Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Friday, December 03, 2010

Which Democrat will run against Obama?

Riverdaughter of the Confluence has an excellent post up today. She links, in turn, to pieces by Paul Krugman, Anglachel and Ian Welsh. All four writers sound variations of the same theme: Obama has wounded -- is wounding, will continue to wound -- the Democratic base. Enough is enough. A primary challenge is mandatory.

I disagree with Riverdaughter on this point:
Because, like it or not, there is only one person *at the present time* who can take on Obama and win. Even if you are still suffering from CDS psychosis, I urge Obots for the sake of UNITY to join with us and push back.
The reference goes to Hillary, of course. Alas, she will be -- perhaps already is -- too tainted by her links to this administration.

The "Obama as socialist" canard, though utterly insane, has penetrated the American psyche. Any primary challenger who hopes to prevail in the general must therefore package herself or himself as a new Democrat, as an anti-Obama Democrat -- as, God help us, an anti-socialist Democrat.

Hillary can't do that. She reeks of Obama's funk.

Then there's the damage to Hillary's reputation wrought by the Wikileaks data dump -- which, by the by, has not yet run its course.

No, it won't be her. Sorry. Who, then?

Two obvious names come to mind: Al Gore and Wesley Clark.

Al Gore, sorry to say, has been tainted by allegations of sexual misconduct. The "massage groping" claim may have some validity, and will likely injure his appeal to female voters -- especially if he were to run against a female Republican nominee. There is some talk that his marriage ended due to an affair with another woman. I don't know if the story is accurate and I don't really care. But after the John Edwards imbroglio, who wants to revisit such tawdry territory?

Clark is not my favorite candidate. And he's not a young man. A lingering rumor holds that he had some link to the planning of the Waco siege. Although I have seen no evidence for this claim, any sudden disclosures along these lines could do serious political harm.

Aside from that, he has many points in his favor. First: He's a military man from the south. Although he won't win any states down in Dixie, his military background will blunt the enthusiasm of all but the craziest teabaggers. He opposed the Iraq war. He is pro-choice. He's pretty good on the environment. He has been consistent in his opposition to a strike against Iran.

Before we go any further, let us savor an historical irony: In 2004, Joe Lieberman said that Clark's decision to register as a Democrat was due to "political convenience, not conviction."

Joe Lieberman said that. Joe Lieberman, ladies and gentlemen.

Clark may not have the ability to hypnotize the Kos krazies the way Obama did -- women won't swoon at his rallies -- but he's one Democrat with built-in protection against the "socialist" smear. The word just won't stick.

Outside of these two obvious choice, what possibilities do we see?

Well, there's Howard Dean. My main problem with Dean is that he still reeks of Moulitsas.

Evan Bayh is unnervingly hawkish on Iran. His sudden decision not to seek a third term in the Senate (despite oodles of money and a lead in the polls) led to speculation about a skeletonized closet. His last-minute decision to drop out made it impossible for any other Democrat to get on the primary ballot. This move cannot have endeared him to the party.

One outsider worth considering is Peter DeFazio of Oregon. He opposed TARP. He opposed the stimulus bill. He was the first Democrat to call for the firing of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. He is a strong opponent of free trade agreements.

All of this means that he can position himself as the UnObama. He has taken positions pleasing to the party base -- yet his voting record instantly disarms tea-stained attackers. In fact, he has railed against what he calls "corporate socialism," which is the sort of rhetoric that could impress certain factions within the teabagger movement.

DeFazio opposed the Iraq invasion. He offers serious opposition to free trade agreements such as NAFTA. He did honorable military service. He is "reasonably religious." He opposes gun control. He comes from a "purple" state, not a true-blue one -- a largely rural state populated by guys who hunt, drink good beer and wear plaid flannel shirts.

The vote against the stimulus bill may play out in odd ways, because the bill as it exists in the public imagination differs from the actual legislation. Incessant tea party propaganda has convinced much of the populace that the stim bill was somehow "Marxist." In fact, it was largely a matter of tax cuts to individuals and corporations. Almost nothing in that bill went to jobs creation; an insufficient $100 million went to infrastructure.

DeFazio opposed the legislation because he felt that cutting taxes at a time of falling revenue would worsen the deficit. Which it did. Thus, the fact that he voted against the bill may play well with the right, while his reason for that vote may play well with the left.

As I wrote earlier:
No-other left-wing Democrat -- not even Kucinich -- has so consistently and loudly opposed Obama's economic mismanagement. In 2012, many disillusioned progressives who had once backed Obama will thank all of heaven's angels that Peter DeFazio has compiled such a principled resume.
His major problem is one of image: He is not a stirring speaker, and he looks like he should be playing a grocery clerk in a '60s sitcom. (His face could benefit from a beard. Something Sebastian Cabot-ish.)

In many other ways, however, he's a good choice. I think that this could be the guy.
Comments:
To be a credible primary candidate, someone would need an ability to raise a lot of cash.

Except for Hillary, I can think of nobody able to do that (in their current incarnations). Howard Dean, when he was the latest thing, had the fund raising ability, but it's quite doubtful now, IMO.

If that's right, then any primary entrant would be engaging in a quixotic bid lacking in winning potential, while probably assuring an Obama loss (usually a significant primary challenge is associated with deposing a sitting president, ala Ted Kennedy v. Carter, or Pat Buchanan v. GHW Bush). Of course, it might be reverse causation, that a sitting president was going to lose, which prompted the primary challenge in the first place.

XI
 
Seriously what do people thinks diplomats do besides looking pretty? If this outrage against Hillary is genuine then we have a lot of naive and uninformed folks out there. If it is a fake outrage, as I suspect to take aim at her then we should try to get to the bottom of why now (not that it ever stopped). I bet it will not take more than 2 sec to reach a conclusion
 
There's no point to primary Obama. He has a lock of the black vote, and anyone who primaries Obama would lose the black vote in the general election. The Democratic Party would be divided and black voters would stay home. If Obama decides or is told by the Democratic leadership that there's no support for him, then Hillary has the best chance to win in 2012 against the GOP. Her problem is getting the Democratic nomination. DeFazio is great and I would be extremely happy to support him, but he can't win purple states. If Hillary doesn't run in 2012, we might as well start accepting that the next president will be a Republican. Hillary is not tainted by the cables or having served as SOS in the Obama administration.
 
Evan Bayh. He's raising money as I type. I guess for a run at "governor" but i don't buy it. An attack from the left is silly at this point. The logical assault must come from the middle. A re-run of 2008 but this time BHO will not have the free love of the media and the DNC. Obama will quit by April of 2012 like LBJ if Bayh consolidates Hillary Dems.
The black vote will support obama in the primary. Without it a run from the Left is useless.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
I don't think that black voters are particularly happy with Obama right now. They were wary of him at one time; they may well regain their wariness.

In the spirit of 2008, let me add this: If you don't support Peter DeFazio, there can be only one possible reason. You hate Italians.

That's just sad.
 
Three words:

Carol Moseley Braun.

Ms. Vandal.
 
I think we have to look for alternatives. I believe Hillary Clinton this time--she's not going to run again. Though I don't think she's been fatally smeared/wounded by the Obama Administration, I think she's made up her mind. Yes, I know pols historically swear they're not running and then make a U-turn. But these last two statements managed to convince me. She's had it and I can't blame her.

DeFazio is an interesting suggestion. He certainly has the record and right positions. But I also think you're comment that he looks like "a grocery clerk in a 60s sitcom" is sadly on the money. And I hate saying that because appearance shouldn't make any difference but we all know it does. Add that to a less than stellar speaking presence and we're on a track to disappointmentville.

I don't know where this is going. But Obama is clearly a disaster, something I'm sure many here saw from the start. I certainly did. The Republicans have no new ideas, just the same miserable roadmap to failure, cementing the oligarchs firmly into place.

I'm generally an optimist by nature. But as far as where we appear to be headed as a country? I'm just not.

Btw, I've always liked Wesley Clark.
 
russ feingold?
 
russ feingold
 
Another name of interest to me is Jim Webb, though I don't really know that much about him.
http://www.truth-out.org/article/jim-webb-class-struggle
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/08/jim_webb_why_reagan_dems_still_matter_107875.html
He's too far to the right on many issues, but in other ways represents "traditional Democratic values". However, I doubt he'd be able to raise sufficient funds, and he's probably focused on the 2012 race (likely to be tight) to hold his Senate seat.

In many ways, Peter DeFazio might be the best choice - but these days, I think a grocery clerk really can't get elected. However, given the economic situation (the actual dislocated/anxious/desperate situation in ordinary people's lives - as opposed to the MSM coverage, which predominantly just reflects the insulated experience of privileged elites), perhaps he'd have an outside shot.

On a note that's only tangentially related - regarding Anglachel's apt phrase "Whole Foods Nation" - I noticed a fascinating little item in the comments at TC the other day (HT Sandra S):
Research shows that people who "buy green" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal
Some people that I've talked to find this surprising, but I don't. "Green consumers" are enriched for people from more privileged backgrounds ( = somewhat more manipulative), and many people "buy green" to look good (and feel morally superior about themselves) = appearance, hipness. Though buying green is obviously the right thing to do, and I try to do it myself whenever feasible, I'm not surprised by the finding. I suspect "Whole Foods Nation" would not be especially supportive of DeFazio (he doesn't even look like a grocery clerk at the right type of store).
 
Another name of interest to me is Jim Webb, though I don't really know that much about him.
http://www.truth-out.org/article/jim-webb-class-struggle
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/08/jim_webb_why_reagan_dems_still_matter_107875.html
He's too far to the right on many issues, but in other ways represents "traditional Democratic values". However, I doubt he'd be able to raise sufficient funds, and he's probably focused on the 2012 race (likely to be tight) to hold his Senate seat.

In many ways, Peter DeFazio might be the best choice - but these days, I think a grocery clerk really can't get elected. However, given the economic situation (the actual dislocated/anxious/desperate situation in ordinary people's lives - as opposed to the MSM coverage, which predominantly just reflects the insulated experience of privileged elites), perhaps he'd have an outside shot.
 
On a note that's only tangentially related - regarding Anglachel's apt phrase "Whole Foods Nation" - I noticed a fascinating little item in the comments at TC the other day (hat tip Sandra S)
Research shows that people who "buy green" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal
Some people that I've talked to find this surprising, but I don't. "Green consumers" are enriched for people from more privileged backgrounds (equals somewhat more manipulative), and many people "buy green" to look good (and feel morally superior about themselves) which equals appearance, hipness. Though buying green is obviously the right thing to do, and I try to do it myself whenever feasible, I'm not surprised by the finding. I suspect "Whole Foods Nation" would not be especially supportive of DeFazio (he doesn't even look like a grocery clerk at the right type of store).

If this comment shows up more than once, please remove the redundant copies (something in this text appears to be interfering with submission, so I had to resend it).
 
Clinton was the first black president. Obama is just another white president. That is the problem. We thought we were electing a black president but he abandoned that base and every other base during the last two years. Nominate someone to the right? What is the point?

I think we have to fact the fact, however, that this is not a nation of progressives and any person who truly demonstrated progressive values would be defeated even if we won the primary.

In short, we are screwed regardless of what we do.

Even so, I voted for Hillary in the primary and would vote for her again. I think she has the cojones that Obama lacks even if she is not significantly to the left of Obama.
 
I lived in DeFazio's district for a number of years, and he is pretty universally well liked there. I have voted for him and would again. I did write him an angry letter about publicly supporting Obama with his vote before our state primary election, because I thought he should have at least waited until after the voters had their chance to make their voices heard. Regardless of that, I think he would be a good candidate to run for president. I agree with his politics and he doesn't roll over very easily.

Good to see you back, Joe!
 
Andrew Romanoff. He has been a consistent liberal, yet was able to gain democratic majorities in both of Colorado's houses. He is disillusioned enough to run after being tossed to the side for Bennett. Also, he ran a primary campaign against Bennett and almost won. He did not take one cent of PAC or corporate money and only lost because of the big bucks Benett and the DNC threw in. He won every Democratic caucus in the state by double digits. But he had no money for teevee, Bennett had milions.

He is handsome and charismatic. And nice. This is important. And he is a true believer.
 
What image problems? He reminds me of Mario of the computer game which is wildly popular with my grandchildren.
 
"A historic" is proper grammar, sir. "An historic" is neither "cute" nor sophisticated. Please look up the word "historic" in the dictionary to see how it is pronounced. This will clue you in to how the word should be preceded.


Secondly, I wonder what causes you to believe that President Obama isn't a Socialist at all. More government control, bigger government, redistribution of wealth, need I go on?
 
Not that anyone is reading such an old thread -- but you, sir, are a fool. You have no idea what the word "socialist" even means. Like most Randroid idiots, you think that anything not 100% Ayn-approved is "socialist." Look: Government is not bigger, government employees are fewer, social services have been lessened, wealth has been redistributed from the poor to the wealthy, and the captains of Wall Street have pretty much run the show. If you think Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are socialists, your definition of that word is so nutty you could probably think of a justification for calling Milton Friedman a socialist.

Assholes like you are ineducable. If your ideological training forces you to see green as orange, you shall see nothing but orange, despite all the obvious evidence of green-ness.

Oh: "An historic" and "A historic" are both acceptable usages, although "a historic" is preferred.

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html
 
I have been searching and searching to find out if someone any one will run against Obama. I think that they would have a really good chance, nobody is really very happy with Obama. I am not.But to even consider a rebupican is pretty scary now looking at all the fighting and crazies that are there this time, every time. But we need something different, Obama is not working. Somebosy please run, give me someone to vote for. I have voted in every election since I turned 18, I do not want to not vote because there is no choices.Is there some way to get the word out that we want, no NEED an alternative to Obama or GOP. A petition , something. HELP
 
If Obama had competition, I do not think that he would win. He is not popular at all, nobody is happy with his actions. Who ever steps up to the plate will have a really good chance as the GOP is having it's tiffs about religion, totally disregarding the separtaion of church and state. Obama has sold out worse than anyone could have imagined, we need an option. I would give money and I don't have any extra to give, but I would not like to see the country I have always called home and voted in every election since I was 18 in go down the drain faster than it is. HELP
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind