A more 'progressive" candidate in 2012? Dean, Kucinich?, or whoever?

[pnorman]

Oh joy!!! But WHAT would be the odds of him getting elected? Near ZERO!

Nothing in the post-WW2 presidencies compare to the present one (yes, Obama!) to the well organized and well-funded campaign to demonize him, trivialize him, break his momentum, slow him down, and perhaps cripple him altogether! For that, one would have to go back to FDR! Think twice before aiding or abetting that. Obama isn't just fighting for Health Care Reform, for EFCA, or any of those others. He's fighting for his very political existence, and literally "the forces of evil" are arrayed TOTALLY against him. 40 years or so, one could take a "principled stand", knowing that he'd be vindicated a generation or so later down the road. But now? A false move now might mean the end of the road for a very loong time, perhaps forever.

On edit: I won't bother to respond to the first few responses so far. But I'll say this: In 2000, I voted AGAINST that snake Lieberman, as did more than a few other Naderites on DU. "We" (collectively) took MUCHO abuse from many here on DU over the years. A question inevitably arises: Are they the same people who are now slamming me on this?

[sharesunited]

1. Actually, against Sarah Palin it is entirely possible Dean or Kucinich COULD get elected!

[avaistheone1]

7. No sweat.

[pnorman]

13. Sarah Palin would be only used to energixe the "base".

Here's on example of that base:
But the RNC is not very likely to select her, with FAR more electable choices! WHY would they do that?

So what would be the odds of getting ANYTHING "progressive" done, with the Dixiecrat-Republicans in office for the next 16 years or so? Could the World even wait that long?

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Forces of Evil? Why do we have to bring evil incarnate into this.

Who are the "forces of Evil?" The people arrayed against him here are mostly progressives. They are joined by a broad alliance of Conservatives opposed to Obama for poltical, racial, and ideological reasons. I hardly think they are "evil." Hell, most of them hardly rate "bad to the bone."

[DJ13]

3. Obama is NOT "progressive"

Progressive isnt beholden to the corporations.

[Ken Burch]

4. Finegold might be a possibility

Any candidate with a functioning soul will have enemies.

And there's no way centrism now is going to protect us against people who see CENTRISM itself as evil. These are the people who thought the LAST Democratic president was a Communist. They probably would have felt that way about Woodrow Wilson or Grover Cleveland.

The only way to fight those people is to STAND UP to them and fight them with passion and with confidence in our own principles and our own dreams. Tacking and conceding and "chessplaying" are worthless against people like the Teabaggers and BearDrowner Barbie.

[stray cat]

5. Some don't care if the dems win in 2012 as long as they express their anger

lets hope the GOP candidate is good because they are likely to be elected.

[avaistheone1]

9. We can't win with the existing leadership that is for sure.

May as well try for a new team.

[rwheeler31]

6. How far we have fallen as a country .

[optimator]

8. we shouldn't make this about being progressive enough

Obama's failures are because of his incompetency, methodology and cowardice. not on ideas or beliefs.
If he had any quantity of leadership he could have been successful.
We need someone with boldness and fortitude.

[avaistheone1]

11. I think it is also about Obama's alignment with corporatism.

Look at most of his decisions. They favor corporations over the American people.

[mikehiggins]

12. He will be a one term president and health care reform will lay dead

for another couple of decades. His presidency is softening some problems, somewhat, but it is lacking in vision, fortitude and principle. I used to beleive/hope that somehow the things we've seen in the last year could be overcome but I no longer do so.

This time the fault is not in us but in him. By 2012 we'll be happy to see him go.

Just my opinion, of course, but I could be right.

[Laelth]

10. A primary challenge will force Obama to the left.

Even if the primary challenger doesn't win the nomination, it's good for the Party (so long as the nation isn't gripped by high inflation, oil shortages, and a hostage crisis).

And if that challenger wins the nomination, he or she will probably win the Presidency (so long as the nation isn't gripped by high inflation, oil shortages, and a hostage crisis).

Ted Kennedy's timing was just bad.

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnorman]

14. I'm in full accord with you about a primary challenge from the "left"

That sort of message to the DNC "centrists", was what the Nader vote in 2000 was intended to be. But I most certainly question your confidence in him/her getting elected. Are you SO sure enough of that, that you'd risk a Dixiecrat-Republican getting into the WH for the next 8 years (at least)?