Question for those who would like to see a primary challenge to President Obama...

[madinmaryland]

Who would you want to challenge Obama and why?

[murielm99]

1. Have people at DU said that? n/t

[CakeGrrl]

31. Sure they have. Behold:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x495829

[madinmaryland]

90. That was kind of the point of this thread.

Interestingly, there was an ABO, and a couple suggesting Krugman and Reich, but no one really has any alternative to Obama.

[vaberella]

32. Not out right, but several threads have been pushing that meme. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Paul Krugman, and here's why...

Krugman would lose handily (he's no politician) but in the process would make a host of ideas more familiar nationally and within the party, and force the WH to accept some realities and make their economic policy set a bit better.


Would be good for all concerned.

[madinmaryland]

3. That's an interesting comment. I have advocated in the past that Krugman

should be one of Obama's financial advisors, if not a Cabinet position.

But Krugman has already said he is not interested a government job.

[jenmito]

4. I've seen posters here say they'd STILL like Hillary to be president-and want her to run in '12. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

5. Yeah. Black voters would like to know

the exact details on how "some" folks on our "supposed" side,
will be handing the presidency to Republicans......

[madinmaryland]

8. I would not want to see Obama "Ted Kennedy'ed"

[demwing]

13. Of course, A primary challenge to Obama

is the same thing as "handing the presidency to Republicans." That's sound. :sarcasm:

If no one challenges Obama, and by some odd circumstance he loses in 2012, who will you blame then?

And why make this about Black voters?

[CBR]

16. Because they vote 90%+ for Dems, are an important constituency

and their concerns seem to be left out of all this DU primary Obama bullshit. As there are very few active black members on DU, I think it is vitally important to gain their insight on how primarying the first black president will affect their community. Don't you?

[demwing]

41. Yes I do agree, but that's NOT the point at hand

Because nobody suggested we poll black voters to see what they think. The OP suggested she was already sure of the concerns of black voters, as if the concerns -IN THIS REGARD - were any different from the concerns of any other subset of Democratic voters.

Why bring race into it?

[CBR]

42. Because race is part of the equation and the fact that you don't think so

points out the problem perfectly...

[demwing]

49. Race is not a problem

people who only focus on race are

[CBR]

50. "Race is not a problem"... once again, you demonstrate the point

to perfection. Open your eyes...

[demwing]

54. Race is NOT a problem, Racism is a problem

if race is a problem for you then look to yourself

[CBR]

55. Oh please... Race is a problem for those who claim not to see it... or that

it is not part of the issue driving these "progressives" so quickly from the Prez...

[rury]

57. No, race is a BIG PROBLEM

and those who deny it are intellectually dishonest...or just dishonest....or in denial about their own racism.

[demwing]

62. Try to read complete posts

Think this through for a moment before you respond.

Islam is not a problem, Islamophobia is a problem.

Homosexuality is not a problem, Homophobia is a problem.

Women are not a problem, misogyny and sexism are problems.

and Race is not a problem, but Racism IS.

[rury]

66. Employ critical thinking before YOU respond to my reply

issues surrounding race are a problem, race is always an issue, therefore race is still a proble.
Capiche?
Semantics...

[demwing]

71. Semantics is not a dirty word. It is the study of MEANING

and while a word can be heard within the context in which it was used, it can also modify the context, and change the sense of a statement.

Words have real meanings, and communication is critical.

Of course I was speaking casually the first time I wrote that race is not a problem, but I didn't leave it up to your imagination to figure out what I meant. I clarified the point, explicitly, several times, beginning with the original post, that RACISM is a problem.

I was hoping to avoid having to explain things in such simplistic detail, unfortunately (and despite my best efforts) you forced my hand, and I had to draw this verbal line to connect the critical dots.

How much easier would it have been to have just agreed with the second half of my original post? Yet here we are, multiple posts later, and we've finally come to the point of agreement which we actually shared from the beginning: "issues surrounding race are a problem."

Just like I said.

[mkultra]

97. Here in America

use of the word "race" in the context of politics refers to a bucket of items including: open racism, latent racism, cultural difference, the needs of various ethnic communities, variations in racial perceptions, and the general propensities of teh various races involved in the election system. yes knucklehead "race" is a "problem".

[tledford]

130. Ayup. eom

[mkultra]

96. i read your post and you're just playing semantics

race, as in racism and the race of candidates and the concerns of the various minorities, is a problem. Period. Sounds to me like yoru saying you dont think race is something that we struggle with in America. Its not just Racism.

[demwing]

103. The only reason we struggle with race is because of racists

so it's racism, not race, that's the problem.

Is it a problem that President Obama is African-American, or is a problem that some folks want him defeated, deported, or detained because of their racism?

Accusing someone of just playing at semantics is like accusing someone of just playing at logic

[mkultra]

116. yeah, thats not true

actually playing semantics means that you are being willfully ignorant of the true meaning of a word as it exists in context and in reference to the zeitgeist. No, its not racism. When people of different cultures live together in close proximity and conflict arises due to these differences, its hardly racism, its race.

I accept that there are bigots who hate me but i also accept that there are people simply inexperienced with other cultures which make interrelation difficult. This latter group is not racists because they are ignorant and only a fool would call anyone who doesn't fully sympathize with their own condition a bigot.

If you really want to play semantics, to be a racist, you must believe that racial genetic superiority exists or you must be hateful of other races.

MOST of the problems that arise regarding race do NOT occur because of this defined condition. This condition does, however, give rise to the more serious problems.

Logic does not equal semantics. If someone accuses you of "playing semantics" they are really saying not that you are deeply familiar with etymological meaning but rather the opposite, that you are confined to strict readings or specific definitions of given words. Unfortunately for semantic gamers, dictionary definitions are dictated by societal use, not the other way around.

[angee_is_mad]

23. black voters will stay the hell home

by your comment, it is obvious that you are out of touch with the democratic base. Or at the very least black democratic voters.

[demwing]

43. So, black voters will only vote for a black president?

Who said the primary challenger should be white? Or male? What if Obama was challenged by a female with a Latino father and a Japanese mother?

Oh my god, what would black voters say? What about half black voters? How about half white voters? Obama is both, and there are so many ways we might piss people off, here, I'm just confused,

Hey! what if we all just voted for the candidate with the best POLICIES?

It's too bad I'm so out of touch...

[rury]

56. WTF...?????

Black voters have been voting for white men all along until President Obama secured the Democratic nomination.
I will oppose anybody who challenges him because he does not deserve to be primaried.


OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!

[demwing]

60. Thank you

thats the kind of answer I can respect, even if I don't 100% agree

[totodeinhere]

99. In your opinion he does not deserve it.

But the way our system works, if a credible candidate wants to take him on for whatever reason, that is their right. And if that happens, it will be up to each of us to decide whom to support.

[mkultra]

98. why do you assume that the race of the condidate woudl drive the behavior?

just curious why you would jump to that conclusion over the multitude of other possibilities?

[demwing]

104. I don't, I'm exagerating the OPs point

in order to show its flaws

[mkultra]

118. The op made no such claim

And if you don't understand why THIS presidency transcends just Obama's race for the black community, then you are being willfully ignorant. I would guess that is the case as you seem to think that a primary challenge wouldn't mean instant lose. There is absolutely no evidence to support that point but plenty of evidence to contradict it.

[rury]

59. Oh, believe me a lot of blacks will stay home and not vote

if President Obama is denied the Democratic nomination in 2012!!!

[mkultra]

95. every serious challenge to an encumbent has resulted in lose

by that incumbent. Its happened twice.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Yep! And when are people going to learn the cardinal rule of Democratic electoral politics...

...NO DEMOCRAT CAN WIN WITHOUT THE BLACK VOTE!

Period!!

So, what are the people who are angry at Obama going to do? Pit another candidate against the first black American president?

That would be suicide for the Democratic Party. It would be the END of the party.

These people really make me sick! They gave Bill Clinton 8 years, with many of his policies creating a negative impact for Obama. But they can't give the black guy a full fucking term. Really? Really?! That's how we're playing?

[CBR]

21. The Bill Clinton thing is so fucking spot on.... nt

[totodeinhere]

100. What makes you think it might not be another black person who opposes Obama in the 2012 primaries?

n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. Pray tell. Who? What person of color would oppose the president? And even so, that

person, like Obama, would have to prove himself/herself worthy of the vote.

[angee_is_mad]

22. thank you sista

we want to know.

[Exilednight]

38. It has nothing to do with his race. But it has everything to do with ..............

his job performance. Where's the federal public option? Where are imported drugs from Canada? Why did we replace combat troops in Iraq with armed military contractors? Why is gitmo still open? Why give immunity telecommunication companies?

