What Democrats can do about Obama: A Democrat argues that 2012 nomination should be debated

[yurbud]

I agree with this guy's analysis but not his conclusion.

The elder progressives in Congress and perhaps a few big money progressive donors need to tell Obama that triangulating and bipartisanship are not winning the confidence of Democratic voters and more importantly, not fixing our most profound problems. Worse, his administration's failure to aggressively prosecute those on Wall Street who caused our economic problems and instead protected them and let them place their friends and allies in most top economic positions.

That last part leads a lot of us paying attention to wonder if we have a democracy at all, or if we are only allowed to vote on whether gays should be allowed to marry or just be beaten back into the closet. Even that victory is cold comfort when recently married gays leave the courthouse to join the rest of us living in cardboard boxes under a bridge while paying taxes to bailout the rich and fight their wars.

On second thought, maybe this guy's conclusion is right. It's often been stated that there hasn't been a successful primary opponent of a sitting president in the modern era, but if Robert Kennedy hadn't been shot, he probably would have made it into the White House. Obama is starting to look a lot like LBJ.

What Democrats can do about Obama
A Democrat argues that the party's 2012 nomination should be debated -- with all options open

By Matt Stoller

From the debt ceiling fiasco to the recent rescheduling of a jobs speech at the behest of Speaker Boehner, it has not been a good summer for President Obama. Like Chinese water torture, Gallup's daily tracking poll has shown a steady and unrelenting drip of bad news. He has been in and out of the high 30s for his approval, and in the low to mid-50s for his disapproval.

George W. Bush's approval rating didn't drop this low until Katrina hit. And on the economy, 71 percent of Americans disapprove of how Obama is doing his job. Even among reliably Democratic groups -- union households, women and young people -- he's now unpopular.

No one, not even the president's defenders, expect his coming jobs speech to mean anything. When the president spoke during a recent market swoon, the market dropped another 100 points. Democrats may soon have to confront an uncomfortable truth, and ask whether Obama is a suitable choice at the top of the ticket in 2012. They may then have to ask themselves if there's any way they can push him off the top of the ticket.

***

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/04/favoritesonsanddaughters

[tblue]

1. The nominee will be Obama.

Unless he surprises us and decides to drop out for some reason. It's his nomination to lose and I think it's his election to lose too.

What would make me happy is another story.

[yurbud]

2. I agree. But we need to explore ways to get him out of Wall Street's pocket.

[MineralMan]

4. How are "we" going to do that? I don't see any mechanism

for us to "get him out" of anything. He will have to do that for himself. I expect to see some major new movement in that direction, starting about now. It's coming up on a year before the 2012 election. President Obama has just about exhausted his chances of getting the Republicans to do anything his way. It's time for him to stop trying that tactic and switch to a hard-line position on his goals. Let the voters see that the reason he's not getting what he want is because the Republicans are blocking him.

The 2012 campaign starts now.

[txlibdem]

9. Obama take a hard-line position on his goals? - That would take a spine. None of that seen so far.

[Enthusiast]

11. He has plenty of spine

when it comes to defending the interests of the military industrial complex, the oil industry, the pharmaceutical companies, war criminals in the Bush Administration and Wall Street criminals.

I do not like hearing Obama has no spine. That is only an excuse for him going against the wishes of those that put him in office.

[txlibdem]

16. You're right. He has plenty of spine when he's kicking Progressives out the door.

Or hurling invectives at us.

[onpatrol98]

3. I just don't believe the President will be primaried.

It would be disastrous. It would cause all kinds of divisions in the party. It would be like...PUMA 2.0. I know some people really want this to happen. But, I just don't see how our party would benefit from it.

1) I can't think of a single viable candidate who would even attempt it.
2) Where would they get the funds?
3) Who would be their base?

I know people are seriously pondering this possibility. But, I think the party would suffer tremendously if it actually happened.

[saras]

19. Perhaps America is more important than the party, if that's what it costs to keep the party together

[Proud Public Servant]

5. This points to an interesting issue, but not about Obama

The question is, who would even primary him? Forget Bernie Sanders fantasies; he's not even a Democrat. If the problem is that Obama doesn't represent real Democratic values, then ask: is there a single politician with prominance, gravitas, and potential national appeal who does? Because, with Feingold gone, I'm just not seeing one.

