Are you willing to consider voting for candidates other than Obama in the 2012 Democratic primary?

[anthroguy101]

I've heard a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric on this site, and it is becoming increasingly evident that many of us are disappointed in the man, and I don't blame you one bit. Though he has clearly made more progress than the Bush administration, some of us feel he could be doing more. What is your opinion? Would you consider voting for another candidate in the 2012 Democratic Presidential Primary?

[av8rdave]

1. I'm an Obama fan. HOWEVER

When it comes to elections, I try to do my homework. If I find a candidate that I think is better, that's where my vote goes.

If Obama wants my vote again, he'd better earn it!

[anthroguy101]

9. My point exactly

[leeroysphitz]

94. Some people here think that he earns our votes automatically just by having a "D" after his name.

It just doesn't work that way for me. I have a nasty habit of thinking critically that keeps getting in the way.

[breadandwine]

107. Al Gore.

If Al were running I would consider him because I know he would be doing more to force BP to stop the leak.

He's also a Southerner who could appeal to the South better and screw up the GOP's Southern strategy.

Gore won a Nobel Prize too and he earned it on the environment.


Bottom line, if Obama doesn't want to be president, if he would rather sit on his hands and not be a leader, maybe its time for Gore.

[av8rdave]

121. I will always refer to him as President Gore"

[1Hippiechick]

129. +1

[saltpoint]

2. The president is likely to enjoy significant support among many key

constituencies.

He's got my vote.

[anthroguy101]

4. Would that result in him winning in 2012?

I think that's important. I'm not saying he can't, and I hope he does.

[saltpoint]

18. I believe it would, yes. In recent elections Democrats did not enjoy the

support of many Hispanic voters. For any number of good reasons, including the appointment to the Supreme Court of Justice Sotomayor, I believe the GOP will lost that demographic, and properly so.

I don't see any major Democratic constituency abandoning this president if he wants renomination or re-election.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have a fundie nutbag Bagger problem that is getting bigger and isn't going away. I see an indie run by a ticket comprised of Lou Dobbs and Jan Brewer, or people even worse, splitting the GOP donor base and taking the crucial nutbag demographic away from their too-frequent wins in swing states.

It may also bring down several Republican Senatorial races.

[anthroguy101]

36. Again, I hope you're right.

[LWolf]

45. Which key constituencies would that be?

Teachers? Not on your life.
GLBT? I don't think so.
Feminists? I'm skeptical.
Labor? I'm not confident.
The unemployed, the underemployed, the bankrupt, the foreclosed? Not likely.
Those who don't support the war on terror? Again, I don't think so.
The left...not on your life.

I belong to all of those constituencies except for the GLBTs, who have my support.

[Radical Activist]

57. I think you're confusing actual voters with a few pundits who have a habit of exaggeration.

DADT will be repealed by 2012. GLBT voters will have good reason to support Obama.
Feminists aren't going to oppose the President who put two pro-choice women on the Supreme Court and signed the Lilly Ledbetter act.
The stimulus bill provided a lot of union jobs, but I guess some unions may hesitate if nothing happens on the right to organize.
Unemployment is down. Foreclosures are down. The trend is likely to continue for the next two years.

He biggest accomplishments are on environmental issues and he's still pushing a climate change bill.

We'll see if he keeps his promise to get out of Afghanistan in 2012, but frankly, the peace movement is pathetically ineffective. I can't see them having much of an impact while they maintain their self-righteous purity by not getting involved in elections.

I don't see Obama having a big problem with the left.

[LWolf]

60. I'm an actual voter. I don't think I'm confused.

I hope DADT is repealed.

Meanwhile, unemployment and foreclosures aren't down in my state, especially in my county. I'm a feminist. I oppose him. I'm the left. He's got a big problem with me.

And I notice you can't address the offenses his administration has perpetrated against public education and public educators.

Of which I am also one.

[Radical Activist]

62. I don't think you represent the average liberal voter.

I understand that you have a policy issue that's close to you and teachers unions may back someone else if the worst predictions about what Obama is doing turn out to be true. I have a hard time believing that after hearing so many pundits cry wolf about Obama betraying the left. But I also know that you've been expecting to be disappointed by Obama since before he took office. Most liberals were more open minded about giving him a chance than you were.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4388403&mesg_id=4390104

[LWolf]

66. I may not represent the average,

but I'm finding more and more like myself these days.

You are correct, of course, that I didn't expect great things. That's because I looked and listened beyond his speeches and the euphoria of hope and change to his actual policies, and I knew what direction he was headed.

Not as open minded? Perhaps I simply gave him credit for doing what he said he would do, having paid attention. And those things weren't what I wanted. I didn't pretend differently for the sake of a campaign, or for a "win" in name only.

I didn't admire Ronald Reagan for "changing the trajectory," and I don't consider the liberal movements he led us away from to be "excesses." I don't think Republicans do a better job on education policy, and I don't support privatization and union busting. I don't support NAFTA. I don't support the for-profit health insurance industry. I don't now, and never have supported the war on terror, or funding that war, or continuing that war.

My opposition is come by honestly. It's all about issues and policy, which is what I base my support and votes on. I've certainly never pretended any differently. I've been open about my goals and my perspectives from the beginning.

I'm glad that you can link to one of my posts; hopefully, it won't be disappeared because Obama supporters don't like it the way the one I used to have in my sigline was.

[Radical Activist]

67. Too many straw-men.

I expect spin in the primary like the silliness over Obama's statement about changing the trajectory and the 60's. I'm always surprised when someone on DU still trots it out and pretends to take the spin seriously. It makes it painfully obvious that you never objectively considered Obama with an open mind or understood his campaign message. If you had understood his viewpoints you might appreciate the difference between backing down and taking the next possible step forward in a way that leads to more progress in the near future.

Last night Obama made a strong statement directly rejecting the Reagan anti-government philosophy. I don't see much recognition of that in the press or on DU. I think Obama will do well when he's on the campaign trail letting people know about his record that the press and most left pundits are ignoring.

[LWolf]

68. I was offended when he made the statement, and it still offends me.

I don't think that's "silliness." I think that's you deriding someone else's point of view. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

69. If Reagan changed the trajectory

then we obviously need another trajectory change in the opposite direction. I find it very difficult to understand why a liberal would choose to misinterpret that pro-liberal statement as something offensive. Or why someone would assume, without basis, that the "excesses" Obama referred to were positive things, rather than the negative things like political assassinations, COINTELPRO, domestic terrorism, deaths related to drug abuse and so on. It doesn't seem rational to me.

[LWolf]

71. We DO obviously need another trajectory change in the opposite direction.

Unfortunately, that's not the change Obama campaigned on.

The "excesses" were an attack on the left, who did not assassinate MLK, JFK, or RFK. It seems pretty clear to me what the statements meant.

Especially with the direction his administration has taken. He brings Reagan to mind too often for comfort.

[Radical Activist]

98. Obama did remind me of Reagan recently

when he said this:

Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility -- a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.

...And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency -- Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. And his charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog -- not its partner.

Reagan must be spinning in his grave. And yes, that IS what Obama campaigned on.

You're welcome to think there were no excesses with groups like the weather underground, casual drug abuse, and other calls for violent action by a few left groups in the 60's. I disagree with you. An attack on the entire left wing movement of the 60's are not words that ever came out of Obama's mouth.

[LWolf]

104. I didn't say that I thought

calls for violent action were not excesses. I don't believe those are the "excesses" that Obama refers to. In context, while praising Reagan, I think it's the progress made on left/liberal issues that were "excessive." Context IS important.

You don't have to agree with me. Your agreement is not necessary for me to interpret reality, lol.

I remember Reagan as the de-regulator who wanted to privatize everything he could, regardless of what he may have said in a speech. Who wanted to put corporations ahead of people, justifying it with "trickle-down" economics.

[Radical Activist]

105. Why don't you apply the same courtesy for Obama that you ask for yourself.

He never said that progress on liberal issues were the "excesses" he was referring to. So I won't make assumptions about whether you think political violence was an excess and you can stop making baseless assumptions about what you believe Obama meant (but never said). Is that fair?

I interpret Reagan the same way, and obviously from the quote above, Obama is undoing the Reagan legacy.

[LWolf]

109. It seems that you interpret context differently than I do.

If I had hard evidence that Obama was "undoing the Reagan legacy," I'd be more likely to give your position a little credit.

