Personally... I Think Cenk Is Correct...

[WillyT]

<snip>

But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit. It is an idea that Occupy Iowa came up with. In the Iowa caucuses you can vote for "uncommitted." In fact, since the 1970's "uncommitted" has won twice on the Democratic side and it beat Bob Dole in 1980. Of course, the Republican Party has shut down this option on their side. They say you can vote that way in the GOP field but they will not register those votes or send those delegates. Of course, they're the GOP; they have no interest in your dissent.

But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side they might have an effect. If "uncommitted" beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn't it be amazing if President Obama acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters?

By the way, this strategy also has the benefit of being accurate. I am "uncommitted" toward Obama. I'm uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have.

If you live in Iowa, please send a message to the President for the rest of us. We voted for change last time, apparently you didn't hear us. If you don't hear us soon, you might be the one that gets changed.

<snip<>

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049662/-Vote-Against-Obama-in-Iowa

[eridani]

1. Why not?

I also live in a caucus state. A lot of useful discussion takes place at caucuses among people who might never otherwise meet each other.

[Summer Hathaway]

2. I think Cenk

is a puppet, still spewing RW ideology - only this time under the guise of being a "progressive/liberal".

And 'puppet' is the kindest word I can say.

[RC]

6. Since when are facts a Right-wing ideology?

[Summer Hathaway]

17. The 'facts' being what?

That Cenk is unhappy with Obama? That's about the only 'fact' I see him putting forward here.

Let's review the real facts, shall we?

Cenk was a Republican, who claims to have seen the light and transformed himself into a progressive.

Now that he has the attention of some Democrats (with an ego that big, and a mouth to match, he's kind of hard to miss), he is now espousing the idea that, "If 'uncommitted' beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa that would make some news."

Yes, it would - news detrimental to Obama, and a talking point the RW would go to town with.

If you want to believe that Cenk isn't a RW shill masquerading as a born again liberal, that's your business.

But I ain't buying it.

[got root]

45. lol

[Capn Sunshine]

47. and Jane Hampshire makes all of her money as a Republican Consultant

yes, she does.
http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/jane-hamsher-republican-consultant/
but that hardly fits the narrative of her "lets join Grover Norquist and the Tea Party because they oppose Obama" progressive narrative either. Same with Cenk. You won't win that argument here among the progressives. Its a forest/trees thing.

[Cleita]

91. Do you watch or listen to Cenk on a regular basis?

Sure he's critical of him when he needs it, but he also praises him when he deserves it. I don't think you really follow Cenk very much or you would know that.

[Summer Hathaway]

19. Well, you would probably know

better than I.

[Summer Hathaway]

64. apparently not

as good as you think you are. Very apparently.

[roguevalley]

29. I hear this kind of thing prefaced by 'I think' and it makes me want facts to back it up. I

respectfully ask for them. Thank you.

[Summer Hathaway]

31. The preface

"I think" means I am expressing an opinion.

The facts upon which I base my opinion are as already expressed: Cenk 'was' a Republican who is now promoting an action that would be extremely detrimental to a Democratic president, and the party to which he belongs.

That leads me to believe that Cenk's "born again" status as a liberal/progressive are rather less than sincere.

But if you want to buy what he's selling, by all means do so.

[gateley]

73. I agree that we need to preface statements with "I think" if we're just stating our

opinion.

I don't agree with you about Cenk's insincerity, though, even though I don't like what he's doing. I think he has integrity - just my sense of him.

[girl gone mad]

34. Are the members of Occupy Iowa who came up with this idea also puppets?

[Summer Hathaway]

37. Well this is the first I've heard

that the idea originated with anyone other than Mr. Ego himself.

I'm not disputing your contention that it was Occupy's idea - but if that is so, it begs the question as to why Cenk ("I'm one of you now&quot Uygur didn't see fit to give Occupy credit for the idea, but instead presented it as his own.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd - not to mention an attempt to draw attention to himself, rather than the Occupy movement, if indeed the idea originated with them?

[girl gone mad]

39. It's right in his original piece..

which you must not have bothered to read.

But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit. It is an idea that Occupy Iowa came up with. In the Iowa caucuses you can vote for "uncommitted." In fact, since the 1970's "uncommitted" has won twice on the Democratic side and it beat Bob Dole in 1980. Of course, the Republican Party has shut down this option on their side. They say you can vote that way in the GOP field but they will not register those votes or send those delegates. Of course, they're the GOP; they have no interest in your dissent.

