There is no "defense" of a primary run against Obama.

[Splinter Cell]

Some of the folks here need to understand something: In politics, you either win, or you fuckin' lose. If you win, you can move forward with your agenda, and keep the other side from advancing theirs. If you lose, you lose.

You're not going to get everything you want right now, or ever for that matter. Attacking our side is not the way to make that happen. We need to be adults and accept the fact that we will never see everything we want happen in this society, because too many Americans don't agree with us.

We work toward our goals, and little by little we achieve things. We're trying to make this a "more perfect union". Not a "perfect" one.

You have a choice. Our side can win and we can get some things done....OR their side can win and nothing gets done. The country suffers. That's your choice. Your ONLY choice. Daydream on your own time, but don't drag my country down because you can't accept anything less then everything you always wanted right now.

Some of us want a better country, and we know that supporting people like Barack Obama is the way to get there, and that the alternative is disaster.

[CakeGrrl]

1. Unreccers don't seem to like these annoying facts. n/t

[Orsino]

Or baseless opinons.

What I'm more interested in is whether any more progressive Democrat would even be willing to try a primary challenge.

[CakeGrrl]

64. If they thought they could win, what's stopping them?

But if they couldn't make headway right after GWB when the field was wide open, what are the odds now?

Or was the question more about whether they would be strongarmed out of running?

The OP isn't stating a baseless opinion assuming there is no serious primary challenge one way or another. It's going to be Dem vs. Repub barring an unprecented surge by a 3rd party.

[Orsino]

77. That's not really what the OP stated.

According to the OP, there must not be a primary challenge. But that case wasn't made--therefore, baseless opinion.

[akbacchus_BC]

86. Just rec to counter an unrec

[DJ13]

2. This wouldnt be a point for discussion if he listened to his base more

[RiffRandell]

3. Recommended.

Smart post. It's not rocket science.

[sailor65]

4. Your dictates on the topic are irrelevant.

The base decides that sort of thing, and the base has been largely disappointed. Some of the base have been downright betrayed. Sure, SOME things have been done. But a large number of supporters have seen the promises made them tossed aside, studied, questionaired, debated, delayed, and have been called "Pony-wishers" by the likes of you.

[SoxFan]

12. The base supports Barack Obama

The loudmouthed critics on the web are not the base. They are a noisy, childish fringe.

Let's look at the numbers.

2008 New Hampshire Primary:

Hillary Clinton 112,238 39%
Barack Obama 104,757 36%
John Edwards 48,666 17%
Bill Richardson 13,245 5%
Dennis Kucinich 3,919 1%


That's right, the dream candidate of "The Base" received one percent. If you multiplied his vote tenfold, he would still finish in fourth place.

Even if you assume that every Edwards supporter was a firebreathing lefty (which was not even close to the case), you have less than half the support of either of the two Evil Mainstream Corporatist Republicrats.

[Oregone]

16. Not everyone agrees. Let's prove that contention with a primary!

[spoony]

52. Then why are so many of you so violently scared of a primary challenge?

You keep telling us we're irrelevant and that everyone who's anyone loves Obama. So what's with all these threads trying to shut down even the IDEA of a primary challenge?

[impik]

58. Scared? Who's scared?! Run against him, be my guest. He'll destroy every challenger

And you'll have four more years to whine. This should be fun.

[scheming daemons]

76. Every $ that Obama has to spend fighting a Dem in the primary is a $ NOT spent fighting the GOP

..

[golfguru]

102. With your POV we should abolish all dem primaries

because money spent in our primaries could be spent fighting the GOP.

[akbacchus_BC]

87. How could bloggers on here shut down the "IDEA of a primary

challenge", it is a message board, some are expressing their opinions not trying to shut down a primary challenge, unless you planning to challenge President Obama.

Anyways, after 2012, you will have lots of things to whine about as President Obama will get re-elected. I feel so sorry for you! Don't squirm too much, you might turn into a pretzel before 2012!

