Should a more liberal Democrat be primaried against Obama?

[tpfkaw]

Oh, and don't ever listen to Republican leaders/pundits if they say Obama is a "far left" President. For example, Newt Gingrich says NOWADAYS that Bill Clinton was a more moderate Democrat-but back in the 90s, the Newt said that Clinton was a left-wing extremist.

The Republicans hated JFK at the time of his Presidency. Now they say he's "one of the better Democrats." Go figure.

Well, that's because the "center" has been continuously redefined leftwards since the founding of the republic.  It's within living memory that Newt Gingrich would've been considered a left-wing extremist.

[Napoleon]

Oh, and don't ever listen to Republican leaders/pundits if they say Obama is a "far left" President. For example, Newt Gingrich says NOWADAYS that Bill Clinton was a more moderate Democrat-but back in the 90s, the Newt said that Clinton was a left-wing extremist.

The Republicans hated JFK at the time of his Presidency. Now they say he's "one of the better Democrats." Go figure.

Well, that's because the "center" has been continuously redefined leftwards since the founding of the republic.  It's within living memory that Newt Gingrich would've been considered a left-wing extremist.

Put down the crack pipe and open a book. The center has shifted drastically rightward since at least World War II. Ronald Reagan would be a RINO today.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

KUCINICH 2012

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is, again, completely ridiculous.

As if, in order to be a liberal, you have to be completely bloody-minded and not accept compromise.

There is nothing wrong with pragmatism. If I were Obama, dealing with healthcare, my thinking would be, I can work really hard for what I ultimately want... which will not pass this congress, nor it is likely for the next... so probably something I cannot win - for find a compromise position which has a chance and work for that... that doesn't make him less of a liberal, it makes him realistic. The luxury that people like Kucinich and Gravel have is that they don't have to actually make policy and decisions, only comment. It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and throw popcorn.

Obama does have a problem. He's not a political brawler by nature, which will make dealing with this feral congress difficult. He needs to be more full-throated in the defense of his ideals. I do think that Obama is measured and deliberate, he's methodical. Which pisses the left off no end.

And wormy... seriously? There was a left-ward progression in the US after WWII... up until 1980, then the Reaganites came in and the right-ward slant began.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Oh, and don't ever listen to Republican leaders/pundits if they say Obama is a "far left" President. For example, Newt Gingrich says NOWADAYS that Bill Clinton was a more moderate Democrat-but back in the 90s, the Newt said that Clinton was a left-wing extremist.

The Republicans hated JFK at the time of his Presidency. Now they say he's "one of the better Democrats." Go figure.

Well, that's because the "center" has been continuously redefined leftwards since the founding of the republic.  It's within living memory that Newt Gingrich would've been considered a left-wing extremist.

However, at the same time, Liberals from what I know hated Nixon. However, now, besides Watergate, they prefer him to most Republicans because of things like the draft, detente, and healthcare.

[President Mitt]

Those Liberals are idiots then. Nixon was a vile man, and probably a worse president. Wasn't Nixon's healthcare plan consisting mostly of propping up HMOs? How could any self-respecting Liberal like that? He basically created the sort of problems we have today. The love affair between some liberals and Nixon is really disturbing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Those Liberals are idiots then. Nixon was a vile man, and probably a worse president. Wasn't Nixon's healthcare plan consisting mostly of propping up HMOs? How could any self-respecting Liberal like that? He basically created the sort of problems we have today. The love affair between some liberals and Nixon is really disturbing.

He was better than Obama, but that doesn't mean that I love him. I certainly would have voted McGovern in 1972.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not, it's melodramatic.

Obama would still cream any primary challenger, but be weakened ahead of the general. I find this to be completely ridiculous, Obama's policies were not revolutionary during the campaign, he faced a difficult political environment and shifted course... so what? He still got a healthcare plan up, better than Clinton was able to do, he put in Wall Street reforms.

Obama is as liberal as a democrat can be and still win nationally.

While I understand there's some disappointment, the real fault lies with those who saw/heard what they wanted, rather than what was actually offered.

Basically every 20th century Democratic President was more liberal, so that can't be true.

Yes, because 1976 = 2011.

Even the Obama of 2008 was far to the left of the Obama of 2011.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Of course not, it's melodramatic.

Obama would still cream any primary challenger, but be weakened ahead of the general. I find this to be completely ridiculous, Obama's policies were not revolutionary during the campaign, he faced a difficult political environment and shifted course... so what? He still got a healthcare plan up, better than Clinton was able to do, he put in Wall Street reforms.

Obama is as liberal as a democrat can be and still win nationally.

While I understand there's some disappointment, the real fault lies with those who saw/heard what they wanted, rather than what was actually offered.

Basically every 20th century Democratic President was more liberal, so that can't be true.

Yes, because 1976 = 2011.

Even the Obama of 2008 was far to the left of the Obama of 2011.

Of course... there's always a difference between how you campaign and how you govern.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Those Liberals are idiots then. Nixon was a vile man, and probably a worse president. Wasn't Nixon's healthcare plan consisting mostly of propping up HMOs? How could any self-respecting Liberal like that? He basically created the sort of problems we have today. The love affair between some liberals and Nixon is really disturbing.

His proposal was a sliding scale based system on income. It would've been something like Medicaid for everybody.

I know, regulating anything is a problem. My calendar reads 1880 as well.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Anthony Weiner would be an excellent choice. Now there's a Democrat who's not afraid to sock it to the Republicans and call them out. I always look forward to seeing him speak on the House floor on C-SPAN and seeing him point at the right side of the aisle, it's like he's scolding them, and I love it. And with Weiner we could have our first Jewish President.. but I don't know, I wonder if many world leaders would take us seriously with a President Weiner. lol

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I think that most of the disappointment when it comes not only with Obama, but with the Dems in general comes from the success of the Right.  Their constant opposition with no compromise has made them looked extremely strong even with as a minority party - thus leftists continue to push for the Dems to start fighting back with as much furor.

Sadly, this is never the case for the governing party.  It's a lot easier to oppose than governing.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Anthony Weiner would be an excellent choice. Now there's a Democrat who's not afraid to sock it to the Republicans and call them out. I always look forward to seeing him speak on the House floor on C-SPAN and seeing him point at the right side of the aisle, it's like he's scolding them, and I love it. And with Weiner we could have our first Jewish President.. but I don't know, I wonder if many world leaders would take us seriously with a President Weiner. lol

[President Mitt]

Those Liberals are idiots then. Nixon was a vile man, and probably a worse president. Wasn't Nixon's healthcare plan consisting mostly of propping up HMOs? How could any self-respecting Liberal like that? He basically created the sort of problems we have today. The love affair between some liberals and Nixon is really disturbing.

His proposal was a sliding scale based system on income. It would've been something like Medicaid for everybody.

I know, regulating anything is a problem. My calendar reads 1880 as well.

I was talking about this, you know, the "healthcare" plan that actually passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

I don't remember saying anything about regulation. You might want to recheck my post, and then kindly shove it up your ass.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The "professional left" might think the answer to the question is, hell yeah!

[LBJ Revivalist]

Those Liberals are idiots then. Nixon was a vile man, and probably a worse president. Wasn't Nixon's healthcare plan consisting mostly of propping up HMOs? How could any self-respecting Liberal like that? He basically created the sort of problems we have today. The love affair between some liberals and Nixon is really disturbing.

His proposal was a sliding scale based system on income. It would've been something like Medicaid for everybody.

I know, regulating anything is a problem. My calendar reads 1880 as well.

I was talking about this, you know, the "healthcare" plan that actually passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

I don't remember saying anything about regulation. You might want to recheck my post, and then kindly shove it up your ass.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

[anvi]

I agree with polnut's and ArchangelZero's comments on this thread, both in their characterizations of Obama and in their criticism of the wisdom of a primary challenge.  The last time liberal Democrats launched a concerted primary challenge against a president of their own party, Republicans ended up not only winning that election, but inhabited the White House for the next twelve years.  

If liberal Democrats want their "own" elected, they have to first convince the country that liberalism is the way to go, otherwise they can't get enough votes for either their candidates or their policies on the hill.  That persuasion involves not just convincing the majority of your own party that you're right, but convincing the majority in the whole country that you're right.  Democracy, living in a country with lots of people disagree with you and everybody having a vote, is often a real pain in the ass, ain't it?

One other thing; Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policy agendas when they ran for office were 95% identical (they differred over health insurance mandates, an issue on which Obama moved to Hillary's position once in office, and the degree to which various national leaders should be negotiated with).  For liberal Democrats now to say, as many of my friends do, that they were fooled by Obama in the campaign is just not very credible, unless, as above, they heard what they believed and not the other way around.

Obama is, has always been, a left-leaning centrist who fancies himself a consensus-builder and pragmatist.  That's all well and good with me in principle.  I also think he is a lot personally tougher than liberals give him credit for.   But Obama does have two basic problems as a leader.  The first is that he is not nearly as good at building consensus as he thinks he is; when people disagree with him, he grows impatient too quickly and either just blows them off or gives them what they want.  The second is that he is too reactive, he lurches from one stance to another based on what the people he's listening to at any given moment think; even pragmatists have to have a moral center somewhere, and be staunch about at least some core set of things.  For someone who is as elequent and talented at inspiring people as he is, I think it's the latter qualities people find a letdown.  As far as policies go, well, in reality, it just doesn't matter who the president is or what his party is--the people who voted for him will never, ever get everything they want.

[Bull Moose Base]

great post Anvi.  For sure, there were a lot of people who projected their own imagination onto Obama without listening and many of these folks also now don't seem to comprehend that he's not an omnipotent monarch.  Agree on your characterization of his weaknesses too.  Plus he is not employing all his oratorical talents to persuade the larger public his ideas are right and the Right's accusations are trumped up.  Obama though a consensus builder needed to adjust his tactic to GOP stonewalling:  more aggressively put them on the defensive by calling out their obstruction, their focus on blocking him over collaborating on recovery.

Weiner is running for mayor in 2013 and won't run for president anytime soon.