Those who have/come close to wanting a primary for Obama, has DADT affected your position? POLL

[Capitalocracy]

If you have been considering or have made up your mind that you believe Obama should be challenged with a primary for 2012, has the repeal of DADT changed your mind at all?

Edited to add fourth and fifth options.

[xchrom]

1. I am indifferent about Obama or a primary challenge.

He remains the weak president.

[Edweird]

2. What happened today was important, but it does not vindicate his assault on the New Deal.

Sorry. 2012 isn't looking so good, primary challenge or not. Unless we can dig FDR up and get him on the campaign trail right away, I'm neither for nor against a primary challenge. I don't see anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan getting support from the current Dem party due to the amount of control the "new dems/dlc/whatever" have at the moment. I don't see a pleasant way out of this.

[Capitalocracy]

3. Some people have been calling for Hillary

:eyes: The work she's done in Latin America as Secretary of State has shown that she can play the fascist game with the best of 'em. Not interested.

[Edweird]

6. In hindsight, it's pretty clear (to me) that the last primary was essentially a shell game hustle.

I believe that no matter which one you picked: Clark, Obama or Clinton - the end result would have been nearly identical.

[Tunkamerica]

7. seriously. what legitimate candidate would run against obama?

I think the type of person who would run against a Democrat in 2012 would be of a lesser caliber than what you guys might hope. The smart ones will wait. I don't plan on supporting someone just because their running.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

9. Party-poop.

[Rhiannon12866]

10. +1

Remember what happened with Jimmy Carter. :(

[panzerfaust]

19. ? Who

[ecstatic]

21. THIS. nt

[Lyric]

11. You mean the work she was ordered to do by her boss?

You know--the one who decides what she's supposed to be doing?

:eyes:

[Capitalocracy]

12. If my boss told me to pressure nations to legitimize and whitewash

a military dictatorship by coup d'etat, I would quit. Wouldn't you?

[Lyric]

25. Sorry--I don't believe you.

It's easy to say you'd quit when you're never going to be tested on it. It's a lot harder when you DON'T have any policy autonomy, your boss is the President of the United States, your job is incredibly complex and difficult, you're a minority whose entire group is subject to being judged by your actions (in this case, women), and you know damned well that if you walk away and cite your "conscience", nobody's going to believe you anyway, and worse, they'll assume that "modern" women like you and Palin are obviously not "tough" enough to handle important jobs.

Life is rarely black and white, and politics NEVER is. If she were making all her own decisions I'd be a lot more comfortable criticizing her than I am when I know full well that the policies she's carrying out are NOT her own.

[Capitalocracy]

26. Believe me, don't believe me, whatever you like.

I would never do what Hillary Clinton did. I am very strongly against the U.S.'s efforts to undermine democracy around the world. You wouldn't catch me dead doing that.

If it was a Republican, would you be so willing to look the other way?

[Sherman A1]

14. Agreed

I don't think a primary challenge is the answer. I think getting the corporate $'s out of politics is, but that is a completely different argument from where this discussion began.

I am happy about seeing DADT gone, it is long, long overdue.

I am not happy about the tax compromise.

They are two different things in my opinion.

[stray cat]

18. Would FDR have let unemployment die?

[Edweird]

28. Do your own research. Maybe it'll help you get on the proper side of things.

[LooseWilly]

4. I thought Obama wasn't a monarch/dictator? What does congress' actions have to do with him?

The party line has spoken. He can't make Congress do, or not do, anything.

His only responsibility is Executive branch stuff, like prosecuting war crimes (waterboarding v. wikileaks...), maintaining right-less internment camps overseas (Guantanamo, Bagram, X, Y, Z...), prosecuting undeclared wars (drone strikes into friendly Pakistan), prosecuting declared wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, domestic targets of warrant-less wiretapping), prosecuting wars that no one really cares about one way or the other (Somalia, Yemen), not to mention politely asking the military to share its thoughts on the possible de-homophobification of its ranks—if it wouldn't bother them too much and if the nice people of Congress say it's ok.

You know—Leadership.

[stray cat]

17. Kucinich has joined the list of traitors with Obama if people are mad about the tax cuts

[Bluebear]

5. Obama is not King, he didn't wave a magic wand! Only CONGRESS can change a law.

That's what I have learned here!

[MisterP]

8. no more than it should change our opinion of Lieberman or Snowe

and no more than the no-call list washed away Bush's enormities

[Capitalocracy]

15. Good point.

Should we suddenly start liking Lieberman? Don't think so.

[JDPriestly]

13. Obama is too weak two issues: human rights and the economic

future of the American middle class.

Everyone says that we are one of the richest nations on earth. It may be true that if you compare our total national GDP with that of other nations, we fare pretty well.

But if you compare the security and lifestyle of the American middle class with the middle class in some other countries, especially in Europe, you learn that Americans live on debt. We are borrowing our prosperity.

What is more, we calculate our wealth and GDP based on transactions that in other countries don't even occur and on expenditures that are unnecessary or much cheaper in a lot of other countries.

Further, the quality of the goods now available to us for our dollars is very poor.

We are being hoodwinked into thinking we are rich. The average American family, however, is in fact in big financial jeopardy. We have two cars per two-parent family because we have no public transportation -- no alternative to spending money foolishly.

[Capitalocracy]

31. And why does he always fight like a tiger against progressives

and give in to the Republicans like a little kitten? I think that's a big issue with this guy as well.

[JDPriestly]

34. Obama wants to be liked a little too much, and he disdains his

friends far too much. That's why he gives in to the Republicans. He thinks they will like him and vote for/with him if he just gives them what they want.

[stray cat]

16. Kucinich and Obama are both in favor of the tax bill -who is the perfect DU candiidate

That has a chance in hell in the general - most names put forth are jokes on the national scene getting 3% of the vote at best

[burning rain]

20. I must remind you that THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER CONGRESS & IS THUS DUE NO CREDIT.

Oh wait, the rule that the president has no clout with Congress only holds when we don't get the legislative outcome we want. When we do, it's "All praise the president!"

:rofl:

[Vinca]

22. I'm afraid I can't get past health care. It is one of the biggest

disappointments I've ever encountered and one that has a serious, negative effect on me . . . not to mention the thousands still dying in this country. I'm elated about DADT, but I don't think the POTUS was responsible for its repeal. Credit belongs to people like Dan Choi and the legislators in Congress who didn't give up.

[Capitalocracy]

32. And while credit for DADT goes mainly to Congress and activists

why doesn't Congress get the blame for the lame health care bill?

To answer my own question, because of Obama's lack of leadership on the issue and the fact that he didn't fight for a public option. Actually I feel like he sort of put a wrench in the works on that one...

Plus, I totally disagree that Obama needed to appeal the DADT unconstitutional court ruling and then get rid of it in Congress. Bottom line, it WAS unconstitutional, and he should've let the ruling stand. If you ask me, they just wanted to try to get out of a primary with a big legislative victory.

[rucky]

23. I've always been for a primary challenge, but it has little to do with Obama.

Because more democracy can't hurt.

More candidates = more ideas = better debate = more information for voters = more choices for voters

If your first choice doesn't work out, you go with your second.

I don't think I'm over-simplifying this - to the extent that the anti-primary faction is over-complicating it. We should never be afraid of democracy.

[Capitalocracy]

27. +1 nt

[AsahinaKimi]

24. I was really hoping

That Democrats would do the RIGHT THING, and if that meant making Republicans cry, so be it! We had 8 years of George W. Bush, who tore this country apart. Obama promised to clean up that mess and give us something to look forward to. I STILL want to see him do it.

[Recovered Repug]

29. I guess the closest option for me is "still on the edge".

It really comes down to who the challenger would be. As mentioned earlier, the names most frequently mentioned either have stated they won't run and/or would be crushed if they did.

[Capitalocracy]

30. Congratulations on your recovery. nt

:toast:

[Capitalocracy]

33. And one against repealing DADT.

Thanks for your honesty.