Why is the Obama Administration butting in all the states where Progressives are running

[bigdarryl]

Trying to defeat them with CORPORATE DEMOCRATS One word Rahm Emmanuel

[VMI Dem]

1. One word: You're wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Two words:

Yup.

[zipplewrath]

20. Counting?

Is that actually 2 words? 2 and half? 3? How do contractions get counted?

[JTFrog]

61. LOL! Obviously went over the heads of the first replies you got.

:rofl:

[boppers]

65. One word: New math.

:evilgrin:

[Jackpine Radical]

2. It's not like Rahm was an unknown quantity.

Obama picked him and has retained him. Remember last winter's brouhaha with everyone convinced Rahm was being forced out? Well, he's still there.

[golfguru]

36. Rahm is the consiglieri

and he knows where all the bodies are buried.
He is not going any where UNLESS there is an opening
for mayor of Chicago.

[Pirate Smile]

3. They are supporting incumbent Democrats in the Senate. Pretty standard.

He needs their votes right now. He can't just wait until January 2011.

[donco6]

14. Incumbent selected Dems versus elected Dems

Romanoff has a good shot at overtaking Bennet in Colorado. He has more name recognition. I don't think they like his positions as well, therefore they're trying to lure him away with trinkets.

[Pirate Smile]

35. I honestly think it has to do with supporting their current D votes in the Senate. Each and every

Democratic Senator can be a total pain in the ass and make life difficult for the President if they want to do it.

[tsuki]

45. I belive that is why the Colorado Democrats sent Obama this letter.

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991665-open-letter-president-barack-obama-democratic-national-committee-officers-and-democra

[donco6]

48. Yes, good letter. n/t

[blaze]

70. Great letter! n/t

[Autumn]

4. Thats two words. Here are two more,

President Obama.

[skipos]

6. One Word: Presidents tend to support their party's incumbent senators in primaries

Can you name some instances when they have supported the challenger?

[davidinalameda]

17. why are they publicly supporting anyone at all?

[BklnDem75]

40. At this time,

current Dem votes are more valuable than possible Dem votes. If Obama ignored incumbents, how do you suppose he'll get anything passed for the rest of the year? Why would less progressive people not up for election bother to work with him at all? You really can't see that not getting involved is STILL seen as a slap to the face by incumbents?

[Seneca]

71. One of the president's many hats

Is leader of their party.

That's the reason any president gets involved in a congressional race anywhere.

[polichick]

7. Good question, but Rahm only does the President's bidding. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

22. sure it ain't the other way around? nt

[polichick]

24. I'm sure. It's funny how some people want to believe Rahm is in charge...

Guess that helps to keep illusions about Obama alive.

[awoke_in_2003]

25. truthfully, I believe

none of them are in charge. We are a corporatacracy, the fools in DC are just for show.

[polichick]

27. Depressing thought but it sure looks that way. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

32. since the end of WWII

the big corporate powers have been gaining more and more political power. Once W took office, it just got so blatantly obvious. Hell, even today there is a headline stating that BP is barring publishing of photos of dead animals in the Gulf. Where did they get that power unless it was handed over to them?

[ChiciB1]

38. I think I'm Beginning To BELIEVE! Believe What You Just Said!!!

Don't like it, but as each day passes I see that "we the people" are just that "people!" Unfortunately, "people" who don't have much say anymore!!!

FED UP, SO FED UP!!

[Enthusiast]

59. I'm afraid you are right. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

63. Hello fellow Buckeye...

what part of our great state are you from?

[Enthusiast]

66. The poor part in Appalachia.

Lots of Steelers fans down my way. :hi:

[awoke_in_2003]

I have a lot of family there...

and in the hills of Pennsylvania. I was born in Steubenville- definitely Steeler country. Spent my teen years in Cleveland- a lot of people migrated there from Pittsburgh when Cleveland opened the steel mills. Lots of Steelers fans there, too :hi:

[awoke_in_2003]

69. I have a lot of family there...

and in the hills of Pennsylvania. I was born in Steubenville- definitely Steeler country. Spent my teen years in Cleveland- a lot of people migrated there from Pittsburgh when Cleveland opened the steel mills. Lots of Steelers fans there, too :hi:

[Enthusiast]

72. One of these days we beleaguered

Cleveland fans will be vindicated. One of these days....... :cry:

[awoke_in_2003]

73. the NFL will be more enjoyable...

when Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Oakland all have competitive teams. I am heartbroken over my steelers, though. I really think Ben needs to be kicked off the team. Has he been found guilty of anything? No, but he has money to shut people up. He is showing a pattern, and with this last one, I am sorry, he has to be guilty of rape. You don't follow a girl into the bathroom and then station guys outside the door to keep people out just to exchange recipes. He needs to go, and I will be boycotting televised games and not buying any official merchandise until he is removed. I did email the front office about this, but I am just a whisper in the roaring storm.