[Lil Missy]

37. DU is not the same as the base of the party.

[FiveGoodMen]

71. Boy, oh-fuckin'-boy you can say that again!

[Lil Missy]

72. DU is not the same as the base of the party.

:P

[FiveGoodMen]

74. Thanks

:toast:

[Mike Nelson]

5. Agreed

Been disappointed in Obama, but would be more so should he lose. Let the Republicans fight among their crowd in primaries!

[Bobbie Jo]

6. K&R

:kick:

[DevonRex]

7. K&R. The best thing would be to help elect more liberal folks to the House and Senate

that would actually support liberal ideals instead of fighting against the things we would like to do. It's been an uphill battle on every single thing Obama ran on, in our OWN party. No need to name names, obviously. And no need to point out that it's an uphill battle to get liberal Dems elected in certain states.

Perhaps what we need to do is focus on educating the electorate in those states. I refuse to believe that whole sections of the country are stupid. They're not. But all they hear is RW rhetoric. Isn't it time for them to hear that the United States is NOT a Christian nation, for example, and back it up with words from the actual Constitution? It could be so very simple.

[DCBob]

8. They think, incorrectly, that a primary will force Obama left.

It might during the primary but that only hurts him in the general. He will need to move back to the center to win the general. That makes him look inconsistent and opens him up for criticism and hurts his chances of winning. Many dont think the process through completely.

[DevonRex]

9. And, he would still face the same problem of dealing with more conservative Dem Senators

who would water down his agenda - JUST like this term. :eyes:

[DCBob]

13. Indeed.. the focus should be on congress, not on the President..

President Obama would move more left if congress would let him.

[DevonRex]

18. Yeah, that was my first rant a few posts above. Guess I'm in a ranting

mood today. :)

I'm just glad somebody is reading something I typed. It's a shame when a good rant goes unnoticed.

[DCBob]

24. Rant away!! I am sure some are noticing..

even if they dont reply..
:toast:

[Dems2002]

30. Keep telling yourself that

Exactly why do you think this? He negotiated the Public Plan away from us. He keeps bashing us, and he's going after Whistle Blowers worse than Bush did. His civil liberties record is atrocious. So what evidence do you have that he'd be more liberal if only the Senate would let him?

[DCBob]

38. Its clear Obama wants to be more of a negotiator and mediator than someone who forces policy..

I think thats the right approach in our current political situation. If congress had the votes to go left, Obama would have supported it.. I am sure of it. But they didnt, so he had to play the role of negotiator to get something done... and it worked.

[akbacchus_BC]

88. So agree with you. Some people think the President has unlimited

powers but he is facing lots of Dems who vote with Republicans. Congress is the problem, not the President, I feel so sorry for him. Mind you, I am a tad disappointed but not enough to rant against the President. What a job he inherited?

[DevonRex]

11. Oh, and another thing, he would still have to deal with a slow-as-molasses Reid

who apparently thinks he can just take all the time in teh world to let the blue dogs whittle away at good bills until they don't accomplish much of anything.

[DCBob]

46. Yeah, but ole Harry seems to have gotten some things done lately..

He is also giving it to that goofball teabagger lady in AZ. Harry may just win his seat after all. Gotta give the old boy some credit.

[DevonRex]

63. That's quite true. That crazy lady might have shaken him up

a little. The baggers have certainly shaken ME out of any sense of complacency I might have had, that's for sure. The members of the Republican party have moved so far to the right that they are now dangerous. There is no possible way for anyone to say there is no difference between the parties and there is no possible way that we can allow them to take control again.

We certainly can't allow baggers to actually get elected to the Senate. The thought of giving legitimacy to them sickens me and should sicken everyone on DU.

[DCBob]

66. Me too. I am so "shaken" I almost ready to start donating again.

almost.. :)

[rucky]

116. He won't have to "go left"

but it will protect him from accusations from the right about being "far left" - without him having to go any farther to the right to prove it.

I support a primary challenge, and I support the nominee (which would no doubt be Obama).

[DCBob]

117. A primary always forces a candidate away from the center to win the nomination..

At least that's the way it has been since I have been following politics.. and thats a long time.

[rucky]

118. A no-incumbent primary certainly does.

So does a competitive primary.

Obama's will be neither of those.

[T Wolf]

10. EVERYTHING! Are you psychotic? Obama and the Democrats are so far from EVERYTHING that

they couldn't see it with the god damned Hubble telescope.

Many of us on the left see very little positive, progressive movement, especially compared with the major movement reichward on significant issues.

So, take your it's better to win and accomplish nothing mantra and keep it. I would rather see real, actual progress than settle for feeling good because things are not getting worse faster.

[Sheepshank]

75. In my best cockney accent..

"gawd luv 'im. Ee's pissin' on the world again because 'ee didn get everfing righ' 'ere and righ' now. Never one to actually cum up wiv a good alternative...just a bloody stuck record hiccuping on a whine"

[Splinter Cell]

123. Perhaps...

What you want to see happen is not realistic? Perhaps you're in the minority?

If you haven't seen change with this president then you never will from any president. Period.

Don't fuck my country over because you don't get your way and wanna take your ball and go home.

If you want Republican leadership then by all means stay at home and bitch. Many of us know that there is too much at stake.

[jobycom]

14. Hunh. I did not know that. So the rules of democracy have changed for this guy?

Why do you think so little of President Obama? Why do you think he can't handle a challenger? No other president has been forbidden from having a challenger. What is it about Obama that makes you think he isn't good enough?

I mean, history doesn't support you. Obama had a damn strong primary challenge last time, and he handled it just fine, and won the presidency. Many would argue that the energy of the primary challenge even helped him win.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

22. He wasn't the incumbent last time.

[jobycom]

25. You're right, that should give him an advantage this time.

Think of it. If he has a primary challenger who can say all the things Obama's critics have been saying, then Obama has the perfect opportunity to defend himself and all his action and persuade Americans that he has done a good job. Without a challenger, all we'll hear are the debates of the Republican candidates describing all the ways they believe Obama has failed, and by the time the general starts Obama will already be in a hole.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. That worked perfectly for Carter in 1980.

Oh, wait...

[jobycom]

32. So you think Obama is weaker than Carter?

Again, why do Obama's supporters have such low opinions of him?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

42. Nice try, but no.

A primary challenge will only hurt the party and our chances in 2012. Put whatever "DLC/corporate stooge/enabler/Republican-lite" BS label you want on it, but it's the truth.

[jobycom]

43. I'm not putting any label on it. Do you see me putting a label on it?

:shrug: Honestly, I don't care whether the challenge comes from the DLC or the Naderites. If someone wants to run against him, then they should. If he can't win his own primary he has no chance of beating the Republicans.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

48. Given that many DUers use those labels frequently, it was a decent assumption.

Even if he would win a primary challenge (a near certainty), he would still be severely weakened as a result, which could result in a Republican taking the presidency. Of course, most of the people here (not necessarily you, FYI) clamoring for a primary challenge will be the first to complain about that. My response to them would be to shut the fuck up.

[jobycom]

51. A challenge would be the best way for him to get his message out.

The media won't pay any attention to him unless he has a challenger in 2010. The primaries will be all about the Republicans, and everything for six to eight months that the public hears about Obama will be the Republican candidates outdoing themselves to trash him. A challenger won't weaken him if he wins. Quite the opposite. It will allow the debates being had on our little boards all over the Internet to get a public airing, and allow Obama to defend himself and state his case. It might even help him to focus his goals and message. He did okay at that the last time.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

59. Again, he is the incumbent -- it's a totally different context.

And Obama can state his case when he debates the Republican nominee.

