home

Obama Makes It Offical: "It's Up to Us"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 06:25:18 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Obama 2012 campaign began today with the release of this video he sent out to supporters. The message: It's up to us.

One guy in the video says: "I don't agree with Obama on everything, but I respect him and I trust him."

My view: Go Obama. I'm not taking any chances that our Supreme Court justices, our Attorney General and our top prosecutors will be chosen by a Republican. And if Republicans continue to gain seats in Congress, we need a Democrat in the White House even more. He needs an early start to claim his ground. I'm just glad there are no primaries for the Dems this time to make us take our eye off the prize. And he's right: It's up to us.

< Elderly Non-Violent Drug Offenders Sentenced to Prison | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Makes It Offical: "It's Up to Us" | 204 comments (204 topical)
    Sounds (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:08:47 AM EST
    like a content free "hope and change" mantra again for 2012. The only difference this time is that Obama has a record.

    I don't really see this video making much of a difference either way.

    How do you sell the GOP is bad when you're whole mantra has been that you want to hold hands with them? This is where his whole theme falls apart.

    The lesser of two evils (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:16:08 AM EST
    remains evil nonetheless.

    If I wanted a Republican, I would have voted for McCain.  I didn't and I didn't, but I still got a Republican.

    So I'm not going to give Obama my ratification of his continuing the Bush/Cheney torture-economic destruction-coddling the rich-killing the not-rich.  He hasn't done anything for me or people like me, but he sure has gone out of his way to f*ck over people like me while sucking Republican hind teat.  I've got better things to do with my time, money, energy and effort than support Obama.

    Meh. I somewhat tepidly supported (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:37:32 AM EST
    Clinton in the last race. I now wish I had supported her with exhuberance.

    If nobody primaries Obama, is it because the election is seen as a lost cause, or because he's the 'only choice?'

    Rockefeller republican versus Captain Insano?

    Run Dennis K, Run!

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:41:07 AM EST
    what I've heard is no one will primary Obama because he is black and they are afraid of angering AA voters.

    Anyway, if Obama loses then AA voters are going to be upset with the party. If Obama wins then we are still going to have four more years of Reaganomics. It just sounds like a lose/lose situation no matter how you slice it.

    Parent

    I think the correct answer is (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:54:40 AM EST
    No one will primary Obama because the majority of democrats approve of what he's done and he's done nothing to require a primary that will divide the party and weaken his chances to win reelection.

    Take that back.  I don't think, I know.

    Parent

    I don't think Ga's and ABG's comments (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dk on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    are mutually exclusive.

    Parent
    Nobody is gong to primary Obama (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    He is as middle of the road as you probably need to be to win a national election at this point in time -- certainly he is as middle of the road as the Democratic establishment believes he needs to be and wants him to be. Any progressive who challenged him would 1) fail, and 2) ruin his own prospects for the future (think of how little good Kennedy's run against Carter did for his presidential hopes).

    Of course, it is frustrating that the "middle" is so much further to the Right than it once was.

    If we want a more progressive President, we need a more progressive house, senate and electorate. What is happening in the Midwest now gives some hope that there may be a resurgence of progressive/liberal support over the next decade -- if our democracy stays intact. But that's the future, not 2012.

    My worry is that a candidate perceived as, and promoted by the media as, middle of the road on the Republican side -- a Romney or Jeb -- could easily beat Obama and, more important, solidify the Republican control of the house and hand them the Senate.

    If younger people fully understood that "reform" of "entitlements" Republicans are promising their older, whiter base doesn't mean that today's young earners won't have to pay for Medicare and Social Security -- but instead means they won't get any benefits in their own old age but will, over the course of their working lives, have to continue paying hefty payroll taxes to support full benefits for everyone who is now 55 or older, perhaps they would get more interested in what happens in the house races (and off year elections). Ultimately, that will have the biggest impact on how progressive our future candidates for President feel they can be.


    Parent

    A little history for you (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    The latest YouGov/Economist poll has him at 74% approve/20% disapprove among Democrats, which is in the ballpark of a DailyKos poll from last week. And if you look at Pollster's current poll of polls, 79.1% of Democrats approve and 15.2% disapprove.

    You might think, hey, 80 percent approval's not so bad. But George W. Bush enjoyed a 94% approval among Republicans in May 2003 and a year later, he won by just a single state -- the narrowest re-election by an incumbent since Woodrow Wilson.

    And even more troubling for Obama is that he's underwater with independents, 40/51. link

    Even more troubling for Obama IMO is that the number of self identified independents is growing as former long time Democrats leave the party in disagreement with the policies of the "New Democratic Party."

    Parent

    This is obviously true (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:58:25 AM EST
    I would expect Obama to get north of 80% of the vote in any primary.

    Parent
    If Libya becomes another ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    quagmire, this won't be true, and someone will run against him.

    Parent
    RIght (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    now he's garnering 80% approval among democrats. That's not enough to win. His approval is down among independents. Despite his continuation of Reaganomics only 9% of Republicans approve of what he is doing.

    From Quinnipac:

    Out of those surveyed, only 42 percent approve of the job that he is doing as president. Out of those totals, Democrats give the president an 80 percent approval rating. Only 9 percent of Republicans approve of the job that Obama has been doing; 39 percent of Independents do. In terms of gender, 52 percent of men approve of the President's work, while 41 percent disapprove; women are split, 44 percent to 44 percent, on the job that Obama is doing. The survey also asked whether or not Obama deserves another four-year term; 50 percent of the respondents said that he does not, while only 41 percent said that he does.



    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:24:00 AM EST
    You are seriously arguing that replacing Obama with  a more left leaning candidate increases his chances.

    There is a logical disconnect between what you want ideologically and what the middle wants in their potus. Setting aside ideology,Obama is in a good position to win and has all of the advantages of an incumbent.

    The fundamental question is whether you will risk a republican president for the slim chance that a more lefty pouts will win.

    That seems silly.

    Parent

    The middle (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    doesn't know what it wants and the the middle is constantly shifting. The reason that the GOP has an opening is because Obama has done such a poor job. The economy is going to be the deciding fact and Obama has missed the boat on that one. We have millions of foreclosures yet to happen in this country.

    It's not about left or right so much as doing what is needed to get people back to work. The problem is that Obama seems to think that failed supply side economics are the solution. These policies that were instated by Bush never produced a job and as a matter of fact, we lost millions of jobs during the Bush term.

    Obama is offering no solutions for these or any problems that we have or he is offering failed solutions.

    Parent

    If that is true than pols are even dumber than I (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:14:56 AM EST
    thought.

    What, they aren't afraid of angering AA's with double digit unemployment and incarceration rates, unequal pay, unfair housing practices, etc., in the AA community, but they are afraid of angering them by running against a mixed race candidate? That is more insulting to the AA community than any challenge to Obama.

    Parent

    the key phrase here is (none / 0) (#122)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    "if that is true"

    is that true? who knows?

    it's what Ga6th has "heard" - where? from whom?

    as they say, "link, please"

    the original speculation (no one will primary Obama because he is black and they are afraid of angering AA voters . . . if Obama loses then AA voters are going to be upset with the party) rests on monolothic hypotheses about AA voters that have been proved . . . where, exactly?

    Parent

    Just something (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    I've heard from activists. That's why I said "heard". FWIW.

    Parent
    Identity politics (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    at its dirtiest.

    When I look across the high AA population states-- Louisiana-N.Carolina, which ones are likely to go for the Democrat? Maybe North Carolina... the others? Solidly red, except maybe Florida.

    So... four more years. At least the SC will be safe. I don't see a viable republican candidate yet. I think the primary process for republicans will leave them with a non-viable choice.

    Parent

    Obama won NC by less than 1%. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:53:59 AM EST
    I don't believe he will it again.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    GOP is thinking about reordering their primary so you may not be able to rely on their primary process to produce a nut.

    Parent
    Setting aside the identity politics (none / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    angle - which I haven't heard but don't dispute - the problem is that Obama has completely taken over the national machinery and staffed it with the likes of Rahm, Kaine and Messina to such an extent that any primary against him will likely wind up in both political suicide and some flavor of prosecution.  

    Just ask John Edwards:  the only reason for the feds to still be after him after all these years (particularly when they won't prosecute the most egregious bankster frauds) is because (for all his faults) Edwards was a true populist and therefore the greatest threat to a faux populist/corporate wh*re like Obama.  Pour encourager les autres is what Obama and Holder live by.

    Parent

    Edwards was not even much of a threat to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    in 2008 pre-scandal, much less now. And I say that as a former Edwards supporter.

    I wish banksters would be prosecuted as much as anyone does, but that does not preclude investigating Edwards as well.

    Parent

    Edwards (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    Oh come on.  The man had a love child while his wife was dying of cancer and likely used campaign funds to cover it up.

    I was a big fan of Edwards, but doggone it, if he did what the rumors say he did, he deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest.

    That was a disgusting use of campaign funds and he should be punished for it if he is guilty.

    Parent

    I'd give my left nut... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:04:15 AM EST
    for another President Clinton at this point...just to put the great myth of some kind of great difference between the two crooks to bed for good.  I'm sick of hearin' it:)

    Legend has it "666" is the mark...I say a "D" or "R" after ones name is giving "666" a run for its money.