[Enthusiast]

77. I don't understand the violent

behavior toward the women. Ben and Santonio are far from the only ones, it appears to be commonplace among wealthy athletes. It isn't like they don't have hundreds of very willing sex partners.

[awoke_in_2003]

79. power trips...

they think they can get away with it- well, they usually do

[Captain Hilts]

8. How 'bout he's giving Emmauel the orders and Emmanuel carries them out? nt

[mikelgb]

9. you for got these: ?,!!!1!,:,.

[Nite Owl]

10. Well he hasn't fired him yet so

it's more about Obama than him. He doesn't want to have any more progressives in the house or senate than he has to have. These corporate 'centrists' do Obamas dirty work and make it seem like he has to move to the right but that's where he wants it.

[provis99]

11. because Obama isn't a progressive.

He rejected that label during the Presidential campaign, so he's at least being consistent in acting like a DLC drone.

Its a mystery why people get mad here at DU when Obama does something a progressive wouldn't do, because he's not a progressive. Too many people project their own beliefs onto the Democratic leadership, as if in being a Democrat, they will magically morph into progressives if DUers really believe strongly enough.

[truebrit71]

12. Bingo!

..

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. I disagree there, he is a progressive, what he is not is a liberal(the two are quite different ) nt

[harun]

15. He's a "New Democrat". His Foreign Policy isn't Progressive.

[Cha]

16. You're right..he's very Progressive. The White House backs

the incumbants.

[zipplewrath]

21. hardly

You can't reject the progressive label, brag about rejecting progressive ideas, call progressives "retarded" and pass regressive taxes over progressive choices and be credibly called a progressive. And, no, he's not a liberal either.

[Arkana]

26. Please point to where Obama called you personally a retard.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

[zipplewrath]

28. It was in all the papers

Surely you read it.

Or are you making some semantic argument about the personalization of the remark?

[Arkana]

29. Really?

Because the way I read it, it was Rahm Emanuel grossly overreacting to MoveOn's strategy to run ads attacking senators who were wavering on support for the HCR bill. He called the strategy "fucking retarded". Famously profane, abrasive Chief of Staff says something profane and abrasive. Shock, awe, amazement.

Are you the head of MoveOnPAC? Do you work for them in any capacity?

If not, why are you taking what was just a massive bit of hyperbole seriously?

[zipplewrath]

30. Because it is a metaphor

It is a metaphor for their attitude towards progressives and their ideas.
It is an example of their reaction to progressives, and their strategies.
And it exposes how they really feel about progressives.

He has said he was not a progressive. He brags to Fox News that he "rejected progressive ideas".
And they speak disparagingly about progressives. Rahm is a DLC legacy.

There is nothing in all of that which says Obama is a progressive.

[Jennicut]

37. No, he is not a progressive nor a liberal. He is a moderate Dem,

slightly to the left of Bill Clinton. However, he is supporting incumbents as most Presidents do. Against progressives? Halter, Sestak and Romanoff would, if not in these contests, never be seen as Progressives. They are moderate to DLC (Romanoff WAS in the DLC, Sestak has never been a progressive, Halter rejects the liberal label). Rahm Emmanuel recruited Sestak to run in Congress to begin with and I must say, he found a good candidate. And he was better then Specter. And being a real Dem didn't hurt either.

I do however think that Obama should rethink interfering in primaries, it has not helped him at all. It never helped other Presidents either. It backfired on FDR when he interfered to get those in Congress loyal to him. Will Presidents ever learn you cannot control loyal votes in Congress?

[zipplewrath]

47. 16 months to 8 years

It's a bit hard yet to compare Clinton and Obama because of the time difference. But so far, it's a tad hard to see how Obama is "left" of Clinton. Aggressive war stance in Afghanistan, passing the healthcare bill that Clinton rejected, and slow walking DADT are pretty much to the RIGHT of Clinton. We have DADT because he attempted to be aggressive from the first day. Clinton was hesitant to let troops into Kosovo (Bosnia?) and Obama increased by roughly 3 fold the troops in Afghanistan.

