Skip to main content

No credible opponent will primary President Obama. It won't happen.

I have been very critical of many of the president's policies and political moves. I will continue to be. But he's the only president I have. In 2012, he will be the only alternative to a Sarah Palin or a Mitt Romney or a Tim Pawlenty or a Haley Barbour or a Mitch Daniels or a John Thune. Or a Newt Gingrich. Okay. I admit it- that last one made me laugh.

President Obama isn't a dream, he is a politician. His presidency is historic, but on the issues he's a cautious centrist. That doesn't mean he's corrupt or sold out, it means he's a fairly typical modern Democrat. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been a better president. On some issues, she'd have done better, on some worse, and on most she'd have been largely the same. We now know that a John Edwards presidency would have been a disaster. No other candidates even had a ghost of a chance. Of the candidates that ran, we could not have done better than Barack Obama. That's the political reality.

We've seen a lot of names bandied about as potential Obama primary opponents. One of the most prominent was Howard Dean. After the past week, I'm assuming most people have given up on that idea. But Dean never indicated any interest in running, anyway, and no other prominent Democrats have, either. None will. It's not going to happen.

President Obama is our president, and if he's not still our president in 2013, we're all going to be in big trouble. There is no historical evidence that booting disappointing Democratic presidents or disappointing Democratic Congressional majorities leads to better of either. There is historical evidence from other countries that when extremist parties are appeased, in the hope that they will reveal themselves, and then be expelled from office, the damage they do while in office is disastrous. It doesn't work.

Pretending that the president is doing the best he could isn't the answer. Many of us feel he could be doing better, and will continue to push him to do better. But pretending that we will have a better alternative also isn't the answer. The only alternatives are far far worse. That's the reality. Dreams are nice, but we have to try to live in reality. Rather than rueing the loss of a dream, we need to keep working on making that reality better. For the next several years, on the national level, the best way to make that reality better will be to continue to push President Obama to do better.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:07 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  speaking for myself (319+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sdf, Renee, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, Chris Andersen, northsylvania, Trix, itsbenj, hester, murphy, ogre, GOTV, Dounia, Geenius at Wrok, Cali Scribe, abarefootboy, MrPlow, tin woodswoman, TrueBlueMajority, alicia, Debby, byteb, Arnie, LynChi, ChicDemago, kpardue, LynnS, eeff, polecat, Gareth, BillyZoom, Birdman, thepook, sardonyx, scribe, TheMomCat, bronte17, missLotus, rktect, mmacdDE, nyceve, DaleA, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, Frederick Clarkson, Larry Bailey, Fe, Glinda, enough already, high uintas, sidnora, abs0628, Texknight, PresentMoment, tomephil, Dallasdoc, American Zapatista, MadLibrarian, brainwave, ccr4nine, kj in missouri, NYFM, Catte Nappe, betson08, rockhound, AbsurdEyes, Greg in TN, grrr, lcrp, cevad, side pocket, tomjones, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, dnta, Marianne Benz, Saru, Sybil Liberty, bloomer 101, Bluesee, marina, 3goldens, DianeNYS, greycat, SherwoodB, chimene, vgranucci, Big River Bandido, reflectionsv37, where4art, GreyHawk, peteri2, Captain Future, Southside, kaliope, The Raven, CWalter, benny05, Ekaterin, JanF, zozie, jay23, Jim P, begone, dehrha02, Whimsical, stef, edwardssl, MeMeMeMeMe, ferallike, BlueInARedState, Naranjadia, martyc35, deha, MTmofo, anastasia p, luckydog, jwhitmill, kck, philipmerrill, Glorfindel, justalittlebitcrazy, Demena, ER Doc, MBNYC, TooFolkGR, stlkaper, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, RantNRaven, Dreaming of Better Days, blueoregon, Friend of the court, zephron, slksfca, DBunn, GoldnI, bluicebank, Jaleh, Haningchadus14, tgypsy, camlbacker, LV Pol Girl, gtghawaii, FishOutofWater, Sydserious, Jimdotz, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Steve In DC, DWG, Orange County Liberal, Seneca Doane, getlost, jayden, stratocasterman, Demi Moaned, jnhobbs, millwood, OIL GUY, uciguy30, Jahiz, dizzydean, roycej, TomP, rmonroe, VA Breeze, kafkananda, ChocolateChris, Shahryar, spacejam, NewDealer, Fe Bongolan, skohayes, Panurge, lineatus, beach babe in fl, jamess, Greasy Grant, LarsThorwald, Lujane, icebergslim, Jake Williams, Jeff Y, In her own Voice, Justanothernyer, DavidW, Diogenes2008, squarewheel, LaFeminista, satanicpanic, bluebelle7, Pris from LA, 1BQ, in2mixin, MufsMom, rsmpdx, litoralis, ceebee7, greengemini, seanwright, Carol in San Antonio, be the change you seek, XerTeacher, krllos, Carakav, zbbrox, ZilV, Hot2na, soms, johnosahon, Deoliver47, guyeda, Houston Gardener, Livvy5, citisven, porchdog1961, Super Grover, collardgreens, cassandraX, lompe, smileycreek, JNSD, jsfox, confitesprit, awcomeon, KroneckerD, patrickz, SanAntonioKrusty, dorkenergy, LaughingPlanet, eXtina, pdx kirk, psfinla, Observerinvancouver, blueyescryinintherain, amk for obama, jethrock, Interceptor7, citizen31, trixied13, k8dd8d, abarrenfuture, gulfgal98, pixxer, Lady Libertine, elginblt, ItsSimpleSimon, Benintn, Lize in San Francisco, NYWheeler, sharonsz, melfunction, nickrud, Casual Wednesday, ZedMont, pstoller78, Actbriniel, Jonze, JanG, mallyroyal, Quantumlogic, Eric0125, theKgirls, anafreeka, yellow cosmic seed, Pizzapotamus, kerflooey, Front Toward Enemy, xgy2, mama jo, Bob Duck, msmacgyver, BlueJessamine, murphyO, soothsayer99, asterkitty, Situational Lefty, jmrichardson, princesspat, Aranfell, Jed Lewison, Late Spring, boophus, tkwasny, marleycat, RadicalRoadRat, CKendall, dakinishir, MRA NY, aoeu, zapus, dibsa, curtisgrahamduff, Marihilda, Archie2227, Mets102, SoCalSal, lol chikinburd, DRo, anthony21, AnnetteK, James Robinson, HamptonRoadsProgressive, JTinDC, Just Keep it Simple Stupid, matrix, SouthernBelleNC49, We Won, im a plugger, ahumbleopinion, toilpress, The Lone Apple, Lonely Texan, chicagobleu, Old Guild Guy, Th0rn, TexDemAtty, RationalLeft, Valiant, complexity

    only.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:07:22 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for this, Laurence (93+ / 0-)

      The last time a sitting Democratic President faced a serious primary, we were stuck with 12 years of Republican misrule...and we're still digging out from that era in many ways, 8 years of Clinton notwithstanding. I'm not happy with a lot of Obama's decisions (or non-decisions), but you go to lead the country with the President you have, not the President you wish you had.

      Unlike a lot of folks around here, I never saw Obama as a progressive Messiah, but just as the person most qualified to get this country back in the right direction. Hillary Clinton was also well-qualified, but I worried that she would be too much of a "hawk" so as to prove that she could hang with the big boys, based on her votes for IWR and Kyl-Lieberman. (Disclosure: I started as an Edwards supporter, so I'm used to having dreams dashed.)

      Sure, Obama's criticized as a "centrist", but if your choice is between the center and the edge of the cliff that the Republicans would perch us on, the center looks pretty damn good. We may never get a completely progressive President -- the corporate media won't let us. (On the plus side, though, they probably won't let the teabaggers get their favorites in either -- the media does best with the middle ground.) But if we can get at least a bit more to the left in each subsequent administration, that at least moves us in the right direction.

      "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:42:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you in particular for this: (25+ / 2-)

        Pretending that the president is doing the best he could isn't the answer.

        The Dolchstoss brigade is making me want to tear my hair out. This is not the best of all possible worlds.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:57:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Its not the best of all possible worlds. (23+ / 0-)

          But I'd argue its pretty close to the best of all achievable worlds.

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:14:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WTF? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coral, Iberian, dmh44, foufou

          The Dolchstoss brigade

          - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

          by second gen on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:49:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you're gonna go Godwin, at least don't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreenSooner, Iberian, OIL GUY

          misspell the Nazi/German military hawk terms you're trying to use. It's Dolchstoß, and in addition to that the way you put it  lets it sound as if you were the one complaining about Obama supporters giving you a stab in the back.

          Support Dennis McDonald and Montana Democrats in the 2010 election!

          by twohundertseventy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:17:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  S/he was doing that very thing! (5+ / 0-)

            Fascinating (and creepy).

            Incidentally, "ss" is a perfectly acceptable substitute for ß...especially in an English-language context.

            "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

            by GreenSooner on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:57:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  wrong on both counts (7+ / 0-)
            1. he didn't go Godwin because the group predated Godwin's defining personage/group.
            1. that german letter is often written as a double s on machines not having the key on the board. it is not incorrect to do that and is accepted. so, he did, in fact, spell it correctly.

            "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

            by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:02:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really, first, the term Dolchstoßlegende (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dmh44, OIL GUY

              was used by the whole cadre of militarists who wanted to make the social democracy and the Weimar Republic look bad, and was then picked up quickly by the NSDAP, and heavily used by them in the 1933-1935 era as a legitimation to get rid of communists and social democrats, also in conjunction with the Reichstagsbrand.

              So it's definitely a term that has a connection to the Nazis, and if you refer to someone as spreading a Dolchstoßlegende that means that you accuse him of being against Democracy and pro-Nazi.

              1. No machine doesn't have the 'ß' on the board, the code on English keyboards is Alt+0223. I wouldn't usually be so pedantic, but if you're going to throw around Nazi terms like Dolchstoßlegende (or, as we saw in some I/P diary lately, judenrein), you could at least spell it correctly, if you're going to be inflammatory.

              Support Dennis McDonald and Montana Democrats in the 2010 election!

              by twohundertseventy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well i took german (9+ / 0-)

                in the pre-comp era when we had to chisel out things on typewriters or by hand. and resorting to the unicode character assignment numbers is really only effective if you are familiar with using them. many aren't. so the german letter ess-zett is NOT, strictly speaking, on english keyboards, though it is available if you know where to look. so are letters from a number of different alphabets. however, that doesn't mean we should use Cyrillic to write the word moscow or arabic to name iran just because the letters are available.

                furthermore, many people don't know what ess-zett means ,or have any clue as to it's pronunciation. the english transliteration gives that indication though and technically is the proper form to use on an english speaking site.

                "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:02:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I'm going to go Godwin (16+ / 0-)

              I agree with the diarist - there's a lot wrong with the current Administration - I think joanneleon calls it "The Great Squandering", which makes me chuckle.

              But we really need to remember who the enemy is.  How is it that we have forgotten that both Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove have articulated their goal as a "permanent majority"?  That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  Permanent majority is just another term for one party rule.  I don't see how one can sugar-coat it, and I think we forget the Lee Atwater style of ends-justifies-means politics that they will employ to consolidate power.

              While some of us are talking about a primary challenger to Obama, and how we're done with him, and how we're not going to vote for him... A resurgent Republican Party is organizing, and it is qualitatively different than anything else in US history.  They are not the loyal opposition, at least as it existed in the 200+ year history of American politics between the extremely grim 1800 election and the rise of the Contract on America in 1994.  The modern Republican Party is a political movement that will deliberately lie and scapegoat whole populations (immigrants, Muslims, black people) in order to drum up hate and sieze control.  

              There may be significant definitional differences between the GOP and fascism, but there are starting to be even more similarities.  Cult of national purity and renewal, militarism and aggressive imperialism are only among the more significant.

              "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

              by ivorybill on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:54:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you have a point. (7+ / 0-)

                i'd like to point out that the cure for fascism isn't moving further to the right.

                "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:07:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  More fear mongering (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aspe4, blueoasis, rubine, NWTerriD, damfino

                But we really need to remember who the enemy is.

                Kossacks are acutely aware who the enemy is and your fear mongering isn't going to change any minds here.  The problem, IMHO, is not that Kossacks have forgotten who the enemy is but that Democrats in general and Obama in particular have forgotten.

                Lecturing Kossacks about "who the enemy is" is wasted speech and your lecture is directed at the wrong recipients.

                Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:46:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess it's a judgement call (6+ / 0-)

                  Some see Obama as not really very different from the Republicans.  Maybe that's right.  Others, including me, see a vast difference between the Obama Administration and the Republican Party and consider Obama not all that far out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  

                  Maybe you disagree with that and then we'll be at each other's throats.  This is always the case with the left; it's a chronic disease with us, and it's why in the Darwinian world of politics, we never realize our potential. The Democratic Party may well fissure or just run out of steam before the Republicans do, and we'll split up over issues like social security, timelines for military withdrawal, and whether or not the retirement age for social security should be raised.

                  So sorry for fear-mongering, but I remain more genuinely frightened of the barbarians at the gates than the prospect of not being able to retire until age 68.  

                  "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

                  by ivorybill on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:04:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's a pretty damn low bar (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zedaker, rubine

                    Others, including me, see a vast difference between the Obama Administration and the Republican Party and consider Obama not all that far out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

                    The "mainstream" of the Democratic Party includes people like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Mary Landrieu and you will never convince me that there is any significant difference between them and the GOP.

                    Furthermore, Obama didn't campaign as a "mainstream" Democrat, he campaigned as an anti-war liberal.  We didn't get the change we were promised, we got the status quo.  That this has underwhelmed base Democrats and first-time voters that actually believed in the message of change and that it has utterly failed to inspire them threatening Democrats in the midterms by depressing voter turnout is not a figment of the imagination.  And it is not the fault of those, like me, that are pointing this out.

                    The blame belongs with those that made the decisions that got us to this point.

                    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                    by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:02:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't agree... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lying eyes, NWTerriD
                      I don't know who you thought you were voting for, but Obama definitely did not campaign as "anti-war," and I never saw him use the word "liberal" in any campaign literature, and I defintely did not hear that word come out of his mouth.  

                      If you're using his opinion of the Iraq War as a basis for your thinking that he was anti-war, your argument falls apart from the start.  He said he was against "dumb wars," not anti-war.  And he always said he was going to focus his attention on winning the war in Afghanistan (a stand I didn't agree with - and still don't); that doesn't sound "anti-war" to me.  That doesn't sound like an "anti-war" candidate to me.  In addition, any candidate who had run as anti-war would not have been viable, given the state of American society...

                      And his characterization of himself as a "change candidate" had nothing to do with whether he was a liberal or not, and I knew he wasn't a liberal when he (along with most of the other "liberal" Democratic candidates) hemmed and hawed over the issue of marriage equality.

                      I don't know who you thought you were voting for, but the only "liberal" in the Democratic presidential field in 2008 was Dennis Kucinich, and he had absolutely NO CHANCE of winning; any Democratic candidate who had run as a liberal would have had no chance of winning.

                  •  There are much greater implications (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ivorybill

                    to SS "reform" than whether you can retire before age 68.

                    Here's something to read that might give you some insight into the true goal there. Please note when it was written, too: nothing has changed, except that it's become much more urgent for Wall Street than it was then. And I hope we can agree on that enemy.

                    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                    by sidnora on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:01:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  a point i'd like to make (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ivorybill

                    is that the enemy we face in fascism is not limited to a specific party. it is a product of rightwing ideology. that ideology is the enemy. whether it wears red or blue is irrelevant. i submit that in this country the color of fascism is dollar bill green.

                    the cure we have available is more akin to quinine controlling malaria that to an anti-biotic eradicating a microbial infection. basically, we have to muzzle the vicious dog of capitalism so it can't bite and rend and devour as is its insatiable nature. the rightwing fails to see that need and allows, even encourages, the bad behavior.  therefore the solution is not more rightwing behavior/actions on our part, but rather, more leftwing actions to balance and ameliorate the threat.

                    loyalty to any one party is all well and good until that party betrays a fundamental tenet of its raison d'etre (sp?) when a party resorts to "We may be bad, but the other guys are worse." reasoning then they have crossed that line of betrayals of fundamental tenets somewhere. as individuals we have a duty to ourselves to look for and correct that betrayal or we become complicit in the resulting consequences.

                    i, for one, do not wish to be complicit in those consequences. at least not actively. i doubt anyone can escape an accusation of inactive complicity a la the Naderites. Qu se ra, se ra. refusing to help a lesser evil is not the same thing as choosing to help a greater evil.

                    "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                    by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:58:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  OK, first of all . . . (13+ / 0-)

            . . . mein Vater ist im Jahr 1940 in Frankfurt-am-Main geboren, und ich weiß, was ein ß ist und wie man es verwendet, klar?

            And second, I'm sick to death of being accused myself -- and seeing other users, including many longtimers, accused -- of stabbing Obama, the Democratic Party and America in the back simply because I think the administration has wandered a long way from the principles it campaigned on, and that in their lockstep behavior, their ganging up on perceived foes, and their irrationally uncritical admiration of and deference to the president, they are acting like a bunch of . . . let's say, illiberal people.

            There's nothing democratic, or Democratic, about an authoritarian, conformist mob.

            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

            by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:37:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  P.S. If you care where I'm coming from (5+ / 0-)

              you might start here.

              "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

              by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:42:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Can you give me some concrete examples? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Iberian, second gen, OIL GUY

              I keep hearing that President Obama has governed differently than he campaigned...

              WHERE?

            •  My problem (9+ / 0-)

              with those that would chastise Kossacks for not being sufficiently supportive of Obama is that their anger is misdirected.  It's not like a bunch of us just arbitrarily decided to criticize Obama for no good reason, the criticism he endures here he has earned.

              And that's the problem, those that point out the flaws with Obama's presidency are not the cause of those flaws.  The Obama administration is.  So rather than killing the messenger by attacking Kossacks, they should direct their anger for the poor electoral position Democrats now find themselves in where it squarely belongs: with those whose poor decisions have put us in this position.

              Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

              by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:57:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't chastise them for not supporting Obama (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mrblifil

                I chastise them for engaging in ineffective tactics that do nothing more than make them feel better.

                •  What? (0+ / 0-)

                  Who is "them?"  Read my comment, "them" is "Kossacks [that are, in the eyes of those doing the chastising] not being sufficiently supportive of Obama."  Chastising them at all is an acknowledgment that these are people that you believe are insufficiently supportive of Obama because that's how they've been defined.

                  You are acknowledging my point.

                  Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                  by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:45:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't give a crap if you or anyone else (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mrblifil

                    doesn't support Obama. That's your prerogative.

                    But don't tell me that dreams of a primary challenge will actually make things better because it won't.

                    •  Don't put words in my mouth (0+ / 0-)

                      I didn't tell you that "dreams of a primary challenge will actually make things better."

                      I do, however, believe that if Obama actually felt threatened by a challenge from the left, he'd work a lot harder to shore up the support of those that might support such a challenge.  And if he did that, he'd put a lot more focus on doing more to support average working Americans, which would in turn boost his support among all average working Americans irrespective of their party identification.

                      It might even save him from himself and get him reelected.

                      Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                      by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:11:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  See, that's the whole thing... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Chris Andersen
                        Obama would never feel threatened by a challenge from his left, because a challenger from his left would have no chance of defeating him.  The majority of America isn't on the left, despite unemployment, Republican misrule, etc.  Until this country wakes up and sees past the media-induced stupor to what is actually going on here, Americans will always be threatened by "libruls."  The first time someone in the media refers to this "challenge from the left" as a liberal, this person would be DOA.

                        And just for the record, I'm not pleased about the way things are; I just know that this is reality, and the sooner we deal with it, the sooner these flame wars will go out.

                        •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                          Obama would never feel threatened by a challenge from his left, because a challenger from his left would have no chance of defeating him.

                          Says you.  Just because you are entitled to your opinion doesn't make your opinion correct.

                          The majority of America isn't on the left, despite unemployment, Republican misrule, etc.

                          Not true.  A majority of Americans are relatively centrist, relatively because yesterday's "centrists" are today's "looney left."  In the 60's, I would have been considered a centrist but because the right has been so successful since then pushing the Overton Window ever rightward with little or no resistance, by today's standards I am an extremist liberal.

                          You're entirely correct that the majority of the country is not on the left if you're using the past as your barometer for "left" but by today's standards, that just isn't the case.

                          Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                          by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:28:59 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                          A lot of people seem to think the country is a lot more to the left than it actually is. I think it could be brought over to that way of thinking, but that will require a lot of work, none of which includes a pointless challenge to Obama in the primary.

                          •  A lot of people in this country (0+ / 0-)

                            don't know where they stand, and don't necessarily stand anywhere firmly, but they'll support any halfway sensible policy as long as enough prominent people are willing to step up and say that it's not weird and abnormal. Remember, more than two-thirds of the country favored a public option . . . before the gibbering right came out and started attacking it, and Obama and the Democrats declined to defend it.

                            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

                            by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:40:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  There's a difference? (0+ / 0-)

                        I do, however, believe that if Obama actually felt threatened by a challenge from the left, he'd work a lot harder to shore up the support of those that might support such a challenge.  And if he did that, he'd put a lot more focus on doing more to support average working Americans, which would in turn boost his support among all average working Americans irrespective of their party identification.

                        In other words, you think a primary challenge will actually make things better.

            •  I don't accuse anyone of stabbing us in the back (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mrblifil

              I do suggest that people are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

        •  HR'd for likening President Obama's supporters (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dmh44

          to Nazi's.

          Simply disgusting. Get a fucking grip! Do you really want to go there?

          The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

          by OIL GUY on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:46:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Carter was an accident in 1976... (6+ / 0-)

        and should never have been elected because the country was in a conservative mood by then. The only reason Carter won is because of Watergate, and even then, he was only a few days away from the polls turning back to Ford. Neither Carter nor Kennedy had a real chance of winning in 1980.

        My point in saying this is that Reagan and Bush were NOT Kennedy's fault, and a primary challenge in 2012 will not turn the country's mood back to conservatism. As Bill Clinton said at NN09, the country's mood has turned progressive and is likely to stay that way for 30-40 years. A primary challenge in 2012 might be just the ticket to bringing in another FDR.

        President Obama doesn't need to be more progressive;
        he needs to be less conservative.

        by Jimdotz on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:59:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your Word Astonish Me... (5+ / 0-)

        Honestly, Clarity, Realistic, and Looking at the Bigger Picture, are the words I would use to describe what you just wrote...

        It almost gave me a headache because it was so full of commonsense; and trust me, when you read some of the unrealistic, adolescent temper tantrum commentary, I have seen a lot on this site, it takes a minute for the logical part of your brain to snap back to normal...

        I actually had to re-read what you wrote, just to make sure I read you right...LOL!!!

      •  I could never understand anybody who (0+ / 0-)

        would say something like this:

        Disclosure: I started as an Edwards supporter, so I'm used to having dreams dashed.

        Why would anybody ever support Edwards for president is beyond me unless they mindlessly follow others like sheep (other sheep). I could never understand it. He was maybe fit for a third degree actor in supporting roles in 2 star movies at best, or for a local barber, but president?? Were you out of your mind?

        •  This helps. (10+ / 0-)

          Especially considering how many, if not a plurality of Kossacks supported him.

          Support Dennis McDonald and Montana Democrats in the 2010 election!

          by twohundertseventy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:18:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is really unhelpful (11+ / 0-)

          There's just no reason to disrespect Edwards supporters this way.  A lot of Edwards supporters were backing him based on particular policy positions, and they tended to be focused on domestic economics, labor unions, etc.  They had sound reasons for backing him.  I disagreed with them - my sole criteria was to get a Democrat elected, and my assessment was that Obama was most likely to win. That doesn't mean that I thought Obama was better on all the issues, just that I wanted to win more than in any election in my life.  

