If there's so much complaining about Obama, why isn't there a challenger?

[Kaleva]

I'm talking about a challenger for the nomination. Have those who are very upset with the President just caved, decided it to be too tough a job, and resigned themselves to the idea that no liberal of note will step forward?

It appears that President Obama will cruise thru the primaries and the money he is raising in great amounts now will be dedicated to the general campaign.

So, despite all the rhetoric one reads on the internet, there is nothing of real substance outside of the talk. Just idle threats of maybe staying home, not working as hard as they may have done in 2008, or voting for a yet unnamed 3rd party candidate.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

4. The problem is it takes time to take your party back, whether it is a progressive direction or a

conservative direction. It doesn't happen overnight, but it already is occurring

In the Midterms you might have noticed a lot of bluedogs did not win re-election. I suspect some of that was due to Democrats in those states sitting out the election

[JTFrog]

27. So we shouldn't expect change to just happen overnight?

"Oh, that's very different....Never Mind"

:eyes:

[Telly Savalas]

35. The GOP winning more seats does not translate into progressives

taking control of the Democratic Party. That only happens when progressives win more primaries and general elections. At DU there's very little evidence that this is going to happen since the focus is almost exclusively on bitching and moaning, and not on positive alternatives. To the extent there is movement to "take back the party", it demonstrates how irrelevant the so-called "progressives" at DU are, since none of the discussion here centers around the agents who will make this change happen.

[still_one]

51. There was a time when the Democrats won more seats consistently. At that time there was a clear

distinction between republican policy and Democratic policy.

Democrats stood with labor, for Social Security and Medicare, and Civil Rights.

The message that comes out now, does not have the clarity it did then, and that is a very real problem.

One of the reasons that Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid to reagan was that labor did not support him. A big part of that was because Carter did not support labor. Ironically, what labor did by not voting for Carter is make it even worse for themselves because reagan was even worse.

However, the point I am making is a party cannot take for granted or ignore a large populous that make up that party

[Bluebear]

22. "the haters" - juvenile. nt

[divvy]

26. "haters" sounds like something from Bristol Palin's vocabulary

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

2. If he actually puts Social Security and Medicare up on the chopping block you can bet there will be

If that happens at a minimum a lot of progressives will not vote for him

[Kurmudgeon]

8. I'm starting to wonder if he did it to make Boehner cave.

It sure puts things in perspective when Mr. Obama was willing to cut social security and medicare, yet Boehner ran away when it came to pay for things with tax increases.

[still_one]

52. That is the problem we really don't know what was on the table. The message coming out of the

administration are at best mixed

[BlueCaliDem]

3. I have no qualms when Progressives complain about Obama. We should, just to keep at him.

But I draw the line and lose total patience when, after a long, negative diatribe against President Obama, and how bad he's been for progressive causes, they end with saying they won't vote for him. That pisses me off because you don't give up on someone because they don't meet your level of purity.

The President has done the best job he can with the Congress WE'VE sent him. If we want more progressive policies, then we should get more progressives into the House and the Senate.

[still_one]

6. I will tell you point blank if he pushes to cut social security and medicare, I won't vote for him

Those two programs are the heart of the Democratic party, and if the leader of the Democratic party does not support them, then it isn't just a "level of purity" as you put it, it is much more than that

If the Democratic party was like the Democrats in 1860, there is not way I would support them

It all depends on what the issue is, and how it affects you

Anyone who votes for someone who does something that they believe is against their principles, either has no principles, or is a fool

republicans are a perfect example of that line of thinking

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Ineeda]

25. +infinity -- thank you

I've seen this over and over on DU, even by people I had some respect for. Talk about your low information knee-jerk reactions, such as I'd expect from freepers. AFAIK, all administration talk about SS "cuts" has been in reference to costs, not benefits. So why aren't folks here doing their research, almost always supplied by attached links? Instead they believe the absolute worst (and false) tidbits from questionable sources. I frankly don't get it. What's going on?

[still_one]

47. Perhaps you missed the point I made by using the key word "IF". It is all hypothetical right now,

but "IF" the administration pushed actual "CUTS", to those programs, would you support that?

