To those mentioning Grayson, Sanders, Dean, Kucinich et at....

[brooklynite]

... as alternative candidates to President Obama, a question that I've never seen addressed here:

I can understand that they agree with your political philosophy in terms of issues. But having the right positions is worthless if they never get achieved. To be a successful Presidential Candidate, and then a successful President requires a braod range of skills. You have to be able to craft and deliver a message that will garner broad-based support, you have to be able to successfully negotiate with other political interests, and you have to effectively manage first a large political campaign, and second the Executive Branch. What is there is the experience of any of these prospective candidates that says they'll be able to accomplish all of these tasks?

[ret5hd]

1. uhhhhmmm...about the same as Obama's in 2007?

[brooklynite]

4. Please elaborate...

Howard Dean's campaign collapsed early in 2004 ("the scream" had nothing to do with it; I was in NH before the primary, and could see he didn't have his act together organizationally).

Dennis Kucinich has run in a safe Democratic district for years, and has never gotten any appreciable legislation passed that I'm aware of. Ditto for Grayson.

One obviously takes a measure of risk in selecting any new candidate for office, but given the comparison between what President Obama has accomplished, and what an alternative candidate of the far left would be able to accomplish (assuming they could ever get elected), I don't see the comparison.

[n2doc]

2. What I want to know is who is going to run in 2016

2012 seems like a lost cause for the liberal wing of the Party.

[brooklynite]

5. I'd like to see Brian Schweitzer take a stab at it...

I think Northeastern liberals are always going to be a risky proposition.

[Cleita]

3. It's a non-issue. None of those politicians would

primary President Obama. Now in 2016, it might be a different ball game although I really only see Grayson as plausibly throwing his hat in the ring. Sanders, Dean and Kucinich will be elderly by then.

[karynnj]

12. I suggest that few will remember Grayson's name by 2016

I could be wrong, but he has no elected position and I don't think he has a public position of any kind.

[Shiver]

6. A bigger question I've thought

is do any of those people WANT to be president? Kucinich has run a bunch of times, yeah, but I've heard Dean has no interest in it any more, and I have no idea about Sanders or Grayson. I barely know who Grayson is.

[dionysus]

7. i look at it as, imagine a president DK or grayson. give them the same fillibustering

senate and the same pack of blue dogs. i doubt the outcome in what gets passed is much different.

[zipplewrath]

8. Grayson won in a conservative district

He was a successful trial lawyer, and demonstrated an ability to win in a conservative district. Obama on the other hand ran in Chicago, did community organizing, and won a senate seat against a man who self destructed and they had to bring in a guy from out of state to run against him.
Not sure how you want to contrast and compare those two.

[brooklynite]

9. Well, lets try this...

Obama won in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Virgina. His political skill AND the general disenchantment with Republicans created a political tsunami which carried in a lot of Democrats in marhinal/conservative districts. When that wave wasn't there two years later, a lot of the first-termers (Grayson included) lost. Now I don't for a minute, think 2012 is going to be easy for Obama in the southern states, but I haven't heard any anlysis that says he won't be competitive in the ones he won last time.

[zipplewrath]

10. He hadn't done any of that when he started his campaign

Apples to apples so to speak. Andy Young said of candidate Obama, that he wanted him to successfully run for president.... in 2016.

[brooklynite]

16. ...and I didn't support him in 2008 until he had the skills to get elected and to govern

My point is, I don't see the same skills in any of the ideologically pure liberals who are constantly mentioned, and I don't think most people here think beyond the ideology.

[zipplewrath]

17. Well, you decided he had them

He had not demonstrated these skills until he ran. One must run to demonstrate them. It's the chicken and egg situation. All of the men mentioned are "accomplished". It just matters whether these accomplishments are indicative of a larger skill set.

For some of us, the accomplishments of this administration suggest we might have wanted to try someone else, such as Richardson. Dean did pretty well as DNC chairmen, it might be possible he would have done as well as president.

[karynnj]

11. Howard Dean should not be in that list

He actually did put together a platform and a campaign that made him one of the viable candidates in 2004. In fact, if you look at the people, who at some point and time were considered the front runner - there are really only two - Kerry and Dean. (The media hyped Edwards, but he never was even in shouting distance to Kerry - and before Kerry became the front runner, he was never a threat to Dean. (I almost included Clark, but though he came out like gangbusters, he really never had a smooth campaign.)

It is not his inability to be a candidate - it is his - and every other leading Democrats unwillingness to primary a President in this very tough time.

[rucky]

13. The process of a primary - even a losing one - will help, IMO

because a viable challenge would bring progressive views into the debate, and be a referendum to Obama as to how much of his party adheres to these ideas and to what extent. So even a losing primary battle - and I expect any primary challenge to be a losing one - would help. It would help the progressives, and it would help Obama by distancing him from the dreaded 'liberal' label they're so afraid to lose independent votes over.

[leeroysphitz]

14. Kucinich is a weak chinned, unelectable kook. Grayson has the right idea but has no experience.

Governor Dr. Howard Dean has the skills needed to govern effectively and isn't a total wall Street whore like some other presidents I could mention.

[shimmergal]

15. Funny, but I've never seen this question

even raised about Ralph Nader. One of the main reasons I'd never vote for him, although I agree with a lot of what he says.