          But Edwards supporters came in for a lot of very rude attacks on this site, and people were  particularly vicious to Clinton supporters, which should still be a source of remorse with many of us on this site.  It was ugly and counterproductive, just like these arguments now.  Edwards had some narcissistic tendencies, just as all big league politicans have.  His behavior would have resulted in a national political disaster, so we dodged a bullet.  But don't even go blaming his supporters for Edwards' sleaziness and moral failings.  

          Listen folks - the enemy is the Republican Party.  Even during the Bush Administration, I would not have labeled them with as strong a word as "enemy", but I think that their current actions and direction warrants the label.  Let's restore a little sanity here and remember not to let the best be the enemy of the good, or even let the good be the enemy of the barely tolerable - when we are staring into the abyss of madness and accellerated national decline we face with a Republican Congress or Administration.  

          Our prime objective as voters, donors, activists, citizens and friends is to hold off the barbarians long enough for a more honest conservative party to form. Unlike them, we don't want a one-party state.  We owe it to the Republicans as much as we owe it to ourselves not to go into 2012 divided.

          "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

          by ivorybill on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:09:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Anonymity on the internet..... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mrblifil, ivorybill, OIL GUY

            leads to trolls and bullying.  This site has both as well as hysterical jumping to conclusions based again on the expertise of anonymous opinion promoters.  

            The only thing it has going for it some days is the counter to the meta like this diary.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:15:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nice but- (0+ / 0-)

            The only reason so many supported Edwards is because he was sort of like Clinton. Democrats thought that this is what we, Democrats, are - pretty and young as opposed to the ugly and old Republican candidates, as a matter of contrast. I would call it an unintended, unspoken contrast we feel we should present in a presidential candidate. We don't look much deeper into candidates' real politics, hoping that once nominated, he is obligated to carry all of our policies and stick to them like a dogma.
            Then we get disappointed. Duh. Nice haircut, we will worry about dodging a bullet later.

        •  He was the only person (0+ / 0-)

          who was speaking up for those without a voice -- his "Two Americas" really resonated with me as a member of a blue collar family. And I think he pressured both Obama and Clinton to be more populist, at least in their campaigning, after he dropped out. One has to have a pretty healthy ego to want to go for any sort of leadership position in the first place, so that didn't bug me. And I have to admit I was in the "America will never elect a black President" camp at first -- it took some primary wins by Obama to persuade me otherwise.

          Disappointed in Edwards? Yes, but not surprised -- I've known many men (and women) who've thought more with the head below the belt rather than the one above the neck. A bit more disgusted that he and Elizabeth kept it secret and stayed in the race as long as they did -- we definitely dodged a bullet, even with McCain's own spotty marital history.

          I never questioned why anyone supported their candidate -- I already explained my problems with Clinton, and by the time Edwards dropped out she and Obama were the only two viable contestants remaining.

          "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

          by Cali Scribe on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:53:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (6+ / 0-)

        The last time a sitting Democratic President faced a serious primary, we were stuck with 12 years of Republican misrule...and we're still digging out from that era in many ways

        Ted Kennedy's primary challenge had nothing whatsoever to do with Carter's losing the presidency in 1980.

        In fact, Carter's defeat and Kennedy's decision to challenge him were prompted by the same fact: Jimmy Carter was a lousy president (hard to remember, in part, because of his magnificent post-presidency) who happened to serve during a time of enormous crisis.

        Ted Kennedy as, at worst, the canary in the coal mine.

        If Obama gets a serious primary challenge in 2012 (and I don't honestly think he will), it would be a similar indication.

        But canaries don't cause coal mine explosions.

        "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

        by GreenSooner on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:54:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bull Hocky (5+ / 0-)

          The primary challenge had a huge effect. Though I guess to be precise it was more the petulant refusal to throw 100% support AFTER The primary that did the most damage.  

          Imagine if Hillary had taken her supporters and gone home and only lobbed grenades at Obama after losing the primaries in 2008.....you'd have had totally changed campaign dynamics and a deeply split party.  That's what Kennedy gave us in 1980.  And it was one of the biggest factors in getting Reagan into the White House.   Anything else is revisionist history.

          •  Do you have any data to back this claim up? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral

            Reagan won over 50.1% of the vote in a three-way race.  Carter garnered 41%. John Anderson got 6.6%.

            Reagan also won 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49. This was a landslide.

            More than 8 million votes out of 86.5 million cast separated Reagan from Carter.

            Unless you can show some data that huge numbers of Kennedy voters stayed home (or, preferably, that they would have voted for Carter had Kennedy not, somehow, convinced them not to), you don't have much of a case.

            Even if you somehow transfer John Anderson's voters to Carter's column, he'd have come nowhere near winning. And Anderson, a liberal Republican running as an independent, was in no way a product of the Kennedy candidacy.  

            As I say above, what links Kennedy's candidacy to Carter's defeat is, in fact, a common cause, Jimmy Carter's massive unpopularity with the American public, which long predated Kennedy's decision to run and outlasted it, too.

            Kennedy's candidacy certainly didn't help Carter. And his behavior at the end of the convention was a symbolic blow to Democratic unity.

            But it's really ludicrous to claim that he cost Carter the election.

            The only scholarly book devoted to the 1980 Democratic primary, incidentally, agrees with me.

            "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

            by GreenSooner on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:47:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Agree with you, except that I refuse to believe (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, blueoasis, artisan

        that Ted Kennedy caused 12 years of Republican misrule. Likewise it wasn't Nader that caused GWB to be elected.  It was flawed candidates/campaigns, policies, and intense macro issue swirl that brought on those dark periods, not competition.

        A primary challenge should help Obama shine if he is indeed doing what most Dems and the country want doing.  If it raises issues, then even that is good because it direction and method for recouping that support and/or healing.

        Vigourous debate is necessary to sharpen the issues and party focus.  Primaries shouldn't be feared or even avoided, imho.  They're evolutionary, and evolution is always right.

        "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

        by Terra Mystica on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:52:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  voice of reality and reason (0+ / 0-)

        We may never get a completely progressive President

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:29:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  brilliant response (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe

        "Sure, Obama's criticized as a "centrist", but if your choice is between the center and the edge of the cliff that the Republicans would perch us on, the center looks pretty damn good"

        Thank you for this.  I have been trying to make that point over and over but i needed the cliff metaphor.  I am grateful for such clarity.

        •  It only works though (0+ / 0-)

          if subsequent Democratic administrations push the bar further to the left, moving us in a positive direction. (Remember the old saw: select D to go forward, R to go backward.) I was impressed with Brian Schweitzer at NN10, but I wonder how many people will look at him with skepticism after the experiences with other politicians.

          "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

          by Cali Scribe on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I am worried about Social Security (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NWTerriD

        I fear that if he pushes cuts in Social Security, or raising the retirement age, which amounts to the same thing, he will lose the election in 2012, and we will be stuck with the horror show that all the GOP possible candidates represent.

        No amount of cheerleading will save the 2012 election. Obama has to show some sensitivity and fight for the common person. Up to know, he's been rather removed.

        Yes, he's better than McCain Palin would have been, God knows, but that's not enough to keep Democrats winning enough to get this country moving in a positive direction.

        Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

        by coral on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:12:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for being (20+ / 0-)

      the voice of reason around here.

      Somewhere a senator sits behind a big wooden desk...he took his money just like all the rest- Neil Young

      by ctami on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:14:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fair and balanced (8+ / 0-)

      Ohmigod! So concise and to the point. I couldn't have put it better. The good, the bad and the ugly without exaggeration in any direction.

      "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

      by Demi Moaned on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:28:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why should he listen to the drug-addled? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zedaker, artisan

      And Gibbs' meme even seems to have a toe hold here.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

      by nailbender on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:58:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a sigline! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, blueoasis

      I adore Robertson Jeffers.

    •  If JRE hadn't had his personal problems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zedaker

      He would be kicking ass and taking names,especially on healthcare.   But we all know he screwed up his personal life, and especially hurting Elizabeth.

    •  cautious centrist (5+ / 0-)

      I'd say more of a crappy corporatist; and no matter who wins in 2012, we are in big trouble.  Obama has brought zero change except to make things worse.  If we take Obama and his DLC mob down at the ballot box, at least they might realize they need to watch their backs.  Right now, they have free reign to bend us over anytime they please.   If I'm going down, I think they deserve to go with me.

      You cannot keep voting for people simply because they aren't the worst.  

      Don't tax the rich, starve the poor.

      by dkmich on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:57:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  dkmich, I'm so with you... (3+ / 0-)

        ... but who do we run? Where's the guy who (A.) WILL run? (B.) Will be able to capture the imagination of the electorate in such a way as to NOT merely split the vote. AND (C.) Doesn't merely pay lip service to the policies we crave?

        If we have another one of those guys lying around somewhere, I'd love to meet him and ENCOURAGE him to run. But, sadly, he doesn't exist right now.

        Regards,
        Corporate Dog

        -----
        We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

        by Corporate Dog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:31:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Get. Out. Of. My. HEAD! (5+ / 0-)

      I posted this last night:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      Though I have to disagree with you on one matter:

      President Obama isn't a dream, he is a politician. His presidency is historic, but on the issues he's a cautious centrist. That doesn't mean he's corrupt or sold out, it means he's a fairly typical modern Democrat.

      To paraphrase Diogenes: "I'm looking for an honest centrist."

      Haven't found one yet. Fiscal responsibility never TRULY means fiscal responsibility with them, or else we'd be taking an honest look at increasing the tax rate of the wealthiest Americans and/or taking a chainsaw to the DoD's budget.

      Regards,
      Corporate Dog

      -----
      We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

      by Corporate Dog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:25:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Historical evidence? (0+ / 0-)

      President Obama is our president, and if he's not still our president in 2013, we're all going to be in big trouble. There is no historical evidence that booting disappointing Democratic presidents or disappointing Democratic Congressional majorities leads to better of either.

      Ahh.. but there is..  Jimmy Carter... and 1994 respectively.  Both led to boom years.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:11:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton abandoned progressivism after 1994 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral

        This is "better"?

        •  Ideology trumps economic pain to you? (0+ / 0-)

          So, you are talking about furtherance of the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party being "better", even if it is at the expense of personal suffering due to a crappy economy???

          To me, "better" at this point in time means getting the economy rolling again.  Putting people to work.  Which is what happened after Carter was dumped and Congress changed hands in 1994.

          We can argue all day how much those two events were the actual cause of the boom times that followed.  But it surely is what I would call "historical evidence".

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:35:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure what the point of this diary is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral

      We've been over and over all this, tell us all something we don't know, but please, spare us the lecture.

      Pretending that the president is doing the best he could isn't the answer.

      Amen.

      Many of us feel he could be doing better, and will continue to push him to do better. But pretending that we will have a better alternative also isn't the answer.

      Why not?  Here's a question, if Obama becomes genuinely worried that he's left his left flank exposed, what do you think he would do to address it?

      Agitating for a primary challenger for Obama is part and parcel of "push[ing] him to do better."

      Otherwise, how do you intend to "push?"  How do you "push" a politician to do better?  Sternly worded letters?  Petitions?

      Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

      by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:33:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, there is a better way (3+ / 0-)

        if anyone's interested in hearing it.

        Perfect example is health care reform.  

        It polled in the low 40's, which put tremendous negative pressure on the Dems trying to pass it and strengthened the arguments of those trying to gut it or stop it.

        It polled in the low 40's because a not-insignificant number of people wanted better, wanted a public option or wanted single-payer.

        I get that.  I don't see how we would have gotten a public option worth a plug nickle through the Senate, but I get that frustration.

        And yet, the health care reform we got was miles better than the status quo.  I have friends with pre-existing conditions; I have kids out of college but under the age of 26 who cannot find jobs with health care; I know people who were dropped when they got sick...and on and on.

        So, if those 15-20% who voiced disapproval of health care reform had instead voiced approval (but continued to argue and fight for MORE), the polling would have shown 55-60% FAVORABLE for Obamacare.

        Under that scenario, the more progressive Democrats would have been emboldened and their arguments would have more strongly resonated.

        Under that scenario, the Boehner talking point of the President ramming through legislation the American people were clearly against would have been nonexistent.

        Under that scenario, many Dems running for Congress this year would have been able to trumpet that accomplishment.

        Under that scenario, many progressive Democratic congresscritters would not be afraid to introduce NEW health care initiatives and legislation. Saying that the American people want it is a powerful tool for legislators.

        Given what happened, HCR becomes, amazingly, a NEGATIVE for the President and the Democrats in Congress.

        The same is true for the stimulus.

        I watched the right-wing zombie legions show up at the town halls screaming (and scaring the crap out of their elected leaders), and at the same time, many on the left blogged tirelessly about corporate sell-outs and the like, and many here shouted "primary him" with delusional zeal.

        I sure as hell wouldn't get in a foxhole with half the people here if this is what they think "having your back" means.

        •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State, RaveON, NWTerriD

          So, if those 15-20% who voiced disapproval of health care reform had instead voiced approval (but continued to argue and fight for MORE), the polling would have shown 55-60% FAVORABLE for Obamacare.

          First, let's drop the right-wing term "Obamacare."  Second, this makes no sense.  The reason that people voiced disapproval is precisely because they did argue and fight for more and they got thrown under the damn bus.  Saying that they approved of something they didn't approve of would have empowered them to do nothing but accept the measly scraps they'd been thrown.  But it would have empowered Obama and the Democrats to give even more away to the GOP.

          I get your frustration that there are many here that are critical of Obama but your frustration is misdirected.  If Obama had done the right thing, he wouldn't be in the boat he's in now.  And maybe you can't see how a PO could have gotten through Congress but I can think of a lot of ways that could have happened.

          Furthermore, if Obama had actually lifted a finger to fight for the PO, even if it didn't make it into the final bill, he would have a much larger reservoir of good will from the left right now.  But that's the problem, he didn't fight for it at all.  Obama ostensibly had given up on the PO privately long before he did so publicly.  In other words, while he was still telling the public that he supported the PO, he had his COS twisting the arms of progressives in the House to drop their support for the PO for the sake of political expediency.

          That's not anything close to the fundamental change Obama promised, it was merely a continuation of the status quo.

          Your problem is that Obama didn't fight for the average Americans who would have ultimately benefited from a PO.  The fact that the final bill was unpopular isn't the fault of those that opposed it because it had been so watered down that it failed to actually address the fundamental problems with American health "care" (the very reason for the effort in the first place), it is the fault of those that not only let it get watered down but that actively worked toward that end.

          So I do get your frustration but you aren't directing it where it squarely belongs: with the decision makers whose decisions landed us all in this boat, not with those that rightly called out the political cowardice of those decisions.

          Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

          by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:46:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I respectfully and completely disagree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chris Andersen, Lying eyes, OIL GUY

            I don't consider HCR "scraps" for one thing.  Some of the changes are huge - life-saving for many people. In that vein, not getting much of what we wanted - I want single-payer and believe we're a lot closer because of HCR - and being "thrown under the bus" are miles apart.

            I also think making the Federal government responsible for every American's health coverage, as well as putting forth the notion that health care is a right, which HCR subtly insists, is indeed fundamental change, as are many other aspects of this bill.

            I don't use "Obamacare" as a pejorative, anymore than I use "Romneycare" as a pejorative - this is what we have in Massachusetts and it's far superior to anything I've seen in other states.

            I look at it this way: say I believe that the speed limit on a road should be 40mph and it's currently at 60mph.

            My party pushes legislation that would lower it to 50mph.  I argue that it should be 40, not 50, but...

            When the arguing is over and the bill is in place, if someone asks me if I "approve" or "disapprove" of the bill, I would say, strongly, "APPROVE!"

            Then I, grateful that my party started the process and got some good done, would go back to fighting to lower the limit to 40.

            And if 59% of Americans agreed with me on that poll, I suspect that my party wouldn't be gun-shy or teabagger-shy of going after that too-high 50mph soon after.

            Unfortunately, the narrative will never dig deeply enough to sort out the disapproval between wanting more and not wanting what we got at all, and so the narrative serves the nay-saying GOPers and wounds the Democrats.

            Look, I don't buy for a moment that we could have gotten a Public Option through the Senate - look at what even the House had to compromise on regarding abortion language just to get things passed.  

            I do believe that HCR moves us in that direction, however, and that's no small thing.

            •  Faith (0+ / 0-)

              And if 59% of Americans agreed with me on that poll, I suspect that my party wouldn't be gun-shy or teabagger-shy of going after that too-high 50mph soon after.

              I am happy for you that you have faith in politicians to automatically do the right thing, I do not.  And I use the term "faith" deliberately:

              faith: b  (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

              I would even go so far as to say that you have a firm belief in something for which there is a multitude of conflicting evidence.

              I don't use "Obamacare" as a pejorative...

              I don't care how you use it, I'm respectfully asking you not to use it.  It isn't helpful.  Whether or not you use it as an epithet, the right relishes in doing just that and you're enabling their negative framing when you use it at all, much in the same way that one enables the right's negative framing of taxes whenever they use the loaded right-wing term "tax relief."

              Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

              by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:33:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  HCR (0+ / 0-)

                was going to be trouble for many Dems, and htey knew it, and President Obama knew it.

                Yet they went for it anyway.

                So your use of "faith" really isn't pertinent to my point of 55-60% approval on an issue.  With such backing, a guy like Sanders could throw more hcr into the legislative mix.

                But after the beating the Dems have taken on HCR, few want to hear it now.

                This is all about tactics, and I maintain that in a democracy where so many disagree, cheering the good and demanding more gets you a lot more than ignoring the good and just demanding more.

                In that vein, it's kind of strange to hear you lecturing me about the use of a word.

                I expect the right RELISHES the daily DailyKos "Obama Sucks" rec list a lot more than whether I, or Obama supporters like Jonathan Alter, use the term Obamacare.

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  HCR was going to be trouble for many Dems, and htey knew it, and President Obama knew it.

                  Yet they went for it anyway.

                  That doesn't support your point.  Democrats didn't "go for" HCR because it was arbitrarily the right thing to do, they "went for it" because they had promised to do so, which is in great part why they were elected with huge majorities in both houses of congress.

                  And they didn't give us HCR, they only gave us HIR, far short of the promised goal.

                  Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                  by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:04:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And they could have (0+ / 0-)

                    simply put it on the back burner, citing the economy (which would be a legitimate delay) as the overriding factor.

                    In fact, many argue that they should have done that.

                    I watched health care cripple Clinton (and his wife for a decade and more).  Going for it was courageous, getting it was amazing to me (and with huge kudos to Nancy Pelosi and her legislative sleight of hand to get the final through).

                    Look, we're not going to agree on this, obviously.  To me, the accomplishments of the President and this Democratic Congress have been nothing short of sunning given the ridiculous political climate and the sheer nerve of the wretched Republicans.

                    You and many others think they had a mandate to turn the ship on a dime.  Understand that I disagree with that position, even though I wish you were right - and even though I'm not sure you're not right.

                    So be it.  I'm not your enemy, nor are you my enemy, and I appreciate that we've had a civil debate.

                    I think your HCR vs. HIR is a distinction without a difference, by the way.  Pre-existing conditions, recission, age limit for benefits and high-risk pooling all fall into both categories.

                    •  "stunning," not "sunning," lol n/t (0+ / 0-)
                    •  disagree (0+ / 0-)

                      I think your HCR vs. HIR is a distinction without a difference, by the way.  Pre-existing conditions, recission, age limit for benefits and high-risk pooling all fall into both categories.

                      Those things fall under health insurance reform, not health care reform and there is a profound difference.  If you still can't afford insurance, you're still going to go without.  And we still have no choice but to pay insurance companies - who aren't looking out for our "health" but for their bottom line - for their crappy, overpriced policies.  Rates will go up because they can no longer practice recission, at least not the way they used to, so more and more will simply be unable to afford insurance.  Rates will also continue to rise exponentially over the long term because there simply is no cost control mechanism.  You can call that reform if you want but I don't.

                      You and many others think they had a mandate to turn the ship on a dime.

                      That is precisely what they had.  They were swept into office on a wave of sentiment that the country was headed in the wrong direction over two election cycles after 6 years of majority Republican rule.  The American people gave them huge majorities in both houses of congress to get us moving back in the right direction, i.e. to "turn the ship on a dime."  That they still haven't even turned the ship halfway around is why Democrats are going to suffer in the midterms.

                      There are plenty enough voters that would vote for Democrats such that they could easily buck the trend of losing seats in an off-year election but the problem is that many of them are underwhelmed and disillusioned.  Voter turnout for Democrats will be depressed in November as evidenced by the enthusiasm gap, not because the Democrats went too far but because they didn't go nearly far enough.  If they had gone far enough, we would be looking at impending losses in November, we'd likely be looking at gaining seats.

                      Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                      by democracy inaction on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:55:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Affording insurance is a huge part of the reform (0+ / 0-)

                        Right?

                        Subsidies from the Feds based on % of income needed for insurance?

                        From where I'm sitting that makes almost all health care cost issues become, suddenly, budgetary.

                        Which was the whole point, in my opinion.  Federal deficits are now openly, intimately and much more greatly tied to controlling health care costs.

    •  The problem isn't Obama (0+ / 0-)

      Who has been a very good president, gotten a lot accomplished  and shown himself to be cool, calm. collected and wise under pressure.

      The problem is his advisers and administrators, the people who sit around the table from him at meetings causing the discussion of possible strategies to go for the weakest possible response; bipartisan compromising, pre-emptively non controversial amoong Republicans.

      The people really responsible for that; Rahm Emanuel, Geitner, Holder, Salazar, are four out of twenty two persons. The military and the Pentagon he is holding at arms length as best he can.

      You can add to that a lot of spineless Democratic Senators who have been incredibly good at shooting themselves in the foot and stabbing themselves in the back by being seen to be on the side of the people like lobbyists and special interests that have been lining their pockets.

      Obama can still turn this around by first elevating Elizabeth Warren to a cabinet position, getting rid of Simpson and his cuts of Social Security along with the bad advisors and administrators.

      Next he should be seen either getting Congress to put their foot down or himself vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and substituting Obama tax cuts for the people making $250,000 a year or less. Let 300 Billionaires pony up $300 Billion and spread it around.

      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

      by rktect on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:00:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  recced even though your compliments (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY

      are largely back handed and I think your view that he's doing his best is pretend is preposterous and surreal.

    •  Oh no, you speak for me too. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      And far more eloquently than I ever could have. I'd rec this diary 1000x if I could. Thank you.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

      by sidnora on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:49:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope you're right, Laurence (79+ / 0-)

    What happens after the election will be pivotal.  The president will either decide that it's time to fight the extremist Republicans, overhaul his administration and ditch the bipartisan delusion; or he'll double down on capitulating to corporate interest in order to "get something done."  The Catfood Commission is not promising in this regard.

    I agree that no primary challenge will succeed.  But talking about it might just attract the notice of the inhabitants of the West Wing Bunker, and remind them that they can't take their party's loyal support for granted.  If so, it would be well worth talking about it.

    •  because the very idea is so absurd (23+ / 0-)

      i think talking about it will only calcine the opinions of people like gibbs. we have to be real. and i agree that things don't look promising, on some levels, but we have to work with what we have.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:16:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How are we to exert influence? (63+ / 0-)

        Some of us here feel that non-stop cheering will persuade them to come to us, but I'm not among them and I don't think you are either.  There are only two general tools in politics: carrots and sticks.  We inundated the Obama campaign with carrots, and they promptly turned their backs on a lot of their promises, and ignored the clear implications of their campaign rhetoric.

        Withholding carrots will not help much.  Either we get angry reaction for insufficient love, or we get ignored further in favor of corporate sponsors.  So Sticks would seem to be the only tool left to wield.  That's what I assume the president means when he repeatedly asks that we hold him accountable.  I'm not sure what else he could mean.

          •  Isn't the essence of democracy (46+ / 0-)

            ... working for someone who represents you, with the aim of making government more responsive to you?  

            You can tell from the histrionic objections to this idea from many Obama defenders around here today that the idea scares the crap out of them.  Good.  I hope that fear goes straight up to the White House.

            •  Several aspects of it..... (22+ / 0-)

              ...terrify them.  Both that they might lose their position in government, that they might lose their position in the party, and that we might actually succeed.

