Every time I see a "primary Obama" diary (and I see at least 3 a day on this site), I always read about Alan Grayson being a potential candidate to primary Obama. The only question I have is: why? Why do you think he'd be a good candidate?
People on this website gush over him. It's like he's Justin Bieber and we're giddy teenage girls who can't get enough of him. We love him on a level that is dumb relative to his popularity and political skills. The truth is, this guy is not presidential material. Nor was he even congressional material.
I used to love him. I gave money to him once. But then I realized how big a waste it was. Here, let me tell you this story from a neutral perspective.
Wealthy trial lawyer barely wins against an incumbent in a swing district in a great year for his party.
He becomes famous for creating exaggerations and needlessly insulting the other party, despite having a centrist voting record.
He makes enemies with the other party, is treated like a fool within his own caucus, and becomes a hero of the netroots.
He raises oodles of money by lying and exaggerating about special interests, but it doesn't matter, because he "cares".
He fires up the netroots, despite having few accomplishments other than rhetoric, nor little support outside the base.
He is more rhetoric than pragmatism, since he says he will do a lot and won't.
He faces an opponent who is of direct ideological opposition to him, and all he does is come up with snappy, one-lined attacks that sound like a fourth-grader made them up.
Despite the huge money advantage, he loses by 18 points in his first re-election.
After his loss, he is the talk of the town for challenging a powerful incumbent for the most powerful office in the world, which has never been done successfully within a party primary.
Would you want that guy to be a candidate for the presidency, especially when challenging an incumbent? Sure, he'd fire up the netroots, but the arrogance of the netroots stuns me. Maybe your activism can help on issues, but it's very arrogant to assume that they single-handedly have the power to topple a presidency from its own party.
Grayson should never run for president. Maybe he can run for his old seat back, or move to another state and run there. But a presidential run is not only unrealistic, it is stupid.
Would you take advice from a one-term congressman who has made enemies in both parties? I wouldn't. Just because you stand out and please the base doesn't mean you have a successful future.
And even if we don't expect Grayson to win the primary, but only to "send Obama a message the base is not taking his trash", that makes no difference. Primaries only keep partisans in line if the insurgent is a threat to his renomination. Obama would never be scared of someone like Grayson. Grayson would only embarrass himself, and would not waste time and money on a national primary that is futile and ridiculous.
In closing, I know why you feel we should challenge Obama. Some of it is simple venting. But if you actually plan for it to happen and take steps to make it happen, it is futile. Alan Grayson is a non-starter. Russ Feingold has little appeal outside the base, and just lost by 6 points to a plastics manufacturer whose face is so forgettable I have to keep looking him up. If Feingold is not popular in his home state, it is a non-starter.
Bernie Sanders? What? A 70-year old Vermont Senator who's not even a Democrat, and who has no intention of running for anything else?
All in all, Obama outshines all challengers, and he is still very popular with Democrats (find a politician with an 85% approval rating and say to my face that he's not popular). Obama is going to be the nominee in 2012, no matter how much activists don't want him, and Alan Grayson would make things worse, not better.