These are my deciding factors of who gets my vote.

This was suppose to be a president that could reach across the aisle, or so he said, and accomplish those goals. You can argue all you want that it's the fault of congress, but he said that he was the one to push congress to accomplish these goals. I admit that I bought into the hope and change, but sadly I am still waiting to see it.

[rury]

63. Did you realize Congress is not a bunch of kids in a daycare

center and the president can reason with them, argue with them, cajole them and go over their heads to the people - all of which he did.
But in the end he is not a childcare worker who can MAKE them do his bidding??

[Exilednight]

72. He didn't need Congress to ..........

veto bills that gave immunity to telecommunication companies and extended parts of the patriot-act.

[de novo]

77. Why are you making it about black voters?

Are you saying that no black voters are supportive of a primary challenge?

Are you saying that only black voters would see it as "handing the presidency to the republicans"?

I don't understand why you are making it about black voters.

[flamingdem]

121. +1

[Milo_Bloom]

6. I'd rather see a general election challenge from the center

I want to see Obama fight to keep his base. A primary challenge will wind up forcing Obama even more to the right... Obama would likely wind up winning, but not before distancing himself even further from the "professional left".

If a real third party candidate makes a run in the general election (Bloomberg type).. you will have nutty wingnut in the GOP... and then the middle candidate and Obama can have a reasonable discussion about issues that matter. Obama will be forced to appeal more to his base, while the new person possibly introduces good ideas into the campaign (if only Clinton had paid more attention to Perot we may not have had NAFTA which directly led to the job crisis we face today!) and the GOPer is left trying to appeal to the teabaggers and becomes the comic attachment to the election.

[stray cat]

7. Bloomberg for president and he would likely win if he went up the middle

[Milo_Bloom]

9. At least if Bloomberg enters the race...

... we might see an actual discussion of the real issues, instead of the idiocy we have seen the past few election cycles.

In 1992 I felt that I better understood the issues and the candidates stances on the issues than in any other election cycle.. mainly because Perot (who never wanted the job) forced them to discuss it. If we had followed his energy ideas (taxing gasoline the way they do in Europe), we likely wouldn't have much of a debt today AND solving the energy problem would have become job #1 due to the high costs associated with oil.

My fear with Bloomberg is that I believe he believes in the tax cuts for the rich theories. But I would like to see that discussion happen between Obama and someone who isn't going to cry socialism everytime a substantive discussion of the tax structure in this country comes up!

[madinmaryland]

10. Does Bloomberg believe in the "tax cuts for the rich" theory of typical

republicans?

I do believe there would be some interesting discussions between Obama and Bloomberg.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Yes, I believe he does.

He is against repealing the bush tax plan.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/01/2010-08-01_mayor_bloomberg_bush_tax_cuts_for_the_rich_should_be_extended_so_wealthy_can_hel.html

The one caveat in his statement, "But you couple it with long-term solutions," he said. "And you have to look at what's politically possible."

I am curious what those "long-term solutions" would be.

He has stated repeatedly that he will not run for President, but who knows what will happen.

[Lasher]

11. Robert Reich

We need someone who supports New Deal economic principles. Reich is the most viable candidate I can think of who fits that description.

[ncteechur]

133. you are high

[demwing]

12. Russ Feingold

Because he'll pull the party to the left, and more importantly, he'll pull the party toward the people, and away from the Corporations.

Not to mention that I think he'll be looking for a job soon, and Dems just can't afford to lose this great man.

[Enrique]

18. i'd love to see that

a lot would have to change for that to happen. For example, Feingold would have to start going after Obama hard. And a lot of dems would have to take Feingold's side. And Feingold would need to find a way to come up with a boatload of money.

But, things do change sometimes.

[Dinger]

26. Yes, I Agree

:patriot:

[MissDeeds]

52. I agree

We have to move to the left. If the party keeps moving to the center, it won't be long until it's crossed the line, and we'll be seriously screwed. The left has always stood for the people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

107. You know, I used to believe that the country is really more center left than center right.

This election season really has me thinking differently. The fact that Americans are getting ready to put the very same people who created this economic catastrophe back into office says so much.

The media keeps telling us that this is an anti-incumbent year, right? Bullshit!! If it were truly an anti-incumbent year, then neither Boehner, nor Mike Pence, nor Eric Cantor, nor any of the Republicans who were in power since at least 2000 would still be serving.

I'm ready to believe that this country is very, very conservative.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

15. Yes!

let's just stop voting all together. Let's just QUIT. That will teach everyone...

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. It will have nothing to do with teaching anyone anything

Since the idiots will have proven themselves unable to organize.

I'd rather not associate with people who shoot themselves in the foot over and over again. I doubt I'm the only one. The remaining Democrats and the so-called progressives can then proceed on their unending mission to make themselves a minor and marginal irritation to the GOP. The rest of us will be affected, to be sure, but at least we can give up on the stress and effort of trying to get a bunch of childish idiots to get something of merit actually done in the world.

[angee_is_mad]

25. You are not

and the MOST loyal and dependable democratic base will stay the hell home. Then when the challenger lose they (progressives) will blame black people.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. What is funny is how eerily similar your dire predictions are to what actually happened on the right

"Since the idiots will have proven themselves unable to organize."

This is just silly, since the democrats proved that they CAN organize quite well, which is why 2008 was such a historic year.

"I'd rather not associate with people who shoot themselves in the foot over and over again. I doubt I'm the only one."

And yes, they did shoot themselves in the foot, but not in the way you are trying to say. They shot themselves in the foot over and over again by ignoring and marginalizing the voices of the people who did all that organizing that made 2008 possible. By passing weak legislation that doesn't address the actual problems, THEY shot themselves in the foot.

Now, here is where your assessment gets funny...

"The remaining Democrats and the so-called progressives can then proceed on their unending mission to make themselves a minor and marginal irritation to the GOP"

This is pretty much what everyone was saying about the GOP in 2009. The far right (aka teabaggers) were taking over the party and they appeared as if they were going to be nothing more than a minor and marginal irritation to the left for a long time. But.. oh what a difference a year makes, eh? That GOP that was reduced to its far right elements now has several candidates who may actually win very important positions in our government. In short the crazies in the GOP are getting what they want b/c the party was so decimated that it was left without direction and was forced to let the vocal element take over.. the "professional right" is now gaining control and getting what they want.


Maybe the democratic party needs a little more of that type of passion and little less of the "yeah, we may not do what you want, but at least we are better than them" type of people.

[madinmaryland]

19. I guess what I see, is that none of the primary challengers from 2008 seem

or would be interested in primarying the President, except maybe for Kucinich. That what I am curious about, is who people think who would actually primary Obama.

:shrug:

[Dinger]

28. So The Democratic Wing Of The democratic Party Can Kiss Your Ass?

Whatever.

[CBR]

34. ...

[Number23]

105. Ha! Girl, you've got STYLE!

:rofl:

[ampad]

113. Yup

I hate that +1 crap that many of them seem to love here. I will say I totally agree. They can stick it where the sun does not shine. After all, many of them are doing just that themselves. I have seen several post about how one segment of the community will go this way, another segment of the community will go that way and so on if Obama does not do A B or C. So it is ok for them to do so but black people better step in line? Sounds like racism to me. Also saw many post about people not voting because of one issue. Must be nice to have that luxury. I say kiss it. If it does happen it will be a great awakening for the black community.

[GSLevel9]

24. too early to make that call.

if, after 3+ years... Obama has failed to right the economic ship, it's only normal to look to another who may have better ideas.

We can't put the blinders on just because he wears our jersey.

But I'll wait to reserve judgement on him... it's only halftime, I'll wait to the 4th quarter before I make that call.

[Exilednight]

48. Who knows, we might have a Peyton Manning sitting onthe sideline and not even know it. n/t

[BlueIris]

30. Anyone, and it's because

not only do I feel the majority of Obama's decisions have been extremely poor and will make things in this country worse, not better, I no longer trust his judgment. At all. So I don't care who it is.

[Dinger]

35. Exactly (nt)

[madinmaryland]

39. Thanks for stating your position. Just a question for you...

Assuming there is a primary challenge to Obama as you would like, who would you want it to be and how would that Democrat be any stronger the Obama?

Thanks.

[sohndrsmith]

102. If we could rec individual comments, I'd have rec'ed (sp?) yours immediately.

+1 is about all I can do...

I (personally) think Obama has been sold short far too soon by far too many who supported/voted for him. Just my opinion.

During Jon Stewart's take-no-prisoners interview, Obama said one thing that has stuck with me, and I can't quote him verbatim, but he clearly implied that (at least on some, if not many - even all - issues) he is making decisions with how it will affect the citizens in this country, and the country itself, years from now. And is doing so, I got the impression, regardless of how many didn't like the process after half a term, under historical conditions. He was going to do what he thought was right, not what is most popular - right this minute!

Can't prove it, but I truly have the sense that he is several steps ahead of most of us...

I think we're very fortunate to have the strong, smart guy in that office, and I firmly believe Obama will prove that out. He's only human, though, and even someone of his caliber will lose if his troops abandon him and leave him to fight the huge maniac alone. If a soldier is given an order that doesn't immediately make sense to him/her (personally) because it's one part of a larger strategy that he has not been fully briefed on - should he decide to say, "sorry" to an unpleasant task because he isn't provided with an explanation that proves it needs to be done?

The analogy seems to be sort of what's going on (but again, that's just me).

[TheKentuckian]

112. Obama is not orders of magnitude more intelligent than

Clinton, Poppy Bush, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc

I think you are pushing your meme and hero worship a bit too far.

In a world of Angles, Palins, And Junie Bush's I can understand some exuberance but the idea that Obama is some quantum evolutionary leap and mere mortals lack the horsepower to understand what is going on is pretty silly.

The President is a smart guy and well educated but he is not Odysseus and we just lucky to catch on many steps later.

It seems like a desperate but unassailable refuge to me that allows the defense of the wrongheaded, absurd, and stupid under the cover of we mere mortals are too stupid to grasp the genius and to shut up and await validation from the historians.
That's faith or belief not a case.

[Dinger]

33. If, And I Mean If, The Election On Tuesday Is A Bloodbath For Dems ,

a primary challenge will be more likely, though it probably won't happen.

[ProSense]

36. Yeah, just like in 1996.

Primary = wishful thinking.

[Dinger]

37. Yeah, I'll Admit It . . .

It IS wishful thinking, nothing more, nothing less.

[demwing]

40. Yeah, it's the audacity of hope, isn't it? /nt

[Dinger]

44. Touché (nt)

[ProSense]

45. Wait,

the people wanting to primary Obama actually believe in hope?

Who knew?

[demwing]

47. Yes, we believe in hope. That's why we voted for the man in 2008

and will vote for him again in 2012 if he is the candidate.

It's also why we maintain hope that a Dem will come along that will consistently back the people over the board of directors.

[ProSense]

51. Hmmm?

"It's also why we maintain hope that a Dem will come along that will consistently back the people over the board of directors."

When the President increased food stamp and other benefits for Americans, was that for the "board of directors"?

I don't understand it, either. The stimulus included not only the broad Making Work Pay tax cut that gave most families an $800 refundable tax credit but also the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit, which were especially helpful to lower-income families.

If the child tax credit isn't extended, 7.6 million children who get the benefit through their families would lose it entirely, and the credit would be reduced for an additional 10.5 million children. The biggest losses, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, would be among families earning $12,850 to $16,333, many of which include a parent working full time for minimum wage. Also set to expire are expansions of the earned-income tax credit that have helped working families that include 14.9 million children.

link

The Making Work Pay tax credit is still in effect for the 2010 returns.

When the President vetoed the foreclosure bill, was that for the "board of directors"?

Elizabeth Warren and the first-ever consumer bureau is for the "board of directors"?

People can say anything when they're trying to make a case not based on reality.

[demwing]

58. What part of "consistently back the people over the board" did you miss?

Obama is not all bad, but he's not all perfect. I'll vote for him again, but I prefer someone else.

You had your list of the good, Better Believe It posted this thread about the not so good...

Open your eyes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9394528&mesg_id=9394528

[ProSense]

64. Hmmm?

"Obama is not all bad, but he's not all perfect. I'll vote for him again, but I prefer someone else."

Did you campaign your heart out for him too? Sounds like trying to have it both ways.

"Open your eyes."

No, you open your eyes.

[demwing]

67. Well that's the thing, ProSense. Ideas are often complex and multi-faceted

in the real world.

[ProSense]

69. That's the thing

"Ideas are often complex and multi-faceted."

...most of the anti-Obama rhetoric isn't. It's often simplistic drivel.

[rug]

73. When she starts linking to her own posts, you've entered an endless maze of mirrors.

[demwing]

75. You are SO correct. Thank you /nt

[ProSense]

76. Well, I tend to read things and understand them before posting. n/t

[demwing]

78. You should not quote yourself

and then pretend to have used an authoritative source...

Your post linked to another one of your posts, which--as its SOLE content--provided a link (called "TRUTH") to ANOTHER one of your posts, which in turn began linking readers back to MULTIPLE other posts you authored. I stopped checking to see if they were all links to yourself when I hit the 4th in a row.

A maze of mirrors indeed...

[ProSense]

84. You should not

link to posts that contain articles that I consider BS.

How's that?

[demwing]

89. Same thing

How's that?

[de novo]

81. You should just say what it is you are trying to say, rather than

link to a link. That is not good etiquette.

[de novo]

80. Really. What was that?

I am not going to chase links down a rabbit trail.

[de novo]

79. Did you really just link to a one-word link to somewhere else?

Why just say what you want to say? I am not going to chase your links all over the internet to try and understand you.

[ProSense]

83. Because

somethings fly right over people's head head. Check the OP at the link.

"I am not going to chase your links all over the internet to try and understand you."

Did someone order you to do this?

[de novo]

85. It is an ineffective approach to follow.

I was trying to follow the debate you were engaged in, but instead of saying what you actually think, you linked to a link that presumably went to another link, I stopped after the second one.

[JTFrog]

92. Yea, this internet thing is hard work.

:eyes:

[JTFrog]

91. When does Better Believe It not post about the supposed "not so good"?

I wouldn't even touch that link with someone else's mouse.

:puke:

:puke:

:puke:

[demwing]

109. That's OK. I understand

sometimes you just need to ignore information

[MissDeeds]

53. High five, demwing

Nicely played.

[rury]

61. 1994 was a bloodbath for the Democrats and nobody

in the party primaried white Bill Clinton two years later, AND he easily won re-election.
If there is a challenge to Obama it will be race-based, and I will NOT support the nominee if it is not Obama.
I will stay home and I know a lot of others black voters who will do the same!

[demwing]

65. "If there is a challenge to Obama it will be race-based" ??? Are you shitting me?

What if that challenge came from a Latino? Another black candidate? Are ALL challenges to Obama race based, or only those from whites?

What if Dennis Kucinich challenged Obama? Is he racist?

What about 2008? Were all the candidates that challenged Obama racists? Or does Obama have to win first before he's worthy of racism?

[ProSense]

68. "What if Dennis Kucinich challenged Obama?"

He's not going to, and neither is Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Alan Grayson, Al Franken, Russ Feingold or any number of named Democrats people offer up.

So keep searching for someone, you might find a candidate yet.

[madinmaryland]

82. That is right. Anyone who challenges Obama will end up like Ted Kennedy after

he challenged Carter. NOWHERE. It took him years to recover from that.

I like Ted Kennedy and what he did, but when he challenged Carter he blew any chance of ever running for President. It would be political suicide for anyone to run against Obama in a 2012 Primary.

[rury]

70. No, I'm not shitting you

read my post about how Bill Clinton lost Congress in 1994 and was not challenged.
I'm seeing far too much disrespect thrown Obama's way, more than was thrown toward any white president, to believe it's not race.
Some people just believe he's out of place in the Oval Office.
And those people can go to hell.
You can act incredulous all you want every time I mention race, but you cannot change the facts.
No other black candidate is going to challenge him...roflmao at THAT one!!!!

[demwing]

74. Stranger things have happened

but yeah, that one is pretty unlikely :)

and BTW, I'm not incredulous at your having mentioned race, I'm incredulous that when I say "Race isn't a problem, Racism is" you you pretend that you don't understand me.

Let's make this easy...

Is it a problem for America that President Obama is African-American, or is the problem that many voters (young and old) are racists?

[TheKentuckian]

114. Was Kennedy racist for mounting a primary challenge to Carter?

Were the folks that supported Teddy a bunch of racist?

That is some lazy thinking or a cop out, knee jerk response.

Being black didn't stop folks from supporting him in the primary against the Clinton machine and certainly didn't keep him from getting something to the tune of the most votes ever.

Maybe some folks don't cotton to the performance. I know I don't and I'm not one whit less black than the President himself. I am disappointed in his ideology, appointments, and policies and all the pigment in the world won't change that. I could give a shit what race a politician is.

[Milo_Bloom]

122. What a load of Bull.

Did Ted Kennedy challenge Carter for facial reasons?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

131. In the same way Kennedy's challenge to Carter was race-based?

You're talking nonsense, I'm afraid.