              They don't want the change they claim to believe in.  They want the sort of useless feel-good measures that the centrists deliver.  Make no mistake.  They want things to be the way they are.  They don't see a problem and they're terrified at the thought of the DFH wing of the party actually implementing change.

              •  Wow. You just did a great job proving... (10+ / 0-)

                ...that you're terrible at figuring out why people do and say the things they do.

                There is not a damn person here who doesn't see a problem. But for most of us, the problems we see almost all have an "R" next to their names. Working to pressure Obama to do the right thing is fine. Trying to divide the party when we're already vulnerable is not. It sure didn't help anything in 1980.

                •  But the "dividing the party" comes (18+ / 0-)

                  from the people who are out there attacking critics. Geez, you tell someone who expresses doubts, and feels the Party holds their wishes in contempt that they are contemptible (pony, purist, waaaa, teen-ager, magic wand, etc etc etc), and through unresponsiveness to the points conveying "your views are worthless to True Democrats" ...

                  well who the fuck is driving away who, and why can't they abide any criticism of the policies?

                  Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

                  by Jim P on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:34:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, uh, what I responded to... (6+ / 0-)

                    ...was someone supporting a primary of Obama and then going on to say that people supporting Obama really like everything he's done and want him to be a "centrist" who doesn't actually change much, essentially calling them hypocrites who don't believe the rhetoric they claimed they did when they voted.

                    Oh, wait, but lets talk about how mean we all are to people who criticize Obama instead. That's probably much more divisive.

                  •  Well put, Jim. That's exactly right: The Pony (13+ / 0-)

                    Purveyors just want everyone on the left to STFU, and let Obama compromise away with the right wing Democrats and FAR right wing Repugs. That is just NOT how politics works.

                    It's Al Capone reality, where you have to fight to live, or you will be destroyed. Obama is blaming the "left" (though there really IS no left in this country, to speak of) for making his life SO DIFFICULT, and virtually equating us with the far right.

                    That is the kind of delusional thinking that should make us realize that Obama must be fought on many of these issues tooth and nail, lest he drag us and the Democratic Party down to disaster.

                    [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

                    by Vtdblue on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:45:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Agree 100% (5+ / 0-)

                      "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                      by GreenSooner on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:02:25 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Whoops...somehow I erased the comment (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dallasdoc, ohmyheck, Vtdblue

                        ..that was supposed to go with that header..let's try again:

                        Agree 100%

                        BUT Obama will likely still be the lesser evil in 2012 and thus worth voting for.

                        We really ought to be able to do better, but it will take a lot of heavy lifting before we actually can.

                        Luckily, as I say elsewhere in this thread, politics is not entirely about the presidency.

                        "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                        by GreenSooner on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:04:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  And what every single "leftist", on this (0+ / 0-)

                      site in particular, ALWAYS forgets is Obama is governing for the WHOLE COUNTRY.  It ain't just you and the "DFHs".  It is all the republicans, all the democrats, all the independents, all the "I don't cares", all the capitalists, all the religious people, all the non-religious people, all the military people, all the weapons makers, and all the bread bakers, all the people that work in the healthcare industry, all the people that don't, all the people that work in the financial services industry, and all the ones that don't, all the people that have money, and all the people that don't.

                      Everyone.

                      And there are considerations that you never have to make in your liberal, socialist ivory tower that the president of this country MUST make every single day.  Decisions that will effect a whole hell of a lot of people.  

                      Think of just these 2 things:  

                      In political terms:  if there is an attack on America during Obama's term, what happens to the democratic party nad its fortune as a whole?  We already have the stupid distinction of being "weak on defense".  Imagine if another attack comes.

                      In people terms:  imagine if we did blow up the private health insurance industry...if the wet dream of so many here had come true.  What happens to the 4 MILLION PEOPLE put out of work by that action?  Would it have been a smart thing to do at the time, with unemployment as high as it was.....to announce that we're going to put 4 million more people on the unemployment rolls with no chance for finding work because all they know how to do it shuffle paper?

                      Hell no...it would have been completely and utterly foolish.  No matter how many people were able to get health insurance, those 4 million people still had no fucking job.  When you add them to other 30 or so million, you're talking real numbers.

                      Those are just 2 of the very real situations the president and Congress must weigh every single day.  They are governing....a damn sight harder than spouting off about what you WANT to do.

                      Would it have been smart to blow up the financial system when we help fund the whole world?  There's another small item for contemplation....

                      These are the kinds of things no one here wants to acknowledge.  They want to sit in their little bubbles and pronounce that "this is the proper liberal way", when the consequences of those actions are rarely, if ever, discussed.

                      •  Top comment... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PsychoSavannah
                        In my humble opinion.  No doubt you'll be flamed for your "pragmatism" and "rationale" of the compromises Obama and the Congress have made in the cause of governance, but I don't think you need me to tell you that your view is spot-on.  Thanks for a "reality-based" comment...
              •  Hate the layout of my fucking laptop. (11+ / 0-)

                Hit some button somewhere that deleted my post and have to retype.  Ugh!

                Anyway.  Agree with this

                They don't want the change they claim to believe in

                Actions say it all.

                Disagree with your statement that they fear us.  They publicly disrespect and openly disagree with Howard Dean, the original creator of the 50 state strategy (no matter how many times Rahm gives himself credit) and the progressive standard bearer that got many of us into the game of supporting liberal ideas.  I met the man the week he made the Newsweek and Time covers, in NW Iowa.  Not only met Dean and shook his hand, but lurked after the event watching him give interviews and just chill, too awestruck to approach him for a private conversation.  Dean was blown off without a peep from the vast majority of us.  Even now, some people insist President Obama and Rahm respect the guy.  President Obama and Henchman Rahm don't respect the "professional left" or how "retarded" we act either.  But watch their tune change in about a month.  Kiss our ass in public then snicker as we fall in line behind closed doors.

                Let's say politicians at the national level lose an election.  What, just 25k per speaking fees, multiple offers to sit on boards and their pick of lobbyist jobs?  Not to mention the healthcare package they get for the remainder of their days.  How paltry.

                They aren't scared of shit.

                •  They're terrified.... (5+ / 0-)

                  ...of what we want and what we stand for.  They have nothing but contempt for us ourselves.

                  •  I can agree with that.... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zedaker, Corwin Weber

                    we are on the same page more than not, I think.

                    It freaks me out a bit about the powerlessness citizens have once someone is in office.  Politicians are set for life no matter how they vote.  Losing an election is a bigger deal to us that it is to them, IMO.

                    And I don't like going there, thinking about how little influence we really have.  How TPTB can really do whatever the fuck they want and it will always come up roses.  All we have is hope that they do what they say they are going to.

                  •  Sorry, I'm with CWalter on this: You're correct (6+ / 0-)

                    about the "contempt" they hold for us, but they consider us political eunuchs unworthy of respect. It's not fear, it's derisive discounting of the (admittedly impotent) progressive movement. The White House is full of conservatives, and they only respect the right and the far right -- whose hard-ball tactics they also fear.

                    No... their "fear" is of and for the Alan Simpsons, Rush Limbaughs, and Glenn Becks. The progressives are just pathetic political cuckolds to them.

                    WHich is why I firmly believe that the time to STFU and roll over is gone. To save Social Security from these sell-outs, among other issues, and to redeem the former Party of the people, we have to show them that we cannot be ignored...

                    "I won't be ignored, Rahm!" ;o)

                    [and YES the clip is snark, for the WH fans who will luvz the stalker analogy!]

                    [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

                    by Vtdblue on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:59:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So it's up to us..... (5+ / 0-)

                      ...to prove that we're not eunuchs, if it comes down to that.  What I'm concerned about is that they're too fucking clueless to get it and we'll just see 'NADER NADER NADER YOU DIDN'T VOTE WAAAAHHHHH' all over again.

                      •  That's their big fat effing problem: They don't (6+ / 0-)

                        GET IT that for every one of us whiny, pony-wanted progressives complaining about them selling out to the Republicans, there are dozens or even thousands of working- and middle class people out there who believed the bullshit during the campaign and who are now shattered to see that neither party has got their back.  

                        And because of that, those folks will stay home on election day, no matter how much the rest of us suckers hold our noses and canvass and give to the conservaDems in the WH.

                        [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

                        by Vtdblue on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:23:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  V , dude, the answer (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dallasdoc, Corwin Weber, Vtdblue

                          is to stop holding your nose when you vote. if the candidates all stink in a race, don't vote that race. don't let yourself be demagogued into a fear vote. we're in this spot because the dems think we won't have any options because we fear the rethugs too much. if the dems continue to lose they'll either die out and make room for a leftwing party or move left and become that leftwing party again. i won't sugar coat it, it'll likely be ugly and get worse before it gets better, but i think it will get better. we just need the huevos to see it through. how long do you think the nation will actually put up with two rightwing parties any way?

                          "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                          by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:08:47 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Problem is, Z, I AM afraid! In terms of the (0+ / 0-)

                            presidency, we have GOT to hold on through at least 2012's election, because the thought of a whack-job Republican having any more Supreme Court picks is horrifying.

                            Now, aside from the WH, there are lots of alternatives, and I'm with you that we don't have to eat the Dems' shit sandwiches for Senate, House, and state-level races, and can fight back with progressive candidates and politics against the Establishment Dems.  

                            But we've got to avoid splitting and spoiling along the way when possible, to keep the truly heinous and despicable Repugs out of power. They still represent decline of civilization as we know it -- whereas the Dems (many of them) are merely corrupt and ineffectual.

                            [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

                            by Vtdblue on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:20:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  nobody wants to be standing out there, pitchfork (7+ / 0-)

                      ready, yet alone.  The (airquotes) crazy person.

                      My explanation for why I am sitting on my ass, anyway.

                      This statement will come back to bite me in the ass, but I would support a primary challenge by Howard Dean.  Then again, I have claimed for a while that I am not 'the base' so such a move should not be a surprise.

                      Dean has earned my loyalty and respect.  He is just a decent man.  He has no problem telling us what he can and cannot do.  There would absolutely be broken promises.  But integrity wouldn't be one of them, IMO.

                      •  Complete agreement -- except that we ARE (5+ / 0-)

                        part of the "The Base" (which is what "al Qaeda" means, and there's a great analogy there somewhere, I'm sure! ;o) ).  

                        And I would support a Howard Dean challenge, with the full knowledge that the WH fans would be screaming about silly 1972 George McGovern analogies. It would put the fear of god in Rahm, Axelrod, Obama et al., and "make them" attend to the substantial part of the Democratic base which WE also represent and are a part of: Labor unions, white collar government workers, progressive middle class, and out of work people all across the country who have been shafted by the Repugs, and now by the Obama administration.

                        It would be a Quixotic run by Dean, and and unlikely one to happen, but were such a liberal challenger to appear, it would shift the Overton Window to the left -- at least within the Democratic Party, which has forsaken most of it's base for the weak support of some undecideds, and the absolute non-support and disdainful hatred of the far right.

                        [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

                        by Vtdblue on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:19:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Umm no offense (7+ / 0-)

              does not scare me in the least. If the left once again wants to cut of their collective noses have at it. We survived Bush and we'll probably survive the the Republican that comes in if this asinine primary idea gets legs.

              In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

              by jsfox on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:37:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well since the GOP remains the best argument... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc, zedaker, heart of a quince

                ...for the Democratic Party, if you're not scared of a Republican victory, y'all have really got nothing whatsoever to offer progressive voters.

                (There are a lot of us who suspect that many Democrats would prefer, e.g., a McCain presidency to a Kucinich presidency....and, no, I don't think Dennis Kucinich is a credible presidential candidate, so don't let's go there)

                "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                by GreenSooner on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:07:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Isn't that the problem, though... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PsychoSavannah

                  with the whole hypothetical primary situation?  In making your case, you use Kucinich as your foil to McCain, while parenthetically distancing yourself from him being a credible possibility.  You could substitute any number of other progressives in for Kucinich and within minutes you'd have people lining up to point out that progressive's flaws.  It wasn't so long ago, if my memory serves me correctly, that even Bernie frickin' Sanders needed to be primaried for his failure to "kill the bill."

                  As for me, I'd never vote for McCain under any circumstances.  Or Palin, or Romney, or...

                  Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

                  by CDH in Brooklyn on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:40:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree with most of this. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc

                    First, I'd never vote for any of the Republicans either.  I'd say it's about 99% certain that I'm going to (symbolically, because of the Electoral College and my state's redness) cast my ballot for Obama in November 2012, especially given my state's horrible ballot access laws (in my very red state, I could imagine casting a protest vote for someone else...but I know I won't have that option).

                    Second, you're 100% correct about the lack of credible progressive presidential candidates. But the problem is not that progressives are a bunch of whiners who always see the flaws in everyone. How quickly you (and this White House) forget how progressives rallied around Obama's not-particularly-progressive candidacy in 2008 (and, for that matter, John Kerry's even less progressive candidacy in 2004).

                    The problem, instead, is a combination of circumstance and strategy. The circumstance is that there happen not to be a lot of prominent, national progressives with charisma necessary to be plausible presidential candidates, a fact that reflects the generally weak state of progressives within national Democratic Party circles.  But it also reflects a strategic fact: progressives have put virtually no weight on identifying and grooming truly progressive presidential candidates in advance of presidential primary seasons.  And as a result the last presidential candidate from the party's left wing with any chance whatsoever of winning the nomination was Jerry Brown in 1992....or perhaps Jesse Jackson in 1988.  

                    Contrast this to the way in which conservatives groomed Goldwater and Reagan for the presidency. The 1964 Goldwater candidacy had its roots in the run-up to the 1960 GOP presidential nomination fight.  Reagan's name was first put in nomination for the presidency at the 1968 GOP convention...and conservative activists had been thinking of a Reagan presidency from as early as Reagan's 1964 "Time of Choosing" speech for Goldwater.

                    "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                    by GreenSooner on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:28:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  One request (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PsychoSavannah

                      Please do not attribute the word "whiners" to me or the point I was making.  I make a very concerted effort to avoid such demeaning terms.

                      My point, though I didn't fully flesh it out, is that we've entered an era where it's virtually impossible to be that perfect progressive candidate.  One YouTube clip of a controversial statement in the past, or one inexcusable vote, or one deeply held belief that varies from progressive orthodoxy and someone, or some constituency, is going to question why we should accept that short-coming.

                      Would we accept a progressive presidential candidate who's 99% on-board but who's not 100% where we'd like him/her to be on reproductive rights, or LGBT equality, or the environment, or single-payer, or...

                      Putting forward a 99% on-board candidate who falls short on even one those issues would and should prompt an outcry from those who care deeply about that issue.  That may be perceived by some, I recognize, as whining, but more importantly it's a potential barrier to entry for any candidate expecting to carry the progressive torch given the cumulative effect of our collective expectations.

                      And the scenario I'm referring to is in regard to a potential primary challenger.  I have not forgotten, as you claim, that progressives rallied around Obama to put an end to 8 years of BushCo.  I just don't believe that it's realistic to expect progressives to similarly rally around a primary challenger to Obama (apples, meet oranges).

                      Your points about Goldwater and Reagan are well-taken.  I suppose that is my biggest frustration with all of the talk of not voting/volunteering/donating this cycle.  It's a long end game and in every cycle there are literally thousands of down-ballot candidates for school board, councils, judges, state legislatures, etc who can potentially have more of a direct impact on the quality of our day-to-day lives than national-level candidates.  Conservatives also realized that decades ago and have also been much more effective and influential in that regard as well.

                      Cheers...CDH

                      Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

                      by CDH in Brooklyn on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:16:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  One quibble: this isn't the left (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OIL GUY, lightshine

                this is a small purity cabal; mark my words.

                http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....

                Obama and Liberals

                I feel like I write the 'most liberals still like Obama' blog post every few months but stuff keeps on happening to necessitate writing it again so I will:

                On the national poll we'll release this week 85% of liberals approve of the job Obama is doing to 12% disapproving. 88% support his health care plan looking back with only 7% opposed.

                Not only are those numbers good, but they're steady. Obama's favor with liberals hasn't been on the decline. In May his approval with liberals was 87/10. In February it was 81/15. In November it was 87/4. Even as his ratings have declined overall he's stayed in that sort of mid-80s range with liberal voters.

                The volume of the voices of liberals who don't like Obama is much greater than the volume of their numbers, which probably means Robert Gibbs shouldn't let the select few get him so irritated.

                I don't know who and what these people are in terms of ideology or long term plans for this country, but speaking for myself, I would relish a purity primary challenge as President Obama and his supporters will wipe the floor with these out of touch, power-based people.  They have grabbed the microphone here for some sort of purity manifesto, but they don't speak for the left and I'm sick of them pretending to do so, giving all of us on the left a black eye and making us look stupid and immature.

                They inspire no fear because this sentiment is so incredibly fringe.  People have every right to disdain the Democratic party, but they do not speak for the Democratic base and their numbers are not significant.  How and why they have become a respected and loud voice on dailykos you've got to take up with Markos.  But they're not inspiring any fear, all they are doing is making this site resemble the same traditional media which the site used to factcheck so relentlessly because of this same sensationalism, hysterics, drama and unfactual garbage.

                climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                by GN1927 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:01:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  EXCELLENT COMMENT... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GN1927
                  I'm having computer issues today, so I can't recommend comments for some reason, but I wish I could rec this a thousand times.  Great post, and it's exactly what I'm feeling.  I listened to the purists for a long time because I felt a lot of the disappointment and frustration they wrote about, but the longer these flame wars have gone on, the more I realize we're being distracted by a very small, very angry group with no real solutions and no willingness to deal with the political reality we're facing.  We have very real enemies of democracy out there, they're easy targets, but very few are taking aim at them.
            •  Nobody is scared. But how do you know (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GN1927, OIL GUY, foufou, elginblt

              this person will truly represent you?  You gotta make the best choice and keep up the activism. Not just sit back and wait, complaining and carping.

              •  the complaining and the carping IS (4+ / 0-)

                the activism. as is primarying bad incumbents.

                "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:12:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And that, in a nutshell, is why (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lightshine

                  you guys have become frustrated and out of touch.

                  the complaining and the carping IS (1+ / 0-)
                  the activism

                  False.  It's piling on media excess.  Do you guys really not see that the WH does not value these contributions nor is intimidated by them?  Didn't Gibbs just go to town on the professional left with no apology, distancing you from on the ground progressives?  Stay within this faulty and power-based paradigm and you're going to continue to feel impotent.  Out of touch IMO.

                  climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                  by GN1927 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:05:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Those on the Left that remain (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc, zedaker, Corwin Weber

                    disappointed and critical of cautious incremental ism espoused by President Obama and his centrist crew have already made a mark.  There is no joy in the bottle or enthusiasm in the same amounts of two years ago. That translates into a softer power, which is formidable - those who were so energized for GOTV, volunteering and donating two years ago are not doing it in the numbers needed.  

                    People will show up to see a President Obama, but the actions needed to keep a President Obama (in his current inchworm on policy phase and a severely weakened Democratic Congress) are seeing the results now this close to the midterms.  People showed up in great numbers to see a President Obama but his exhortations on GOTV are in many areas with legitimate activists are falling on deaf ears due to the pursuit of policies that are not transformational.  There are many good things the president has done, but on the big pieces, he fell way short.

                    Health INSURANCE Reform was a travesty that now legislatively "bends the cost curve" towards insurance companies, plus mandating (which Candidate/Senator Obama railed against)horrifically expensive coverage.  It means that people are not talking in positive glowing terms to their neighbors and friends and "firing them up".  The lack of reaching out will hurt and the professional pols are seeing the embodiment of not having an energized base.  Demoralizing the base has a net effect that ripples over time and culminates into people helping specific candidates and causes and does not lend itself to spreading a feeling of success.  It is a basic tenet of organizational behavior that a small group of people with access to the masses can facilitate or debilitate ideas and movements.  Deciding that the Left that is markedly unhappy right now is not worth worry about is shortsighted.  That unfortunately is a hallmark that seems on its way to becoming embedded in the internal thinking of elected Democrats.  The small group of disappointed folks are having a disproportionate effect because people who want to tout the moderate accomplishments as historic will not acknowledge so much could have been accomplished if policy prescriptions had incorporated many of the left ideas.  

                    Remember what is happening on the street - those that are meeting the people are having to try and convince Democrats to vote, volunteer & donate and people are not in a good mood because Wall Street got theirs and Main Street is saying WTF- and rightly so...

                    Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

                    by Pithy Cherub on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're speaking for the base (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PsychoSavannah, jonnie rae

                      I believe that you should merely speak for yourself.

                      Obama and Liberals

                      I feel like I write the 'most liberals still like Obama' blog post every few months but stuff keeps on happening to necessitate writing it again so I will:

                      On the national poll we'll release this week 85% of liberals approve of the job Obama is doing to 12% disapproving. 88% support his health care plan looking back with only 7% opposed.

                      Not only are those numbers good, but they're steady. Obama's favor with liberals hasn't been on the decline. In May his approval with liberals was 87/10. In February it was 81/15. In November it was 87/4. Even as his ratings have declined overall he's stayed in that sort of mid-80s range with liberal voters.

                      The volume of the voices of liberals who don't like Obama is much greater than the volume of their numbers, which probably means Robert Gibbs shouldn't let the select few get him so irritated.

                      http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....

                      Turnout for midterms has always been a challenge and of course the lousy (and inherited) economic climate continues to shake the country up.

                      That has nothing to do with a relatively small group of self-reinforcing and out of touch people on dailykos who presume to speak for the entire left with absolutely no basis for that presumption.

                      There is a reason that the WH felt so comfortable calling out the Professional Left.  The reason: you've failed to convince the progressive movement at large of the merits of your nonstop complaints, and you have thus become divorced from the sentiments and prerogatives of progressives at large.

                      Everyone should merely speak for themselves and stop attempting to appropriate the credibility of a progressive movement which bears you little to no resemblance.

                      It is what it is.

                      climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                      by GN1927 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:36:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Empirical evidence (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dallasdoc

                        of an enthusiasm gap needs analysis and study as to what causes the "gap".  Ignore at your peril.  No one is speaking for the entire Left as its too rich a group to quantify neatly.  Anybody can speak their opinion and the reader can see whether it matches their perspective or not.  The fact is theses midterms would not need to be this hard if more people actually believed the Obama Administration and congressional Dems policies were for their benefit and not of corporations.  Ignoring the numbers of people who are dissatisfied and feeling that it gives some folks a license to marginalize is the reason many are pulling the popcorn and not speaking to their neighbors.  If that was the case, empirical evidence shows the fleeing of Independents from the President and a distinct lack of the Professional Left cheering for minimalism would not have made Gibbs and those who agree with him react so aggrieved if the approbation of the Left was not desired.  Again, if it wasn't an issue with such deleterious effects there would have been no need to acknowledge the big gaping political wound...

                        Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

                        by Pithy Cherub on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:01:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                          to which you are entitled; my only point is that you speak for yourself, as no polling of which I'm aware supports the assertion that your sentiments are shared by the overwhelming majority of liberals and progressives.  POTUS is indeed receiving less Indie and centrist support because he has supported heavy government spending, which is not popular outside of the left.

                          If your contribution right now is to join a media cacaphony regarding a supposedly problematic administration, that's your choice and your right as an American.  Just stop presuming to speak for the entire left when engaging in that choice.  Turnout is challenging for three reasons: midterm; economic climate; POTUS is not on the ticket.  It's that simple.  All of the threats and grand pronouncements and presumptions of speaking for the base can't change reality.

                          Speaking for myself, I was comforted by Gibbs' indication that the WH sees that the Professional Left is not representative of the Democratic base despite the media mirage to the contrary.

                          climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                          by GN1927 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:18:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Get real (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc, zedaker

                            and reading comprehension.  Nowhere did I say I spoke for the Left - you inferred and made yet another mistake.  Stop the patronizing & condescension you feel entitled to and reread that I spoke of the EFFECTS of not having an energized base.  

                            The Professional Left has a followers with a number of them having an outsized influence due to either critiquing the lack of progress given the political capital and mandate earned by electing President Obama netted inchworm policies that some tout as grand to which they are entitled to to see crumbs and act as if it was a loaf of bread. Those that disagree may not have numbers byt they do have a microphone and used it to list why the policies adopted or the lack of action on key priorities are a disappointment.  The spillover effects the voting populace at large and there are not enough people who are out trying to change hearts and minds before these midterms.  The reason for that is what the towel waving and ouching was about from Gibbs and cohorts.  People do not feel vested (see endangered Democrats list for evidence) to come to the aid of Democrats with full-throated defense - known in the real world as dollars, votes and boots) because the actions of this president and the Democratically-controlled Congress were plebeian rather than historic.  If people were excited - see 2008 for historical examples of what an excited electorate resembles - this ain't it...

                            Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

                            by Pithy Cherub on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:30:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have no problem with reading comprehension (0+ / 0-)

                            nor am I being patronizing or condescending.  I'm reciting facts.

                            The bottom line is that the Professional Left, per polling of progressives, does not have the influence which you claim, and has no basis for making any claims whatsoever about the Democratic base at large.

                            Have a nice day.  

                            I'm certain that there are others who would be more approving and appreciative of your commentary than myself, and I welcome you to post your commentary to them.

                            climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                            by GN1927 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:35:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your permission is not needed. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc

                            Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

                            by Pithy Cherub on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:40:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL, that was not implied (0+ / 0-)

                            Happy Friday!

                            climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                            by GN1927 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:42:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  That's why one of the sticks (17+ / 0-)

            needs to be the credible threat of either not voting or going third party. Nothing else beside that vote actually matters when you get right down to it.

            •  I'd add in.... (8+ / 0-)

              ....a primary challenger as a third option.  They'd never win.... the party leadership would never allow it.  But someone has to have enough sense to be scared shitless by the prospect.

              •  I remember someone doing a historical diary (4+ / 0-)

                suggesting that Obama would not be transformative President, but a placeholder.  IIRC a placeholder for a more progressive candidate but I think the diary was pre-teabagger.

                Underestimating the power of a Bloomberg type candidate is a mistake, IMO.  Unlikely, yet still a mistake.

                •  One of the things that scared me..... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority, CWalter, zedaker

                  ....during the primaries was how many people I knew that were considering Huckabee because he was so nice and moderate and pleasant.

                  Moderates don't get Chuck Norris' endorsement.  He's about as mindlessly right wing as you get.  This escaped their notice.  Apparently all you need to do to convince people you're a moderate Republican is smile and keep your voice level when you tell people that they're going to Hell for being disgusting godless sodomites.

                  •  funny you mentioned him...he was the only (3+ / 0-)

                    candidate on the R side I thought could match Obama on the Everyman, I Get You People persona.

                    I didn't fear him exactly, but felt he would be a real match and a challenge.

                    Huckabee just has that Aw Shucks routine down pat.

                    I hate that asshole, though.

                  •  me too--Huckabee is the one I fear most (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Corwin Weber

                    he's the one I worried about most in 2008 and the one I worry about most in 2012.

                    In actuality, he is the 2012 front runner.  Mitt's money will not erase the fundy fear of LDS, and Mitt's Ken-doll persona is creepy in a way that even Toy Story 3 can't make palatable.

                    Meanwhile: (1) Huckabee has had continuing exposure to the Fakes News crowd, and gets to seem like a wise man of politics with his nightly show (Beck without teh crazy, Limpbaugh without the pontificating).  (2) Huckabee has not made any waves with insane statements so by comparison he seems more moderate.  (3) And he does have the "aw shucks ah'm just like one a you" persona in an era where personal identification drives most voting decisions.

                    Huckabee is the front runner.  Until he is out of the running I will not rest easy.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:55:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  There is no way to make thirrd party (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou, trixied13

              or not voting credible.

              "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

              by Whimsical on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:15:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then I guess.... (4+ / 0-)

                ...y'all can't complain about Nader, and won't be able to complain when we stay home and you lose.

                •  This is why no one really takes you seriously (9+ / 0-)

                  ...y'all can't complain about Nader, and won't be able to complain when we stay home and you lose.

                  Why should we give a damn about people who consider themselves separate from us? Who are more interested in their scoring of political points over preventing a catastrophe for the country?

                  •  There's the problem. (6+ / 0-)

                    You think this is about political points.  It isn't.  We're the ones that are trying to prevent the catastrophe.  What we're suggesting is what has been done before and has worked.  These lame centrist suggestions have also been tried before and have never worked.

                    It's about solving the problems.  We know how and what it to happen.  You're more interested in form over function.

                    •  When has it worked? (6+ / 0-)

                      When has stepping back and letting the worse side win ever advanced a damned thing?

                      •  Wrong thing. (5+ / 0-)

                        We're advocating the things that work.  Single payer or public option.  A WPA/CCC way out of our current economic problems.  

                        •  Solutions that you can't get implemented (5+ / 0-)

                          are worse than no solutions at all.

                          Staying home/voting third party makes single payer and a WPA/CCC MORE difficult to get implemented, not less.

                          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                          by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:18:17 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it makes no difference either way (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc, blueoasis, Corwin Weber

                            I'm slowly drifting to the "why bother" camp, as are a lot of people.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:28:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See, this is why a certain segment of the left (4+ / 0-)

                            gets ignored. They're too easily distracted/disappointed and have zero staying power. Not saying you're going to fall into that category but many will simply quit.

                          •  I'm not going to continue to support a party (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc, wsexson, Corwin Weber

                            that is working against my interests. Sorry, but that accomplishes exactly the same amount as doing nothing at all.

                            If you have a better suggestion I'm all ears, but what is happening right now with this congress and this administration is just not acceptable to me.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:51:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess I don't think it's working (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah, Whimsical

                            against my interests. Working as hard as I would wish for my interests? Hardly.

                            But you're right - if you think it's totally not working for you you should break with it. But that means really break with it, giving up any attempt to influence it. Because they can hear you saying that you don't support them so again, they'll just ignore you.

                          •  They're already ignoring me (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc, Corwin Weber

                            They've been ignoring me. They have no intention of changing. If they want my support they can earn it, and other than a small subset that isn't on my ballot, they aren't.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:35:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you didn't answer my question (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc, Corwin Weber

                            Do you have a better suggestion to not getting ignored? Because voting, donating, phone banking, and knocking doors has earned me nothing but contempt.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:37:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Have you run for any position (0+ / 0-)

                            in your local party structure? If you find that being a foot soldier isn't your cup of tea become an officer.

                          •  The real problem with this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Whimsical

                            for a lot of people will be the sobering realization that they aren't in the mainstream of the party. And changing that mainstream is the task of a lifetime, not an election cycle or 4.

                          •  I already knew I wasn't in the mainstream (0+ / 0-)

                            The mainstream of this party is very, very sick. I am, however, in a pretty sizable minority. And that minority is one the party needs come election time (see Florida/Gore 2000).

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:09:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You expect people you proclaim are very very sick (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Whimsical

                            to pay attention to you? Not gonna happen. Basic psychology, really. I thought most Democrats understood that using the rod was not a good way to influence people.

                            Sorry, but voting never changed a party. People entering the party structure change parties.

                          •  Sticks and carrots (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber

                            Carrots haven't worked, so ya, I'll move on to sticks. And yes, the mainstream of this party is very, very sick - and the last 1.5 years proves it (really the last 9.5).

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:25:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Good luck with the sticks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Whimsical

                            like most people I tend to pick up my own and turn on my attacker. I really think that gaining real influence in the party structure will give you better leverage than staying home or voting 3d party.

                          •  And I think I have more leverage being a vote (0+ / 0-)

                            that has to be earned.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:46:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have no leverage whatsoever , your way. (0+ / 0-)

                            Third party or protests votes are meaningless. You're just making the problem you claim to care about worse.

                            You want leverage- make it clear you're in the fight till the end- no matter how long it takes.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:13:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  lol (0+ / 0-)

                            You want leverage- make it clear you're in the fight till the end- no matter how long it takes.

                            lol. No matter what, right? Your vote is in the bag. Doesn't matter how the party acts, they've got your vote. Sorry to break it to you, but that ain't fighting it is caving.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:22:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hardly. (0+ / 0-)

                            Saying "I've got your back all the way- so lets get this done" is in no way caving.

                            Saying "Youre not doing it as fast as I would like or in the way I would like so screw you I'm going home"- THAT'S caving.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  lol (0+ / 0-)

                            That isn't what you're saying. What you've been saying for MONTHS and MONTHS (pushing years) now is "I've got your back all the way - lets get anything done I don't care about the outcome".

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:42:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As usual, comprehension fail. n/t. (0+ / 0-)

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:12:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bingo! (0+ / 0-)

                            People like quince just dont get it.

                            The idea that the Democratic party is working against their interests is laughable.  When their inaction empowers Republicans, they'll see what people working against their interests really looks like, and hopefully they'll get it then- before its too late.

                            Those people are exactly the reason that progressive policies haven't been enacted in this country- politicans understand that people like Quince will abandon them when it becomes clear that we wont be able to make as much progress as they would like- why would you listen to a constituency that is clueless about how the world works, and has a history of abandoning you less than 1/100th of the way through the fight, because their expectations (which were never realistic in the first place) have gone unmet?

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:11:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bull. It makes a great deal of difference. (0+ / 0-)

                            It just doesn't make a difference quickly enough to suit YOU, which is another story.

                            I knew from the start there was no way in hell we were getting a PO, for example. I also knew that if I fought like hell, I'd gain a nanometer. And if I fought like hell again (and wasn't dumb enough to give up) I'd gain another nanometer. And eventually (again assuming I was not dumb enough to give up and cede back my gains)- my grandchildren would have a decent shot at a PO- directly because of the hard work I put in now.  More than enough justification to work one's ass off.

                            And anybody in the "why bother" camp is simply not reality based and is going to learn a harsh lesson about how ignoring the way the world DOES work (because it doesn't work the way you think it SHOULD work) will make things much, much worse.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:05:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You actively bashed those fighting for a PO (0+ / 0-)

                            You are the problem, not the solution. You, and people with the same attitude as you, are EXACTLY the reason plenty of us have had it with this party.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:25:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BULLSHIT. (0+ / 0-)

                            I NEVER bashed ANYONE fighting for a PO. I only bashed (and deservedly so) those who were going to take their ball and go home when they didn't get everythign they wanted immediately, and by doing so ruining the forward progress the rest of us planned on making.

                            Anyone who thought they were getting a PO this go round was off in la la land. And if they were going to impede the efforts of those of us determined to make forward progress because their unrealistic expectations weren't met (not that they ever stood a chance of beign met) they deserved every bit of bashing I gave them and worse.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:57:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ya, screw you too (0+ / 0-)

                            Anyone who thought they were getting a PO this go round was off in la la land.

                            Still doing the bashing. You keep your low bar of piss poor expectations going. Keep working for crumbs and back stabs. Enjoy.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:41:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enjoy the weather out in la la land (0+ / 0-)

                            The rest of us will save this country in spite of people like you.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:15:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Furthermore (0+ / 0-)

                            It is a fucking joke to claim that single payer has a better chance with dems in power. It has ZERO chance with both parties. Hell, they had SP advocates arrested at the start of the health care bill disaster. SP advocates weren't even given a seat at the table from this party.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:27:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're playing too short a game (0+ / 0-)

                            If we keeps the Dems in power and fight like hell, my grandkids have a decent shot at a PO and their grandkids have a decent shot at single payer.

                            If we don't then my grandkids have a good shot at growing up in a facist country and their grandkids will have to leave the revolution just to get back to where we are right now.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:53:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  roflmao (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't worry, they're all screwed by global warming in the meantime given how piss poor these dems are. Single payer will be irrelevant.

                            "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

                            by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:39:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nah, we'll solve global warming too. (0+ / 0-)

                            But its going to be in spite of people like you- people willing to throw up their hands and quit because they have no clue what realistic expectations are - not because of you.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:13:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  when has it worked? (0+ / 0-)

                      seriously--I'm not able to think of a single time it has worked.

                      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:56:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  maybe because it's you people (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc, Corwin Weber

                    pushing us away just as hard as you can. you're the ones that are separating yourselves from us, your purported (and needed) allies. now you want to whine because we take you at your words?

                    "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                    by zedaker on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:18:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  you're right. (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mmacdDE, Saru, Whimsical, OIL GUY, foufou

                  it's america. you get to vote for whomever you want.

                  but i WILL complain, and i and many others WILL blame you. as is MY right.

                  you won't care though. you will be too busy being all right and truly progressive and shit.

                  great.

            •  One of the sticks can be our money (5+ / 0-)

              and our time. If we let them know that we're not going to donate to the war chest or that we're not going to phone, go door-to-door or write letters to the editor, etc, it might make some small impression.

              I could never not vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate but traveling out of state and knocking on doors or mailing them checks for money I could put a better use to...that I can and I will do.

              Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have. Margaret Mead

              by byteb on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:33:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, Dems love the Moral hazard - that they will (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, CWalter

            be bailed out because they are "Too Big to fail". But if SS/medicare is messed, the Titanic hits the iceberg.

          •  Its how you use the stick.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lady Libertine

            A tickle or a consistent pressure or beating about the face and head.  I suggest we work on our sick use.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:25:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Holding him accountable. (25+ / 0-)

          I don't think he means endless criticism and nitpicking. I think Rachel criticizes him well - calls bullshit with reasoned explanation and gives credit when credit is due.  

          I think if he was receiving credit and support when it's deserved (even if the bill/decision isn't perfect), he'd be more open to the criticism when it's warranted.  That's carrots and sticks.  

          Also with actblue and donating directly to candidates, that is another way to effect desired change - you can reward politicians in real time and money talks.

          November 2nd 2010 - Kossacks get the Government they deserve.

          by Jonze on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:28:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  well, we could have started by pressuring ppl (8+ / 0-)

          in Congress instead of spending the last 19 months screaming on a blog for the President to do it for us.

        •  that may be (10+ / 0-)

          the single most important question was have to discuss. not only about this president, because the same question pertained to president clinton, and to recent democratic congresses. can we do it by reasoning with them, and lobbying them, and making the political and policy facts too obvious to ignore? that should be the subject of many discussions.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:45:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sadly I think that question was already answered. (15+ / 0-)

            Researched policy positions consistently lose to corporate donors.

            The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

            by Orange County Liberal on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:51:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think DailyKos should hire lobbyists (4+ / 0-)

            particularly when it comes to areas like net neutrality that directly effect the operation of the site.  

            ---
            Mr. Rogers taught us to be better than this.

            by VelvetElvis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:07:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes - we need a PAC (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc

              We can raise sufficient funds to do that. Last I heard, the minimum buy-in is $20,000 per item. That gets you to the table for discussion.

              So... Let's say we want to push back hard against the catfood commission at the PAC level. It would take $20K or so communicate that message directly. We can do that. I'm going to suggest it to Markos.

              Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

              by The Raven on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:56:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Build an Organization (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, PsychoSavannah, trixied13

            like the Teabaggers, so that we can bus in people when and where they are needed to shout, threaten, and scream like they do against the opposite party.

            And when we do our messaging, we must not emphasize (or even mention) the "political and policy facts" which your mentioned. The facts is for our own internal development, that is, creating our own reasoning and justification, of a specific political position. But what we want out of our politicians is not so much a recognition of the facts but only that they support the political position. Who cares whether they think the world is warming so long as they vote for CO2 regulations?

            So what we must emphasize instead is the political position itself. The Republicans do this perfectly: they take the position of "tax cuts" without ever trying to justify that position. The facts may be that the economy is good. The facts may be that the economy is bad. The facts may be that there is a surplus. The facts may be that there are record deficits. No matter the facts, the Republicans never deviate from chanting "tax cuts". And that works very, very well.

        •  I made a LOT of phone calls last summer (8+ / 0-)

          and in the end, I felt like every single one of them had been a waste of time, because the final health insurance "reform" bill didn't contain a single thing that I'd asked begged for.

          I'm meaning to write the president a letter tomorrow, but I've made that resolution several times already this summer, and each time I've just been too depressed to begin.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:00:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for failing the _______ community (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc

            would be a very short letter though.

            Single payer, working class, LGBT.  Lots of fill-ins would apply.

            A Sad Madlib.

          •  I'm still writing (email) and calling (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mmacdDE, Dallasdoc, PsychoSavannah

            and today I actually sent a fax. I also send things to @barackobama and @whitehouse via Twitter.

            I have little confidence that it will make a difference.  But at least I know that they are aware, and that's worth something.  If enough people are contacting them, they know we're out here and holding them accountable.

            I don't spend much time composing the correspondence anymore for that reason.  But I do make sure that my position is clear.  Short and simple.

            I would urge you to keep contacting them.  You don't need to put a lot of effort into it.  Just do it (that's a friendly suggestion, I mean it as an encouragement and not a scolding.)  Remaining silent implies agreement, or implies that you are satisfied with the actions being taken by the White House.  We need your voice and your contacts.

            Contact Info:
            Email contact page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...
            Switchboard: 202-456-1414
            Comment Line: 202-456-1111
            FAX: 202-456-2461
            Twitter: @WhiteHouse or @barackobama

          •  really? you didn't support (4+ / 0-)

            removal of pre-existing conditions?
            you didn't support keeping kids on through college and just out of school?
            you didn't support a limit on profits for the insurance companies?

            i know...you supported the public option. me too. wish it made it in there. ny strong preference would have been medicare for all (although such a program would literally be the end of my career, and many other careers related tangentially to privately funded health care).  

            i'm bummed that we didn't get everything we wanted. but i SEE the good stuff. and i can't lie, I and the many many workers in my industry and others who continue to be employed because of the for-profit health care industry remain happy to be employed.

            •  It wasn't just supporting the public option (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc, blueoasis

              It was, specifically, demanding a public option if we were going to be required by law to buy insurance. (That and a hard floor under the "medical loss" ratio.) And the public option was supposed to be a position to retreat to after trading away single-payer, not a starting position to abandon at the first provocation.

              The right brays about the dubious constitutionality of requiring citizens by law to buy a product from a private corporation, and on that one, I have to say I think they're right.

              "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

              by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:47:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think we're pretty much powerless either way (0+ / 0-)

          we have no option of influence at the executive level.  The only place we can have any influence is via the means constitutionally provided to us: through our elected representatives and senators. We have no voice in the executive branch.    

          ---
          Mr. Rogers taught us to be better than this.

          by VelvetElvis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:03:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Real change comes from pressure outside (12+ / 0-)

          the Party system, historically. Nothing really happens unless ordinary people organize and pressurize.

          Right now we're well atomized. All with our magical world-banishing electronic marvels, hours in front of screens in actual isolation, though without the sense of being isolated.

          Somehow, that's got to be gotten around. Ideological ghettos have to go. Issue-alliances have to be pursued.

          To my mind, the most important democratic moment the nation had in the last 10 years was when word got out that the FCC was going to allow more consolidation of media ownership.

          In the space of two weeks, Congress got something on the order of 10 million communications saying "Stop This!" The media being hated and mistrusted by the entire political spectrum, everybody from extreme left, through the center, to extreme right wanted this stopped.

          It was. I just can't recall its equal in terms of people influencing government.

          The short answer to your question:
          We'll likely not be influencing the Democratic leadership, except at the margins. The real trick is to develop a language, attitude of common interests with all the people of America, as far as possible. Then find where we can work together to give the political class serious pause.

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:27:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  When was the carrot? (0+ / 0-)

          I missed it because all I have seen on this site have been constant sticks and whining. Nothing else.

          •  We voted for the guy, didn't we? (4+ / 0-)

            Unless he wants to go hungry, he might consider earning the next one. We are not all on the Nobel Committee after all, some of us like to actually see what we are voting for before we make that leap again.

            "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

            by nippersdad on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:16:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you and millions of others (0+ / 0-)

              who voted for him and have their own issues and concerns. Majority don't seem to have a problem but one tiny tiny wing of the party that seems to believe it is the final orbiter.

              •  Unfortunately for the majority, it has often been (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc, churchylafemme, blueoasis

                that minority who has been the arbiter. You might occasionally want to think about that before blowing them off.

                "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

                by nippersdad on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:49:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the minority is talking about issues that matter (0+ / 0-)

                  to them. The rest of the majority care about the economics period. All the rest is just that the rest.

                  I would think about them if there have something substantive to say but all I hear is constant talking with nothing being said.

                  •  While economics are certainly an issue, (5+ / 0-)

                    I wouldn't devalue the importance of the environmental/civil liberties/anti-war/and labor votes. If you think they have nothing substantive to say you have not been paying attention.

                    For a lot of us, the economics issues are just the last straw. None of this was unforeseen or unforseeable. Who could have predicted will not be a very good excuse this time.

                    "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

                    by nippersdad on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:00:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  You only wanted to use the stick (0+ / 0-)

          Who wants to listen to that shit all the freaking time...

          I noticed Keith Olbermann has started turning his focus more on the Republican History of Racial, Ethnic, Gender and Sexuality and Religion Profiling....

          Rachel is a no Brainier...

          Now if we can get Ed to stop worrying about if he and some of the Progressives are going to get their ego stroked, maybe then MSNBC, would promote his show more....

          Matthews' Vacation was a welcoming thing because he has been on fire since he has been back... I know he will eventually do something to piss us off but right now he has been calling out the Republicans left and right...

          Hell even Jon Stewart and Colbert have been kicking ass since coming back off their vacations....

          .... Negative Diary don't get posted or shared through my Facebook, email or any of my other connections...

          It does nothing but depress voters into not voting...

          I post and share Positive Diaries

          I post and share informative Diaries

          I post and share Diaries that target republicans....

          Women's Voting Right.... a lot of feed back

          Don't watch Fox News.... a lot of feed back

          New Credit Card Rules Many found this information useful...

          Republican Governor Rick Perry, because I have family and friends who lie in Texas  this information end up being very useful to them...

          Meg I am trying to buy the election Whitman....

          The Mosque get Bi-ReligiousSupport

          Negative Dairies bashing our President DO NOT get posted, shared or recommended...  

        •  Or simply stop focusing so on the presidency... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, Lady Libertine

          ...and electoral politics.

          Not that they're not important; they are.

          But progressive change tends to come from non-electoral movements: the labor movement, the civil rights movement, etc.

          I'm not suggesting that progressives should turn our backs on electoral politics. We should continue to do what we can to make the least bad alternatives win (and maybe someday produce a few good alternatives).

          But we should be spending much more time in the street (or whatever the 21st century equivalent is) forcing the hands of our imperfect electoral officials.

          We don't need politicians who want to do the right thing.

          We only need politicians who we can make do it.

          "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

          by GreenSooner on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:01:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Pick one target. For example, Fox News. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          matrix

          Go to Color of Change.Org and sign the petition to turn of Fox news, and get a free sticker to put on your car, saying same.  Also get tips for how to shut down Fox being shown in public areas. Some lawsuits against them would also help.  Go all out on one thing that is worth it.  This is worth it, in my opinion. We could think of other issues to get involved in, like killing the filibuster... We need to target, mobilize and impact.

          •  I would like to know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jonnie rae

            what companies have contracts with Fox News to show ONLY their channel in their establishments. Do any other networks do that, or is it just Fox? That's a start.

            Then, work on getting legislation that bars that practice. IOW, you can't put a condition in a contract that any network MUST be shown in public areas. You can't pay anybody to broadcast your channel.

            You can have them pay YOU for the privilege of offering your channel on a cable lineup, but you can't pay THEM to run it.

            I wonder what that would do to Faux News' ratings?

        •  Well, you have to have a viable stick (0+ / 0-)

          I think in general we are getting a little off track. In a representative democracy like this, with two ossified parties, we really don't have that much influence on the overall direction of an administration; we only have influence on the direction of specific policies.  Obama and Gibbs and Emmanuel reason correctly that we'll rally 'round the flag in 2012 because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.  I think they will be disappointed in the revenue stream, but that's another matter.

