp" on every news and talk show for days, with hosts making faces as though Dean were nuts--I was taken aback. I knew Dean was a goner then.

And I would wager that, like me, more people noticed and remembered that yelp on a loop and people on tv acting as though Dean were a lunatic than remember his ad about Gephardt (which I never saw or heard of until your post).

"Senator John Kerry won the Democratic primary and chose primary contender Senator John Edwards as his running mate. Both Senators are members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, and the DLC anticipated that they would win the general election. In a March 3, 2004 dispatch, they suggested voters would appreciate Kerry's centrist viewpoints, imagining voters to say "If this is a waffle, bring on the syrup."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250872

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252914

This source even says Kerry was a founding member of the DLC, but I have not seen that before and believe the source may be mistaken, but I do not know for certain, one way or the other. http://www.orlandoreport.com/profiles/john_kerry_voting_record.htm

[defendandprotect]

257. Interesting ....

good reminders --

As I recall it, when primaries began, Kerry was bottom of the barrel at 3% --


Money is the enemy of democracy and we had best wake up to it!!

Our Founders feared the power of capital -- and they were right --

they also seem to have been a bit schizophrenic!! :evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

304. Please see Reply 155 and the links I gave in that post.

Joe Lieberman was a founding member of the DLC. That is different from the DLC endorsing him. I googled "Democratic Leadership endorsed Kerry" and came up with hits immediately.

After reading karynnj's post, I did the same with Lieberman's name and found nothing relevant. However, the point of my original post on the subject (Reply 33) was that the DLC favored Kerry over Dean and that is indisputably so.

[TheCowsCameHome]

64. Sometimes if it squeaks too much it gets replaced,

[Dr Fate]

276. With Independents, swing voters & moderates! Just like 2010!

!!!!111

[left on green only]

379. The Key To Understanding The Real Motive Behind Any Politician

comes from watching them kiss babies. :sarcasm: And who among them has an ego so small that it cannot be bought with the lure of their winning an election? Please forgive my pessimism, but whoever up thread said that every election is a choice between the lesser of two evils knows exactly of what they speak.

edit to correct use of grammar.

[EFerrari]

21. K&R

[Kalidurga]

23. We need to draft Al Gore.

yes, I posted that on another thread so you are not seeing things. But, think about it. I believe Al is about the only one that could put up a serious challenge.

[EFerrari]

24. Al Gore is too comfortable with the right wing of this party. No, thanks.

[No Elephants]

34. Al Gore, the guy who was DLC founding member's VP

Gore, who approved of Clinton's welfare "reform," NAFTA, etc.?

Gore, the DLC choice to follow Clinton?

Gore, who chose LIEbeerman, another DLC founding member,as his own Vice President? LIEberman, who went on to campaign for McCain-Palin after Democrats wisely refused him their primary votes? And stood firmly against the public opti

Gore, the guy who rolled his eyes arrogantly thoughout a televissed Presidential debate, like a teenage whose mom just told him he had to wear a sweater under his tux to the junior prom, thereby accomplishing the near impossible feat of making Dummya look like the adult on the stage?

Gore, the guy who conceded prematurely to Dummya in Florida despite the protests of his own campaign staffers that something was wrong, then was prodded into retracting his concession?

That Al Gore?

Sure, he, too, has a Nobel prize now, and an academy award; and, these days, he may be to the left of Obama these days, but geez.

[Erose999]

54. And he ran with Joe Liebermann as his running mate. Joe fucking Liebermann.

You said that already but it bears repeating.

[Samantha]

62. He did help found the DLC but not for the purpose it ended up serving

You left that part out. Additionally, he publicly separately himself from this organization, which came right out and said it had a lot of influence about who the Democrats would run in 2004, and it specifically ruled out Al Gore. You left that part out as well.

Sam

[No Elephants]

164. I did not leave out anything. You totally misread my post.

I said Gore was the VP of a DLC founding member (meaning Clinton's VP).

Read my post again. I mever accused Gore of being a founding member of the DLC, or even any kind of member of the DLC.

[Samantha]

194. I did misread the title but Gore did help co-found the

DLC. He, meaning Gore, stood right by Al Fromm, literally and physically, while he, Fromm, announced the formation of this organization. I do not think Clinton at that point belonged to it, although he later was celebrated as the first person from the DLC organization to win the White House.

And it was the Clintons who highly recommended Lieberman to Gore to be on the ticket with him. The Clintons and the Liebermans are longstanding friends -- Gore and Lieberman, not so much. Gore had about three others he was contemplating on his short list, I know one was Kerry, I think but will not say for sure one was Edwards and that is all I can remember except he added Lieberman because Clinton said he could help carry Florida and win the Jewish vote. The others on the list one by one were removed for reasons Gore uncovered at looking at their history, and that only left Lieberman.

In re-reading your post to see what I misunderstood, I do think your whole tone about Gore is condescending. I watched that debate with Bush and I did not understand how Gore could hold on to the absolute disdain he must have felt at some of Bush* absolutely ridiculous responses to the questions. The fact Gore sighed in my view showed a lot of restraint. All the academics who watched the debate declared Gore the winner, it was just the pundits rooting for the colorful Bush* who said he won. There was no question in my mind who had turned in the legitimate performance.

And as far as Gore conceding prematurely, that too is a little unfair. Almost no one on his campaign realized there was a stipulation in the Florida State Constitution that when an election was held, if a margin of half-percent or less was found, a recount would automatically take place. That was discovered at the last moment as final adjustments were made in the count and final tallies achieved. Gore was a victim of circumstance here as that election unexpectedly literally turned out to be too close to call.

I think Al Gore has done incredibly wonderful things for this Country during his lifetime of service, including being the only Congressman who took an interest in taking over the so-called then ARPANET, the precursor to today's Internet, when the Intelligence Communities decided it was no longer needed due to the end of the Cold War and decided to dispose of it. Gore knew the ARPANET could be given to the people and wrote the legislation to effectuate that. No one else in Congress had even any vision much less interest in that potential. You can thank Al Gore for the evolution of this tool that you and I are using today to argue over his reputation.

Okay, I will admit I am very protective of Al Gore's reputation - I have followed the man for years, but I usually can't resist responding to anyone who starts to talk in a demeaning way about him.

Sam

[No Elephants]

223. Now you're bragging that he helped found the DLC and you criticized me

for not saying he had disassociated himself from it?

Regardless of who recommended Lieberman, Gore had the final say.

"except he added Lieberman because Clinton said he could help carry Florida and win the Jewish vote" Not a plus for Gore, in my book, that he chose Lieberman for that reason.

"I watched that debate with Bush and I did not understand how Gore could hold on to the absolute disdain he must have felt at some of Bush* absolutely ridiculous responses to the questions"

Because a President should not be rolling his eyes and sighing whenever he hears something he does not like, especially when he is trying to win people over. Adults do not do that and a President has to be an adult, no matter what he is hearing. He has to meet with heads of other states who are dumb, sadistic, undemocratic and everything else, yet maintain his dignity, no matter what they are saying.

Somehow, Kerry managed to debate the same fool without mugging for the camera. Kerry had his own issues in debating, but he looked like an adult. Gore didn't.

As for his conceding prematurely, he definitely did. History certainly proved that. There was nothing to be lost by waiting. There was a lot to be lost by conceding too soon. He chose wrong.

" I do think your whole tone about Gore is condescending."

I thought suggesting that Gore challenge Obama was a bad idea. Gore wasn't volunteering, nor do I expect him to be reading my DU posts. So if that tone of my post was condescending, that had absolutely nothing to do with Gore.

Was I critical of Gore's performance as a Presidential candidate? Yes. So? Did I condescend to Gore? No.

"I think Al Gore has done incredibly wonderful things for this Country during his lifetime of service,"

I do as well. That, however, is an entirely different issue from whether I think his primarying Obama would be a good idea.

[Enthusiast]

40. No way!

Al Gore is a blue dog.

[Miss_Underestimated]

369. he already conceded a stolen election

[cstanleytech]

27. Does anyone here though really think that a more liberal candidate would win

an election at this moment and beat a moderate republican? I personally have alot of doubt that such a candidate could win right now, maybe if the republican candidate was one of the more wackier ones like palin but even then its a toss up.

[EFerrari]

29. Do you think they can find a moderate republican to run?

lol

[No Elephants]

36. A moderate Republican would get mashed in the prmary, anyway. That's why McCain had

to do a 180 on every single position of his and roll in televangelists like Parsley and Hagee when he ran for President. Also had to twist himself into an even bigger pretzel to win his most recent Senate primary.

[EFerrari]

41. That was so ugly. And shows how steep the radicalization grade

has been for the Republicans. It was a long time coming, but the brakes are shot now.

[No Elephants]

169. Both sets of brakes are looking ragged to me these days.

[cstanleytech]

44. Find one? Yes

Will they be able to pull their more extremists members together in order to nominate and support one? no idea.

[No Elephants]

35. First, remind us which moderate Republican is in the running so far?

And please don't say Mitt the Mighty Chameleon.


Second, if labels are not used, the U.S. polls very favorably to liberal ideology. Medicare for all, public option, increasing taxes on the wealthy, all polled very well, until Republicans attacked them and Democrats backed away from them. Increasing taxes still polls well. And by well, I mean around 70%, no skinny margins, as we've been seeing in Presidential elections.

Cutting Medicare and Social Security, on the other hand, polls very badly. Which is why Boehner backed off it, even though Obama did not.

So, yes, I really think that a populist Democrat could win--and handily--as long as scentrists did not attack--and sic establishment media on him or her-- before Republicans did.

[cstanleytech]

43. Reread please, I asked if they "would" win, not if they could.

I "could" in theory hit the powerball, I personally have better odds probably of getting struck by lightening or being killed by a meteor with my luck than winning it.
So assuming the republicans can find a moderate who can grab the conservative democrats and the independents do you honestly think a real liberal would win? I dont, the last one who I would consider liberal and won was FDR so historically liberals winning the presidency sadly doesnt seem to happen to often.

