Let's face it, Obama is the most progressive candidate that can actually win in 2012.

[VoteProgressive]

Is he my first choice? No! I would love Franken or Sanders or even Grayson! I WOULD LOVE THEM! But they will not run and I doubt they could be elected.
I am sure I will be attacked here but Obama is the only hope we have for 2012. He is a great campaigner and the independents seem to like him.
I am not happy with him after working my ass of in 2008. But he is the best we have. I don't want another Nader fiasco, as much as I likes Nader on some points.
Obama is better than any GOP candidate. Hold your nose and vote for him if necessary.

[GSLevel9]

1. Possibly

but he NEEDS to be opposed in a Primary contest so his attention is brought BACK to what matters to many people. Otherwise it's 4 more years of SOS.

Primaries are good for bringing a candidate back to his/her base.

[Scuba]

6. +1

[Hutzpa]

19. -20000

I completely disagree with that view point.

[GSLevel9]

33. you disagree that the people need to be "heard"? nt

[Hutzpa]

67. I disagree that an incumbent President

needs a primary challenger.

Stupid idea.

[GSLevel9]

74. so once a POTUS is elected...

he can run on platform A and perform in manner B and C for 8 years and can't be subject to a challenger? That's just illogical. A primary challenge would force Obama to the left hopefully implementing some ideas that help "ordinary America".

[Hutzpa]

110. No, your idea is illogical

how does that help the party? Take a look at history to see how subjecting the incumbent President to primary has
helped the democratic party. It could be you are trying to elect another republican President I don't know, but
most of you that are calling for Obama to be primary are not thinking clearly.

[bluestate10]

114. 1000% agree. nt

[bluestate10]

113. Where did you weave that logic? More turns in it than a pretzel. nt.

[Sonicwall]

116. I do.

I don't want blind loyality to Obama.

He needs to remember who elected him. You're just proving that he can be elected even though he pissed off 90% of his base?

I don't think so.

He's a one-termer. And in 2016, we'll be finding a much better alternate than corporatism.

[Hutzpa]

119. What an obnoxious comment

blind loyalty I heard you say followed by he needs to remember who elected him, charming...
welcome to DU hope you are here long enough to learn something. :hi:

[Sonicwall]

120. So if we find a much better alternative than Obama

and he's popular enough to capture the Presidency - FDR style guy - polling better than Obama.... and would be a better logical choice, you are asking me to vote for Obama?

No thanks. I'd rather have a choice, than be forced to vote for the corporatist. If I'm forced to make that choice, I'll just vote local and ignore the national since they aren't representing my wishes.

[Hutzpa]

122. Why not try and pay a much more closer attention than

relying at some M$M opinionated hack on Obama.

[Pirate Smile]

32. It would divide the party and make it more likely that a Republican would win in 2012.

It is a reelection campaign. It isn't the same as the long 2008 nomination fight.

[GSLevel9]

I don't see it that way...

Let's say Dr Dean were to challenge Obama... they'd be talking about Obama's wars, the lack of real Health Care reform and the failure as a steward of the national economy. Obama would be forced to swing left to compete and he could be held to those promises after he's reelected.

A lack of a challenger just GUARANTEES that the base gets pissed on knowing that no one will vote for the Pub.

[Pirate Smile]

44. History argues against your view.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. History also argued that

1) An African-American could never be elected president and
2) No one with the name of Barak Obama could be elected president.

[pnwmom]

46. A challenger means Obama has to spend campaign money, time, and other resources

fighting other Democrats.

This will do nothing in the long run but aid the Republicans.

Fortunately, Dr. Dean and others are smart enough to know this. No credible candidate will primary Obama.

[Generic Other]

87. I feel like damn republicans already won

How could things get any worse. The same disgusting crap would happen. Only difference is I wouldn't be shushed for complaining.

