Unhappy people. Is there anyone who COULD have won that would have been more LEFT than OBAMA?

[peoli]

[noamnety]

1. Sure.

If the media weren't instrumental in preventing that from happening.


Or are you asking if corporate media would have supported someone who wasn't looking out for corporate interests? If that's what you're asking, then no.

[Numba6]

2. Yes, it is useless to do anything or try to get things done because corporate media is so powerful

it will always win, no matter what.

Prez Obama should also just give up & do whatever CNBC wants him to do. But then, only the uber-progressives are right, he never had a chance anyway.

But when the depression bottoms out, the masses will turn to your cadre for leadership, fer sure!

:sarcasm:

[peoli]

11. Yeah, OK. The majority of the country does not live on your idealistic left fantasy planet.

Most people are in the mainstream, you are a minority in your beliefs do you not know that? Tell me how the mainstream consciousness of America is supposed to LEAP to an Individuated consciousness overnight?

[noamnety]

25. I'm sorry, I misunderstood the OP.

I thought you wanted to hear opinions on whether politicians left of Obama could have been elected, and why or why not. I didn't realize you were just looking to randomly attack people who are left of you politically.

[peoli]

27. Listen I'm not attacking you, I'm Italian that's how I talk. It's with respect of your beliefs.

Believe me I wish we were there. I wish we could be there. I just dont know who ran that was left of Obama that could have won at this time in history. I think that we will see that person in the future and hopefully in the near future. I think Obama's presidency will open doors for that to happen if it does.

Again no disrespect to you.

[noamnety]

32. The Dean Scream was an eye opener for me

It was a good peek behind the curtain. He was entirely electable - except the media saw to it by manipulating microphone levels - that he was defined in the way they wanted him defined.

As for folks like Kucinich, his actual views were not so far off the mainstream, but the media made sure to portray his as a nutjob. If you look at his views on health care, on the war, on any number of issues, they aren't really out there. The media could have portrayed him as a straight talker (even a *maverick*) who stood his ground against corporate lobbyists.

But they had strong incentive to not let him speak at the corporate debates, not give him equal airtime, define him by his height, or other equally nonsensical things.

So we don't have any way of knowing whether he would have had a chance - if he'd been presented by the media in the same way that Clinton and Obama were for the four years leading up to the election, as the probable front runners.

[Frank Booth]

42. I think the MSM tried to "Dean Scream" Obama as well, playing tapes

of the good reverend for a fucking month straight. I think Obama was able to rise above it only because he's a uniquely skilled politician. (BTW, I was a big Dean supporter, and extremely pissed about the Dean scream bullshit as well.)

[Numba6]

28. It's pretty clear what u "mis"understood when you changed the OP around to fit your preconceived

answer

[last_texas_dem]

3. Out of the candidates who actually ran in the 2008 Democratic primaries, or out of all

Americans eligible to run for the presidency?

[liberalmuse]

4. Hell no. Not in the current environment.

I'd like to know how many DUers who are whining about President Obama two months into his Presidency were marching back in May 2001? Yeah, not many. If there'd have been more of you, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess now. I don't want to fucking hear it. I've waited too long for Bush to be gone, and we've gotten far better than this nation deserves with a President Obama, considering we're a nation of apathetic do-nothings. Hell, if ONE-TENTH of the liberals had been out there protesting with the rest of us, maybe we would have gotten somewhere. I'm sick of the whining from both sides. Get off your fucking asses and work if you have issues. Fuck, President Obama is working his ass off, and people are sitting on their asses expressing their outrage through their keyboards. Oh...Wow! If you have a problem with President Obama not meeting your demands, again, GET OFF YOUR FUCKING ASSES AND DO SOMETHING. That's all. I've had it!

[Captain Hilts]

10. THANK YOU. If liberals had gotten off their asses in 2000 and '04, GWB never would have happened.nt

[firedupdem]

23. Everything you said! You hit the nail on the head! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

33. My ass was out there marching.......

Hell, I marched with 250 other people BEFORE 9/11 against Bush. I marched again in October of 2002 and then again in February of 2003.