          In situations like this, when we have a president who is disappointing us on some issues (or most issues, for the truly pure) we need to focus more on issues advocacy and public education, and create the sorts of alliances that might actually work on the Administration short of meaningless threats like primary challenges.

          We are getting out-organized and out-messaged by the right, and we can't blame that entirely on Obama adopting some of their messaging.

          "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

          by ivorybill on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:26:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Someone has to make the case (14+ / 0-)

        about who progressives are, and what we broadly believe in. Otherwise, the majority of the country that doesn't watch MSNBC is going to assume that Obama defines us. And if he keeps making the decisions he is making, I'm not sure we want to be anywhere around him, or he'll drag everything to the left of Mitch McConnell down with him.

        We probably don't have the strength to beat him, but we ought to be able to recruit someone respectable who can make the case.

        •  yeah, too late for that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Orange County Liberal

          We bought the ticket, so own up to it.  Do you really think you can suffer massive losses in November and have that not affect the image of the Democratic party and all its constituent parts, especially when all of this so-called garbage legislation that he signed NEVER would have reached him if progressives in the House and Senate hadn't voted for it???  Those aren't the votes we've had trouble getting; it's been the votes of conservative Democrats.  I mean, even Kucinich voted for HCR - so we own all of it, as a party.

        •  I think your comment neatly reflects (10+ / 0-)

          the reality that President Obama has sent that Overton window flying to the right faster than any Democratic "base" could possibly be expected to keep up with it -- though I expect there will be "good" Democrats, unwavering loyalists to one flawed man if not to any idea, who will attempt to do exactly that.

          I lived to see the American nation legitimize torture.  I suppose it is no deeper a dive into the abyss of human depravity to behold a Democratic government renege on the compact with its citizens that is Social Security.

          But there is only so much nose-holding one will bother with on election day in service to the "lesser evil."        

           

          "All day long I felt like smashing my face in a clear glass window, but instead I went out and smashed up a phone booth round the corner." --Yoko Ono

          by notcaesar on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:01:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Absurd (4+ / 0-)

        was the idea in 2006 that Barack Hussein Obama would be elected president in 2008.

        Yes, we can?

        "All day long I felt like smashing my face in a clear glass window, but instead I went out and smashed up a phone booth round the corner." --Yoko Ono

        by notcaesar on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:28:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Quite honestly, I really don't give a crap ...... (13+ / 0-)

        ........ about the White House press secretary's opinions.  Somewhere along the line, the Obama White House has to understand we're the voters and they work for us.  And if they don't, their replacements will.  

        All this "woe is me" over November is a little too late.  The time to worry about November 2010 was when:

        *** Obama cut his big pharma/hospital lobby deals,

        *** torpedoed the public option,

        *** reaffirmed the most egregious affront to a woman's privacy,

        *** came out for more offshore drilling,

        *** used phony Katrina talking points to sell the safety of oil rigs,

        *** flushed a good woman down the crapper over a phony report about to be given by a rightwing nutbag,

        *** stands behind the co-chair of his catfood commission when he took swipe at Social Security, and who knows what other stupidities are on the horizon.  

        The truth is, it's too late for the "woe is me".  What's done is done.  The only thing that may save the sorry asses of the Democrats will be the Republicans.  

        This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

        by ThAnswr on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:51:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Talking about a primary challenge (10+ / 0-)

        would be fatal. For one thing, a lot of the Obama supporters out there aren't throwing a tantrum like people here. They aren't disillusioned because their expectations were a lot more hard-nosed and realistic. I am thinking especially of black voters, who still have their Obama posters in their windows and stickers on their cars, and proudly wear their Obama T-shirts and baseball hats. In fact, a local funeral home even has the Obama logo on one of its hearses. Talk primary challenge and these people are going to look at you and think you are a spoiled little white person who expected the world on a silver platter. Any actual primary challenge would be doomed because we will lose the black voters en masse — they will stay home.

        De-orangify Congress: Justin Coussoule for Oh-08 http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

        by anastasia p on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:26:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Only Prophets and Fools Know The Future (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, blueoasis, Late Spring

        There seem to be many more of the latter than the former.

        because the very idea is so absurd

        Like the comeback from the dead of Richard Nixon?  He is finally dead isn't he?

        Like the election of Barack Obama?

        Pundits are seldom right but always certain.  Way it is with conventional wisdom.

        So tell me how likely it is that Barack Obama will be even seeking re-election with mobs in the streets protesting the war in Afghanistan stepping over homeless people?

        Absurd you think?

        I am awed that Jerry Brown could again be governor of California.  Who'd a thunk it?

        How about we talk reality rather than the absurd?

        Best,  Terry

      •  Most primary challenges are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, blueoasis

        absurd ... regarding their ability to unseat a sitting president.

        But they happen anyway, for various reasons in history.

        Let's face it: The Republican primaries will be FAR more interesting in 2012. I mean, unless you get an Al Gore/Howard Dean challenge to Obama (which ain't gonna happen) who is going to pose any threat at all?

        It's like worrying about what will happen to Obama's nomination if an asteroid strike the US and spreads KoolAid over the land? Sure, it could happen. Unlikely, though. Talking about it does no harm.

    •  Why on earth would a talk of a (11+ / 0-)

      primary challenge make the "West Wing" worried?  It won't succeed.  I still get no credible answer on who the dream candidate is that would purportedly topple to Obama presidency.

    •  Yep, very much worried about the Cat food (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, blueoasis, nippersdad, NWTerriD

      commission. Long time Dems who have been bailing out the party in the past despite its rightward move tell me "shit will hit the fan if SS/Medicare is messed". And that might make Gingrich or palin presidency a reality , even though it sounds laughable now.

    •  Hi DD..I know it's easy to blame the GOP but (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, Dallasdoc, cybrestrike, NWTerriD

      do you think part of the problem is that Obama came in truly wishing to turn the clock back to the time when Ds and Rs were civil to each other and were willing to cross aisles (like Dirksen or Rockefeller), only to bet met by fucking idiots like Cantor, Imhofe and DeMinted?

      I got that impression from his books and he probably should be blamed for naivete, given that he was among the assholery in the Senate, but still, who would have thought that EVERY fucking thing would require a 60 vote margin in the Senate?  That's never happened, regardless of who was president!  I think the GOP has taken its obstruction to new heights unforeseen by the political wing of the admin and they are still adjusting.  

      'Course, once the forward pass was invented, defenses adjusted accordingly...

      "Yes, friends, governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class." James Connolly

      by dizzydean on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:45:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you remember when the Rep majorities (4+ / 0-)

        put the Democrats in the basement? This really wasn't such a hard call to make. Certainly shouldn't have been for someone who lived it.

        "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

        by nippersdad on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:23:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who would have thought that? (6+ / 0-)

        Anybody who listened to Mitch McConnell announce, just after Republicans lost the Senate in 2006, that that was what they were going to do.  Anybody who watched them do precisely that in the 110th Congress for the next two years, during which Barack Obama was a senator and watched it happen close up (when he wasn't on the campaign trail.)

        I used to think Obama was naive enough to think that if he tried to meet the Republicans halfway, they'd come and join him.  But the willful  persistence with this line despite all the overwhelmig evidence to the contrary has convinced me otherwise.  Obama's corporatist cabinet and staff, and his continuing pre-compromise with Republicans and their corporate sponsors inclines me to the belief that his bipartisan gambits are a cover for his own inclination to play ball with the economic oligarchs who run both parties.

        I don't believe Obama ever intended to be an agent of fundamental change, but that his whole campaign was a con job.  I hate to say it, but no other explanation makes sense to me anymore.

    •  FOCUS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beach babe in fl

      on the 2010 Elections... Why is that so difficult.

      Unless you want Republicans to take over congress, which would really open the door for more Negative Diaries but by then the country would be fucked...

    •  I'm starting to think he may not be able (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, blueoasis

      to get reelected anyway...it just comes down to economic trends...does anyone here really understand how many jobs would have to be created over the next two years to get unemployment down to 5%, or even down to 7%?

      It's almost impossible.  As a result, Obama will have a suck ass economy in 2012.

  •  Good diary. (25+ / 0-)

    We are stuck with him and what we have.  Now if someone wants to primary him, that is on him.  Things look bad now and it is, but 2012 is eons away.  I believe some things will change after November's blood bath.  And pushing Obama means holding his feet to the fire, as he has repeatedly told us to do.  Now if he listens is on him and if he does not, "elections have consequences".  Simple as that.

  •  You have to be cautious. (22+ / 0-)

    Real lives are at stake.  Millions of lives.  If the economy collapsed it would have been chaos - literally.  Remaking the HCR system into some socialist Valhalla isn't something you can do over night.  Hell the changes they did make, some are five years off and folks will still fall though the cracks.  Draw down in Iraq takes time to do it right and as safely as possible.    

    The bulk of HCR isn't for us.  It's for future generations.  The kind of change we need doesn't happen over night.  If Bill Clinton might have made the deal Obama had to suck up and accept, where would folks be today?  

    November 2nd 2010 - Kossacks get the Government they deserve.

    by Jonze on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:16:10 PM PDT

  •  You sound a lot (15+ / 0-)

    like that troublemaker, Turkana.

    "Ancora Imparo." ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

    by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:17:03 PM PDT

  •  There's no doubt that he's the best viable option (9+ / 0-)

    ...and that's what makes me so sad.

    I'll walk door to door for him, give money to him, and vote for him...

    ... and still wish that he were a helluva lot stronger on the issues that matter to me...

    ...because he's better than any possible opposition from the other party.

    The parties may be pretty similar on some issues, but there's still a difference, and if that's the best we can get (for now), I'll take it, with or without a smile.

    Sigh.

    •  Name the differences. (0+ / 0-)

      I really want to know people's opinions on what would be different if Republicans were or will be in power.  WHAT would be different?

      •  There would (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, NWTerriD, foufou, Saryko

        have been no stimulus, or a small one that was entirely tax cuts. Which would mean 3 million more out of work..and unemployment at 12 % or higher.

        No equal pay for women.
        No embryonic stem cell research.
        NO 100 billion investment in green energy projects.
        No coverage for pre-existing conditions.
        No coverage for children on their parents policies til age 26.
        No reduction in waste in college loan programs.
        No credit card reform.
        No chance of healthcare insurance reform.
        Privatization of SS on the horizon.
        No US auto makers still employing american union workers.

        I could go on for another 50 items.
        McCain Palin in charge would be different than Obama by a thousand miles,and much worse.

      •  A few (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, NWTerriD, foufou, Saryko

        Supreme Court justices committed to further corporate personhood & ownership of our democracy (who dissented on Citizens United - Bush nominees?)

        Military build-up in the Middle East rather than wind-down (with real hope of further wind-down)

        Tax policy that instead of being merely kinda regressive is in-your-face, kick-you-in-the-balls regressive

        I'm not saying shit doesn't get ever-more fucked up under Democrats and Republicans, it's just relatively marginal under Democrats and accelerated to the nth degree under Republicans.  Since I only have so many years on this earth, that speed of onset MATTERS.

        You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Pierce

        by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:31:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is not my beautiful house... (12+ / 0-)

    This is not my beautiful wife.

    :-(

  •  Good perspective (15+ / 0-)

    But this is of utmost importance:

    Pretending that the president is doing the best he could isn't the answer....For the next several years, on the national level, the best way to make that reality better will be to continue to push President Obama to do better.

    •  Hard to find any leverage on him, though. (10+ / 0-)

      How do you plan to push?

      Can't primary him.  Can't let the Republicans gain power.

      Don't really like being punched like the other hippies they like to punch.  What's left?  

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:20:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know....and all we accomplish here... (6+ / 0-)

        is make the centrists of dKos mad.

      •  Make a stink (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, nippersdad

        every time he sells out Dem principles and what he ran on. Mostly, stop making ridiculous apologies and excuses for him and for Dems generally. Personally, I don't think threatening en masse to support a primary challenger or threatening to vote third party is out of order. At all.

      •  MARCH. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, NWTerriD, ozsea1

        We need to march on Washington. Like the Woman Suffrage March. Bonus Army. Like Martin Luther King Jr.

        We need 500,000.

        We need to declare some kind of national strike day, and publicize the heck out of it, so that our brothers and sisters who feel this as deeply as we feel this can walk away from their jobs for a day and feel like they have a real chance of gaining something and not like they're throwing away what little they still have.

        We need transportation without airfare. We need accommodation without hotel room costs. We need Woodstock on the Mall.

        We need to show up and say that we will not whimper and cower while Summers and Geithner and Goldman Sachs and the Blue Dogs and the Republicans dither us into another Depression.

        We need to show that WE. ARE. SOMEBODIES. And we will not be ignored, and we will not be laughed at, and we will not be dismissed.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:12:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  500,000 won't do it (0+ / 0-)

          Nobody will know it ever happened because the Crass Media will just ignore it.

          We need numbers they CAN'T ignore. Five MILLION for starters.

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:05:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, 500,000 would do it. (0+ / 0-)

            King only had 250,000. That's 10 times the size of other history-making crowds, triple the size of the Tea Party march. Five hundred thousand would be very hard to ignore.

            Five thousand, on the other hand, will most certainly not do it. Five thousand is all health care reform got.

            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

            by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:53:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, the media didn't seem to cover (0+ / 0-)

              the many marches against Iraq - which were large, VERY large by past standards.

              They pretty much ignored them.

              And what did they do? Did they stop anything? Change anything?

              Marches are so 20th century. Unfortunately we haven't really come up with anything else yet.

      •  why not try..., i don't know (0+ / 0-)

        Working to create a groundswell of support for the ideas and policies you are most passionate about - and, at the same time, give Obama room to maneuver in order to enact at least some of them?

        Right now, there is NO consequence - none - to Republican obstruction of anything at all that Obama does, or to media distortion of Democrats, or to rightwing lies about what "the American people" want because the most vocal "left" is right there alongside the right in haranguing Obama and the Democrats for their every move.

        Why should the media or anyone else pay any attention to Obama, to the good stuff he has done, or the even better things he could do? There simply is no downside, that I can see, of publicly disdaining Obama, the Democrats, the Left, or liberal policies.

        If the vocal, media watched "left" worked, on the other hand, to happily put liberal ideas out there, passionately supported them and talked them up, made them seem attractive and beneficial to all, and positively supported and encouraged the president to work to enact them, there might be a much different result.

        I simply cannot imagine why anyone thinks that all this throwing oneself about and very public angst and moaning will accomplish anything at all.  

        A new world is not only possible, she is on her way. -A. Roy
        Serenity...an expedition

        by Nanette K on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:45:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In my opinion, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, The Raven, soms, mama jo

    the office of the President is not the place where much progressive change is initiated.  

  •  It's just not good enough anymore. The world (29+ / 0-)

    as it is requires more than cautious centrism, especially from this country.  The looting of the economy by the gambling banks, destruction of the middle class, the incredible buildup of the MIC, and the global climate crisis aren't going to be addressed by weak kneed bipartisan bullshit.  And face it, Obama's speechs and words had people the world over crying.  That wasn't because he came off as a centrist.  The President and his administration were given a mandate and that was to take back what we lost from the Republican years.  Now we're being prodded to give him more time when there's a good chance he won't get reelected and we'll get the worser of two evils, all while not having changed a damn thing that matters.  The democrats are wasting a chance here to prevent exactly what everyone is worried will happpen and they aren't doing it.  Of course people are frustrated and he who the buck stops with is going to take the heat.        

    "To the mediocre, mediocrity appears great" Indian proverb

    by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:20:48 PM PDT

  •  What does this mean? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, soms, moonpal

    For the next several years, on the national level, the best way to make that reality better will be to continue to push President Obama to do better.

    Is this ranting and raving on blogs and as pundits or is it something more constructive?  I don't think losses in November will push him to do better by progressives, but rather head more to the center as the message will be that America thinks he's too liberal.  

    November 2nd 2010 - Kossacks get the Government they deserve.

    by Jonze on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:21:39 PM PDT

  •  As I type I glance to the right and see (7+ / 0-)

    SP in the Stop Fox add.....Regardless of my  frustrations and disappointments I will push and support this President. The alternative will be terrible for my family and for our country.

    So please, as we  all push and complain, let a bit of hope remain. I need it....as do my children and my grandchildren.....

    Love is the lasting legacy of our lives

    by princesspat on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:22:33 PM PDT

  •  I don't think anyone's looking for... (15+ / 0-)

    a credible opponent to primary Obama.

    People are looking for an incredible opponent.

    ;-)

  •  no one within the Democratic party... (21+ / 0-)

    has the charisma to take on Obama. Remember, elections are shallow popularity contests and Obama easily wins those. No one on the right has the charisma to take on Obama. I am not worried about 2012. Obama will squeak out a victory. What I am worried about is how we can stop him from being a cautious corporate centrist.

    Republicans talk about tax cuts like frat boys talk about oral sex; they don't care who it comes from as long as they're the ones receiving

    by jbou on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:24:49 PM PDT

  •  This needed to be said. /nt (3+ / 0-)

    Le kiosque de cons.

    by hhex65 on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:25:07 PM PDT

  •  If Obama is primaried, I won't like it because (7+ / 0-)

    that will mean things have gotten pretty bad and desperate for the Democratic party.

    But short of a big scandal or a big drop in his popularity, he will likely be the nominee next time.

    He's certainly made his gaffes and mistakes and I hope he learns from them. I also hope he makes changes in his cabinet.

    Beyond that, I hope he continues to learn and improve, and mostly - that he becomes more bold.

  •  maybe now (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, jaywillie, soms, foufou, pdx kirk

    that there's been such ample venting, people here will understand this, and understand that continuing to emphasize the negative contributes to dampening the voter enthusiasm that Democrats seem to lack at present, and which they so desperately need in order to turn back the ugly tide of extremism, bigotry, demogoguery that's being embraced by the R party, and their aggressively moronic yet prominently repeated drumbeat that truly threatens the future.    

    "The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

    by Captain Future on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:28:44 PM PDT

    •  I concur.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jaywillie

      we need votes this november. Losing the majorities would be a huge step back. We can be frustrated with our president and still know that we need to get up this nov. and vote for the best thats available to us.

      "Finding wrinkles is easier than finding laugh lines, but I like finding laugh lines better." Nana

      by pdx kirk on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:34:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Could it be...and thisw is a long shot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid, soms

    but could President Obama be using the 'reverse psychology' plan on the republicans.

    Since they are against everything that he is for, maybe by hinting st 'tweaking' Social Security, the republicans will come out for leaving the system that works alone.

    As for Simpson and that commission- well, I say the man is entitled to a few mistakes.  But yes, it has to go.

    Growing old is inevitable...Growing up is purely optional

    by grannycarol on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:28:54 PM PDT

  •  I agree there will be no primary challenge (3+ / 0-)

    I doubt there will be a second term.

    Alan Simpson has become Barack Obama's pretzel moment

    by Walt starr on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:29:19 PM PDT

    •  as i said below (6+ / 0-)

      the republican field and a republican house will help obama.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:54:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's hard to know how this will play out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        We had massive economic deterioration around 2008 that helped Obama a lot. Obama managed to stave it off and create a fake bottom here in 2010, but the economy is going to continue to deteriorate probably for the next five years at least. It's hard to know who the public is going to blame for this: if the Repubs control Congress but Obama is President? Interesting stuff.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:31:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sadly, as someone whose job it is to (7+ / 0-)

          follow economics, I have to say the signs are pointing to your description being true.

          I am shocked at the casualness shown to the huge unemployment problem in the nation. Several states are approaching 20% U6 with no relief in sight.

          We should be hearing "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" out of Washington, but instead we are getting dried up old potty-mouths on a one-sided commission to go after Social Security. Yeah, that will be popular in a recession come this November.

          Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

          by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:35:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan, mightymouse

            ..thing we disagree on is that you think there is some kind of solution here.

            Our economy has deep-seated structural and competitive problems that I don't think can just be wished away or fixed if we could only put the right public policy in place. There are some public policies that are better than other policies, but even if we heard a mantra of "jobs, jobs" it wouldn't ultimately help very much.

            It's like a car accident. The right solution to a car accident is not getting in one to begin with. Once your car is wrapped around a tree, yeah, it's better to send paramedics than not, but even that may not help very much.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:42:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think I agree with you completely. There is no (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk, NWTerriD

              simple solution. There is no one-stroke policy solution.

              It is a long-term problem of reforming numerous mistaken policies over a long period of time.

              HOWEVER, we are not even getting messaging, let alone attempts at helping real people.

              In other words, not only are they not trying bery bery hard, they are not trying to make it look like they are trying.

              I remain in agreement and ... incredulous at this administration's tone deafness.

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The last time I heard anyone says that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan, blueoasis

            Specifically, "jobs jobs jobs," was Nancy Pelosi, over a year ago, on Auto-Tune the News.

            Conservatives: They love America. They hate actual Americans.

            by catwho on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:44:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

        This administration wants Republicans in the House.  It lets them off the hook.  Not that they really give a rat's ass anyway, but it will be easier on them.  Prepare yourself for flag burning amendments, prayers every day in all schools (private, of course)  And don't we know Obama is a Christian and prays every day.  Like that is so important to homeless, jobless people, but didn't the WH make THAT known right away.  

        Obama and all of our so-called leaders are into the big money.  They all worship at the same alter of money and power.  It does not matter which team wins our phony elections.  I think most of the country knows this now.  Unfortunately, we are mostly powerless to do anything about it.  That is the way it is under a fascist govt.  

    •  if we all stay home that'll come true. (0+ / 0-)

      Like it or not, we have to campaign just as hard in 2012 as we did in 2008.  

      Otherwise say Hello to Pawlenty/Palin, or Huckabee/Palin, or Newt/Sarah, and 4 - 8 more years of national nightmare that'll be if anything worse than the Bush nightmare.

      The choice isn't between a dream and a nightmare, it's between realism and a nightmare.

  •  Mounting a primary challenge (9+ / 0-)

    would be a colossally boneheaded distraction. wtf

    Why does this need to be said? thx for saying it though.. I guess.

    O snail, climb Mount Fuji, but slowly, slowly! - Issa

    by bumblebums on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:29:44 PM PDT

  •  worry about this after Nov (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, pdx kirk

    There's no credible primary challenger now but what may arise? I'm not saying I would support someone running on a much more populist, shall we say class war, platform but I'm not saying I wouldn't. If Obama as a sitting President buckles under pressure from the left in the primaries he doesn't stand a chance against Huckabee / Romney anyway. (there's obviously no Teddy K out there so spare me the 1980 ref). My teabagger friend is convinced Hillary's going to run. That would be weird but I wouldn't support her over Obama no matter how much she tried to channel Huey Long rhetorically.

    First things first. Netroots seems depressed that the amount of power they (we?) have seems to be smaller than what was expected after getting Obama out of the primaries. So pick House, State and local races where a small group of determined activists and contributions can make a difference. Anyone who thought the battle would be over when Obama took office (or when Obama leaves office) was naive at best.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:34:03 PM PDT

    •  true! we fought hard....and now, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, mama jo

      we have to fight harder still. So be it.

      "Finding wrinkles is easier than finding laugh lines, but I like finding laugh lines better." Nana

      by pdx kirk on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:36:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  won't happen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mama jo

      anyone who tried would be finished as a national political figure.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:54:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why do you say that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        Running for President and losing didn't finish Dr Dean (not that he'd run in 2012). An unknown getting traction, respectfully presenting a left of center argument and being fully on board once the nomination is cinched (which Teddy K wasn't) could make their national career and set themselves up well for 2016. Losing didn't hurt Sarah black-leather-jacket Palin.

        And if the pain continues to rise Obama's going to have to decide between being Hoover or FDR (boy is that over simplified). This is still Bushes mess, but fair or not it's Obamas in 2012. FDR hadn't fixed everything by 1936 but everyone knew what side he was on. And knew because of actions, not just rhetoric.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:13:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Joe Lieberman? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

        by happymisanthropy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:30:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutely no (11+ / 0-)

    harm will be done by applying one hell of a lot of pressure from the left though.

