Who cuuld possibly mount a potentially successful liberal primary challenge to Obama?

[cali]

When people talk about how Obama needs a primary challenge, who are they thinking could potentially be successful? I can't think of a single person who could even potentially prevail over him.

[ThomWV]

1. Joe Biden

I don't know how to do the smilie thing, but if I did the one for Sarcasm would be right here.

[MadBadger]

2. Howard Dean

At least that's what they'll all say.

[Arkana]

4. Don't think he wants it.

It's like the whole DNC chairmanship thing--people here claim he was "forced" out, when in fact his term was up and he decided to leave.

When the Democrats are in power, the party chairmanship is a figurehead position at best--I don't think that's the role Dean envisioned for himself.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. +1000

[WeDidIt]

61. Howard Dean's chance of ever becoming president died on January 19, 2004

He will never be nominated for the presidency, much less ever win.

And I supported Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries.

[ladjf]

76. Maybe so, maybe not. nt

[Radical Activist]

103. So you want a move to the right?

No thanks. Obama already has a better record of governing and campaign organizing.

[MadBadger]

105. Obviously we havent met before

Nor did you understand my post and the use of the word "They"

[Radical Activist]

110. OK

Maybe they will choose to respond.

[ecstatic]

118. Thanks for bringing this point up. Dean is NOT any more left than Obama

if anything, he is more right leaning. However, my attraction to his candidacy was based on his passion and pragmatism. It's so funny how quickly DU forgets these things--if or when Dean is ever elected, he will be attacked just as much (if not more) than Obama is.

[ecstatic]

117. 7 years ago I was a Deaniac. I hope he can run in 2016, but

primarying Obama would not only be a huge epic fail, but it would destroy his legacy.

[Arkana]

3. At the moment?

Absolutely no one.

No one that currently exists in the political world has both an electable quality and perfectly impeccable "progressive" credentials.

[Richardo]

5. It would be a merely symbolic Pete McCloskey-style protest - and just as futile

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

...and McClosey was positioned as an anti-war challenger to Nixon at the height of the unpopularity of Vietnan.


I don't think the liberal backlash against Obama is nearly as significant as some are wishfully making it out to be.

I know all liberals are not necessarily Democrats, but intra-party approval is at 83.3%, with 11.4% disapproving. The numbers among independents is >50% disapproval, but my guess would be that self-described 'independents' are more likely to be former Republicans too disaffected or embarrassed to use that label these days.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama-dems.php

[TwilightGardener]

6. Don't think there's anyone currently who has the political skills to prevail--

it's not just positions on issues. It would have to be somebody who could actually get elected by a broad segment of voters. Dean couldn't do it, Kucinich couldn't do it, Grayson can't do it, Hillary isn't going to do it (and certainly not from the left, unless she reinvents herself).

[State the Obvious]

7. Ask the GOP.....they would like nothing more than to divide the Dems.

Isn't that the only way the GOP can win?

As for me....I am NOT a fair-weather-friend....I'll be for Obama no matter what.

IF we become a divided party.....we WILL fall.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. Bernie Sanders

I'd vote for him, but I'm not even sure he could mount said challenge because he's not officially a Democrat.

Bernie is one who COULD mount a reasonably successful challenge to Obama from the left. A social democrat who's not afraid to be UNABASHEDLY pro people and a verbal "bomb thrower" at that. He'd fire up a LOT of the left side of the Dems and absolutely drive the right WAY further around the bend.

IMO, it not only would be a good idea, but it would probably HELP Obama in the general election. The right has sold this meme that Obama is a "socialist" and Bernie would show the squishy middle what a REAL socialist looks and sounds like.

Can only registered Democrats run in the Democratic primaries?

[cali]

21. Nah. Bernie doesn't have the political chops to do it

and he's not interested. Don't get me wrong; he's my Senator and I love the guy, but he's not cut out for it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. I doubt Bernie would run for President at this point, even in an open election

What I would like to see though, is Bernie as Senate Majority Leader. Someone actually capable of leading, which neither Reid or Daschle ever were.

[HughMoran]

35. Bernie is sloppy looking and he makes gaffs all the time

The other day he went dyslexic on a word and it sounded kinda dumb - and he's prone to doing this.

[socialist_n_TN]

70. OK, OK not Bernie

Although I'd still vote for him in a primary over Obama unless he showed me something stupid.

