Joan Walsh: Don't primary Obama, change Congress

[wndycty]

Don't primary Obama, change Congress
The itch to change candidates reflects the left's inability to buckle down to long-term political organizing
By Joan Walsh

I talked about the discouraging notion of a primary challenge to President Obama on "Hardball" tonight. Steve Kornacki's been doing a great job explaining why such a move is unlikely; Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008) explained to Justin Elliott why it is unwise. Still, Matt Bai's vaporous piece in the New York Times set people talking again today.

I'm disappointed in President Obama's tax-cut deal, as I've already explained. I'm glad the administration is framing it as a "stimulus bill" now -- let's hope tough progressive Democrats make it better, since there's little chance that it won't pass. But I think pondering a primary challenge to Obama is suicidal, and reflects a certain fecklessness on the left. First of all, Obama was a great gift to lefty Democrats in 2008, making them believe that a few years of online organizing and railing against George W. Bush had produced a true progressive hero and a coalition for dramatic change, which simply wasn't true. Too many anointed him the true candidate of the left too quickly and attacked Hillary Clinton -- and anyone who defended her -- as moderate sellouts, or even racists, even though Clinton was taking the more liberal line on healthcare reform, Social Security and the economy generally. I don't want to fight that old fight again; I really do understand that many progressives were tired of Clintonian centrism, which is what they thought they'd get under the wife of the former president, and thought it was worth taking a chance on the inspiring African-American from Chicago who had, significantly, opposed the Iraq war, unlike his leading Democratic rivals.

Still, the rush to proclaim Obama the one, true progressive in 2008 was foolish, and I'd suggest that those who wound up disappointed in Obama think more about what they can learn from that race, rather than plotting to bring him down in 2012. Switching candidates now would be just another symptom of progressives' inability to dig in for a long haul of taking our country back from the plutocrats who now run it. It's tough work. I think, sadly, Obama is probably the most progressive Democrat who could be elected right now. (Admittedly, it's still early, and it's still theoretically possible for Obama to do something so outrageous as to change my mind.) I'd rather see liberals put time and money into electing courageous folks to the House and Senate than a quixotic attack on Obama, which would split the party racially -- almost 90 percent of African-Americans still support the president in most polls -- and probably hand the White House to Republicans.
-snip-

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/12/08/obama_primary_talk

[JI7]

1. but that's hard and boring

[Bluerthanblue]

yup, and requires too much effort.

It's much easier to threaten, complain, un-subscribe from Organizing for America and spend time and money sending your no longer wanted Obama memorabilia to the WH.

Sometimes people are so ....
:shrug:

[young but wise]

6. lazy and lame. There, I finished your last sentence for you.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. your name seems to suit you-

thanks~

:hi:

[Safetykitten]

2. Joan, at this point the republicans have it in the bag for 2012

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Really?

Based on what? :shrug: Personally, I think that they're not looking forward to going up against President Obama in 2012 and are trying to find ways to discourage him from running, either by suggesting that he not run (a la Caddell and Schoen) for "the greater good" or by other means, including, I believe, simply trying to get us to do it for them by getting us worked up at President Obama instead of them.

Mind you, I'm not saying that all anger against the President and discussion of primaries is necessarily instigated by Republicans but there's nothing that they'd like to see more than us all at each other's throats for the next two years over one thing or another (while at the same time ignoring what THEY'RE doing) and President Obama bloodied, wounded, and "softened up" in time for the 2012 election, and if there's anything that they or their media enablers can do to help along the friction, they'll do it. So, I'd be particularly wary about what the media is saying in regards to being "concerned" about the state of the Democratic Party and the potential for primary challenges for President Obama. Remember, the media- especially- is not typically supportive of the left at all.

Above and beyond all this, however, the Republicans have their own ticking "time bomb" in the form of the "Tea Party" which, although supportive of the GOP now, could easily turn on a dime and, more importantly, "go rogue" on them if they're not careful and they're in the public eye now that some of them are in Congress, so there is no reason to automatically assume that 2012 is "in the bag" for 2012. Remember that they'll have to find a candidate that is conservative crazy enough to win the Republican primary and "moderate" enough for the general electorate. That is probably going to be a challenge in and of itself. :shrug:

[DJ13]

3. How about all of them get booted

The rot runs too deep to save any part of it.

[Radical Activist]

4. Yes. Obvious given that the Senate has been our real problem for the last two years.

The netroots need to figure out that NO President can do everything for them, especially given the 60 vote filibuster rule.

[OHdem10]

5. I think Joan recognizas that. . If we are real honest, what does

having a Democratic President really buy us. The way the
system is rigged, the President with most honorable intentions
cannot make serious changes. Wall Street and Business
run the show. Just like this Tax Bill WS and BB are hi-5ing
and popping the champagne corks.

I believe what Jane is saying, get rid of the Congress who
are beholden to Business. Both Parties drink at the same
tough and no matter who the President is, no real change
takes place. Bill Clinton and Nafta, and all the De Regulation.
The powers that be won.

Find honest courageous Democrats to run for office who
will not be drawn into the Money Trap. This will be a long
hard slog. A serious Movement could push it along more quickly.

Put in another Democratic President with no change and you
will get a 3rd---Clinton, Obama.

The President is no stronger than his
Congress is what it boils down to.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. We keep nominating the wrong kind of person.

Polticians. Someone with no elective experience would be best.

Power corrupts, and the more you exercise it, the more corrupt you become. The only legitimate, un-corrupt stand is to not exercise it.

Any really progressive President would resign the day they were inaugurated, before they could be made any worse by participating in the process.

We should nominate a politician for Vice-President, though. To sign checks and stuff.

[Major Hogwash]

8. Exactamundo! And that's what we're going to be. We're going to be cool.

If the Republicans want to hold the unemployment benefits, for millions of Americans who are currently out of work, hostage, then we're going to toss them out of office!
Right after I eat this burger.

Mmmmm, this sure is a tasty burger.
You ever tried one of these burgers before, Joan?

[OHdem10]

10. I would argue that the President needs some experience, so

as not to be hornswoggled by those around him.

[nckjm]

11. I'm so sick of rich people telling me to dig in for the long haul....

I'm a 55 year old, single female. I live in the real world. My job was eliminated in September (to boost corporate earnings). I have a mortgage. I have a pre-existing medical condition. I didn't inherit money. I got an education (which I paid for) and I've worked hard all my adult life. I lived through the 8 years of HELL with George W. Bush and watched as things spiraled down rapidly for the working and middle classes. I saw how easily a president can lie and how utterly soul-less Republicans really are. Many days I didn't think this country would survive it...but then someone held out hope. I fell for it as did millions of others.

And, so far, I've lived through 2 years of HELL with Barack Obama and I still must somehow make it through 2 more years with what passes as "leadership" from him...and then someone (a rich white woman who probably wears $300 high heels) tells me to "dig in for the long haul" (which is basically saying in 2012 WASTE 4 MORE YEARS on Obama because he's a good as you will be able to get)...so when I do the math, that's at least 6 years more LONG YEARS I have to keep "digging in"...And BTW, after 8 years of W and 8 years of Obama I'll have been "digging in" for 16 years of my life (that's nearly a generation of time)...wheels spinning in the sand, going nowhere, getting nowhere, while the rich flush their toilets with 24K gold commode fittings.

I think fascism and plutocracy will be so inculturated in our government in 6 years that pre-9/11 America will be no more than a memory. In 6 years will I still have my home? if I don't get sick prior to 2014, is there a SLIM chance I might get healthcare?

Oh yea, I'm pretty clear that "this is tough work." I think Joan cares; I think she is a good person; I just don't think she has any experiential understanding of the FEAR and shit-hole future millions of America face.

[Andy823]

12. Well

Do you think things would be better if McCain and the Alaskan idiot had won? Bush took 8 years to get us in the mess, Obama has had less than two to try and get us out. No matte who had gotten in office they couldn't have done any better!

[GoCubsGo]

20. Eight years? Try twelve. Or, more.

The republicans held Congress from 1994-2006. A lot of the groundwork for our current mess was laid before The Village Idiot ever thought of running. Hell, some of it goes back to the Reagan Error.

[treestar]

23. Her point was it is the Senate

We always have to dig in for the long haul. You didn't expect the President to help you personally, did you?

[Clio the Leo]

13. Hrmph! It's OBAMA'S job to change Congress!!!

.... while I sit here on my fat butt eating Cheetos! :sarcasm:

[impik]

14. Why not? Primary him. I want to see it. I need a good laugh

[lamp_shade]

15. "fecklessness on the left". Love it. Well put, Joanie.

[old mark]

17. Rec...this is the SMARTEST thing I have read on GDP for a long time - I'm

surprised you have so many recs considering the type of raging brain damaged zealot who generally responds here.

This is the only way to go - we won't do any better with the most progressive president in history if we continue to let the republicans control congress...


mark

[GoCubsGo]

19. Well said, old mark. n/t

[GoCubsGo]

18. I have to agree with Joan.

Especially that last paragraph. Congress had a big hand in this whole situation, too. I suspect the President could have done better had they dealt with this earlier, instead of running off to campaign. There's a lot of blame to go around. And, it's sad to see so many bashing a guy for not being something he never was.

And, judging by at least one other post here at DU, that racial split is already starting...

[wndycty]

21. Thursday afternoon kick

:kick:

[we can do it]

22. How About BOTH Primary Obama the Marshmallow and Change Congress

[polichick]

24. I agree with changing Congress - but we'd have to change Obama too. nt

[great white snark]

25. Very well argued, I agree. (nt)

[Hawkowl]

26. Do both.

We're multi-taskers, no?

[TheKentuckian]

27. Obama is a big part of the problem. Congress is a debacle but the Administration is no better

He's the one cutting the undermining deals behind closed doors and runs the bureaucracy.