    Parent

    Bro... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    I would give both of them and maybe my wiener after age 70 (30+ years away) to get Bill Clinton circa 1990, aka the Big Dog years.  I might even toss in my wife, if I had one to offer.  I heart BC.

    But I think that's a bygone era, now we are stuck with ball-less wonders scared of their own bills posing as liberals, aka the modern day Democratic Party.

    666 Trivia.
    Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letter is each of his names.

    For Fun.
    The Hebrew equivalent of our "w" is the letter "vav" or "waw". The numerical value of vav is 6. So the English "www" transliterated into Hebrew is "vav vav vav", which numerically is 666.


    Parent

    Your nuts my friend... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    Bill "War on Marijuana to new roided-out heights" Clinton?  I think there is a circle in hell reserved for his arse, call it the presidential wing 1980-Current.

    About the only compliment I can find for the guy is he charged a higher vig for his protection racket for the wealthy services.

    Parent

    To start, I have one name for you, Jeralyn: (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:46:12 AM EST
    Leura Canary, US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.  And one question: why is this woman still holding this position, over two years into Obama's term?  It seems to me that Canary is exactly the kind of prosecutor a Republican would nominate, so how do you explain that Obama - great defender of justice - has not replaced her?

    I guess what I find so darkly humorous about your comment that if the GOP picks up more seats in 2012, we will need a Democrat in the White House even more, is that I think we need one in the White House right now.  I feel like George Bush looking under tables for the WMD, except that I'm looking for the Democrat in the White House, and I'm sorry to say that I haven't found him yet.

    It's been pointed out to me that my problems with Obama don't mean much if there isn't someone else in the Democratic Party who not only better represents my views, but also stands a snowball's chance in hell of (1) taking on the Democratic machine that would make sure he or she didn't receive one dime of serious campaign cash, and (2) going on to successfully challenge Billion-Dollar Barack.

    And that may be so, which is enough to make one weep.

    I don't know that there will be any retirements from the Supreme Court, but even if there was one, I suspect the next one to give Obama the opportunity, if he is re-elected, to move more to the right.  I think Kagan was a rightward move after Sotomayor, and I don't have any reason to think that if he has a more Republican Congress to work with that he won't be nominating someone they can get behind without too much reservation.

    Holder?  He has his good moments, but he is enabling more of the same secretive, we-can-justify-anything-we-want attitude we saw with Gonzales; Holder may be smarter, but I don't think that has made him less pliable or more willing to stand up to Obama on some seriously important issues.

    As for primaries, I think the process and the democracy benefit from challenge; it shouldn't be easy to win anything this important, but our current system - with ample help from the Supreme Court - with so much emphasis on money and influence, is suffering for it - as are we, who end up having to choose the least bad candidate - which isn't much of a choice.

    I'm sure Obama will win; it's just too bad he's not the kind of Democrat the country needs.

    Sometimes it is out of a person's (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    control to "fix" a problem with a person or a government but sanctioning the destructive actions with support just enables the action to continue.

    Count me out.

     

    Parent

    Anne, thanks. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    I've asked about Canary before, about a year ago. Canary, quite simply, plays politics with her position.

    Parent
    Again, as far as Obama (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:24:46 AM EST
    Sup Ct picks in a 2d term, the likely scenario if he gets re-elected is that he also brings a net few additional Dems to the senate or, at worst, maintains the D slim majority.  That being the probable outcome, I wouldn't expect him to nominate someone so close to the corporatist center that s/he could become another Anthony Kennedy and in effect make it officially a conservative majority Court.  

    I don't think his party's base would allow it, and I'm not sure what the political motivation would be since he's already taken care of his corporate benefactors with plenty of key admin posts and policy positions.  If he did so, he'd be making serious enemies of many in the liberal wing, many of whom still constitute his most loyal backers, and would almost be starting an intraparty war that would seriously weaken him in his final years in office.  Presidents in that position don't normally look to find ways to alienate their party's base and put their presidency in political jeopardy.

    As for primarying him, it's traditional that presidents of either party get no or very weak primary opponents.  You have to have done good work of wrecking things in policy decisions and creating intraparty dissension -- LBJ obviously in 1968, JC to a much lesser extent in '80 (Ted's run being more personal than politically savvy) -- to get a serious primary challenger.

    Good luck trying to find one for Obama.  The majors will not be interested unless things (Afghanistan or economic double dip/tepid Obama response) seriously go south in the next year.

    Dennis the Lesser is not running this time.  And his lovely and talented wife is not constitutionally eligible, unfortunately.

    Marianne Williamson perhaps?  Phil Donahue?  

    Parent

    Obama doesn't give a flying (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    you-know-what about the liberals, so I have no doubt that any nomination he would make would not be done with consideration of the liberals to any extent.

    And, given your considered suggestions for possible primary opponents, it doesn't appear that you think much of liberals, either.

    Thanks for helping me rest my case.

    Parent

    Obama, in Rahm's famous words, thinks liberals.... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    ... are "f*cking retarded."

    And any liberal who puts up with that nonsense and still supports Obama proves that Rahm is right.

    Parent

    He'd better care -- (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    libs are his key to re-election, the ones who'll not only donate but volunteer and publicly advocate, then show up with their friends to vote.  The others, the moderate centrists and indies and few moderate Rs, much less likely to do the heavy campaign lifting, and a lot less likely to help whip up enough enthusiasm for a victory.

    And after re-elect, if successful, O is going to owe his base or else face mutiny in the ranks and become a very wounded lame duck 2d termer.

    As for primary opponents, just stating the harsh reality (and I have nothing personal against those people, but actually am in agreement with most on most issues).  No serious major Dem will challenge O if things continue along current trend lines.  So we're left with some minor, B-list and lower possibilities, any of whom won't matter in the primaries, and would pull at best 1% as a minor 3d party candidate.

    Fact is, Obama is just more popular and likable than LBJ or Jimmy, even as he's been greatly disappointing and too corporatist for many Dems.  He's a shoo-in for re-nom, with probably a 53% chance of re-elect at this point ..  

    Parent

    He (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    has shown that he absolutely DOES NOT care during his years in office so far. He cares only what independents and conservatives think.

    So he can always pull the fear card and it'll work with some people as far as voting but it will be interesting to see if he gets the so far ignored "troops" to come out for him. I'm willing to bet not. Right now I'd say he'll get their votes but not their time or money.

    Parent

    Why would Obama care what the liberals want? (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:18:55 PM EST
    The majority of liberals are more than willing to vote for Obama regardless of his policies. The lesser of two evils political section model is alive and well and will IMO result in Obama's second term.  

    And after re-elect, if successful, O is going to owe his base or else face mutiny in the ranks and become a very wounded lame duck 2d termer.

    After the 2008 all Obama felt he owed the liberal portion of his base was ridicule and unfortunately, no real mutiny against Obama occurred. All mutinous activity was directed at Congress. Keven Drum on this occasion has hit the nail on the head in regards to who Obama feels is important.

    I suppose that soon we'll be able to do away with even the charade that anyone with a net worth of less than a million bucks matters in the slightest. Given Obama's obvious deference to the rich over the past two years, this was probably sadly inevitable. link -h/t to lilburro

    I would be very surprised if the Republicans fielded a possible winning candidate in 2012. Why should they waste future winners when Obama is much more successful in passing their agenda items than past Republican presidents.

    Parent

    Where have you been (none / 0) (#129)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    MO Blue?  The modern GOP considers Obama a Marxist-socialist terrorist who was born in Kenya.  Must be gotten out of office, if not impeached.  Sorry, they won't be happy with another 4 years of someone who doesn't want to destroy unions and the minimum wage and worker rights and protections as they do, and who doesn't enthusiastically want to pass laws to force dark-skinned people to carry around proof of citizenship, and who doesn't agree with them that voting should be a privilege and not a right, and in the meantime we should have more laws not fewer restricting the ability of citizens to register to vote, including perhaps the return of literacy or citizenship tests.  And so on.

    Nah, just being moderate Ike-like might have worked 20 years ago, but it won't pass muster with the contemporary Far Right GOP that today considers Ike a lefty librul radical.  Reagan and Bush Jr were moderate for this crowd.  What they want is a "true conservative" more in the tradition of Fr Coughlin, Pat Buchanan, John Birch, Jesse Helms ...

    Parent

    I do not give a rat's a$$ what propagand (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    that the Republican are spouting.

    Where have you been when Obama's education policies require a takeover by a charter school or private management organization or "turnaround" which requires the entire teaching staff be fired and no more than 50 percent rehired in the fall. Many feel that these requirement are designed to 1) privatize public schools and 2) weaken and eliminate the Teachers Union (i.e. union busting)

    Maybe you missed the excise tax which Obama chose to include in the health insurance legislation which will result in the elimination of the good health care coverage that the unions negotiate on a regular basis. Taking away one of the key benefits of belonging to a union is not exactly union supportive action.

    In 2005, the Democrats in Congress and around the country stood firm on cuts to SS and successfully exposed the myth that SS was in crisis. The Republicans paid a price for their efforts at the ballot box and were not in any hurry to address the issue any time soon. Then along came Obama, supposedly a member of the Democratic Party, who joined with the Republicans in their chorus of SS is in crisis and put back on the table to be fixed. Is it any wonder that the Republicans are once again going after SS, Medicare and Medicaid when they have a Democratic president sprouting the same lies to cut the programs.