[Summer Hathaway]

41. I stand corrected

He did give Occupy credit. And that is to his credit.

But my opinion of Cenk is unchanged.

[Snotcicles]

65. And mine of you. nt

[99th_Monkey]

42. Great question. Actually Cenk was just reporting facts

"on the ground" and speculating a bit about how "Gee, you know .. this may
be a good idea, because it does NOT hurt Obama's chances" ...

You'd think Cenk had declared his own candidacy or something, by some of
these over-the-top responses.

[99th_Monkey]

40. Your attempt to besmirch Cenk as a "puppet ...spewing RW ideology" is laughable.

Thanks I needed that.
:roflmao:

WTF ever happened w/in DU2 to that link where you could post little figures.
one of them rolling on the floor and laughing their ass off?

I see others still posting those, but is not clear w/ new format how to do that.

[Tsiyu]

46. Here ya' go

There are quite a few new ones on the list, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/index.html

[99th_Monkey]

50. Wow thanks .. i'll bookmark it. nt

[Tsiyu]

51. No problemo n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. Marking. Thanks.

[rusty fender]

55. The icons will also work if you remember their codes and if you preface them with

colons. The roflmao code is rofl)

If I remembered correctly

[rhett o rick]

58. That would be interesting if you had an example or two.

I have followed Cenk for years and dont agree and wonder why you would disparage him so.

[Number23]

76. Don't mind me. Just joining in the pile on that you apparently brought upon yourself

by DARING to disagree with Cenk. Something that a small but terrifyingly devoted group here simply will not tolerate.

I think you are supposed to feel properly chastened now that 6-10 folks have disagreed with you and piled onto your fairly innocuous post. Have you changed your mind yet??

[Summer Hathaway]

78. Well ...

He was anti-affirmative action, supported the pro-life position on the abortion issue, criticized the "radical" tone of the feminist movement, and thought Justice Clarence Thomas was treated unjustly during his Senate confirmation hearings.

Now I'm supposed to believe he has done a complete turnaround, and is a liberal/progressive - who just happens to be an Obama-basher who is encouraging Iowa caucus voters to vote in a such way to embarrass Obama and the Democrats, and hand the GOP a talking point they will go to town with.

I don't know why I'm so skeptical. Perhaps I haven't consumed enough Cenk kool-aide - which seems to be flowing freely here.

Maybe after I've been here longer, people will be more willing to share their private stock.

[Number23]

79. "Perhaps I haven't consumed enough Cenk kool-aide - which seems to be flowing freely here."

[Summer Hathaway]

80. Happy to make your acquaintance

Number23!

[Tx4obama]

3. I think Cenk is WRONG. Folks in Iowa need to caucus FOR President Obama and show support! n/t

[calimary]

4. Yeah, I'd have to agree.

We do need to show a HUGE and fearsome tsunami of support. Shake up the opposition and give the fearmongers something to be fearful of, for real.

Perception is EVERYTHING. We do NOT want to look like we're fracturing and fighting among ourselves! That implies GREAT weakness and instability! We can't afford that when we need to look like a HUGE unbeatable, unstoppable monolith, and an utterly united front.

[girl gone mad]

35. We are fracturing and fighting amongst ourselves.

That's the reality.

[calimary]

92. I know, and it drives me nuts!

I know the bad guys are in disarray at the moment but that won't last, and they'll settle on someone (probably romney) and link arms in solidarity. MAYBE they'll do it half-heartedly, especially if they still harbor some really hard feelings that THEIR choice had been better. I'm also hoping some real dingdong like ron paul or rick santorum will insist on shoving his ideology ahead of all logic and reason and intelligent, impartial, NON-agenda-driven long-range thinking, and will go rogue into a third party run. Wouldn't that be delicious? Then Obama could almost sleepwalk back into the White House.

I KNOW about the "herding cats" jokes. I KNOW about the Will Rogers witticism about the traditional and seeminly inbred disorganization of the Democrats.

"I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers (1879 – 1935), American cowboy, vaudeville performer, humorist, social commentator and motion picture actor. He was one of the world's best-known celebrities in the 1920s and 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers

But dammit, it's time to put our Machiavelli hats on our heads and glue our eyes on the prize and remember this is about keeping the bad guys OUT of the White House. We need to keep it. The only way to do so is to support Barack Obama. Even if you have to hold your nose.

There. Is. No. One. With. A. Better. Shot.