[daleanime]

101. Why should republicans find a moderate?

as long as democrats are willing to do it for them.:banghead:

[cstanleytech]

145. Assuming your refering to obama that argument fails

as they have actively been going after him and still are for that matter unless you believe they are acting and frankly I dont credit them with that much skill or intelligence in pulling such a thing off for so long.

[No Elephants]

168. Kabuki. Washington, D.C. is made of it.

Republicans go against Democrats, no matter what. "They won't take yes for an answer," remember?

[daleanime]

188. Of course they would go after him....

that's kind of my point, if we drive on the right side of the road, they will drive in the right gutter. Who cares what shape the car(our nation) is afterward. If we drive on the left side and win(and we would-poll after poll shows american voters agree with us on the issues), then repug's would have to get back on the road. But as long as we crownding them in the right lanc, they have no reason to.:shrug:

[No Elephants]

166. Why a purely hypothetical question about whether a liberal could beat a

mon-existent Republican moderate, then?

Besides, that part of my post "Remind us") was sarcastic.

As far as the Presidency, I'd be happy with any Dem from FDR through Carter; i.e., a Dem who is not DLC, New Democrat, Third Way, No Labels or "DLCish."

Apparently, some here think that kind of Dem is a liberal. I personally call them populist or classic Dems, but I don't think labels matter.

In any event, my Reply 35, to which you replied, already stated my position on the electablity of liberals. Please see also Reply 82.

[bowens43]

45. Maybe not but a competent one may. nt

[jeff47]

56. They don't have to win.

The idea is to threaten Obama on his left flank. Right now, he's assuming "the left" will grudgingly vote for him no matter what, so he's free to head rightward on everything. A primary challenger changes that dynamic even when they lose the primary.

[dana_b]

109. bingo!!

we just want Obama to live up to what we know he is capable of.

[pscot]

121. What we're getting now is what he's capable of

I can't take four more years of this crap.

[cstanleytech]

148. I do wish you luck in finding a candidate like you want who can win the nomination

as well as win enough electoral votes but dont get your hopes up on getting all of that as those types of candidates are few and far between.

[No Elephants]

173. Yeah, coming up with someone like Dummya is a once in a lifetime.

[cstanleytech]

255. Thats assuming if you believe he really won the first election

which is still questionable imo.

[No Elephants]

305. He came close enough. But your comment only brings us to the issue

of why a Democratic Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 did nothing about the allegations of stolen elections in both 2000 and 2004. Hearings, yes, but no new legislation, stiffer penalties, etc.

Why?

And why did Republicans NOT steal the 2008 election, too, then?

[cstanleytech]

329. They probably needed something more solid from which to act not to mention

the economy was and still is pretty terrible so they probably felt (wrongly imo) that it wasnt a good time to do anything about it even if they wanted to.

As for why shouldnt they steal it in 2008 I can well picture some scenarios for not doing so for example they may have decided to let the dems win because it gave them the ability to dishonestly shift the blame for the dems for things like the bank and auto bailouts.

Bedsides, why risk rigging the elections when they had to have known the census would soon be weakening the dems in their strongholds in the north and strengthening the republicans in their strongholds in the south and midwest as if they control a house the presidents almost powerless as they showed us recently by their stupid stunts in congress over raising the debt limit.

[No Elephants]

172. And send a message to the Party as a whole. That is a much bigger issue than Obama.

[daleanime]

192. I'm not so sure they would lose....

O8)

[defendandprotect]

393. Obama ignored the message of 2010 -- and has consistently ignored "will of the people" --

I think that tells us that this isn't any normal situation of politics --

this is about corporate money and the power of elites --

[grahamhgreen]

180. Yes. Obama has lost already, look at this post!

[Dappleganger]

317. At least I'd be able to look at myself in the mirror each day

and know that I was fighting for ALL Americans without selling my soul to the right-wing DLC/Third Way sellouts.

[No Elephants]

37. I love the SF article: "Now, this is largely symbolic....." LOL!

Yeah, an attempt to primary a sitting President after Carter-Kennedy is just an adorable maneuver. Nothing to see here.

Lord, I hate media.

[Divine Discontent]

38. a symbolic choice (and who knows what happens) would be Feingold, since he was a highly respected

Senator. There are other choices if this occurs. The president will easily win, however, I agree with many progressives who believe he isn't being as supportive on the issues (as a whole) as he really should be.

[defendandprotect]

394. It has to be someone STRONGLY disagreeing with Obama and the Third way Dems ...Koch Dems ...

saying that out loud and fighting the party was it exists today!

[blkmusclmachine]

42. .

"Our destruction will be from another quarter: from the inattention of the People to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing."

Enemy Within The Gates, TCS

[on point]

46. There is a moderate republican running already. His name is Obama...

[Kolesar]

49. (Your vote: -1)

[Ganja Ninja]

51. I couldn't have said it better. n/t

[defendandprotect]

395. Since it was Obama -- not the GOP -- who put SS and Medicare on the table....

think that qualifies him as more of a rw Repug --

fortunately -- as someone else here put it -- the Repugs were more interested

in keeping the tax cuts than grabbing Obama's SS/Medicare offering --

and killing the poor!!

[SomeGuyInEagan]

435. I used to tell people that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of my lifetime ...

... but now Obama is working hard to take that title. Such a disappointment to me.

[TNLib]

50. Here's my list

Barbra Boxer
Tom Harkin
Bernie Sanders
Dennis Kucinch
Conyers
Russ Feingold


There are allot of good democrats out there I'm sure we can find a liberal to run against our Conservative President.

[valerief]

58. Conyers is the only without a first name?

:rofl:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. He's the Cher of Democrats.

[valerief]

77. Good one! nt

[defendandprotect]

396. No good on Harkin ---

[Le Taz Hot]

55. Sounds good

and I would like to jump on the excitement bandwagon but this is just a caucus resolution that they're not even going to bring to the full CDP Exec. Committee. This is symbolic. The Party Bosses would never allow a real challenge. Shows you that the Democrats love Democracy about as much as the cheating Republicans do.

[ProSense]

60. So

Now, this is largely symbolic, but it's heavy nonetheless. They're ticked that Obama hasn't ditched the Bush tax cuts, has continued drone attacks overseas, and hasn't ended the foreclosure crisis, among other sins listed below. The straw that broke their collective caucus backs, Caucus chair Karen Bernal told us Wednesday, was Obama's -- as the resolution put it -- "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets."

<...>

Bernal doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution. It was meant more as a statement of conscience than a desire to back a rival to Obama, she said. "Is there a sense of desperation in this?" Bernal said. "I would have to say yes."

The caucus, according to a spokesman, hopes that "Obama would rework his priorities to respond to the needs of working class Americans in order to get progressive support in 2012."

California Democratic Party chair John Burton --- who supported Kennedy versus Carter in 1980 -- told us that he doesn't agree with this resolution.

<...>

...they're making a symbolic gesture about a primary because Obama "hasn't ditched the Bush tax cuts" and something that hasn't happened: "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets." ?

Are they going to primary all the Democrats who supported last year's deal, which extended unemployment benefits, the EITC, Medicaid funding and more?

Absurd!

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Results: CA Primay 2008:

Hillary Rodham Clinton : 2,608,184 votes ,51.5% 204 delegates
Barack Obama: 2,186,662 votes 43.2% 166 delegates

And that was back when there was change we could believe in. So if I were you, I'd start working harder. That 08 loss sure was not absurd, it was a major loss of the most populous State in the Nation.
Oh, and congratulations, I see NJ Senators voted 'NO' on the budget rip off. So did my Mr Merkely. Well done New Jersey, well done!

[ProSense]

89. Hmmm?

" Hillary Rodham Clinton : 2,608,184 votes ,51.5% 204 delegates
Barack Obama: 2,186,662 votes 43.2% 166 delegates"

So you're saying they're mad Hillary didn't win?

:rofl:


"Oh, and congratulations, I see NJ Senators voted 'NO' on the budget rip off. So did my Mr Merkely. Well done New Jersey, well done! "

Your Senator Wyden voted for it!

Will you be supporting a primary?

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Wyden's 'primary' would be 6 years out. So we will see.

And no, although your emoticon is cute and highly intellectual, my point is that Obama lost CA last time. To a candidate that did not take the nation. When he was all shiny and new. To anyone with eyes, this indicates that a strong candidate could challenge him well in CA, as he was never the first choice of the Democrats of our most populous state.
It is not about Hillary, dear, it is about Barack, who lost CA. He lost. One could say she won, but today, what is important to note is that he lost to an eventual loser. This means they were never all that crazy about Obama. Many CA voters I know are unhappy as hell. CA is in trouble, and they are a cranky and difficult people.
So bon chance to any Democrats who run there, for this or any other office!

[ProSense]

98. Hmmmm?

"It is not about Hillary, dear, it is about Barack, who lost CA. He lost. One could say she won, but today, what is important to note is that he lost to an eventual loser. This means they were never all that crazy about Obama."

You cited this:

Hillary Rodham Clinton : 2,608,184 votes ,51.5% 204 delegates
Barack Obama: 2,186,662 votes 43.2% 166 delegates

General election: Barack Obama, 7,441,458

DLC leader Hillary may have won the primary, but Obama won the general, with an additional 2.7 million people voting.

"Wyden's 'primary' would be 6 years out. So we will see."

Is that a maybe?

[Bluenorthwest]

102. An actual supporter of the President would take this news for

what it is. Democrats in a very large State, which the candidate failed to win last time are hoping to find a challenger. Forget the personalities. No matter who the players, the facts are 'lost the State last time, the State is not content this time, looking for a challenge'. Now, if that State had been one of the big Obama wins, the Primary results would suggest the opposite. But it was a loss for him. A win for someone else, in this case, Hillary. Whom I did not support in Primary by the way.
The point is that CA is not a stronghold, and it has many delegates. This news indicates work to be done by the President and his supporters as well as the possibility of some action in a Primary.
I'm sure the President's political people are not seeing this in terms of DU nor in terms of Hillary Clinton, who after all, works for Obama now. I'm sure they'd rather have this group of voters announcing their strong support for the re-election of Obama.
We will see means just that. Do you need a dictionary? They are online, easy to find. 6 long years, we shall see. Ron is doing some other very good stuff. So we will see how it goes. I'm never certain half a decade out. In politics, a month is an eternity. Ron is a very good man, although Merkely is closer to my views on more issues, Wyden also does good work. That others refuse to do. So we will see. That's how it works. For those of us who think. I'd vote for him today, if the election was today. It is not today. So we will see.