[socialist_n_TN]

62. This is it in a nutshell Jennicut

He's a centrist who's supporting OTHER center/right incumbents. In addition, he's a sitting President supporting sitting members of his own party. I wouldn't expect him to do any less. And no, compared to me (and a lot of other Dems) NONE of those people running for Senate against these incumbents are left. They are, however, to the left of the incumbents. And THAT'S the trick for us who actually ARE leftists. Pragmatically it means moving the Senate GRADUALLY to the left. So that's why I supported the challengers.

The ONLY thing that I, an ACTUAL socialist, fault the Obama administration for is supporting those incumbents WHEN ALL THE POLLING SHOWS THE CHALLENGER FARING BETTER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION THAN THOSE INCUMBENTS. Specter would have lost to Toomey. Sestak is slightly ahead. Lincoln would have been blown out by Boozman. Halter is still behind, but not NEARLY as far behind as Lincoln. Romanoff polls better against the Republican than Bennett does. Bennett might win, but Romanoff looks like an easy winner.

If someone as ideologically left as I am can be pragmatic and vote for a Dem who's not good, but better than ANY Republican, then SURELY the WH can see the incumbents offer a better chance to keep these seats. THAT'S what I don't understand.

[spoony]

41. Then perhaps you can define them for us? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. A-FUCKING-MEN!!! Obama was never, is not, and will never be a liberal! Many people

chose to believe otherwise. If they are angry and disappointed now, then it's nobody's fault but their own. They should've paid more attention during the primaries and did their homework rather than buying into the M$M's and wingnut talking points.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Because it's hard to capitulate to the Republicans when too many aren't rowing in that direction

[asphalt.jungle]

19. simply running against the incumbent doesn't make you a progressive /nt

[freddie mertz]

23. Because they are arrogant and stupid.

And now they have mud all over their faces.

[treestar]

31. I don't know, because the progressives in the Senate vote with the President

more than the Blue Dogs do, and unlike what DU progressives would have them do.

[CBR]

33. Big Bad Rahm. nt

[amborin]

34. Obama chose Rahm; that spoke volumes; Rahm made big $$ on Wall St. as a corporate raider,

contributing to loss of US industrial jobs; and let's not forget Fannie Mae.....

[Mimosa]

58. ^ read post above this^

I hate Rahm. I was disappointed when he was appointed chief of staff.

[Drunken Irishman]

39. Please list these progressives...

[johnaries]

42. .

:tinfoilhat:

[davidpdx]

44. Call the DNC and tell them to stay out of the Arkansas Primary Runoff

http://pol.moveon.org/call/oneoffs/index_1377.html?cp_id=1377&tg=642.643.638&id=20877-4053584-y9yD_tx&t=1

[Lerkfish]

46. protecting their ideology

pretty simple.

[AtomicKitten]

53. What ideology? Are you talking about the erroneous claim that

these candidates of which the OP speaks are progressives? They are not, but they are being annexed by people in a proxy war against Obama. Transparent as all get-out.

[Lerkfish]

56. if not protecting ideology, then what is the purpose?

and they are closer to liberal than the candidates Emmanuel is protecting.

[AtomicKitten]

57. The point is to keep/grow the dem majority to overcome the RW filibuster-fest.

You are mired in ideology pretending some of these challengers are progressives; they are not. Ideology is a red herring. For instance, it was Rahm Emanual who recruited Sestak to run for office originally yet he tried to dissuade him from challenging Specter.

Simply put, it's easier and less costly to defend an incumbent. It makes sense from a tactical perspective, ideology having nothing to do with it.

Although all are entitled to opine, in the end it is the people of these states that will decide. Not the WH or the party or the out-of-state keyboard activists that are glomming onto these contests as proxy wars to express their disdain for this administration.

And then on to the GE.

[unc70]

60. As big a problem with challengers for incumbent Repubs

I am not surprised that a group like the DSCC is almost always in support of incumbents; for the most part, it is their own little group. I would really prefer that they not jump in too aggressively during the primaries, but where incumbents are running for re-election, they and their money will be backing one of their own.

I strongly oppose the President, DNC chair, or Congressional leaders picking the candidates in state races, rather than letting the voters in those states have their say/vote. As individuals who happen to hold office, I do not have a problem with things like endorsing a fellow congressperson, with the realization that there could be repercussions within the party.