I say this with all my heart and sincerity, and the greatest respect: those who decide it's more important to "send a message" by defecting to vote for some Green Party candidate or Independent candidate or even NO candidate will guarantee that the republi-CON gets in. You'll be sending a message alright - that you're purposefully handing victory over to the bad guys. The ones on the other side. I went to an anti-Iraq War rally in 2003 and met an earnest young woman who was working for the Green Party candidate for California governor. Democrat Gray Davis was governor and fucking darrell issa had helped bankroll a recall election against him, with eyes on becoming Davis's republi-CON opponent. That was the one in which Ahnold stepped in, announcing his plans to run for governor on Jay Leno's show, and eventually snatched the GOP nomination from issa, who held that embarrassing news conference in which he broke into blithering, boner-esque sobs.

Anyway, that young Green Party activist was there at the rally, handing out literature about her party's candidate for governor, Peter Camejo. Camejo didn't have a prayer, but he might well siphon off just enough votes to allow "the Terminator" to pull ahead. That, or render the outcome close enough for the republi-CONS to steal. I talked with her briefly, asking her if she wasn't risking the election for us by chipping off enough slivers of support to hobble the only candidate who's even partially favorable to our way of thinking who had a realistic chance of winning, and wind up handing the REAL enemy the election instead. And she replied "...but we Have to Send a Message!"

Good God.

Is it worth sending that message that will do nothing else but allow the OTHER guy to win? Seriously? 'Cause I guarantee you: that other guy won't give a rat's ass damn about what he regards as your stupid, irrelevant, unrealistic, and ridiculously foolish frickin' message.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. Camejo did stay in the race, and when every vote really mattered, guess who got recalled? Gray Davis. Leaving us with arnold schwarzenegger. That was fun. I kept imagining seeing that young Camejo supporter and asking her - "well, how's all that 'send a message' stuff workin' out for you? Happy now?"

[DJ13]

7. The support would come in the convention

Its not like theres an alternative to Obama, so might as well use an unimportant caucus to state displeasure at some of the nominee's past policies.

[Tx4obama]

9. Any divisiveness shown in the media seen by the public is NOT a good thing

Many folks that are not political junkies, like most of us are, will see that 'some democratic folks' are not supporting President Obama and that is a BAD THING.

[DJ13]

12. What if.....

a large number of voters agree that there ARE things Obama hasnt done the way they want, and would like to see him pressured to change course?

Against the current crop of GOP idiots and moneyed drones theres no real competition for Obama in November, so the notion of "weakening" him is preposterous.

[hatrack]

27. Ah but you forget - reality doesn't matter!

It's what "The Public" perceives as friction and fracturing among Democrats that's really important - assuming The Public looks up from its cell phone and popcorn long enough to pay attention and give a shit about Democratic dissent nearly a year out from the election.

[TheKentuckian]

8. "Showing support" means rubberstamping policy that is against the grain, at the least.

This is a reasonable way to say that policy positions, initiatives, and appointments are not approved or accepted without notching up the danger of even worse from the TeaPubliKlans.

If strongly worded letters would do the trick then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Pirate Smile]

13. I'll be caucusing for Obama in Iowa next Tuesday.

[Tx4obama]

28. Great to hear! :) n/t

[Scurrilous]

87. Good on you!

[mdmc]

5. Occupy iowa

Bring it!

[FarLeftFist]

11. It's stupid because if you don't support Obama for those reasons than you can always vote 3rd party

And stop complaining about your unsure commitment. Go vote for someone you're sure about, thats how democracy works.

[CoffeeCat]

14. I live in Iowa...

...and I am not happy with any candidate for President.

My number one issue is that we no longer have a democracy. The corporations have bribed
our politicians and purchased our government. Our politicians now work for the corporations. The
corporations have bought deregulation, lower taxes, bailouts--and their bribes to our politicians
have ensured that they remain powerful and profitable.

This is staggering to me. Completely unimaginable. It's called Fascism. Only we don't call
it Fascism. We pretend it doesn't exist.

I'll vote for the candidate who will even HINT at this being a problem! Any candidate who speaks out
against the powerful corporations and pledges to end this insidious relationship between greedy
profiteers and our politicians--has my vote.

Anyone know any candidate who addresses this issue and is willing to be a big boy (or girl) and take
on these bully corporations?