I'm also curious why you thought Shuler (clearly more conservative than Obama) shouldn't have a primary challenge, yet you think Obama should:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5047291#5047361

[jobycom]

73. You keep saying that, but why? Why will it weaken him? Why will he have less chance?

Why does an increased opportunity to get his message out there and try to persuade people that he has done a good job hurt him?

If you read what I've been saying, I'm not calling for someone to run against him. I'm just replying to the OP's point saying that no one should, that there's no defense of it. If someone runs against him, he will (or should) make the most of it and it will help him. If not, he'll find another way to run. I just hate all this coddling and name calling and label slapping, and I hate that his supporters feel he is too weak or incompetent to do the job the way everyone else has. He can handle criticism, he can handle a challenger. That's the American way. I'm not going to stop believing in democracy because I'm told there's no defense for it, or it's just too hard for Obama to handle. Honest to God, some people around here treat him like he's a little kid who needs protection from any criticism. If that's what they think of him, why the Hell do they want him as president?

Obama can handle the realities of a democracy. That includes having a primary challenger if one emerges. None of us need labels or name calling or threats to frighten us out of being democrats before we are Democrats.

As for the Heath Shuler post, I was obviously referring to the poster wanting him to lose to a Republican, and ignoring his comment about a primary challenger.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

79. Because it's not an increased opportunity to be heard.

A primary challenger won't make him any more noticeable than he already is. All it will do is provide media fodder while fracturing the party. When independents see that all the Democrats can't even support the incumbent, they'll lose faith in our party and vote Republican or third-party. Theirs are the votes that determine the outcome.

And it's not about "coddling" Obama. He could easily vanquish any primary opponent with ease -- it's the message that a primary challenge sends to the general public. And despite what you think, a primary challenge to an incumbent is not nearly the same as a regular primary where there is no incumbent.

And when you label us as "supporters," (which I don't equate to sycophants, FWIW) that heavily implies that you are not one, which makes me not take seriously your claim that you don't care whether there's a primary challenge or not. You're a smart guy, so it's a bit puzzling why you're trying to play coy with this whole thing.

[jobycom]

90. The rift will be there, whether there is a primary challenger or not.

It will be Obama's job to gain his party's support, whether there is a challenger or not. Not having a challenger won't make any questions go away. It won't make the media nicer to him. It won't make independents love him. Obama will have to answer the questions either way, and he'll have to do it well to win, either way. And if there is no rift, then the challenger won't matter one bit, anyway.

And I didn't label you a "supporter," I just used a generic term, and I was implying "sycophants." You haven't acted like one, so I haven't acted like you are one (sycophant, I mean). I've only talked about the points you've raised. I'm not an Obama "supporter." I voted for him. I will vote for him again, barring something bizarre happening. He's done an okay job. I'm not completely happy with it, but I'm happier than I would be with a Republican. I'll criticize him when I don't like him--that's where I'm drawing a difference between me and "supporters." I'll also defend him to Republicans, as I do frequently. I'll let you come up with a word for that. I'm not playing coy--if you found my comment from a year ago about Heath Shuler, I'm sure you've seen my basic opinion of Obama.

If there is a primary challenger to Obama, they will lose, so even if I didn't want Obama as our candidate, I wouldn't care about a challenger. No one will beat him. Actually I figure he'll get better over the next couple of years, as he learns how to play the politics game more. Also, the economy will get better, the well will stop leaking, the cleanup will go well, and he'll start bringing troops home, so he'll be sitting pretty by then, anyway. A president with a strong approval rating at the midterm is likely to go down in ratings by the election. A president with a bit of trouble at the midterm is sitting right where he needs to be. Clinton and Reagan both had ratings in the 30s at their first term midpoints. The two Bushes both had strong ratings. One lost, and the other had to pull a lot of tricks to win. History is on Obama's side. If anything, he needs to be a little lower.

So I don't care if he has a challenger. I don't particularly want him to lose to a challenger unless something goes horribly wrong by then. I'm not being coy or disingenuous (with you--I am with the other guy I'm arguing with in this thread because he's calling me names and being a jerk, but you aren't). And now I've explained it even more. I just hate all these labels, and all these attempts to badger one side or the other into toeing some line. I don't toe. And I react negatively to being told to, as the OP did. That's what my post meant. It meant "Stop telling other people how to be a Democrat." No one has the right to dictate that.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

101. You make some good points.

(When is that ever posted here, haha)

I think we actually are more alike than we may realize. Although I do give Obama the benefit of the doubt more than many here, I don't agree with everything he does. In fact, he's wrong on some key issues (gay marriage, for one). I also realize he's hampered by the Republicans and Blue Dogs in many ways, yet am also able to see where he needs to be more forceful about certain things and just go for broke when it's really necessary. So I'm sure I have a relatively more positive opinion of him than you do, but you're one of the few posters here who I can disagree with while also understanding how you reached your points logically. I guess I grew used to seeing content-free posts from some posters who would rant on endlessly with the whole DLC/corporate stooge/etc. label at the drop of a hat, so I'm not used to seeing legitimate, well-constructed critiques of Obama and his policies.

So I apologize for saying you were playing coy with me. That was an error on my part. I actually enjoy reading your posts, even when I disagree with them. :toast:

[jobycom]

110. Aww.

Ain't you sweet! :rofl:

Seriously, I appreciate all you said, and I hope you realize I wouldn't have kept the discussion going if I didn't appreciate your point of view, too. We don't sound too far apart on the dude. :toast:

Maybe someone should frame this discussion, just to show others it's possible to be civil? :rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

113. We could frame it, but it would end up in a museum somewhere.

:rofl: :toast:

[11 Bravo]

78. Of course he would defeat any primary challenger.

And every nickel he was forced to spend on that inevitable outcome would be 5 cents that he didn't have to spend in the general election.

[jobycom]

94. So what will he spend it on?

Getting people's attention and making a case for his reelection? Just the same as he'd be doing in the primary. So the money will be spent that way anyway.

[DevonRex]

26. + a million. nt

[IndianaGreen]

23. North Korea only allows one candidate in their elections

Some folks around here want to trade our democracy for North Korea's electoral system.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

65. I guess those multiple candidates on the ballot were a figment of my imagination.

:rofl:

[akbacchus_BC]

104. Starbucks, wow, you did good hon!

[jaxx]

29. Ah the sideways thrust....it doesn't work

He won. Support him.

[jobycom]

40. He won. I supported him. We get to do it over again in 2012.

If he wins the primaries then, I'll support him. I'll probably even support him in the primaries, barring an unexpected development. But I'm not going to support a declaration that no one is allowed to run against him. Hogwash. If he can't handle a little debate, he shouldn't have run in the first place. And he'd tell you exactly the same thing.

[jaxx]

44. Such little faith in the office of POTUS being in capable hands.

He'll handle the debates just fine, with the repuke running against him.

[jobycom]

47. Glad you finally agree.

Some people think they have to coddle him, they have so little faith in him.

[jaxx]

53. I don't agree with you.

In fact you have made me laugh out loud a couple times with the way you have tried to disguise the message. And it all looks so innocent...... :rofl:

[jobycom]

54. Make up your mind. You disagree, then you agree, now you disagree.

Perhaps your laughing is a sign of insanity?

Nothing else to comment on, since you said nothing.

[jaxx]

56. Awww now you're gonna get mean.

You lose.

[jobycom]

70. Not mean. I'm trying to be helpful. I'm worried about you.

You interrupt a serious discussion with the ubiquitous "I can't counter your points so I will pretend that I am laughing at you" comments and drop all pretense of having an actual point of view or an argument to support it. You conceded your point three times. That worried me, so I expressed concern. I still do. I hope you are okay. I've seen people really get upset and sort of lose their mind around here. I'd hate that to happen to you.

[jaxx]

Oh no, the alert button is stuck.

[jobycom]

92. That would be sad, if you had someone to alert on.

If you're worried about me alerting on you for calling me names, don't worry. I haven't.

[Oregone]

15. OH Gawd. Pure comedy gold!

Thanks you. I need that today!

[akbacchus_BC]

103. I am surprised you not arguing, LOL. You must be happy as a lark

here in BC?

[R. P. McMurphy]

17. K & R n/t

[IndianaGreen]

19. Our side wanted the troops home, civil liberties restored, jobs programs first priority

single payer, prosecution of Wall Street crooks, prosecution of Bush Administration criminals, protection of abortion rights, advancement of LGBT rights, and defending Social Security against rightwing assault. That's our side!

[liberal N proud]

20. K&R

[jaxx]

21. Well said.

The alternative to a Democratic President is hell...some people forget the 8 years of hell under the repukes. I'll never forget it.

[paulk]

127. why does it follow

that a primary challenge to Obama means a Republican President?

There's something about this whole thread that is kind of disconnected from reality, imo.

why don't we all worry about the 2012 election in 2012?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

28. As gay folk can testify -- the mob rarely right.

They do have the #s though.

[ProSense]

33. Americans blame Bush for the economy and wars

Shouldn't we start trying to convince them that President Obama is to blame before it's too late?




:sarcasm:

[Bluenorthwest]

34. It is called Democracy and it needs no defense

If such a challenger steps forward, that is their right. Period. I don't see who could do it. But if someone felt like taking a run, that is the name of the game.
Now that Crist is being promoted here, anything goes, you know? So again, can not imagine who could or would, but if they did, that would be fine and dandy and if they tried, they might win my vote, because Obama is opposed to equal rights for my family, and that does not sit well with me, you know? I like my family and people who look down upon us I do not owe a thing to, not a thing. Not so much as the time of day.

[ProSense]

39. Yeah, that's why people go around encouraging primary challenges to Feingold

DeFazio, Kucinich and others.

[bigwillq]

35. I support primary challenges against all incumbents

For every office at every level.

[ProSense]

41. When Kos suggested that Kucinich should be primaried

people attacked him like he was a traitor.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

49. But Kucinich is perfect in every way and can't be criticized.

Though pointing out Obama's accomplishments gets people branded as "cheerleaders." :shrug:

[bigwillq]

67. Not me

I support primary challenges to all incumbents, including Kucinich.

[Forkboy]

68. +1

[akbacchus_BC]

89. Why would Kos suggest that Kucinich be primaried? Was it for his

Senate seat?

[alc]

36. primaries are a place for people to state the direction

they want the winner to go. Without primaries, Obama can win the election and claim that Democrats are overwhelmingly for his policies. If he wins a primary by 90% he can claim the same thing. But if he wins the primary by 60% he needs to concede that many people are unhappy with his policies and exit polls will show which policies he should consider changing. Some of those policies may be ones he can address before the general election and get more people to show up.

[ProSense]

45. Primaries

shouldn't be driven by vindictiveness, as Kos' call to primary Kucinich was. That can only lead to bitterness, which is anathema to turn out.

Also, what the hell is up with all this primary talk: Has someone expressed an interest in running against the President for the party nomination?

It seems like people are spending a lot of time discussing something that is unlikely to happen.

What about the 2010 elections, and the President's remaining two and a half years in this term?

[spoony]

50. Ah, the "perfect" strawman

Poor fucker, he's been through so many threads he needs restuffing.

By the way, "your" country is also "my" country and it's a fucking democracy. Deal with it.