I'd still like somebody to primary Obama from the left who COULD make a dent. Showing ballot power is the only way we're going to get taken seriously. We've got to show that there's a large constituency for leftist politics. And if they don't win, at least it shows the public that Obama is NOT a leftist. WE know he's a centrist, but I'm not sure the public is convinced of this.

[sabrina 1]

84. I agree. I would definitely support him and he's

a very respected, honest politician who could appeal to the most important group, Independents as well as the disaffected Democrats, and probably many real Conservatives.

I doubt he could do it though because he doesn't have a party machine behind him.

[Codeine]

95. Sanders isn't a Democrat, and he's goofy-looking with terrible posture.

One must look Presidential to be taken seriously.

[The Damned]

9. Then why ask the question?

K&U

[cali]

23. uh, because it's frequently posted around here that Obama should be primaried.

I'm curious who people think could could do it.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Ask that question in about eighteen months

It is way too premature to suggest that there will be no viable contenders this far ahead of the election.

[ismnotwasm]

11. I don't know

The RW greatest asset and is their ability to organize, their biggest detriment is the fear-based politics usually on the basis of 'us against them' (Constantly recreating some sort of "Other")That makes them look like racist loonies. Which they are. But they have a large base.

The Left by our vary nature, allows intellectual and political evolution and inner-political debate--a very big tent indeed. So while in my opinion we're by far (as in another galaxy far) the healthier political ideology, we're stuck with a system with conservative and corrupt roots. Very hard for a liberal candidate to get a decent foothold.

Then, there's always religion. Don't get me started, but despite the many religious (and wonderful )liberals, think religion and you get twisted RW ideology again. Think what we will, but it's a huge psychological influence on millions of people.

Add war-based economic influences and uncontrollable greed and a bullshit media, and well, they you go.

[H2O Man]

12. No one could,

unless there is some extreme unforseen event in the future. It is very unlikely that will happen. It is important to note that even in this remote possibility, it would be 100,000 times more likely that a conservative democratic politician could mount a primary challenge. There are two factors that make it almost impossible for a meaningful challenge from the left: first, the lack of a charismatic "leader"; and second, the failure of the left to build a serious front since 2008.

[chillspike]

13. Well, Hillary, of course, ..duh

;)

[socialist_n_TN]

15. He said from the left

I don't think that Hillary qualifies as being to the left of Obama. Bernie Sanders could though.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. Kucinich!

Because this is DU, and Kucinich is the answer, regardless of the question.

Now what was the question?

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Kucinich has no charisma

It won't be him. We need a verbal "bomb thrower".

[Cleita]

19. How about Alan Grayson in 2016? n/t

[chillspike]

26. YEAH! Grayson and Franken in 2016!!! YEAH!!! YEAH!!!

[Cleita]

30. No, I don't think Obama should be primaried, but I would support either

or both on a ticket in2016.

[laughingliberal]

87. +1 nt

[Radical Activist]

106. Kucinich is a great verbal bomb thrower.

That's what he's best at. The problem is that if he were President he would mismanage the country into the ground.

[lamp_shade]

17. LOL. You beat me to it.

[Renew Deal]

66. lol

:rofl:

[Cleita]

18. Obama should have no primary challenge.

As a moderate Democrat he's doing a competent job. I too would prefer a President more like FDR, but he is getting a lot done to undo Republican malfeasance. He really isn't the problem. It's Congress that needs a big change out. From what I can see many of the DINOs are getting primary challenges, for instance Jane Harmon of California. We need to change the politics of Congress. If we get a majority progressive House and Senate, Pelosi and Reid will have to listen to them and most likely Obama will sign any legislation that they make.

[Odin2005]

20. Howard Dean

[anthroguy101]

22. Isn't it obvious?

Alan Grayson would totally own Obama at all levels. He is the most patriotic American in the face of incompetent establishment. He should run for President simply because he knows how to talk and tells us the truth about the right. He is the biggest attack dog and would probably win in a landslide. If it were between Alan Grayson and President Obama, Grayson would get my vote.

[cali]

24. um, no. it's like totally not obvious.

Grayson is a less than one term Congress Critter with no political history but that. Furthermore, I find his complete and total support for Israel rather jarring. If he's so against the right and the injustices of the wars in Afghanistan, how is it that he uncritically supports whatever Israel does?

[anthroguy101]

25. There's always going to be wars in the middle east. This is what's really important:

He'd give us real reform, stand up for the injustice in the political system, and be able to use the bully pulpit much more effectively. He would be a much more strong and aggressive leader than Obama.

[cali]

29. That's your answer? That there will always be war

in the ME? Well, no that isn't written in stone, and in any case has little to do with Grayson's support for Israeli war crimes. And I doubt that he'd give us real reform.

[aquart]

47. So you would withdraw support for Israel and let it die?

Good to know.

[cali]

50. did I say that? No. But I do think

that the Israeli occupation is flat wrong and that it's counter to OUR national interests.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Raw shit-stirring and fiery attitude may work for Congressmen--they work for a district.

Less so for Senators who serve state-wide, even less so for Presidential candidates. Being a Prez candidate requires A LOT of rhetorical restraint, as well as compromise on a number of positions. Much bigger and broader constituency.

[HughMoran]

33. He's not really Presidential material IMO

He's great at what he does, but I'm relatively certain that he couldn't handle the daily assaults from the media or keep up his wit under the massive pressure of running for President. I like him just where he is.

[sabrina 1]

86. I would support him and think how much fun it would be

watching him eviscerate the Republican candidate whoever it might be. People LOVE a fighter, and only recently we learned that Grayson was more popular with Republicans in his dist. than their own candidates.

[Poiuyt]

28. Ralph Nader

Just kidding! Just kidding! :hide:

[Cleita]

32. You know that Ralph might be

eating dirt by then. He's that old.

[Ishoutandscream2]

102. Ok. Then how about Zombie Ralph?

[Aramchek]

34. anybody who tried would become a laughing stock, just like those who would support them

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Just Like The Guy Who Challenged Carter!

Oh wait...

[Aramchek]

58. Obama is not Carter, and whatever clown you put up is most definitely no Ted Kennedy

[Radical Activist]

107. That turned out very well, didn't it.

Maybe we can get another Reagan!

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Do You Think It Was Cause and Effect?

Why?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

48. Face it, if you are not supportive of the establishment democratic policies, you're

left out in the cold? It would be BEST for progressives in our Congress to stand "as firm" as the blue dogs. Sadly they don't have the corporations bucking them up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Wait a minute, you accuse the guy of being a freeper...

then you attack the "with us or against us" concept?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[branders seine]

39. Careful.

A couple of DUers were banned not all that long ago for asking such a question.

[Peregrine Took]

41. Anthony Weiner. He's feisty, intelligent a great debater and his politics

are left of center. No rethug lite or DLC'r.

[sabrina 1]

85. Sanders/Weiner n/t

[Lil Missy]

42. That would be a waste of time. So probably Nader. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

Yes, Nader or whomever is nominated by The Green Party?

That's the only "left of center" non-corporate loving politician who will at least appear on the ballot. Hopefully?

The last potentially VIABLE challenger was Ross Perot in 1992.

http://www.counterpunch.org/kuzminski08182004.html

The last meaningful opposition to the duopoly was perhaps Ross Perot's presidential candidacy in 1992. His presence in the presidential debates and his subsequent garnering of almost twenty percent of the vote -- in spite of dropping out of the race and then reentering it -- may be the most underappreciated event in recent American political history. Perot was no social activist liberal, but he showed what an open political process might achieve. Afterward, the duopoly regrouped and created a rigged, 'bi-partisan,' corporate-sponsored debate commission dedicated to making sure that no third party candidate would ever again enjoy such exposure to the voters.

The coming darkness is the eclipse of American political freedom and the unchecked reign of a venal, arrogant, and ignorant ruling class. Onerous as its depredations at home are likely to be, even more omnious is its immoral, illegal, and criminal policy of preemptive war abroad -- a policy fully endorsed by Kerry. There is no end to the war on terrorism, since a terrorist is increasingly defined as anyone who opposes the duopoly at home or abroad.

[freddie mertz]

43. Sherrod Brown.

I've been impressed.

[cali]

49. I like him a lot too

but I don't see him running.

[freddie mertz]

98. We can dream.

We need something better than what we have right now.

[Corey_Baker08]

54. I'll Second That For Sen Brown!!!

...just not in 2012. A primary challenge would do nothing but divide our party, and cost us money we could use to inevitably re-elect President Obama in 2012 even if a Primary takes place.

While I disagree with the logic behind this post, I participated because its a good forum to make note of the true Liberal Democrats in this country that are in fact fighting for us everyday, like Sen. Brown.

[WCGreen]

64. I've know and followed Sherrod for over 30 years now....

I don't see him challenging a sitting president.

could he be lining up for 2016?

Perhaps.

[freddie mertz]

99. Let's hope so,

I am leaning ABB now ...(anyone but Barack)... after reading about the OFA meddling in PA.

[mmonk]

44. If there is a challenge, it will be a third party candidate in the general election.

The Democratic Party punishes insubordination.

[L. Coyote]

45. Anyone with the "Change" slogan.

because the voters sooooo easily fall for that line :rofl:

[frustrated_lefty]

46. Howard Dean. He won't challenge, but he'd get my vote.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. The only ones who immediately come to mind, are Kooch & Nader.

They'd be laughed off the stage, but they both have massives egos.

[earth mom]

52. Al Gore and RFK Jr. Two REAL liberals who give a damn that you love to hate. nt

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. RFK Jr, the anti-vaxer?

How is lying to people about scientific literature being a "real" liberal?

[earth mom]

67. RFK JR. The truth teller about how the pharma giants are poisoning innocent babies! nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

68. Wow, they must have changed the definition of "truth"

[earth mom]

69. That's what you do with your disinfo. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

71. Where did you get your science degree?

I can't seem to find RFK Jr.'s here...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

93. So mercury is just as good as mother's milk, then? It's changed its physical properties neurotoxin?

Really you don't say?

[Arkana]

121. You're kidding, right?

You actually think that vaccines are "poisoning innocent babies"?

Wow, you're round the crazy bend and over the insane hill.

[H2O Man]

73. Both of these gentlemen

are outstanding assets in the Democratic Party. Each has flaws -- shocking, considering that they are human -- and some pimples on the party's ass will always focus on them. But they are, of course, actual leaders. However, there is zero chance that either one would consider, or even support, a primary challenge in 2012.

[Radical Activist]

108. Ironic choice given the left's attitude about Gore in 2000.

Gore's 2000 campaign pissed me off and I didn't think he was liberal enough back then. Since then, I realized that there are some people on the left with their own agendas who will always say the same things about the Democratic nominee not being at all liberal, whether its Gore or Obama or Karl Marx.

[tranche]

111. Didn't "real progressives" vote Nader of Gore in 2000 because he wasn't a "real liberal"?

And that's why I want to pull my hair out everytime I hear anything about "real progressives" or "real liberals". Makes me want to puke.

[ecstatic]

119. Again, it's amazing how quickly people forget. I have respect for Al Gore, but he chose LIEBERMAN

to be his VP. Imagine, LIEBERMAN would have been our nominee in 2008 had Gore been successful.

[Arkana]

122. To be fair, the Lieberman of 2000 was not like the Lieberman of 2010.

Much like McCain changed, Lieberman changed too.

[KatyaR]

53. How about Cory Booker?

He's done a great job as mayor of Newark, just got re-elected. He'd be a long shot, but he seems to actually be able to do what he says he's going to do.

[Karmadillo]

55. If anyone hasn't seen Street Fight, it's a really good documentary of Booker's

first run for mayor. Streams on Netflix.

[CBR]

56. I do not want him to challenge the President but I do really like

him. Everyone should follow him on Twitter. He has done a great job in Newark.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. It's Newark. How much opposition does Corey face in Newark?

Don't you think there'd be a little more to running the world, than running Newark?

[aikoaiko]

78. Not yet.

He's got great potential, but not a national figure yet.

Although I will say that NPR is doing a great job of getting his name out there.

[ecstatic]

120. Watching him now on Real Time--Cory is nobody's fool or clown

So if the Nader-left is looking for someone to primary Obama in 2012, they should look elsewhere.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

63. I think ANY liberal with some good bona fides could make life very difficult for President Obama

Because of one major factor: Any campaign stances that President Obama makes on almost any topic will have little credibility - too many 180s while in office from his stands as a candidate. I'm sorry, but I think that's a true summation.

Almost anyone could look at him in any debate whether primary or general and say "Why should we believe what you're saying?" It's regrettable, but it's a situation he has created for himself. I really wonder if he won't realize this and just decide to pull an LBJ.

Also adding to this scenario are potential further economic meltdowns, continued unemployment, major environmental disaster, etc. which people will fairly or unfairly associate with his Presidency.

[Mari333]

72. Id vote for Alan Grayson in a heartbeat

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

74. Alan Grayson could have a very serious political career if he isn't co-opted. nt

[Marr]

75. It's a misguided fantasy.

Our problems aren't going to be fixed from the top down. Anyone hoping to jump directly to checkmate by electing an authentically liberal president is just fooling themselves.

We need a broad, cohesive liberal movement that isn't built around politicians.

[Dr Morbius]

100. Well said.

I see no one in the country, left or right, able to politically defeat Obama right now. But Obama is not the problem. Granted, he doesn't appear to be the solution either, but the point is that he's got big ears. If we make enough noise he will hear us. He's politically savvy; if it's smart politics to move left, he'll move left. He's a pragmatist. We need to work from the bottom, not the top.

[socialist_n_TN]

101. This is a sensible and realistic post

Obama is a centrist, but also he's a PRAGMATIST. I agree if it makes sense POLITICALLY to move left, he'll move left. It's up to us. That's why I hope Sestak, Halter, and the progressive in CO. win the primaries. That will show we have some clout and show that the corporatist/Blue Dog Dems don't.

[ladjf]

77. We need an honest, intelligent, courageous and articulate person.

Is there any one in America who could fill that bill?

[depakid]

79. If you'd have asked that question in early 1967, no one would have said Eugene McCarthy

And in the age of you tube and twitter, where someone as unlikely Susan Boyle became a top selling artist virtually overnight, that question loses a lot of its relevance.

Politics, like physics abhors a vacuum. Create one and chances are that someone or some party will come along and fill it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

81. I agree that the vacuum will be filled

because there is a constituency screaming for a leader. One will emerge.

[Beetwasher]

80. HOWARD DEAN, ALAN GRAYSON, DENNIS KUCINICH, RUSS FEINGOLD, AL GORE, RFK JR, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM

Are outstanding liberal leaders, and every single one of them will without a doubt whole heartedly, and without reservation or second thought, be gung ho and supportive over President Obama's second term.

Bank on it.

[Number23]

82. + Everything

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. Dr. Dean

[craigmatic]

88. Al Gore could do it but probably won't. The bigger question is who is going to be able to replace

him in 2016? I just don't see anybody coming along to fill that spot unless Clinton decides to run again.

[laughingliberal]

91. Grayson, Franken, Brown (Sherrod). eom

[laughingliberal]

89. It's a long way to 2012.

Too early to tell who or what may emerge between now and then. Who knows? There's still time for Obama to turn left although I'm not holding my breath.

[Forkboy]

90. It's a shame foreigners can't run for President.

[Karmadillo]

97. If he'll promise to run, I'll start lobbying for a constitutional amendment tomorrow.

nt

[Lasher]

92. Wait until his new Greenspan Commission comes up with their recommendations.

Then lots of potentially successful challengers will come to mind.

[laughingliberal]

94. +1 nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

96. Even if a cloned a combination of Jesus, Lincoln & Teddy R conservatives would hate them...

If we cloned a hybrid between these three great men, conservatives would still savagely attack them. So what's the point with trying to even cater to them? Why has congress or Obama even tried bipartisanship? We are at war against an enemy whose main weapon is ignorance and we can't beat them???

[Motown_Johnny]

104. doing this to Carter got us Reagan and the Bushes... lets not do it again

[Radical Activist]

109. Will a candidate be considered left enough if they voted for Obama's health care

bank regulation, stimulus, and climate change bills? Or will those be considered sell-outs? Just wondering how this works.

[tranche]

112. Jerry Brown

[Jennicut]

113. No one right now. DU is not the entire Dem party and Dems as a whole have

a pretty high approval for Obama still in the mid 80's. If 15% of Dems are unhappy with Obama who would be able to take that amount of Dem's and build on it and oust Obama in a primary? Would any Dems try a primary challenge if it looks like Obama's chances of re-election are really good?

[Radical Activist]

114. I think Noam Chomsky should run as a Democrat.

He'd have no chance against Obama but the debates would be fantastic. Would the corporate press still be able to ignore him?

Even better would be the hours of endless debate university Marxists would have with each other while trying to decide if they should stay out of the race since electoral politics is a waste of time and whether Chomsky is a corporatist sell-out just because he ran as a Democrat. Heads would explode!

[Union Yes]

116. I think Russ Feingold could. But he won't. At least I think he won't.

[Neron616]

123. Bobby Kennedy

Now if only we could find a medium!