I was a precinct captain for Obama, in the last Iowa caucuses. Right now, my only option seems to be
Ron Paul. Yes, he's a batshit crazy loon who is probably also a homophobe and a racist--but he's the only
one who seems to be willing to take on the corporations and the neocon warmongers. I'm not happy
with Paul. I'm not happy with the choices. I'm not happy that our country is crumbling and morphing into
a perverse form of democracy.

No matter which direction I turn, I see NO CANDIDATE who is willing to take on these important issues and
actually DO SOMETHING about them.

[FarLeftFist]

15. Start with electing Congresspeople who share your vision. All politics is local.

The President is a mere figurehead, if you want further Left policies start by electing further Left candidates. I'm all for it.

[rfranklin]

22. Until we can eliminate the big money from politics, there is no electing left candidates...

I am convinced that we need a radical approach to changing things that doesn't get lost in the Republicans versus Democrats circus of bought and paid for politicians.

[CoffeeCat]

26. Yes, I would say that it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE...

...to elect a real Progressive who would fight this corporate power and corruption.

Corporations were just deemed "people" by the Supreme Court. Their power in future
elections will only worsen. The 2012 election is going to be an extravaganza of corporate
money flowing to all sorts of front groups. All of this money will go to candidates who
support corporate corruption and policies that strengthen corporations and screw "We The People".

The upcoming 2012 election will be more corporate than any election we've ever seen.

[Major Hogwash]

18. After you vote for Paul in the caucus, and he loses next Tuesday,

then what are your choices? Romney? Gingrich? Bachmann?

I don't see any one of those 4 as having any street cred.

[CoffeeCat]

23. I can't even imagine...

...voting for Romney, Gingrich or Bachman. I'm a liberal Democrat!!!

I am not *voting* for Ron Paul. However, I would consider caucusing for him--because
it sends a message that those other far-right, nut job squirrels need to be kicked to the curb.

I don't agree with 80 percent of what Paul says. However, my biggest issue--by far--is the
power that the corporations and the warmongers (neocons) have on this country. They've
got a friggin death grip on our politicians!

I like that Paul at least, addresses the neocons and tells them that they're warmongering
tools who need to pipe down. So, I would caucus for him.

And PLEASE remember---the Republican caucus is one thing. I would attend that and caucus for Paul. However, when
the Democrats caucus, later in January--I will caucus for Obama. Things are a bit different in Iowa, with the
caucus system.

However, I am a liberal Democrat--and I am hoping that Obama pulls some sort of miracle between now
and the election. I need to see some shred of evidence that he is interested in restoring our democracy.

That's my big hope. It's no use scenario-ing out a Paul v. Obama run--because Romney will win the
Republican nomination. No way in hell could I vote for that tool. Corporate sucker all the way and he's
wrong on ALL social issues.

[Major Hogwash]

30. Oh, that makes sense.

We can't do that here in Idaho.
The Republicans sued earlier this year to hold their primary as a closed primary, requiring registration to vote in their primary.

They did this back in the 1970s, too, back when the Democrats had a lock on the power in Idaho.
I guess they were skeered, ala Paula Jones, that Democrats would play games in their primary and vote for the weaker candidate in their primary -- the same way they did to the Democrats for the last 25 years after those primaries were opened back up in the mid-80s.

The Democrats left their primary open this year, and it will be held at a later date since the Idaho Republicans moved their closed primary up in the calendar.
We used to hold both of the primaries on the same day, but since the Republicans are moving their primary ahead this year, we will know in March, when they hold their primary, who their candidates will be.

That should help us Idaho Democrats a little bit in order to be able to pick stronger candidates to face their candidates since we won't hold our primary until May.

[Dewey Finn]

20. If you think for a moment that a president Ron Paul would actually do a damned thing about

"the corporations and the neocon warmongers" then you're dreaming in technicolor. Seriously, do some more homework on this guy. You're on the right track by describing him as a "batshit crazy loon" and "a homophobe and a racist." He's all that and more, and none of it is at all good. None.

[CoffeeCat]

24. I have appreciated his foreign policy stance...

He is totally against the neocon games. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Did you
watch the Republican presidential debates? He told Bachman that she was nuts for
banging the war drum with Iran. He is totally against war with Iran. Paul knows that
the neocons are staging a big production--their warmongering is solely done to get
control of the region and its resources.

All of the other politicians know it too. Paul is the only one to call them on it.

What would Paul ultimately do---if he had the power? I couldn't say. I don't know.

I like that Obama has held the line on Iran. We all know that if McCain was President
we would have bombed Iran by now, we'd be in Syria and we'd probably be invading
Michigan.

Seriously.