[msongs]

55. false choices run rampant lol. In a democracy every person has a right to primary an incumbent. nt

[impik]

57. Yes, there is: Stupidity.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

60. We walk into the 2012 together or we don't walk at all. Love Ted Kennedy but he weakend Carter with

his challenge. Barack is the greatest fundraiser in history, a primary challenge is just destructive and time wasting. He's the best shot at anything near what we want that's the bottom line. Who did't see Barack face big challenges passing anything was not paying attention we need 60+ in the senate gains in the house nothing more, nothing less.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

61. Keep this kicked if you are with the Prez for the long haul.

[JVS]

62. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Obama has a history of making concessions toward those...

who give him the most difficulty. A primary challenge is an excellent idea.

[bvar22]

69. And THAT is the perfect justification for a Primary Challenge.

Lets make it about The ISSUES!


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[akbacchus_BC]

99. Whom do you have in mind that can remotely challenge President Obama

on the Dem side? The one person I am thinking of is doing a great job as SOS! A remarkable woman and she would have been a great President if she were elected.

[depakid]

80. Can't have democracy, can we?

Must be Obama über alles -no matter how many constituencies are badmouthed, backhanded or backstabbed.

[Beacool]

81. Oh relax, no one is going to primary Obama.

For better or worse, he's going to be the incumbent in 2012 and no else in the party will run against him.

;-)

[akbacchus_BC]

91. Bea, you never know but I do not see SOS Clinton primarying President Obama!

To be honest with you, the line up in 2008 was great but I was supporting H. Clinton and B. Obama. They both have pretty much the same policy positions and if H. Clinton had won, she, I thought would have fought for a better health care system. She was so committed for a better health care system, however, she is doing a great job as SOS. I am so proud of her, wonderful woman in my opinion.

[Beacool]

95. One thing about Hillary, she doesn't back out of a fight.

I think that she would have fought for the public option a lot harder than Obama did. But, what's the point? Water under the bridge by now.

Yes, she's a remarkable person.

:hi:

[akbacchus_BC]

97. I totally agree with you, she is a fighter and even as first lady, she

tried but I do not have to remind you that Congress and the House were Republican dominated.

She is a fantastic lady and she would not have caved where health care is concerned. Having said that, as SOS, she is fantastic, I really admire her!

[Splinter Cell]

125. Jesus Christ

Hillary is more conservative then Obama. How would her running, in the unlikely situation that she did, make any of the crybabies happy?

[readmoreoften]

82. Obama will win because he has the cosmopolitan Republican vote.

He doesn't have to do anything for working people. He just needs to be the non-fascist candidate to get the non-fascist vote. They expect disgruntled working Americans who haven't turned to the Tea Party to vote for Obama in a "Popular Front" politics against Palin/Beck/et al.

What bothers me about Obama most is his use of left wing figures, art, and rhetoric.

[akbacchus_BC]

93. He does not have the Republican vote!

[liquid diamond]

83. Principles, principles, princicples.

That's what is driving these primary hacks. Moral victories don't mean shit.

[D23MIURG23]

84. Good thing we have adults like you to inform us of our political prerogatives.

Some of us might have gotten the idea that we were living in a democratic society, and free to run or support candidacies as we please.

Unrec.

[akbacchus_BC]

96. You make me smile, isn't the US a big democracy? Who is stopping

you from supporting your candidate?

[D23MIURG23]

107. No one, that's my point.

[Hydra]

85. I have to laugh again

:popcorn:

You guys are really scared, aren't you?

I think you're forgetting something rather large- we don't get a vote in 2012. The cap is off corporate donations.

The Presidency is for sale.

I'm sure President Obama can raise another $300 million for his re-election...but how much can a real Republican? $1 Billion? 2? 5?

BTW, if you'd like to own this trainwreck in progress, be my guest.

[akbacchus_BC]

98. Well prepare to laugh for another six years, as this presidency is

no trainwreck. Contrary to your opinion, clean up time and that is what President Obama is doing!

So keep on laughing, don't hallucinate though!

[Hydra]

100. No, predicatably you misunderstand

and the grand irony is that in your misunderstanding, perhaps you paint a truer picture than I did.