Also, part of the problem with this administration, is they are very mediocre in getting the message out where they do stand on many issues, and whether the media misrepresents the message or not, the administration should be right on top of it at all times, and not let any misrepresentation get out

Communication is everything, and if they cannot get the appropriate message out, that is their fault. They can always call a press conference, and they will get the attention

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Unfortunately, my comment vanished. :-(

But thank you for responding, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[mmonk]

38. Look for weasel words.

New Democrats do want to "reform" social security and medicare to "strengthen" it. Why else would a deficit commission created by the administration in a recession when more money injected into the economy is needed, which is packed with budget cutters and enemies of social security, even exist?

[BlueCaliDem]

49. There is no mistaking "cutting COSTS" as to "cutting BENEFITS

President Obama has already said there will be NO cutting BENEFITS. He's even vowed to block any benefit cuts: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/obama_vows_to_block_benefit_cu.html

I'm pretty sure he saw what happened to the Republicans when Ryan's VoucherCare was passed, and he doesn't want the Democratic Party to suffer the same fate.

[mmonk]

61. If he were for cutting costs, he would have pushed for a public option

and single payer advocates would have been included in healthcare talks.

[pnwmom]

19. Great. Guess you're looking forward to President Bachman, Palin, etc.

At least I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that I did what I could to prevent that.

[Chan790]

32. I am at long last tired of hearing this drivel.

You know who is really shaping up to get their ass handed to them by Bachmann?

Barack Obama. He's doing one hell of a job throwing this election.

[still_one]

44. It is interesting, I said the word "IF", which also implies he may not cut social security or

medicare, in which case it is a moot issue for me

My point is for different people it could mean different things.

and if this administration does not communicate it effectively, what does that imply?

[muffin1]

45. +1,000,000 n/t

[still_one]

41. FIrst of all palin isn't running, and bachman will not win the repuke nomination. So you should

reword you statement to saw a romney or perhaps huntsman, which it most likely be the repuke nominee

and to the answer to that question is no I would not look forward to it.

However, "IF" the administration did cut social security or medicare, why would I support that?

These are NOT entitlements, people paid into those programs, and that money was used for other purposes than it was intended, and if they want to cut benefits, why would I support someone who did that?

Why do I vote Democratic in the first place, because they are supposed to support basic Democratic values. If that ever stopped, I would look for someone who does

[swilton]

40. The President has pushed for and initiated policies that

contradicted what he campaigned on. What he has done is equivalent to collaborating with the opposition party rather than defending the party whose principals he supported as a candidate. He has done the best he can to politically sabotage the people who elected him.

There are Republicans who could do no worse.

[flvegan]

5. Because the almighty media hasn't given us one.

If I have to go any further describing that, you're not paying attention.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Because only people with money run for office,

and the people who are complaining are those who will FEEL if their SS is 'trimmed' or 'adjusted'.

BTW, the five people who have called ME in the last two day didn't get any money from me. Obama's raising great amounts of money from the banksters, from Wall Street, from the MIC.

I guess THEY like his chances.

[Kaleva]

9. Dean was able to raise quite a bit of money from small contributors...

so that isn't a valid excuse.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Is Dean complaining?

Didn't think so.

[Kaleva]

12. But Dean did show one doesn't need a great deal of personal money to run.

He managed to finance his campaign with money raised mainly on the internet. I would imagine a liberal who thought that Obama ought to be challenged could raise funds the same way Dean did in 2003 and very early 2004.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Did he?

His campaign died in Iowa. The press said nuh-uh and Dean didn't have any reserves with which to recover. He proved that he could caucus once with small donor funds, but running for president is a marathon, not a sprint.

More's the pity because I believe that Dr. Dean would have been an excellent president.

[CrispyQ]

50. Well said.

Between electronic voting & Citizens United, I don't know if we'll be able to take back our government, within the system.

[pnwmom]

18. So the logical conclusion is that none of the liberals with the means

thinks that Obama OUGHT to be challenged.

[Divernan]

21. That was before the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the USSC

PBS REPORT AIR DATE: Jan. 21, 2010
Supreme Court OKs Corporate Campaign Contributions
SUMMARY
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed 20 years of restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal explains the controversial ruling and how it will likely affect future political campaigns.

JEFFREY BROWN: It was a 5-4 decision to wipe away limits on corporate and labor union spending in campaigns for president and Congress.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. They threw out key provisions of campaign finance laws dating back to 1907, plus two of the high court's own decisions from 1990 and 2003.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. And in the end, it was the DEMOCRATIC PARTY

that buried him so, yes it IS a valid "excuse."

On edit: removed the first "t" on the word "it" in my subject line. Oops. :blush:

[CrispyQ]

43. "I guess THEY like his chances."

And his policies.

[joshcryer]

10. The recent complaining was due in large part to an ignorance of how politics works.

Politics is a very very dirty and nasty business. Frankly I could never get in to politics as an actual civil "servant" because it would eat my soul daily.

[The Second Stone]

15. To answer the OP, if Jackie Robinson had been a passable

player, rather than a great player, and if Branch Ricky had him sent back down to the minors, it would have missed the whole f'in point. Nobody in the Democratic Party is going to challenge Obama because he is a black guy, plain and simple, and he isn't any worse than anyone else as far as having no f'in spine and being mostly conservative. Aside from a few exceptions like Kucinich and Grayson and Weiner (buh-bye) Obama is in the mainstream of electeds and far to the right of us. Kucinich isn't going to challenge Obama because a) he can't beat him, and b) sticking with the black guy to prove he's less of an idiot than any Republican is what we would have to do with a white guy too, plus we get to confirm breaking the color barrier.

Breaking the color barrier is for me the big achievement of politics in my lifetime. That it had to be a conservative democrat is what it is. I would have rather had Hillary Clinton and broken the gender barrier because Hillary knows how to fight. Obama doesn't. But he is what we've got.

No Democrat is going to say let's send Barack "Jackie Robinson" Obama back down to the minors and I'll take his place. We've all worked too long for this for any single one of us to want to look like much of an egotistical ass.




As for this budget debt round, it looks like Boehner may back his ass into a buzz saw. Obama might manage to come off with a big win at Boehner's expense without getting his hands dirty if he can let the legislative process punish Boehner for running away like a bitch. As in refuse to give any more than token cuts. Obama currently has a three run lead in the bottom of the ninth with two outs, a full count and nobody on base. Let's see if he can close out this game.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. Oh bull.

Primarying incumbent presidents is rare. Bill Clinton didn't get primaried, and we had the whole Monica thing going on as well as a right of right center agenda being passed. Saying Obama is getting a pass because he is a black man is highly offensive. The Democratic establishment is happy with him, and there isn't anybody on the horizon who is more liberal who stands a chance in hell of garnering the nomination.

I know you're not aware of it, but that is an extremely racist screed you just posted.

Gross.

[Bluebear]

23. 'punish Boehner for running away like a bitch' - let alone sexist.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. We didn't "have the whole Monica thing" in 1996

The Lewinsky story didn't break until January 1998.

[LiberalAndProud]

53. I stand corrected. It was the Paula Jones thing I was thinking of.

I seem to have conflated the two women, as the investigation turned into one long scandal.

[The Second Stone]

59. Just because I talked about race doesn't mean it is racist

as in against the race. The only reason I don't want Obama primaried is because he is black. If that fits within the definition of offensive racism in this country, then so be it. But I think you have expanded the definition racism to include any discussion of race disadvantageous to your point of view, when the definition should be withholding equal protection of the laws and equal dignity to all skin colors. I voted for him in 08 because he was the nominee of my party and because he was going to end the Iraq occupation, close Guantanamo and because he was black. I thought it high time for a black President. So yes, affirmative action played a part. I wept when he got elected because of the advance it made. (McCain was never a consideration for me because of his character.)

But he is an extraordinarily weak advocate for traditional Democratic base constituencies such as labor, women, consumers, etc. We criticized Pres. Clinton for these things, but Pres. Obama just doesn't get anything done for our constituencies at all. Pres. Obama is politically a Rockerfeller Republican, not an FDR Democrat. The only traditional constituency he actually advances is civil rights, and that is by simply being a black guy willing to appoint other black people, like AG Eric Holder, and simply occupying a post. That isn't enough to earn praise.

Occupying posts and being more competent than the Republican predecessors is necessary for the advancement of our cause, but the kind of Democrat that I would like to support and vote for would have an agenda that he/she is willing to advance, such as taxes, or health care. Obama gave speeches on health care, but he let Nancy Pelosi do all the arm twisting, and she cannot twist any arms in the Senate. What ultimately passed, without any public option, was an insurance industry wet dream, and the insurance industry would have got all the necessary Republican votes had it been necessary.

In short, Obama might be a party insider's idea of a good leader, but the only reason I don't want Kucinich (or somebody else) running against him is because it would hurt the party with our black constituents who would deem it an insult, as you appear to have.

Obama has a first rate character as a human being. But he is a piss poor Democrat and a poor fighter for his causes. I hope that I can hold my nose and vote for him, but I am going to vote for the candidate who is most likely to enact liberal changes. I've never voted for a Republican in 30 years of voting, but if Romney is the nominee I would be interested to see who his choice of VP is and be giving it some serious thought.

Obama has let me down way too often.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Maybe, but I'm still waiting to see what kind of consolation prize

Obama is going to give Boehner.

He is constitutinally incapable of making the other guy say "I got my ass kicked" - he HAS to give him a win, just to stay 'friends'.

[pnwmom]

17. Because they know how monumentally difficult his task has been

and they don't think they could do better under the circumstances.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Because the Party will not allow a challenger.

Anyone can throw their hat in the ring but they'd be iced out by The Party Machine. The rest of your post is a riff based on an incorrect assumption, that millions of majorly pissed off people are "just talking."

[Kaleva]

55. You are contradicting yourself

First you argue that "The Party Machine" will ice out anyone they don't want. Then you go to on to say that supposedly millions of pissed of people are doing more then just talking even though you said earlier that the party leadership will just ice out who every steps forward to challenge Obama which means the pissed off can do little more then talk.

[DireStrike]

62. Those pissed off are neither inside the party machine nor organized.

As such they're incapable of mounting a challenge.

You're right, it pretty much is all talk. Very few people are organizing.

[thebfman2]

29. If there's so much complaining about Obama, why isn't there a challenger

One reason why; right now the US is on a tight rope we can go
either way. Really, I mean really no one would like to be in
His shoes @ this time. But we all will pick apart and knit
pick others.

[loyalsister]

60. Opposition to Obama is nothing

compared to what it would be to a Pres. Kucinich or Sanders. Neither would be able to get anything done either.

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. Maybe there will be one, if things get bad enough.

Who knows?:shrug:

[mmonk]

31. Many stayed home in 2010. Seems to me the threat is real.

[Long Shadow]

33. Because there is no one strong enough to challenge him.

[mdmc]

37. the system is designed to avoid such 'problems'

[tekisui]

57. Exactly.

[Zorra]

39. Not true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x767568

[treestar]

42. Because the complaining is on message boards and pundit shows

Only so many people are interested in those.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. Thank god for small blessings eom

[TheKentuckian]

54. Because the party machine is dead set against it.

If someone jumps in they are declaring civil war and few have the fortitude to do such a thing but the wrong moves may yet provoke it.

Obama is further off course than Carter by far but he has the party machinery lock, stock, and barrel. He has combined forces with the Clintonites (despite the feelings of some of their foot soldiers) and has no lack of skill in dealing with the apparatus so the only path is effectively outside the party system even to primary as there is no money, no systemic assistance, none of the people on the ground.

Obama holds the machine politicians so he is as hard to attack from within as anybody really can be.

That said he should be be primaried and the establishment should be rejected and removed from influence but it is no easy prospect and would cost the favor of the big wigs probably forever because revolutionaries that fail get hung and vilified as criminals and traitors.

The bar is high but real solutions must be offered and the spectrum of political possibility must be widened at all cost because otherwise we are doomed to become what we have opposed and oversee what we have strived against. We will betray all that we have claimed to be out of fear of losing a few slippery scraps to be bargained away at the next "crisis".

[Recovered Repug]

56. No one wants to see Casey strike out.

As long as Casey stays on the bench, "if only Casey could be at bat" will keep him a hero to Mudville fans.

[JoePhilly]

58. It is a mastibatory fantasy used by some to blow off steam.

And like most masturbatory fantasies, its never going to actually happen, but like most fantasies, its great fun to engage in.

It goes like this ... "Just imagine a Fiengold / Sanders ticket" ... stroke stroke stroke ... a period of brief elation ... and then a nap.