[ProSense]

110. Hmmmm?

"An actual supporter of the President would take this news for what it is."

Here's the news:

"Bernal doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution...California Democratic Party chair John Burton --- who supported Kennedy versus Carter in 1980 -- told us that he doesn't agree with this resolution."

[Bluenorthwest]

112. And here, just for you, I am posting the Primary numbers from

my State of residence at this time and in 08, Oregon. Obama won here big.
Barack Obama 58.52%
Hillary Clinton 40.50%
That's what we did here. Just for some perspective. And I will also point out to you, because we have had many exchanges here, that CA election results in that cycle included Prop 8 passing, so of course I am not in support of how they have been voting there. The facts remain. Just as Obama lost there, that State, the State of the bulk of my life, voted to strip my people of rights. I sure did not like that, but it is still a fact of the electorate there. CA has things going on that do not please you, nor do they please me. Think about it rather than just being snappy.
The theory in CA is that Prop 8 would not pass again. I am not sure about that. The buzz I get from CA is hugely discontented with the administration thus far. I am not sure how that will play out either. In the general, Obama beat McPalin, thankfully, but they also passed Prop 8. CA results are not universally pleasing to many Democratic voters. CA results are crazed at times.
Last Primary, for example, CA pushed theirs to go early, because they were sure that as a large State, they were being less influential by voting late. Many in CA felt Obama would have won a later Primary. I tend to agree. But this was the first Primary for which I lived outside CA, so I noted that my voter friends there spend months wanting the election to be over. I had CA friends demanding I make a choice, when I was still months from our Primary. They were annoyed at having voted early. So this time, they are voting later again. That is CA election politics in a nutshell. It is a shell with a nut inside.
CA has very complex issues going on, and it will be a State to be seen to by the candidate Obama, that is for sure. How they see to it might really matter. CA is fickle. Fickle.
One CA voters story for you. Years back, the Sec of State sent out notices that they were considering the use of electronic voting machines, they wanted feed back, and there were sessions to try the machines and give an opinion. E-Voting is so easy to rig that I called every Democrat I knew and asked them to attend one of these sessions, they were in each precinct. Not one showed to a session. The one who virtually told me off when I asked him to attend-you don't understand how busy we are, adults do not have time for politics- wound up years later being an activist against Electronic voting. Started a website, no less. One day he asks me why I have not joined his group against the machines. I reminded him that he'd nearly called me a jerk for caring about the machines before they were every used. I pointed out that he told me adults do not care about E Voting Machines. It did not please him, but he did remember. I asked that he simply cease preaching at me about those machines, because it was me who told him about them, and he said 'I'm too busy and wonderful to care'. That is how politics go in CA. One year, 'who cares about voting machines, I have a career' then next 'how dare you think about anything but voting machines'.
How they voted last time is nearly meaningless. Because they are CA, and they are fickle and they are very discontent right now, with everything.
Obama policy is to the right of CA. On many things. It will be very interesting to hear him answer the voters there, that is for sure.
But to reduce the state of things to snark when there are observable facts to make use of serves no one whom either of us care to see served.

[defendandprotect]

397. And HRC is also Koch Bros DLC -- and part of their leadership ... but

wanted to comment on Sen. Menendez and Sen. Lautenberg -- was happy to see that!

think Menendez was DLC at some point -- maybe still is?

Lautenberg is aging --

What knocks me out about NJ which I never understand is that every time we put a Dem in

the Governorship, up will come this idiotic campaign/slander whatever to knock them out

and Oops! suddenly another Repug Gov -- this time the norotious and outrageous Christie!!

Can't really believe that NJ voters are into this much self-punishment!



Meanwhile, they keep electing Dems at every other level -- except here in my town it's

always Repugs -- don't understand that either. They suck -- more and more shops in town

closed as RE is grabbed up -- and small businesses are forced out.


hmmm..... ugh!

[MBS]

63. DON'T do this.

A divided democratic party always loses. Some recent outcomes of internal party fights: Nixon, 1968. Nixon, 1972. Reagan, 1980.
It's a far-right republican president that is the "price that's too high to pay."

[No Elephants]

174. Please see Reply #3. Looks as though some DUers will risk a primary.

"A divided democratic party always loses"

Not really. The Democratic Party is always divided. .

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Will Rogerd.

[jeff47]

238. If we get Republican policies anyway, what's the difference? (nt)

[Mathias Kohler]

66. Elizabeth Warren / Hillary Clinton nt

[defendandprotect]

398. HRC is part of Koch Bros. DLC leadership .... !!!

Is that really what you want?

[AllyCat]

70. God, someone has to do something to get a REAL Dem in the Oval Office

[dennis4868]

113. I agree...

we need a dem who can get all of this stuff done www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com ummm...oh yeah, it already got done! It's funny, I met with a family last night who's baby up until 2009 could not get health insurance (the baby has major health issues) and one of the first things Obama did as president is expand health coverage for children (this was pre affordable care act) and now the baby has health insurance, sees a doctor regularly and is doing much better....these people don't understand why peiople think this president is not progressive enough according to many.

[No Elephants]

178. LOL. We need a Dem who can undo most of that.

[defendandprotect]

399. OK ... but how many democrats are left in the Koch DLC Dem Party ... ???

That's what we have to figure out --

I'd rather go with Sen. Bernie Sanders who could run on a Dem ticket --

We could pick up what's left of the party and change the name --

How about Democratic Labor/Women's Party?



Meanwhile -- note this link from a poster on thread re CA looking to primary Obama . . .


And make no mistake about the role of Third Way. Third Way runs the policy apparatus of the Democratic Party. In Congress, staffers attend regular Third Way policy briefings, where the group hands out pre-packaged legislative amendments in legal form, generic press releases, polling around those policy ideas, and talking points. It’s a soup-to-nuts policy apparatus. Most of these ideas are harmless – like increased volunteerism – but some are not, like various tax proposals.

The group has enormous juice. On the Congressional side, it has six honorary Senate co-Chairs, and seven House-side co-Chairs. Jim Clyburn, a co-Chair, is in the House Democratic leadership. Two current cabinet members are former co-Chairs. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, held regular briefings for the freshmen member staff in the last Congress.

On the administration side, former Third Way board member Bill Daley is now White House chief of staff. Ron Klain, who was Biden’s Chief of Staff, is now with Third Way. The White House is pretty much full of Third Way-style apparatchiks.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html


As more and more Democrats are indoctrinated into Third Way -- they see who is in control and

who they need to work with to keep their jobs --

That has a large impact on who is available in the party still working for the public --

not corporations!

[patrice]

71. They're just doing what the Hegemony wants them to do. nt

[Whisp]

72. wow, history is being made right here in this thread!

the seriousness of choosing names, of who will be the the next president is in the hands of DU's most unsupportive voters... of who will oust the sitting Barack Obama and shame him so he runs back to Kenya with his family in tow...

(in low whispery golf voice)
bernie sanders seems to be the favourite, but wait, wait.....

hillary clinton has also been listed along with Elizabether Warren. The new president makers are on the phones right now making arrangements with these people.

but wait, wait....
these people just told the organizers they have no interest in challenging the President. Hillary laughed her ridiculous laugh and Warren just shook her head (video call) and said wtf?

shhhh, another call has been placed to... yes, yes, Dennis Kucinich folks!
Mr Kucinich answers the phone and laughs. What, I don't want to be President, I just like fucking with people.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. For those with short memories. CA Primary 08 results

Hillary Rodham Clinton 51.5%
Barack Obama 43.2%

The voters whose votes are recorded there are the ones who are starting this, in CA. Cute for you to make it into another 'OFA Brand' snark at your neighbors session. Cute, but in an ostrich in the sand sort of way.
The subject of this thread has nothing to do with DU, save in your oddly shaped logic. This is news of our Party. Or at least of my Party, the Democratic Party. Et tu?

[Whisp]

92. ''The subject of this thread has nothing to do with DU''

Ah, apologizes. I must be mistaken and read all the 'primary Obama' threads on another site.....


































.
:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

97. It is news from the Democratic Party of CA

Your response here, and to me is off topic, and rude. Content free, rude snark. The OFA Style that is winning so many hearts and minds that we are here reading about a Primary Challenge. Good stuff, really good.
The house rules say discuss issues, not other DUers. And your whole post was about your fantasias about DUers.

[ProSense]

103. No, it isn't

It's news from some members of the CA Democratic Party:

"Bernal doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution...California Democratic Party chair John Burton --- who supported Kennedy versus Carter in 1980 -- told us that he doesn't agree with this resolution."

[Bluenorthwest]

116. So they are not Democrats?

It is news from within the CA Party, like it or not. It is news from CA Democrats. And clearly, it is sticking in a few craws here.
That's your cue to type "Hmmmmmm" again.

[ProSense]

119. Hmmmm?

Me:

"It's news from some members of the CA Democratic Party:

'Bernal doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution...California Democratic Party chair John Burton --- who supported Kennedy versus Carter in 1980 -- told us that he doesn't agree with this resolution.'


Your response: "So they are not Democrats?"

Now, where did I say "they are not Democrats"?

[Iggo]

136. They've backed off of the 'progressives aren't REAL democrats' meme. (n/t)

[No Elephants]

189. Regardless of which board one is posting on, one should be able to discuss

the issue of whether or not Obama should be primaried without discussing one's fellow posters.


Indeed, on this board, the rules actually require that.


And, as you no doubt know, DU is by far not the only place where primarying Obama is being mentioned.

