The Primary Obama Movement Begins Today

This election is relevant insomuch as it illuminates beyond any doubt, how fractured the country is, really. Beyond that I don’t see anything factually changing. More of the same from the last 10 years (probably far longer); the past now moving into the next few years looking forward.
This is really an opportunity for those cogent individuals to sit down and make some serious decisions about their future; because the future seems pretty clear for once (the direction). There shouldn’t be any doubts remaining about where we really stand: With that fully in mind make your decisions and then go do the thing decided.
Cheers. And good luck.

Thanks for posting this. I posted a diary on the same topic (if with some variation in the reasoning) at Daily Kos here, if you are interested in another take:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/3/914662/-9-Reasons-Obama-Has-Earned-a-Primary-Challenge

It is logically impossible to make any progress by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Sigh
I already see that some of your commenters are passing up the savvy politician for a dream candidate like Elizabeth Warren who has never run for public office in her life. Or Russ Feingold who just lost. (Actually, I never can figure Russ out. He’s a bit of an enigma. His constituents must have thought so as well.)
This is going to be harder than I thought.

Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left

Hillary 2012

She won’t primary so let’s draft her.

DRAFT HILLARY.

Hillary will govern with the same agenda as Obama. Most of the bad people in his adminstration are Clintonistas.

To keep the hillary half of the dlc from spamming this board could we make it clear that we will not nominate anyone from that organizations. We are specifically anticentrist. All centrists not just some of them. This would extend to all members of the blue dog coalition, the new democrats, and the third way.

Well remember how Johnson was forced out… Eugene McCarthy mounted a primary challenge, did unexpectedly well and Johnson announced his retirement, only then did Kennedy and Humphrey (who basically took over LBJ’s campaign team) jump in.

Likewise, any left wing challenger would likely be Hillary’s stalking horse (whether they liked it not. McCarthy didn’t appreciate Kennedy stealing his anti-war thunder). If the challenger make inroads on the President’s support leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire you might see party leaders urge Obama to not seek re-election. Whether or not the President decides to continue, Clinton could jump in at any point to make a friendly takeover of the stalking horses’s campaign or easily start one from scratch if, say, a Gene McCarthy-like Feingold wants to keep on campaigning.

One thing in Feingold’s record that would play very well in a primary challenge is his record on fair trade. He sponsored (with Byron Dorgan) a bill to create Warren Buffett’s import certificate plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Certificates

If he ran against the endless war on terrorism, Wall Street banks and free trade while endorsing single payer healthcare (he could recycle Bob Shrum speeches written for Kennedy’s 1980 challenge to Carter or Bob Kerrey’s 1992 primary campaign), Feingold would pick up an absurd amount of party support… plus money from Republicans who just want to stir the pot. Whether Obama moves left to counter or stands pat and lets Feingold takes his shots knowing he’ll still be re-nominated, it will crush Obama in the general.

Ian is 100% right, unless the left blocks (and is recognized for having blocked) Obama’s re-election bid, nothing is going to change.

Here’s an issue we’re going to have to deal with: do we primary Obama to push him over to the left, or do we primary him to BEAT him?

Here’s why I’m asking: I doubt that black voters are ready to abandon Obama yet, and they may never be, so whom would we offer as an effective primary choice against him?

Maybe it’s a little premature to ask the question, and maybe I’m over-interpreting the degree to which black voters may be attached to Obama, and obviously a lot depends on how his administration acts on these election results.

It seems to me that the only alternatives available to Obama are: become a real leader with real vision (not bloody likely) OR throw in with the R’s, drag the Dems further to the right, and piss off your activist base even further. (By doing so, you can build yourself a “moderate” coalition, not nearly big enough to stand up to corporate money, and further marginalize your activist base–which is kind of how I see Obama going.)

As to the larger question: Primary Obama? Hell yes!! Demarcate “liberal/progressive” from “mainstream Democrat”? Hell yes, and with every opportunity, including letters to the editor, social networking, whatever!!

Until progressives sing with a single voice about the principles that matter, and present an alternative as compelling as the blood & guts narratives the R’s offer up, we’re toast, and so’s the country. Right now we’re singing in dozens of different “micro” voices, and that has to change.

I agree with VastLeft that the public option was nothing other than a (very successful) bait and switch operation, that came to nothing because there was nothing there to begin with. I also think that, as the only HCR policy option on offer that can be shown to work, it’s going to be useful in a Soviet-style collapse situation. Finally, people will vote for it, given the chance. I can’t understand why Ian seems to have a blind spot here; the so-called public option is nothing to have a lingering affection for. Now’s the time, when the situation is fluid, to get “Medicare for All” on the table at last.

* * *

That said, a fantastic post. Thank you!!!!

Typo: “it’s going to be useful” “Single payer is going to be useful.”

I don’t think, at this early stage, it’s a question of “Who do we run” so much as it is a question of “what do we run ON?”

By this I mean not ‘what policies/programs do we want’ but rather what OUTCOMES do we want for people. A list of five or six bullet points: the outcome, and how to get there. (e.g., “Fair tax policies that let everyone pay a fair share into a pool that grows the economy, creates jobs, and ensures fairness for all.”)

Really, the Dems, the left, progressives, we’ve all been miserable at messaging. That’s a shortcoming the nation can no longer afford.

Five or six bullet points, that we can all agree on. Then, run on THAT.

You’ll notice, the Rs all seem to speak with one voice, even though they have their little fringe of useful crazies to keep people distracted.

I’d love it if each progressive blog articulated their own “vision”–again, five or six points (brief, outcome-oriented) to run on. Then, we can figure out who we run. (Hint: you’re down with our points, or you’re not–and if you’re not, you’re out.)

And here:

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/11/what-all-the-hot-air-boiled-down-to.html

added note: heard someone on Democracy Now last night explaining that much of the pathetic piece of lukewarm spit that is Obamacare, is going to depend on funding passed by Congress. Which may work out to mean, NO insurance reform to speak of, and a tarnished brand identity for healthcare reform for the next generation.

Man, if there was ever a reason for progressives to step away from Obama, that little nugget will do just fine.

@ dougR
“Here’s an issue we’re going to have to deal with: do we primary Obama to push him over to the left, or do we primary him to BEAT him?”

I think he needs to be beaten. If we just push him over to the left, well…

Take his (stated and apparent) positions on certain issues while he was running for office vs. what he actually did, or didn’t to, once in the White House. Except that he should have given away his true intentions with that FISA vote, he appeared during the campaign to be to the left (though, perhaps not as far left as we would have liked) of where he actually turned out to be (once he was elected). No reason he wouldn’t try to APPEAR to move left in 2012, though he would have a hell of a lot of backtracking to do, then move back to where he is now, once back in office.

In my previous comment I said Obama has to be beaten in the primary.

On the other hand, I think that the Rs and Ds, the legacy parties, the two sides of the same counterfeit coin (heads I win, tails you lose), are just about useless. Running a candidate against Obama in the primaries may have its good points (whether you are trying to beat him or move him left), but really the Democratic Party is NOT going to be reformed by this. They won’t learn squat. And they are owned as certainly as the Republicans are.

Third party candidate? Don’t know. But I do know that no third party has, or soon is going to have, a visibility or identity and respect that would allow it to win much of anything nationally (locally, maybe). A strong candidate would have to come first. How is she or he going to get out there and be visible without a party organization (and, sorry to say, a press that actually covers that person’s campaign)? I haven’t the scraping of a clue. I just dabble in this stuff.

I have to quibble re: QE2. It’s merely going to give free money to speculators who will use it to attack a developing country’s infrastructure & currency. Brazil is a good candidate, though they are taking small steps to forestall these types of attacks. QE2 won’t help ordinary Americans. At best, in this country, it will simply be hoarded by the banks, who still have no real assets.

My goodness… so many familiar names here!

Having been banned from both Corrente and TalkLeft during the primaries, let me say here that although y’all were right about Obama, that doesn’t mean you were right about Hillary.

Wipe Iran off the map? Gasoline tax holiday?

Are you fucking kidding me?

She is now – as she was then – a perfect exemplar of the institutional rot that Ian’s post is decrying.

First of all, those of you nominating Hillary Clinton as the person to beat Obama in a primary: what is wrong with this picture?

Second: “Do you think Hillary would have left the writing of the healthcare bill to congress? Or bailed out the banks without making them take losses ? ”

My answer to that is: what does Chelsea Clinton do for a living?

I think we need to quit thinking in terms of electoral politics. Yeah, Eugene McCarthy challenged LBJ but ONLY after a very visible, active and demanding anti-war movement had been hitting the streets for some time. The movement — and the visible action and demand — has to come first. Otherwise we’re just hoping for some white knight or another to ride in a white horse, and no single individual can be that powerful.

As an aging boomer who did my share of marching I get tired of hearing young people assert so confidently that protesting and demonstrating is to no purpose. They should read about the October Moratorium. Even more recently, the success of Act Up in getting the federal government to finally get one inch of its ass in fighting the AIDS crisis.

You lose you lose you don’t get noticed you get ridiculed you get bigger you get noticed you start getting traction. It takes TIME and it takes RISK.

It’s not enough to shout Yes We Can. There really is nothing so vile as the Obama fans shouting that slogan without being willing to take any of the physical risks that Dolores Huerta or Cesar Chavez or any single farmworker took in that struggle.

Power does not yield without a fight, and the thing that makes me saddest and angriest is that it seems that “liberals’ or “leftists” or “progressives” really don’t have the stomach for a fight; ultimately the white-collarization of the “left” has left us middle-aged too comfortable, where the younger seemed so saturated with irony it’s hard to value anything strongly enough to take any risk. And since nothing is of value, everything can be stolen — and is being stolen.

I think what it all means is that we’re going to have to hurt more, a lot more, before sufficient anger arises on the left. Unfortunately, the right seems to have beat us to it.

There actually are huge differences between Clinton and Obama wants you get beyond the superficiality of campaign platforms. Very simple, Clinton has a very long resume of working on issues that provide healthcare, access to education and innovations to help small business (in many, many cases, micro-business) prosper. it’s very clear, if you look at what she actually does, that she is primarily interested in providing access to health care and economic opportunity to lower classes and to stabilizing the middle class. The bills she writes, the policies she advocates, don’t benefit corporate America. The fact that it’s easy to be cynical and write her off as a pro-corporate tool (though no one can make that case based on her actual voting record) doesn’t mean that it’s a productive thing to do.

The fact of the matter is that every constituency that deserted the Dems last night is a constituency that Clinton easily won in the primary.

I doubt Feingold is much to the left of Clinton – and remember, he endorsed Obama and justified Obama’s pro-FISA vote. He’s either a total hypocrite or Obama already has something on him – who knows. But he won’t be the one to take Obama out because Obama will just play clips of Feingold endorsing him.

Clinton is a lefty and she can win. I’m not voting for anyone else for president and considering how thoroughly Clinton’s base deserted the Democrats yesterday, you should figure there are a lot of people like me.

I think what it all means is that we’re going to have to hurt more, a lot more, …

We should expect this in 2011 as more draconian cuts (both public and private) take place in the name of Fiscal Responsibility ™. It’s the early ’30s Hoover Program all over again. They are determined that “this time, they’ll get it right” now that they’ve sealed their control of the propaganda machine (expect more “black is white”, “up is down”, “let them eat adjectives and adverbs”).

jeer9,

The catfood commission is not an example of obama letting a bad republican idea slip through the door and into the club, it’s obama purposely sneaking in an obnoxious bully drunk to do his dirty work. He created the commission and he did his best to stuff it with social security opponents while disguising it as a bi-partisan panel that reflects the range of interests of common americans.

The democratic co-chair, erskine bowles, he selected is no friend of 99% of americans and especially for those that want to keep social security benefits just the way they are. Fuck, he brokered a deal between the big corporate lap dawg and gingrich to cut benefits back in the late 90s that apparently was only derailed by the lewinksy situation.

And neither is that fucking nut alan simpson a friend of those that want to keep the benefits as they are. Or is brooking institute’s alice rivlin. Or honeywell ceo david cole. And not even that goddamn labor sellout andy stern. obama appointees all …

Z

anon2525 permalink
November 3, 2010

That list was written long ago in 1944:
FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights” as the platform, now that’s an interesting idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=effDfpKYcVo

Barbara Lee proposed a bill a few years ago to legislatively enact it.

“Updating the 1944 Economic Bill of Rights- The Congress reaffirms the responsibility of the Federal Government to implement and, in accordance with current and foreseeable trends, update the statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the State of the Union message of January 11, 1944. The Congress therefore proclaims the following rights as continuing goals of United States public policy…”
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1050/text

anon,

It’s not really aipac and dlc darling hillary clinton’s fault though … she had to be pragmatic in order to have some influence in the administration. And you can see it was worth it by all those wonderful things she’s been doing for our foreign policy.

Again, there is little difference between the obamabots, the bushites, and the true cdsers. All that changes are the brand names on their excuses.

Z

Again, there is little difference between the obamabots, the bushites, and the true cdsers. All that changes are the brand names on their excuses … and their attacks on those that don’t drink their kool-aid.

Z

“Bowles spent more than 15 years working in the financial sector, i.e., he is owned by Wall Street.”

No wonder he and the big corporate lap dawg got along so well.

Z

If Clinton was in any way a lefty she would immediately resign from her position in Obama’s administration. Obama has expanded illegal and immoral wars throughout the world. He is using cluster bombs to kill innocent civilians in countries the United States has not declared war against. Obama is using drones to kill innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere and bribing dictators in Africa and militarizing regions throughout the world (like Mexico). Hillary Clinton is fully participating in this institutionalized murder and theft otherwise known as American foreign policy. The United States military is active all over the world and the Democrats are legitimizing the state of endless and global war. The United States is a huge war machine–and Hillary is serving as one of the main organs of that machine. She chooses to be one of it’s top defenders and actually neutralizes left-wing resistance to the war machine.

As the United States’ top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton also chooses to defend some very grotesxque actions and policies. The United States spends more than $80 billion spying on the rest of the world (more than the next largest military spends in toto on the military). The United States is actively trying to subvert and bring down governments. It is committing war crimes and uses things like cluster bombs and drones on civilians. Hillary Clinton has also indeed threatened Iran.

And VastLeft, the exact word Hillary Clinton used was “obliterate”. As in killing all the inhabitants of Iran. I don’t know how else to interpret her use of that word in this context. Maybe you know of a more benign context for the future top diplomat of the Obama administration openly talking about destroying all the inhabitants of a country. What exactly is the context? How heinous coming from the country that is responsible for fomenting more wars in the world than any other. This may not be an explicit threat to “nuke” Iran, but it certainly qualifies as a military threat to me, much more of an obvious threat than Amhadinejad’s “threat” to Israel.

They’re not dumb, they knew it would mean a certain amount of economic calamity,

This is the public myth that continues to be used to justify TARP and the much larger actions that Bernanke&Co have taken. Economists Dean Baker and James Galbraith have, among others, argued that this is a false choice (“Save the banksters or the economy dies!”). And we have the results, namely, the current situation is economic calamity.

Yes, Obama must be primaried! Especially since the fauxgressives deeming him “the most liberal president evah” has sullied the reputation of FDR policies, even.

Have to mention that being a Wisconsinite myself, there is no way that Feingold would win POTUS. He would have too much explaining to do as to why he supported the monstrosity of ObamaCare, and he couldn’t even convince college kids that he should be supported in his re-election bid. Plus, Feingold is divorced, and we know how that plays out in voter’s minds who mostly vote from emotion and not their intellect.

Hillary is the only truly viable option out there. And for the Hillary-naysayers who say she’s ‘just like Obama’ … have you forgotten that Hillary was working hard to get mortgage relief in the bail-out plan and temporary moratorium on foreclosures, while Obama did nothing?

And don’t even get me started on issues concerning women and gays. Between Hillary and Obama there is NO comparison.

Sorry, but if the Progressive Left ACTUALLY thinks that turning Left MORE …in order to challenge Obama…is going to win them the White House or even the support of the people at large, then you must be doing some seriously good drugs.

America is still a center right country. And even if you believe the time has come for the country to cross the dividing line, it would still — at best — only shift slightly left of center. Because if history has shown one thing, it’s that the average American votes for (1) their personal pocket book and (2) their personal pocketbook. Followed only by (3) their personal pocket book.

Oh, yeah — and they also DON’T like major change.
Because that might upset…yes…their personal pocket book.

So, someone above hit the nail on the head. With the Republican gains, where exactly does the Progressive Left think it’s going to create or craft an ultra left progressive candidate in under 2 years that can actually draw enough attention to withstand a national election? Hell, even the idea of running or drafting Hillary cracks me up. Even if she challenged Obama in a primary and won, it wouldn’t be because she was “progressive”. It would simply be because she got an overwhelming female vote, with so many women wanting to elect the first female president.

And even then to win the election, Hillary would clearly shift BACK to being centrist… taking the same path as Bill after he got hammered in his midterm elections…realizing she’d need middle of the road people and certainly Independents to actually win. And just another reality check for the Progressive Left: no one is buying what you’re selling. A recent Gallup poll showed that MORE people called themselves “conservative” (be it Republican or blue dog Democrat) over “liberal” by a whopping margin. Like 40-plus percent to under 20.

So, sorry, but wake up and smell the roses. Proudly declaring how Progressive you are…to this day…is still the best and most sure fire way to LOSE a national election.

Sorry, but if the Progressive Left ACTUALLY thinks that turning Left MORE…

I stopped reading your comment once I got to the “MORE.” The fact that you ACTUALLY think that Obama&Co ARE Progressive Left demonstrates that you do not know what it means to be Left or Progressive.

Having self-identified as a social democrat, around election time I sometimes imagine a social democrat saying to a person of some authoritarian stripe: “Why do you hate democracy? Wait, don’t answer that …” The whole voting-from-emotions thing, especially, gets me.

I could probably be persuaded to campaign for some Democratic primary challenger, even though I also voted for Nader and sometimes have anarchist sympathies and in any case believe that by now the entire planet is royally fucked within the next century, no matter what.

The left, such as it is, should take that stand just because it is the right thing to do, and give the finger to Fate or God or whomever. We will not vote for murderers any more and we will publicly disown them. Even though it be too little, too late.

Also, as has been noted, you really need the movement in place before you have the white knight. And probably you simply cannot ever have the movement anymore when most every would-be leftist under age 30 (incl. me) is locked into an unprecedented postmodern-medianet haze.

Let me put it simply, what went wrong went wrong from the very top of the party.

You forgot to mention the Electoral Genius, R. Emmanuel. His strategy of getting legislative “wins” (at the behest of Obama) worked out brilliantly. He has not been given enough credit for the results of this election.

>>If you want to give it a full read: Brian_Schweitzer
Looks like some potential, but, based on that article, it’s not clear that he’s going to propose left/progressive economic or social policies. He’ll have to begin getting outspoken, both with proposals and criticisms.

Compare and contrast:

A. As Gov. Brian Schweitzer warmed up the crowd Friday for President Barack Obama, he paid a lengthy compliment to a health care system that leading Democrats, including the president, have declared “off the table” as a reform here: the Canadian single-payer system.
“Did you know that, just 300 miles north of here, did you know they offered universal health care 62 years ago?” he said, referring to Canada’s system of providing government-funded health insurance for all citizens.

B. Minutes later, Obama made it clear that he does not favor adopting such a system in the United States.
“I’m not in favor of a Canadian system, I’m not in favor of a British system, I’m not in favor of a French system,” he said. “What we’ve said is let’s find a uniquely American system.”
Obama said the majority of people in America get health insurance through their employers, and “we want to build on that.”
“For us to completely change that, it would be too disruptive,” he said. “Max (Baucus) and I agree, that’s not the right way to go.”
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_02d665da-8955-11de-94f2-001cc4c002e0.html

Walt Wit Man,

Indeed “obliterate” was the correct word. As noted, I was reiterating Joe Beese’s paraphrase.

Interesting that you, too, are unable to mention what the context was.

How about a primary challenge to explain the message. No shaking hands or kissing babies or soccer mom demographics. Get somebody on the left on the ballots then you get stages/podiums/cameras and the like. Somebody who can articulate what the left is. Oh you want a suggestion …….Chris Hedges. Hillary and her baggage? Never.

Oy vey. It figures that someone who pooh-poohs “soccer mom demographics” would buy into the Hillary baggage meme. Well, here’s a news flash: those “soccer moms” are a key constituency that any Dem/left/progressive candidate would need to turn out in droves. As for Hillary’s “baggage” – its all old news that voters have heard a million times before. Nearly half of all 2008 Dem primary voters signaled that they Do. Not. Care. Its time people like you stop shooting all of us in the foot by giving that sad, sexist myth a rest (sexist because the people who use it give Hillary no credit for Clinton administration accomplishments, but tar her with blame for all of its shortcomings).

There is one big, fat, electoral fact that cannot be denied: Hillary is the only Democratic potential candidate with a nationwide list, a nationwide fundraising operation and a network of supporters positioned for logistical and political support in every state. That is a HUGE advantage. We’d be idiots not to recognize that and build on it. She came within a hair’s breadth of winning the nomination despite having the entire mainstream media and all the Daily Kos=ite Blogger Boyz aligned against her. And there is nothing – NOTHING – about her we don’t already know.

As someone who works in the field of international development, I tell you Clinton has done more good as SoS than you know – more good than most people do in a lifetime.

Wow, somebody opened a big can of CDS in here.

I’m not sure who suffers from CDS more – the Republicans or the creative class progs. I don’t agree with all of their policies – but I do believe they really tried – and there is no doubt that they took a massive beating for it. Just like now, it’s from the left and the right. and btw – no, Hillary’s plan for healthcare was not the same as Obama’s – I’m sorry but it just wasn’t and if you don’t know that then you weren’t paying attention. You may not like them, but the Clinton’s kicked some Republican ass – and they don’t compromise without getting something for it. Honestly, I am so fucking tired of people blaming them for absolutely everything.

Back in 2000, the left self-righteously dismissed Gore too – claiming he and Bush were the same – which is complete and utter bullshit – and in my opinion – that is why we lost and ended up with eight years of Bush. Gore got treated like shit – and no one defended him either – not even his own damn party – even when it really mattered. We are fucked now – really really fucked. I have no idea who has the money, power and competence to pull us out of this nosedive. Right now, it’s going to take a lot of cash and serious juice. I don’t like it either – but that is where we are. I highly doubt that Hillary Clinton will run – even if drafted – but give her a little damn credit. She works hard, knows her shit and is competent – and she fights. You may not like her or her policies – but personally I admire her resilience – and the Big Dawg’s too. All I’m saying is that they deserve a little damn credit and respect – because they earned it.

Vast Left,

What possible context could Joe or I be missing that excuses Hillary’s threat to “obliterate” Iran?

In fact, the context makes it worse. She was in race for president in which Democrats, as she had done, usually try to prove their hawkish bone fides by talking tough. There was no real crises that precipitated her warning to Iran other than the general warmongering that U.S. politicians have engaged in against Iran for years now. It had all the appearance of being a politically motivated bit of warmongering.

In fact, it may also violate international law to threaten another country in the manner she did. It was certainly not language most diplomats would use (and I know she was only a Senator and not Secretary of State yet, but still).

The people that have Clinton Derangement Syndrome (hey–just like the right-wingers the Hillary partisans belittle those that disagree with them by making it a clinical diagnosis) are the so-called leftists that think Mrs. Drone Bombing and Endless war is a “liberal”. In fact, someone that doesn’t have CDS would be able to call a war criminal a war criminal.

Anyone with any conscience at all would resign from the Obama administration. How can any liberal support the drone bombing of innocent civilians in countries we are not at war with? If you support Hillary Clinton then you support the massive killing of innocent people and you are just as evil as any tea party person.

Seriously, if this is the left’s response to Obama then we are really screwed.

Walt, once again you refuse to state the context.

What question was she asked that it was in answer to? What bad thing would happen if you included that information?

I agree that it doesn’t speak well for Ms. Clinton that she’s willing to be part of this administration, and I’d much prefer that someone well to her left were a/the primary challenger to Obama. But I also think she’d be (and would have been) a considerable upgrade in many respects to the current president.

I’m disinclined to ever vote for another Democrat again, especially in an election (I’m less adamant about not trying to tip a major-party primary one way or the other), so I don’t expect to be voting for her.

I am sorry about the soccer mom and Hillary comments. Maybe it was Freudian and I am a sexist. Anyway, I meant all demographics and anybody jaded by Washington. How would any former SoS make any point about foreign policy.

Riverdaughter,

I think you’re confusing me with an Obama partisan. I dislike Obama and I did not (do not) prefer him over Hillary. I don’t “support” any Democrats at this point. I grant you that Hillary may be a tick to the left of Obama and that she was a “victim” of media bias and poor treatment from Obama and the Dems. But Hillary is not anywhere close to being on the left. I mean, have I been sleeping these past 10 years or so? It’s like arguing about the political differences between Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman.

If the argument is this is the most left we can expect a leader to be, then I totally disagree and think that the Hillary partisans are no better and not much different than the Obama supporters that claim Obama is the best we can get in a center-right country.

And newsflash, Hillary doesn’t represent working people. She is a neoliberal Washington Consensus Dem that does a decent job of using the Democratic tradition of helping working people to pretend that she is “fighting” for them. In reality, she’s “fighting” for the same 1% that Obama is. She just has a slightly different schtick.

If you, and substantial numbers of liberals, get snookered into voting for a center-right candidate then you are correct, we will be setting the clock back. We will get another go round of promised change that wasn’t.

Hillary Clinton is so pro-labor that she hired union buster extraordinaire Mark Penn as her chief campaign strategist.

She is so pro-main street that her top 3 campaign contributors from 2005-2010 are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

And she benefited from the millions more in speaking fees Bill collected from all of these same companies.

Imagine the sternly worded letter she would have sent about those Wall Street bonuses.
——
The left is truly screwed if we still cannot be honest about neoliberal Democrats. If we cannot establish that the Democratic Party is not really leftwing.

Two things after reading through the rest.

We do need a platform. one page – ten point or less form which can be stapled and thumb-tacked all across the land…. and a full progressive party platform. I’ve wondered for years why progs won’t do this. I know several folk have solid drafts now. But the drafts thru final forms should be contributed to, edited, voted upon in an open source environment of some sort.

I’m confused by Ian’s support of more QE as well. Isn’t it the ultimate in trickle down? 600b at begins at the top and stays there?

Help me out Ian, I need to be able to explain this to others. I think reading Zero Hedge has clogged my pipes with gold and guns. 🙂

I blame Hillary for not quitting when it was time to do so. If she had we wouldn’t have been subjected to as many recriminations over her loss. It’s all your fault Hillary!!!@#@!@!!@!@!!!!“`11

Now how is that for CDS?

I got a nail in my tire today, and the first thing that came to my mind was: dammit, hillary! I hate youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!

Z

Do we agree that the worst option is (D) another term for Obama and the second worst option is a (C) GOP wins WH (say, Huckabee)?

Any serious challenger is better than none since challengers sink re-election bids. If Hillary ran, she might run the table and win, giving us (B) possibly more progressive Democrat beats Obama and wins WH. Even if she lost to Obama or loses in the general we’d very likely get (C). If a solid progressive like Russ Feingold or Howard Dean runs we might have (A) a definitely more progressive Dem beats Obama and wins WH. However its more likely we’d get (C) since I doubt anyone but Hillary has the legs to win both the nomination and the general. In other words, if there is a nomination fight:
A (Russ) is better than B (Hillary) is better than C (Huckabee) is better than D (Obama)
but B is more likely C is more likely than A is more likely than D. So yeah, Hillary is the optimal pick.

Z: But mine is more meta!

jcapan: I, for one, agree 100% with what you quoted from Ian. Actually, more importantly, Republicans have had a long history of hating Hillary passionately. That’s inherently a major plus point for Hillary—bipartisanship nonsense would have been impossible whether she liked it or not.

Republicans have had a long history of hating Hillary passionately.

Yeah, let’s nominate somebody the Republicans like instead.

/snark

They hated Bill too, but he did a pretty good job anyway.

The more you look at what Hillary does, rather than simply at rhetoric or voting records, the more clearly she becomes a liberal. Her critics are reduced to calling her anti-labor because of the polling firm she uses – certainly neither her voting record or personal history supports that charge. And next, saying that she’s pro-Wall Street because of the donations she received as opposed, once again, to her voting record, or, more importantly, bills that she, the senator from New York, authored.

Going back to the beginning of her career both as a private citizen, as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the nation, senator and now as SOS, you find her emphasizing the same things – access to health care, access to education and support for small and micro-businesses. Nothing that people around her do changes that.

…you find her emphasizing the same things – access to health care, access to education and support for small and micro-businesses.

She refuses to resign, criticize the Obama/DLC/neo-liberal/neo-con agenda, and protest what is going on and being done to this country and by this gov’t. Instead, she continues to enable the third Bush term.

We’re not to believe our lying eyes.

Note to Ian Welsh: The link to newer (later) comments is labelled “Older Comments” and the link to older (earlier) comments is labelled “Newer Comments”. Is this intentional?

Since it’s apparently the rarest of skills to be able to post the context in which Hillary Clinton made her notorious “obliterate” response, I will amaze my friends and enemies by doing so:

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be ‘massive retaliation.” Scary words. Does ‘massive retaliation” mean you’d go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.”

One may think that’s anywhere from totally justified to inhumanely appalling, but it’s always presented out of context, as if she rolls out of bed in the morning (yes, after staying up to 3:00AM) and shouts “Let’s obliterate Iran!” If the context isn’t in the least mitigating, why is it fully impossible for her detractors to provide it?

Once again, we see the special rules that apply to the Clintons and only the Clintons.

Hillary’s AUMF vote is the only AUMF vote that made Rachel Maddow and Baby Jesus cry. John Kerry’s, John Edwards’s, and Joe Biden’s votes were trifles or less.

The context in which HRC said the deeply racist phrase “As far as I know” is to be hidden at all costs.

She, and only she, must say that Robert Kennedy has handed a basket of warm kittens after he won the California primary, as the word “assassination” from her lips shakes the very foundations of our republic.

And, of course, the shocking presence of white children in the aforementioned 3:00AM ad is an oh-so-obvious wink to the Klan.

None of this is to say that Hillary Clinton is a great liberal or even not a war criminal. But the inevitable thumb on the scale when criticizing her or her husband is striking, and it undercuts the case of the thumb’s owners.

Gen. Washington said:
“The time required to rectify that issue is approximately the same as the time to just build an alternative party movement, which has the additional advantage of not being weighed down by the damage two corporate-friendly free-trade pro-Wall Street Democratic Administrations have done (and have yet to do) when it comes to people’s impressions of the Democratic Party.
Although, either case might be too late if 2016/2020 is a realistic no-return point…”

Yeah, well, what if it’s BOTH. And What if 2016 is too early for such a coalition to have adequate influence? (The R’s started building their right-wing coalition right after Barry Goldwater was defeated, and look how long it took them to dominate.)

And, I’m thinking it’s a little too soon to be having discussions about “where this is going,” because we don’t know what “this” is, and we don’t have a set of mutually (and publicly) agreed-upon planks to build a platform with. Form a third party? Broker influence at the Dem convention? Who the F* knows?

Clarity of principles, and union among the like minded, would be very good beginnings here. A confederation of big-10 lefty bloggers plus union heads plus worker-oriented grass roots outfits? United action on one signature issue where the coalition wins the day, and move on from there? (A signature issue MIGHT be: transparency in elections: make outside money a big issue, maybe locally at first, and work like hell to inform the public about it.)

I think we have plenty of agreement, in larger terms, among everyone on this thread, for instance. The challenge is always getting people to put aside “pet” issues (I include myself in this) and throw in with the group. That, plus inertia (plus unclarity, which always clears up when action is taken) is the big stumbling block at this point. I think the basic agreement is there, though.

VastLeft,

I find your dishonesty to be out of character and methinks thou doth protest too much. If anyone is exhibiting Clinton Derangement Syndrome (treating facts differently when they involve Hillary Clinton), it is you.

First, I have repeatedly noted the context of Hillary’s comments. I stated what I thought the context was: Hillary was running for president and Dems often engage in warmongering at this time to prove how tough they are. I even acknowledged your argument that she was responding to a hypothetical of Iran blowing up Israel and therefore, according to you, this mitigates her threat. Did you see that? I fucking responded to your point yet you carry on like I didn’t–like I have CDS and you totally caught me being unfair to Hillary. But you didn’t.

As I noted, Hillary being asked a question about the hypothetical threat of Iran getting the bomb and attacking Israel does not excuse her behavior. She could have challenged the premise of the hypothetical. She could have said that our intelligence services had concluded Iran was not doing this but she would closely monitor the situation as president. Or, as the future Secretary of State, and a self-styled mature and experienced politician, she should have known it is incredibly reckless to publicly speculate about killing all the inhabitants of a country based on hypothetical threats. Diplomats and politicians should not speculate about such things. In fact, the UN Charter makes it illegal to threaten to attack outside the norms of law. She should have declined to answer because it was speculative or said that any attack on another state, like Israel, would be referred to the Security Council for further action.

If McCain would have warned Russia that if it invaded, say Georgia, a second time, then America would obliterate Russia, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? After all, he’s just responding to a hypothetical. It’s funny that the dreaded Republican candidate actually used more diplomatic language about hypothetical Russian action than Hillary did about hypothetical Iranian action (and yet I thought both threats crossed the line–as did Obama’s warmongering on the Russia/Georgia issue as well).

Second, if anyone has their thumbs on the scale it is you. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and John Edwards are indeed guilty as charged for continually voting for endless wars. Obama is especially guilty because he obviously has the most power out of this Dem bunch and has decidedly increased the illegal and immoral killing, even after he pretended he would stop it. Hillary is right up there in responsibility as well because she chooses to be a part of a hyper-aggressive military power that is committing mass war crimes and is in fact choosing to be its main salesperson around the world! Don’t you think she deserves a little bit of responsibility for her part in this? Or does she get a pass because she’s Hillary and lots of working class Reagan Democrats like her? Or does she get a pass because the Obama creative class boys were mean to her?

A request for proposal of a One Page Ten Point or Less Platform would be a hell of a start. They could be discussed, points ridiculed, points changed, points merged then discussed some more.

Anon,

Some people think that being on the inside of a system, especially if they have issues with it, is the best way to moderate the beast. We need pressure on the inside and on the outside.

Ultimately, what you’re proposing simply leaves control of the government solely in the hands of the most destructive people. I don’t know how you get anything constructive done under the circumstances.

Agreed complete with the article.

Check out the Facebook group I started, Liberals Against Obama: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberals-Against-Obama/130002417050997

And my website http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Some people think that being on the inside of a system, especially if they have issues with it, is the best way to moderate the beast. We need pressure on the inside and on the outside.

Ultimately, what you’re proposing simply leaves control of the government solely in the hands of the most destructive people. I don’t know how you get anything constructive done under the circumstances.

This thinking has been demonstrated to be wrong. It is subverting democratic rule by preventing people from having choices while providing cover (and apologists) for the neo-liberals and neo-cons. It is enabling rule by Lesser Evil ™ instead of forcing the gov’t. to be not evil.

This thinking has been demonstrated to be wrong. It is subverting democratic rule by preventing people from having choices while providing cover (and apologists) for the neo-liberals and neo-cons. It is enabling rule by Lesser Evil ™ instead of forcing the gov’t. to be not evil.

Except that–at the present time—you lack an instrument to force the government to be not evil. Technocratic government can always stay one step ahead of you.

“He cannot be pushed over to the left”

Agreed. And while I have grave misgivings about working within the current template of electoral politics, if there’s going to be a primary challenge, be prepared to destroy him, not merely hippie-slap him. B/C if he survives the primary and a loon is nominated on the right, the oligarchs still win 4 more years with a 2nd Obama term. Plus, the wilderness recalibration the party desperately needs will be put off for another 4 years.

The poll #s reflecting a desire for a P-challenge leaves me discouraged, considering the numbers seem to coincide with disenchanted Hillary supporters. Cut off Obama & Clinton loyalists, and just how many dem voters are interested in embracing an authentic liberal or an internecine war not involving their respective messiah figure? I think (as an outsider) we’re overestimating our sway within the party.

In any event, when Ian says: “At this point it is not necessary to know who the candidate will be, what is necessary is to make it clear that there is a constituency for a challenge, people who will work for a challenger. That will make politicians (including whoever you think should be the challenger) much more likely to step forward.”

Well, given how many of us are disgusted with both the Clintons and Obama, we better damn well know all of our hard work isn’t going towards electing Hillary, right? I mean, you don’t start a grand progressive assault on the DLC-party, leaving open the possibility of giving the reigns to one of its champions?

I agree that the country’s ripe for a liberal narrative (god knows they’ve not heard one in ages), but if it’s delivered by a known quantity, a career “liberal dem,” it’ll be tuned out. For most Americans Obama is a liberal dem. The country is gagging for an actual alternative.

A 3rd party or independent run from the left, on a populist platform, guarantees the termination of the Obama admin. If such a candidate doesn’t win in 2012, then perhaps the ensuing 4 years will allow him/her to build a movement, a party prepared to field congressional candidates. Again, most Americans don’t vote, most Americans resist identifying with either failed, corrupt party. Tell them you have a new and better democrat to bring about “liberal” salvation and it’ll fall on deaf ears.

BTW, see my blog post here (The path Left lies through the Pentagon): http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=2068878

My argument is basically that by 2012 I think we need a progressive to challenge Obama, with the central plank of the platform being dramatic cuts in military spending and electoral process reform.

These are two issues that MANY people agree on, and that both of the Democrats and Republicans agree on. The Dems and Repubs both oppose cuts to military spending and they both oppose electoral process reforms that would weaken their grip on power.

However both of these issues have broad popular support across the political spectrum.

And we need to start work on this now, we need to be starting a movement based on opposition to the wars and military spending now, and relate this stuff back to domestic economic issues. I saw a recent poll which showed that 70% of the respondents, it was a national non-partisan poll, thought that the first place that budget cuts should focus is on military spending, yet both parties are saying the opposite. That’s a platform right there.

But the thumb on the scale makes arguments especially impressive to those who don’t or won’t notice it and a little suspect to those who do.

No thumb is needed to say that her answer was not left/progressive. It was pandering to a paranoid fantasy for votes from extremists. It was an answer worthy of Cheney. People who are not left/progressive might accept her answer and argue that it was justified given the premise, but that does not make her answer left/progressive. And it is not an answer worthy of a U.S. Sec. of State, much less a president.

Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left — Ian Welsh

H. Clinton is not from the left.

anon2525: I wasn’t making an argument for Hillary. I also agree that it’s a function of time. Given that the public is not ready to revolt in a left-wing direction (and more likely to revolt in a right-populist direction given the successes of right-wing populism), attempting to build an external alternative seems to me to be a very long prospect indeed.

So, why didn’t Feingold quite the Senate? Why isn’t Feingold out leading the opposition? Why did Feingold justify Obama’s vote for the FISA?

Seriously? No, of course, that wasn’t serious. It goes without saying that a senator is not a member of a president’s cabinet. Reminder for non-Americans (Americans don’t forget this): senators are elected; cabinet members are nominated and confirmed. This means that senators do not owe their seat to a president but to the voters who elected them. They are free to oppose the president, while those who serve in the executive branch who oppose the president are generally fired (See, Truman/MacArthur).

Now that Feingold is nearing the end of his term in office, he may well lead the opposition. If he does then we might find out that he is left/progressive — I cannot say that for certain. Or, we might find out that he is not. We might find out that he was an independent who stands for certain principles, but who would, say, cut Medicare before cutting military spending.

Only Feingold, …, is pure enough…

Ah, the “purity” attack. This might as well be the DLC mating call. Obama supporters know it well.

H. Clinton is not from the left. Clinton supporters would be better off trying to convince “reasonable”, “left-wing” republicans to support Clinton’s Moderate, Pragmatic-not-Purist, Serious* views.

* As we learned during the Democratic primary debates, only the select few that H. Clinton (and Edwards) deem Serious shall be permitted to debate. Coincidentally, Clinton shall always be one of the select few.

I wasn’t making an argument for Hillary. I also agree that it’s a function of time.

OK.

Given that the public is not ready to revolt in a left-wing direction (and more likely to revolt in a right-populist direction given the successes of right-wing populism)

This assertion is less certain. 1) Obama’s campaign rhetoric to get elected was in the left-wing direction, and 2) as Ian Welsh and many others have pointed out, left-wing positions on many issues poll more highly than right-wing views. Certainly the outcome on Tuesday cannot be asserted to be proof of right-wing shift more than it can be asserted that it is the result of there being no significant alternative to the duopoly.

It is arguable that we have proof that a liberal candidate (based on voters’ perceptions of what Obama stood for rather than what he actually stood for) could get elected in 2008. The problem is that he lied about what he stood for (and this has hurt liberals and Democrats). The Democratic party deserves a lot of the blame for this — Obama could not have hurt the party if they hadn’t gone along with what he did.

…attempting to build an external alternative seems to me to be a very long prospect indeed.

Hence, the debate about which is the better strategic approach. Should the left/progressives:

1) Attempt to retake the Democratic party machinery

or

2) Begin laying the groundwork for a third-party

Needless to say, the DLC wants for the left/progressives to be split on this rather than acting as a single, organized opposition.

Regarding Hillary supporters. I think a primary challenge campaign could win over Hillary supporters without centering around Hillary (who I do not think would challenge Obama, regardless) — IF the left-leaning men could let go of their reflexive sexism and in fact acknowledge that sexism is a problem on the left side of the equation as well on the right.

I’m not supporting ANY primary candidate who takes women for granted. I’m not supporting any primary candidate who doesn’t have a visible and documented history of standing up for women (the way, for instance, Al Franken does — just to throw one name out there.)

I’m not supporting any political movement that can’t quit knee-jerk criticizing women for their clothes, breasts, voices, laughter, cleavage, wrinkles, tears, or can’t quit calling them bitches, whores, sluts, hysterics, witches, bunny-boilers or suggest they need to be drowned in a bathtub.

A lot of the disgruntlement Hillary supporters still feel centers around the complete failure of the left to at all wrestle with the tidal wave of sexism and misogyny that roiled up during the 2008 election, esp. for women for whom it was a reminder of lifelong day-in/day-out experience of being marginalized via sexual slur or for whom refusal to go along with the status quo was equated with hysteria, bitchiness or lunacy.

And whenever women bring this up, we’re told either to “get over it” or that it in fact didn’t happen — yet another familiar form of silencing and marginalization.

That really is the festering sore that still lingers from 2008.

A lot of the disgruntlement Hillary supporters still feel centers around the complete failure of the left to at all wrestle with the tidal wave of sexism and misogyny that roiled up during the 2008 election…

That really is the festering sore that still lingers from 2008.

I don’t know whether Elizabeth Warren is from the left/progressive (and her accepting a position as an “advisor” to Obama makes me wonder about her judgment), but if she is, then she may be the medicine for that festering sore. H. Clinton is not.

Needless to say, the DLC wants for the left/progressives to be split on this rather than acting as a single, organized opposition.

This, at least, I agree with. The left/progressives need to pick a strategy and see it through. But there isn’t a The Left.

Is Hillary Clinton the great paragon of the left? I’d say not.

Do I think the search for a left-side primary challenger should begin and/or end with Hillary Clinton? No.

So, if in, say January 2012, Clinton resigns and says that she is going to be running against Obama, do you see that as accomplishing the goal?

Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left

Not only do I think that it will not accomplish this goal, but I expect that Clinton herself would not argue that. This is someone who, along with her husband, called in Dick Morris for campaigning advice.

Anon,

Nope, it was Clinton’s voters who were cheated out of her candidacy. We worked our ass off and had our efforts handed over to another candidate by the CEO of a health insurance corporation who, not surprisingly, got the health care plan that he wanted.

I won’t vote for anyone but Clinton and the low turn out this election suggests I’m not alone. We earned it. We want it. And there are enough to prevent any other liberal or democrat from winning.

Have any polls been done that have looked into a correlation between clinton supporters and the dem voters that sat out the mid-terms? Or had planned on sitting out the mid-terms?

Z

Anon,

The conservatives on the Supreme Court sided with the conservative candidate to give him the White House. The Democratic party shit all over it’s base to hand the nomination over to a bigoted, incompetent and corrupt candidate – so it’s pretty much the opposite of what happened in Bush V Gore.

And of course, Democrats at the time, claimed that not counting all the votes was wrong. Guess it’s okay when it’s their candidate.

It’s amazing to me how many low information voters Obama brought into the Democratic party.

Walt,

Are you going for the record for straw men in a single comment?

Not worth the time to catalog them all.

I have repeatedly made it clear that if my wishes were ponies that the Democrats would get a more or less successful primary challenge from someone well to the left of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

It’s not enough for you that I agree with that, I also have to turn a blind eye to the blatant gamesmanship that hides the context of a first-strike nuclear attack in a Q&A scenario, along with endless other thumbs-on-scales that people too tribal or lazy to make a quality case against one or both of the Clintons reliably resort to.

The conservatives on the Supreme Court sided with the conservative candidate to give him the White House. The Democratic party shit all over it’s base to hand the nomination over to a bigoted, incompetent and corrupt candidate – so it’s pretty much the opposite of what happened in Bush V Gore.

So, in effect, in the first case, a small group of people acted to steal an election from the majority of the voters, and in the other case, a small group of people acted to steal an election from the majority of the voters. Yes, that is the “opposite.”

Yes VastLeft,

How big of you. You would be willing to have a “rational” discussion about Hillary, but her detractors are all misogynists that are simply incapable of having a rational discussion, huh?

You’re no better than the Obama fanboys that claim any opposition to Obama is racist. That’s where you are. You would rather pretend that I am being unfair to Hillary rather than meet the arguments on the merits–so you don’t–you accuse others of being biased and using “gamesmanship” then run away to comfort yourself with other like-minded Hillary partisans where everyone else is crazy and sexist but the Hillary supporters.

It’s very clear you are the one being dishonest and playing games here. I have acknowledged the “context” you wanted to discuss re Hillary’s comments. I acknowledged your points (which you first lied about when you claimed that I ignored, or hid, the context you thought was important). Yet you never acknowledged the context I think is more important! So you claim you are the victim, because I didn’t consider the context you want (even though I did) but on the other hand you refuse to see the context where Hillary is acting hawkish, so you’re trying to have it both ways. Who is distorting reality here? Is it possible that Hillary cheerleaders are playing “games” and want to downplay her hawkishness to liberals? On the very thread where liberals are discussing who should lead the charge from the left? You are the one that is ignoring Hillary’s hawkishness and is instead throwing out excuses . You sound EXACTLY like an Obama fanboy confronted with Obama’s hawkish military record.

And what is it with the pretense that you are open to criticism of Hillary, you just need it to be proved by better “rational” arguments or links or by those without CDS? This is the same pretense, or “gamesmanship”, that Lambert engages in at Corrente. Give me a break. It’s the two of you that are playing games. Maybe there are real liberals that want to make the case for you, or would welcome taking the time to include links and make a nice “rational” argument for you, but you are not sincere in your offer and you and your pack of Hillary supporters don’t care about the truth–you only care about supporting Hillary. You stack the deck (you don’t demand the same ‘proof’ of your Hillary-supporting fans) and you gang up on those that disagree with you.

Plus, the burden is on you and Lambert and the other Hillary cheerleaders to prove Hillary is liberal. Your argument boils down to: “Hillary made some promises during the Democratic primary that proves she is a liberal and if she would have been elected she would have totally followed through on them, unlike Obama. Furthermore, if one reads between the lines of her carefully crafted senate record one can discern a secret liberal lion’s heart. And all you Hillary haters are just misogynists anyway. ”

You have to prove Hillary would not have sold out. You provide the links for that. Based on your ability to judge Hillary’s foreign policy record and statements I doubt you can be a straight shooter on the subject; you clearly have a case of CDS.

I couldn’t agree with you more, Walt.

Z

People say “Primaried” like its a bad thing. That’s saying that democracy is a bad thing.

Primaries are when the voters in general or the members of the party (depending on state rules) get a chance to participate in the selecting of a party candidate. Do we want candidates chosen on just who the party bosses want? Is that democracy?

We only get two slots on the ballot for ‘major’ candidates. Of course both candidates should always face primary challenges. This is democracy in action. This is the people getting a chance to express their views and their voices. This is about making the party members more than campaign envelope stuffers and automatic party voters and giving them a voice in their party.

Do you believe in democracy? If yes, then you believe in letting the people have a voice in who the candidates of the party are. To me this seems obvious. Which means I’m always struck ever election cycle by how undemocratic the Democratic party is as they try to limit the numbers of primaries and crush primary challenges.

As a believer in democracy, instead of rule by party bosses, I strongly believe that Obama should face a primary challenge in 2012. I’m struck that this isn’t just thought of as a completely normal part of the democratic process

The point is all moot, anyway. Politicians learn from who won, not who lost.

And what politicians learn in a duopoly is moot. Lobbyists “learn” that the duopoly always wins, or the duopoly “learns” that lobbyists always win.