[pnwmom]

45. No, being primaried will damage him in the general.

No Democratic candidate has ever done better in the general as a result of being primaried. Obama needs to start his campaign against the Rethugs while they're all fighting each other -- and spend all his campaign dollars fighting THEM, not other Democrats.

[leftstreet]

2. Is he definitely running?

:shrug:

[VoteProgressive]

3. I hope he does!

[SidDithers]

5. ROFL...

that never gets old.

Sid

[sufrommich]

10. Of course he is.

:eyes:

[leftstreet]

11. What will his campaign slogan be? "At Least You've Still Got Food" ??

There are no jobs

People are losing their homes

Budgets are being slashed

No one can afford to see a doctor

Wall Street and the MICC are rolling in dough

:shrug:

[TBF]

25. Duzy for the food comment --

I honestly don't care if he runs or not, or wins or not, or what label he likes - whether it's progressive or regressive. It's not like there's any difference. The thing going on in Wisconsin is much more interesting.

[Edweird]

4. I don't think the word 'progressive' means what you think it means.

[VoteProgressive]

8. What would you call him?

[kenny blankenship]

15. 1980s moderate Republican

[VoteProgressive]

22. Maybe you are correct. nt

[Edweird]

23. DLC, Third Way, New Dem. Take your pick. They all mean 'conservative'.

He only played 'liberal' on TV to get elected.

[SammyWinstonJack]

86. Played=lipservice.

[Edweird]

108. Yes.

I was referencing a tv ad from my childhood - "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

Fixed - "I'm not a Liberal, but I play one while campaigning."

[Occulus]

72. A Corprocrat.

Definitely not a Democrat as it has been defined historically.

[TransitJohn]

89. Corporatist. n/t

eom

[H2O Man]

7. Respectfully disagree.

President Obama is not "progressive," in any meaningful sense of the word.

Barack Obama was part of the progressive/liberal community, before becoming a state senator. He was probably a liberal when he ran for the US Senate. He ran for president as a moderate.

He may well be the best moderate/conservative to run in the 2012 election. But he should never be mistaken as being progressive.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Why is his approval rating greater among liberals than moderates or conservatives? n/t

[Badfish]

14. I disagree.

If the senate was pushing for single payer , there would have been ZERO chance Obama would have fought against them.

A "moderate/conservative" would have fought against it.

"moderate/conservative" is Lieberman, Baucus, Lugar... Certainly not Obama.

[H2O Man]

64. The President of the USA

has the bully pulpit. The US Senate does not (although they do have an obligation to educate the public, something they have failed to do since the Senate Watergate hearings).

I assume, from your response, that you are talking about within the context of the current crop of "leaders" in Washington, DC. In that context, Richard Nixon would be considered liberal. A crook, but liberal.

[VoteProgressive]

16. I agree with you mostly, but who would you pick that can win? Honest question.

[leftstreet]

18. What difference does it make? Obama proved that 'winning' doesn't matter

The Democrats annihilated the Republicans in 2006 and 2008

The GOP was deader than a doornail

The Democrats WON !!!!111

So....

:shrug:

[VoteProgressive]

20. I agree, my expectations were not met by Obama!

[Pirate Smile]

34. Take a look at Wisconsin if you think it doesn't make any difference if it is a D or R in

charge.

[H2O Man]

63. If I understand

your question correctly, I've already answered it: I assume that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012. However, he is not a progressive in any sense of the word.

[jtown1123]

35. Agreed. Obama is not progressive. He's a Third Way/Conservadem

[pnwmom]

47. He's a progressive by anyone's definition except for some DUers.

He's put through a national health care bill that no previous Democratic president succeeded in doing; he's pro-choice; he's pro gay rights; he's pro-union.

He isn't AS progressive as some people here would like him to be -- but if he were, he might not get enough independent votes to win a national election.

[jtown1123]

53. I really don't see any of those as true marks of a progressive

Yes, it is wonderful he passed through a health care bill (that did zero to address health care costs in the U.S.) and is pro choice, pro gay rights (but no marriage so that's a tricky one) and pro union, but he is woefully inadequate on all the economic issues. He was not aggressive on financial reform, raising taxes and increasing stimulus spending for people who are suffering. He has bought into far too many Republican ideas like tax cuts and this myth that excessive gov't spending caused our deficit. I think Obama throws Dems a few bones here and there, but is far too eager to compromise with Republicans, therefore, pushing "centrist" ideas.

[socialist_n_TN]

103. Yes. What he does is throw "social issue" sops to......

the Dem base. Those sops might be needed, but they are NOT something that's actually going to change the paradigm in this country. Who cares if you can marry your same sex partner if you're BOTH serfs/slaves on the corporate plantation?

[coalition_unwilling]

55. He's a milquetoast progressive, imho. To wit, Guantanamo still

open for biz, Bush\Cheney not held to account, war expanded into Pakistan plus other outrages too numerous to enumerate.

[H2O Man]

60. He did

put through a health care/insurance reform bill. Absolutely. And he deserves credit for that.

Yet, at the same time, it is not as strong as what President Nixon intended; and is similar to both Bob Dole's plan and Mitt Romney's act. Hence, I would think it an odd thing to mention to support a claim of his being progressive. Again, he deserves credit for exactly what he did.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. The fact is the President is opposed to equal marriage rights

and he says so often. He claims to 'struggle' with it or to 'grapple with it' but in the end, he always says he opposes equal rights for us. For you to claim otherwise is extremely offensive, the man can and does speak for himself. He used Donnnie McClurkin as surrogate, McClurkin calls us vampires and child killers. Understand that no one who supports equal rights in a meaningful way would employ a hate preacher famous for urging war on gay people.
Everything I say is a matter of record. Facts. The President does not support equal civil rights for all. Wish that he did, but he is a McClurkinist Christian, his wife says McClurkin is her favorite signer. Again, McClurkin calls for war on gay people for 'trying to kill our children'. Michelle's favorite.
Not Progressive, atavistic, religionist, dogmatic and regressive. Opposed to equal rights for all in civil law. The President says his sort of people are 'Sanctified by God' and that my kind are not. He actually uses the word 'Sanctified' in a secular political context. Tell me, what do you think 'Sanctified' means in American law, how does the President prove that he is 'Sanctified' and that I am not? I'll await your answer.

[Edweird]

102. Passing the FAR RIGHT individual mandate is hardly 'progressive'.

'Pro union'? Seriously? There are some union teachers in Central Falls that might take exception to that.

Sorry, but he's no progressive. He's no liberal. He would have to swing way left just to be 'moderate'.

[Dappleganger]

98. Well said.

[Badfish]

9. Even if we elect Bernie Sanders it wouldn't matter...

There is this thing called the Senate , everything goes through the senate. If anybody thinks that Kucinich would be able to convince Baucus or Lieberman to vote for Single Payer ...well then they need to take a closer look at how our nation works.

[dflprincess]

31. At least we'd have someone who'd put up a fight and maybe take the case to the people

Rather than someone who was willing to cut backroom deals and wouldn't even allow single payer to be discussed.

[socialist_n_TN]

105. And that's the problem with no challenge to Obama..........

The true issues never even get DISCUSSED. If they're never brought to the table, how can ANYONE know how popular they would be?

[BlackTonyDanza]

12. Well

Lets see who runs against him first though... I swear I wish Weiner could run and win.

[VoteProgressive]

17. +1000 for Bernie!

[JTFrog]

29. Bernie supports President Obama. n/t

[jtown1123]

36. Not always and not unconditionally. He never shies away from critiquing Obama

[JTFrog]

48. "Ain't gonna do it."

That was Bernie's response to a 2012 run.

My money is on him supporting Barack Obama in 2012.

:shrug:

[jtown1123]

54. Oh yeah, for President, I agree. I misunderstood your response.

[Cleita]

21. Well, I held my nose and voted for him the first time.

It would have been the same for Hillary Clinton because both these candidates were so much better than McCain/Palin. However, I was not as entranced as the rest of the Democrats with those two candidates. As a matter-of-fact I was less in favor of Clinton than Obama because I'm against having political dynasties. I've got to admit I was with either Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards for me. It's a shame that Edwards turned out to be an empty suit, however, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we get the genuine deal in 2016. It's time for us to start looking for that candidate so we are ready to put him up in the limelight in 2016.

[VoteProgressive]

24. I agree with all you said!

[Ganja Ninja]

26. I don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting re-elected.

And if the Democratic party wants to run him again I will not take the blame for his defeat. They should know going in where they stand in 2012.

[Badfish]

27. LOL

Thanks for the laugh.

Zero insight.

[dionysus]

90. do you have any polls or anything to back that assertion?

[librechik]

28. true dat--and I still have hope

that once he gets his second term that he won't have to kowtow as much to the PuKKKes.

I know. Silly, huh?

But the fact is we still need to get behind Obama or lose what little protection we have against the class war onslaught

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. My nose holding ability has it's limits.

Obama went beyond them in '08 and I see little chance that will change in '12.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[VoteProgressive]

52. Great quotes!

[Vinnie From Indy]

37. Bullshit!

That is all!

[VoteProgressive]

51. Your choice?

[Taverner]

38. Yes and yes

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Angry Dragon]

40. This country has not moved froward with Obama leading it

If a republican is elected this country will be in worse shape and will move backward
People will really feel the crush of poverty and will be abandoned by elected officials

[readmoreoften]

77. We're already abandoned by elected officials.

I'm not voting for more Bush Doctrine.

[mmonk]

41. He is not progressive.

[L. Coyote]

42. You might want to change your user name!

[VoteProgressive]

Snarky comment understood!

[AlabamaLibrul]

70. Coyote has a point - "Vote4LesserOf2Evils4Ever" not as catchy though n/t

[varkam]

43. Wait -- why does it matter?

Sure, maybe there are other dems that are more progressive than Obama in terms of social policy, but does that really matter in terms of 2012? Obama is the President, and so he's going to be running. Why does a discussion like this matter?

[VoteProgressive]

49. Because I think people need to be realistic and know he is our only viable choice.

[varkam]

56. I agree -- he is the Dems only viable choice, but that's because he's the incumbent. Not because...

he's the most progressive candidate -- which he most certainly is not.

[VoteProgressive]

57. I 100% agree he is not progressive. I said "hold your nose". :-)

[ReggieVeggie]

84. "only viable choice"

This is the Democratic party, composed of millions of people, and there's only ONE viable choice for the next election... That's not exactly a positive.

[Le Taz Hot]

99. Because it's important to start

the dogmatic "arguments" early.

[grahamhgreen]

50. He can not win with his present policy positions. Aint gonna happen.

[bemildred]

58. So you want to give up? nt

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Rex]

61. Not really, there is nothing progressive about him BUT

it seems he is the CHOSEN ONE and it would spell doom if someone stepped up to challenge him for all mankind. I can't believe all the Repuke talking points being thrown around here. It is sickening.

[spanone]

62. i won't be holding anybody's fucking nose when i vote for him

[young but wise]

91. Agreed.

[Raine]

123. Me too, I've done that enough

and I'm done with it.

[rdking647]

65. welcome to the real world

some people like to live in a fantasy world where a bernie sanders or a russ feingold could win the presidency . But the fact is the country as a whole is centrist to possibly center/right. a sanders or feingold is way to left for a large segment of the country.. especially independents and they are the ones who decide the elections.


Better Obama in 2012 than a tea party thug
but then some on the far left are only happy when they are completely out of power so they can freely bitch and moan..

[blindpig]

66. Win what?

Win what was won in 2008?

Woo. Hoo.

Participating in elections in a time when it doesn't make a difference is an exercise in futility.

Other means of politics are required.

[Horse with no Name]

68. I held my nose and voted for him last time

He isn't any better, and marginally worse, than I expected.

[Forkboy]

69. Hell of a battle cry.

[WillyT]

71. And THAT... Is One Depressing Mouthful You Said Right There...

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

:beer:

[RainDog]

73. Obama needs to make some strategic changes

the reality on the ground in the U.S. is changing right now - who knows if D.C. is too cossetted by wealth and power to recognize it?

or, more to the point, if the wealthy and powerful have their ears and so they cannot hear any other voices.

however, people that I hear from - ppl not on DU - people who vote for Democrats without fail - are ANGRY.

They are disappointed that Obama has distinguished himself so little from the previous administration - that the rule of law is still a joke for the powerful - that Obama talks about bipartisanship with people who are nuking futz on the right - and that no one on Wall Street has been held accountable for screwing over people's retirement plans, their hopes for their children - that Obama is siding with the right wing about teachers, that he continues to support actions that are blatantly unconstitutional -

and, tho those people will most likely vote for Obama anyway, because there is no other choice - those who are not so loyal to the democratic party as the lesser of two evils do not feel compelled by that argument (the lesser of two evils one.)

It's hard to understand how 1% of the population can win with 30% that comprise the nutters in this nation and THEY get more response from the administration that the huge, 70% majority that does not want a Hobbesian America.

Most people I talk to think that the federal govt doesn't really care and anything worthwhile has to take place at the local level, politically, or in the streets - where the real work is done.

[GSLevel9]

75. yes and NO

Obama needs to be primaried so he gets a whiff of the smelling salts to refresh his memory of WHY he was elected in the first place.

Yes, Obama is the best candidate that can win BUT he needs a nudge to try harder.

Otherwise the message from the party is "Well, we know what you promised in 2008 but you're OUR GUY now so just do whatever you're going to do and we'll just sit tight."

[Autumn]

94. How much longer do they think we can "just sit tight?"

Some are sinking very rapidly. He needs a lot more than a nudge. I agree completely with your post.:thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

76. Then we're no longer a center right nation. We're a far right nation.

And given what's going on in Wisconsin and Michigan and all the solidarity rallies, I don't buy it for a minute. You don't want another Nader fiasco? I don't want another Obama con.

[BzaDem]

78. To a few on the left, we have always been a far right nation. To a few on the right, we have always

been a far left nation. Neither observation really means much though.

Obama will be the nominee, and there likely won't even be a contested primary. That's what happens when a Democratic president has the highest approval among Democrats of any president since JFK. There will be a few liberals who won't be satisfied with anyone we nominate that gets elected, just like there are a few conservatives who wouldn't be satisfied with anyone they nominate that could get elected. Such is life in any political system -- there will always be some who are satisfied none of the time.

[avaistheone1]

79. In summary

Why bother voting? You make it sound meaningless. The prospect of another term of Obama is totally exasperating and depressing.

[BzaDem]

81. If "meaningless" to you is any candidate that won't get you exactly what you want

then voting is always meaningless, for everyone. In fact, some people will never get what they want, since in any democracy there are always some people who are satisfied none of the time.

On the other hand, if you think trying to maximize progressive policy and/or minimize conservative policy, out of the choices available, is meaningful, then voting is meaningful.

For example, you might think there is no point in voting for any candidate that won't be able to get Single Payer or a public option through the Senate. But that is foolish, since the alternative is a president who's policy is to essentially end Medicare for basically everyone but retirees and near-retirees (seniors) today.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

82. anything prefaced by "let's face it" is questionable.

[dmosh42]

83. Obama will be the "corporate" candidate, and will win in spite of our opposition...

Most of the people on DU would prefer a real progressive, but won't have a choice. Obama has moved to a position with big corporate backing plus the Wall St gangsters. And with the media being controlled by the corporations, only his message will get the coverage. Case closed!

[Le Taz Hot]

100. We have choices.

It's just that it's against DU rules to discuss those choices here. There are ALWAYS choices.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

88. I don't want a progressive.

I don't want a neoliberal.

I want a LEFT walking, labor-loving, pro-peace, anti-war, public education supporting, domestic program building, people-focused candidate.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. Voting is easy, chum, I will vote against the GOP as always

it that means the vote seems to be 'for' the right wing, Nixonian, anti equality Obama yet again, fine. The real question is about far more than voting. In 2008 I was active in more than one state, campaigned hard for Obama, wrote Letters to the editor that got lots of traction, and I'll not be doing any of that again. Will you?
I have been told by the 'moderates' on DU that they have the election covered, they have lots of volunteers coming in from Churches and from the GOP. Republicans who support Obama, called 'Oamacans' are slated to fill the slots left vacant by those Obama sees as unworthy of rights.
Even a drunk can hold his nose and vote, my question is who is going to do the work that it takes to elect any candidate, much less one who has us talking about nose holding two years out?

[Le Taz Hot]

95. There is nothing about Obama that is Progressive.

NOTHING.

Unrec. for inaccuracy.

Edited to add: This meme is starting early this time around. I can make these arguments blindfolded. This is it: I hold my elected officials accountable for their actions.

[mochajava666]

96. "Hold your nose and vote for him if necessary"

Great campaign slogan for his reelection. I'm sure that will mobilize the base to get out the vote.

[katnapped]

107. "Vote for me cuz things could be a whole lot worse!" n/t

[BlueIris]

101. PPPffttthhh.

Yawn.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. If that's the case, then we're in DEEP trouble

The brainwashing of the American people is complete.

Nothing will stop the rightward drift into fascism.

[somone]

106. Yeah. The most status quo president ever.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. FDR was elected because the wheels had completely fallen off.

2008's three flat tires weren't enough.

[DireStrike]

111. A primary challenge can provide an important platform for progressive ideas to be expressed.

[datasuspect]

112. he doesn't stand with the working class

that's the litmus test and he failed.

[Sonicwall]

115. No he's not.

Not even close to progressive.

I'd rather write in Al Franken than to vote for Obama. Sorry, he sold all of us out.

And a lot of DU'ers have been tombstoned as a result for simply pointing out that fact.

Do you want that purge to continue? Are we so *blindly* loyal to Obama that those who disagree with Obama must be thrown out?

I'd like to know.

[fascisthunter]

117. garbage

after tonight, fuck it... let it all burn. I'm never going to vote for him.

[NuttyFluffers]

118. bullshit. let the primaries run. only RNC does coronations. i though DNC was better.

i'm registered RNC because i thought primaries mattered. they don't, they are coronations. so my registration is basically a method to collect amusing political ads and a vain attempt to screw with republican push-polls.

i've seen DNC primaries matter. don't give up on that. do so and you become the very same "evil that must be fought." at least have the courage of the foundational conviction that the people's voice matters, no? or is even that defining condition of the word "democratic" worth negotiating away preemptively so as to be seen as "pragmatic?" everyone hates a spineless toady; it is a road i would not recommend myself.

[creon]

121. seems to me

I think that Obama - who is not a progressive as defined here - is the Democrat with the best chance to win. His odds are helped by the poor quality of potential GOP candidates.

I think that is more important to elect capable and honest progressives to Congress. A progressive majority in Congress is necessary if we are to have progressive legislation.
Capable and honest progressives will have recruited to run and financed. These candidates can be found in state legislatures and mayors and city councils.

In 2008, there were two many Democrats who were not liberal enough to vote for strong legislation; and, the Senate was worse than the HoR. The 2010 elevtoral campaign was mangled, with no message at all.

All this needs to change for 2012.

Concentrate on Congress - the House and Senate - and concentrate on the message. Recruit good candidates for those offices.
Obama can take care of himself in 2012.