    Progressives and Liberals that don't understand this simple fact leave me baffled I'm afraid.

  •  WIth all due respect ......... (10+ / 0-)

    ..... people here are not going to be the ones to decide the 2012 election. Gallup has Obama's approval at 43%.  And that's up from yesterday.  

    For all the naval gazing that goes on here, the fact is Obama is in political trouble with the vast electorate out there.  

    Of course, the GOP may pull Obama's chestnuts out of the fire through sheer stupidity.  

    This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

    by ThAnswr on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:41:53 PM PDT

  •  Bring on the big trouble (0+ / 0-)

    This is bullshit.

    I want my money back.

    They must have a war room at the White House. I think they've got a sissy room too. - Ed Schultz, NN10

    by itswhatson on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:42:15 PM PDT

    •  you guys panic and give up to quickly, then (8+ / 0-)

      you throw out ideas, that should only be taking place. we need to win in november. If you start talking primary, you will lose and a lot of people will never vote with this party again, everyone is not please at how dems is treating President Obama. more than you think. Dems always panic, and allow the repubs, to control their actions. They use the same tactics at every election and we always fall for it.

  •  People Should Refocus Their Ire (5+ / 0-)

    Towards the Senate which seems hellbent on slowing down any sort of reforms until they can be watered down by lobbyists. The Senate is a problem -- a big problem.

  •  The way forward for the Left: grow the base, (8+ / 0-)

    build the infrastructure. The influence of "conservative" wingnuts in the Republican Party has been growing steadily for 50 years. In contrast, progressives, having helped Democrats win back the White House and both houses of Congress, once again find themselves kicked to the curb and abused by their party establishment. We know we are in a bind: if we stand down and stay home in November, the party and the Administration will only move farther to the right. My argument: the internal power of the Right stems from its ability to recruit new voters and donors - and to activate those forces through an infrastructure of RW organizations that are independent of the Republican Party. Progressives should learn from this.

    The way for progressives to increase their influence inside the Democratic Party is, IMO, to continue

    building a progressive infra-structure that is independent from the Democratic Party

    and that has the ability to mobilize activists, donors, and voters independently of the Democratic Party.

    "Will the highways of the internet become more few?"
    - GWB asketh, Verizon/Google answereth

    by brainwave on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:44:08 PM PDT

  •  Turkana (7+ / 0-)

    I've always liked what you write, so I give you a tip not because I agree but because you speak your mind.

    But as I posed in the other thread, I would really, really like to hear an answer from you on the subject:

    If Obama succeeds where Bush failed by gutting/privatizing/destroying/upending Social Security, what will you do or say then?

    If it does not come to pass and Social Security exists intact with no bullshit benefit cutting, I myself will campaign hard and fast for Obama's re-election in 2012. Hands down.

    But what if that doesn't happen, and in spite of his "Social Security kicks ass!" speech, it gets hacked to bits, and people like that douchebag from Honeywell and Alan Simpson get the last laugh?

    I ask not to inflame, I would just really like to hear your thoughts on that. I know it's a big "What if?" but please try to shed some light on your feelings should that come to pass.

    Thank you...

    •  i don't think that will happen (7+ / 0-)

      and i don't want to speculate unless it starts looking plausible. i would hope it would die in the senate, if it's even attempted. and that we're even talking about the catfood commission rather than another stimulus is deeply disturbing, but i think there would be serious pushback from progressive members of the house and senate. it would be political suicide.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:51:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Serious pushback (8+ / 0-)

        like the pushback against war supplementals?

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

        by Code Monkey on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:56:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but (5+ / 0-)

        I trust the Senate to do absolutely nothing at this point, that's all they're good for.

        Both Reid and Pelosi have promised to bring up the Catfood Comm's recommendations in a vote, during a lame duck session I believe.

        I know we're speculating here, but I mean...I just think that such an activity would be so grievous that I'm not sure how anyone could with a straight face defend the man any more if it were to happen.

        Don't get me wrong, I am definitely hoping I am wrong and that the cuts don't pass or Obama vetos something or the Senate shows a spine.

        You're absolutely right it is political suicide.

        But let's not forget, Obama has said more than once he'd willingly be a one-termer if he thought it was better to do things "right".

        What if he thinks slashing the shit out of Social Security is right? What if he's more than willing to bow out after one term because he played us all like fiddles and did the real dirty work of the right wing for them?

        Again I don't want any of this to come to pass, but I cannot escape the feeling that it will.

        And we will have lost.

      •  If the administration tries cutting SS benefits (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        they will hand the Republicans a huge club to pound Democrats with and secede any claim to be the party that protects SS.  

        In other words, the cat food commission will be destructive for Democrats.  What the hell is it? A Gingrich timebomb? It sure is not a politically astute move, particularly after the Alan Simpson meltdown.

        It's a horrible idea and the concept of "Bi-partisan" after the last two years is insane.

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:10:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How is this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht

      even a credible question? "If Obama ran over your kitten with a scooter, then would you finally admit he's not a good man?" Okay, yes, if Obama runs over my kitten willingly, I will curse the man seven ways to Sunday. But really, what is the indication that he wants to do the dirty work of the right wing? From where comes this idea that he's really a right wing plant? It's ridiculous. Is he moderate? Yes, in some ways. Is he pragmatic? Apparently so. Is he inexperienced? Unfortunately. Is he gleefully grinding up America's future into wingnut smoothies and drinking them with relish? I think not.

      There's a reason Democrats won massively the last two cycles, and it wasn't because people were desperate for "bipartisanship". --kos

      by Debby on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:36:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The makeup of this "bipartisan commission is not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisePiper, apimomfan2

        evidence of something?  Alan Simpson's statements - in writing - as co-chair are not evidence of something?

        I wish I shared your optimism.

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:12:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's up to Obama whether he gets primaried. (9+ / 0-)

    If he doesn't do better, then he will be. Look at the recommended diary list today -- we (and I am sure that reflects the larger we) are at a turning point.* I believe that if Obama is not also at a turning point, then he will be left behind.

    * Perhaps the "Inside Job" trailer and reviews had something to do with it. Perhaps not.  

  •  These are not normal times (14+ / 0-)

    and if the country goes further into crisis, things will become even less predictable.

    •  I'm glad you said "further" because it is pretty (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      In her own Voice, apimomfan2

      damn far into crisis right now.  The economic conditions - as they are now - are horrific for huge numbers of Americans. As many articles in The Economist, The Wall Street Journal and other "sober" publications point out: The Middle Class in America is being hammered!

      We need a full court press on The Economy. And even if a lot more programs cannot be forthcoming (there have to be several more things that can be done), an administration that wants to be successful in November needs to constantly message on The Economy.

      They are not doing it.  They're whistling past real tombstones. Ours and theirs.

      Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

      by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:19:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  300,000 foreclosures every month (4+ / 0-)

        Four million families had to deal with foreclosure over the last two years.

        That's a crisis.

        If we aren't there already, soon everyone will know someone who is losing their home.  And losing homes is an issue that really strikes a chord with people.  It especially strikes a chord now in contrast to the spectacular bailout of the banks who are now flourishing, while the people, largely, are not.

        I've said this before: I have yet to meet a person who is not harboring very negative feelings about the banks who crashed the economy and the fact that there has been no accountability.  The anger over this situation is simmering.  It has not gone away.  For almost two years, Dems did not even pass one law to rein in the banks.  And a majority of people don't believe that legislation went far enough.  I doubt that they believe it will prevent another crash either, despite the President saying numerous times that it would.

        And now the messing with Social Security at a time when so many people are worried about their economic futures, and when trust in government is so low.  We know that trust in government is low because of the polling numbers for Congress and the steady downward trend for the president.  Those numbers for Congress are scary.  The arrogance of this administration thinking they can convince people that cutting Social Security is a good thing.  It's astounding.  They really do seem to think that they're immune to that third rail of politics.  You really have to wonder what they are thinking, and how important that second term is to them to begin with.

  •  the Independents, I know (13+ / 0-)

    are saying WTF?

    I thought Obama was about change --

    about standing up against Corporations and Wall Street --

    about helping us people on Main Street?


    Of course most of them don't pay much attention

    to the Potomac Two-Step shuffle.

    They just see misery,

    as far as the eye can see ...

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:52:46 PM PDT

  •  I agree, but what worries me (10+ / 0-)

    is November. It's looking like a bloodbath, but what I'm worried about is the message that Congress and the President will take from the results.

    The message sent should be loud and clear: Democrats need to act more like Democrats.

    Unfortunately, I think the message received is going to be more like this: Democrats need to act more like Republicans.

    Sigh...

  •  Kind of think (0+ / 0-)

    The Russian political scientist was on to something.

    All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. - George Orwell

    by Moon Mop on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:55:23 PM PDT

    •  The one who said (0+ / 0-)

      the US was going to break up into five different countries?  He sounded nuts, at the time.

      The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:44:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There was more than one Russian who said that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        Dmitri Orlov was the chief doomsayer, but he didn't try to draw a map. Igor Panarin did, and his map was laughable. (It didn't help that Panarin's map and off-kilter ideas were loudly hyped by arch-crackpot Jerome Corsi - a guy who never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't fall deeply in love with.)

        We've already passed Panarin's deadline (June-July 2010), and while the fault lines are showing, the country's still in one piece. So far.

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:21:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  POTUS isn't the only position, you know. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    The places to primary are, well, just about everywhere else.  

    The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

    by Panurge on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:58:29 PM PDT

  •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)

    I think Obama dashed a lot of hopes and caused a lot of people to set their expectations way too high when the system he had to work within drastically limited his ability to act.  People didn't listen when he said it would be hard.  People didn't listen when he said it would be a long struggle.  People just listened to him and heard what they wanted to hear rather than what he was really saying.

    And then the letdown came, but whose fault is it really?

    He said he was going to work by trying to find middle ground with opposing sides.  He said it was going to be a long hard struggle.  He said he was going to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.  He said he was opposed to gay marriage.  

    People who projected their own hopes and aspirations onto him and expected more than he could deliver have nobody to blame but themselves.

    If you want real change you have to work for it yourself, not count on some politician to make it happen for you.
     

    ---
    Mr. Rogers taught us to be better than this.

    by VelvetElvis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:59:01 PM PDT

  •  People need to (14+ / 0-)

    calm the fuck down.

    Seriously. I'm trying to imagine a scenario under which the right would flagellate itself to this degree just 18 months into a Republican presidency, and I'm coming up empty.

    Why does that comparison matter? Because Republicans have demonstrated extreme skill at winning elections during my lifetime. And that lifetime is of respectable length.

    Harry Reid: Float like Barney Fife, sting like Aunt Bea.

    by MeMeMeMeMe on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:59:27 PM PDT

    •  i think the anger (6+ / 0-)

      isn't misplaced. the disappointments are deep. but i do think the way we deal with the anger needs recalibration.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:04:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans don't shit all over their base (6+ / 0-)

      They don't give the base everything they want, but they don't go around actively humiliating their base.

      Californians: The Courage Campaign is working for changing the 2/3 budget rule and for ending Prop 8. Go!

      by tmo on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:41:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The base is very strongly supportive of (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, jeun28, lightshine, thoughtful3

        Obama. They actually feel like many of his detractors (both left & right) haven't given him a chance and that  "progressives" have never had his back.

        •  Succint (6+ / 0-)

          I don't know how to say this over and over...

          This is what you hear registering voters. Individuals have moved away from Huffpost, Dkos and the rest to form their own site because they are just tired.

          The sad truth progressives never had his back and Obama went out of his way to build his movement without RELYING ON PROGRESSIVES like Dean or Kerry.

          He went around them. He never relied on them.  A base is something you can truth, you cannot trust something that is flaky and prone to constant reflex actions.

          A better way to channel energy would have been to say:

          1. Rally in DC to ensure that the ONLY change to SS is to increase the amount of the cap. To begin to say no to age increase or cuts to the wealthy. That way the constant drum beat is out there. Instead its hysteria that is a total turn off.

          I am glad majority of democrats DON'T KNOW OR CARE WHAT DKOs opinion is. I find myself tired of both sides, they are both melodramatic. And I will not be surprised if Rove has inflitrated some of sites.

          Change is not overnight, it is not instant. The romanticism of FDR is the work of history. Even so the structure of American capitalism is to protect the wealthy. The same wealthy that hates this administration. Ask me what my experience is? Its CEO's making argument that there is too much regulation at once and will withhold jobs to ensure republicans come in.

          They scream civil rights of the 60's like it was some overnight happening and not over 100 years in the making.

          I am disappointed in whatever progressives are. Al Girodiano @ The Field was right about the entire movement.

          And excuse me when did Dean become progressive I must have missed the memo.

      •  YES THEY DO... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque, neroden, foufou, GrumpyOldGeek

        Shit on their base.. abortion is still on the books, the court is not full conservative, theocracy is not yet the rule of law etc.

        And mind you they like the democratic party have a various degrees of members whom they consider themselves to be the "BASE"

        •  No, no, their base is the superrich. (0+ / 0-)

          Remember?  Bush said so in a speech.  The Republicans never shit on them.

          Who are the machine Democrats' base?

          -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

          by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:38:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  haha stop it stop it lol lol lol (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, lightshine

            stop making me laugh.. but I needed that so much...

            I am so shocked by how wired this place is to drama. Jeeeeez... I am all about redistricting and getting power on local level. That's where the policy is made that affect people's day to day life.

            I swear some of the way states manage resources contributes to the entire financial mess.

            •  You are so right. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jeun28

              It's difficult here (upstate NY).  To get control of redistricting we have to fight a previous massive gerrymander.  :-P  And we have great masses of brainwashed rural people still voting for ancient Republican hacks.

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:48:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Geez (5+ / 0-)

    Doesn't anyone remember Nader in 2000?

    That "dream" worked out great for us, didn't it:

    2 Wars

    Alito, Roberts

    Radical redistribution of wealth

    ad nauseum

    The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

    by Upper West on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:00:13 PM PDT

    •  That was not a primary challenge. (5+ / 0-)

      And it was about Ralph's Ego, not a platform of ideas.

      We got Bush because Ralph Nader convinced fooled people that Democrats were just like Republicans, that Al Gore was the equivalent of George W Bush.

      •  Nader was just the tip of the iceberg (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, apimomfan2

        The 2000 election was rigged to hell and back, starting with the Crass Media and their months-long demolition job on Gore (while simultaneously lying themselves black in the face about what a good joe Bush was and never EVER allowing anyone to say ANYTHING negative about him. Especially if it was true.

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:25:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right of course (0+ / 0-)

          as Bob Somerby will tell you ad infinitum.

          But absent Nader, Gore would have won despite the "War against Gore" by the media.

          The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

          by Upper West on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't be too sure of that! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nippersdad, apimomfan2

            It was smelly as hell from the get-go that GW Bush was running for President while his brother Jeb was Governor of Florida. It was even smellier that Florida was called, uncalled, and re-called on the say-so of a Bush connection at Fox News. It started stinking really bad when votes for Gore just...disappeared. And the stink just kept getting worse and worse and worse.

            Nader made a convenient excuse. But I'm convinced that the fix was in to hand Florida to Bush by hook or by crook - no matter what had to be done to make it so.

            If it's
            Not your body
            Then it's
            Not your choice
            AND it's
            None of your damn business!

            by TheOtherMaven on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:47:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You mean (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Upper West, jeun28, Tulips

      when 1996 Clinton voters that ended up voting for W (which were about 9x the Green vote) because Gore was a leftward shift than the Limousine Liberal Clinton administration?  And how Ralph's acolytes stabbed the country in the back?  Yes, yes I do remember it. TYVM

      Daily Kos is a Democratic blog, dedicated to electing Democrats.

      by Rustbelt Dem on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:31:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nader makes a very convenient excuse. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2

      What should worry you, though, is how many people on these very boards are now channelling him, whether they recognize it or not. The problem was not Nader or his voters, but the DLC which made his platform possible.

      I see that nothing has changed, and that is the problem that we are faced with.

      "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

      by nippersdad on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:55:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Remember the phrase "Lock Box"? (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps Obama doesn't have the same opinions as Gore on Social Security. It seems that he wants to raise the retirement age to continue paying for other government programs from the SS Trust Fund. And I'm not okay with that considering there is a cap on SS taxes.

      AND... I don't want to work until I'm 70. If this happens, consider me a Naderite.

      Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day ~ Harry S. Truman

      by HairyTrueMan on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:29:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aside from "extremist" & "appeased" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    I agree with you.

  •  Happily tipped and rec'ed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Rustbelt Dem

    Holding President Obama accountable does not equal demanding a primary every time he or one of his underlings says/does something that doesn't suit.

    Republicans moralizing about deficits is like an arsonist moralizing about fire safety. These guys have zero, zero, zero credibility. ~ Joe Biden

    by Casual Wednesday on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:01:52 PM PDT

  •  Is it silly for me to believe we need to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Casual Wednesday, Jonze

    work like hell to get more and better Democrats in state and federal office to help secure a strong congress

    and

    focus like a laser beam on getting Obama reelected in 2012.

    And that we can do this by putting differences aside and working our asses off to (as Jean Luc Picard says best) Make it so!

    We just now got our foot in the door and look what happened. We did good stuff. Not great stuff, but it was good and it's making a difference even if it is slower that we want. The great stuff takes longer.

    We can push ourselves and we can push Obama. Because I don't want to look my grandchildren in the eyes and tell them it's just too hard to do, so why bother. When we visit them I want to tell them "let's go and a make a difference today". And then do it.

    "Oh dear...there's always a military isn't there?" The Doctor -7.50, -8.51

    by Rogneid on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:07:58 PM PDT

  •  Only one guy I would support to challenge (4+ / 0-)

    Obama .. and that's Al Gore. That ain't happening, either.

  •  Tipped and recced (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby

    for a near perfect reality-based diary.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:13:13 PM PDT

  •  Talking about (0+ / 0-)

    a primary challenge is a pointless diverserion that will do nothing except take away needed resources from more important battles. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the Obama administration but, i've resigned myself to the fact that in the current political climate, with corporate dollars receiving more respect than voter's, this is what we have to work with.

    "It is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize" - Henry David Thoreau

    by blueoregon on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:13:20 PM PDT

  •  A primary challenge isn't a threat to Obama (0+ / 0-)

    History shows that incumbent presidents are not unseated in this manner.

    Usually it has to do with the administration's policies and the strength of the opponent from the other party.

    Since I assume that the Republicans will serve up a weak candidate, the only way Obama loses in 2012 is from what he has done or not done in his first term.

    If Obama can oversee an economic recovery that people can see (employment), that will go a far way. If he does not make any major mistakes, like backing a reduction in Social Security benefits, I don't believe any of the current GOP possible candidates winning against him.

    •  what people don't realize is how bad the economy (5+ / 0-)

      was. the damage will take longer to fix. He had to start off with a financial reform. lay the ground work even if its not what everyone wanted. Now that he laid it, you will see the effect.  republicans truly destroyed this country.

      •  Most people blame Bush for the economy. (5+ / 0-)

        And most people will hope that Obama fixes it.

        Jimmy Carter inherited an awful economy from Nixon/Ford. It is a political fact that even though voters recognize who broke it, they expect the next person to fix it.

        Why did George HW Bush lose to Bill Clinton? The answer is in the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." Not many people realized that the economy was a hangover from Reagan, but Bush Sr., despite burying the ghost of Vietnam in the Gulf War route, was undone by a bad economy.

        Just the way things work.

        •  but they don't give him time. the problem is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, thoughtful3

          americans are impatient,and spoiled.

          •  It's going to take years, maybe decades... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thoughtful3, Tulips

            ...for this mess to resolve itself. During that time, it's going to feel like a constant downward grind with increasing desperation and fear. It's hard to predict who the public will blame. Probably if they're looking for the guilty, they need only look into a mirror (V for Vendetta).

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:37:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  But the messaging of "Caring About the People (5+ / 0-)

            Truly Hurting" is just not there.

            That's just it.  To fix it may take a while. But there has to be messaging that "We are working on it."  "Here is what we have done."  "Here is our latest project to repair the economy"

            A constant drumbeat of "We will make it better - HERE: it is better for these folks and we will make it better for YOU too."

            It is not that "people don't give him time."

            It is totally that "the messaging from the WH is all over the map."

            And backing Alan Simpson will only convince Americans at or looking at retirement age that the administration doesn't give a Rat's Ass about them.

            And which group is the single most reliable turn-out at the polls for every single election???

            Voters at or looking at retirement age.

            This White House is tone deaf to real people.

            Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

            by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:44:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you know why i think he is letting that guy (0+ / 0-)

              talk. Because it is revealing the republican plan. its now out that the republicans wants to privatize social security.

            •  As intractible... (5+ / 0-)

              ...as the economic problems we have are, Obama and his team seems to have a special talent for bad messaging, tone deafness, and inability to give the impression that they really give a shit at all or have any capability of solving the problems with which we find ourselves.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:49:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. No one thinks there is an easy solution (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Agathena, smkngman, bluicebank, apimomfan2

                But there is ZERO messaging about even CARING about what incredible pain most of the nation is truly in.

                Do they think ignoring the economy will make it go away?

                Do they truly believe that shoveling trillions into Wall Street was all that was needed?  Did Bernanke's studies of the Great Depression leave out the economic programs - WPA, CCC, etc - that PUT people to WORK?

                It is incredible.  They are working their way to defeat.

                Only the absurdities of the Tea Baggers can save this administration which is a pretty damning indictment.

                Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:37:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Americans are a lot of things. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden

            Even if Obama did everything that some believe will help, even if he could get it through Congress, the fact is that the economy is shattered from the Bush years. And worldwide, too, from other factors like the financial crooks.

            So I can't really argue here. I can argue that Obama should have done this and not that, but the fact is the pooch has been screwed.

            The political fact is that a president under these circumstances needs to do as much as he can to reduce the bleeding. Every little bit helps. But yeah, any president that was elected in 2008 would be in a pickle.

    •  Not always (0+ / 0-)

      History shows that incumbent presidents are not unseated in this manner.

      Tell it to LBJ.

      Not that I want or expect Obama to face a serious challenge.

  •  edwards would be fine (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden

    so what if he bangs women.

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:19:06 PM PDT

  •  Yes he did sell out. (7+ / 0-)

    How can you sit there and say he's a cautious centrist, then claim he didn't sell out?  By definition, cautious centrists don't run around clamouring for 'change.'  I suppose there is one other possibility.  Perhaps he just lied his ass off.

    For all I know, this is a revelatory, mind altering diary from there on out, but I can't even keep reading when such a giant contradiction slaps me in the face in the first paragraph and a half.

    •  there was a deliberate opacity (0+ / 0-)

      to his rhetoric of change. he never said his change would be a huge shift to the left. he always talked about working with republicans. i always thought that was an illusory goal, but it was part of his rhetoric.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:51:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, opacity is one way of putting it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, apimomfan2

        Deliberately deceiving a public clamoring for real change is another.

        Funny thing is, so many of us thought the 'working across the aisle' message was with a wink.  Little did we know that the winks were when he was talking about change and we were too busy applauding to notice.

        •  well, he did mean change (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          apimomfan2

          just not change to the left. and his opacity was just politics. as btd likes to say- pols are pols.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:08:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, apimomfan2

            It was all obfuscation and empty promises in the first place.

            Good.  Now I feel more justified in being pissed off and content in my developing belief that there really is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

            With the shift in the Overton Window the past 30 years, not changing to the left is not changing at all.  It's just a difference between reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic and throwing people overboard before the ship sinks.  The ship is still going down, and all but the extremely wealthy and their servants are going to drown.

            I guess I'll leave it to folks like you to play 'Nearer, My God, to Thee' to comfort us all as we face certain doom.

            Damn, that's a kick ass extension of an oft used metaphor.  Sad part is, it's so fucking true.

            •  if you truly believe (0+ / 0-)

              there is no difference between the dems and the gop, i suggest taking a closer look at the gop agenda.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:21:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you really believe (0+ / 0-)

                there is a difference, I suggest you look into what President signed the bill deregulating the banking industry that got us into the mess that we are in.