    Parent

    BTW you addressed what Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    were doing and failed to support your position that Obama better care what liberals think or that after he is reelected he is going to feel that he owes his base, other than the large corporate or wealthy donors, anything at all.  

    Parent
    If Obama (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    doesn't stand up then isn't he in effect doing the GOP's bidding on those issues?

    Parent
    More likely (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    that the GOP takes over the senate and Obama thinks he has to nominate a conservative to appease them. Either way, it's the same result on the supreme court.

    Parent
    You represented his attitudes perfectly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:55:43 AM EST
    Basically, liberals have nowhere else to go. And are still, in spite of being ignored at best (but truly mostly the targets of hippie punching), his staunch supporters.  But, since you occasionally engage in hippie punching yourself (who then takes liberals for granted), you probably don't notice.

    I think Obama has done most excellent work at "wrecking things in policy decisions and creating intraparty dissension".  

    Not that I expect he'll get the primary challenge he deserves.  Instead he'll get the obscene $1B campaign coffer.  Let the corporate persons that fund him vote for him.  

    I won't.  Sorry.  I won't shoot off any more of my own toes.  If someone else shoots them off, that's one thing.  I won't do it myself.

    Lesser of two evils is still evil.  I won't vote for evil.

    Parent

    Obama is "evil" only by (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    the most ridiculous Naderesque Gush=Bore stretch.  He's no more evil than HHH or Jimmy were, and look at what we got when liberals decided to stay home and shoot themselves in the toes.

    Wrecking things with disastrous policy choices, and creating intraparty dissension?  Sorry, but that would be LBJ* by a huge margin.  Obama -- not remotely in that league.  He's been very disappointing, but hasn't been disastrous in policy, nor has he split the party in two as Johnson did.

    * and I hope that doesn't constitute more "hippie punching" even though Johnson in his final years wore his hair long, as if to somehow identify with the hippie-ish youth culture ...

    Parent

    Spoken like a true centrist (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:13:24 PM EST
    Apparently you have yet to be thrown under the bus.  

    And I suggest you do some research on the term "hippie punching".  As if it had to do with long hair.  Oy.

    Parent

    I suggest you lighten (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    up.  As if it weren't obvious the line about LBJ above was a humorous aside.

    Parent
    Ok (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:13:53 PM EST
    I'll accept that it was intended as a joke.  To me it isn't a funny one, but humor is completely subjective.  But, fine.  It was intended as joke.

    Won't lighten up, though.

    Signed,
    A holier-than-thou political purist

    Parent

    sj: So...when is the canonization? :) (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:07:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't be going there (none / 0) (#177)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    You know that happens after death.

    Parent
    couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#104)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    if it is up to me- good -because I won't enable Obama again.

    Parent
    "It's up to us..." (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:46:57 AM EST
    yeah...its up to us to either hit the street like our middle eastern breathren or keep on bending over and taking it.

    As disappointing as Obama has been, ya would think a primary challenge would be guaranteed.  Not that such a challenge would be successful in our "money talks" election system...but still, a challenge might get us a few more bones, or at least more empty promises of more bones.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:52:12 AM EST
    That when Obama's team starts listing their accomplishments and finishes off the argument with an unemployment rate in the 7's by the time of the election, the accusations that Obama=Bush are going to look very silly.

    I think the disconnect between those who see Obama as a republican and those on the left and the right who see that's not  true are going to become increasingly pronounced and create a real dissonance.

    You are going to have the right furiously painting Obama as a socialist because of healthcare while those on the far left are pointing to that as evidence that he's a conservative.

    Meanwhile, those between those two vast poles will be evaluating the candidates on more realistic merits.

    The problem: Team Hannity is going to support their guy while Team Nader is going to take their toys and go home.

    And when President Romney REALLY reminds everyone what a conservative looks like, we'll here all sorts of anger and consternation by those who called Obama a conservative.

    Lot of good that complaining will do us then.

    Screw that.  Regardless of whether you agree with everything Obama has done, we all need to back him like the country depends on it.

    Because it does.

    "Obama 2012: No Matter What!" (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    I think that when Obama's team starts listing their accomplishments and finishes off the argument with an unemployment rate in the 7's by the time of the election, the accusations that Obama=Bush are going to look very silly.

    Well, if the contest is about checking items off a list, I will grant you that Obama has been able to do that - but the form those "accomplishments" have taken, and how they are playing out in reality, leaves much to be desired.

    And I'm sorry to tell you that I actually laughed out loud that you think unemployment is going to be below 8% in two years, when both the president and the Congress are in full-on Austerity Mode - which is not going to stimulate the economy, but just the opposite.  On matters of national security, privacy rights, state secrets, etc., Obama is arguably worse than Bush.

    I think the disconnect between those who see Obama as a republican and those on the left and the right who see that's not  true are going to become increasingly pronounced and create a real dissonance.

    Interesting, because I think - and I am not alone - the line between these two parties is going to shrink and blur even more in the next two years, such that, without knowing the affiliation of the party responsible for various policy decisions, it's going to be hard to identify.

    You are going to have the right furiously painting Obama as a socialist because of healthcare while those on the far left are pointing to that as evidence that he's a conservative.

    And how's Obama going to counter that?  By minimizing the differences between his policies and those of the GOP, which is absolutely going to play into the Obama-as-conservative that you think is so ridiculous.

    Meanwhile, those between those two vast poles will be evaluating the candidates on more realistic merits.

    And realizing there isn't much of a difference; I don't think that's going to work in Obama's favor.

    The problem: Team Hannity is going to support their guy while Team Nader is going to take their toys and go home.

    And when President Romney REALLY reminds everyone what a conservative looks like, we'll here all sorts of anger and consternation by those who called Obama a conservative.

    Again, if it's a contest between two sane candidates, the Republican has more than a fighting chance; the only way the GOP loses is if they run one of their more sanity-challenged members.

    Lot of good that complaining will do us then.

    Screw that.  Regardless of whether you agree with everything Obama has done, we all need to back him like the country depends on it.

    People need to back the candidate whom they believe best represents their interests.

    Your "vote for someone no matter what" message provides absolutely no incentive for any candidate, once elected, to pay the slightest attention to the people.

    Parent

    Breaking (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    On matters of national security, privacy rights, state secrets, etc., Obama is arguably worse than Bush.

    from MSNBC (no link yet):

    9/11 mastermind to be tried at Gitmo, not US Court.

    You're right Anne -the lines have blurred.

    Parent

    There are times when it's no fun to (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    be right; I was just about to post this:

    And now comes word that that bastion of Democratic principles - the US Department of Justice and its leader, Attorney General Eric Holder - will not try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in federal court but in a military commission at Guantanamo.

    As Marcy Wheeler says,

    "(B)ecause nothing says "laying the foundation" of a Presidential campaign and "inspiring new" supporters like caving to fear mongering."

    I'm sure a Republican-appointed Attorney General would just have gone straight to the military commission and not wasted anyone's time dancing around pretending to be all about the rule of law and a transparent system of justice; this is ever so much better, isn't it?


    Parent

    Unfortunately, that defines what (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    current differences between the parties. The Dems do a little dance before they disregard the rule of law or pass legislation that robs the poor and middle class to give to the wealthy. Republican don't do the dance first. With or without the dance, we get the same end results.

    Parent
    A point of my concern for Obama governance is (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:36:39 AM EST
    reflected in the position: ..those between those vast poles (pole #l, the right--not far right, but right) will furiously paint Obama as a socialist because of health care (legislation) while those of the far left (pole #2, the far left, not left, but far left) are pointing to that (the right calling the president a socialist) as evidence that he is conservative. It is not what the right thinks of the president, it is what the president thinks of the left.

     When the president set up discussion of heath care reform he presented his program as not what the two extreme poles wanted ,rightist pole #1--do nothing or what far leftist pole #2 wanted--Medicare for all, so his "reform' was Goldilocks perfect. Those of his own party who held a sound as well as tried and true Democratic party approach that could readily be extended to ages under 65, were painted as  extreme polar opposites to Republican extremists, right or far right.

    Parent

    I would realy like for there to be (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    a far left movement in this country. I will let you in on a secret: The countries who actually have a active far left laugh at the idea of the U.
    S. "far left."

    On your main point, Obama has been very successful at rehabilitating the Republican Party and moving the country even further to the right by the tactic you mentioned.

    Those of his own party who held a sound as well as tried and true Democratic party approach that could readily be extended to ages under 65, were painted as  extreme polar opposites to Republican extremists, right or far right.
     

    Obama has and will continue to pass legislation that the Republicans have tried and failed to pass for decades all under the guise of being the lesser of two evils.

    Parent

    The unemployment rate will not be in the (none / 0) (#25)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    7s until 2016 or beyond.

    Unless you are one of those that think the drop from 9.8% to 8.8% over the last five months was due to employment gains and not changes in how unemployment is calculated.  I doubt the unemployed will care.

    Parent

    If the trends hold (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    Unemployment will be near 7.9 this time next year. It's gone down a point in the last six months. I am talking legit trend lines and you are talking . . . Well I am not quite sure.

    Parent
    Read this. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:32:22 AM EST

    BTD's post.

    Supporting NY Times article describing the unemployment drop from 9.8% of 9.0%.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    have to realize that Obama's record has not been good and it's something that the GOP is going to go to town on.