[joe black]

95. He's betraying all Americans not just liberals.

His DOJ for one, the wars for another, torture.

[Radical Activist]

97. Huh?

Torture? Obama immediately banned Bush era torture guidelines, more changes are coming, and he made public all the info Congress need to start investigating and prosecuting Bush administration officials.
http://washingtonindependent.com/48411/obama-task-force-on-torture-considers-cia-fbi-interrogations-teams
The Iraq withdrawal is on schedule.

I'm all for pushing Obama to do more. I'm also for not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[saltpoint]

87. I'll stick with my prediction. We'll see how things are divvied up

in Nov. 2012. LWolf.

[LWolf]

89. This thread is about primaries.

That wouldn't be in November. And yes, it's highly improbable that a Democratic challenger would beat a standing president in a primary. If a decent Democrat stands up to challenge, and enough Democrats vote for him or her, it might be the ONLY thing that has a chance of "convincing" him to change direction.

[saltpoint]

90. Yes, the primaries. It's fair to say I don't see a challenge to this president

from within the party.

In other posts on DU I've suggested that the more likely political threat comes from Michael Bloomberg, who is in a position to almost single-handedly fund an independent ticket. If not one that includes himself then as a powerbroker to a Bloomberg-picked ticket.

There isn't a winning rationale for any Democrat to challenge Obama in the primaries from either the left or the right. The numbers aren't there. Things do change in politics, granted, but we have to go with the available information.

Not all the stimulus money has been spent. I could see Obama's support rising in coming months, despite the bitter words exchanged in the media over the oil disaster in the Gulf.

[LWolf]

91. He'd have to do some big 180s for his support to rise in many sectors.

I don't see him firing Duncan, scrapping his "blueprint," and inviting educators to the table to help create an authentic blueprint for public education, for example.

I don't see him saying, "The war on terror was never a good idea, and it's continuing to bankrupt the nation. Let's stop before we're any further behind, bring our troops home, and invest in domestic concerns."

I don't see him saying, "Working with the insurance companies was a bad idea. Let's scrap the insurance bill for a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care plan."

Or, "The gulf oil leak brings home the reality of off-shore drilling. Let's dump it for investment in clean, sustainable energy like wave, wind, and solar."

And so on.

[Radical Activist]

101. Most of those wouldn't be a 180 at all.

Obama already pledged to end the war in Afghanistan by the end of his first term. That wouldn't be a change in position if he's running in 2012. A 180 would be continuing the war beyond that time frame.

And there are few more things Obama has talked about more or done more about than getting us off fossil fuels and investing in alternatives. That's not a change in position either.

It sounds like you made up your mind about what Obama is a long time ago and you don't process any evidence to the contrary.

[LWolf]

103. Promising something and doing it are 2 different things.

I don't see the war in Afghanistan ending by 2012. And, of course, you are correct in one thing. I didn't want to escalate it to begin with. I've never supported it. It hasn't been okay with me to continue it in '09 and '10.

"Off of fossil fuels" is good. Or should be. "Clean coal" and nuclear power plants are NOT good. Neither are clean.

I can process evidence just fine, thanks. You're not presenting me with any that leads me to change my mind about anything.

[saltpoint]

106. The current polling shows that liberal-identified voters support

Obama in the mid-80 percent range.

Eight of ten voters who identify as liberal in their voting patterns and political identity appear supportive of the president.

That ain't bad.

[LWolf]

112. "liberal" covers a broad range of voters. nt

[saltpoint]

118. It does, and it should.

[hlthe2b]

3. Why? You gonna put up Alvin Greene?

;)

[JuniperLea]

5. Pft... really stinky poll...

I don't like hypotheticals in the least, and this is a double blind hypothetical. So really you are only conducting a popularity contest. This isn't Free Republic, and Obama isn't Sarah Palin.

I find your poll insulting.

[TheKentuckian]

54. It's pretty hard to do any thinking of weight regarding the future or an unknown

without hypothetical.

The absence of imagination means unadulterated in the box thinking and too heavy of a reliance on the past.

Pure straight line thought process and no projection is pretty limited, I'd think.

[TexasObserver]

6. No.

[tallahasseedem]

7. He has my full support...

BTW, shitty poll.

[anthroguy101]

8. God I'm so embarassed.

I like Obama, okay? I'm sorry if you think I feel different.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I couldn't respect the qualifications of anybody stupid enough to run.