                You're a piece of work.  Not one post ago you wrote 'pols are pols.'  Now apparently they are not pols because now that canard doesn't fit your argument.

                The Republican Party is the puppets of the wealthy and powerful.  Their written agenda is merely the way they get votes.

                The Democratic Party has some fine people in elected positions, but as you admit, it too is merely a tool of the wealthy elite.  JHFC, half the Democratic Senators are Nixonian Republicans when it comes to the issues, and you want me to believe there is a difference that matters?

            •  Psst - that's a myth (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden

              The band on the Titanic didn't play "Nearer My God To Thee" as the ship sank. They wouldn't have. That's a part of American culture and they were Brits to a man. They played a British hymn known as "Autumn", which isn't even the same tune.

              You can look it up, you know.

              If it's
              Not your body
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              AND it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:31:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Back in the year 2000 (0+ / 0-)

              I remember telling Nader voters "Yes, there is little difference between many Democrats and many Republicans.  But there is a really huge difference between Bush and Gore."

              Never get confused by over-generalizations -- individuals do matter.

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:42:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like alluded to above (0+ / 0-)

                it's just a matter of whether they are doing all they can to let the wealthy elite have everything they want, or just letting it happen.

                Either way, the wealthy elite keeps gaining, and the middle class and poor folks keep losing.  You want to call it a 'difference,' by all means, go right ahead.  You're being fooled just as much as Thomas Franks Kansans.

  •  It never was a dream. (8+ / 0-)

    Only pipe-dreamers and adolescents believed that a Democratic president could govern from anywhere but the center at this point in our history. After the neocons had their way with this country the center is a huge shift to the left. (that's what they're insanely pissed off about) Our one best chance is that Obama's second term will get us slightly to the left of center. Well worth working hard for.  

    ...for anyone who's truly a progressive, that is.

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:21:12 PM PDT

    •  i disagree (7+ / 0-)

      the bush hangover and obama's enormous popularity gave him a unique historic opportunity. i think he could have made a strong move to the left, and the country would have gone with him. but i don't think that's who he is.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:50:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We didn't have an effective Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

        when Obama took office. It's a little better than it was when he came in, but not much. I don't think it's been effective since at least the Clinton scandal maybe even before.

        Republicans are organized and effective. And more effective than they've ever been. Hillary was right: there is a vast right-wing conspiracy ... only you get more traction when you say there is a vast right-wing organization.

        There is a part of me that thinks that there were too many post-primary deals that Obama made with the sort of DLC politicos that I love to loathe. It's likely he felt he had to make peace to win the election. I figure that's why we have Clinton as SoS (a good thing), Rahm as CoS (a bad thing), and  Tim Kaine rather than Howard Dean as DNC chsir (a disaster).

        In the finance industry but will switch to construction if I can drive the bulldozer to raze the Harvard Business School. Eco L/R: -6.25 SL/A: -6.05

        by Glinda on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:13:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I think (0+ / 0-)

        that was just part of the collective dream.

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:56:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you this is a good and reasonable (3+ / 0-)

    message and diary. I don't know if it's as good as the vagina diary, but what the hell ya did your best. :)

  •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Facts are persistent things.  

    Daily Kos is a Democratic blog, dedicated to electing Democrats.

    by Rustbelt Dem on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:27:33 PM PDT

  •  lol Muslim-free-zone Dean. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:29:09 PM PDT

  •  We can still prevent Obama & Dems from (7+ / 0-)

    committing political suicide (due to cat food commission messing with SS/Medicare). Get involved at http://strengthensocialsecurity.org

  •  Bloomberg... (4+ / 0-)

    ... could pay for a whole Presidential campaign out of his personal wealth.  I'm not advocating for it or anything, but I do find myself wondering what might happen if Charlie Crist of the North were to run.

    exmearden: Grab every minute of joy you can. 8/30/09

    by Land of Enchantment on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:30:10 PM PDT

  •  I'd only add... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem, Laurence Lewis

    that no way in hell would a candidate as progressive as I'd like get elected president in these times. Maybe someday, but not now.

    Otherwise, great diary!  

    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

    by SoCalSal on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:30:39 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Laurence for the reasonable diary! (3+ / 0-)

    A well thought out and reasonable diary in response to some ridiculousness on here that is plucked directly from la-la land.

    "That's quite a jump. But you keep it up, I'm sure one day you'll clear that shark."

    by Steve In DC on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:30:52 PM PDT

  •  You know, whether one believes more in one (7+ / 0-)

    diary or another, the thing that brings me here is a true two-way (or more-way) discussion that allows me to evaluate the positions and make up (or change) my mind.

    So far, I've got:  

    1. I'm pretty unhappy with the lack of "leadership" (see my sig line) and ambition to "Change" when "Change" was a key theme of the entire election.

    and

    1. What the hell can I do about it, besides keep writing letters to the White House?

    2a) My Congressperson is reliably farther left than Obama and she is also black. Not much I can improve upon there.  In my record book, she has a 99.9% rating.

    2b) My two Senators are right-wing assholes and even though I email them and even send paper letters from time to time, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they will never agree with me. And they have never disappointed my confidence in them.

    So, this year, I'm donating and working for the governorship. We have a chance to win that one and make a change.  

    I will vote for the Dem nominee in 2012, only in the hope that person is slightly less owned by corporations and finance than the Republicans.  But I have no more "Hope" and with that loss, a lack of enthusiasm.

    Not complaining. That's a description of how I feel.

    Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

    by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:32:57 PM PDT

    •  and that sounds (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan

      very pragmatic and realistic. i have one great senator, one good senator, and a good congressman. my key race, this year, is for governor. in 2012, i will support obama, and i will continue to try to lay the groundwork for more a more liberal agenda in the future.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:45:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm just tired of being flipped off (6+ / 0-)

    by this admin and this president. They treat this community as if it doesn't exist. They take it for granted like BushCo took the Christian Right for granted. They know we got nowhere to go besides Camp Obama.
    Club Gitmo? yeah, right.
    Torture? who cares.
    DADT? whatever...
    War? yawn...
    Maybe there is no candidate to primary his ass.
    But, short of primarying we can guarantee being handed the short end of the stick.

    •  What have you done to move closing of GITMO (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      billlaurelMD, lightshine

      an issue with congress? What have you done regarding congress giving  the administration funds?

      Have you emailed Kennedy's recent statement on civilian trial to everyone you know or representative?

      What have you done to change the perception of your fellow citizens?

      What about war -- He did campaign on the Afghanistan war. -- what have you done to ensure pressure is on for the July 2011 deadline with commanders attempting to bully their way in.

      Torture-- Have you tried equating what's going on in Louisiana angola prison to the alleged ongoing torture? There is torture on going of regular americans daily and throughout American history in which alot of individuals have been silent about. I will say this the pretense that America does not torture until Bush is fictitious to citizens of foreign countries [I.e. Latin America and Nigeria].

      DADT - instead of constant hyperbole and inflammatory comments-- how about pressure to ensure that the survey is completed timely and no one is discharged. Do you think threats of oh gays especially gay white males from Americablog will vote republican will vote republican a threat?

      Like the religious right you will continue to be ignored until you know how to approach is a manner that is not a total turnoff to regular individuals and based on the facts as there exist.

      Anyway everyone has a myopic view and issues that are important to them. It is no longer about the collective but "what I want" Good luck to you.

      But out of the 522 promises there other issues that are important to other voters as well

      •  Did it all. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Big Tex, apimomfan2

        Now what has Obama done?  Oh right, he's supported torture.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:43:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  stop it neroden stop trolling (0+ / 0-)

          and causing unnecessary trouble lol

          I know you did not do it all.

          •  Nobody LISTENS. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Big Tex

            I mean, sure, the people I know listen.  Some of them.  That's not that many.  The politicians never do.

            -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

            by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:49:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes they do listen. (0+ / 0-)

              They listen when it's in swell of numbers. You need numbers behind you.

              Ex: Gitmo funding..

              Instead of mobilization. It was a joke to many here that Americans would be scared or that Democrats in congress would withhold funding. You rarely saw any push back or anyone fighting for the administrations point of view. [YOU HAVE to ask yourself what is going on with the power structure of the senate especially in light of Reid's i don't work for Obama statement].

              I continue to talk about it and write about it especially in light of Justice Kennedy's comments. And I can't wait for the case on trial of gitmo suspects to get the court

      •  As much as I would like to "Be the Change" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        I don't have time for that shit. That's what I elect representatives and presidents for. That's their job, not mine. And, they've failed. Miserably.

        •  With all due respect YOU ARE WRONG (4+ / 0-)

          period. YOU ARE MORE THAN WRONG..Especially if you claim to be progressive. You think everything that occurred throughout American history was just because an representative said "OH the election is over and I will do it." You think that's what happened to FDR???? Are you serious?

          As long as that's the mindset nothing will be done for this generation period. That is such an entitled mentality.

          You remind me of a 1965 article that juxtaposed how suburbanites who gained from red lining viewed the civil rights and rural poor whites who did not benefit. The answer was oh its not our problem and they are causing too much trouble; its the official's problem.

          Nobody has failed me because I don't think in the premise of ideology or under the pretense that this country structural make up was made up to protect the poor or middle class.

          •  Well, you go do that then. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            apimomfan2

            We need foot soldiers out there on the front lines! But, I don't have the time or the energy. I try to take care of what I can take care of here in NY-23, and that's all I take care of. I ain't calling or writing my congress critter for squat. He or she ran on something. Let them accomplish that or lose the next election. Camp Obama and this congress has failed. Miserably. Wasn't my fault. I elected their butt. Was their fault.

        •  how many hours do you spend (0+ / 0-)

          sitting in front of the computer or TV a week?

          How much of that time could be spent being an activist out there?

          Struggling to find my relevance in a world gone amok

          by billlaurelMD on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:53:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let the 20-somethings, 30-somethings (0+ / 0-)

            and 40-somethings do that. I really don't have the energy. Or the inclination. I sit on my ass in front of my computer becuz I work on my computer. I trek over here after work becuz I'm interested in knowing what's going on. And, I like to make some noise in the comments, add my 2¢ to the conversation. But, no, I'm not traipsing around "activating." That's what kids are for.

  •  He'd better not touch Social Security. (7+ / 0-)

    If he does, they'll have to invent a better phrase than enthusiasm gap to describe the apathy that will afflict Democratic voters.

    "They had fangs. They were biting people. They had this look in their eyes,totally cold, animal. I think they were young Republicans."

    by slouching on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:33:42 PM PDT

  •  Are you sure? Did you spin your top? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Sorry, reference to the dream title and the movie Inception.  Which I loved.

    "What is essential is invisible to the eye." www.thefoxfoot.com

    by greywolfe359 on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:34:46 PM PDT

  •  The key point (15+ / 0-)

    is for progressives to stop investing 100% plus or minus in electoral politics, leaving ourselves at the mercy of the personal weaknesses and career ambitions of individual politicians, and to start building independent power bases on issue, constituency and community politics.  Since the career ambitions of politicians, including (especially?) democratic ones are built on the basis of distancing themselves as greatly as possible from us "drug-crazed libtards" as repeatedly White House emissaries have called us, we need to stop being beholden to their career ambitions in return, and learn to organize, contribute and volunteer in the fights for one and only one thing:  our own self-interests.  The more power we build of our own, the more pols will have to listen, rather than heap hateful taunts like the White House has been tossing in our direction with such consistency.

    American business is about maximizing shareholder value. You basically don't want workers. ~Allen Sinai

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:35:16 PM PDT

  •  The electorate is always (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem, jeun28

    wise, virtuous, fair-minded, honorable and correct.

    But for some damned reason or other, our leaders continue to be human beings who disappoint us with their ignorance and venality.  In between agreeing with our positions, of course.

    When will this outrage end?

    If I wanted to shut up, do what I'm told, and like it, I'd be a Republican!

    by MadLibrarian on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:37:01 PM PDT

  •  Right now reality is (6+ / 0-)

    something that should scare the hell out of you.  Time to start thinking about why we are being torn to shreds and how one goes about fixing it.  

    Die energie der Welt ist constant; die Entropie der welt strebt einem Maximum zu. - Rudolf Clausius, 1865

    by xgy2 on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:40:05 PM PDT

  •  instantly rec'd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem, Laurence Lewis

    upon recognition of subject matter.

  •  Where's the tip jar? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem, G2geek

    It's good to hear from a realist on this issue. I totally agree with you. Who could have done a better job -- and he's gotten lots of things passed and changed -- even with blue dogs wagging their tails at their Republican colleagues. Obama was probably not quite ready to become our Prez -- he had no  political IOU's built up from his short time in the Senate. He landed in the WH at the worst of all times. Perhaps he's been a bit naive by believing the best of everyone-- but he's smart as the dickens and is learning all of the time. A politician can't function if he's an idealist. He will only polarize people and accomplish nothing. He's doing the best job he can do, and I for one am not disappointed.

  •  I agree (6+ / 0-)

    there is no better alternative possible right now.
    Our only real option is to do this:

    For the next several years, on the national level, the best way to make that reality better will be to continue to push President Obama to do better.

    But nicely worded letters and whispered suggestions won't do.  Expressing justified anger is not the same as wanting to replace him with some other top politician.  It's our job to express our concerns and demands clearly.  It's HIS job to maintain his popularity -- Not ours to cover for him while he slaps us around.

    In fact, giving full voice to this extremely justified anger is our best hope for seeing ANY improvements.

    "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy

    by enough already on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:50:53 PM PDT

  •  LL of course you are right (4+ / 0-)

    until you aren't. Things can happen that we don't see coming. Using the past to predict the future works really well but it's not perfect. Who thought LBJ wouldn't seek a 2nd term just as an example of the unexpected happening. In the world today it seems more and more uncharted territory type things happening quicker and quicker.

    music- the universal language

    by daveygodigaditch on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:52:40 PM PDT

  •  My guess? (0+ / 0-)

    The Republican will win.

    You can't run on people's dreams, ignore them when you get elected, then expect to get re-elected.

    There will be no block of young voters and first-time voters to fake again.

    Welcome, President Palin.  You have Barack Obama to thank.

    The future is green: http://www.greenasteroid.com

    by bogmanoc on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:57 PM PDT

  •  It's not the President I am so angry with (4+ / 0-)

    as much as his advisors.

    In the end it is Obama who is responsible for his decisions... but the reality he is in a bubble... and for the most part has been in that bubble since he defeated Hillary in the primary.

    That is just reality.

    It's not knocking the Obama's character to say he's out of touch with what is happening on the ground.

    Most of his advisors are Centrists career beltway types who I believe (based on we know) are giving him some shitty advice.

    Obama stated he was dragged "kicking and screaming" to accept mandates for health insurance as well as taxing benefits.

    We've seen virtually every policy proposal move further and further to the right... and my guess is that the conventional wisdom surrounding Obama is that he needs to incorporate Republican ideas in order to to gain support from independents.

    So far that way of thinking has only brought Obama's job approval rating down.

    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:05:05 PM PDT

  •  I'm not thrilled with Obama, either. (6+ / 0-)

    But I am still waiting for someone, anyone to give me a Democrat (other than Kucinich) who would be willing to undertake -- and fund -- a primary challenge against Obama.

    It's not about who anyone wants to run against Obama, it's about who would do it and who could raise enough $$$$$$ to pull it off.

    And the answer is... It ain't gonna' happen.

    Even my bot is tired of this shit.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:05:16 PM PDT

  •  Your analogy sucks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    Inception was about nightmares, not dreams.  If reality isn't a nightmare right now, you yourself are dreaming.

    And there is a fundamental realignment happening as we blog, spurred on by demographics, catastrophes, gross political mismanagement (not to mention outright corruption), and venality in all quarters.

    We are at a crossroads, Larry,  You must know that when you find yourself in that type of situation, you have to look in every direction, and "steady as she goes" is a recipe for disaster.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

    by nailbender on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:05:26 PM PDT

  •  There won't be a primary (6+ / 0-)

    because there's no base for a primary.

    And no one with a brain would challenge Obama because he or she would become persona non grata to any Democratic elected who cares about the black vote.

    Which makes those calling for a primary the fringe.

  •  OK, but how do we push him? (7+ / 0-)

    I don't see any indication that he gives a shit about what we want.  

    We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -Stephen Hawking

    by satanicpanic on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:12:58 PM PDT

    •  We need to find ways... (8+ / 0-)

      ...outside of GOTV to show our clout. Which means we need to build our clout. That means a lot of gritty community organizing.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:10:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TJ, chumley, In her own Voice, arendt

        Maybe if their was a liberal web site where thousands could gather to make their united voices heard without being endlessly attacked by brainless happy-talkers who reply to substantive political commentary or calls for action with sarcasm, derision and personal insult, thus dividing it into warring factions and a resulting in rendering it a repulsive and ineffective sewer?

        •  This site has changed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          meatwad420, foufou

          You and your pals are chasing all the brainless happy talkers out.

          So maybe you could ask the owner if he could change his mission statement to encompass your desires to have 'united voice of core base liberals' on getting rid of the sewer rats otherwise known as democrats and independents.

          I am sorry your post has been disqualified because it is not sufficiently depressing

          by missliberties on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:57:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

          jeezuz buhdy... rough night?

          Do you not see the tide turning?

          Be like water, my friend, prepare for the tsunami... its coming.

          "Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious."~Carl Gustav Jung

          Thats all I got... for now. :-)

          "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does all the work." ~Mark Twain

          by Lady Libertine on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:08:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  One way to push (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satanicpanic, foufou

      would be to listen to Van Jones, who is doing great work.

      The division here is so deep that even the greenest, smartest, liberal who has all kinds of experience, has been flamed for supporting Obama.

      It tells you just exactly where the site is heading when some folks consider Van Jones to be not 'liberal enough' to fit in here.

      I am sorry your post has been disqualified because it is not sufficiently depressing

      by missliberties on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:04:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed about Van Jones, however (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        satanicpanic

        Van's got a good thing going for many reasons I won't elaborate upon, but I don't agree with your sentiments about the more liberal on this site.  I'm feeling that same fighting spirit.

        Van is doing some serious community organizing in his approach.  He's driving for a coalition that could be quite powerful--energy, environmental,and economic justice --also pulling at the heart strings of those seeking a shift of consciousness.  I can see this drawing in workers/unions (green jobs, environmentalists, green energy entrepreneurs.  Maybe even touch upon resolving some issues about immigration.

        Find your own voice--the personal is political.

        by In her own Voice on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:53:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't want to get into the (0+ / 0-)

        back and forth between the two factions here but I will check out Van Jones.  

        We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -Stephen Hawking

        by satanicpanic on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:56:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reading the comments in that other diary, (0+ / 0-)

      I hope he doesn't care what those jackaloons want--because apparently they want him not in the White House but in a prison cell.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:56:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it always happens (6+ / 0-)

    just when I'm about to give up on the Dkos, a voice of reason chimes in. This morning I was thinking that this place had become nothing more than a political hospice for the sad, depressed and angry. I wondered if I should just stop bothering.

    but, as always seems to happen, reason shines through.

    Don't fold people. The right is too crazy.

    Once more into the breach.

  •  Speaking for myself (9+ / 0-)

    unless, God forbid, Obama is dead, I am NOT voting for anybody else.

    NO, he's not "perfect" or even close to it.

    But I WILL NOT be co-opted into voting against my own best interests.

    And anything that puts any chance of a Republican into the White House again in my fucking lifetime is against my best interests.

    And yours.

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:19:16 PM PDT

  •  You almost convinced me to vote third-party. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, Big Tex

    Which I have never done in my life.

    If Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were the only options -- thanks to mass media manipulation -- and if it's ALWAYS going to be like this -- then there's no hope for the Presidential elections and I might as well make a protest vote.

    Thing is, though, Gore somehow got the nomination a few years back.  And he was good.  So maybe you're too much of a pessimist.

    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

    by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:36:27 PM PDT

  •  Barack is the best we'll ever get - just average (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, arendt, apimomfan2, LaneJ

    Democrats have to be discouraged to know that this is it. Most do not realize that January 2009 was the last fleeting moment for one person in thw whole world to be given power to CHANGE it all. Just Didn't happen. Very scary times ahead folks.. we got Clintonista Regime II. just awful...

    2010 > Elect Rebecca Kaplan - Mayor of Oakland ------ Jerry Brown - CA Governor

    by AustinSF on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:37:25 PM PDT

    •  There will be future chances (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2, LaneJ

      They will be worse chances, and I fear they will not be peaceful chances, but there will be future chances.  The Republican scheme for the country is not sustainable and will crash and burn on its own.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:45:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We will go through even worse times (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        Obama was, I think, our last and best hope.  But it was all a grand marketing illusion.  Our country is already on a major downslide, meaning depression and hopelessness for many.  I think the worst aspect currently is that there is no truth in the media.  If I had to name one thing (of many) that has gotten us here, it would be that the media was co-opted by the fascists.  Even the duller ones can understand if it is on their TV and the headlines in the newspaper.  But we lost that so the masses have litterally no way to get it.  

        And yes, we will get true tyranny here, even moreso than we already have currently.  It seems to be written in stone now.  Such a shame.  We really had it good for most of my life.  I still have trouble convincing those I know of what's happening. They don't know because Pravda does not tell the.  Sigh.

    •  WHY DO YOU ALL KEEP REPEATING SLOGANS (4+ / 0-)

      Did you pay attention to the election or its promises?

      What were you looking for some black nationalist or is it Bill Maher's version of what a black president is suppose to be?

      I am so disappointed.

      Wow...

      Do yourself a favor, go read Langston Hughes poetry on FDR in the 40's; then go read about the class struggle that has always been the basis of American capitalism built to protect the elite.

  •  I will vote for Obama (4+ / 0-)

    Not because I think he earned it.

    Not because I think he deserves it.

    Not because he has proved it.

    But because I know he is the best choice in a flawed field.  

    I don't want to see a primary from "my type" of candidate.

    I don't want to see the Palins of the world use progressive disgruntlement to their advantage.

    I don't want to see Obama lose in 2012 because he was not my ideal.

    I will vote for Obama (tossing that vote here in Texas) solely because he is the best of many worse options.

    I will vote and work to see him elected through gritted teeth and massive disappointment.  But, I will be there, I will vote, and I will support him.

    •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TJ, apimomfan2

      This makes no sense to me.  Why, why, why? Because he chose a D by his name?  I just do not get this thinking.  Please elaborate.  You have nothing positive to say about Obama but you will vote for him because.....why?  What could possibly be worse?

      •  I will vote Obama (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, thoughtful3

        Because he has made some positive steps.

        I am sorely disappointed in many ways.  But, I look at what was done, and I will take it.

        I think he could have and should have been far more progressive.  But, I'll take the moves he made to the left over an unelectable ideal or a right bound candidate.

        Its like taking a cheap pizza buffet over a few good slices.  Somewhat filling, adequate to taste, but far from my first choice.

        •  I understand your thinking (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TJ, apimomfan2, TexDemAtty

          But I ask you what "moves he had made to the left."

          What moves has he made to help average Americans, let alone the left.  Even his homeowners policies have been failures.  I read a lot of financial blogs, more than I read partisan blogs like Kos.  These people usually don't care about social issues and they all know things are failing, and failing fast.  Employment, housing, you name it.  What good slices can you point to?  I am just not getting it.  Saying Repubs are worse just isn't going to work, and it's obvious that it is not working.  

          The people who overwhelming voted for Obama are seeing their lives fall apart with no impetus for any change that will help them.  You cannot just tell them to be patient or hope for some damn change.  People are actually living this shit.  Words of encouragement and partisanship and theoretical words of warning for how it could be worse just aren't and won't cut it.  What are we going to do.  I don't want to live the rest of my probably shortened life from lack of healthcare like this.  It it not just troubling but highly traumatic.  