[BootinUp]

32. Oh sure, Ron Pauls libertarian anti-regulation pile of horseshit

really some good ideas there that will help the little guy.

[woo me with science]

48. Well said,

and it desperately needs saying.

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. You sound like the centrists, telling people what their choices are.

That's not how democracy works, FarLeftFist. People need to have more than one reasonable choice or else they have NO choice and therefore NO say. Basic mathematical theory (i.e. the RULES OF THE UNIVERSE) teach this.

[FarLeftFist]

71. But there ARE choices, including running for office yourself.

[BootinUp]

16. How does a show of disunity not hurt the candidate? Answer

it cannot. The direct result of such displays weaken the group that is supposed to be rallying around him. So then how do we calculate the damage? Only by observing the result, it cannot be predetermined. Essentially you are advocating a fools game also known as Russian roulette.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. What you are saying is that members of the party must always Step In Line. No internal democracy.

Because democracy implies disunity.

And any displays of disunity threaten the group (a noteworthy turn of phrase).

The alternative being to strengthen the Other Side, whose winning is unacceptable,
so it doesn't really matter who we support or what we think, politically.

Anthropology for the win!

[BootinUp]

70. Not at all. I am applying it to a particular instance

where an incumbent President is already the nominee by default, and some enemy infiltrators are attacking the weaker links int he chain hoping to break it.

Hope that helps.

[ProSense]

21. It's

"Personally... I Think Cenk Is Correct..."

...a stupid idea, one that could be easily contrued by the media as a vote of no confidence. They could make hay of this for the rest of the election cycle, and there is nothing Cenk or anyone can do about it. There are still a lot of undecided voters, and the GOP caususes are in focus. Why go there. There are a lot of ways to pressure the administration, this in simply dumb. There was pressure to veto the foreclosure bill and pressure to reject the Keystone pipeline.

Still, given the snip in the OP and this is about "civil liberties, why did he feel it necessary to include these moronic assertions:

<...>

I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest.

Who is pretending Obama is "brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans"?

And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side - Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment.

Doesn't sound like a protest vote over NDAA

The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side.

Well, that line certainly didn't attract a lot of people to his side, and might explain the more than 160 troll-ratings he got.

I would have loved a progressive alternative, but apparently we are not going to get one (except for Rocky Anderson running on the Justice Party ticket). Primaries are the perfect place to send a message without taking away votes in the general election. But it didn't happen because the Democratic establishment says we must fall in line because we wouldn't want to hurt the agenda of the president. The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican. I'd love to at least get him to reconsider that agenda for a second.

OK, that line alone earned my characterization of Cenk as a moron.

[proverbialwisdom]

52. So what would be a protest vote over NDAA ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100256029

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/22/with_indefinite_detention_measure_has_congress

http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7688
Wilkerson: New Military Powers the Road to Tyranny
Larry Wilkerson: National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate giving the military power for indefinite detention without trial is a draconian violation of our rights
December 9, 2011
Video at link.


Links archived at: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. Answer: Get the Military Vets involved in Occupy, you silly!

Oath Keepers or whoever they're called. We're seeing a sea change in political support among libertarian-inclined members of the Marine vets (a lynchpin of the conservative establishment for 50 years.) Remember Pat Tillman was an Army Ranger.

[jaxx]

25. Cenk is a crybaby.

He's advocating for the other side and thinks people will like the idea of screwing the Democrats. Cheap trick.

[bahrbearian]

33. K&R

[Raine]

36. Totally Agree nt

[dionysus]

38. i'm shocked that you'd support something to damage the president heading into an election...

[quinnox]

43. I don't get the freakout by some over this

It doesn't hurt the president in any way in the general election versus the republicans.

Don't forget folks, this is a democracy and what is wrong with people doing a protest vote in a Democratic primary that won't mean anything because Obama is assured of being the nominee?

Some folks seem awful sensitive about this, sheesh.

[a2liberal]

59. Dissent is unpatriotic

We have become what we hate. We used to make fun of the blind loyalty in the Republicans. Now we demand it.

[WillyT]

60. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

EXACTLY !!!

[rhett o rick]

75. Well said. nm

[sandyd921]

44. Seems like a reasonable way to me

to send a message that it wasn't Wall St bankers, drug and insurance companies, and K Street lobbyists who not only elected him but gave of their time and money for the promised change we could believe in. The civil liberties abuses are particularly galling from a President who sold himself as a civil libertarian. I also live in a caucus state and this sounds like a good way to help him hear us loud and clear.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. voting for uncommitted in a caucus is the most sensible and rational alternative for progressives

The alternative of voting for a third party in the general election is way too risky as it could very well contribute to a Republican win. Mounting a credible primary challenge at this point is simply not feasible and could have unfortunate side effects if it were. This is a sensible and practical alternative.