I refer to the upcoming trainwreck of 2012, possibly even 2010. Perhaps you're right that the trainwreck is here already.

[akbacchus_BC]

105. Well, no matter what you are wishing for, President Obama will not

be selected, he will be voted in and if you against that, then I feel really sorry for you!

[Hydra]

106. Reading comprehension is your friend

But if all you have is "This is what I want, now go away," don't let me interrupt. After all, it's more fun for me to sit and watch things play out, and have you explain why it's all so great.

How's that Gulf oil gusher going for you, btw?

:popcorn:

[akbacchus_BC]

108. Where did the reading crap supposed to come in! I read you loud

and clear! Who asked you to go away, for crying out loud, stay here and insult us because we are supporting President Obama. He not moving too fast enough for you, now go cry me a river.

The gulf disaster, yeah, blame it on President Obama, tool!

[Hydra]

109. I do indeed

We said "No drilling, it isn't safe."

He assured us it would be done safely. We were told to be quiet, the adults were taking care of it.

We now know no one was actually overseeing BP in any sort of credible fashion.

Now, in a similar fashion, you are attempting to shut down dialogue, and I find it highly amusing, since it shows how weak a position the President is in currently, even in your eyes.

Would you like a shovel to keep digging with?

[girl gone mad]

111. The more you guys say this..

the more I think about a primary challenge.

The more I think about it as a possibility, the more I like the idea.

[FrenchieCat]

112. The more you think about losing,

the more you don't give a shit.....

Obviously.

[Senator]

114. +1

[slay]

122. Me too. It makes me think of how we aren't leaving Afghanistan until 2014 now

and how we spend MILLIONS of dollars there every day! Not to mention all the horrible DEATHS and injuries. There is NO defense in my mind for Obama to support this bullshit. I'd vote for someone who ran against him on ending the war for sure.

[davidpdx]

115. Well put, though I say let the naysayers run someone

And watch them get ran over by a MAC Truck. The vocal Hillary supporter are already out in force crying for Obama to step aside. The DK supporters are saying he should be the nominee. The way this place reads, the primaries started last week not a year and a half from now.

[donco6]

119. I see.

[slay]

121. Pretty much

man the vote-Obama-or-die people have been out in force the last few days.

[slay]

120. What - are you AFRAID Obama would lose?

Listen - I don't think he will be getting a primary challenger, but it depends on if the Democratic Party thinks he can win in 2012 or not. It doesn't matter what we say or want. They are going to go by how he would do against potential Republican candidates. I don't think any Dem is going to try and take it from him if it looks like he could win. I'd love to see someone better than Obama in there, but the reality is that unless he fucks up royally he'll be there for another 4 years. I don't really get the point of your post other than to flamebait people or force them to back Obama when honestly I don't know if I'm even going to vote for him in 2012. It's hard for me to vote for a guy who wants to continue our pointless murderous war for profit in Afghanistan while people here are losing everything. We needed real change and all we got was a slight shift to the left. I don't blame those who do wish for primary challenger to Obama ONE BIT!

[Splinter Cell]

124. Who?

Who would be "better"?

This is the problem with the democratic party. We can't compete for eating our own. If you're not happy with Obama, you're never going to be happy with any democratic president. You're just not.

There will never be a Kucinich type ultra-left president in this country, because the majority of Americans are right-leaning. I could say that I won't vote for anybody that can't give me a million dollars tax free, but what would it achieve? Where can we stop pissing on ourselves and start fighting battles we can win?

[slay]

128. A man of the people, not a man of the corporations

i'm sticking with the Democratic party for now - but 2012 may be the last time i vote for them. maybe me and other liberals should, and finally will, abandon a party that looks to have abandoned us long, long ago. good luck getting a Dem elected without us.

[Deep13]

126. That's up to voters to decide.

And I'm getting pretty sick of having reasonable and necessary reforms being characterized as "daydreams" or other such dismissive and, frankly, ignorant remarks.

Too late to unrec.