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            I would say Obama has moved some decent legislation to passage.  Health Care and Financial Reform are the top two on my list.  Now, I wish both were not watered down to the point they were (I would like a public option and bank overall, thank you).  But, both laws are better than McCain would have given, and, while they are worse than a progressive ideal, I do not think an ideal would ever be elected.  That said, sign me up for Grayson 2012/2016 right now.

  •  Politics is Like Fishing (0+ / 0-)

    ...you've gotta hold your mouth just right.

  •  It amazes me that people don't get this (5+ / 0-)

    Many of us feel he could be doing better, and will continue to push him to do better.

    You cannot push Obama to do better when you've just gotten through saying that you will vote for him in 2012 no matter what happens. If you are going to vote for him no matter what he does, he has no reason to listen to a single thing you say.

    If Obama can take your vote for granted, you have NO leverage over him. None. You can "push him" all day long and he will just ignore you. Just like he's been doing ever since taking office.

    Everyone here needs to figure this out, and fast.

    •  Nobody, but nobody... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sagebrush Bob, apimomfan2

      You can "push him" all day long and he will just ignore you. Just like he's been doing ever since taking office.

      is going to "push Obama" to do a goddamned thing...except that is, those who put him in power. Now, that would be the global financiers who indeed are the shadow government of this country. We know the faces of some of them, they're part of this President's cabinet. The rest are the inhabitants of the cathedrals of Wall Street and beyond.

      Think.

      From The Times
      October 24, 2008
      Campaign cost tops $5.3bn in most expensive White House race in history

      Tim Reid in Washington

      The money raised and spent to elect a new US president and members of Congress is likely to surpass a colossal $5.3 billion next week, shattering previous records, with Wall Street firms dominating the donor list of the most expensive White House race in history.

      As Americans fret about the economic crisis and the billions of dollars being poured into the stricken banking sector, a report released yesterday revealed a scale of political fund-raising and expenditure that exceeds even the wildest predictions earlier this year.

      The presidential race alone is costing a record $2.4 billion (£1.5 billion).

      The report by the Centre for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog, adds up the money raised and spent for the entire presidential and congressional election cycle by the candidates, the parties and outside groups. "In terms of political finance, these numbers are staggering," said Sheila Krumholz, the centre’s executive director.

      snip

      Despite the financial crisis, Wall Street firms make the lion’s share of donations, along with real estate and insurance companies. Between them they gave $370 million and the top corporate donor was Goldman Sachs. The investment bank’s employees and political action committee have donated $5 million to this year’s campaigns.

      The greatest beneficiary has been Barack Obama, who has raised more than $600 million since he announced his candidacy in February 2007, including a record-breaking $150 million last month alone. It has given him a huge advantage over John McCain, allowing the Democrat to saturate the airwaves.

      Obama's inauguration set to be the most expensive in US history

      The $150m (£102m) cost of the celebration will dwarf the amount spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005

      Ewen MacAskill in Washington
      guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 January 2009 16.46 GMT

      snip

      Part of the spending includes emergency funding announced by the White House on Tuesday to help with the soaring costs. Most of this new federal funding will be to deal with the huge influx of people, estimated 1.5 million to 2 million.

      A White House statement said that President Bush "declared an emergency exists in the District of Columbia".

      If there is snow, the costs will grow higher. The long-term forecast suggests there is a chance of snow on Sunday and again on the day of inauguration, on Tuesday.

      Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, told the New York Daily News, which estimated the cost at $160m: "We're always very budget conscious.

      But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

      I could go on...look, Presidential "politics" has become "The Greatest Show on Earth".

      Pssst...guess who picked up the tab for this obscenity? If you said, "Wall Street and their counterparts all over the world", you would be right. Do you really in your heart of hearts believe the charade a/k/a the "voting process" means anything?

      Of course this is nothing new, the money has always been the "elector" of "Presidents", but, man they really pulled out all the stops for this one.

      So you think you have the President's ear?
      Really? You can write letters and rant and rave all you wish to. The reality is simple:

      "He who has the gold makes the rules".

      Fini

      "The first step towards madness is to think oneself wise." ~Fernando de Rojas

      by Annalize5 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:04:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All progress begins with dreams. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, two roads, apimomfan2

    No wise person ever underestimates the power of dreams--not Shakespeare, not Martin Luther King, not Rodgers & Hammerstein!  : )  ("You've got to have a dream--If you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?")  First you dream the dream, Then you articulate it, to yourself and others.  Then you make it happen.  How do you suppose anybody ever makes anything happen?  The most serious realists who have ever lived have all begun with the clarifying exercise of visualizing what we want--i.e., by "dreaming," and then by talking about it.

    The argument in your diary, byw, is entirely circular.  "Obama is the only President we've got.  Why?  Because he's the only President we've got."  You "buttress" this tautology by defining all other alternative, a priori, as either unacceptable or "unreal."  That's exactly how people, and oxen, wind up groaning under tyrannical yokes, and even persuading themselves they like it.

    "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

    by keikekaze on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:19:06 PM PDT

  •  The president is a politician, not a magician. (8+ / 0-)

    When he took office, there was no possible way that he could have gone large, bold, and left; the dream; the wish list. If you think he hasn't gotten enough done now, a bold left agenda would have gone nowhere at all. Nothing.

    Every single R would vote NO.
    A few D's would vote NO if the proposal isn't center.
    So there's no way to get the votes for any left-leaning large proposal. Going large was not an option.

    The answer is to elect more and better Democrats. And get rid of the Senate rules that put up brick walls against passing anything.

    But those here who are so naive as to believe that every single promise would be magically met when the votes aren't there are now pissed that they didn't get everything they imagined are dreaming. Not what was promised, but what they imagined was promised. The change they believed in.

    Yet, against all odds, predictions, and vicious opposition and lies, President Obama successfully got something done about Health Insurance Reform. A political miracle that nobody has been able to move forward for decades.

    Oh yeah. Credit Card Reform, Financial Industry Reform, Lilly Ledbetter Employee Protection, Education Loan Reform and new funding, Cash for Clunkers, PayGo, Combat Troops out of Iraq, Loans to save GM which has been repaid with interest, funds that kept more firefighters, police, and teachers from losing their jobs, many, many improved roads and bridges, extended unemployment benefits, etc...

    Oh yeah. And preventing the total collapse of the US investment banking system and the associated markets, their insurers, the US banking system, and, by extension, prevented a possible worldwide economic collapse. Not bad for the first few months, eh?

    Then there's the complete turnaround of the US foreign policy; negotiate rather than bomb, bomb, bomb. Yeah that.

    All this in less than two years.

    And folks are pissed off and angry that all of their dreams didn't come true? And it's not even two years yet. The president said that it would take a long time. He told us to be patient. He said we wouldn't get everything immediately.

    The honeymoon might be nearing its end, but the marriage is strong, mature, and getting better every day.

    President Obama is likely to be the best president ever. It's our job to provide him with the resources he needs to fulfull all of his promises and be the best president ever. And that job is to elect more and better Democrats. Period.

    Imagine the clueless leadership of President McCain and Vice President Barbie. As bad as Bush left our country, I'm certain that these idiots would have made everything a lot worse. Our only protection against this is that we still had a Democratic majority in Congress. McCain would have vetoed every progressive bill. Gridlock as the US economy collapses. A wordwide nuclear war is a real option to these neocons. We little people are of little concern in their grandiose plan.

    The dream will change from day to day, but over time, the dream just keeps getting better and better.

    "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:26:52 PM PDT

    •  One example: Loans to save GM which ... (3+ / 0-)

      ...have been repaid with interest are loans that have been repaid not out of profits but out of OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNDS.

      And while it's good to see that it's not going under, let's not forget that it's still engaged in providing jobs across the border, including this half billion dollar investment, and that new hires at GM now make $14 an hour, less than Toyota pays in the States.

      So, huzzah, but this recovery has been accomplished on the backs of workers, both those still on the payroll, those that lost their jobs in closed plants and those who are now being hired.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:08:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point is that GM didn't go under (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, there's some horrific accounting magic that hides much of the trickery. And people get hurt as a consequence. The loan was partially repaid from other government funds. Additional funds came from private equity investors as well.

        I am always struck by the lousy wages and lack of benefits that are paid to employees in our once-thriving manufacturing industries.

        Few realize that GM is primarily a huge financial institution. They are a big player in mortgages and a major creator of subprime and no-verification loans. A large fraction of these mortgages have defaulted. They play with the biggest, meanest Wall Street private equity predators, too. And their new bank, Ally Bank, was created overnight during the bailout negotiations.

        A few names: GMAC, Ditech, Residential Capital (ResCap), Ally Bank, Ally Financial, etc.

        Typically, when a business gets hit with negative reports, they change names. So GMAC was renamed to Ally Financial/Bank, for example. GMAC/Ally got some of the Bush Wall Street bailout money, too.

        Cerberus Capital Management is a major player in several nasty transactions involving GM and others. Cerberus, the name of the dog that guards the gates of Hell, might describe their management style. Cerberus is more of an umbrella capital management firm that coordinates investment funds from other private investors. The names of these investors are never disclosed. Business as usual. Secret deals hidden behind layers and layers of privately held businesses.

        Cerberus recently announced the purchase of a major non-profit hospital group in Massachusetts, Caritas Christi Health Care. This will become a for-profit group. This is entirely in response to Health Care Reform and is a financial and personal catastrophe in the making for the patients and employees of 8 hospitals in Massachusetts.

        I gotta stop writing about this crap now. It makes me sick to my stomach.

        "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

        by GrumpyOldGeek on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:39:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Spoken like someone who still has a job (2+ / 0-)

      Do not forget, the worst has already happened to a sizable fraction of our population.  Maybe as much as 10-15%.  They have no future, right now.  A Palin boogeyman is meaningless to them.

      •  I have been unemployed for 3 years now (0+ / 0-)

        Ineligible for UI benefits. Just under SS eligibility age. My retirement funds will be gone in less than a year. I cannot afford health insurance any more. I had to drop it 3 months ago. My wife got laid off 2 years ago. There are no jobs. I'm overqualified (too old) for everything.

        My support for Democrats and Obama is not for my benefit. I expect nothing. My grandkids deserve some effort from me to grab that mop and clean up some of Bush's shit. I am not afraid of the boogeyman and fear-mongers in the least. But too many are falling for the fear card. That needs to be addressed.

        I am looking for investors to help me get my business back on its feet. If I can, I will create a few new jobs for those who "have no future" right now. We have a new center in town in support of the unemployed, foreclosed, and homeless. I have run into some very talented and competent engineers and other professionals who I would consider hiring for my business. But I'm flat broke right now. So it's a challenge.

        "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

        by GrumpyOldGeek on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  LL's diary is Reality addressing Frustration... (6+ / 0-)

    ...and I hear you, Reality. Though I have to say that if this milquetoast Presidency doesn't change, then Reality might.

    Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

    by Larry Bailey on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:31:03 AM PDT

  •  I can't think of anybody who could defeat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, Laurence Lewis

    President Obama in a Democratic primary. Let's see what happens with Social Security. I want President Obama to win. It's still early, let's wait and see who tries to save Social Security.  

  •  Eh...get back to me in a year, and we'll see... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    If the economy keeps tanking and his team of "Economic Advisors Who Can't Predict Shit" stay in power, I could see me getting out there for someone...anyone...or going Green...

    Dr. Dean...Paging Dr. Dean...he's not on-call you say...then get me DR. MATT!! STAT!!!

    by doctormatt06 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:57:05 AM PDT

  •  I think most people on the left agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    demoKatz, two roads, Lady Libertine

    with your basic stance, despite the justified expressions of frustration.

    However, what people resent and react to, I think, is the tendency to be told to shut up, the constant pressure to not criticize (despite the fact that criticism is vitally important and necessary), and the hubris and constant condescension that is revealed in all the attempts to "educate" us as if we don't understand the political realities of our broken system.

    People are angry, and rightly so, and the outrage should be voiced. The more people are belittled, the more the frustration builds, and the more cries for primaries erupt.

    The best way to diffuse it is to acknowledge that the outrage is justified, rather than make more attempts to quell the voicing of the truth about our current situation in Washington.

    When people are listened to, they feel better. That's the problem: People in power aren't listening.

    •  People who think he's a war criminal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou, mallyroyal, Hopefruit2

      who belongs in a prison cell are not 'frustrated.'

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:55:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque

        I also saw a comment in which the poster referred to him as a "scoundrel." That's a lot more than frustration.

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

        Frustration, anger, outrage...  all are branches of the same emotion. People will say mean things when they feel ignored and unheard, and put down.

        •  Calling him a war criminal (0+ / 0-)

          goes way beyond that.

          Idiot, I get.

          Fool, I get.

          War criminal?  Nope, that's a very serious accusation that either needs to be backed up by lobbying for impeachment and imprisonment, or sheepishly withdrawn.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:58:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the record... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque

            If accuracy matters to you, I have never called Obama any of these epithets, at least that I can recall. Not my style. I might think a specific action is wrong, but I don't tend to personally insult him.

            I am, for the most part, more perplexed at his behavior than angry. I generally respect him as a person. I definitely agree he has given America a new, better face to present to the world that I am infinitely more proud of than I was of the idiocy of Bush.

            If I seem angry, it is more directed at the lack of tolerance of Obama's staunch supporters, rather than at Obama.

            Hope this helps...

        •  You support impeachment, right? (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Just finished reading through all the (37+ / 1-)

          Recommended by:
             Jim J, Alumbrados, Angry White Democrat, Dump Terry McAuliffe, mint julep, Beelzebud, ranger995, gmb, alizard, ScienceMom, SadieB, wsexson, EdlinUser, neroden, kerplunk, daddybunny, triv33, boatsie, devis1, Sydserious, Chico David RN, Badabing, Jahiz, Seamus D, Mike Taylor, ZhenRen, nippersdad, BigAlinWashSt, dark daze, NWTerriD, ruscle, apimomfan2, m00finsan, CKendall, daveusf, Code Monkey, LaneJ
          Hidden by:
             griffin459

          comments as of 10 p.m., and I'm not impressed. I think it's pathetic that almost everybody, on both sides, ducks the issue of Obama being a war criminal for his continuation of the worst Bush/Cheney police state policies, such as continued drone strikes on civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, continued overseas detention and rendition and torture, no end to Gitmo despite his promises, endless war in Afghanistan, continued electronic surveillance of all Americans, etc. etc.

          We voted for change.

          We got punked.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:19:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I don't think he is a war criminal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque

            I do have serious disagreement with some of his policies in regards to the wars, treatment of detained persons, the manner in which they are held and prosecuted, etc.

            But I wouldn't personally say he is a war criminal. Just because I rec a comment doesn't mean I support everything in the comment. Sometimes I agree in part with a comment, and I may feel that a commenter deserves some support due to the treatment they receive, so I rec it in the heat of the moment. Or I may disagree with a hide rate. Or I feel the person has a right to express an unpopular view. Etc.

            Context is important as well. The overall context of a diary and its comment section may lead me to rec something that isn't, when taken in isolation, the most savory thing ever said.

            I think most people here do the same, and I believe it unfair to cherry pick such recs as a tool to mischaracterize a person's overall stance.

    •  so... look away when progressives (0+ / 0-)

      talk crazy... so they won't get madder and talk crazier?  really?

      and for the million and fifth time I thought that canard about "not wanting ANY criticism" was put to bed, jesus!  it's about the "evil stupid coward" criticisms.

      Black Kos and Sistahspeak represent my "voice" on this site.

      by mallyroyal on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:13:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is an important Post, Laurence (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, beach babe in fl

    President Obama is our president, and if he's not still our president in 2013, we're all going to be in big trouble. There is no historical evidence that booting disappointing Democratic presidents or disappointing Democratic Congressional majorities leads to better of either.

    There really is nothing left to say.

    The only booting that would happen in 2012 is if we fail to support the only Democratic presidential candidate we will have that year and we allow a republican to become president out of pique. As Cali Scribe said in the first comment:

    Obama's criticized as a "centrist", but if your choice is between the center and the edge of the cliff that the Republicans would perch us on, the center looks pretty damn good.  

    I think Cali Scribe is being kind that we would only be perched on the edge of the cliff.

    Much of life is knowing what to Google
    (and blogging at BPI Campus)

    by JanF on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:24:19 AM PDT

    •  I disagree with LL's line there (0+ / 0-)

      the center looks pretty damn good.

      No, it doesn't. The center is just moving towards the same goals as the right just slower. That is not something I am interested in supporting. Furthermore, the "center" today is very far to the right of where is was even 15 years ago.

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:07:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The center is the status quo (0+ / 0-)

        like troops in Iraq.

        The U.S. combat mission in Iraq officially comes to an end Tuesday, 2,722 days after American-led troops stormed across the border from Kuwait. The remaining 49,000 U.S. troops are supposed to depart by the end of next year.

        The American mission is far from over, however, and it may have to be extended, according to former senior U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and private analysts. McClatchy

        This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

        by Agathena on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:42:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That was not LL's line (0+ / 0-)

        It was Cali Scribe's line and it was comparing the center to the edge of the cliff that the republicans would put is on.

        I guess I prefer not going over the cliff.

        Much of life is knowing what to Google
        (and blogging at BPI Campus)

        by JanF on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:48:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ah but here's the flaw in your post. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena

    President Obama is our president, and if he's not still our president in 2013, we're all going to be in big trouble.

    And if he is still president in 2013 we're all still going to be in big trouble.

    The Raptor of Spain: A Webserial
    From Muslim Prince to Christian King (Updated Nov. 24)

    by MNPundit on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:40:20 AM PDT

  •  Effective primary challenges don't have to win, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    heart of a quince

    There is such a thing as a principled primary challenge or third party run.

    There are many Democrats in places like Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, etc. who didn't vote for Obama in the primaries in 2008.

    And I assume that many of those Democrats would vote for an alternative candidate in 2012.

    The goal would not necessarily be to win the nomination.  In fact, a placeholder candidate could run on industrial/manufacturing/trade issues and rake in the delegates.

    That kind of principled run could force Obama to address these issues.  I might earn the candidate a speaking role at the convention and some influence in crafting policy at the convention.

    Of course, it is also possible that an alternative candidate would then be in a good position to run for an open Democratic nomination in 2016.

    http://twitter.com/mikeingels

    by DingellDem on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:42:36 AM PDT

  •  Amazing how it's about "our president" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, Agathena, Laurence Lewis, megisi, two roads
    Last I looked, it's supposed to be about "we the people".

    Clue - the people are pissed.

    This is not a dream. It's really happening.

  •  Agreed but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, heart of a quince

    For the next several years, on the national level, the best way to make that reality better will be to continue to push President Obama to do better.

    I've seen no evidence thus far that pushing from the left has gotten us a single positive response from Obama.

    I agree we need to continue to push but it'd sure be nice if we could figure out a way to push that's even a tiny bit effective. The ways that have been tried thus far aren't working.

    "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

    by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:11:09 AM PDT

    •  The left has been pushed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lady Libertine

      into the margins, like those Free Speech Zones at demonstrations. The left has been insulted and ignored. by this administration.

      There is a big push right now for the president to fire Simpson, will it have any effect?

      This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

      by Agathena on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:56:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A pony (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    get on it and ride.

    Photobucket

    We need more Dems. We need everyone to work for that. We can sort them out later.

    It is our job to keep fighting for the good side.

    We don't have time for these divisions.

    We need a massive Dem majority!

    Forget liberal utopia. We need every brick we can find.

    Get the majority & we'll work on the details later.

    This is important.

    Tell everyone you know to vote for the Democrats.

    These are remarks that verge upon the personal. via James Wolcott

    by x on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:21:29 AM PDT

    •  We don't need a MASSIVE Dem majority (2+ / 0-)

      What we need is leadership in ending the 60 vote threshold whose primary function appears to be maintaining the status quo. Just imagine how much more progressive all of Obama's legislation would have been if he only needed 51 votes (as he should) to get bills passed. Until that changes we will have no significant change in this country.

      I'm not worried about your state of mind, 'cause, you're not the revolutionary kind - Gomez

      by jhecht on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:33:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "later" is here. now. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does all the work." ~Mark Twain

      by Lady Libertine on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:10:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What we really need ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... is an actual Democratic majority, as opposed to the minority we presently seem to have.

      "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

      by JBL55 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:59:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

    If the economy does not improve and indeed gets worse, of course there will be primary challenges.  They probably won't get far, and will be crushed by the Dem machine.  But don't discount the fact that the MSM, the states, and damn near the entire power structure want them.  What the "left" wants or does will have zero to do with it.

    But we'll find out in a couple months.

  •  We blame him because we won't blame ourselves (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thoughtful3

    When we lobbied Congress, we finally got health care reform.

    What if we had lobbied them earlier?

    What if we had worked even harder to elect more and better Democrats?

    Yes, we can only do so much, but if we blame the government we have in a democracy, then we really only blame ourselves.

    Only conservatives and nutters believe that government exists apart from the people.

  •  I agree with this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ

    Of the candidates that ran, we could not have done better than Barack Obama. That's the political reality.

    but that does NOT lead me to the same conclusions as you. The conclusion this leads me to is that we're completely and totally fucked. As a party. As a country. As a species. Totally. Fucked.

    No credible opponent will primary President Obama. It won't happen.

    I hope it does. And if it does, and that candidate is to the left of Obama and not someone like Bayh, I will vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Bank it.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:54:00 AM PDT

  •  What about LBJ-RMN and Carter-Reagan? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    There is no historical evidence that booting disappointing Democratic presidents or disappointing Democratic Congressional majorities leads to better of either.

    *****

    You're right.

  •  Rahm was right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    He can take my vote for granted.

    Wouldn't be the first time I've held my nose while I pulled the lever.  Hell's bells - for decades I've strode out of the booth disgusted after voting for the best of the worst.

    Punch the dirty hippies and the face and tell them to shut up.

    by thenekkidtruth on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:21:29 AM PDT

  •  I still think Bloomberg is going to run (0+ / 0-)

    as an independent. Despite his denials, I don't see why the mayor of New York City would be endorsing out of state candidates across party lines unless he had national plans. I believe if he runs as an independent he will win.

    I'm not worried about your state of mind, 'cause, you're not the revolutionary kind - Gomez

    by jhecht on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 05:24:08 AM PDT

    •  Bloomberg represents a lot of things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      that people hear have criticized Obama & Others for. Bloomberg will take the side of Wall Street and corporations. He will be for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. He literally bought himself a third term as Mayor of NYC and his policies have largely benefited affluent NYERS.

  •  what does the diarist mean by this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    We've seen a lot of names bandied about as potential Obama primary opponents. One of the most prominent was Howard Dean. After the past week, I'm assuming most people have given up on that idea.

    "After the past week"??? What happened in the past week wrt Howard Dean.

    I really wish diarists would not make assumptions about their readers. Seeing it more and more in rec'd diaries.

    •  I assume (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roonie, Laurence Lewis, JBL55, Deoliver47

      That the diarist is referring to the fact that Dean, who used to be one warning us about falling for the distraction of the latest Republican distraction like "death panels", has fallen in with the crowd claiming that the Islamic center in Manhattan is an affront to 9/11 survivors and should be built elsewhere.

      •  If the truth be told, you'd find more diversity . (0+ / 0-)

        ........ of opinion among the general electorate than the "DKos-onogencia".  

        Honestly, I understand Howard Dean's position the same way I understand Susan Estrich's position.  I won't throw either one of them on the junk pile over this.  

        This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

        by ThAnswr on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:59:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Based on Keith's conversation with him ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis

        ... "fallen in" is an oversimplification to the point of misstatement.

        He seemed to see it as an opportunity for constructive dialogue.  Unfortunately there isn't anyone in the "hell, no" camp interested in constructive dialogue.

        "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

        by JBL55 on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:03:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What leverage do we have to "push" him? (0+ / 0-)

    I just have to ask. Outside of electoral consequences what leverage do we have? We don't have an army of lobbyists. We can never match the amount corporate power can give in campaign contributions. We don't have the access to hobnob with members of the administration at gatherings and functions. So what leverage?

    In the words of George Carlin - "they've got you by the balls."

    The cave, the Matrix, America.

    by Grassee on