Don't primary Obama, change Congress

[Beacool]

The itch to change candidates reflects the left's inability to buckle down to long-term political organizing
By Joan Walsh


I talked about the discouraging notion of a primary challenge to President Obama on "Hardball" tonight. Steve Kornacki's been doing a great job explaining why such a move is unlikely; Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008) explained to Justin Elliott why it is unwise. Still, Matt Bai's vaporous piece in the New York Times set people talking again today.

I'm disappointed in President Obama's tax-cut deal, as I've already explained. I'm glad the administration is framing it as a "stimulus bill" now -- let's hope tough progressive Democrats make it better, since there's little chance that it won't pass. But I think pondering a primary challenge to Obama is suicidal, and reflects a certain fecklessness on the left. First of all, Obama was a great gift to lefty Democrats in 2008, making them believe that a few years of online organizing and railing against George W. Bush had produced a true progressive hero and a coalition for dramatic change, which simply wasn't true.

----------

Still, the rush to proclaim Obama the one, true progressive in 2008 was foolish, and I'd suggest that those who wound up disappointed in Obama think more about what they can learn from that race, rather than plotting to bring him down in 2012. Switching candidates now would be just another symptom of progressives' inability to dig in for a long haul of taking our country back from the plutocrats who now run it. It's tough work. I think, sadly, Obama is probably the most progressive Democrat who could be elected right now. (Admittedly, it's still early, and it's still theoretically possible for Obama to do something so outrageous as to change my mind.) I'd rather see liberals put time and money into electing courageous folks to the House and Senate than a quixotic attack on Obama, which would split the party racially -- almost 90 percent of African-Americans still support the president in most polls -- and probably hand the White House to Republicans.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/12/08/obama_primary_talk

;-)

[MrScorpio]

1. "Change Congress" --- Damn Skippy!

[Carolina]

2. Do both

[Beacool]

3. As much as some of us would agree, it would mean that a Republican would win the WH.

Remember what happened in 1980?

:(

[Uzybone]

4. first time for everything...KnR

"The itch to change candidates reflects the left's inability to buckle down to long-term political organizing"

Not just inability.....complete ineptitude. The primary Obama "left" seems to have the political attention span and acumen of a house fly.

[ladjf]

5. Don't primary Obama. Force him to step aside so there might be

a slim chance that we could elect a Democratic President in 2012.

[Beacool]

6. OK, but remember that this person would also have to win over the Independents.

No party can win the WH only with their base.

:-)

[niceypoo]

7. Whats the difference?

Between Obama and the GOP? With Obama the GOP get everything they want.

Obama/GOP 2012

[ladjf]

9. If Obama runs, I think he will lose. If there is a challenger, both

will lose mainly because the black vote will mostly stick with Obama. But, if he were to step down
for whatever reason, there would not be as big of a split. However, I don't think we can win either way. We are, as is often said, screwed. So much potential squandered.

[vaberella]

8. What happened to you Beacool? I'd thought you'd be the first to support the rage.

One of the few times I've rec'd your post. I always found that Obama's greatest impediment is not only Congress in general but even Dems in Congress.