[blm]

11. Obama's a center-left guy, but, I knew that when I supported him over the centrist hawk in 2007-8.

So...he's pretty much doing what I expected, no matter how I wish he'd govern as a committed progressive.

How has he disappointed you, considering he's governing so close to the center and you are a center-left voter?

[anthroguy101]

12. The public option didn't get passed, and we're still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Selatius]

21. What passed in the Senate was essentially Mitt Romney-Care. Mandated private coverage.

With no public alternative and subsidies to private corporations for people too poor to afford it on their own. They passed a center-right bill. A center-left bill would've at least had a Public Option in it.

[blm]

22. You're a center-left voter,and you're complaining about a center-left president

who gets pulled constantly by the centrists?

Odd, to me, since I'm a committed lefty who is always pulling against centrists, and I blame centrists for making it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for true progressive policies to rule the day on ANY issue.

[Scuba]

46. No, I'm disputing where the center is.

[blm]

51. the question is relevant to my exchange with original poster

sorry, but, I didn't read your post.

[Bluebear]

59. 'Obama's a center-left guy' - I honestly don't see much "left"

[blm]

64. center-left that gets pulled rightward by the centrists and center-right in our party.

I don't like it, either, but, then I'm a far lefty and understand what I can get and what will NEVER happen. The poster I was replying to has declared himself to be center-left, so I don't understand why he feels so disappointed....especially since it's centrists on the right and left who are essentially getting their way for the most part.

Heh...far left has never gotten its way on ANY policy in the last 4 decades I've been observing politics.

[Bluebear]

65. A fair analysis

[Radical Activist]

102. Good way of putting it.

Obama is proposing things slightly to the left of what's likely to pass Congress and then compromising with the center-right forces in the Democratic Party. That's the most I expect from anyone mainstream enough to be elected President.

My biggest hope was the opportunity to use four years as a framework to build grass-roots movements while we have a sympathetic, responsive President. My biggest disappointment is in the left's failure to use this opportunity as effectively as I hoped.

[saltpoint]

13. Which other Democrat do you feel is likely to challenge a popular

sitting president?

I don't see anybody out there close to a challenge. Which should tell ya somethin'.

[Oregone]

19. Will he be popular in a year?

Maybe. Probably. Maybe not.

[saltpoint]

27. Obama is a personally compelling man. He and Michelle are a class act,

despite the far-Right hate hosts and other GOP officials' race-baiting.

I think the Obamas prevail in the public eye and will enjoy strong public approval.

There's no call to fire the guy. People seem to believe he is earnest about the tasks at hand and that he is sincere in discharging his human duties to the generally citizenry.

I think privately, the Republicans know the numbers do not spell a big victory for them in 2012. Their leading candidate in Iowa is a Mormon, which is problematic for the fundie wing of the Republican Party. Palin is the most vacuous moron to ever set foot on a debate stage. Pawlenty is nothing personified. Gingrich is a corrupt has-been. Barbour is a lying weasel. Santorum is Santorum. And so on. They got nothin'.

[anthroguy101]

29. I hope you're right nt.

[Oregone]

34. But these are extreme times with extreme problems

And I personally think his personality (calm, centrist, reasoned) creates a conflict with that in the public's eyes (who see crisis). If we head into a double-dip recession, and Obama can offer nothing but wooden speeches laced with the same rhetorical platitudes, he may be in trouble.

Further, it only takes one scandal the media can run with to make or break an election year. And even if Obama is a class act, I'm not so sure about all his cabinet members.

If the Republicans pick up the Libertarian ball and run with it a bit to flank the Democrats from a leftward angle (on some respects), you could see a movement. And movements thrive in tough times with no answers.

Anyway...we just don't know what another year will spell. To not consider *reality* is absurd and ridiculous. We do not currently know what that reality is though. Chances are, he will get 8 years

[saltpoint]

37. Fate keeps its cards close to its chin, agree, but working with what

we have at the moment, I think it is the Republicans who are most vulnerable.

It's going to take quite a balancing act for them to keep the nutbags and Baggers happy. The neocons used to control all the levers. Now they look out the window at people like Palin and DeMint and other assorted fools and idiots and realize that they can't command the same control. Still a good deal of it, but perhaps not enough for a swing state.

In districts where the margins are usually very close, the Baggers and nutbags could represent the losing percentage for Puke candidates up and down the ballot.

[Oregone]

14. Its ridiculous to not consider all the alternatives

Who knows if Obama will be viable next election. Who knows if there will be another more viable candidate who is more liberal. We have no idea. We don't know what the most important issue of the week will be now. We don't know how the electorate will feel, and if Obama will even be competitive on the current narrative. We don't know who the Republican challenger will be, and how they stack up.

The chances are, Obama will be the only nominee that could win, all things considered. But to consider nothing....well, thats what zealots would do.

[anthroguy101]

15. +1

[Iggo]

16. I didn't vote for him in the last primary.

But I sure as fuck supported him in the general.

Might or might not vote for him in the next primary. But if he's the winner, I'll support him in the general again.

No sweat off my nose.

[anthroguy101]

26. I'd prefer him over any right-wing candidate the Republicans might have to offer

This is exactly how I feel about it.

[Iggo]

39. Exactly.

Obama vs anything the GOP has to offer?

I'll take Obama.

Obama vs anyone the Dems have to offer? Well, no one's being offered yet.

But as it stands right now, I'll take Obama.

It's really to soon to start a primary fight, though.

[walldude]

63. Yeah me too.. but that wasn't the question...

The question was would you vote for a different Democrat in the primary.

[Iggo]

86. Actually, it was a bit more hedged than that.

Are you WILLING to CONSIDER voting for a dem other than Obama.

You don't have to vote Other.
You don't even have to consider voting Other.
You just have to be WILLING to consider it.

;-)

[Individualist]

17. Tombstone bait. Unrec.

[laughingliberal]

33. Yeppers. nt

[WeDidIt]

48. +1000

Definitely tombstoneworthy.

[JonLP24]

127. Why?

There isn't anything in the rules asking if DUers would vote for someone else in a DEMOCRATIC primary. It would be if the poll was asking if you'd vote third party in 2012.

[NeedleCast]

20. Yes...not that there will be a Democrat Primary in 2012.

[Ozymanithrax]

25. There is no Democrat primary, because there is not Democrat party..

In all cases I can find, it is the Democratic Party.

[NeedleCast]

35. Democrat, Democratic...I don't think there was any confusion over what I meant

There's not going to be any viable challenger to Obama in 2012.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. My comment was not aimed at confusion...Using Democrat in that way is a Republican attack...

part of a very successful strategy in the 80's and 90's to redefine Democrats and all words that refer to the left side of the political spectrum. Among ourselves we should use words with accuracy. We are Democrats, members of the Democratic party of our state, and take part in the Democratic party primary or Democratic primary.

There is no such animal as a Democrat primary.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. But I would have to have some sense that person could win...

Kucinich need not apply. For all his strengths as a defender of progressivism, he has proved unelectable as a Presidential candidate. So if someone does want to primary Obama, go for it. But bring two hundred million dollars to spend, just for the primary.

[Selatius]

24. It would be self-defeating not to carefully weigh all options. nt

[mmonk]

28. First, there won't be a primary challenge to Obama.

Second, if criticism is being anti, I guess I'm anti everything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Obama doesn't own my vote, I do.

[Oregone]

38. I'm pretty sure he is entitled to it, even in the primary

At least half the people may think so

[Toasterlad]

31. Registered Independent. Can't Vote In the Primary.

However, Obama's not getting my vote in ANY election unless he suddenly wakes up one morning and decides to actually fulfill his campaign promises.

[HughBeaumont]

32. Nope. America fails under Republican corporatist religion-addicts.

Republican candidates are either a few tire-steps from sheets & hoods, more nutter'd than a bag of trail mix or lusting to run this country like a publicly-traded corporation.

Aaaaaaand since I don't live in a nation where more than two parties are ever going to have a realistic chance at the Oval Office, there it is.

[Bitwit1234]

40. As much as I would have chosen Hillary given the chance I will

stick with Obama. I know he is going to get the job done.

[bigwillq]

41. Yes (nt)

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

44. I don't think Obama will run in 2012

He'll be all used up and Obama himself suggested some time ago that if he wasn't a successful President he might not run.

[quinnox]

50. Agreed

I had the same thought and posted it just after you did.

[Ikonoklast]

81. The first three words of your post are correct.

[WinkyDink]

92. Ha!! It's called "ego", and it ain't pulling an LBJ.

[WeDidIt]

47. Anybody STUPID ENOUGH to run against President Obama in a primary

is less qualified for the presidency than Sarah Palin.

[leftstreet]

75. Has he stated yet that he's running?

If he's not, it wouldn't be 'stupid' for the Democrats to have an alternative

[WeDidIt]

77. Yes, he has

Read Jonathon Alter's book.

[leftstreet]

78. He told Jonathon Alter he's running?

I didn't know that

[WeDidIt]

80. HE was quoted as saying

that anybody would be crazy to want this job with all that got dumped on him but that there was no way he would let a Romney come in and take credit for all the hard work they were doing.

[quinnox]

49. Oh hell yea, but maybe he will step down

if his numbers look bad enough he could step down and open the primary up, I think he may do that if it looks like he will get rolled in the election.

[RobinA]

52. I'm Beginning to Wonder

if maybe I should vote Repub. I've said for awhile now that this thing has to crash and burn BAD before voters get the message. It crashed and burned, but Dems are still voting like Repubs in order to get reelected. So now I'm thinking it didn't crash bad enough. So instead of limping along with Obama, yeah, better than Bush but - still at war, still with Guantanamo, still favoring Wall Street minus a little credit card tinkering, still advocating no due process for Moslems, still torturing, still no job programs, still no hope for regular people AND WITH NO APPARENT PLANS TO CHANGE ANY OF THIS. In fact, apparent plans to continue it all. I'm thinking the country might as well hurry up and crash, I mean CRASH, so we can get on with it and start recovering. Because the message just ain't gettin' through this way, and it's a slow whittling away of everything that sustains the middle class. By the time this ends, no one will remember how things were supposed to be. Let's just take it down while some one is still around to know what due process is, to remember when we could get a man to the moon and solve problems, to remember the existence of competence, to know what a public interest lawyer is, to be able to name a politician who once or twice voted for what is good for the country, to know why we had unions in the first place and to think it was a good thing...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

88. Oh yeah. Because 2001-2009 was just peachy.

If that wasn't crashing and burning, I don't know WTF was.

[Radical Activist]

53. If he's not getting out of Iraq and Afgahnistan.

Overall, he's doing what he promised to do with the exception of those items blocked by Congress. If he adds a decent climate change bill to his record and gets out of both wars then he'll have had one of the most successful first terms in American history. I know that's hard to swallow for people who listen to the constant criticism from both sides, but I believe the US Senate is our real problem right now.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Sure, nothing like a good primary to get pols in line if nothing else.

[H2O Man]

56. Other.

Very doubtful.

[SocialistLez]

58. He wasn't getting my vote anyway. I voted Green in '08 NT

[AtomicKitten]

61. Only if its Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel.

[sufrommich]

96. +1 lol. nt

[Fire1]

70. If he's not runnin then I'm not votin. n/t

[Bluebear]

74. You just want President Palin!!!!11

:cry:

[Fire1]

82. After PO, I really don't give a shit. Bozo could be Prez. n/t

[anthroguy101]

85. Palin isn't a democrat nt

[gleaner]

72. I decided from the point that he sold out health care ...

and legalized torture, rendition and the suspension of Habeas Corpus that I would look for another candidate. Nothing he has done since, and his lack of action on the Oil disaster have changed that. In fact it has solidified it even more. If Grayson ran against him, I would be very happy Grayson over Obama? No brainer. K%R.

[newspeak]

93. I'm with you!!!!

How about Grayson or Howard Dean? I'm tired voting for someone who continues to support the status quo--under * we took a rapid descent, under O, it's slower. I know I may sound idealistic, but I really thought he'd come in and clean house. I mean, after all, * cleaned house in the CIA-basically dismissing non-loyalists-fired Generals who did not agree with his war hard on policies-changed the Dept of Justice. Instead, O stayed with some of *'s choices and added people like Geithner and Summers. Do you honestly believe that these people are the best to resolve our economic woes? And, still *'s policies are kept alive and working. I am not a "new democrat", I will never by a "new democrat." So, if there is a strong challenger in the primary, I will be voting for that person.

[gleaner]

114. Thank you ....

I'm with you on both Grayson and Howard Dean. I thought as you did that I was helping to elect another potential FDR who would lead us out of trouble, but it turns out I was really, really wrong. We were deliberately mislead.

Most presidents do clean out the former incumbents appointees and loyalists. It seems reasonable. The people elected a new president to put forth a new agenda and a better way of doing things, so the old staff goes with the defeated incumbent. Then the president elect can start with a clean slate and we are all better off, unless he brings in butt heads. I do not believe in the current staff. A lot of them are not there to do us any good. I'm not a "new" Democrat either. I am a 62 year old worn out Democrat who joined the party at age 15. We have had some very good moments. What is happening and not happening now are not among them.

[Laelth]

73. In the primary, of course. I always feel free to choose.

Will Obama be primaried, though? I doubt it. I think we learned our lesson from 1980.

:dem:

-Laelth

[noamnety]

76. Incumbents generally feel a sense of entitlement.

The sense I get from them is that the party and the vote belong to them they would prefer to do away with giving people a choice.

I don't share that same sentiment.

[blondeatlast]

79. 1980 remains very fresh in my mind, but right now I can't say. Abstain from the poll. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

115. Carter would have lost anyway

Inflation and, especially, Iran, all but sealed his fate. And to add to that, a Republican acting as a liberal (John Anderson) did an end run around Carter to siphon off liberal votes.

I'm still kicking myself for voting for Anderson. But even if all of the Anderson votes in Arkansas had gone for Carter, he still would have lost the state by a big margin.

[Catherina]

83. Most definitely. n/t

[MrSlayer]

84. Sure, if we can get a viable, true progressive candidate.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be one on the horizon. I'll still vote for President Obama in the general no matter who runs against him.

[ismnotwasm]

99. Nope

Not at this point.

[NNN0LHI]

100. Marked for future reference

[HipChick]

108. ...I really want a President Palin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NepbcXTTluY

:puke:

[VMI Dem]

110. I'd like to see a non-homophobe take a shot at the White House.

[treestar]

111. Is this other candidate going to win the election

Or do we flirt with the possibility of Republican victory?

To me the word "disappointment" is becoming way overused and the "disappointment" is quite unreasonable, given the country we live in today.

I can't believe that many progressives are really that unreasonable. I prefer to detect a clever Republican plot. Too easy to do on the internets.

[scheming daemons]

113. It's a moot point. No Democrat (that could be taken seriously) is going to challenge Obama.

...

[limit18]

116. I'm going with Alvin Greene...

a great American success story,and knows how to win!

[depakid]

117. Of course- if a candidate more closely matches one's attitudes, beliefs and values

and would be more likely to fight for and follow through with effective policies one believes in. It would be foolish not to- as it's about the only real leverage that citizens have.

[opihimoimoi]

119. Never ever change horses in mid ocean...he is the best we got for now...we should keep him

[cherish44]

120. No I'll support the person most likely to beat the Republican candidate

and if it's Obama, he's my man. If it's someone else he/she is my man/woman. The shift to the left of our country's attitudes among the general public isn't going to happen overnight. After the major butt fuck our country has taken since the 1980s it's going to some time to get there. But we get a conservative president again, we're going to backslide. We need to keep a Dem (even if he's more moderate than liberal) in control. I think we'll eventually get there. The right has pissed off, screwed over and alienated so many demographics of people that greedy rich entitled assholes and ignorant uneducated white people are their only base...they aren't the majority and they're fading fast.0

[Zorra]

122. Only if Rep. Grayson, Rep. Kucinich, or Sen. Sanders runs. nt

[mdmc]

123. ..

[redqueen]

124. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (nt)

[racaulk]

125. I'm willing to consider it, sure.

Whether I do it or not remains to be seen. February 2012 is a long time from now. :hi:

[Cleita]

126. No, because they have no chance of winning should they defeat Obama

in the primaries. It's just the way things have worked in the past and I don't think this time would be the lucky charm even if the candidate were JC himself. We would get another Republican President and I'm not ready for President Palin.

[JonLP24]

128. If there is a primary

I will vote for who I like best. It may be Obama or it may not be Obama.

[Lil Missy]

130. No other Democrat with a shred of integrity would run against Obama.

Politics 101