That said, I'm more than happy with President Obama.
There was no one else I'd rather would have won than him.

[Bonobo]

44. +100

[vaberella]

45. I'd like to that as well.

I was one of the marchers and I'm actually pretty happy with how far Obama has gotten with making changes. It's impressive considering Bush did nothing and I don't remember Clinton moving this swiftly through problems that have been hanging around for ages before he became Prez.

[NYC_SKP]

5. So, bring on the, "He only won because he's one of them" opinions...

Or, "he's a media darling", or "he's a secret republican, a corporatist".

It won't take long...

:popcorn:

And the answer is, No.

The country isn't ready for a Kucinich, even if many here are.

:patriot:

[karynnj]

6. Sure - Any reasonable Democrat who won the primaries would have won

Senator Kerry would have won had he been the nominee - and he is to the left of Obama. (He nearly beat GWB when polls still showed that 59% answered that the country was doing very well or fairly well. He would have easily beaten McCain.)

The fact is that Obama was the one who won the primary. Had Kerry not run in 2004, he might have had a chance (especially as he would still have been the author of Kerry/Feingold). As it was, Obama did an amazing job beating the candidate that everyone in the media was going to win. He also is doing many things that we all wanted done.

[Captain Hilts]

9. The media declared Obama the winner in March of '07 on Hardball.

They said he'd catch Clinton by Memorial Day. And he did.

[Cha]

14. Yeah, that media that wouldn't stop playing Wright and Ayers

24/7.

You are delusional if you're giving the media credit for Obama's win.

[Captain Hilts]

15. They loved him. And McCain. The Ayers thing never went mainstream.

And he was allowed to shrug Wright off as that weird uncle everybody has, though you don't choose your uncle but you do choose your preacher.

He was a good candidate and is a good president, I'm not unhappy.

[Uzybone]

22. Ayers never went mainstream?

That is BS.

[Cha]

24. The coporatemediawhores did NOT want Obama

to win and I know personally two stupid Dems who voted for Mccain because the media had them convinced on Wright and some abortion shit in Chicago.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Barack must have been shrugging for an entire month....

Cause that's how long Wright was nothing but the news!

Plus, let us not forget the "Bitter Comments" that got played to death,
the NAFTA Lie, and the Bogus Speech plaigerism charges.

We won't even get into the "He's just a celebrity" and the "He's not ready to be CIC" bullshit that got flung around for much too long.

Remember that debate where they might as well have tied him to a chair under a hot lamp, and what about all of the White People that weren't gonna vote for him?

Naw...you probably don't.

[TwilightGardener]

70. Wrongo--everyone heard he was "palling around with terra-ists" by October--

that's bullshit. And he didn't "shrug off" Wright, he was dogged with it for weeks on end, even though it made not a bit of difference to anyone with a brain that he went to a church where his pastor said some stupid things--I can't understand even today why anyone gave a flying fuck about that. Maybe you're still sore that it didn't hand Hillary an ultimate victory.

[alwysdrunk]

72. What mainstream were you watching?

Because it was all over the mainstream as I know it. Nor for any couple of days either. The media had no choice but to talk about Ayers, McCain made it the center of his campaign for something like 3 straight weeks.

[Numba6]

30. Why do uber-progressives seem so comfortable to quote Rush Limbaugh on Obama & the media?

w/o even a modicum of fact checking, like at

http://mediamatters.org/

since their own memories of the primary season are so weird?



i'm just sayin'

[Cha]

39. They don't mind sounding

delusional and like them some non reality like cmwhores and rushit?

[karynnj]

29. That was based on the regular delegates he won and projections for the rest of the races

That was normal MATHEMATICS. They did not say he would "catch" Clinton by Memorial Day, Obama was AHEAD of her in regular delegates. (In fact, it was after the Clintons had a disappointing SuperTuesday in early February, that they and the media started speaking of the non-existent "popular" vote and suggesting that the majority of superdelegates did not have to vote for the candidate who got the most regular delegates.)