[bonniebgood]

130. I personally predicted that a challenger would surface by last

Tuesday. If everyone could for a moment stop judging people personal life
(who faux news has tainted and smeared)
we could come up with a lot more people who's quilified to challenge Obama.
IF NEWT CAN RUN WITH HIS PERSONAL HISTORY and Policy history

PLEASE look at a person's policy history and not his personal history. then
the obvious choice would be Elliot Spitzer.

[defendandprotect]

400. "of who will oust sitting Barack Obama -- shame him so he runs back to Kenya with his family.. "

Are you trying to suggest something racist in the opposition to Obama?

[patrice]

73. BTW, all, remember a little thing called PROP 8. Do you REALLY think those people are gone or that

they CAN'T tolerate being referred to, more or less directly, as "Progressives""

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

91. What is your point? That the Prop 8 Voters are Obama voters?

Or what? I do not really dig seeing Prop 8, which revoked human rights from people, next to that 'emoticon'.

[JJW]

75. Mr. O likes to pretend he can't be labeled

but we all know he is a right wing corporatist. And largely a power hungry opportunist that won't fight for any core believe because like his Rev Wright, who he claimed introduced him to God, he is willing to throw anything and anyone under the bus for political gain.

[patrice]

79. Suggestion: Read CHOMSKY for real & GET what he tells us about how LABELS are

completely interchangeable and they work both ways in any partisan struggle, for anyone disposed to do so.

[defendandprotect]

401. Shoot a link -- you might get some takers -- !!

Love Chomsky myself -- can often help to get one's head on straight --

not on every issue, however --

[ProSense]

80. Here:

Political efficacy in the Obama era

Good stuff!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[wpelb]

127. And what will GOPhers say?

During Pres. Obama's first two years, Democrats controlled the Senate (with a nearly filibuster-proof majority) and the House (no filibuster possible there), and yet still didn't get a lot done.

Many Democrats, both supporters and critics of the President, will agree.

[lib_wit_it]

385. Right. We know what the Rs did because we know that Obama failed to stop them. We understand he's no

king, but neither are the Rs crowned heads, yet from a minority representation in government managed to accomplish a ton of their goals. They outfoxed Obama and that was not inevitable.

[dmallind]

81. Go for it - prove once and for all that this is a tiny fringe position. nt

[No Elephants]

234. You'd like to see that proven because your ultimate goal is to see the country moving further and

further to the right?

The left is the only thing that stops that, not the center right folk, not the Republicans and not the Teabaggers.

[defendandprotect]

402. +1 --

[Hubert Flottz]

85. K&R

[jll600]

96. ANY challenge to President Obama IS and will be viewed as Racist . NT

[JBoy]

114. Nice try.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[emilyg]

382. PLease - not this shit.

[defendandprotect]

403. No -- the challenge will be based on Obama as a corporatist ... New Dem ...

and having put Social Security and Medicare/Medicare "on the table" --

which Obama did -- and NOT the GOP --

On his back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry which

trampled single payer MEDICARE FOR ALL which the nation and our suffering citizens

urgently need --

On his drones over Pakistan -- on keeping these two Bush wars going into the second decade!!



80% of the public want an end to the wars which are bankrutping our Treasury!

76% and more of the public want MEDICARE FOR ALL -- 83% of Catholics who want repoructive

freedom included - and even CHOICE abortion. So much for the right wing/Catholic Bishops --

what a joke!




However, just responded to someone who seems to be trying to suggest

what you're suggesting --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4946549&mesg_id=4948390


the new "pink pony" -- "chess game" ... ???

[Mosaic]

99. I remember

When they said we were the professional left. I remember when they said we were fucking retarded. I remember promising to close gitmo. I remember the big 3 being temporarily on the table. I remember extending a trillion in tax cuts for the rich until January 1013. It is time to find a real Leader, we were duped big time.

[robcon]

104. Stupid, vanity project.

Unless the CA Dems want to elect Romney.

[No Elephants]

216. Please see Reply # 3. I guess some are willing to risk it.

Besides, you are assuming that any primary challenge to Obama means he will lose the general. There is no basis for that, even Carter-Kennedy. So many things were going on then, there is no guaranty Carter would have been re-elected, even if Kennedy had never challenged him.

Homeland Security is always fighting that last few terrorist attacks and politicians are always fighting the last few elections. History doesn't always repeat itself exactly.

It is entirely possible that a sitting President could win an election, even if he or she has a primary challenge, maybe even be helped by a primary challenge.. It is also entirely possible for a sitting President to lose an election without a primary challenge.

Moreover, if we're going by history, here is something with legs longer than the alleged Carter Kennedy disaster: America has never voted out a war time President. Not once.

[robcon]

347. I think you miss my point. I'll be clear.

1. Any primary challenge to Obama will fail, especially with the likes of Sanders or Kucinich (remember Kucinich didn't achieve as much as 4% in any Democratic primary in '08 - although he was usually #1, with 35%+ support, here on DU.

2. Any primary challenge that fails will achieve nothing (Obama certainly won't move to the left if he wants to win in '12.)

3. There is a risk that a primary challenge could gain momentum, and achieve as high as 25% or so of the votes in a few states. This will weaken Obama, and make him more vulnerable in the general election.

4. The only notable result is only a risk, but it is a real one, that the primary challenge (like Kennedy's in 1980) will elect a Republican.

It's a stupid futile attempt to make noise about the disappointment with some on the left.

[paparush]

107. Obama needs to be held accountable in a public forum.

I'm for this.

[No Elephants]

211. How does that hold Obama accountable in a public forum again?

[dennis4868]

111. What they need is someone to run against Obama...

who has a big gun and when he is in negotiations with repubs and tea party folks he can put his gun to their heads and threaten to kill them if they do not adopy progressive policies. Outside of that, it does not matter who the dem president is with this congress and if anyone thinks otherwise is an idiot. So does anyone know a d dem with a gun that is willing to use it?

[Ozymanithrax]

115. The Ca Dem party have called and asked me for money...

...and I explained exaclty why I would not donate money to the party, that as long as Obama(R) was president when we elected Obama(D) that the party would see no money from me.

Seems they are frightened enough to do something symbolic.

That is a start.

[w4rma]

125. This is just the Progressive Caucus of the state Party. Not the entire state Democratic Party. (nt)

[Iggo]

139. Oops. I stand corrected.

I just posted that they are "backing off of the 'progressives aren't REAL democrats' meme".

Guess I spoke too soon.

[Howler]

118. YaY!!!! n/t

n/t

[L. Coyote]

120. The only Dem who can win in 2012 is the one who can defeat Obama.

[mwooldri]

184. only one person who i think can defeat Obama. Al Gore.

And I do not believe for one minute that he is even considering a run for the Presidency, at least in 2012. I think he should try in 2016 tho.

[wordpix]

128. & lest we forget the $36 billion bailout of nuke industry right after Fuku disaster

We'r $14 trillion in debt and O reiterated his support for taxpayer- guaranteed loans for the likes of GE and Toshiba to build new nukes, because these corpos can't find the investors to build on their own, plus it takes years to do so.

Not to mention the net energy input for uranium mining and processing and building/operating the damn things are greater than the energy output. This president should back off this payout to more big corporations.

[polichick]

131. Well, it is absurd that a Dem president has continued so many of the horrific Bush policies...

I don't blame them.

Spent last week in California and it was thrilling to be among so many true progressives!

[The Stranger]

138. Fuck them. I will oppose this with every fiber of my being.

I am as Leftist and Progressive as they come, and I am adamantly, unbelievably-fucking against this.

These pieces of shit are going to send us back to the days of Bush and Cheney.

We live in a real world, and the attacks on Obama are based on a fantasy world.

[dharmamarx]

157. Not fantasy.

The attacks on Obama are "fantasy"? Really!? He has openly come out in support of austerity during a recession; his support for these austerity cuts were so strong that he has actually pushed Pelosi into calling for "austerity" as well. That's where I draw the line. It's not simply the case that Obama is behaving like a moderate Republican (one could argue whether this is due to necessity, incompetence, or his private political convictions), it is now the case that Obama is actually doing the Right's propaganda work for them. He is now a threat to the wellbeing of even moderately Left politics. If he had said, "these cuts are bad policy, but my hand is being forced" I could still tolerate him, but he has taken to defending cutting the welfare state. That should be unacceptable for any Democrat, and the proper response to that is to support a candidate against him in the primary.

[The Stranger]

273. Yes, fantasy.

Obama has stood for Progressives when no one else would. You actually cite to the Pelosi Disaster? Holy shit, she is worth less than her weight in dogshit.

Obama has faced a relentless, highly-capitalized, scorched-earth, insidious racism-fed mountain of opposition. No other politician has been faced with anything close to it. Yet, despite this opposition, he has remained the consummate professional, the unflappable executive commander in chief.

And he realized early on that facing such a relentless, highly-capitalized, scorched-earth, insidious racism-fed mountain of opposition required him tactfully to pick his battles, to dodge and parry, to take what he can get in the hopes of getting more later.

On top of all of this, the "Democrats" in Congress, namely the Pelosi Disaster and the warm puddle of goo called "Harry Reid," have so horrifyingly failed and flailed in so many different ways, it has fallen on Obama to pick up the slack from these two worthless pieces of shit.

[Number23]

331. Go get'em!

While I don't agree that these people are "pieces of shit" (I'd characterize them as stupid and possibly very naive) I'm glad that people are willing to let them know that many Dems/liberals do not agree with their methods.

I have to say that I'm shocked by this thread. Reading DU the past few years, I'd have thought this would be full of "hell yeahs!' and a grazillion recs. Lots of people disgusted by this (even on DU!!!!! :wow::wow:) That's pretty encouraging.

[LWolf]

333. I don't think so.

I don't think you are "as Leftist and Progressive as they come." If you were, you wouldn't be a Democrat, and you sure as hell wouldn't support Barack Obama.

I don't think you even know what a leftist is.

I am not "as leftist and progressive as they come," although I come pretty damned close for an American and a Democrat.

I'm "leftist and progressive" enough to welcome a challenge from the left.

I'm realistic enough to know that victory is probably unlikely, but that's not the point. The point is to send a clear message to the dino who will be running in the GE BEFORE he gets our vote.