Obama's race will, if anything, make people less keen to primary him to avoid antagonising fools like you; if there there is a challenge it will almost certainly be motivated by the usual combination of ideological differences, self-advancement and political pragmatism.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[de novo]

86. I would like to see a primary challenge from the left, although I don't think anyone

could or would beat him. I would like to see him pushed to the left through a primary campaign.

[madinmaryland]

87. Other than the guy from the "My rent is too damn High party", I really

don't see any democrats interested in challenging Obama. Mainly, because it would be political suicide to challenge a sitting president, who still remains popular (even on DU!).

[de novo]

88. I agree completely.

I don't think anyone would do it. I know no one could beat him.

I am more curious about who the repug nominee will be and whether there will be a third party libertarian/wacko nominee.

[JVS]

93. Evan Bayh

To show him what you get when you coddle conservadems.

[madinmaryland]

94. I think a LIEberman-Bayh ticket would work better.

:P

[jonathan_seer]

101. President Obama and SOS HRC - we could see a repeat of 1968

Initially President Obama could decide he was in the 2012 race and start to run assuming the nomination would be his (just like Johnson did) despite devastatingly low poll #s.

This could lead to President Obama losing the first primary, and his poll #s getting worse afterwards.

Should it come to that point, President Obama would probably drop out just like Johnson did in 1968

Of all the politicians in recent memory, he seems to lack that "ego" that makes a President feel entitled to a 2nd term, and run regardless.

This could then set up a classic instance of history repeating itself.

Hubert Humphrey was Johnson's VP and was intending to serve in that role should Johnson be re-elected.

When Johnson withdrew Humphrey changed course and entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president with Johnson's approval.

AS SOS, Hillary is in a similar position. Should President Obama decide NOT to run for a second term. She'd jump in were President Obama to withdraw, and approved of her effort.

His approval would be essential, for any whiff of betrayal on her part against Obama would would damage the integrity of the party base so badly that after primary season it wouldn't be able to run an effective campaign for President. It would be a pointless exercise in futility.

In short, HRC in order to win the nomination and Presidency would have to have President Obama in her corner.

We will NOT see HRC run for the 2012 Nomination under any circumstances should President Obama decide to run again, rather than drop out. Such a contest would leave the party devastated and an easy target to beat in 2012.

And REMEMBER THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE - just thought I'd reiterate it for those who think this is preposterous.

In fact lots of things happening in President Obama's term seem to reflect what happened during the terms of past President's all too often due to President Obama's team repeating the same mistakes - but those are different stories.

[denimgirly]

108. Howard Dean or Anthony Wiener or Alan Grayson or Feingold

A true progressive. Someone who will FIGHT!

[LWolf]

110. Someone who:

1. Is not a neoliberal, does not identify with the DLC, is not a "centrist, is not a "new" Democrat and does not advocate the "third way."
2. Doesn't think Republicans have better ideas than Democrats, and doesn't want to "reach out" to them.
3. Stands, fights, and works for people, not corporations.
4. Is left-of-center and energized to move the nation steadily left.
5. Is not a privatizer nor a union-buster; is a staunch supporter and defender of labor, and will work to re-regulate and de-privatize our public services
6. Does not admire Ronald Reagan.
7. Is willing to fight, hard and long, for what's right; to be the change I can believe in.
8. Honors and fights for those traditional Democratic groups: the poor; labor; women; glbt Americans; immigrants; etc....
9. Honors, supports, defends, and works to widen the separation of church and state.
10. Is willing to end the march to empire and focus on domestic needs.


It's not the individual that matters to me; it's the position and record on issues. Any Democrat who fits the bill is fine with me.

[ampad]

111. I would love to see it.

At least it will finally bring to light what many blacks suspect about some of the whining and crying about Obama not moving fast enough. Or that Obama is simply not moving enough. White privilege at work again.

And Oh yes it is about race. As someone said up thread. Freaking Clinton gets two terms! Really after all the shit that he did and did not do. Hell he was the one that put crap such as DADT into play. Whatever, getting caught in a freaking sex sting. Not that I give a damn who was getting it on in the white house. However, it seems that many Repigs did care. They wasted many a day and months on a stupid trial essentially putting the country on hold. All the while Clinton is running around trying to define what exactly sex is to keep himself out of hot water. Could not even behave with a little dignity while in the White House but many of you love him and will cut him some slack. On the other hand, the first black president has been in the white house for two years; has not done exactly as some of you wish and some of you behave as if he is Osama Bin laden. I do not even want to think about a couple of years from now. Especially if we lose the house.

I would love to see the stats behind the black vote during this mid term election. I have a feeling that the turnout is unprecedented. That is all you need to know. If there is a serious challenge to Obama the Dem party would have lost the black vote forever. That story will be passed down from generation to generation much as the civil rights stories have been. I can hear it now. If you think that I am some crazy black chick on the internets that I am simply in the minority then try it out. Oh yea I think it will finally bring to light some truth. It is about race and has been about race from the get go. Homophobia is not the only illness running amuck in this country. Not like some here on DU would like for us to believe. I bring up homophobia because many are calling the president homophobic. I notice that outcry got louder after the prop 8 mess and the finger pointing at the black community. I found that interesting. Whatever, while there may be quite a bit of homophobia in the black community there is quite a bit of racism in the white liberal community. I know for sure that there are some racist ass people posting on this board ( not talking about the OP). But hey they drive a prius so they cannot possible be racist right?

[CBR]

115. Spot fucking on...

:applause: :applause:

[ProSense]

119. Perfect. Exhibit A:

From the asshole John Heilemann: The Clintons Told You So

Call me a freak, but I’d be happy to travel anywhere at the drop of a hat for a chance to see Bill Clinton—so when the Big Dog turned up in a muggy college gym in Brooklyn the other day, you know damn well that I was in the house. The ostensible purpose of the former president’s visit was to endorse his friend Andrew Cuomo’s bid to become the governor of New York. He was also there, though, to make a case for the man who stopped his wife from becoming the president of the United States.

Clinton, of course, has been a kind of perpetual-motion machine in this frantic midterm-election season: appearing at more than a hundred campaign events across the country; repaying debts to candidates who stood behind Hillary in 2008; even nearly coaxing another of his pals, Kendrick Meek, the doomed Democratic nominee in the Florida Senate race, into dropping out and supporting Governor Charlie Crist, who is running as an independent, in the hope of defeating Republican Marco Rubio. In the process, Clinton has emerged as his party’s most effective spokesman, greeted warmly on ground that Barack Obama dare not tread, arguing the Democratic brief with a vigor and nuance that the current president cannot seem to muster.

But none of this was what was in my head as I stood there in that gym on Jay Street watching Clinton run through his paces. Instead, my mind kept harking back to the last time I saw him in a similar setting: in a different college gym, on the other side of the East River, on the night in early June 2008 when Hillary spoke a few minutes after her rival secured the Democratic nomination. The bitterness between her and Obama then was so pronounced that she refused to concede, refused to endorse him, refused to admit the evident reality that she had lost.

Why dredge up such memories? Because two years later, with Democrats facing potentially historic losses at the polls and the president facing a potentially crippling repudiation, it’s hard not to wonder about a pair of interrelated questions: Were the Clintons right about Obama’s defects? And how different would things be today if Hillary had won?

<...>

Fuck you, asshole!

[jesus_of_suburbia]

129. GAY GAY GAY.....

It's all about the gays!

[Incognitus Czar]

117. wait what?

I was under the assumption that all DUers liked Obama and didn't want another democrat challenger?

[paulk]

120. it's all going to depend on the economy

as others have pointed out

if unemployment is still at current levels or higher

we will likely see a challenge

[ecstatic]

123. As others have already pointed out, even if Obama were to be primaried

and replaced as the Democratic nominee in 2012, there is NO WAY IN HELL that new nominee would win the election. Without the black vote, democrats cannot win presidential elections. I would do a write in vote for Obama or possibly just stay home if nothing major was happening in Georgia.

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. Dennis Kucinich

It will show votes that Obama is a centrist, not a wild-eyed liberal. That will make him a stronger candidate in the general election.

[S_E_Fudd]

125. Feingold or Weiner would be great....

eom

[Yavin4]

126. The Chances That Obama Will Get A Primary Challenger

Are equal to the 1-6 Cowboys winning the Superbowl this year.

[madinmaryland]

127. Heh! Maybe Wade Phillips will run. Seeing how he will be unemployed

in the next couple of days!

[Jennicut]

128. The only one powerful enough to challenge Obama will be Hillary and she

certainly won't come from the very left. Be careful what you ask for, the old saying goes.

[jonnyblitz]

132. I am always amused that many Obama supporters assume

everybody that takes issue with him is a Hillary supporter or PUMA. I have no use for either one, both too far to the right for me.