The situation is much worse when the incumbent is a Republican, for example Sen Burr here in NC. Many in DC are supporting Cal Cunningham to be the nominee. While I don't think he would be an awful nominee, I see Elaine Marshall as more progressive on major issues and more likely to win the GE than Cunningham. It appears to me that they tried to "package" Cunningham trying to straddle some issues and appeal to Repub-leaning independents with more conservative stances on other issues.

Trying to be Repub-lite was a complete failure for the Democratic Party in the South. The Progressives, the liberals, women, and Blacks were taken for granted as reliable Dem voters, so time after time, defeat after defeat, the Party put forth almost-Repub candidates. In the process, we lost our soul, our heart, our enthusiasm, and our political base.

[AtomicKitten]

64. I generally am in favor of primary challenges.

Particularly in the case of someone like Blanche Lincoln. The piece de resistance was her bragging in TV ads about having killed the public option calling it the "government's take-over of healthcare." Her purposeful mischaracterization of the public option to pander to the stupid was the antithesis of what the Democratic Party stands for.

Indeed she embodies what you described in your last paragraph: "In the process, we lost our soul, our heart, our enthusiasm, and our political base."

Go Halter.

[MadBadger]

49. Besides Halter, who else are you referring to? Sestak isnt a progressive

[ProSense]

50. Need to bookmark this thread

I could never find the threads hailing Webb as a populist/progressive.

Halter and Sestak as progressives, who knows they might yet move left of the states that send them to the Senate.

[unc70]

54. Maybe consider NC. Cunningham backed by DC Dems vs more-progressive Marshall

The incumbent is Repub Sen Burr, so this is chosing favorites during the primary for who his challenger should be. Cal Cunningham is backed by the DC Dem groups while Elaine Marshall is more liberal/progressive on most issues, equally so on the rest. She also has repeatedly won statewide races in NC, once beating Richard Petty for SoS.

Is that the kind of example you seek?

[quiller4]

55. Calling Halter a "progressive" is a bit of a stretch. He may be

progressive for his state but he would be considered a "conservadem" in Washington, oregon or California.

[Phx_Dem]

51. The leader of the party is "butting in?"

SOmeone could say the same thing about progressive activists trying to influence elections in states in which they don't live.

The point is, all Dems are entitled to "butt in" any time they want.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Great point.

"Someone could say the same thing about progressive activists trying to influence elections in states in which they don't live."

A great point that will fly over some heads here but it resonates nonetheless.

[socialist_n_TN]

67. Well sure. As ideological as I can be

I don't fault Obama a BIT for doing what he can to influence primaries involving the party he leads.

I AM concerned though about him supporting candidates that seem to have the LEAST chance of getting elected in the general election. That doesn't seem smart. With the people that Obama is supporting, there was a good chance to lose all THREE of those general elections. At least the challengers have a shot. The incumbents had none.

Edited to clean up syntax.

[donco6]

68. This is exactly about people influencing elections in states in which they do not live.

In Colorado, we put Romanoff at the top of the ticket at our Convention. Now outsiders are attempting to lure him off the ticket to that their appointed lapdog, Bennet, can be actually elected. That's not appreciated.

[socialist_n_TN]

74. I support Romanoff and any MORE progressive

candidate, BUT this is not a good argument.

These guys are running for US Senate. What they do affects EVERYBODY in the country. In Arkansas they make the same argument AGAINST Halter, the MORE progressive candidate. "Outside agitators trying to interfere in Arkansas politics." I live in Tennessee, but I'm just as interested in Senate and House candidates in Colorado as I am in Tennessee candidates. As a citizen of the United States, they're votes WILL affect me too, not just Coloradans or Arkansans.

[donco6]

75. It is certainly a good argument.

How can you say that? Do senators vote as a pool now, only for what's best for the country as a whole? When has that happened? Probably never. So to say that we have to sit back while others meddle with our choice of senator is preposterous. OTHER states may want to do that (Arkansas), but I've seen who gets chosen when we allow outsiders to coronate. Fuck that.

[socialist_n_TN]

76. I'm in Tennessee and I want the Senate

to turn left, so yes I support the more progressive candidates. And yes, the Senators DO vote in a pool every time they vote on a law. So I have a stake in what the Senator from Colorado will say about the laws enacted.

[Hansel]

78. Everything is a conspiracy on this board.

It's really starting to be sickening.

They're supporting the incumbent because they statistically have the best shot at winning. It's not that damn hard to figure out.

I personally wish Washington would butt out of all local elections, but traditionally they haven't and somehow Obama is suppose to be different from everyone else.

Here's a clue: Just because the right pretended we thought Obama was a God doesn't mean we have to act like we did think he is.