[No Elephants]

335. +1

[The Stranger]

419. Okay, fine.

I don't have the time either to have a pissing contest to see who is more Leftist or progressive.

You win. Fine. But trying to erect a primary challenge to Obama means we both lose. The Right wins. That Right that is way over there from both of us. They win.

Do you really want that? I mean, seriously, do you really want that?

[LWolf]

422. A primary challenge does not mean that the right wins.

It means that Obama has to be accountable to actual Democrats; to the Democratic constituencies that help elect him in the general election.

In an ideal world, it would mean he would lose and we'd send a candidate that could excite the Democratic base, and the independent and 3rd party left, to get out and make a miracle happen; because that's what I think it will take to beat any Republican in '12 after the debacle Obama's first term has been, and he's pissed off enough of those who would traditionally support the Democrat that it's not going to be happening for him.

It's not an ideal world, though. I'll settle for sending him a very strong message from the left. It's quite clear that the only message he is going to hear is going to be connected to campaigning and voting.

[The Stranger]

436. Somehow you have forgotten the election of 1992 and what Pat Buchanan did to George H.W. Bush.

We almost did ourselves in when Hillary started torpedoing the Left in bar-nothing assault on Obama when he became the front runner.

[LWolf]

439. I haven't forgotten anything.

Including the primary wars of '08, where two centrists pit Democratic values against each other, and everybody lost.

Women against color. Everybody lost.

HRC did not torpedo the left to assault Obama; she never had to. Obama never represented the left. Anyone who looked and listened beyond the emotional "inspiration" they found on the surface knew that. I did; I knew the whole primary race, after January, was a juggernaut bringing down the party.

As a matter of fact, HRC appeared more liberal than Obama in that race, which says reams about Obama and about voters' need to believe an inspirational leader rather than evaluate facts themselves.

Here on DU, I was told over and over that Obama was "not the DLC candidate!!!" because he rejected formal membership, even though the dlc framework under his spin on the issues was obvious. One of the most vocal DLCers, and a strong HRC supporter, here on DU, pointed out numerous times that Obama was as dlc as HRC, member or no.

I'll support any decent, honest Democrat in a primary over Obama.

[defendandprotect]

404. The real world wants end to the wars -- and MEDICARE FOR ALL --

How are you on the LEFT and still supporting a president who has kept the

wars going and drones over Pakistan -- and who tolerates a VP Biden who

has been calling for more than a year for Israel to attack Iran?

Biden says "Israel would be JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran!" --

80% of Americans want an end to the wars!


And how are you on the left and supporting a president who has trampled

universal health care which 76% of the nation want -- MEDICARE FOR ALL?

83% of Catholics want MEDICARE FOR ALL -- including reproductive coverage --

and abortion by simple CHOICE!


This is a liberal nation --

[The Stranger]

418. Jesus Fucking Christ, man.

Of course I don't like everything he has done, but you don't seem to understand that we got lucky with this one. This nation is on an express train to Hell, the media whores have led hoi polloi to the bowels of the sinking ship. The political tide does not favor us. Let me type that again, the political tide does not favor us. The Right is too well organized and too well-capitalized, even more so now that the Supreme Court gave them Citizens United.

We don't have the time to waste jerking off in a circle around a primary "challenge" to Obama so we can type on a message board how wonderful and Progressive we are. We simply don't have the luxury and can't afford to do this. We can't afford to do this.

We should be organizing and constantly advancing our Progressive agenda against the Right and, most importantly, the Right Wing media echo chamber. We are outgunned and outspent. We can't afford to be fighting each other. We can't afford it.

We don't know how good we have had it. You and others are going to send us back to the days of Bush and Cheney and the Neonazicons, endless wars, torture, secret evidence, tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts, Wall street deregulation, environmental destruction, defunding women's health care on a massive scale due to the fact that it may include abortion -- I don't have the time or the inclination to sit here and reminisce about the absolute Hell those eight years were.

This is the wrong way.

[a simple pattern]

426. You're kidding, right?

With this?

...endless wars, torture, secret evidence, tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts, Wall street deregulation, environmental destruction, defunding women's health care on a massive scale due to the fact that it may include abortion -- I don't have the time or the inclination to sit here and reminisce about the absolute Hell those eight years were.

Tell me you were kidding with that.

[The Stranger]

437. I'm not kidding with that.

Care to rebut?

[defendandprotect]

430. Voting for the "lesser evil" will only move the party and Congress further to the right --

Corporate fascism is the roadway backwards into the hell of what the world suffered

in WWII --

and the "media whores" are our corporte-press put in place by the corruption of

government and corrupt elected officials who have failed to enforce monopoly, anti-trust laws.


The Right is too well organized and too well-capitalized, even more so now that the Supreme Court gave them Citizens United.

Is that what our Democrats think when they look at the right -- ?

Do they think, well, probably we should just throw in the towel and move to the right with them?

How much fear based thinking do you want from your party and elected officials? And voters?


The political tide does not favor us.

Keep in mind that we've had more than 20 years of the Koch Bros. funded DLC infiltrating the

Democratic Party -- and being harbored in the Democratic Party -- where they were able to

influence the agenda of the party, and the selection of its candidates -- including presidential

candidates.

Read something about the DLC and how it connects to "New Dems" and "Third Way Dems" --

And make no mistake about the role of Third Way. Third Way runs the policy apparatus of the Democratic Party. In Congress, staffers attend regular Third Way policy briefings, where the group hands out pre-packaged legislative amendments in legal form, generic press releases, polling around those policy ideas, and talking points. It’s a soup-to-nuts policy apparatus. Most of these ideas are harmless – like increased volunteerism – but some are not, like various tax proposals.

Should we all just crumple in fear at their power -- wave the white flag -- surrender?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=102&topic_id=4946549&mesg_id=4948636


We've had 50 years and more of out in the open rw political violence --

Political violence is the only way the right wing can rise and has ever risen --

If you think this is going to end with simply destruction of the New Deal -- of Social

Security and Medicare/Medicaid, then you should consider how far the Nazis actually got!


We don't know how good we have had it. You and others are going to send us back to the days of Bush and Cheney and the Neonazicons, endless wars, torture, secret evidence, tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts, Wall street deregulation, environmental destruction, defunding women's health care on a massive scale due to the fact that it may include abortion -- I don't have the time or the inclination to sit here and reminisce about the absolute Hell those eight years were.

This is the wrong way.

Most of us are trying to have the courage of our convictions -- trying to actually face the

true threat of these right wing bullies --

The answer isn't in giving in to their threats or to their blackmail --

And unfortunately, Obama has done ZIP about any of the Bush/Cheney crimes --

and he's just renewed tax cuts for the rich, he's supported bank bailouts --

and his team is WALL STREET!

Nor has there been any move by Obama to reregulate capitalism --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

In fact, Obama has just given us three new trade agreements which will suck

more jobs out of America --


As for the organization of the right, you might consider that every part of their movement

is built on violence and wealth -- every one of their movements is bought and paid for --

it's all theater -- from the Christian Coalition to their T-baggers -- it's all funded

by rw wealthy.

[The Stranger]

438. Geez, now I have to read all of that?

Okay, but I don't think "lesser of two evils" really works here. Compared to a Bachmann, Perry, or even a Romney, Barack Obama isn't a "lesser evil," he is orders of magnitude more intelligent, Progressive, free-thinking, and developed as both a human being and as a politician.

I can't even find words to compare the likes of Bachmann, Perry, Palin, and Romney with Barack Obama. I could write enough to fill the Library of Congress and still wouldn't sufficiently distinguish the former (which, by the way, I detest with the fire of a thousand suns) with the latter (of whom I am an admirer on an existential level).

[EC]

141. This is dangerous and makes my stomach hurt...

it will insure a repub win. Just the mention of it is enough to turn indies and give repubs more ammo with their "see even his own party doesn't want him" line. I've pretty much had it with the games people are playing with other peoples lives. These people are purposely misleading on the commission when speaking about cuts to the safety net, when it was specifically pointed to the supply side, not the demand (us)side of these programs, like cutting waste.

I'm ticked off about the whole debt business too, but this really is making my stomach churn more than the hostage taking did.

I'm of the mind that the trigger in this bill was written so that Obama could just say the hell with you to the commission when they try to hold us hostage again and let's it trigger. The trigger is cuts across the board with no cuts to the demand side of the safety net and the fact that it was written that way leads me to this conclusion.


I've also had it with the DLC bullshit, they are all Democrats. I don't like the blue dogs and DLC is a necessary evil (although there is no more DLC per say since they disbanded formally) but the idea is to get all Dems in office - and we are a big tent, with all kinds of personalities, even here on this site. A real Progressive will never be elected by the general population, just as a right wing crazy would never make it, too narrow a margin.

[cuncator]

244. Crazy is as crazy does

A real Progressive will never be elected by the general population, just as a right wing crazy would never make it, too narrow a margin.

Like Michelle Bachmann?

[EndElectoral]

142. We need an FDR Democrat....count me in...enough is enough....

[DirtyDawg]

151. I don't think....

...we should be looking for someone to run against Obama in the primaries just to 'send him a message'...we should be looking for someone that will beat the hell out of any Republican they can put up, despite the economy, AND, beat the hell out of 'em in Washington as well.

The only person I can think of that would stand a chance would be Hilary Clinton. Check to see if she would immediately step down as SOS and form an exploratory committee of one - her husband - to determine if, one, she can win the nomination and, two, win the Presidency.

As much as we all had 'high hopes' for Barack, he's either too chicken-sh*t, too nuanced or just too conservative to be a Democratic President.

[Melissa G]

212. Hilary is not an FDR democrat. Hilary is DLC. n/t

[No Elephants]

316. The same people who don't want Obama because he is too like

DLC or Third Way or New Democrats or Bill Clinton also would not like Hillary.

As a Presidential candidate, I mean.

[Fearless]

153. About-fucking-time! n/t

[swilton]

154. Bring it On!

Obama can't be trusted - He'll either cave or collaborate - take your pick!

[noiretextatique]

159. obama says he welcomes criticism and he wants us to hold his feet to the fire

so, i think he'd welcome a challenger. unless of course he didn't really mean what he said.

[grahamhgreen]

183. But he wants the fire to be made up of SS checks!

[noiretextatique]

160. obama says he welcomes criticism and he wants us to hold his feet to the fire

so, i think he'd welcome a challenger. unless of course he didn't really mean what he said.

[ctwayne]

162. We Need a Democratic Candidate in 2012

We don't need a choice between a moderately conservative Republican (Obama) and a very conservative Republican. (Rick Perry).

[Harriety]

163. Elizabeth Warren....

[Little Star]

167. We need a viable challenger QUICK!!!

To me that list could include:
Feingold
Warren
Sanders
Hillary


I'm sure there are others who are viable. I'm almost at the "any body but" point as long as we get a primary challenger.

[Xithras]

170. Why I love being a California liberal.

Liberal isn't a dirty word out here, but is a badge of honor. Throw us under the bus and we'll slash your bus tires.

The federal Democratic Party needs to decide whether or not it needs us to win. If it doesn't, it can deal with whatever consequences come its way because of it. If it does need us, then it needs to bend a knee and serve us.

The California state Democratic party is mostly populated by moderates and middle of the roaders, and yet it routinely bends to the will of the liberal contingent. Why? Because it knows that the liberal contingent will NOT cave to them, and that the state party will LOSE legislative fights if they don't appease the liberals. The liberal vote is essential to winning, which gives them incredible power, and they're not shy about weilding that power.

We need to find out if the same is true for the national party. If they need us, they have given us power. We need to be brave enough to wield that power and bash the rest of the party with it to get our way.

[Liberalynn]

182. +1

[harun]

186. +1

[Raksha]

208. +1000

Good point: "The California state Democratic party is mostly populated by moderates and middle of the roaders, and yet it routinely bends to the will of the liberal contingent. Why? Because it knows that the liberal contingent will NOT cave to them, and that the state party will LOSE legislative fights if they don't appease the liberals. The liberal vote is essential to winning, which gives them incredible power, and they're not shy about weilding that power."

[polichick]

272. This is exactly the way liberals need to be - for decades we've been...

...far ahead of the curve on every important movement.

Time to demand the respect we deserve - bravo California!

[No Elephants]

336. Glad to hear it. Sounds as though California is a true blue state with better winter

weather than my current home state of Massachusetts!

[defendandprotect]

405. Interesting -- !! Thank you --

[inchhigh]

171. Oh Please Oh Please Oh Please!!!!!!!

Where can I send money?

[grahamhgreen]

179. Feingold/Grayson

[Lena inRI]

190. R Anderson/E Warren or G Clooney 2012

. . .yeah, that's what I suggest. . .marginal maverick Dems and outsiders because the DNC is the enemy almost as much as the RNC.

So, if the CPC, led by Ellison and Grijalva, could stand behind either combination below, I wager THE PEOPLE will hunger for this progressive ticket by Nov. 2012:

Ross "Rocky"

ANDERSON

/ Elizabeth

WARREN

OR George

CLOONEY

PEOPLE'S WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

WHY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson

From his controversial encounters with Romney, Mormon Church, and DNC, Rocky is exactly the fighter, NOT A CHUMP, that progressives need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
What else need I say about Elizabeth's GUTS. I only put her as VPres since she has yet to hold an ELECTED office. . .not that I care but ya know the routine, right?

http://usliberals.about.com/od/celebrityactivists/a/GClooney_2.htm

And then there's the good George. . .before you dismiss him, remember the Repugs had an actor once and George is waaaaaay better in the cerebral department and he is a PROVEN progressive activist. . .read the linked article for details. For sure, even the 30% red American women would switch to this ticket for gorgeous George. . .

Think it over, CPC. . .start primarying the Pretend Peoples' President with these REAL People's leaders. . .

[graywarrior]

191. Ted Kennedy's biggest mistake was to primary Jimmy Carter

The Dem's would need to find someone we ALL were excited about over Obama. Not gonna happen. If you think Obama looks weak now, try the primary trick. We will most assuredly end up with Perry or some other evil republican bastard and don't think for a minute that's what the republicans have planned.

Refresh your memory:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.


Dems in CA are doing his bidding.

[No Elephants]

251. Kennedy said his biggest mistake was fighting Nion on health care because

Kennedy, being a loyal Democrat, didn't want a Republican administration to get credit for it.

He regretted it and tried to do remedy it, but, by then, Nixon was too embroiled in Watergate to worry about health care.

I saw Kennedy interviewed on tv not long before he died; and that is what he was saying. His biggest political regret was the setback in "the cause of my life" that resulted from his putting Party over principle.

And this was a man who lost two brothers to the Presidency and risked his own life every day he remained in politics.

Didn't mention regretting challenging Carter.

[graywarrior]

262. Let me just respectfully say that that is HIS opinion.

I was around back then and even I knew he wouldn't win even though I supported him---he carried too much baggage that hurt him. In MY humble opinion, he probably should not have primaried Carter. BUT, because he did and lost, he turned into one of the most powerful senators in history and I am proud to have shared that time with him in MA.

[No Elephants]

344. You said it was the biggest mistake of his life. He says it wasn't.

He was around back then, too.

I recognize that you and Ted Kennedy each have your own opinions about the biggest mistake of Kennedy's life.

But, I'd take Kennedy's word for what was the biggest mistake of Kennedy's life over your word on what was the biggest mistake of Kennedy's life.

I would also take your word about what was the biggest mistake of YOUR life over Kennedy's word on what was the biggest mistake of your life.

Blowing health care for 300 million Americans, who STILL, in 2011, don't have as good a plan as Nixon wanted back in the 1970's, versus one primary challenge that may or may not have damaged Carter? And only heaven knows how many suffered and even died as a result?

Yeah, I'd take Kennedy's word on that, even if he weren't one of the most brilliant and moral men I've had the honor to witness, albeit from a distance.

[graywarrior]

345. Oy....ok YOU win.

Happy?

[defendandprotect]

406. Carter lost the election because of GOP Treason in "October Surpirse" ....

and for many other reasons --

Like the effort to rescue the hostages where two or three helicopters went down

-- a dismal failure --

Unfortunately, those missions were led by Ollie North -- who commanded the mission --

and Secord -- second in command!

CIA also seriously intimidated and undermined Carter ---

And then there was the rw effort via Ted Koppel/Nightline which was created to play

up the very sensistive hostage issue -- !!


Meanwhile, in 1978 -- with Democrats in full power -- the Democrats colluded with the

GOP to break the tax code for the benefit of the rich --

See: Wm. Greider's "Who will tell the pople?" - Page 80



The final blow was the deal Reagan/Bush/Gates made re October Surprise -- for Iran to

hold the hostages until Reagan was sworn in.

[defendandprotect]

196. It's about time ... 20 years of Koch Bros. DLC infiltrating, influencing the party -- !!!

[Citizen Worker]

198. Anybody but O'Bush.

[midnight]

204. The professional left is tired of being muzzled....

[Bill USA]

214. GREAT NEWS. My suggestions are Pelosi or Hoyer, or Schumer. Hell, just about any Democrat will be

an improvement over the Moderate Republican we have now.


recommended.

[defendandprotect]

258. Pelosi is DLC, is she not? And has been muzzled by DLC, at the least ....

Schumer was a liberal when he was in NY and is too far to the right now --


No -- not any Democrat -- you've had a Dem Party infiltrated for 20 years now by

Koch Bros who influenced the agenda, picked the candidates -- including our

presidential candidates!


Too many Democrats are pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporate money --

and we'll end up right back where we are now!



And Hoyer is highly questionable -- further to the right than Pelosi as I recall -- ???

[Bill USA]

274. Well, I hate to tell you this, but Che Guevera is dead.

By the way, If you associate the Koch bros. with the Democratic Party, I'd like to know what you're on. It must be FANTASTIC. Last time I checked these fascists were heavily into supporting TPers.

[defendandprotect]

275. Where have you been? Koch Bros. FUNDED the DLC .... for 20 years ... !!

Here ya go --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


And they also fund the T-baggers and run them out of a PR firm which guarantees them

publicity --

would guess they are especially anxious to use them to make the political arena more

aggressive and more violent -- as we've already seen from their behavior.

[defendandprotect]

283. "The revolution lives on not in words to live for it, but in one's heart to die for it" --

While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is no other than the United States of America.



The interests of the IMF represent the big international interests that today seem to be established and concentrated in Wall Street. An interview for Radio Rivadavia of Argentina (3 November 1959)

If it is an element of liberation for Latin America, I believe that it should have demonstrated that. Until now, I have not been aware of any such demonstration. The IMF performs an entirely different function: precisely that of ensuring that capital based outside of Latin America controls all of Latin America.

Wow -- That was in 1959 -- !!!


And a few more . . .


Words that do not match deeds are unimportant.


Knowledge makes us accountable.



One must endure without losing tenderness.


The laws of capitalism, blind and invisible to the majority, act upon the individual without his thinking about it. He sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon before him. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists, who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller — whether or not it is true — about the possibilities of success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this.
Man and Socialism in Cuba






http://www.refspace.com/quotes/Che_Guevara/s:20

[No Elephants]

340. Actually, the Koch brothers did donate to the Democratic Leadership Council.

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

Now, ask yourself why people who went on to found the Tea Party would have donated to the Democratic Leadership Council.

And, then, maybe you should consider apologizing to Defend and Protect.

I know it's out of character for most message board posters to do anything remotely like that, but, go ahead, break the mold.

[Daemonaquila]

220. Go CA!

Please show the way for the rest of the states, so we have a real Dem candidate we can vote for.

[Vattel]

222. Great list of reasons I am disappointed with Obama.

We had a chance in 2008 to get someone in the Presidency that was pretty liberal, but we got another conservative instead. The primaries were a disaster because the front-runners--Clinton and Obama--were both conservatives. Too bad. Wasted opportunity.

[Pooka Fey]

225. Dennis Kucinich. n/t

[Maineman]

226. Look at Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of HHS

Check out her bio at wikipedia. Very interesting. Better qualified that Hillary, etc.

[defendandprotect]

260. Hasn't she had a very right wing record at HHS?

[skyounkin]

228. I will support a primary challenge against Obama.

[katty]

231. yes our CA dems of are sick of the conceding and bullshit

[Frances]

233. No way will I play that stupid game

Look at what happened when Ted Kennedy challenged Carter: We got Reagan!

Look at what happened when people supported Nader because Gore was a corporate tool in their confused minds.

[DeSwiss]

241. K&R n/t

[paulflorez]

246. Hello President Ronald Reagan Part 2!

Maybe we really do need another really horrible Republican President to destroy the New Deal programs, criminalize gays and lesbians, dismantle our democracy further and install more of the anarcho-capitalist system that we loath. Maybe, just maybe then we will get a true liberal President who will undo all of that with a wave of his hand! /sarcasm

Now's not the time. If you want an "all or nothing" liberal President, 2016 is the time to push for it. Doing it now, when we already have a extremely weak economy which will drag down the incumbent, will only guarantee a Republican President of the worst kind. When they see that the incumbent has no chance, they will put their most conservative, most ideological, craziest candidate forth.

A Republican President will fight to re-apply Don't Ask Don't Tell. A Republican President will place Supreme Court Justices which will undo Roe v. Wade. Do I really have to go on?

People need to stick it out with President Obama. He has had some majority accomplishments, like repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. He has made some choices which has angered some of his most loyal supporters. But we chose him and we are stuck with him until 2016.

Imagine what it will be like when Reagan Part II is announced the winner in November 2012. First, Don't Ask Don't Tell is put back in place. All our gay and lesbian soldiers are immediately discharged. Next, the Supreme Court is packed full of one or two more conservatives, creating a conservative majority for a long time with no real "swing" vote. Roe v. Wade is repealed. Lawrence v. Texas is repealed, gay and lesbian Americans are once again criminals for simply existing. Social Security doesn't just have its age moved up, but is completely privatized. Medicare is completely privatized.

If you want to start primary challenges, start them in Congress. Pack the House and Senate with Progressives. Make them sign a pledge that says zero cuts to SS, Medicare, etc. That kind of stuff needs to be done first and done now.

[on point]

256. I would agree if we had a someone FIGHTING in our corner and not a Quisling

OBama may have been a fine President if he had followed Clinton and maintained his policies. Instead we need a fighter, with ambitious ideas of his own and not a go along to get along DLC Quisling intent on being popular instead of doing what is right.

[Dr Fate]

277. I thought Obama admitted he was influenced by Reagan.

So it might be more of a part 3.

[TNLib]

324. We already have Ronald Regan Part2!

His name is Obama. But I do fear we may get Palin, Bachman or some other batshit crazy person in office.

[whatchamacallit]

252. DO IT! n/t

[Pooka Fey]

266. I would definitely prefer to see a Democrat hold the office of the President

rather than suffer a second term with a right of center Republican like Obama. Hate to have to bring it up, but the fake "Hope" and "Change" marketing bullshit kinda smarts, too. I hate being played for a chump, and then being told to "eat my peas".

[AtomicKitten]

270. Let's see ... Sanders is down 19 pts in Vermont, his own state, and Dean is down 37 pts.

All the caterwauling here, and lord knows this place is fueled by it LOL - isn't going to change the stats.

[dreamnightwind]

271. Woo-hoo!

What took so long?

The only problem I have with it is that they're not serious enough. We don't need a symbolic statement, we need a true candidate that can get it done.

The stars are properly aligned for a true progressive to win. Polls show the people support our policies. In fact people are banging their heads against the wall wondering why nobody in power is taking on some of the obvious fixes to our problems.

Bernie or Kucinich would be great, if it was possible.
Grayson or Spitzer as long shots, either would be excellent if we got them elected.

Among established Dems I would consider
Feingold
Dean
Gore (I think people should seriously consider him, he might be the best that could actually win, and he'd be e though.uch better than Obama.)
Franken
Sherrod Brown

A celebrity Dem non-politician could be another way to go. There are plenty of them around.
Damon, Clooney, hell I'd vote for Roseanne, she'd kick some teabagger ass.
Probably better ones, I don't follow the celebrities much, but it could actually be a way to go if the right person was willing to go for it.

Any left-leaning leaders in business? I can't think of any, there must be some though.

Robert Reich is well-known and has an excellent understanding of what's going wrong in this country. He's a tiny tiny man, could be an obstacle, but I like him a lot.

Elizabeth Warren

Two people I wish would run on the Republican ticket:
Colbert. That'd mess with them. Seriously.
Obama. If he were a Republican, we'd be united in opposition to most of his policies. Since he calls himself a Dem, he enables 'pub policies in a way that no official 'pub can. I wish he'd change parties and run on their ticket so we could more easily challenge him. Please, mods, don't delete this post (I'm tired of seeing them deleted), I am a Dem and want to see actual Dem policies.

Getting the Congress firmly in Dem hands would of course help a lot, as we can see with this Republican House majority.

[bertman]

282. GO California Dems!!! REC. nt

[ooglymoogly]

288. As the economy can only go down hill from here.

I believe any solid democrat who stands for what Democrats are supposed to stand for, could beat 0 hands down. Allen Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Al Gore and just a few others with enough standing, are in that category. I predict any one of them would catch on fire the moment they announced and that is what 0 and the thugs at the top fear most of all.

But electing real Democrats into potus and the congress, is the only thing that stands between saving the new deal and the middle class it built and all that that stands for, being totally annihilated.

[defendandprotect]

407. +1000% -- Obama budget deal will seriously further undermine economy -- NJ Sens voted against it!!

Glad to hear that!!

The New Deal was one of the greatest stimulus packages ever put in play!!!

It came close to bringing economic democracy -- and you can't have a democracy

without economic democracy --

and Capitalism sure ain't economic democracy!!

[emsimon33]

292. I think I need to become more active in CA Dems

I have been trying to help out in Virginia but it might just be a lost cause and this across continent thing is tricky!

[Jim_Shorts]

296. Who would I want instead of Obama ?

This guy would be an upgrade.

[on point]

300. I think we are in an abusive relationship

First there was the promise of "Hope and Change"
Then there were the clues things were not going to be different - recycled Wall street execs and Clinton DLC advisors (but we still hoped even if there was no change)
Then we were hit with no prosecutions for Bush war crimes or Wallstreet corruption. And we were told to take it because we needed to forget about the past.
Then we were hit with the healthcare single payer and drug program sell-out. And we were told to shut up and like it. And they went after our self esteem, calling us professional leftists
Then we were hit with the failure to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. And we were told it was the best we could expect, don't cause trouble keep a united front to the outside world.
Then we were hit with the spending cuts all on the average citizen and nothing on the wealthy, and oh yeah let's throw in entitlements just to rub it in. Shut up, eat your peas. You shoulda worked harder

How many times are we going to let ourselves get abused before we realize we need out of this relationship? It is not our fault and being told it is classic self esteem manipulation.

Being fooled the first time, OK it happens.
But now at least 5 times? When are we going to realize this is not healthy for the country?

[Firebrand Gary]

301. Can we please stop this crazy talk.

Im sticking with Obama, PERIOD. Now, we should put our heads together and win this election.

[bloomington-lib]

309. I agree

[Swede Atlanta]

307. YES.................

If nothing else Barry needs to understand he can no longer take progressives for granted. I for one will not vote for the Republic candidate but I may not vote if this President doesn't begin to show some resolve and backbone. The Repukkkes now know he is a pushover. They will just continue to play brinksmanship until he calls their bluff and they get blamed for some negative outcome.

[ClarkUSA]

311. They're either liars or stupid idiots. What "offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid"?

[No Elephants]

351. Close enough for government work

Candidate Obama: Promise: Allow payroll taxes to be levied on wages above $250,000 to help keep Social Security solvent.
Quote: "The best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more, and people who are in need are protected." - Washington, D.C., Nov. 11, 2007

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/obama-campaign-promise-tracker.htm

President Elect Obama (promises to cut OASDI and Medicare) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

President Obama Appoints Cat Food Commission and appoints Republican Simpson to head it.

President Debt Ceiling Obama:

The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that," Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. "My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this," Conyers said strongly.-Conyers says it was Obama, not Boehner, who put cuts to Social Security on the table:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000282/-Conyers-spills-the-beans-on-Obamacall-for-WH-protests

[ClarkUSA]

365. Conyers was lying. He soon voted for the Reid plan. The OP quote is referring to the debt deal.

At no time during the debt negotiations was there an "offer to slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid".

[No Elephants]

434. Exactly how do you know Conyers was lying? I've seen that posted here

several times with no supporting link by people who are in no position to now who was or was not lying.

As between Conyers and a DU poster, Conyers is in a much better position to know, to say the very least. And making public statements that are untrue is dangerous for Conyers.

Anonymous essage board osters, however, are in a much better position to pull stuff directly out of their ears with no risk whatever.

Voting for Reid's plan proves nothing about who put the cuts on the table. The only other option was to, in effect, vote for the U.S. to default.

Besides, President Elect Obama promised to cut OASDI, per the link I gave you, and as made obvious by his creation the Cat Food Commission. Makes perfect sense he would put on the table something he wants to see happen anyway.

In all, believing Conyers on this makes a lot more sense that going with an unsupported claim by a message board poster.

[struggle4progress]

314. I guess they're too lazy to organize the street for what they want -- and not smart enough

to realize that their strategy cannot possibly have any beneficial effect

[No Elephants]

352. That all depends upon what your definition of "beneficial effect" is

(With apologies to Bubba)

[Dappleganger]

315. 200th rec

Obviously this is resonating with the people on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

319. Yes, it's nice that anyone can be a member.

Anyone.

[MissDeeds]

350. Hey ClarkUSA

Why don't you chill out? We've got this.

:hi:

[randr]

322. The Teabaggers have shown us how effective

a "threat" to party unity can be. The Republicans, in turn, used them as attack dogs on Obama and are now beholden to them politically.
We have every reason to take to the streets and demand that our government get to work on the nations issues. Unlike the teabaggers, we need to demand action, not retreat, of our governing bodies. We need to demand the release of corporate interests in national policies, not the support they bring to the Tea Party. We need to demand an end to foreign incursions and wars that the vast majority of Americans have hoped of for decades, not blind allegiance to the MIC.
When we show up in their faces and force the MSM to take note we can succeed.
That is all.

[Amonester]

328. "Stop the machine - Create a New World" - October 6 (in DC)

http://october2011.org/welcome

Let's start there. Washington, DC (will the corrupt m$s report that American Autumn Movement?).

[No Elephants]

355. GREAT LINK. THANKS.

[defendandprotect]

408. Agree -- but trust everyone knows T-baggers are funded by Koch and run out of a PR firm ...

which guarantees them publicity! --

Everything the rw does is astroturf --

They GOP gave start up funding for the Christian Coalition in 80's --

Dobson's group was funded by Richard Scaife -- Bauer's org by other rw wealthy.


GOP radicalized the NRA to attack Dem liberals and moderates -- AND LIBERALS

AND MODERATES IN THEIR OWN PARTY in order to move Congress to the right --


GOP Pro-lifers were funded by white Christian militia groups --


On and on -- on and on -- you know the song!

[Broderick]

323. 200 plus recommends

I think people are unhappy.

[ClarkUSA]

326. 202 people out of 173,886 registered members. Oh no, Pres. Obama is headed for certain defeat in CA!

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

357. LOL, as if 173,886 is a relevant number.

[ClarkUSA]

370. It's relevant when noting the number of recs to show just how irrelevant the latter really is.

[Number23]

366. I know. lol As if every bit of anti-Obama drivel doesn't get at least 125 recs on DU

I'm actually surprised this hasn't cracked the 400 rec mark. Actually considering how special DU is lately, I'm surprised this isn't heading towards 500+ recs.

But only two threads have hit that mark. When the president got his Nobel Peace Prize and a really good post from someone SKEWERING Sarah Palin. Seems most folks have not forgotten what this site is supposed to be about after all. :)

[ClarkUSA]

368. You got that right.

On all of your points. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

409. And what is DU "supposed to be about" ... ?

Discouraging dissent -- ?

or party over conscience -- ?

[No Elephants]

356. It was probably more like 500.

[Bolo Boffin]

332. Primary your Congress critter, not Obama.

Do you remember any of this Social Security on the table bullshit in the first two years? No?

The problem isn't Obama.

[No Elephants]

358. Um, yes. Please see Reply 351 and be sure to click on the links, esp.

the January 2009 interview with Obama that Washington Post prublished.

BTW, why did you think Obama appointed the Cat Food Commission?

[Bolo Boffin]

372. Did it. Didn't see or read anything that changed my mind. A better Congress is the key.

Primarying Obama is the surest path to President Romney and Vice President Bachmann.

Re-electing Obama with a better Congress is a far better choice.

Obama didn't "appoint" the Catfood Commission. He appointed Bowles and Simpson and four other members. He created the Commission because Congress refused to do it in the first place. As I recall, Obama didn't endorse the final product.

And one reason, among many, was to find a solution to the current unsustainable path of Medicare. Is it your position that Medicare is not unsustainable right now?

[Pooka Fey]

334. I think we the Professional Left are ready for our place at the table.

[Name removed]

341. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

342. I LOVE it!

I want to help.
Where do I send my money?



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[texshelters]

348. Will Obama be bothered to listen

to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party?

So far, he's ignored, from what I've seen, the progressive caucus's People's Budget.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[No Elephants]

361. Everrything isn't about Obama. It's important to have a voice and to make it heard.

Even if Obama does not hear it, others will.

But, I think he's heard it. So far, the feedback from the WH has been insults, but that's their mistake, IMO>

[texshelters]

424. Correct and correct, he insulted the base, many of us

who were willing to give him a chance but weren't 100% for him to begin with.

He's made it very hard for many people to vote for him again.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[defendandprotect]

410. Probably the way he listened to the msg of 2010 -- with a new willingness to compromise with GOP--!!

[texshelters]

425. That's how I see it

he's sidling up to those that hate him and dismissing those that were his allies. There was even a time when Kucinich was supportive. I am not sure he's with Obama anymore.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Safetykitten]

353. No point. He will be defeated in what will possibly be a landslide by a republican.

[defendandprotect]

411. Well ... there was a message in 2010 which Obama ignored ....

his reaction to 2010 was to immediately say he was ready for to

compromise even more with GOP!

[unkachuck]

359. K&R....a big thumb's-up....n/t

[No Elephants]

363. "Our silence is a price that is too high to pay." Bernal

(Nor should any politician EVER ask for our silence.)

"I have a voice." The King's Speech.

[unkachuck]

371. K&R....this thread is so nice, I'm gonna kick it twice....n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

373. Here's my problem. It's likely that if we pick a different candidate, the PIGS in the GOP will win

To many in here that might be no different from having Obama in office, but they're wrong. Obama might be right wing, but Repukes in office is like having NAZIS in office.

Big difference. We've lived it already, and look what it got us. A F mess we might never get out of.

On the other hand, I am disappointed beyond belief. It's beyond Obama's constant admirations of Reagan (a man I consider an evil pig). It's gotten as far as Obama being willing to throw under the bus the old, the ill, the helpless, etc.

[defendandprotect]

412. Let's stop voting out of fear for the "lesser evil" -- only moves party and Congress to the right ..

and remember -- it was Obama and NOT the GOP which put Social Security and

Medicare/Medicaid on the table!!


It was Obama who made back room deals with Big Pharma and private H/C industry

which trampled universal health care which this nation so desperately needs!


And Obama who has kept these wars going --

Wiretapping -- drones over Pakistan -- !!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

423. Yeah, but you know what? I've been down this road before, and it smells very bad!

Libs who were angry at Gore, sabotaged the election by supporting NADER and voting for him. As a result, the already-close election became TOO CLOSE and it had to be decided by the Supreme Court, landing us 8 f*****g years of an evil rich idiot, with a low I.Q. but a really deep desire to do harm. Libs who voted for Nader helped GW Bush. PERIOD. GW Bush took our already-wounded country, and finished off killing it.

I DO NOT WANT AN ENCORE OF THAT SHIT.

[defendandprotect]

428. Actually, Gore won in 2000 --

And there seem to be a few other pieces of 2000 that you don't understand --

like the Jon Ellis/Fox news reversal of the computer PREDICTION/CALL of Florida

for Gore --

like the GOP-sponsored fascist rally at Miami Dade HQs organized by our now Chief

Justice John Roberts to STOP the counting of 120,000 votes not previously counted

and which proceeded in near violence without any interference from Florida police --

like the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court who stopped the count mandated by the

Florida State Supreme Court and put W Bush in the Oval Office.


The alleged W Bush "win" by 537 votes had nothing to do with Nader --

It more likely had to do with 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voting for Bush --


You might also consider that Gore felt betrayed by the Koch Bros. DLC which had

pushed him to stop his populist messages which Gore later understood had cost him

a substantial loss of votes. Late Gore resigned from the DLC over that issue.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

429. Nader made it tight enough, didn't he? Now please stop trying to convince me

That Nader shithead is an enemy of the U.S., only looking to get his name in history so when he's dead somebody will remember him, even if only as an asshole.

[defendandprotect]

431. After a dozen years now ....

I would think that some of the facts would have reached you --

Many third parties took tens of thousands of votes in Florida --

Bush "won" by 537 votes!


Maybe it's just easier to not see what actually went on -- ?

If the few who still believe in the scapegoat actually came to see what went

down, they might have to adjust their thinking -- ?


Your enemy is the GOP and those who let this stolen election succeed unchallenged --

not Nader --





And, if you still don't get it -- Gore won the popular vote -- and according to the

Journalists who recounted the votes, "Gore won the election, no matter how the votes

are counted -- including in FLORIDA" --

[Sarah Ibarruri]

432. Oh please. Nader is a shithead. We can thank the shithead for 8 years of nightmare and the

resulting implosion of our country.

[WhiteTara]

375. Call Ralph. He's always in to get the pukes elected. n/t

[defendandprotect]

413. Right ... Nader made Obama put Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid "on the table" -- !!

Something only Obama did -- and the GOP did NOT do --

See John Conyers' comments on that --

[WhiteTara]

420. This isn't a question that I ask oftern of "old timers" but

are you sure this is the right forum for you? There are many that love the Obama Bash more than life itself. I know you've been here forever; but won't you do something more than complain? Get involved in the system itself and fight the battles for/with us instead of telling us how much you hate "our guy"?

[marasinghe]

421. right back at ya.

you seem pretty much an old timer yourself. are you sure this is the right forum for you?

most of us don't hate your guy. he was our guy too. we just don't continue to blindly support those who've betrayed us & what we think are basic liberal principles.

[defendandprotect]

427. Since you've been here two years longer than I have .....

maybe you should ask yourself that question --


Meanwhile, nothing has been more destructive to the party and the nation than

Obama's political actions --

from back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry which trampled

universal health care which our citizens so desperately need

to keeping these two Bush wars going into the second decade --

And now the disaster of Obama putting Social Security/Medicare and Medicaid on the

table --

Evidently none of that is a concern for you -- ?


I'm sure that few of us here could match your political activity, but you make a

mistake in assuming that I haven't been involved in the "system" -- I know that

many others here have also been involved.


I'd also suggest that you read what Al Gore had to say about government in his

recent Rolling Stone article -- "Congress is under the control of the oil and coal

industries."


And after a dozen years now, I think you might have caught up with the fact that

Gore won 2000 --

[cliffordu]

376. And in other news....

I'm considering masturbating with my other hand for a change.

[orbitalman]

377. K & R

[Botany]

378. Brilliant Thinking ...

..... let the republicans pick the next 3 to 5 Justices on the SCOTUS.

[BlueIris]

415. Ahhh, yes, it's only the whiny marginalized liberals.

Please.

[snappyturtle]

440. Kick!

:kick: