How would President Obama fare with progressives?

[depakid]

It's easy to walk into a class full of middle schoolers- and own 'em for the day.

How would it be with educated progressives?

-better still, how would it look if administration folks had a go with people like Dean Baker, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman & Robert Reich?

To name but a few. Straight up policy arguments on camera- same stuff many here are whistling past the graveyard with?

[rug]

1. He wouldn't get past Afghanistan.

[JoePhilly]

62. Doing exactly what he said he'd do there.

Would be tough to derail him on that topic.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. He Wouldn't Dare

Gibbs gets sent out to be pwned by actual Democrats, although I'm thinking that even Gibbs will get pulled from circulation after what Ed Schultz did to him recently.

[Dinger]

3. + 1

You are absolutely right Manny.

[inna]

30. Why, what happened? I missed what happened with Ed Schultz. ?

[Dinger]

4. K & R

[DrDan]

5. . . . not too well

[VMI Dem]

6. I'm sure his religious objections to gay marriage would go over well.

[depakid]

8. Didn't realize the administration had any

Though one could surely think of some fair and important sets of questions surrounding DOMA, the Justice Department and such.

May well be that there several issues on which the progressive caucus could meet the President's challenge to provide effective input on that would save us all money, while promoting a more equitable society.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. It would be ugly

[phleshdef]

9. It would be like when he held townhalls with progressive activists present or when he was...

...in primary debates with Dennis Kucinich present... you know, all those instances where he did just fine.

Don't delude yourself. Barack Obama has a talent for debate of any kind. Read about his days as a law professor.

I know some of you are awfully hurt that Obama has decided to take the Republicans head on lately and that DUers are generally happy with him again because of it. You are upset and are starving for anti-Obama talking points. I get it. But sitting around having circular fingerbang fantasies of Obama losing a debate to Howard Dean and Paul Kruman is not the way the to cope.

[wyldwolf]

10. +1

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

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

[suzie]

16. +1

[dionysus]

11. in their mind, they really think all liberals hate him... because they loathe him

surely all liberals must agree with the self-proclaimed Uber Liberals of Purity (tm)
:shrug:

[SoxFan]

26. +2

[jefferson_dem]

34. +3

n/t

[Spazito]

38. +4 n/t

[Robb]

41. +1. nt

[Cha]

47. [phone]That's right, phlesh..

Prez does has no problem with Progressives and regressives.

[Number23]

52. Phleshdef, you win today's...

:thumbsup:

Some of these folks like to pretend that the primaries, the campaign, the election, and the continuous day to to day interaction with progressive (and non-progressive) members of Congress never happened. It would be funny if it weren't so damn stupid.

[vaberella]

60. + Infinity. The OP's post is just idiotic at best. You answered it well, phleshdef. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

13. It'd be a win-win for both of them. Bring it on!

NGU.

[Armstead]

14. I'd love to see a one-on-one debate with Bernie Sanders,

If you ever saw Bernie in the House ripping Alan Greenspan a new one in the 90's, you know that'd be a lively exchange.

Sanders would be respectful of Obama and give him credit where it is due. But he'd also present a dofference in philosophy that'd be very interesting.

[last1standing]

15. He couldn't handle a college kid's question on marriage equality a few days ago.

How would he handle a room of real progressives who now have a record to challenge him on?

[grahamhgreen]

17. What a great idea! Throw Chomsky at him, and lets see what happens. nt

[PSzymeczek]

59. Wish Howard Zinn were still around.

I'd pay to watch him debate Obama!

[DevonRex]

18. Hmm. You said that Obama meeting with the pukes would be the end of the Dem majority.

Looks to me like you're trying to save face after that wildly off-the-mark forecast. You sound like a child daring somebody to cross a line and when they do it, you just make another line in the sand.

Here's the link to your earlier post where you claim that Obama meeting with the republicans at their retreat would be the death of the Democratic party majority:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4222014&mesg_id=4226307

[last1standing]

19. I think you've misconstrued depakid's meaning in that post.

He was referring to the belligerent tone set by another poster who seemed to relish the idea of "some splodin' heads" in the Democratic party. I agree with depakid's response that appeasing fundamentalists and reactionaries would be a bad thing and certainly hope you do as well.

[DevonRex]

20. Nope. I read it again and your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever. nt

[last1standing]

21. Then those who follow the link will have to decide for themselves.

Personally, I have no clue how you got to the position you're maintaining so one of us has to be wildly wrong. :shrug:

[phleshdef]

22. Horse shit. There is ZERO room for misinterpretation.

"Hope you equally enjoy the loss of the Democratic majority because that exactly what actions like these will lead to. That and the continuing decline into third world status."

That is clearly saying that meeting with the Republicans was the type of action that will contribute to both losing the Democratic majority and will turn us into a 3rd world country. You don't GET to have an opinion on what something that clear actually means. It speaks for itself and doesn't lend itself to any subjectivity whatsoever.

[DevonRex]

24. Thank you. I was honestly speechless at that poster's "interpretation."

And the patronizing BS of the rest of what he said was just laughable.

[last1standing]

28. You seem to have anger issues today.

And since you didn't bother to read the post the OP was responding to, I can't be bothered to argue the point. Believe what you will no matter how silly.

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

31. LOL, the old "you are getting angry" defense cracks me up.

This is the internet, people vent, stop being such a sensitive little thing.

[last1standing]

58. I don't accept that bromide. Acting with civility is universal.

Screaming "horseshit" in response to my polite comment was a classic sign of a person with anger issues. If you can't control yourself that's not my fault.

[Armstead]

23. We all make mistakes.

Obama handled that meeting really well.

So what?

That doesn't negate the idea that a debate between Obama and progressives who feel disaffected by some (or many) of his stances and policies could be useful and informative.

Heck, maybe Obama would do really well, and alleviate some of the mistrust and anxiety.

[DevonRex]

27. See, I agree with what YOU said and I appreciate how you said it, too.

You didn't set up a negative scenario from the get-go. You treat the idea as a positive for everyone. I'm on board with that.

[jefferson_dem]

35. Ha!

I was wondering why the OP was all sour after Obama smacked around the Repugs "in their own gym". Everyone else saw it and admitted the truth. But not the OP, who was trying to "poo poo" the whole thing. I was willing to listen until he said he didn't watch it. Now, I see he was pre-disposed to not like what he saw. And we criticize the right wing nutjobbies for being closed-minded...

[DevonRex]

43. You're absolutely right. He was wrong before the meeting, didn't watch the meeting,

and now is setting up a bullshit strawman meeting that *might* suit him better (since he was so hilariously wrong about the one that actually happened). Heh. And he's slyly making dire predictions about that fictitious meeting, too.

:rofl:

[euphoria12leo]

46. Glad you noticed.

All it took was a hint that it was a smack down and have so many agree. The OP can't deal with that. WTH is this anyway? Is the OP suggesting progressives are suppose to be smarter than the president. BTW Paul Krugman met with the president and said he knows what he's talking about since someone mentioned Krugman.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. I think the OP needs to respond to this. nt

[depakid]

50. And it may well be come November, from the looks of it

Some people are just too absorbed in the moment and narrow minded to see how the the process works over time.

What the administration is doing is rehabilitating the Republican brand, turning them from the party of no into the party of alternative ideas- which (unlike the perception the Dems have left this past year) they're fighting for. Worse, the administration has at the same time been adopting their framing and their reinforcing their narratives.

What narrative has the administration offered to justify Democratic policies? What's the take home message that will be remembered and repeated long after the "points scored" in this exercise and others to come? That we need more bipartisanship and cooperation.

Imploring and almost begging Republicans to "work with me" -as opposed to placing the onus on them for the past 8 years of failure, at every opportunity, almost guarantees that people will be giving Republicans a second look- and the populist anxiety, resentment and anger will turn toward the Dems as the party of the status quo.

Thus you and the administration will likely get your wish- there will be lots more Republicans to work with in- and much more bipartisanship in 2011, including quite possibly Committee Chairmen and a House Speaker.

[Number23]

55. My appreciation that you do not serve the US government grows more profound with every one of your

posts.

If a President calling for "bipartisanship" after 8 years of partisan DEATH at the hands of GW Bush causes you this much heartburn, it is apparent that public service of ANY sort is not an area in which you should pursue.

Your predictions of doom and gloom are asinine. It is commonplace for the opposing party to make inroads in an election off-year, but you are singlemindedly DETERMINED to turn what is a normal, fairly common occurrence into proof that somehow this means that Obama is not doing what needs to be done.

Your constant, non-stop criticism does not display a person who is interested in truth, but instead shows a person who is interested only in furthering their own agenda. You have been proven wrong so many times it is nothing short of amazing, but instead of stopping and trying to figure out where you may have gone wrong, you just spew louder and further. At some point, this has really got to stop.

[DevonRex]

68. That last paragraph absolutely nails it. He's playing a snooty "I'm more progressive than you" game

that serves no purpose but his own. I'm thinking that if people are so "progressive" that they hate democrats then maybe there's a place they can go discuss how fucking awful they think we are.

[DevonRex]

67. "blah blah blah Obama sucks blah blah blah Democrats suck blah blah blah."

[SoxFan]

25. Frankly, I'd take the middle schoolers over some of DU's "progressives"

The Dennis Kucinich Chowder & Marching Society and its endless spasms of poutrage does more to enable the right wing agenda than anything that Ailes, McConnell, or Caribou Barbie could ever dream up.

[Armstead]

29. No dopes like you who spend more time bashing progressives are the RW's best buds

[SoxFan]

32. Really?

Ever run for office? Get elected to office? Pass legislation?

When you have, get back to me and we can discuss who has done more to advance a progressive agenda.

[Armstead]

39. I'd be a terrible politician but I have don e a lot to advance it in other ways

It's none of your business, so I won't go into details, but I feel perfectly comfortable saying that I've "put up" to advance my beliefs in very tangible ways.

But I'd also add that this notion that unless you are a politician you aren't doing anything ranks with you casual dismissal of the "radical left" for dopiness. Politicians are often the problem. (Not all politicians.)

[depakid]

48. Fact is progressive policies have proven to work

AND progressive analysts in sector after sector have gotten it right, whereas corrupt and complicit "centrists" have a long history of getting it wrong- both substantively and politically.

That's why it would be a fiasco for the administrations lackeys an cronies- and quite possibly for Obama himself. They're demonstrably wrong on the issues (evidenced by their poor track records) and on the wrong side of the public sentiment politically.

[polichick]

33. Sure would be good for him! nt

[johnaries]

36. He'd simply prove that he is Progressive. But in order to push

Progressive policies he has to deal with the Washington culture.

[quantass]

37. Sadly, the Obama agenda is all about re-election. This meeting would be pointless

because he knows liberals will vote for him by default. Unfortunately i feel Obama is like Angela Lansbury in the Manchurian Candidate. He is so removed from the reality of the everyday man yet so immersed in the daily politics that we'll continue to see nothing, if only republican agendas, being done. Why rock the boat, or if you do rock it a little to the right and possibly appease a few right wingers and independants.

What Obama needs is a crisis in his life to wake him up from this political zombie stooper and to reconnect with people not bank-rolling corps.

[polichick]

42. I hope it doesn't take a crisis in his life, but that's often how wake-up calls arrive. nt

[euphoria12leo]

51. What type of crisis are you suggesting?

Maybe a crisis will happen in your life and you will not be able to make that type of statement anymore.

[BeyondGeography]

40. He'd have his feet on the ground and they'd behave like overheated asses

and then Obama's poll numbers would go up.

[jefferson_dem]

44. How dare you...

smite Dennis the Great and his band of fearless "progressives".

[euphoria12leo]

49. Crazy isn't it.

Well call me crazy too. Here goes, Dean fell flat and couldn't match tweety. Matthews asked a question about MA voters. Dean suggested MA voters wanted a progressive HC bill. We know that's incorrect. All Dean kept saying was you're being silly Chris.

[vaberella]

61. I still prefer "Koochie." ^_^ n/t

[centristgrandpa]

53. i would actually pay to watch this live per view...n/t

[Fire1]

54. There's no reasoning with progressives. Even he knows that. n/t

[dionysus]

56. please don't lump normal liberals in with the loony bin crowd, kthxbai

[Fire1]

57. I don't think I did. My post was pretty straight forward. n/t

[depakid]

63. But reasoning works with Republicans? LOL. Bottom line is that he'd have his ass handed to him

and the administration knows it.

Why? Because the facts, the rational analysis AND the public sentiment support progressive policies.

Obama can take the moral and intellectual high ground with Right wing ideologues and look "reasonable" playing up Republican lite.

He forfeits that when dealing with educated progressives, who are not only more knowledgeable- but whose positions on issue after issue are far more moral than current administration policy.

[Fire1]

65. Regardless. What's the percentage of progressives vs.

the other "arms" or extensions of democrats? Hardly worth his time.

[depakid]

66. Since progresive positions represent the majority

often the SUBSTANTIAL majority in the nation as a whole -it would be folly to ignore them (as the Democrats seem bound and determined to find out. Yet again. The hard way).

[brentspeak]

64. Just like when he had meetings with progressives in the past: he'd lie to them

"I'm for single-payer"