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:29:26 AM EST
    The beauty of the way this has played out is that the GOP will be attacking the accomplishments that Obama can run on. Pawlenty is saying that the GOP should reinstate dadt for example. You really think Obama is going to look bad on stuff like that?

    No.

    Parent

    Do you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:34:52 AM EST
    really think that DADT is going to matter when we have high unemployment?

    People tend to put social issues aside when they don't have jobs.

    Parent

    Agree about economic (none / 0) (#51)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:56:38 AM EST
    issues, but on the social matters it could mean the difference of a few percent gain with that one group, or more.  

    Then the Latinos -- not a great economic situation either, but with the GOP in power it might even be worse with the Republicans' love of outsourcing, plus, they would figure, they'd be asked for their papers everywhere they turn, and some put in prison for deportation.  They will likely stick with Obama, even with Rubio on the GOP ticket in the #2 slot.

    Parent

    With the latinos (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    I would think that it would take a Sharon Angle type candidate to make them show up. If Rubio runs as VP I don't think it would inspire them to show up and vote for the GOP so much as maybe not make them quite as motivated to vote against the GOP like they were in Nevada this last election.

    Right now it's looking to be very close. There's going to be no electoral landslide for Obama unless the GOP totally screws up.

    Parent

    Any word on the time frame of (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    the government certification that the armed forces are prepared to implement the new policy that is required to actually repeal the law?

    Parent
    brodie: The National Journal's chart & map (none / 0) (#173)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    on some very relevant state-by-state electoral college changes since 2008 vis-a-vis Latinos, AAs, and all minorities is worth scanning. Most of the numbers are fairly solid or, at least, very modest projections based on actual numbers. Very useful info.

    Parent
    Thx, christine -- NaJl (none / 0) (#199)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    will check out.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#171)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    Dadt and a lot of factors will matter. I also think that unemployment is going to look better. He's already beating the worst case unemployment numbers I've seen paraded here.

    Parent
    Sure hope the winters are mild (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    this year and in 2012. Poor people freezing in the winter because Obama traded away money for energy heating assistance to help offset his tax cuts to the rich will not be great PR. The working poor will have even less money to spend on survival since Obama raised their taxes while he increased the tax cuts to the rich.  

    Parent
    Wow, the Nader slur is coming out early! (none / 0) (#98)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    This whole thread is rather like Christmas carols playing in the mall right after Halloween. 'Cause it's 2011, for pity's sake, not 2012.

    So, let me respond to ABG in the terms he seems to be asking for:

    Speaking of toys to take home, why don't the Obama Fans go steal some more caucuses? Or falsely smear their opponents as racist? Or astroturf every comment thread on every "progressive" blog into a misogynist hate fest? Or, ya know, lie and lie and lie about what Obama was going to do? Check the website!

    I know Obama's going to have a billion dollars, but you'd have to pay me a good chunk of that to go anywhere near his campaign, after the last one he and his supporters ran. Good riddance to the Ds. They need to go the way of the Whigs, and based on policy outcomes, they are.

    Parent

    Isn't it? (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    Wow, the Nader slur is coming out early!

    Twice by ABG and once by brodie.  So far.  But then it's only lunch time.

    Parent

    Whoops (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    In checking this out I maligned ABG.  He's only thrown the stone once.  The other was a quote by Anne.

    But, as I said, it's only lunch time.

    Parent

    If not Obama, it's Romney or perhaps another (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    Bush (Jeb). Are the very small differences between them really that significant? It depends on who has the power in the Congress and Senate. If you have Obama and a Democratic house and Senate, the differences will be small but at times significant. If you have Romney or Bush and a Republican house and Senate, the difference will be huge and, from a progressive point of view, a disaster. If you have Romney or Bush and a Democratic house and Senate, they will likely act a lot like Obama did with a Democratic house. If we keep Obama and a Republican Congress, well, we already know how bad that is.

    The Republican establishment (the people with the money), has the same economic interests as the Democratic establishment, and while it is happy to let "the base" get fired up over (and Democrats get terrified by) nutcases like Palin, Bachman and Gingrich, it won't let one of those nutcases head a national ticket. If you think I'm wrong, think about 1996 and 2008 -- elderly old Dole and elderly old McCain. Both of these men were very unpopular with "the base" but they ended up with the nomination anyway.

    So, I'm not going to worry much about who is  President this time -- what really worries me is whether the Republicans keep the house and the Democrats lose the Senate. And, how progressive the Democrats in the house and Senate actually are.

    That's where we all should be focused.

    The senate is going to be very very tough to (none / 0) (#34)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    keep based on timing.  Gains can be made in the house with the dems potentially taking it.

    Parent
    I hope you are right about the house (none / 0) (#40)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    and I agree about the Senate.

    Parent
    I think this is exactly right (none / 0) (#130)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    We can't afford to take the chance of the Republican's in full control.  Take a look at some of the crazy stuff that is getting passed in the house on abortion just for one example.  I'm not going to pound the pavement for Obama or send him money but the idea of withholding ones vote given the alternative seems petulant.

    Parent
    If you want to play defense (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TJBuff on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:15:14 AM EST
    Concentrate on taking back the House.  Leave Obama to reap what he's sown.  Personally, I think it's a mighty sparse crop, but YMMV.

    I expect low interest in this campaign (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:25:37 AM EST
    on the Dem side. Obama has a virtual lock on the nomination - what incumbent president doesn't? Gonna be hard to raise a lot of money early.

    When it comes down to the general, we will all examine our various options. I don't want the Republican to win either, but if FL is polling strong in either direction I will vote for whatever leftie fringe candidate is out there, to make a statement.

    I hope the lack of enthusiasm for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    doesn't get in the way of taking back the house. That is most important -- Democrats can't let the top of the ticket dampen their enthusiasm for winning back the house.

    Although I can't do much in terms of vote (my Democratic representative is going back with probably close to 90% of the vote, he always does), I will be putting my money in the house and senate races. Obama isn't getting a dime.

    Parent

    We have a good contender for my house seat (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:54:13 AM EST
    I will definitely work towards taking that seat back.

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    I guess we can finally lay to rest the "he's not running for a second term cuz being president is hard" rumors...

    They all want as many (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    terms as constitutionally permitted, if at all possible politically or personally.  TR made the mistake of saying he wouldn't seek another term in the 1908 election, and regretted it.  HST was so unpopular in 1952, it wasn't a close question.  LBJ in 1968 actually wanted another term, and had a plan of how to do it via the sneaky back door route of dropping out then dropping back in when circumstances would have improved, but the polls at convention time didn't work out for him.

    The prez who just wants the one term then gladly steps aside goes against the grain of the type of exceedingly ambitious person who seeks the office in the first place.

    Parent

    I was being (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    snarky.

    Of COURSE he was gonna run for a second term.

    Parent

    Kevin Drum (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    on the massive campaign financing issue:

    I suppose that soon we'll be able to do away with even the charade that anyone with a net worth of less than a million bucks matters in the slightest. Given Obama's obvious deference to the rich over the past two years, this was probably sadly inevitable.

    Considering the degree to which Drum has been forgiving to Obama it's an interesting comment.  And if you scroll down to this post, his comment to Ezra is quite funny.

    I respect (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    this blog and the people who run it.

    However, I could no more vote for Obama than I could for McCain.

    One guy in the video says: "I don't agree with Obama on everything, but I respect him and I trust him."

    I neither respect nor trust Obama. Why should I?

    Even on this blog, the vast majority of posts by Jeralyn or BTD have been critical or disgusted with the Obama administration on issues pertaining to civil liberties and domestic policy.

    The only issue - and maybe an overriding one for a legal blog - is the question of appointments to the Supreme Court. For me, it is not overriding. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.

    So, if Obama wants it to be "up to me", I would request that he not run again.

    But the joke is, of course, that it is not up to me.
    It is not even up to "us".

    It is up to the corporations who gave him millions last time and will do so again. They're happy. The markets are up. So are their profits and bonuses. And they will also support the opposition candidate. Win win for them. Lose for us.

    The joke is on us (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    But the joke is, of course, that it is not up to me.
    It is not even up to "us".

    It is up to the corporations who gave him millions last time and will do so again. They're happy. The markets are up. So are their profits and bonuses. And they will also support the opposition candidate. Win win for them. Lose for us.



    Parent
    One owner, two brands (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    Exactly as Starbucks Corp has two brands, Starbucks (the burnt stuff) and Seattle's Best (the less burnt stuff), so the banksters own two brands: The Ds and the Rs.

    It's not even a lesser evil. It's the same evil.

    Parent

    I know where I'm going (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    I'm going to stay home...

    I have no interest in a campaign involving two Republicans.  If we keep voting for the lesser evil, we'll continue to get evil.  Let them lose.  They'll eventually learn.  I have patience.

    Oh,  I know, I know... if the Republicans have control the country will fall to pieces, the earth will implode! hahahahahahaha and it's so much better under Obama.....(actually it's worse).

    with you all the way Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    funny
    I could have written the comments in this thread almost word for word.

    so predictable.

    Indeed...even yours. (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by dk on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    People are nothing if not predictable around here...except when they're not I suppose.  :)

    Parent
    Party like it's 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    The projection continues....

    Parent
    Bizarre. I'm fairly sure you (none / 0) (#148)
    by observed on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    said you'd completely had it with Obama, not too long ago, and wouldn't give him another chance.


    Parent
    one of many things (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    about which you are incorrect.  find that comment.

    Parent
    I'm sure we could if you didn't make (none / 0) (#162)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    something like 500+ comments a month... :-)

    observed is not the only one who distinctly remembers that you were "done" not so long ago - maybe over DADT?  I just remember thinking that if Obama had lost you, he was in bad shape - I guess you've returned to the fold, though.

    Whatever works for you, I guess.

    Parent

    find it (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:10:03 PM EST


    Parent
    It was over DADT (none / 0) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:48:50 PM EST
    The comment was made when it looked like no action would be taken on DADT while the Dems still controlled Congress.

    Parent
    Wow -- the TL Thought Police (none / 0) (#200)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:58:11 PM EST
    Doesn't Jeralyn discourage that sort of looking up posters' ancient writings thing?

    ANd I wouldn't care if Cap'n Howdy did say such a thing -- I've had plenty of moments like that about Obama, and we have the right to state our views and feelings and later change our minds.  Or on one issue.

    Parent

    folks like to lapse (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:17:11 PM EST
    into these nit-picky suburban domestic quarrels around here from time to time..

    Remember when you said..?

    Parent

    No thought police (none / 0) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    nor any looking up a posters' ancient writings. If I had looked it up, I would have provided a quote and a link.

    Capt. Howdy original stated that he never said he was done with Obama.  That statement was inaccurate. He later clarified and agreed that it was on DADT and since the status of DADT changed, he changed his position. Which is understandable, since a political stance is often based on how a person is personally effected by a politician's policies.  


    Parent

    I remember it, too (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    But I won't look for it, either.

    Parent
    find it (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:10:10 PM EST


    Parent
    nope (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    Anne is right.  It's buried too deep and I have no intention of sifting through pages and pages of Capt Howdy comments.  No matter how entertaining some of them are.

    It doesn't really matter anyway, does it?  The only view that counts is the one expressed on election day.  Everything else is subject to change.

    And clearly someone is mis-remembering.  Who knows?  It could be all of us :)

    Parent

    I believe the comment (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    being desperately grasped for is about DADT and I did in fact say that if he allowed it to fail I was done.

    as we know.  it did not fail. hence, I am not done.

    not rocket science.


    Parent

    I got curious though (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    about the status of DADT.  And voila!  There's an item today about it.  

    Apparently it could be implemented "as soon as September".

    Parent

    Having more familiarity (none / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:46:02 PM EST
    with the DoD policies and procedures paperwork review process than I care to remember, a 9 month turnaround is about average. No stalling required to take that long.

    Parent
    okay (none / 0) (#187)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    I wasn't make a judgement (or not much of one, anyhow), just an observation.  I hadn't heard anything about it in a while and got curious.

    Parent
    I know, I think I took about the (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    amount of judgement you intended...I just meant to say something about a more judgmental post yesterday, by whom I do not recall! I was laughing at the idea of it getting done in 3 months.

    Parent
    Well, for some definition of "us" (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:00:05 PM EST
    Obama's contribution to under-the-bus former Ds like me can be summed up in two words:

    "Jack" and "Squat."

    am I right about that.. (none / 0) (#182)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    you were thrown under the bus and called a racist?

    When did this happen, during the primaries? I'm surprised you let this much time go by without ever mentioning it..

    Parent

    Essentially, the argument is (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by observed on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    that Obama is holding the Supreme Court hostage; hence, he needs our vote, no matter what else he does.
    It's not enough.
    Elections are choices (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    presented.

    Obama will be the only choice.I will vote for him.

    But I don't expect to spend anytime worrying about his reelection. He has enough people and money to do that.

    I am more interested in finding some candidates to get excited about - like Ben Masel.

    It's going to be important... (none / 0) (#100)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    ... to prevent the national Ds from infiltrating and betraying local organizations and decapitating new grassroots left (non-DC) organizations as they did in 2008. That's what I really care about. With a billion dollars, Obama doesn't need my help. Of course, his supporters don't want my help anyhow, since I'm a racist, or so they said in 2008.

    Parent
    That billion is for Obama (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:24:56 PM EST
    and Obama alone.

    If he gets out the vote, that helps progressive candidates.

    Indeed, that is the big problem, Obama won't get out the vote that well in 2012 imo.

    Parent

    You'd think so, right? (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    If he gets out the vote, that helps progressive candidates.

    Apparently you're not involved in local party politics.

    Lambert is completely right about this:

    It's going to be important... (none / 0) (#100)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:17:53 PM EST

    ... to prevent the national Ds from infiltrating and betraying local organizations and decapitating new grassroots left (non-DC) organizations as they did in 2008.



    Parent
    Do peole not vote in local poltics? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    Enlighten me.

    Parent
    This requires more time than I have (none / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:29:35 PM EST
    at the moment.  I will give a recap this evening if there is still room on the thread.

    Parent
    The local organizations are my priority (none / 0) (#123)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    The Ds can and will take care of themselves.

    * * *

    Obviously, "voting" and "local organizing" aren't the same thing.

    Parent

    I can live (none / 0) (#167)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    With his critics taking that position BTD. That's sensible.


    Parent
    This totally cracked me up (none / 0) (#176)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    Of course you can live with that.  As long they vote for him.

    Very sensible of you.

    Parent

    If you like choosing a President (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by observed on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    the way people choose their phones---strictly by slogans---then vote for Obama.
    I can tell you one thing for sure: There is no hope for hope or change if Obama is the nominee.

    Democratic Stockholm Syndrome, IMO (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by observed on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:25:38 PM EST
    I couldn't disagree more with your statement that you are glad there are no primaries. The fact Obama won't be primaried is a huge problem.
    He won't give up ANYTHING to people left of Newt Gingrich if he's not primaried.

    My gawd, that video is pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:52:55 PM EST
    There is no concrete message in it at all, just more of that old "HE'S THE ONE!!!" nonsense. Two minutes of nothing but emptiness and meaninglessness -- kinda like those Obama campaign promises of 2008. Therefore, the video, the inarticulate silly people in it, and Obama are a perfect match for each other.

    Rah rah. 2012. Maybe I can move to Canada before the insanity of campaign season unfurls. Was it Jeff or Dadler who said the Democratic party needs to go the way of the whigs? I thoroughly agree.

    Hey, how soon you forget (none / 0) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    You need to go to his web site.

    Parent
    Too bad the Rent is Too Damn High party (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    lost its candidate to the R's...

    I'd love to see a protest primary opponent. Jeez, Dean, Kucinich, Boxer, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Rick Sanchez, Willie Nelson, Captain Jack Sparrow... anyone who'd actually stump on Democratic issues.

    The Democratic Party has gotten too far away from democratic issues.

    What I am really dreading (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    is the impending soaring rhetoric and attempts at persuasion in support of reelection that have been missing in support of some very important issues over the last two years.

    I had hopes that such undeniably strong political skills would be put to better use in governing.

    yeah (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    but this time there's no "hope" that Obama is going to do any of that. Four years of seeing him in action are going to make him not very credible on any "promises".

    Let's see Obama can say I'm going to fix those mortgage problems in my second term but somehow he never did it in four years with a mostly compliant congress and senate for two years.

    Parent

    It is NOT "up to us" (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by kmblue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    It's up to the big money donors and all those profiting (literally) from Obama's behavior.

    He has a nerve talking about "grass roots".

    They were there for the One the first time, but I advise him not to count on a second round of worship.

    If you want a 4th term of Reagan, (4.50 / 4) (#2)
    by observed on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:21:31 AM EST
    go for it.
    I don't see any alternative to Obama, but I am not voting for a "Democratic" President who has done more for the Republican agenda than anyone since Reagan---and possibly more than Reagan.

    Agreed ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    and Jeralyn may not wish to risk the Supreme Court going slightly more to the right.  

    But one assumes she's willing to risk more wars in the middle east, more killing of brown people that did nothing to us, more people unlawfully detained, continued expansion of the Patriot Act, more Orwellian actions from Homeland Security, more giveaways to banks and insurance companies, more disinterest in the problems of the working glass, and so on.

    I won't be voting for Obama or any other Republican running for President.

    Parent

    Fool me once shame on you ! (4.33 / 3) (#3)
    by samsguy18 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:59:05 AM EST
    Fool me twice shame on me......I know the supreme court is important...However the economic survival of this nation is paramount! The present administration is not up to the challenge. We need a courageous  competent and invested leader!

    Okay, I can agree with that. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:32:40 AM EST
    Now, who in the Republican party fits that characterization?

    Parent
    That's exactly (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    the problem. No one is speaking to the problems we have as a country.

    The GOP thinks the Cold War is still going on and Obama thinks that discredited Reagaonomics aka Plantation Economics is the answer to our problems.

    Parent

    The problem is we either (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    support Obama (who is continuing most of Bush's policies) or a right wing nut.  Unless the GOP could nominate someone like Pawlenty, its center right or hard right.  The truth is, the 2012 election is going to be pretty boring and depressing.  We really are not going to have any good options.

    Parent
    We've been faced with (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    depressing choices before, 1968 and 1980 come to mind.  In both cases, libs and lefty-lib types just couldn't see how much worse allowing the far right or a conservative crook like Nixon into the WH, would be for their interests.  Even plenty of fairly smart libs in 1980 were charmed by Reagan's smile, not enough to vote for him but to think that maybe he wasn't the hard right ideologue some on the left had portrayed him as.

    Whoever the GOP puts up in 2012, once again they are likely to be very good, slick and clever at the marketing  -- learning from the Goldwater fiasco and Bush "compassionate conservative" 2000 success, they will once again hide their true far right intentions behind benign-seeming slogans and pleasant enough sounding generalities and flag waving.  Once again, I fear, enough soft-headed disappointed libruls will be lulled into thinking that maybe the Republican won't be as bad as some fear.  And once again, like Lucy with the football, the Charlie Brown Dems will be fooled when the vague promises and benign slogans become harsh hard right policy positions in the WH.

    Yes, I remember disappointment and depression come election time.  And this country would have been far better off if we'd turned out for HHH in 1968 (I was too young to vote alas) and in 1980 for Jimmy, despite our great disappointment with both very flawed pols.  

    Parent

    go Obama is right (none / 0) (#4)
    by kmblue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:04:53 AM EST
    go away.

    and the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#5)
    by kmblue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:07:11 AM EST
    ain't sparkling right now, either.  Could it get worse?  You betcha.  And Obama might well be in charge when it happens.

    You'd have to be a fool to believe that, (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:14:10 AM EST
    as it's against all evidence.

    Parent
    No, you wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    Obama has shown no willingness, when it REALLY matters, but buck the tide.  I have little doubt his "tilt" pick for the SCOTUS would surprise all of us in its middle-of-the-road nature.  Why would you think this man, with his track record of folding when the chips are down, would make a bold pick when it would mean, undoubtedly, a fight that he has been so far unwilling to wage.  I don't know, obviously, nor does anyone else, but Obama's track record WHEN IT MATTERS is pitiful.

    That said, certainly I understand the hope he would tilt the court back to a rational base, but I don't understand the certainty anyone has with Obama.

    Parent

    it's based on (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    who he's already nominated and how they've voted.

    There is little to complain about from those two supreme court justices, they are certainly on the left side of the aisle.

    Parent

    those were easy noms that didn't tilt the court (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    When he actually has to pick a nominee who would REALLY make a difference, when he knows he will get a fight beyond anything he has seen, Obama's track record is not good.  My point is that the next nom will not be like the previous two, which, IMO, were easy.  The hard one is the tilt pick, and Obama's personality, his desperate need to be accepted by those haven't accepted him, I fear, will get in the way of him doing the right thing WHEN IT REALLY COUNTS.

    IMO, of course, but also based on track record.  

    Parent

    I also see him as a person... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    ....who would love to be viewed as constructing as moderate a court as there ever has been.  I don't see him loving the idea that he was the Prez who took the court firmly to the left.  Just don't see it.

    Parent
    this was a response (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:24:50 AM EST
    to someone who said the court could get worse under Obama.

    You honestly think that if a right-leaning judge retires he's gonna put someone WORSE in?

    I agree he will pick someone "easy" like Kagan or Sotomayor - and it will be a vast improvement.

    Parent

    I'm saying.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    ....that the faith people have in Obama to act in their interests WHEN IT REALLY MATTERS, which is what this next pick will be (not an easy pick early in his admin.), that he has shown time and time again he will balk.  I'm saying, in effect, that Obama has made many other back picks in his administration, horrible picks that have decimated the nation, so why I should think he couldn't do it again, I have no idea.  I want to believe desperately that come a second term Obama will don his progressive Superman suit and live up to his own b.s., I can obviously see how the pick becomes easier in a second term when he doesn't have to get re-elected, but Obama has shown such a need to be accepted by Republicans, sorry, my read on his personality just doesn't give me the hope I should have.

    That said, obviously I'm not going to cast a ballot for a Republican, so once again I'm left with the slightly less stinky sh*tpile to vote for.  Marvelous.  

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    the advantage of living in a red state like GA is it really doesn't matter what I do. There's really no good congressional candidate to vote for that I've seen so far and there aren't any statewide elections. So if I sit this one out, it really won't matter in the least.

    Parent
    Do you honestly think that if Ginsburg (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    retired, he would replace her with someone as liberal? I don't because it wouldn't be "easy" so that would make the Court WORSE than it is.

    Parent
    Replacing liberal justices like Ginsburg (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    with someone less liberal IMO is a given. If for some unforeseen reason Obama would have the opportunity to replace one of the conservative justices who would actually change the make up of the court, I would not trust him not appoint someone who would maintain the current balance especially where deference to corporate interest are concerned.

    Parent
    Actually it's not a given, (none / 0) (#143)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    and the Sup Ct has been the one area where Obama has shown signs of progressive-leaning consistency, as if he'd carved out a few areas where he would throw liberals a few bones.

    He's earned some cred with his Sup Ct picks if not so much in some other areas.  And I don't see him risking an Anthony Kennedy swing-to-the-right situation with a too-centrist and too-corporatist pick if that opening happens in a 2d term.  And white, male corporatist centrists -- he's already taken care of them with many other picks and policies so far.  That box has been checked and re-checked.  No political motivation to once again check it ...

    Parent

    And neither pick was that (none / 0) (#61)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    bold.  Center-left, but not lefty-liberal.  I wouldn't expect a bold lefty pick from Obama in a 2d term.  But he would still have plenty of political room -- barring a surprising senate Dem meltdown in the election that goes for O -- for another establishment center-left pick like Kagan or Sotomayor.

    Parent
    White, middle of the road guy (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    That's my prediction.  To the right, easily of Kagan or Sotomayor, but percieved as to the left of the other side.  Again, IMO, but based on what I've seen of Obama time and time again when the game is on the line.

    Parent
    Evidence (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:24:38 PM EST
    For a factual basis, it would be helpful if those making general statements contending that JJ Sotomayor & Kagan are not liberal-enough could point to a few cases and decisions supporting any such assertion???

    Parent
    Here's one example (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    of the danger. Obama's two appointees went the right way, but weren't enough to overcome the conservative block of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc. With a Republican President making new appointments, it will happen more and more. And not just on crime issues.

    Parent
    If Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    He's going to have a Republican Senate.  What kinds of nominees do you think are going to get past Jeff Sessions?

    Parent
    Supreme Court picks five years from now (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by TJBuff on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    aren't all that imperative anymore.  Most people have bigger, more immediate problems that Obama is doing bupkiss about.

    That probably is a big concern of wealthy democratic donors, though.

    Parent

    It'll be interesting to see (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    if Obama can get a well-organized grassroots effort going early on.  I think the only person that could beat him would be Scott Brown but he does not appear interested in running, to my knowledge.

    I would love (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    to get rid of Scott Brown this election.

    Unfortunately I don't think that's gonna happen.

    MA is also losing a house seat though (all seats are currently held by Dems).  So depending on how the re-districting goes, I wonder if they will eliminate the "weakest" perceived candidate, or if one of the more popular ones will drop out to run for senate.

    Based on polling so far, I kind of hope they don't drop out.  I expect Scott Brown to take it.

    lose /lose yet again (none / 0) (#95)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:11:04 PM EST
    My only hope  is someone primaries him or we get a decent republican candidate (none come to mind)  because I will never vote for obama. More importantly I will work against him at every opportunity as well as against anyone who supports him. Democratic tea party anyone?

    as someone else else said n the thread burn me once shame on you. Burn me twice shame on me.

    These comments are saddening (none / 0) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    Forages reasons..
    1. I think president Hillary clinton would have bolted to the middle even more quickly in this environment. That was the lesson of the nineties and the clintons are almost by definition moderate democrats.

    2.  As always there is a disconnect between what I think we'd all want and what is actually possible.  If these comments represented the true opinion of most democrats we'd all look like raving lunatics. The idea that Obama's presidency has been a conservative one only plays in a forum where the normal left is defined as the standard. In other words a lefty blog. But the electorate is completely different and the electorate matters. There is no use proposing policies that will not pass for the sake of making a point and then losing what little power you have as a result. Take Gitmo. Obama pushed to have the prisoners moved to the US and tried in civilian courts and public opinion and the GOP overwhelmed him.  he really had no way to make that work and thus Gitmo remains open and military trials are proceeding.  He hasn't been perfect on the issue but geezus people. He's not a king. If congoress and 70 percent of the population doesn't
    Want Gitmo inmates here,how does he magically make that obstacle vanish?

    3. The real sadness coes from the fact that the far left is going to move itself into irrelevance, which is a real tragedy. But if their standards of compliance with doctrine are so high that no candidate can meet them and be elected, people will stop listening to them and skew further towards the middle..

    Saddening? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    You seem to take it personally.

    I'm critical of Obama but I was not expecting what many were.

    My biggest criticism remains The Deal and it enrages mestill that he did it.

    Tax policy is the most important issue in this country now.

    Parent

    Personal (none / 0) (#112)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    Hmmm. In a way, yes. I believe in almost everything being used to bash Obama here. The wars, the tax policy, all of it. But I always felt like the tendency to overreact and demand absolute allegiance in order to be deemed a good representative was the custom of the republicans. That's the way the Ralph reeds and Rushes and Palins were supposed to think not us. We were supposed to be smarter, more pragmatic, more realistic, more fair with our leaders.

    It is personal because I hate to see those I agree with on so many things taking unwavering positions that will ultimately cause those points of agreement to be impossible to implement.

    I mean staying out of the election in a temper tantrum and letting the GOP control all three branches is going to help our cause?  That's insane. There is no logical way to support that position.  I agree that it might make an individual feel better to voice displeasure in that way, but if issues and the fate of the nation is at stake, that's not the way to handle it.

    Parent

    Ah yes, "temper tantrum" (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    The infantilization trope was oft-used by Obama's fans in the primariez. Plus ca "change" ....

    Parent
    Let me put (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    it to you in one sentence: Some things are worth fighting for even if you lose.

    Parent
    People believe in their issues (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    In some way though, I think you have a point in that folks are acting as if they really believed Obama would be different than all the rest of the pols.

    They take it personally like you do.

    Parent

    Don't remember things quite the same way (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:21:20 PM EST
    I don't recall a lot of the people who regularly comment at TL buying into the "Hope and Change" meme. In fact, IIRC many believed that Obama would use his PPUS as an excuse to implement policies such as "The Deal" and continue the abuses of the Bush administration against the Constitutional rights of citizens and further pursue the doctrine that the president is above the law.

    There are people who believe in their issues and are unwilling to support policies just because they are Obama's policies when they railed against them when they were Bush's policies.

    BTW, the inadequate stimulus, the Obama tax cuts which were even more generous to the rich and raised taxes on the working poor, further cuts to domestic programs, Obama's willingness to spend $40 million a day to bomb Libya and at the same time agree to cut the funds for emergency heating assistance to the poor etc., etc, hit a lot of people very personally.

    Parent

    We get conservative policies from Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    ... because Obama's a conservative.

    Parent
    Not insane (none / 0) (#121)
    by TJBuff on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:44:28 PM EST
    Totally rational in our society.  Our elites only react to fear and greed.  We can't compete in the greed department, so we'll have to go with fear.

    Parent
    ABG - (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    Generally, you seem to place great emphasis on polling.  The health care bill passed despite bad polling.  So it's not like Obama necessarily cares about issue polling.  

    It's all about mandate.  You seem to believe that Obama had no mandate to do more.  He was elected while promising to close Gitmo.  I recall him saying that if he hadn't closed Gitmo in two years he would think of that as a failure (BBC link, Guardian Link).  So, at least on that issue, he failed.

    The idea that Obama's presidency is conservative isn't a fever dream isolated only in liberal blogs.  It's true - he more or less passed Nixon's health care plan.  He emphasized market solutions instead of public solutions.  He allowed the rich to keep their tax cuts at least for another two years.

    I realize it's not the 60s and this isn't LBJ.  But I know the political discourse has shifted drastically to the right over the past 40 years.  But Obama has played into that without changing it.  Progressives expected him to do more on that front I think.

    Parent

    Obama is an underpants gnome in reverse (none / 0) (#113)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    Step 1: Promise to close Gitmo

    Step 2: ????

    Step 3: Forget promise

    Step 2, ???, is described by ABG as:

    Obama pushed to have the prisoners moved to the US and tried in civilian courts and public opinion and the GOP overwhelmed him.  he really had no way to make that work and thus Gitmo remains open and military trials are proceeding.  He hasn't been perfect on the issue but geezus people. He's not a king.

    Of course, the option that ABG leaves out (and this is a typical rhetorical maneuver with Obama apologists) would have been for Obama to actually exercise some leadership and seek to avoid being "overwhelmed" by public opinion by, er, "changing" it. If it turned out to be true, as Obama's supporters constantly told us it was in 2008, that Obama was the greatest orator of our time, a moral beacon, etc., then this should have been at least possible. Instead, it was never tried. Instead, ABG proffers the excuse the "Obama's not a king." Weak, very weak. I mean, nobody's claiming he is. But apparently he doesn't feel much like using the power of the bully pulpit, either.

    Parent
    I hope Charles Barkley decides (none / 0) (#103)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    to primary Obama in Alabama. I'd have fun casting that vote.

    As it is, I'll be voting for the D in november next year. My tepid support from 2008 will decrease to a sigh, but I can only hope that a miracle happens and the president moves substantially to the left.

    But I'm not holding my breath. Nor will I be doing anything, money or time wise, to aid the re-election. Records have consequenses.

    i thought (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    Charles Barkley was a republican...

    My focus is also in-state, as this year we actually have a republican to try and kick out, and Obama will win here anyway.

    I'm a little concerned that no heavyweight Dems in MA have announced they are running for senate yet.  I think they're scared.  But you can't win if you don't run.  And if they don't take a shot now, it'll be 6 more years before we have another chance.

    There's a good chance we might lose the senate.  This is one seat where there is a possibility to swing it the other way - it could end up being a big deal.

    Parent

    Yeah, jeebus, if we lose the Senate... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    .... health care legislation might end up being written by an insurance industry lobbyist. Oh, wait....

    Parent
    feel free to not care (none / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    I'll take a different approach.

    After all, it's only 6 years.

    There will be nothing important that comes up in the next 6 years we want a solid left-wing vote on.

    Parent

    I'm all for a solid left wing vote... (none / 0) (#124)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    .... or solid left wing political power, and the opportunity cost of being involved with the Ds is, precisely, building that vote or that power.

    I care a good deal. I care about not repeating the disaster of 2008 and decapitating the left again. YMMV.

    Parent

    than the MA senate seat (none / 0) (#126)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    is not a bad place to start.

    In a way, Scott Brown is proof of how right-wing the Dems have become.  Because on the national scene, he looks like a Democrat.

    I'm suggesting we replace him with a real one.

    Parent

    Got any Big Dem names (none / 0) (#132)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    in mind, CST?

    Do you think Mike Capuano (sp) is too unappealing or unexciting a personality?  Any major Ds in that state other than a Kennedy?

    Parent

    part of the problem (none / 0) (#144)
    by CST on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    is no big names are running yet.

    I like Capuano, he lost to Coakley in the primary last time, but came in 2nd.

    I hope he runs again... kind of.  So a part of this whole thing is we are losing a seat in the house.  I imagine they will make some kind of deal where they get rid of a seat of someone who runs for senate.  My worry is that Capuano runs and loses (the polling doesn't look good) and then loses his house seat in the process.

    So I would prefer another non-house big name to get in the mix.  Right now the people making noises are mostly mayors from smaller cities/suburbs.  I don't think that's gonna cut it.  But there are plenty of Dems (Kennedy or otherwise) in MA who could run.

    There was a "draft Elizabeth Warren" page up on dailykos a little while ago.  She would probably be my dream candidate.

    Parent

    As an MA resident too, I'd be all for it. (none / 0) (#141)
    by dk on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    But who?  For example, Capuano surely doesn't qualify.  Not voting for a guy who voted for a bill containing the Stupak amendment (at least not unless he did a major mea culpa and signed a promise in blood never to do that again).

    Parent
    Have at it! (none / 0) (#142)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    You can use part of Obama's billions, no?

    What I'm saying is that you can do two things:

    1. Build the left

    2. Invest time with the Ds

    These two things, as Obama decapitating the left 2008 and after, are mutually exclusive.

    Now, you could make the argument that pulling the MA left left via, say, a Warren candidacy would be a good thing. And it may be. And let the Ds use their billion to do it.

    Parent

    Barkley switched (none / 0) (#138)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:22:45 PM EST
    a few years ago. Now he's a loose cannon D instead of a loose cannon R.

    Parent
    Hmm, I'm far from AL (none / 0) (#136)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    and only check in on Charles Barkley occasionally for hoop analysis, but last I checked, he'd long ago shed that Republican silly uniform for a Dem or at least Dem-leaning Indy one.

    Also last I checked, he seems to be an Obama backer, perhaps not a pom pom waver, but probably in O's camp.  Moderately liberal afaik, and still probably reasonably happy since he's gainfully employed and his major gripes lately have probably come from the gambling table not the White House.

     

    Parent

    Another view from Numerian (none / 0) (#107)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    The graphic is great!

    It's Up to Us (none / 0) (#125)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    Or, in other words, "It's Not Up To Me", which, had I known about it from the beginning, would have made his first term much less frustrating. As BTD says, Pols will be Pols.

    A fiengold or Howard Dean Primary challenge (none / 0) (#133)
    by star on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    Is what is needed to energize the Dem voter. Enough is enough. Am tired of being taken for granted. Not a dime to Obama from me and definitly not my vote.

    Well at least you're offering (none / 0) (#139)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    some specific names.  Though neither person will run, and certainly if he did would only offer a narrow, white middle-class liberal appeal probably not nearly approaching that of even Gene McCarthy or Bill Bradley.

    I've tried to get some of the knee-jerk anti-Obama types on this board to cough up some names, but get mostly silence in return, or defensive griping that I asked for specifics, or charges that when I suggest some names I'm somehow engaging in "hippie punching".

    Sad to see some of the relentlessly negative commentary here in the last few days, some of which clearly resembles the sort of rhetoric spewed by a certain holier-than-thou political purist, allegedly from the left, from the 2000 race.  

    Yep, when I see some of the "two equally corporatist parties" and "lesser of two evils" simplistic arguments my Nadar goes up and I suspect, in some cases, something mischievously more than just principled disagreement is being offered.

    Parent

    Ah, once again the Nader slur! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    "Purist," too, so it's a two-fer.

    Then again, I'm not pro-torture. Obama supporters are. I'd rather be labeled a purist than be that dirty.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by star on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    It has been the mode of operation of Obama supporters to name call and counter attack anyone offering anything less than complete worship of the 'ONE'. does not matter even if the opposition is by fellow democrats, does not matter if the opposition is on policy and based on liberal principles.

    Parent
    so Nader is-was wrong (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    to point out the implications-for-policy of the, what? 60-40 split (in some cases closer to 50-50) of corporate donations between republicans and democrats?

    Who else, other than Bernie Sanders and Kucinich, is willing to publicly broach that subject? St Hillary?  

    Parent

    Nader was right... (none / 0) (#181)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    "us" is wrong...repeatedly so.

    "Us" is either the greatest collective glutton for punishment of all time or the dumbest collective of all time.

    Parent

    Generally the "Nader" slur... (none / 0) (#189)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    ... isn't directed at policy issue, but to the outcome of the 2000 election, which Gore lost when Bush got away with a foul at the buzzer in an election that should never have been close.

    Parent
    "knee-jerk anti-Obama types" (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    Ah, how quickly the veneer of reasonableness goes away.

    Of course, no names can be proffered.  That was the whole point of co-opting the party.  To literally not have a viable alternative.  I love Rep Anthony Weiner.  I love Senator Bernie Sanders. But as soon as you add the "and can win" where both money talks and bullsh!t walks then the conversation stops.  And becomes

    Obama!  Obama!  Obama!  

    It's a bogus challenge, and we know it, even if you pretend otherwise.  That's why nobody responds.

    Signed,
    A holier-than-thou political purist

    Parent

    Were we (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    separated at birth, sj?  Because we sure think a whole lot alike.  ;-)   And I agree with you.

    Signed,
    Another holier-than-thou (and unabashedly liberal) political purist

    Parent

    I know, right? (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    :)

    Parent
    I said last night that one of the most (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    disheartening things to realize is that, try as I might, I haven't been able to come up with anyone who could challenge Obama; rather than see that as some sort of proof that Obama is the best thing going, so let's all get behind him, I see this as evidence of just how corrupted and co-opted our political/electoral system has become.

    That system, which has been allowed to be driven by little more than money, to the detriment of ideas and principle, and with the help of the Supreme Court, has closed off from the competition a lot of fine people with good ideas and a real commitment to the kind of public service that actually serves the public.  

    As it is, it is just offensive beyond words to me to read Obama's e-mail that talks about the unprecedented outreach his campaign intends to make:

    In the coming days, supporters like you will begin forging a new organization that we'll build together in cities and towns across the country. And I'll need you to help shape our plan as we create a campaign that's farther reaching, more focused, and more innovative than anything we've built before.

    We'll start by doing something unprecedented: coordinating millions of one-on-one conversations between supporters across every single state, reconnecting old friends, inspiring new ones to join the cause, and readying ourselves for next year's fight.

    Now he wants to hear from the people.  Now he wants them to know how much he cares.  Sure.  The last two years?  Really, not so much.  He couldn't be bothered to walk the line with the Wisconsin public workers, or advocate for women's reproductive autonomy, or take the lead on DADT; he didn't want to hear from single-payer advocates, thought it amusing to mock liberals, doesn't see the people who have been and will be harmed by his policies, but always has time to work deals with the big-money elites.

    I'm sorry I can't offer you the name of a viable left-leaning candidate, but I'm sorrier still that the ideas of the left, the principles they espouse, have all been suffocated in a wet blanket of mushy, everybody's-right-nobody's-wrong affirmation of weak and proven-to-be-ineffective policies.  First, I guess they "kill" all the liberals who support and defend the power of government to help the people, and then, they finish off the government.

    I think we're well on our way to game, set, match; it's just a matter of how quickly we're going to get there.


    Parent

    As far as I'm concerned, (none / 0) (#157)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    this time his campaign slogan should be "No, we can't!"  (Or "No, no puede!" as the case may be.)  Or maybe, "No, we couldn't, but vote for me anyway!"

    Parent
    Jon Walker on Obama's video to launch (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:02:05 PM EST
    his 2012 campaign.

    Vote for Obama in 2012 Because... He's Obama

    That sums it up fairly well IMO.

    Parent

    Mmmm, I think it's more like (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    "Yes, We Can!" (take your money!)

    "No, We Can't!" (give you anything for it!)

    "Suckers!" (Suckers!)

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#170)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    Well, the Bank of the Sucker Zorba is closed for Obama this time, though.  

    Parent
    About mischief (none / 0) (#184)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    My sentiments also. 'Thinking especially of an offer made several years ago by some Repub nabobs (in NY, I seem to recall) to underwrite with $$$ part of a 3rd party challenge? Was that with Nader?  

    An anecdote along the mischief lines you raise, brodie, that you might like: We live in a high-rise condo. An individual--who, until recently, has obfuscated how active at Repub organizing he has been until he appeared as a Fox News commenter on the Presidency on election night 2008--routinely sips coffee and talks with other residents about politics and whatnot. For awhile, he promoted the idea of Clinton challenging Obama in the 2012 primary (that he heard it from his sources, etc.); then, he took to announcing selective Rasmussen polling as a dispiriting measure, then he talks about the rifts in the Dems (while keeping mum about his own party), etc. I don't know what this individual is like as the political science professor that he is, but I do know what he is attempting to do on an informal daily basis using wedge mechanisms. A word applicable to his maneuvers: Transparent.

    Parent

    Ah, the Republican slur (none / 0) (#192)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    Heard that one in 2008, too. Of course, it's Axelrod's day job to run paid trolls for corporations, so I think we can chalk this one, too, up to projection....

    Parent
    You may call it a slur, but there is evidence of (none / 0) (#195)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    the practice. When we don't like what the evidence is--as they say--pound the table (or call it a slur.)

    Parent
    Since you don't cite the evidence.... (none / 0) (#197)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    ... your comment, and a dime, will get you a cup of coffee.

    Oooh, a Republican said something somewhere to somebody, ergo, anybody who's not an Obama supporter is a troll. You guys really need some new talking points; perhaps you need to check your fax?

    * * *

    At least you're not calling anybody who's not for Obama a racist. Guess you learned something from 2008. Well done.

    Parent

    Re Nader, I also seem to (none / 0) (#198)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:53:04 PM EST
    recall he got some GOP assistance, in funding a/o campaign advice, but would have to look it up.

    And as for mischievous Goopers paying others to divide Dems, it wouldn't surprise me if it actually went on far more than some of us suspect.  The GOP easily has more funds at their disposal than our party and so could quite well fund a whole bunch of provocateurs posing as Dems and similar mischievous undertakings, much as the CIA, another ridiculously overfunded and fat organization that deals in propaganda and dirty tricks, and the FBI (Cointelpro) did/have been doing against the left since the 1950s.

    Funny thing re Nader:  way back when he got started, his fellow local small-town CTers, author David Halberstam and his brother, noted how much foreign travel the (young) guy was doing (ca early 1960s), often followed by a published article about his travels in some well-known magazine or journal.  David Halberstam's brother (later a doctor) observed that it all had the look of Ralph being funded by the CIA.

    Parent

    President Obama was elected to a (none / 0) (#147)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    four-year, not an eight-year term.  Hence, it seems reasonable to continue to support or criticize policies and their execution as well as to continue to try influencing them throughout that term.

    Citizens are not campaigning, the president is. That $l billion is to point out accomplishments of the past and plans for the future with the intention of invigorating past voters and persuading new ones.

    Moreover, the campaign will be to contrast policies and their execution with those purported by the opposition candidate. The campaign of the president will, of course, be different in that the ethereal promises of hope and change will have been transcended by a term in office that reveals him to be a conventional and limited politician.

    But, the general election will be a choice that has consequences and, as in marriage, also brings along all the weird in-laws.  It would be good to have  that $l billion spent on convincing not only that narrow band of  fickle independents and elusive Republicans, but also  disappointed supporters and other Democrats crouched under the bus.

    I really, REALLY can't stand obama, but... (none / 0) (#204)
    by pluege2 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:36:37 PM EST
    in the US political system not voting actually is voting - its a vote for the worst of the 2 choices.

    So obama haters (like me) pick your vote: vote for obama or vote for the republican batshit insane violent dirtbag by not voting at all. But make no mistake, by not voting you ARE voting in the stupid US political system and its a vote for the worst of the worst.

    (note, I'd love to have a real obama primary challenge, but don't see any viable candidates ready to do it.)

    If anyone was interested in fixing the US system (none / 0) (#205)
    by pluege2 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:45:35 PM EST
    they'd change it to permit eligible voters to vote for the candidate they want (as they can today), or against the candidate they don't want (not both, one vote: for someone or against someone).

    That would:

    a) tremendously boost participation
    b) allow people to vote their conscious (a vast improvement over the current system)
    c) make 3rd party candidates viable.

    But of course no one in power is interested in making the system work for citizens.

    Thread closed (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 10:56:31 PM EST
    we're over 200 comments. The last comment was deleted for including profanity. Please use asterisks if there's no other word to make your point. Law firms use censor software and being blocked is a huge headache.

    Obama Makes It Offical: "It's Up to Us" | 204 comments (204 topical)