Should a more liberal Democrat be primaried against Obama?

[LBJ Revivalist]

I don't know if there any liberals left with vigor and eloquence left in the Democratic Party, but Obama seems to be proving to be a weak centrist like Clinton. We don't need another Clinton, whom I consider a "Democrat in Name Only." All Clinton and Obama have done is push the country more to the right.

Surely there has to be someone who is more truly liberal that is a viable candidate....If not in 2012, than in 2016.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, obviously, but who?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Well, obviously, but who?

That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be any truly liberal Democrats who, to be blunt, have the balls to speak the truth and call out the GOP and Tea Party.

To be honest, I think Mitt Romney might even be more to the left than Obama.

[white trash heroes]

To be honest, I think Mitt Romney might even be more to the left than Obama.

To be honest I think you're a Republican, sock.

[Senator Napoleon]

To be honest, I think Mitt Romney might even be more to the left than Obama.

To be honest I think you're a Republican, sock.

It's funny that his name is Moderate Democrat and now he's begging for more liberal Democrats. Wishy-washy centrists should have learned to be careful what they wish for a long, long time ago.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Well, obviously, but who?

That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be any truly liberal Democrats who, to be blunt, have the balls to speak the truth and call out the GOP and Tea Party.

To be honest, I think Mitt Romney might even be more to the left than Obama.

What?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Well, obviously, but who?

That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be any truly liberal Democrats who, to be blunt, have the balls to speak the truth and call out the GOP and Tea Party.

To be honest, I think Mitt Romney might even be more to the left than Obama.

What?

He doesn't seem nearly as nutty as the Tea Baggers, and I get the feeling that he's a closet Rockefeller Republican.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I, for one, can't imagine how people here are saying that Obama is not liberal enough. Aren't these the same people who campaigned for Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary on the grounds that he was a "true liberal"? Are Democrats really in such a hurry to become even further left?

To answer the question I don't see anyone mounting a serious primary challenge right now. If Obama does end up being Carter R2, though, I could see Russ Feingold running.

[Sheliak5]

I knew Obama would have to become more moderate after taking office. There's no reason to do this. We have to be as united as we can in case the GOP nominates someone like Daniels who could sneak by and win in a close one if things don't improve as much as we want them to. A Kucinich type of candidate would be largely ignored by the media anyways, IMHO.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I always thought it was obvious Obama was basically a centrist.  Even more obvious than that, he was a pragmatist.  So the GOP strategy to break filibuster records + their ruling on Citizens United that gave corporations way more power tied his hands at passing any very progressive legislation.  I don't think anyone serious will challenge him.  No one who'd get >10% in any primary.  2016 is another story though the openness of the primary could depend on Hillary's decision.  I think many primary voters, disappointed as you are, will likely be impatient for a nominee more combative and more liberal than Obama was.  Certainly there will be some candidate who plays that role and attracts a lot of grassroots support, though whether they only go as far as Dean or Bradley did or whether they are a new Obama we can't know for a long time.  Don't think it'd be too surprising if someone like Russ Feingold is nominee.

Agree that Romney is probably close to Obama ideologically, if he believes anything.  And would govern in a similar way, equally disappointing to his base.

[I'm Not a Witch]

I, for one, can't imagine how people here are saying that Obama is not liberal enough. Aren't these the same people who campaigned for Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary on the grounds that he was a "true liberal"? Are Democrats really in such a hurry to become even further left?

To answer the question I don't see anyone mounting a serious primary challenge right now. If Obama does end up being Carter R2, though, I could see Russ Feingold running.

I don't think Obama is liberal/progressive enough, and I voted for Hillary. The problem with Obama is that it's not that he's not necessarily liberal/progressive enough; it's that he is too afraid to fight. He's more concerned about being "bipartisan" and kissing the Republicans' asses and having them like him than he is about standing up for the principles upon which he campaigned.

[Secretary 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.

[LBJ Revivalist]

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.

I guess the problem is my expectations were/are for someone like an FDR or an LBJ come around, someone who isn't afraid to fight, get down and dirty and take the opposition's shots in stride rather than kowtowing to the GOP. I don't think FDR or LBJ were all that afraid of being called Socialists, you know?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

To be honest, I think Mitt Romney might even be more to the left than Obama.

To be honest I think you're a Republican, sock.

Well, if we're comparing the Mitt Romney of 1994 to the Obama of 2011, he might be right.

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.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

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.

[Secretary Polnut]

Think about the voters in the Democratic primary today, and then place the Democratic candidates from previous elections...

Truman and Kennedy would be considered too hawkish, Carter would be considered too much of a Bible-basher, Johnson would probably basically be ridiculed as a southern sheriff, Clinton might even have had trouble.

So some might have been more economically 'liberal' than Obama, but his actual policies in comparison to the centre of the country is the most liberal they can be and still win.

The same is true for Republicans.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Think about the voters in the Democratic primary today, and then place the Democratic candidates from previous elections...

Truman and Kennedy would be considered too hawkish, Carter would be considered too much of a Bible-basher, Johnson would probably basically be ridiculed as a southern sheriff, Clinton might even have had trouble.

So some might have been more economically 'liberal' than Obama, but his actual policies in comparison to the centre of the country is the most liberal they can be and still win.

The same is true for Republicans.

I think the Democratic Party needs to regain some of it's 1960s era hawkishness. There's no one ballsy in the DNC today. No Lyndon Johnsons, and I don't mean simply in terms of his dedicated liberalism, I just mean even simply no one as aggressive or dedicated to their goals. The Republicans, to their credit, seem to be a lot more efficient at getting what they want done.

[white trash heroes]

Think about the voters in the Democratic primary today, and then place the Democratic candidates from previous elections...

Truman and Kennedy would be considered too hawkish, Carter would be considered too much of a Bible-basher, Johnson would probably basically be ridiculed as a southern sheriff, Clinton might even have had trouble.

So some might have been more economically 'liberal' than Obama, but his actual policies in comparison to the centre of the country is the most liberal they can be and still win.

The same is true for Republicans.

The idea that the 'center' is so much more fiscally conservative or militaristic than Obama that he's the best liberals can hope for is ridiculous. People haven't been sold on the bail outs or stimulus, that is true. But if you look at the polls on policies like cutting social security, education, military spending, etc. and how things like the public option do across party lines it's pretty obvious they could do better.

Now are there real long term obstacles to implementing the above? Of course, we have a huge aging population, a tax averse public (at least when they're the ones paying), massive structural problems in our economy and a major lack of social cohesion in general. All of those are big reasons I'm not a liberal. But a competent leader should at least be able to address those things and lay out a clear agenda for dealing with them regardless of ideology.

If liberals aren't going to support and reward people like Kucinich, Feingold, Gravel, Nader, etc. who are unapologetic about their liberalism and really offer a strong alternative to many of the GOP/DLC policies of the last 20 years in particular and instead continue to support walking cut outs like Obama out of a misplaced sense of 'pragmatism'.. Then they shouldn't be surprised when the Pauls, DeMints, etc. continue to gain traction even with ideas the mainstream finds 'kooky' or 'reactionary.'

[Mr. Morden]

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/27588?&in=11:48&out=12:27

Oh, and also:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/27588?&in=15:04&out=16:30

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

He's either so liberal he's a socialist, or he's too centrist and he's basically George Bush. Pick a side already, because obviously you can't pick both...and the accusations are getting a little tired.

[LBJ Revivalist]

He's either so liberal he's a socialist, or he's too centrist and he's basically George Bush. Pick a side already, because obviously you can't pick both...and the accusations are getting a little tired.

No, he's not George Bush, more like Clinton. I don't believe he's truly either a liberal or a centrist. He's a pragmatist, but not a strong leader. Ike was both a pragmatist and still a strong leader.
If you ask the right wing, he's a socialist.

[King]

Jfern blaming Obama for his moderate heroism is silly.  Obama would have signed any liberal bill that reached his desk, but Pelosi and Reid couldn't figure out how to pass legislation with a super majority.  Sure, in his speeches he talks moderately, but words don't matter.  In his powers of action, he would not have gone against any progressive act the Congress was willing to give him.

[Grumps]

Jfern blaming Obama for his moderate heroism is silly.  Obama would have signed any liberal bill that reached his desk, but Pelosi and Reid couldn't figure out how to pass legislation with a super majority.  Sure, in his speeches he talks moderately, but words don't matter.  In his powers of action, he would not have gone against any progressive act the Congress was willing to give him.

Pelosi and Reid were bumblers to be sure, but leadership starts at the top, King.  Obama has never been dazzling at rousing the troops that were fence sitters or providing cover for them.  jfern and lots of lefties feel the same way.

[Senator Napoleon]

Jfern blaming Obama for his moderate heroism is silly.  Obama would have signed any liberal bill that reached his desk, but Pelosi and Reid couldn't figure out how to pass legislation with a super majority.  Sure, in his speeches he talks moderately, but words don't matter.  In his powers of action, he would not have gone against any progressive act the Congress was willing to give him.

Pelosi and Reid were bumblers to be sure, but leadership starts at the top, King.  Obama has never been dazzling at rousing the troops that were fence sitters or providing cover for them.  jfern and lots of lefties feel the same way.

Never mind him. He's just making excuses. A lot of people who supported Obama in the primary way back in 2008 did so primarily because they thought he wouldn't be "that guy". Obama has become "that guy". The new Bill Clinton, but lacking the charisma. I can spot these people out of the crowd like a needle in a haystack. They do this because they feel the need to make excuses to cover the guilt they themselves feel for not supporting someone who had a track record of taking strong stances on issues like healthcare. People voted on silly things like foreign policy, something that will change only marginally unless we elect a Paul or Kucinich type. Too many people can get caught up in the image before realizing it's an illusion. Obama felt the need to bend over for Republicans before Republicans in congress could do anything. That being said, who? There is no one who can primary him.

[Progressive Realist]

Obama is very moderate (in some cases, hawkish-look at his Afghanistan policy, or Libya) by most accounts, and he's in the Bill Clinton mold to be sure-the loony right-wing hates him because he's a Democrat and he's President, the more left-wing and liberal parts of the Democratic Party don't like him because he's a centrist.

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.