[Numba6]

31. u think facts, logic, & math will affect any ideologue's opinions? The Internet IS NOT ur 1st home

[karynnj]

50. I know it will never move some ideologs,

but it might reach someone less ideological, who didn't see these questions raised during the primaries. I am less an Obama supporter than a Kerry supporter. From that, I learned that repetition of things that are not true can become CW and that it is likely easier for it to do so if it is done by people within the party. Here, it undermines a heart warming truth - that the people chose a candidate that most of the party party leadership (Clinton and the DLC) and media did not chose. Most pundits wrote in late 2007 that HRC would easily win on superTuesday and were still speaking of her campaign as "flawless" - and she would have had she done much of anything for the caucus states OR had Kerry and the Kennedys not given Obama the lift they did in January, OR if Bill Clinton would not have gone so completely nasty on the eve of NH, during NV and SC. Note that 2 of these were under the Clinton's control. (The sad truth for Clinton people is that she was really handed the nomination on a silver platter after November 2004. Had she stayed on the high road attacking just the Republicans - as if already in general election mode - treating her Democratic opponents as future allies, simply parrying off attacks with good humor - as Kerry did when he became front runner in 2004, she likely would have been unstoppable. (She did this in at least one debate - the one before SuperTuesday. The biggest error was likely using Bill Clinton as an attack dog - it, temporarily lowered his favorability and showed a dark side of Clinton. Imagine Clinton had simply stayed positive speaking of his years in the White House telling in his folksy way stories that made HRC look good. )

(By doing something in the SuperTuesday caucus states - I would guess that even having her internet team focus on those states - using her email list to find people, who could then get friends, who liked the Clintons to come out and building a place where they could excite state residents to come out. They simply thought they could ignore them - not anticipating that Obama would win them overwhelmingly - netting as many delegates there as she did in the more populous primary states where Obama has able to bring his percent up to about 40% - meaning he got a decent share of delegates.)

The problem with this - the "media gave it to Obama" is that it discredits Obama as having been the choice of the people. It is true that in the primaries, this was not by the overwhelming numbers that Kerry had in 2004, where he completely dominated the race in a way that has not happened in an a race without an incumbent President or sitting VP running since before 1960, or Gore, with far more party support and as a sitting VP, had in 2000. It was however the result of his strategists being better than the Clintons', and his eloquence and ideas - and being greatly helped by the mood for CHANGE and the perception by many that the Clintons, who ran on change in 1992 were not change in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Oh yeah.....The famous popular vote count that didn't really exist

in any real way. I remember that!

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Kerry might be to the left of where Obama is but he wasn't before 2004

After 2004 Kerry did move noticeably to the left. But before then I would say he was more or less on the same page with Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

37. That is correct. nt

[karynnj]

56. It is hard to compare Obama to Kerry pre-2004

The biggest problem in doing so is that Obama has no record to compare to Kerry's for that interval. However comparing them between 2007 (when Kerry opted not to run) and 2008 is unfair to Obama - though some may not like it, when running there are times when hard votes won't be made because they could destroy the candidate in the general election. That leaves 2005 and 2006 - when both likely had thoughts of running. Two years is not a long time to compare - but the 2 actions where I see the most difference were Kerry/Feingold where Obama criticized it and voted against it (despite later saying he was for a deadline before it was popular - he wasn't) and on Alito - Obama was very wishy washy and even unhelpful in comments on talk shows and, although a Constitutional scholar, he did not take a very strong position on Alito- though he did vote to filibuster. Looking at the Obama economic advisors and listening to Kerry on the Finance committee, I think Obama is to the right there. While it is true that Kerry took no positions where he was a lone voice in say 2000 - 2004 - other than continuing to fight for legislation to make international money laundering harder - which was dry enough that fighting for it couldn't hurt, Kerry has done so before and afterward. I don't think Obama ever has.

If you look over Kerry's entire career, it is tough to place him on a left to right axis as he was never an ideolog. There are constants - his foreign policy being the most notable. Kerry's misgivings on whether we were considering the culture of Vietnam expressed in his 1966 Yale speech (not a typo - 1966) are consistent with the comments he spoke in SFRC this month at a hearing on reaching out to the muslim world. Kerry was among the few Senators who strongly fought the Reagan administration on arming the Contras. (The Clintons and Gore supported legally helping the Contras then.) Consistently, he spoke against Clinton using Iranian arms merchants to covertly arm people in one of the former parts of Yugoslavia. (If you look at Obama's foreign policy team - other than possibly Susan Rice, they are all to Kerry's right.)

I think that the primaries in 2004 acted to make Kerry look more centrist than he was - to his benefit. The fact is that he was to the left of Dean, who was a centrist Democrat. It obviously did not hurt Kerry in the primaries where he had the easiest win for anyone not an sitting VP or incumbent President that i've seen - and my memory goes back to 1960 (though at 10 I mostly remember the details from Making of a President which I read a few years later.) In the general election, the harm was that some on the left were unhappy and though they voted for him they might have been more enthusiastic if they knew his record better.

- Kerry was about as far to the left as any mainstream politician on the environment, where he was better than Dean and even Gore, who was great on global warming and not all that good on other environmental issues.

- He had 100% on every civil rights issue - AA, women and gay. His position of civil unions with full federal rights was as strong as Obama's 4 year later position - on an issue where there is strong movement. On gays in the military, he was one of the people who made the strongest case - giving a great speech and from some accounts seen in 2004 angering Strom Thurmond by pointing out that there were gays in the military and there always had been.

- Kerry wrote the precursor bill to S-CHIP with Kennedy- the changes made between K/K and S-Chip were that the K/K bill made it an entitlement and it was defined nationally, not differently in each state.

- Kerry also was the sponsor of the Affordable Housing Fund - something he fought for gradually getting more sponsors, until he had 23 last year, including Dodd and Reed, the two Senators whose jurisdiction this fell in since the end of the 1990s (a version of it was included in last year's banking bill.) (In late 2007, he was among the first to push for legislation to help with foreclosures.)

- Kerry for more than 2 decades has successfully fought for funding for Youthbuild, a program that helps disadvantaged at risk kids get practical work skills as they complete high school - resulting in them getting a degree they were in danger of not completing and having skills to get a job when they graduate.

- Kerry is and was then the strongest advocate veterans have had to get the benefits they deserve. Kerry helped get the passage of provisions that led to Agent Orange being considered to have been the cause of many ailments. The son of Admiral Zumwult, who like Kerry had been on a swiftboat, was unable due to health (he died of cancer) to testify about the constant spraying of the jungle and the canals they were in, Kerry agreed to testify instead and was sworn in to do so - a very unusual act for a Senator.

Where Kerry did not fit the liberal pattern was because he was a fiscal moderate - believing that budgets did matter. In addition, Kerry - from his speeches - saw that globalization was the real cause for most of what people have since blamed on trade agreements. His speech on NAFTA spoke of the increasing gap between "Roseanne" (Barr)and the "Yuppies on LA Law" It was clear he saw treaties as an opportunity to leverage the value of our markets being more open to insist on labor and environmental rights in those countries. Though promised they were never implemented and by 2004, Kerry was saying (Obama was LESS strong speaking of this in 2008) that he wanted all the agreements re-opened. In 2005, Kerry wrote an AFL-CIO supported amendment for workers' rights and enviromenal protections tthat died 10-10 in the Republican dominated Finance committee. His comments in committee included quoting liberation theology bishops from Central America on the devastating effects of NAFTA and how provisions of CAFTA were worse. I seriously think he might be the only Senator to have read what they had to say, much less quoted any of them. Here the issues he worried about were very consistent - but you could not see this looking just at votes.

The main issue that was used to make Kerry more centrist was his wrong vote on IWR - but both in early fall before the vote and after the vote - Kerry spoke of only going to war as a last resort. He was , I think, the only person to vote for it - who several times spoke against invading - saying that there was still hope for diplomacy. His vote was wrong, but it was also wrong to conflate an October vote with a March order to invade. As politics, it was fair - but unfortunately it has led to things like Bush bemoaning that people in DC longer than he made the same decision. In fact, the problem with the resolution was that Congress did not get to vote again in March - something Congress should never have let happen.

Now - to put this in context - this is a comparison of Obama and Kerry only. Kennedy is the more liberal MA Senator and there are a few other Senators consistently more liberal than Kerry. I also think that the distance between Kerry and Obama is small. I do think though - that wherever there is a difference that I can see - Kerry is on the left of Obama. I seriously can not find one issue where Obama is to Kerry's left. I think it very likely that Kerry may well become the informal leader of the liberal Senators in the future - as Kennedy is now. I don''t see anyone else with the combination of eloquence, gravitas and position in the Senate who is more likely to take this role. If so, Kerry will be pulling the Obama administration to the left.

[blm]

60. Kerry's lifetime rating was to the left of Kucinich's in 2004 - plus, by 2004 his record included

being the lawmaker who uncovered and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history - in fact, most of today's left relies on Kerry's work uncovering and investigating the RW Establishment's operations of IranContra, Iraqgate, illegal wars in Central America, BCCI, CIA drugrunning, and their S&L crimes. And most haven't a clue that it's years of Kerry's work they cite when they point to the many crimes of BushInc.

Kerry turned left after 2004? You have got to be joking.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Yes blm, I know that every bad thing in the history of the world is connected to IranContra and BCCI

And that Bill Clinton covered it all up. You really don't need to repeat yourself so many times.

[blm]

66. YOU are the one who claimed Kerry turned left AFTER 2004 - I am correcting you.

And....my EXACT position is that much of what is happening today and the corruption of the last 30 years is rooted in BCCI matters. You are welcome to dispute that without exaggerating my position, can't you?

Maybe if you weren't interested in someone repeating themselves in a reply to your post, you'd be more careful of repeating inaccurate statements in your own posts so they wouldn't prompt a corrective (and repetitious) reply, eh?

[karynnj]

79. I think it was that in 2004, many on the left never looked back

over Kerry's full record. Part of the problem was that Trippi positioned Dean to the left of Kerry as he saw a huge opening there. In February, when Dean's campaign was tanking, he hit Kerry as hard as he could - claiming Kerry was not different on Iraq than Bush, which was not true at any point in time, and he attacked Kerry as in the lobbyists and corporations pockets - though neither were true. ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E3D9133AF931A25751C0A9629C8B63 - link because most of this is forgotten - also note how close the lobbyist/corporation jargon is to the words Trippi put in Edwards' mouth last year. Trippi is NOT good for the Democrats.)

Kerry, in response to the lobbyist attack released a list of all the meetings he had since 1989 with lobbyists - saying he could defend all of them. In 2008, this was called the Kerry precedent. Obama, Clinton and McCain all refused a challenge to do the same. As to corporations, Kerry authored the Clean Elections, Clean Money bill he sponsored with Wellstone. He also stood against the entire power elite to fight BCCI. At that point he had run 4 Senate campaigns without PAC money. The problem is that some of these charges still surface on DU and DKOS - and I assume the people stating them are honest and they took at face value attacks that were never justified.

Oddly, the misreading of where both Kerry and Dean stood likely helped Kerry. Given Kerry's record and who he was, had he run before 2001 - he would have had to fight the perception that he was too liberal. Dean might actually have run a better campaign if he had run on economic/social issues as the moderate Vermont Governor he was along with being anti-war. Doing so would likely not have run into the fight with Gephardt who felt that Dean distorted both his own and his positions on Medicare.

[sampsonblk]

49. Yup, I go along with that (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

7. I like to think Feingold, but no. That's why centrists Obama and Clinton were what we ended up with

Both vastly better candidates than Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis.

But real progressives? No.

[Starry Messenger]

8. More questions for the magic 8 ball?

[Captain Hilts]

12. Does anyone know why Feingold didn't run? Just curious. nt

[camera obscura]

17. iirc, because he didn't want people bothering him with his personal life

[Captain Hilts]

21. Oh, right. He's had two divorces, correct? But didn't an ex endorse him? nt

[ProSense]

13. "Unhappy people."

:rofl:

[theoldman]

16. Little old me. I am left of Obama.

Compared to me Obama would have come across as a nice guy.

[Uzybone]

18. Pointless topic, President Obama is here and now

we have to do our best to support him and guide him. To wonder about the others who previously lost, who Obama defeated or who didn't have the balls/inclination to run is meaningless.

[geckosfeet]

19. I think he is the most liberal president in my lifetime - and I am loving it.

Could he be more of lefty - I suppose. But I think that he will have some lefty surprises for us over the next couple years.

[TBF]

40. For anyone under 40 he is the most liberal president of their lifetime.

I can completely see why youth loved Obama. I'm in my early 40's and can barely remember Carter as president - all I remember is gas lines and hostages. After Carter we had one centrist (Clinton) and the rest were Nazis.

I will still work to push him left, and I do disagree with him on many things, but Obama was our chance to win the white house back. He's done a few good things already, and we'll just have to keep the pressure on.

[geckosfeet]

47. I think that he is also more liberal than Kennedy. I am over 50.

[camera obscura]

20. John Edwards, provided he didn't have that keeping-it-in-the-pants problem.

[karynnj]

26. Edwards was to the right of Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Dean

per the only real record he had. Not to mention it was not his indiscretion that caused him to lose - he was out of the race for at least 4 months before anything was known. The fact is he was in all reality out when he lost Iowa to Obama by about 8%. Even if he won Iowa, it was thought that he would still have a very tough road ahead as he had little support in NH. The fact is that Edwards was hyped by the media in 2004 LONG after he had no chance. In 2 years - he won just ONE primary. (He also got the NC caucus after Kerry was the presumed nominee.)

He might have been beaten in the general election as the Republicans would hit him more than the Democrats did on the fact that what he was saying in 2003 and his Senate career did not match his 2008 rhetoric. His hedge fund work would have become an issue in the fall as people turned on things like that.

[FrenchieCat]

36. The Hedgefund connection would have gotten to Edwards

on September 15th!...even without his thing out of his pants.

[dionysus]

53. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

:rofl:

um, yea....

[WI_DEM]

73. No Way! He was a phoney. He is the politician who puts his finger in the air to see what stand he

should take.

[Frank Booth]

41. Dennis Kucinich!

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[Dawgs]

55. "COULD HAVE WON"

Sorry. I love Dennis, but...

[Two Americas]

43. not relevant

Left is what a politician does, not what they "are." What they do reflects what they are pressured to do. Big business is pressuring them - mercilessly and relentlessly - to help out the very wealthiest and most privileged few. We pressure them to help the little people. That is how politics works in a representative democracy.

Why do you, and others have a problem with that? What is wrong with a strong and vibrant representative democracy, in your view?

[Hekate]

46. IBTL. What...

... are you talking about? :wtf:

Hekate

[Louis-Emmanuel]

48. Edwards' and Hillary's health care plans were more "left"

Than Obama's, as they called for a mandate, which was missing from Obama's plan.

As for the Iraq war withdrawal plan, the 3 candidates had similar ideas.

[karynnj]

59. In reality, all the healthcare plans were likely to result in the same legislation

The fact is that whether there are mandates will depend on which version can get enough votes. There was a big shift on the part of Big Business recently with the Business Council arguing for mandates. (Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon gave very strong support for mandates at a Finance committee hearing after the election. ) The argument was actually whether you initially imposed mandates .

As to the Iraq withdrawal plans - every single candidate structured theirs very like Kerry/Feingold. All of them had some kind of deadline by which they left - all said it was flexible if it was clear it was working and a few months were needed, all had regional diplomacy as a major point, all took the US out of front line confrontations, all left a residual (though K/F allowed the fighting Al Queda piece to be stationed outside Iraq - leaving just troops to train Iraqis and protect our embassy).

The fact is that if you compare Kerry's 2004 platform to any of the 2008 platforms - there are few differences. (Obviously giving Kerry K/F for Iraq - which in structure had roots in his 2004 plan) You will find that Edwards in 2008 had healthcare and environment/alternative energy plans MUCH closer to Kerry's in 2004 than his own 2004 plans.

[mmonk]

51. No because anyone more left is not allowed to speak and make a

case to the American people because of corporate media consolidation and the propaganda that they are wrong and less American and are radicals. I'm fairly pleased with Obama except most of his appointees that helped create the current train wreck that is this country. I'm also disappointed he basically "lied" to us in his pledge to the American Freedom Campaign. Otherwise we are making progress.

[Zavulon]

52. Against McCain, almost any remotely competent left winger could have won.

I'm not unhappy with Obama, I'm just pointing out that we weren't running against anyone tough.

[Jennicut]

54. No because while we are not a totally center right country we are not a pure leftist one either

We swing slight right to slight left imo. Obama is trying top push us further left, hopefully people go along with that as we need universal heatlth care, etc.

[anonymous171]

57. No. Most leftists lack the balls to fight an actual campaign. Too many idealists in our ranks.

What we need is someone with the political skills of Obama and the liberalism of Kucinich (minus the gun-control stance.)

[CJCRANE]

58. If they coulda they woulda

and they didn't.

[960]

62. Sure. Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Gore...

Quite a few actually.

[riverdale]

63. Russ Feingold!

Now there is a dream candidate. But alas, you have to have the balls to run, don't ya.

[TwilightGardener]

71. Hillary and Biden are NOT to the left of Obama. Never were.

[960]

76. That is not true according to the most widely regarded "political compass"

Biden is to the left of Obama as well as less authoritarian.
Hillary scores an overall "left" of Obama when you factor in authoritarian (Where Obama approaches the average Republican rather than Democrat)

And then we have the reality that Hillary honestly represented who she was, while Obama played to the left but is turning out to be more of a centrist than Hillary.
(read Iraq, Afghanistan) And he never pretended to be to the left of any Democratic running for the WH on healthcare. And Hillary was far better on GLBT/civil rights and certainly clearer on the issue of choice.

If you actually think Obama is "liberal" you aren't going to be happy when all is said and done. He has used "bi-partisanship" as cover for moving to the right. The problem is that the Republicans are completely irrelevant and do not need to be worked with.

[TwilightGardener]

77. I maintain what I said--Hillary and Biden both campaigned to the right of Obama, and

called his foreign policy "naive", etc. Any guessing as to how they'd behave once in office is just that, guessing.

[960]

78. Yes, they campaigned to the right of Obama because he campaigned

far to the left of where he actually stands. Biden and Hillary both campaigned pretty much where they actually are.
There's a difference between how one campaigns and how one governs.

[iamthebandfanman]

88. so then we all agree

that theyd all govern from the center?


so therefor, the people u mentioned are not to the left of him.


how you govern DOES determine your political leanings...
as it is actions , not words...

anyone can proclaim to be anything if they want...its their actions that count.

[iamthebandfanman]

87. totally agree with you.

and as far as the person who replied to you with the 'political compass' ... i wouldnt trust that lame test if my life depended on it.

you know what you are, you dont need a f'ing quiz to figure that out. if you do, you never took the time to think about your beliefs and where they lie... and if thats the case maybe you dont need to be so involved with political things.

[Blue_Tires]

64. The liberal answer to Joe the non-union apprentice:

Except our version is like, smart -- We should have thrown more weight behind these two:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1437011&mesg_id=1437011

[Sparkly]

65. The old "Who Could Have Won" discussion...

Who KNOWS?!?!? Nobody does.

