other than Obama

[rdking647]

who is electable by the dems... since so many here want him out I have to ask... who should run against him that has a chance in hell of winning.. Or are you just conceding 2012 to the repukes?

[jpgray]

1. Nobody who is willing to run. Is this supposed to make disappointed folks more enthusiastic?

Are you going for a feeling of resignation? Ambivalence? Fatalism? What? It's Obama or worse than nothing--very true. Wouldn't it be nice if the people you are addressing were -thrilled- to vote and work for Obama?

[upi402]

2. which repukes

ours or theirs?

[TheKentuckian]

3. Who was "electable" a few years ago? Also, if you were really worried about Republicans then you be

against implementing their absurd policies and legitimizing their failed positions.

[Demit]

4. I think it's becoming clear there will be a Republican in office in 2012 in any case.

Whether it's one of theirs or our own Mr. Hope & Change.

[RKP5637]

6. So, we'll have, "Mr. 2012 Hope for Change." n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. Mr. Hope and Change put Kagan and Sotomayor on the SCOTUS

Give at least some thought as to the picks President Romney, President Trump, or President Huckabee would be likely to make to replace Bader-Ginsburg, Kennedy, and possibly Antonin Scalia.

I stand with Barack Obama for this reason, if nothing else.

[Demit]

13. Not to be completely snarky, but that's because there IS nothing else.

He's reneged on transparency; closing Guantanamo; using civilian courts to try terrorist suspects; ending detention without trial and extraordinary rendition; not extending tax cuts for the rich; protecting government whistleblowers.

This is a man that doesn't stick to his guns. If and when his next chance comes to nominate a Supreme Court justice, I wouldn't put all my faith in him choosing a person of liberal principles.

Besides, the addition of Kagan & Sotomayor only preserved the status quo, 5-4 conservatives to liberal. Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg will only achieve the same thing. All the rabid conservatives are comparatively young and healthy and staying put, so the only possible chance to change the balance is if Kennedy, closest thing to a swing vote we've got, retires, which he shows no signs of doing. So we're going to continue getting conservative opinions out of SCOTUS for the foreseeable future, whether a President Trump picks a conservative or Obama picks the most fiery liberal there ever was.


If your name indeed reflects your politics, I can see why you stand with Obama.

[OmahaBlueDog]

18. His picks at least allowed those seats to remain liberal for the next 20 years

That's why the GOP has signaled they'd be good with Hillary on the SCOTUS -- you're only going to get 10-15 years from her, most likely.

RE: Transparency - I'm not naive enough to believe in truly transparent government

RE: Closing Guantanamo -- Ain't gonna happen. Too much NIMBY from the folks here. If GITMO offends you, you should try reading up on some of the more imaginative things that FDR did, which included torture of certain prisoners and putting potential security risks in mental hospitals because his AG wrote an opinion that habeus corpus didn't apply. That's not even mentioning putting the Japanese Americans in what were essentially concentration camps....and most here like and admire Roosevelt.

RE: Using civilian courts to try terrorist suspects; ending detention without trial and extraordinary rendition -- see "Closing Guantanamo"

RE: Protecting government whistleblowers -- I'm not certain what he's changed/not changed on this. I'm reasonably sure someone will enlighten me.

RE: Not extending tax cuts for the rich -- We agree on this one. While I agree that some common sense budget cutting (much of it in Cold War defense infrastructure that we no longer need, and bought too much of to begin with)is warranted, the ONLY way we can get our deficits under control is to start taxing the wealthy in some reasonable proportion to the degree they benefit from this society. I also think that if we are going to be a society that loves it's troops (which I do), and favors sending them into harms way to solve every little problem (which I don't), then I think it's time to start imposing an emergency war tax to fund the current and future costs of the conflicts. If the American people have to start bearing the direct costs of Iraq/Afghanistan/and Libya, perhaps they'll actually pressure congress to end the conflicts.

[Demit]

19. I am contrasting what Obama said to what his actions have been.

I'm not reading from my own personal wish list. Obama was quite explicit in promising all these things. And you seem like an intelligent person—calling up FDR is a red herring argument. It isn't relevant to the issue, which is that Obama made an explicit promise and subsequently broke it.

He pledged to 'protect government whistleblowers against reprisals' in his inaugural address. He said they were part of a healthy democracy. He now has been more aggressive than Bush in pursuing prosecution against whistleblowers (see Thomas Drake, who exposed fraud and waste at the NSA). The Bradley Manning case is so reprehensible that 250 legal scholars have signed a letter in protest, including Obama's old constitutional law professor.

If you were too sophisticated to take him at his word that he would create 'an unprecedented level of openness in government'—and you are apparently quite sanguine about how frequently he invokes state secrets now—then what makes you believe so firmly that his next pick for SCOTUS will be liberal? This is a real question, OmahaBlueDog. What is your confidence based on?

[William769]

5. Bill Mahr on Presidents Obamas slogans.

Old "yes we can". New "have it your way", and he wasn't referring to Democrats.

[jillan]

7. Bernie Sanders - let's give the wingnuts a reason to call us socialists!

[Shiver]

8. The OP asked for someone who has a chance of winning.

As much as I love Bernie, he has no chance of winning on a national level.

[AndyTiedye]

10. (crickets)

yeah, that's what we thought.

[JFN1]

11. Howard Dean.

He may be the last "big" Dem I trust at all. He was deligitimized in 2004 by the MSM because he would have STOMPTED little W's ass...

[FLAprogressive]

12. Russ Feingold. He has a record which is progressive but could appeal to libertarians/conservatives.

[JoePhilly]

15. If he appeals in anyway to libertarians / conservatives ... many on DU

would hate him.

[FLAprogressive]

16. I say that because he's been critical of earmarks and high defense spending - stuff that certain

parts of the left and the right agree on.

[Logical]

14. No dem can primary Obama and win. I am disappointed in Obama at times....

but the choice is clear for 2012. Obama or the GOP.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Nobody, because you can't win with just Dems. You need "the middle" too

There are always some extremists who will never be happy with any Democrat and who bail to vote for this year's version of Nader.

Unlike the extreme conservatives who will vote for anyone who agrees with them on the outrage of the day (same sex marriage, abortion, tax rates, etc.)

Conservatives have a path to victory without swing voters, Liberals don't.


That is at the heart of the problem and it is why Democratic politicians are constantly moving to the right, to win centrist votes. There is no other path to victory for them. Until the far left grasp this fact and spend 30 years turning out and voting for the lesser evil we will all to often end up with the greater evil.






*Note, there are some very liberal districts where this does not hold true, they are the exception not the rule.