The Primary Obama Movement Begins Today
The 2010 electoral massacre is over and Democrats are licking their wounds.
Let me put it simply, what went wrong went wrong from the very top of the party. In both political and policy terms, the President of the United States, the head of the Democratic party, created this disaster.
Nothing tracks electoral success better than the economy. Barack Obama did not do what it took to pull the economy out of the doldrums. This is true both with regards to the stimulus, which was too small, too larded up with tax cuts and too ineffective and with regards to the Federal Reserve, where Obama’s chosen chairman Ben Bernanke is about to drop stimulus (nicknamed Quantitative easing 2) on the economy after the election instead of doing it before the election. There was no economic reason not to do it months ago, when it would have helped both struggling Americans and Democrats.
Barack Obama took pains to let down or gratuitously harm virtually every major Democratic constituency. Whether it was increasing deportations of Hispanics, whether it was putting in a Presidential order against Federal money being used for abortions which was more restrictive than Rep. Stupak had demanded, whether it was wholesale violation of civil rights climaxing with the claim that he had the right to assassinate American citizens, whether it was trading away the public option to corporate interests then insisting for months he hadn’t, whether it was not moving aggressively on card check (EFCA) for unions, or whether it was constantly stymying attempts to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama was there making sure that whatever could be done to demoralize the base was done.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans think that the policies Obama pursued were socialistic, progressive or liberal. They think this is what left-wing governance looks like. In 2 years Obama has managed to discredit the left, possibly for a generation.
Oh no, Republicans!
The argument against running a 2012 primary challenger against Obama should be familiar to all of us. It is the argument of fear. The argument of the lesser evil. Primarying Obama makes a Republican win more likely, and if a Republican president gets in, it will be so much worse for you! No matter how bad Obama is, President Teabag will be worse.
That’s the truth. The stone cold truth. Republicans will be worse and a primary makes it more likely that Republicans will win.
Here’s another stone cold truth. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Obama and Democrats had a historic chance to fix America. The rich who run America, whom the Supreme Court in Citizens United gave permission to outright buy elections, could have been broken when Obama took power. All that was necessary was to force them to take their losses. Contrary to what apologists for wealth have told you, this would not have meant disaster for the economy, there were ways to protect regular Americans while making the rich take their losses.
Instead Barack Obama, as in so many other ways, continued Bush’s policies, and kept the rich bailed out. The end result has not only been the tsunami of foreclosure issues which still threaten to swamp the banks, has not only been trillions in dollars of taxpayer money being used to keep rich people rich (much more money than was spent on the stimulus), it has been the wholesale transfer of money from poor to rich: an absolute decline in total wages, average wages and median wages of ordinary Americans, while Wall Street pays themselves even higher bonuses than before, gives record money to Republicans and the rich pay themselves more.
America has been in long term decline for between 30 and 40 years, depending on how you count it. It is no longer enough for Democrats to simply accept the new Republican norm every time they take power. Accepting Bush’s wars, Bush’s economy and Bush’s civil liberties violations meant that Bush won. Obama institutionalized Bush.
This long term decline is in danger of becoming terminal. The banks are still bankrupt, States and cities are in constant crisis, the housing crisis is nowhere near over. Wages are dropping and jobs are being offshored.
The status quo of Democrats coming in after Republicans and accepting Republican policies as a fait accomplit must end. If it does not, the US will experience a full-on meltdown. Not a great depression like in the ’30s (though the US is in a Depression) but a meltdown like that which occurred in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, where the population actually declined, food was hard to find, brown outs were common, medicine was in short supply, and so on.
Any suggested policies or electoral politics which does not act to stop this terminal decline, this end of America’s golden age is unacceptable.
The price of this may well be that a Republican president gets in in 2012. That will be bad, but if it happens it is a necessary sacrifice, because until one of the two major parties is one which will propose and then execute solutions which work, all Democrats do is slow down America’s terminal decline. Better that President teabag gets in in 2012 and then there is a chance at a good President in 2016 than that the US have to wait till 2020 at the earliest. And hey, a successful primary could cut this short four years, the primary candidate could win the primary and the election. 47% of Democrats want Obama primaried. That’s not because he has rock-solid support.
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left
The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama. This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work. It is necessary to move back to strongly progressive taxation, it is necessary to force the rich to take their losses, it is necessary to deal with global warming, it is necessary to deal with the fact that the era of cheap oil is over, it is necessary to stop the offshoring engine which is destroyin the American middle class.
Only left wing solutions to these problems will work. America has spent 30 years, since Reagan, trying to fix its problems by going more and more right wing, and it has been a disaster. Each additional step to the right has made the problem worse.
The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base. The lies spewed by corporate media figures who earn millions of dollars a year, that every time the Democrats lose, it is because they were too left wing, so more tax cuts are necessary, must end.
If you love your country, or if you’re concerned for the future of yourself or your children, primary Obama. If you don’t, you may never get a chance to elect someone who will do what is necessary to save your country.
from → 2012 Elections, Barack Obama
The more you look at what Hillary does, rather than simply at rhetoric or voting records, the more clearly she becomes a liberal. Her critics are reduced to calling her anti-labor because of the polling firm she uses – certainly neither her voting record or personal history supports that charge. And next, saying that she’s pro-Wall Street because of the donations she received as opposed, once again, to her voting record, or, more importantly, bills that she, the senator from New York, authored.
Going back to the beginning of her career both as a private citizen, as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the nation, senator and now as SOS, you find her emphasizing the same things – access to health care, access to education and support for small and micro-businesses. Nothing that people around her do changes that.
My thanks to anon2525 for the list of FDR-era principles: that’s EXACTLY the kind of thing I’m talking about. I also think it’s cart-bef0re-the-horse to talk about potential candidates because WE STILL DON’T KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE DAMN GAME YET , sorry for shouting, but we don’t know how to communicate to voters in a way that they GET our message, and Republicans are great at it–they’re a lot more practiced in visceral image-building, sloganeering if you will, in a way that touches people. (maybe touches the darker parts of people, but still, it’s effective.)
How do we start movement building and outreach? We start with a set of clearly articulated principles, like the list anon2525 posted, and then attract people (or not) with the vision they represent. Maybe we form common cause with labor unions in some way, because they have a lot of expertise communicating on a human level (that’s how they organize workers) and would be good allies. Maybe we form some kind of federation of community activist groups (and possibly student groups in university towns) to organize around our key principles and go forth into the community, (God, we really could use an Acorn here) and work for meaningful change locally.
We don’t have a Vietam War and a draft breathing down peoples’ necks like in the 60s to get people up off their asses, and marching with signs used to have social cachet and now it doesn’t. So it’s a tougher job. But it IS a class war, we’ve lost it, and we’ve got to somehow start mobilizing the non-millionaire class to fight to retrieve a semblance of dignity and decent treatment.
Maybe we form alliances among greens and Working Families Party, somehow tie together all the splinter advocacy groups around the country in some sort of organized force, and then try to accomplish something concrete.
I’m also imagining a “brain trust” of Kucinich, Dean, Feingold, maybe Michael Moore, (daft, I know) — not as candidates, but as help, since they’ve thrown themselves against the tide of corporatism and probably know some valuable things about it. You don’t like them? Well, who do YOU like? Who do you know who can help build a movement?
I mean…what’s the next step here? Anybody else got a clue?
…you find her emphasizing the same things – access to health care, access to education and support for small and micro-businesses.
She refuses to resign, criticize the Obama/DLC/neo-liberal/neo-con agenda, and protest what is going on and being done to this country and by this gov’t. Instead, she continues to enable the third Bush term.
We’re not to believe our lying eyes.
Mandos,
I haven’t been able to figure what it is that sets off my cds yet, but I do know that it goes off in the following situations:
1. When I have car troubles
2. When I get a ticket
3. When I’m caught in traffic
4. When I have to wait in long lines
At first, I thought that it might have something to do with automobiles, but then I noticed that I get it when I wait in lines EVEN when I’m NOT in my car. So, that didn’t make any sense. And then the other day it flared up when I got bad service at a restaurant. So, I don’t what to think at this point. I’m completely flummoxed. But if I figure out anything I’ll let you know.
Damn you, hillary clinton! Damn you!!!!
Z
Note to Ian Welsh: The link to newer (later) comments is labelled “Older Comments” and the link to older (earlier) comments is labelled “Newer Comments”. Is this intentional?
My only point of disagreement Ian – for what it’s worth – is that concerned Americans should depend on the Democratic Party for an avenue towards reform. Which leads to a a question as well…
Apart from a primary challenge (which I consider a time-waster for reasons other than letting the Republicans win or whatever other bullshit argument one can find), what does the building of such a constituency do for the ground-upwards problems this party has?
From my experience with either party, it’s crap machine politics on the local level that leads to crap candidates at every level. Challenging Obama or not, if we’re dependent on someone who comes from the established Democratic Party, it’s going to be a crap candidate with crap policies no matter what the firm Democratic base does.
As an example, consider what the largest organised Democratic constituency (Labor) got for their efforts in 1992, 1996, 2006, and 2008. (For those who don’t know, I’m referring to NAFTA, Robert Rubin, Greenspan reappointed, MFN for China, the WTO, Larry Summers, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Fast-Track on trade agreements with even more sub-standard labor markets, Tim Geithner, Summers Part Deux, Bernanke reappointed, and so on so forth.)
At least labor members didn’t waste their gas driving to the polling stations this year!
The time required to rectify that issue is approximately the same as the time to just build an alternative party movement, which has the additional advantage of not being weighed down by the damage two corporate-friendly free-trade pro-Wall Street Democratic Administrations have done (and have yet to do) when it comes to people’s impressions of the Democratic Party.
Although, either case might be too late if 2016/2020 is a realistic no-return point…
Since it’s apparently the rarest of skills to be able to post the context in which Hillary Clinton made her notorious “obliterate” response, I will amaze my friends and enemies by doing so:
One may think that’s anywhere from totally justified to inhumanely appalling, but it’s always presented out of context, as if she rolls out of bed in the morning (yes, after staying up to 3:00AM) and shouts “Let’s obliterate Iran!” If the context isn’t in the least mitigating, why is it fully impossible for her detractors to provide it?
Once again, we see the special rules that apply to the Clintons and only the Clintons.
Hillary’s AUMF vote is the only AUMF vote that made Rachel Maddow and Baby Jesus cry. John Kerry’s, John Edwards’s, and Joe Biden’s votes were trifles or less.
The context in which HRC said the deeply racist phrase “As far as I know” is to be hidden at all costs.
She, and only she, must say that Robert Kennedy has handed a basket of warm kittens after he won the California primary, as the word “assassination” from her lips shakes the very foundations of our republic.
And, of course, the shocking presence of white children in the aforementioned 3:00AM ad is an oh-so-obvious wink to the Klan.
None of this is to say that Hillary Clinton is a great liberal or even not a war criminal. But the inevitable thumb on the scale when criticizing her or her husband is striking, and it undercuts the case of the thumb’s owners.
DEM politically challenged, indeed! Pullosi Punch’s OUT; Judy Reid should Be RELIEVED. Obamavilla-in FORECLOSURE: 2012!
Gen. Washington said:
“The time required to rectify that issue is approximately the same as the time to just build an alternative party movement, which has the additional advantage of not being weighed down by the damage two corporate-friendly free-trade pro-Wall Street Democratic Administrations have done (and have yet to do) when it comes to people’s impressions of the Democratic Party.
Although, either case might be too late if 2016/2020 is a realistic no-return point…”
Yeah, well, what if it’s BOTH. And What if 2016 is too early for such a coalition to have adequate influence? (The R’s started building their right-wing coalition right after Barry Goldwater was defeated, and look how long it took them to dominate.)
And, I’m thinking it’s a little too soon to be having discussions about “where this is going,” because we don’t know what “this” is, and we don’t have a set of mutually (and publicly) agreed-upon planks to build a platform with. Form a third party? Broker influence at the Dem convention? Who the F* knows?
Clarity of principles, and union among the like minded, would be very good beginnings here. A confederation of big-10 lefty bloggers plus union heads plus worker-oriented grass roots outfits? United action on one signature issue where the coalition wins the day, and move on from there? (A signature issue MIGHT be: transparency in elections: make outside money a big issue, maybe locally at first, and work like hell to inform the public about it.)
I think we have plenty of agreement, in larger terms, among everyone on this thread, for instance. The challenge is always getting people to put aside “pet” issues (I include myself in this) and throw in with the group. That, plus inertia (plus unclarity, which always clears up when action is taken) is the big stumbling block at this point. I think the basic agreement is there, though.
By the way, General Washington: Nice work at Valley Forge. Think we can do it again?
VastLeft,
I find your dishonesty to be out of character and methinks thou doth protest too much. If anyone is exhibiting Clinton Derangement Syndrome (treating facts differently when they involve Hillary Clinton), it is you.
First, I have repeatedly noted the context of Hillary’s comments. I stated what I thought the context was: Hillary was running for president and Dems often engage in warmongering at this time to prove how tough they are. I even acknowledged your argument that she was responding to a hypothetical of Iran blowing up Israel and therefore, according to you, this mitigates her threat. Did you see that? I fucking responded to your point yet you carry on like I didn’t–like I have CDS and you totally caught me being unfair to Hillary. But you didn’t.
As I noted, Hillary being asked a question about the hypothetical threat of Iran getting the bomb and attacking Israel does not excuse her behavior. She could have challenged the premise of the hypothetical. She could have said that our intelligence services had concluded Iran was not doing this but she would closely monitor the situation as president. Or, as the future Secretary of State, and a self-styled mature and experienced politician, she should have known it is incredibly reckless to publicly speculate about killing all the inhabitants of a country based on hypothetical threats. Diplomats and politicians should not speculate about such things. In fact, the UN Charter makes it illegal to threaten to attack outside the norms of law. She should have declined to answer because it was speculative or said that any attack on another state, like Israel, would be referred to the Security Council for further action.
If McCain would have warned Russia that if it invaded, say Georgia, a second time, then America would obliterate Russia, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? After all, he’s just responding to a hypothetical. It’s funny that the dreaded Republican candidate actually used more diplomatic language about hypothetical Russian action than Hillary did about hypothetical Iranian action (and yet I thought both threats crossed the line–as did Obama’s warmongering on the Russia/Georgia issue as well).
Second, if anyone has their thumbs on the scale it is you. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and John Edwards are indeed guilty as charged for continually voting for endless wars. Obama is especially guilty because he obviously has the most power out of this Dem bunch and has decidedly increased the illegal and immoral killing, even after he pretended he would stop it. Hillary is right up there in responsibility as well because she chooses to be a part of a hyper-aggressive military power that is committing mass war crimes and is in fact choosing to be its main salesperson around the world! Don’t you think she deserves a little bit of responsibility for her part in this? Or does she get a pass because she’s Hillary and lots of working class Reagan Democrats like her? Or does she get a pass because the Obama creative class boys were mean to her?
A request for proposal of a One Page Ten Point or Less Platform would be a hell of a start. They could be discussed, points ridiculed, points changed, points merged then discussed some more.
A request for proposal of a One Page Ten Point or Less Platform would be a hell of a start. They could be discussed, points ridiculed, points changed, points merged then discussed some more.
Just off of the top of my head:
1. Purely publicly financed elections
2. Close corporate tax loopholes, particularly the off-shore shenanigans
3. Renegotiate our free trade treaties, or, better yet, renounce them
4. Set up a jobs program similar to what FDR did in scale
5. Heavily raise the tax rates on our richest
6. Raise the income limit on social security taxes
7. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan
8. Invest in Green Energy with a manhattan project-like program
9. Set tariffs or a special tax for companies that off-shore their work
10. Cut defense spending by X%
11. Raise the tax rates on hedge fund managers
12. Hold wall street criminally accountable
13. Single payer health insurance
14. Legalize marijuana
15. Stop prison rape
16. Hold our politicians criminally accountable
17. Come up with some sort of process that allows the citizens to hold their representatives accountable while in office, such as a recall procedure
And there are plenty more that I’ve missed I’m sure …
Z
Anon,
Some people think that being on the inside of a system, especially if they have issues with it, is the best way to moderate the beast. We need pressure on the inside and on the outside.
Ultimately, what you’re proposing simply leaves control of the government solely in the hands of the most destructive people. I don’t know how you get anything constructive done under the circumstances.
Walt,
The word “obliterate” was used in response to the notion of Iran nuking Israel – not simply attacking. Clinton had spent much of the previous few years emphasizing the need for diplomacy with Iran and criticizing Bush for taking diplomacy “off the table”.
I think you’re obsession here is very similar to the right’s hysteria over Boxer telling a general to call her “senator”.
Agreed complete with the article.
Check out the Facebook group I started, Liberals Against Obama: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberals-Against-Obama/130002417050997
And my website http://www.rationalrevolution.net
DougR said:
“By the way, General Washington: Nice work at Valley Forge. Think we can do it again?”
Which part? The freezing or the starving?
Some people think that being on the inside of a system, especially if they have issues with it, is the best way to moderate the beast. We need pressure on the inside and on the outside.
Ultimately, what you’re proposing simply leaves control of the government solely in the hands of the most destructive people. I don’t know how you get anything constructive done under the circumstances.
This thinking has been demonstrated to be wrong. It is subverting democratic rule by preventing people from having choices while providing cover (and apologists) for the neo-liberals and neo-cons. It is enabling rule by Lesser Evil ™ instead of forcing the gov’t. to be not evil.
When Feingold presented his motion for censure after bush admitted that he had repeatedly broken the law (but not according to Pelosi, who said “we couldn’t impeache because there’s no evidence of law-breaking”) and said that he would continue to break the law, where was H.R. Clinton? Or Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.? (No point in even asking where were Obama or Lieberman, “the Conscience of the Senate”.) I guess they were all “working within the system to prevent worse abuses.” Same question for the house democrats when Kucinich presented articles of impeachment on the House floor.
Except that–at the present time—you lack an instrument to force the government to be not evil. Technocratic government can always stay one step ahead of you.
Here’s an issue we’re going to have to deal with: do we primary Obama to push him over to the left, or do we primary him to BEAT him?
He cannot be “pushed over to the left,” except rhetorically, and then only a few months before an election. He would then resume with a neo-liberal (economic) and neo-con (foreign policy) approach.
Here’s why I’m asking: I doubt that black voters are ready to abandon Obama yet, and they may never be, so whom would we offer as an effective primary choice against him?
Among others, have Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon speak about Obama’s policies (Black Agenda Report).
Even better would be if a left/progressive candidate who is black were to run against Obama to smoke him out. Where is our time’s Shirley Chisholm?
Chisholm said she ran for the office “in spite of hopeless odds… to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo.”
“He cannot be pushed over to the left”
Agreed. And while I have grave misgivings about working within the current template of electoral politics, if there’s going to be a primary challenge, be prepared to destroy him, not merely hippie-slap him. B/C if he survives the primary and a loon is nominated on the right, the oligarchs still win 4 more years with a 2nd Obama term. Plus, the wilderness recalibration the party desperately needs will be put off for another 4 years.
The poll #s reflecting a desire for a P-challenge leaves me discouraged, considering the numbers seem to coincide with disenchanted Hillary supporters. Cut off Obama & Clinton loyalists, and just how many dem voters are interested in embracing an authentic liberal or an internecine war not involving their respective messiah figure? I think (as an outsider) we’re overestimating our sway within the party.
In any event, when Ian says: “At this point it is not necessary to know who the candidate will be, what is necessary is to make it clear that there is a constituency for a challenge, people who will work for a challenger. That will make politicians (including whoever you think should be the challenger) much more likely to step forward.”
Well, given how many of us are disgusted with both the Clintons and Obama, we better damn well know all of our hard work isn’t going towards electing Hillary, right? I mean, you don’t start a grand progressive assault on the DLC-party, leaving open the possibility of giving the reigns to one of its champions?
I agree that the country’s ripe for a liberal narrative (god knows they’ve not heard one in ages), but if it’s delivered by a known quantity, a career “liberal dem,” it’ll be tuned out. For most Americans Obama is a liberal dem. The country is gagging for an actual alternative.
A 3rd party or independent run from the left, on a populist platform, guarantees the termination of the Obama admin. If such a candidate doesn’t win in 2012, then perhaps the ensuing 4 years will allow him/her to build a movement, a party prepared to field congressional candidates. Again, most Americans don’t vote, most Americans resist identifying with either failed, corrupt party. Tell them you have a new and better democrat to bring about “liberal” salvation and it’ll fall on deaf ears.
Except that–at the present time—you lack an instrument to force the government to be not evil.
H.R. Clinton could help (but will not because she is not left/progressive) by resigning and speaking out against Obama’s adoption of bush’s policies. She has that “instrument” now, at the present time. Her “instrument” is less effective now (and becomes less effective the more time passes) than it would have been in the second half of 2009. To do so would put her at odds with Obama&co and would likely put her at odds with B. Clinton.
Technocratic government can always stay one step ahead of you.
This sounds like an argument, but all that it is saying is that all efforts will fail. It is the reasoning of a defeatist. “Don’t bother trying. Don’t organize. Don’t use strikes. Don’t use boycotts. Don’t use civil disobedience. Don’t protest. Don’t give speeches. Don’t campaign against what you see. It’s a technocratic gov’t. You have lost already. Save yourself the trouble.” The easiest way to win is to talk the other side into not trying. Or, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
We have every instrument we need. What we lack is time. This is not 1950 or 1900 or 1850. We are running out of resources and the fossil-fuel based economy is destroying the biosphere.
What is required, given that the gov’t. is not representing the interests of the majority of the population, is to revert to more direct democracy. That can be done, but it is slow and likely will take more time than is available.
BTW, see my blog post here (The path Left lies through the Pentagon): http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=2068878
My argument is basically that by 2012 I think we need a progressive to challenge Obama, with the central plank of the platform being dramatic cuts in military spending and electoral process reform.
These are two issues that MANY people agree on, and that both of the Democrats and Republicans agree on. The Dems and Repubs both oppose cuts to military spending and they both oppose electoral process reforms that would weaken their grip on power.
However both of these issues have broad popular support across the political spectrum.
And we need to start work on this now, we need to be starting a movement based on opposition to the wars and military spending now, and relate this stuff back to domestic economic issues. I saw a recent poll which showed that 70% of the respondents, it was a national non-partisan poll, thought that the first place that budget cuts should focus is on military spending, yet both parties are saying the opposite. That’s a platform right there.
Walt,
My apologies for failing to notice that after two responses — like Joe’s comment before them — which wholly avoided stating the context of her notorious comment (i.e., how she might respond to Iran nuking Israel), you indeed finally backed into the subject a few sentences into your third response.
I stand corrected.
While I appreciate the argument that there are far better possible responses than the one she gave, I find it curious how a rather important piece of the scenario — a fucking first-strike nuclear attack — is reliably left out of the context.
The “Seinfeld” “yadda-yadda-yadda” episode is a handy guide to the way Hillary Clinton’s detractors usually build the case against her, leaving out rather important context, such as a fucking first-strike nuclear attack.
Such behavior by her critics doesn’t make her words and deeds beyond criticism by any stretch.
But the thumb on the scale makes arguments especially impressive to those who don’t or won’t notice it and a little suspect to those who do.
But the thumb on the scale makes arguments especially impressive to those who don’t or won’t notice it and a little suspect to those who do.
No thumb is needed to say that her answer was not left/progressive. It was pandering to a paranoid fantasy for votes from extremists. It was an answer worthy of Cheney. People who are not left/progressive might accept her answer and argue that it was justified given the premise, but that does not make her answer left/progressive. And it is not an answer worthy of a U.S. Sec. of State, much less a president.
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left — Ian Welsh
H. Clinton is not from the left.
So, anon,
Only Feingold, who endorsed the right wing Obama knowing how right wing he was, is pure enough to run against him?
*snort*
So, why didn’t Feingold quite the Senate? Why isn’t Feingold out leading the opposition? Why did Feingold justify Obama’s vote for the FISA?
Jeez. I’d say he was quite in bed with the guy.
anon2525: I wasn’t making an argument for Hillary. I also agree that it’s a function of time. Given that the public is not ready to revolt in a left-wing direction (and more likely to revolt in a right-populist direction given the successes of right-wing populism), attempting to build an external alternative seems to me to be a very long prospect indeed.
“No thumb is needed to say that her answer was not left/progressive.”
I agree with you.
So why the ever-present thumb-on-scale — leaving out the most fundamental aspect of the context — when this (like so many other topics regarding the Clintons) comes up? I’d wager it’s because there are tribal imperatives that make it easy and desirable to do so.
One could make any of several strong points about what’s wrong with her response. But leaving out the basic frame — how one would respond to a hypothetical first-strike scenario — is blatantly deceptive. It’s like cheating on an exam that one could pass.
Of course, there are reasons why many do — seemingly needlessly — cheat on this exam. I have to run, so I’ll post some thoughts on that later, if I get a chance soon.
So, why didn’t Feingold quite the Senate? Why isn’t Feingold out leading the opposition? Why did Feingold justify Obama’s vote for the FISA?
Seriously? No, of course, that wasn’t serious. It goes without saying that a senator is not a member of a president’s cabinet. Reminder for non-Americans (Americans don’t forget this): senators are elected; cabinet members are nominated and confirmed. This means that senators do not owe their seat to a president but to the voters who elected them. They are free to oppose the president, while those who serve in the executive branch who oppose the president are generally fired (See, Truman/MacArthur).
Now that Feingold is nearing the end of his term in office, he may well lead the opposition. If he does then we might find out that he is left/progressive — I cannot say that for certain. Or, we might find out that he is not. We might find out that he was an independent who stands for certain principles, but who would, say, cut Medicare before cutting military spending.
Only Feingold, …, is pure enough…
Ah, the “purity” attack. This might as well be the DLC mating call. Obama supporters know it well.
H. Clinton is not from the left. Clinton supporters would be better off trying to convince “reasonable”, “left-wing” republicans to support Clinton’s Moderate, Pragmatic-not-Purist, Serious* views.
* As we learned during the Democratic primary debates, only the select few that H. Clinton (and Edwards) deem Serious shall be permitted to debate. Coincidentally, Clinton shall always be one of the select few.
*snort*
That’s understandable. There really is no way to rectify H. Clinton’s answer with the claim that she is of the left or a progressive.
I wasn’t making an argument for Hillary. I also agree that it’s a function of time.
OK.
Given that the public is not ready to revolt in a left-wing direction (and more likely to revolt in a right-populist direction given the successes of right-wing populism)
This assertion is less certain. 1) Obama’s campaign rhetoric to get elected was in the left-wing direction, and 2) as Ian Welsh and many others have pointed out, left-wing positions on many issues poll more highly than right-wing views. Certainly the outcome on Tuesday cannot be asserted to be proof of right-wing shift more than it can be asserted that it is the result of there being no significant alternative to the duopoly.
It is arguable that we have proof that a liberal candidate (based on voters’ perceptions of what Obama stood for rather than what he actually stood for) could get elected in 2008. The problem is that he lied about what he stood for (and this has hurt liberals and Democrats). The Democratic party deserves a lot of the blame for this — Obama could not have hurt the party if they hadn’t gone along with what he did.
…attempting to build an external alternative seems to me to be a very long prospect indeed.
Hence, the debate about which is the better strategic approach. Should the left/progressives:
1) Attempt to retake the Democratic party machinery
or
2) Begin laying the groundwork for a third-party
Needless to say, the DLC wants for the left/progressives to be split on this rather than acting as a single, organized opposition.
Bolding mine.
This has, I guess, been my problem from the beginning. It’s long been known that left-wing policy positions poll more highly. However, I don’t think that the left knows how to turn that into votes for left-wing candidates, which is a different kettle of fish. The voter is a kind of a black box—in comes a lot of data, only a small portion of which are policy preferences, and out comes a vote. I’m pessimistic about left-wing attempts at campaigning outside of existing structures precisely because I think that the right-wing has had a much better handle on the contents of the voter’s mental black box.
Regarding Hillary supporters. I think a primary challenge campaign could win over Hillary supporters without centering around Hillary (who I do not think would challenge Obama, regardless) — IF the left-leaning men could let go of their reflexive sexism and in fact acknowledge that sexism is a problem on the left side of the equation as well on the right.
I’m not supporting ANY primary candidate who takes women for granted. I’m not supporting any primary candidate who doesn’t have a visible and documented history of standing up for women (the way, for instance, Al Franken does — just to throw one name out there.)
I’m not supporting any political movement that can’t quit knee-jerk criticizing women for their clothes, breasts, voices, laughter, cleavage, wrinkles, tears, or can’t quit calling them bitches, whores, sluts, hysterics, witches, bunny-boilers or suggest they need to be drowned in a bathtub.
A lot of the disgruntlement Hillary supporters still feel centers around the complete failure of the left to at all wrestle with the tidal wave of sexism and misogyny that roiled up during the 2008 election, esp. for women for whom it was a reminder of lifelong day-in/day-out experience of being marginalized via sexual slur or for whom refusal to go along with the status quo was equated with hysteria, bitchiness or lunacy.
And whenever women bring this up, we’re told either to “get over it” or that it in fact didn’t happen — yet another familiar form of silencing and marginalization.
That really is the festering sore that still lingers from 2008.
I agree with you.
Just to be clear, you are saying that you agree that the answer H. Clinton gave was not the answer that someone who was of the left/progressive would give. If that is what you are saying, then we are back to Ian Welsh’s argument:
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left
And if Clinton is not from the left, then the search for a candidate from the left continues. Maybe it is Feingold, maybe it is someone we have not heard of.
So why the ever-present thumb-on-scale — leaving out the most fundamental aspect of the context — when this (like so many other topics regarding the Clintons) comes up? I’d wager it’s because there are tribal imperatives that make it easy and desirable to do so.
I don’t have anything to say about whether there are tribal imperatives.
Clearly, 1) there are misogynists — I have met them and 2) there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy that hates H. Clinton because she is female and because they are fighting the Culture War.
Nevertheless, there are numerous reasons to criticize B. Clinton for many of his acts as president. More reasons to criticize than to praise. Just as there are more reasons to criticize Lyndon Johnson than there are to praise, for example.
A lot of the disgruntlement Hillary supporters still feel centers around the complete failure of the left to at all wrestle with the tidal wave of sexism and misogyny that roiled up during the 2008 election…
That really is the festering sore that still lingers from 2008.
I don’t know whether Elizabeth Warren is from the left/progressive (and her accepting a position as an “advisor” to Obama makes me wonder about her judgment), but if she is, then she may be the medicine for that festering sore. H. Clinton is not.
anon,
Since the tribalistic aspects of CDS seem invisible to you, I’ll save us both the trouble of expanding on that topic, for the moment, anyway.
Your question about “what someone on the left/progressive” would say is a bit reductive for my tastes.
Does that statement represent an admirable lefty position? I’d say not.
Should one fall to the fainting couch because a major-party politician answers a hypothetical nuke scenario with a statement of don’t-do-it brinksmanship? Maybe, but it’s weird that it only seems to matter if the wrong people do it.
Is Hillary Clinton the great paragon of the left? I’d say not.
Does she offer more upside to the left than some Democrats do? I’d say yes.
Do I think the search for a left-side primary challenger should begin and/or end with Hillary Clinton? No.
This, at least, I agree with. The left/progressives need to pick a strategy and see it through. But there isn’t a The Left.
Needless to say, the DLC wants for the left/progressives to be split
It was interesting to learn, but not surprising, that the Koch Brothers put some serious money into the DLC (from a 2001 American Prospect article):
One member of the DLC’s executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively–meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_dlc_does_it
Is Hillary Clinton the great paragon of the left? I’d say not.
Does she offer more upside to the left than some Democrats do? I’d say yes.
Do I think the search for a left-side primary challenger should begin and/or end with Hillary Clinton? No.
So, if in, say January 2012, Clinton resigns and says that she is going to be running against Obama, do you see that as accomplishing the goal?
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left
Not only do I think that it will not accomplish this goal, but I expect that Clinton herself would not argue that. This is someone who, along with her husband, called in Dick Morris for campaigning advice.
However, I don’t think that the left knows how to turn that into votes for left-wing candidates, which is a different kettle of fish.
The Left has figured it out from time to time. Writer, Socialist/Democrat Upton Sinclair
Anon,
Nope, it was Clinton’s voters who were cheated out of her candidacy. We worked our ass off and had our efforts handed over to another candidate by the CEO of a health insurance corporation who, not surprisingly, got the health care plan that he wanted.
I won’t vote for anyone but Clinton and the low turn out this election suggests I’m not alone. We earned it. We want it. And there are enough to prevent any other liberal or democrat from winning.
Nope, it was Clinton’s voters who were cheated out of her candidacy. We worked our ass off and had our efforts handed over to another candidate by the CEO of a health insurance corporation who, not surprisingly, got the health care plan that he wanted.
I can understand why you’re angry about it. I’m still waiting for Scalia/Rhenquist/Thomas/Kennedy/O’Connor to be tried for ordering the halt to vote counting in a presidential election.
Have any polls been done that have looked into a correlation between clinton supporters and the dem voters that sat out the mid-terms? Or had planned on sitting out the mid-terms?
Z
Anon,
I believe I’ve made my position clear. As have you: “*snort*.”
Anon,
The conservatives on the Supreme Court sided with the conservative candidate to give him the White House. The Democratic party shit all over it’s base to hand the nomination over to a bigoted, incompetent and corrupt candidate – so it’s pretty much the opposite of what happened in Bush V Gore.
And of course, Democrats at the time, claimed that not counting all the votes was wrong. Guess it’s okay when it’s their candidate.
It’s amazing to me how many low information voters Obama brought into the Democratic party.
Vast Left,
I acknowledged your “argument” in my second and third replies (that Hillary’s threat is excused because she was asked a hypothetical question) . You have yet to respond to my argument that the real context was that Hillary was engaging in warmongering because it was an election. Don’t you agree she is rather hawkish for a “liberal” and has spent the last decade building up her war supporting bone fides and that Democrats in general do this? Plus, it’s ridiculous to argue she was somehow taken aback and did not expect a question about Iran using a nuclear bomb on Israel and was not able to come up with a diplomatic response.
Yet you keep bringing up CDS and personal bias and insinuate that I, and others that don’t think Hillary is “liberal”, are biased. But I am not biased against Hillary. I was quite fond of her in the 90s and like most good Democrats was sympathetic to her because of the abuse she took from the right. I too, interpreted an extreme reaction to Hilllary Clinton in the 90s (and often in the 00s and especially in 08) as evidence that the person with the big emotions probably had issues with women.
But the reason I don’t like Hillary in not because she’s a woman but because she’s another Washington Consensus neoliberal Dem “moderate”. I would have the same reaction if Kerry fanboys showed up arguing that Kerry was the great liberal hope.
I never “supported” Hillary or Obama. I thought both were too conservative. I supported Kucinich. Now that Kucninich has betrayed me I probably wouldn’t even support him and I certainly wouldn’t support someone to the right of him. Why should liberals trust any in this group? They clearly have punked liberals and lied to them about their intentions–as a group–and Hillary is not excluded.
Look, Obama ruined it for Clinton. He made it harder for the next neoliberal Dem to pretend that she or he is a liberal. The gig is up for too many of us. I will not be fooled by an Obama or a Clinton again. Any self-respecting liberal should be dubious of any promises from the Dems at this point. Maybe you have an academic point that Hillary might have been able to negotiate a health care bill a tick to the left of Obama’s or that she would have fought for a better housing bill . . . but she will have a hard time proving she’s “liberal” after 2 decades of Democrats snowing liberals and after her record of going along with Obama and the Dems on all their sell out neoliberal policies.
And as far as people having thumbs on the scales or being biased by personalities. Pot. Meet kettle. The Hillary cheerleaders could give two shits about liberal policies–it’s all about the cult of personality of Hillary–just like it’s all about Obama for the Obama fans. Liberals are now going to be held hostage by the Hillary cheerleaders I guess.
So here comes Lori with the dynamite strapped to her body as she says will not vote for anyone except Hillary. Well, we’re no longer discussing taking on the Democrats from the Left then, we’re discussing how the Hillary partisans can take advantage of Dem disgruntlement to advocate for Hillary Clinton.
That’s why I’m so pissed. Finally some Dems want to take on the party from the left but the first “solution” proffered is more of the same–the female version of Obama.
I have the exact same feeling as I did in 2008 when the Obama fanboys made the same threats and behaved in a similar manner–despondent. All hope is lost if this is the “liberal” response to our current situation.
Walt,
Are you going for the record for straw men in a single comment?
Not worth the time to catalog them all.
I have repeatedly made it clear that if my wishes were ponies that the Democrats would get a more or less successful primary challenge from someone well to the left of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It’s not enough for you that I agree with that, I also have to turn a blind eye to the blatant gamesmanship that hides the context of a first-strike nuclear attack in a Q&A scenario, along with endless other thumbs-on-scales that people too tribal or lazy to make a quality case against one or both of the Clintons reliably resort to.
VastLeft,
Gamesmanship? I didn’t focus on your excuse for Hillary because I don’t think it is the most relevant “context” within which to view her comments. The first “context” I think of when a Democrat promises liberals that she will use “diplomacy” (unlike that cowboy Bush), yet turn around and threaten to “obliterate” the people of Iran, is that the candidate is warmongering to get support. You are the one playing games by refusing to see her comments except in the most exculpatory context. Indeed, after you offered the “context” you thought was relevant, the Hillary supporting context, I responded directly twice as to why I didn’t think that excused her comments. You are the one that has CDS or is using “gamesmanship” if you only oppose Dem warmongering when it is done by Obama or the boy Dems and do nothing but make excuses when Hillary does it.
Again, almost all people that threatens to “obliterate” the people of another country have a hypothetical reason for the attack. Isreal has been making Hillary’s argument for decades; that Iran getting a bomb is an existential threat to Israel. Both Israel and the United States are threatening to attack Iran even if they get a bomb, let alone use it on Israel. It was reckless of her to hypothesize about such a situation and to foment hate for Iran. It’s very similar to the “ticking time bomb” type of hypotheticals that were used to justify torture in this country. There was very little possibility of a ticking time bomb in reality by politicians loved answering the hypothetical to prove how tough they were–the net effect is it created support for illegal detention and torture policies.
Plus, as mentioned, her statements certainly violates norms of diplomacy and may even violate the law! We should not be threatening to use force outside of the Security Council.
Furthermore, how do you think this will play out? If a nuclear bomb were to go off in Israel Hillary has certainly done a good job of focusing the American public’s attention on Iran (as has Obama and the rest of the Washington establishment). If that were to happen I bet it will be similar to after 9/11 when he American public quickly blamed Iraq and Saddam Hussein even before there was any proven connection.
Either you are putting your thumb on Hillary scale or you are the type of “liberal” that loves endless war and mindless killing and threatening to kill vast numbers of civilians.
Here’s a NY Times article on this issue:
“With the administration’s efforts to reach out to Iran having failed to produce a response, it is shifting to a more confrontational strategy that is tailor-made for Mrs. Clinton, a longtime skeptic of the value of engaging with Tehran. This, after all, is the woman who once warned that if she were president and Iran attacked Israel, the United States would “totally obliterate” Iran.
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Mrs. Clinton avoids that kind of excess in her statements. But only just. She declared on this trip that Iran was on its way to becoming a military dictatorship, that Iran’s religious and political leaders should seize back the reins of power from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and that Iran could ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
“You have to ask yourself, ‘Why are they doing this?’ ” Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday to students at a women’s college here, in a bare-knuckles tone that she could have used at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.
It is a measure of how much things have changed that Mr. Obama, who clashed repeatedly with Mrs. Clinton about how to deal with Iran during the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has assigned her to drum up international support for a package of United Nations sanctions against Iran.
She has accepted the task with relish. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/world/middleeast/17diplo.html
The conservatives on the Supreme Court sided with the conservative candidate to give him the White House. The Democratic party shit all over it’s base to hand the nomination over to a bigoted, incompetent and corrupt candidate – so it’s pretty much the opposite of what happened in Bush V Gore.
So, in effect, in the first case, a small group of people acted to steal an election from the majority of the voters, and in the other case, a small group of people acted to steal an election from the majority of the voters. Yes, that is the “opposite.”
Walt,
The Times manages to misstate Clinton’s comment and context, as well.
Anyway, if you wanted to have a rational conversation on what’s wrong with the “centrist” Democratic status quo, and re: Hillary Clinton in particular, leading with misleading framing and following up with straw men — putting all kinds of words and motives in my mouth — wasn’t a great way to go, IMHO.
If your agenda is to dissuade Democrats whom, I agree with you, are misguided to look to HRC as a lefty savior, I’d suggest playing it straight. You may not convince them, but it will save you from looking like the jerks that have made many people defensive on Ms. Clinton’s behalf.
I’m no more or less likely to agree or disagree with your criticisms of her because you carry on in that matter, but I see little merit in investing a lot of time in discourse with you.
Yes VastLeft,
How big of you. You would be willing to have a “rational” discussion about Hillary, but her detractors are all misogynists that are simply incapable of having a rational discussion, huh?
You’re no better than the Obama fanboys that claim any opposition to Obama is racist. That’s where you are. You would rather pretend that I am being unfair to Hillary rather than meet the arguments on the merits–so you don’t–you accuse others of being biased and using “gamesmanship” then run away to comfort yourself with other like-minded Hillary partisans where everyone else is crazy and sexist but the Hillary supporters.
It’s very clear you are the one being dishonest and playing games here. I have acknowledged the “context” you wanted to discuss re Hillary’s comments. I acknowledged your points (which you first lied about when you claimed that I ignored, or hid, the context you thought was important). Yet you never acknowledged the context I think is more important! So you claim you are the victim, because I didn’t consider the context you want (even though I did) but on the other hand you refuse to see the context where Hillary is acting hawkish, so you’re trying to have it both ways. Who is distorting reality here? Is it possible that Hillary cheerleaders are playing “games” and want to downplay her hawkishness to liberals? On the very thread where liberals are discussing who should lead the charge from the left? You are the one that is ignoring Hillary’s hawkishness and is instead throwing out excuses . You sound EXACTLY like an Obama fanboy confronted with Obama’s hawkish military record.
And what is it with the pretense that you are open to criticism of Hillary, you just need it to be proved by better “rational” arguments or links or by those without CDS? This is the same pretense, or “gamesmanship”, that Lambert engages in at Corrente. Give me a break. It’s the two of you that are playing games. Maybe there are real liberals that want to make the case for you, or would welcome taking the time to include links and make a nice “rational” argument for you, but you are not sincere in your offer and you and your pack of Hillary supporters don’t care about the truth–you only care about supporting Hillary. You stack the deck (you don’t demand the same ‘proof’ of your Hillary-supporting fans) and you gang up on those that disagree with you.
Plus, the burden is on you and Lambert and the other Hillary cheerleaders to prove Hillary is liberal. Your argument boils down to: “Hillary made some promises during the Democratic primary that proves she is a liberal and if she would have been elected she would have totally followed through on them, unlike Obama. Furthermore, if one reads between the lines of her carefully crafted senate record one can discern a secret liberal lion’s heart. And all you Hillary haters are just misogynists anyway. ”
You have to prove Hillary would not have sold out. You provide the links for that. Based on your ability to judge Hillary’s foreign policy record and statements I doubt you can be a straight shooter on the subject; you clearly have a case of CDS.
The point is all moot, anyway. Politicians learn from who won, not who lost.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Walt.
Z
Walt,
I’ll throw you a bone, one free straw man examination (and there are so many here to choose from!):
Show me where in the thread I suggest that your deceptive tactics stem from misogyny, an accusation you’ve imputed to me at least twice at this point.
People say “Primaried” like its a bad thing. That’s saying that democracy is a bad thing.
Primaries are when the voters in general or the members of the party (depending on state rules) get a chance to participate in the selecting of a party candidate. Do we want candidates chosen on just who the party bosses want? Is that democracy?
We only get two slots on the ballot for ‘major’ candidates. Of course both candidates should always face primary challenges. This is democracy in action. This is the people getting a chance to express their views and their voices. This is about making the party members more than campaign envelope stuffers and automatic party voters and giving them a voice in their party.
Do you believe in democracy? If yes, then you believe in letting the people have a voice in who the candidates of the party are. To me this seems obvious. Which means I’m always struck ever election cycle by how undemocratic the Democratic party is as they try to limit the numbers of primaries and crush primary challenges.
As a believer in democracy, instead of rule by party bosses, I strongly believe that Obama should face a primary challenge in 2012. I’m struck that this isn’t just thought of as a completely normal part of the democratic process
No VastLeft,
That is not a bone. You are simply doubling-down on your dishonesty. Giving me a bone would be responding directly and honestly to me instead of coming up with a different style of attack or playing the CDS card.
Why should I acknowledge your complaints (about strawman argumentation) when you studiously avoid my complaints about your argumentation style? You still accuse me of being deceptive about the facts re Hillary yet I have directly responded to the point you claim I was avoiding at least twice! Throwing me a bone would be noting that you were wrong on that and that I didn’t hide anything–I just view the context differently. I didn’t mention the context you wanted me to the first time because I don’t see things the way you do and to me the most important context was Hillary warmongering during an election. I didn’t even think that the context of it being a response to a question was even relevant and hardly a defense in any case. Since you were so adamant about it and I believe in fair argumentation (unlike the Corrente Hillary cheerleaders) I DIRECTLY responded to your points. I gave you that respect. We disagree about the relevance of the context but I met your arguments on the merits. You haven’t given me the same respect and now you have the audacity to complain that I’m being deceptive? You refuse to even acknowledge that a liberal could view her comments in the context I do, and so you play games and play the victim by pretending that I am being unfair to Clinton (which you and your fellow Hillary cheerleaders often ascribe to misogyny).
You are being deceptive and dishonest in a way that makes it almost impossible to be unpacked. Which is your goal. You’re not interested in the truth; you’re interested in promoting Hillary and in promoting her group of supporters. That’s why you and Lambert love playing the games where you say you could agree with the Hillary critiques but you haven’t seen a “rational” critique yet–and then proceed to tear apart any such honest critique in the manner you are doing now. You will obfuscate, lie, and misdirect just like any Obot defending his hero when it comes to Hillary and you really are failing to see your bias. It reminds me of 2008 when the Obama fans had millions of ways to shoot down any suggestion that Obama wasn’t liberal.
You are engaging in hackery for Hillary Clinton, not honest argumentation. So it’s pretty fitting that you now claim be the victim and pretend that those you’re arguing with are being “deceptive”.
The point is all moot, anyway. Politicians learn from who won, not who lost.
And what politicians learn in a duopoly is moot. Lobbyists “learn” that the duopoly always wins, or the duopoly “learns” that lobbyists always win.
A welcome post. Actually, I’ve been at it for nearly 2 months with a series on FireDogLake. See:
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/09/11/time-for-a-dump-obama-movement/
Time for a Dump Obama movement
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/09/22/dump-obama-%C2%A0-more-urgent-than-ever/
Dump Obama: more urgent than ever
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/09/dump-obama-working-today/
Dump Obama: working today
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/16/dump-obama-for-a-time-of-crisis/
Dump Obama: for a time of crisis
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/23/dump-obama-time-for-a-candidate/
Dump Obama: time for a candidate
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/30/dump-obama-not-for-wackos-only/
Dump Obama: not for wackos only
The discussion of Dump Obama has exploded in the last few days. It’s going to happen. There are 2 main questions hanging in the air.
First, even on this thread, you see folks who are looking for a big name somewhat to the left of Obama, and others who seek a lesser-known candidate with stronger principles, who gets into the limelight through primary ballot access. There are merits to both. My leaning is for a candidate who is solidly for Jobs creation (and safety net, peace, and civil liberties (roll back Obama’s extension of presidential powers).
The second is how do we come up with a candidate. I see lots of back and forth here, but very little about how a candidate can actually be convinced to run. Hillary ain’t. Likely not Dean. Why would anyone think Warren would actually throw her hat in?
The Dump Obama: time for a candidate comment section gets into this pretty heavy, though without a definitive answer.
Anyway, I do think it’s going to happen, maybe from both left and right. My concern is not whether the Dump Obama candidate wins (a very, very long shot) but whether progressives can build something permanent out of it.