The absence of any strong and critical left-wing critique of the President only strengthens the Republicans’ ability to represent the President as - "as far left as they come". It is very important for the public to realize that President Obama is not the far left socialist that the GOP wants people to believe he is. It is very important for the public to know there is a credible critique of the President's policies coming from the left. The stronger the left-wing critique of the President - the easier it is for the President to present himself as centrist and moderate - just as importantly the more to the left the terms “ moderate” and “centrist” are framed. To simply remain silent is not only immoral – it contributes to a false narrative of the President as being on the extreme left and it removes from public discussion the progressive-left perspective which has historically been the force that makes it possible for moderates and centrist to reach any meaningful compromise by balancing the discussion. Cenk has proposed a brilliant scenario that sends a very strong message without strengthening a far worse alternative - An approach that is as principled as it is sensible and pragmatic.


/

[a2liberal]

63. +1 (n/t)

[MjolnirTime]

53. You won't stop Obama. You won't slow him down or change his course.

But I don't expect you to comprehend that.

[Hawkowl]

69. Obama will stop himself

Just like he stopped a public option. Just like he stopped closing Guantanamo. Just like he stopped the Obama tax cuts for the rich being repealed. Just like he stopped ending warrantless wire tapping. Just like he stopped record prosecutions for whistleblowers. Just like....ad fucking nauseum.

[MjolnirTime]

81. Your wish will not be granted. Obama will be reelected. What will you do then?

[rhett o rick]

74. I dont think telling a poster that he wont comprehend something

is not needed in a decent debate. If you have a good argument, present it and leave the personal attacks out.

[bvar22]

54. The LAST thing I want is a Republican President.

The 2nd to last thing I want is for the current Democratic Party Leadership
to use my vote as a mandate for more "Centrist" (Republican) Policy.

I live in a state where Obama has absolutely NO chance of winning,
so I am free to cast my vote for president as my conscience dictates.
My vote will reflect my Liberal values
without helping a Republican get elected.

Very few states will be "in play" this year,
so many can do the same without guilt.

If your state is "in play", you really should vote for Obama despite his Liberal failings.

That is called Strategic Voting.
It is one way to pressure the Party into hearing the voices of The Left
without helping Republicans.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ProSense]

62. It's

"I live in a state where Obama has absolutely NO chance of winning"

...likely a state with right leaning members of Congress.

Protest away!

[bvar22]

72. Thanks,

....but I really don't need your permission.






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[FredStembottom]

56. I agree... with a correction.

I see Obama already responding to left wing criticism in the past month or so.

So, doing this "uncommited" vote in Iowa would be more of a step-on-the-gas idea than something that elicits a first response from O.

...which is good! Forward!

[Bucky]

77. Obama 2008 quote: "You'll have to hold my feet to the fire."

This is the way to do this. In fact, it's the dissatisfaction with his soft drift rightward that has made him self-correct, going into an election year. Not voting for "uncommitted" would take the fire off his feet, send him the signal that he's course-corrected enough now. He hasn't; not yet.

[MjolnirTime]

82. You didn't change a thing the man is doing.

You just added noise to the din.

[FredStembottom]

84. I endorse that idea.

n/t

[a2liberal]

57. K&R (n/t)

[MineralMan]

83. What happens in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa

won't even be reported. They are a non-event this year. You watch and see if anyone even bothers to mention them for more than 10 seconds. Uncommitted? Uncommitted people have no caucus to attend.

Cenk has no idea what he's talking about with regard to Iowa caucuses. 100% of delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be committed to President Obama. 100%. I guarantee it.

[BootinUp]

88. ok then.

I admit to being ignorant how that works.

[TheKentuckian]

89. Then what is the hubbub and gnashing if teeth about? Why the claims of calamity about a show of

disunity?

[20score]

85. K&R!

[riderinthestorm]

90. I'm not in Iowa so this doesn't apply to me but I have no problem with this.

I see the rationale, and honestly it's a compelling point. If any progressive Dems decided to do this I would be supportive.

[mmonk]

93. It would be best to get as many Democratic and left leaning voters involved in the process

as possible. So I agree as well.