So one side can insist lots of other people could have won, while the other can insist only Obama could have won (and people "to the right" of him).

Nobody really knows.

[RoadRage]

67. I love the "We won, but now it's not good enough" BS...

We don't live in a bubble in this country.. and love them or hate them, 1/2 of the people who live in America aren't as "left" as many here on DU. We have a great president who has done more in his first 2 months then the last guy did in 8 years.. and we're fighting the worst econemy (thanks to Bush) that has been seen in many peoples life-time.

Give the guy a break... geez!!

[bluestateguy]

68. If Kucinich was president, they would have already castigated him as a DLC sellout by now

Indeed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

82. Hell, Eugene Debs would be labeled corporatist by some people here.

[alwysdrunk]

69. Is Gore to the left of Obama?

I honestly don't know that answer. If so, then MAYBE Gore. No one else, not winning or even being a "serious" contender.

[WI_DEM]

74. During the New Deal years of the 30's there was an element that thought FDR wasn't liberal enough

too.

[Mass]

75. The problem with Obama is not what he stands for, but what he thinks is doable to move the country

ahead.

Apparently, he thinks the country is very much to the center, and that we must move it by changing things by little increments, rather than bold and radical reforms.

The good thing is that HE WANTS THINGS TO CHANGE.

[Occam Bandage]

80. Clinton.

:popcorn:

[Fire1]

81. I'm not an unhappy person. The man I wanted to win, WON!

Furthermore, ANYBODY any further left of President Obama would be experiencing the same shit with pukes obstructing every bit of progress and attempt at recovery. These fuckers are trying the same tactics they used with Carter and it's not working! Plus, it's even harder for POTUS b/c now, even the MSM is working against him. If people would stop listening to 'this and that' bullshit from political analyst and so-called experts turning everybody into 'chicken littles,' you might see the forest for the trees. Global finance is a complex issue that we try to piece together on a message board. Can't be done.

[LisaM]

83. I never thought Obama was particularly liberal

(and yes, I did march in several anti-war marches, not to mention calling and writing every media outlet and representative I could think of about the 2000 election AND the war). I supported Edwards, Clinton, and then Obama in that order because I thought that represented the most left to center ranking.

The latest news about Obama going against the teachers' union makes me really, really upset. My dad taught his entire career in the public schools. Merit pay is a slap in the face - it rewards teaching to tests that shouldn't define academic success in the first place. It gives me a sinking feeling. And I WILL be calling the White House and my Senators about it. Barack Obama's educational resume is impressive. But he never attended one day of public school (neither have his children) and I don't think he totally understands the hurdles many public school teachers face.

[Fire1]

85. HERE! HERE!!!

[blindpig]

84. No socialist would ever be allowed to win.

The ruling class, as a whole, would sooner put a gun to their collective heads. No one gets within sniffing distance of the White House without their approval.

Ain't nothing but a dog & pony show to placate the masses.

Real change can only come from outside of the current political process.

[iamthebandfanman]

86. why is the ability to be a good politician

favored more than the substance of a person?

sorry but politicians are liars who say and do anything to keep money in their pockets and career to wake up to every day. not unlike most people, the majority of which are only self serving ultimately.

i just dont think being great at being a politician is necessarily a good thing.

i wish we didnt judge people on their ability to actually get into office, and stuck to what was important... what their views and stances are and how itll effect all of us.

i didnt vote for obama because i thought he was the most 'electable' tho, i did so because he was one of only two options left in the primary(my primaries are in May).. and only did so in the general election because he was my ONLY option.

theres no doubt that president obama is and was a better option than mccain, but that doesnt mean hes right about everything... and that doesnt mean i have to agree.

just because someone is able to speak loudly and articulate themselves, doesnt mean they know best.

need i remind people on DU that sometimes the smallest and weakest of voices carries the most grand solutions.

[grantcart]

89. Wetzelbill

[Wetzelbill]

90. they had their chance to vote for me, grantcart

Much like Joe The Plumber, the American people don't deserve me!