[NorthCarolina]

6. Grayson/Sanders would work fine for me. nt

[Proud Public Servant]

7. You've made my point for me

Sanders isn't a Democrat, and Grayson couldn't keep his own seat in Congress. Neither is actually a viable candidate in a Democratic primary.

[Enthusiast]

12. Grayson was targeted

in a Republican leaning district. He is very popular with REAL Democrats. Sanders can run as a Democrat.

What is your point? Go ahead and lose with Dino Obama? Because Obama is going to lose. Understand that right now. You do not attack your traditional base and win a presidential election.

[Proud Public Servant]

14. Please, this isn't about Grayson

My point is simply that in an era that calls out for titanic progressives Democratic Party leaders -- Stevensons, Humphreys, Kennedys, Wellstones, Feingolds -- we don't have a single such politician who both (a) belongs to the party, and (b) is holding office as a senator of governor at the moment. Which means there isn't, at the moment, a single progressive who could run for president as a Democrat and have a credible chance of winning. And that's a sad comment on the party.

[yurbud]

8. the media would not give any progressive prominence and gravitas

Someone once said we have freedom of speech to criticize the status quo in America so long as no one is listening or no one takes you seriously.

When the media can't do one to you, they do the other.

Things will change the percentage of people getting their news from TV drops to the point that they can no longer annoint and annihilate candidates.

[Enthusiast]

10. Kicked and recommended!

Primary his ass! We lose IF he is elected or if he is not elected. Get a real Democratic candidate NOW!

[kickysnana]

13. +1

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[hay rick]

17. What we can do about Obama.

What we can do is write in another name- any name- in the primaries. If enough people signal their displeasure by voting for somebody other than Obama in an uncontested primary, he will appear unelectable and he can be thrown overboard.

Doesn't require a candidate. Doesn't require a large campaign organization. Doesn't require significant funding...

[Che Billy]

18. Dean/Warren?

How about Howard Dean with Elizabeth Warren as VP? Or vice-versa? I'd support that!

Obama should do the honorable thing and drop out of national politics "for family reasons." If he hasn't figured out by now that he doesn't have the balls to take on the Repugs, he's not as smart as he's been made out to be.

[grahamhgreen]

20. "So what can party leaders do? History offers one model....

In 1892, the Democratic Party nominated Grover Cleveland, and with sweeping majorities in both houses, Democrats had control of the federal government for the first time since before the Civil War. Then a financial crisis, plus Cleveland's stubborn allegiance to banking interests, turned his presidency into a catastrophe for Democrats.

When taking state candidates into account, the 1894 midterm elections were comparable to the 2010 wipeout; Cleveland was disliked so ardently that party leaders pushed him out of running for reelection. Instead the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, who introduced many populist themes into the party and began the ideological transformation that would culminate with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. If a few of the key constituency groups in the Democratic Party publicly wondered whether Obama should run for reelection, rumblings would start. Some organized constituency groups -- say some components of the AFL-CIO -- would need to announce that their support is up for grabs, based on a clear set of criteria. Given the Obama administration's rampant anti-labor policies, this wouldn't be an unreasonable posture. And then a senior politician, like, say, a Tom Harkin, would need to decide that he would want to encourage robust intra-party debate about the party's future.

Harkin could run as a "favorite son" of Iowa, and encourage people in the caucuses to send a message to the party and to Obama by choosing him. Other candidates could then emerge in early primary and caucus states, as a way of repudiating Obama's leadership. Candidates wouldn't have to pretend to be running for president or be presidential quality; they could simply stand in as favorite sons or daughters of their own geographic area. This would immediately fire up a highly aggressive and needed debate about the direction of the Democratic Party and the country at large. It would build a new set of leaders, and elevate others who would like to distance themselves from the Obama policy agenda.

In a few months, we'll know better if Obama still looks like a loser next year. If he does, that does not mean the Democratic Party must follow him down the path to oblivion."

[yurbud]

21. good find