Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Forget Sarah Palin and Donald Trump: Obama Needs a Challenge from the Left
If the president had a Democratic opponent in the primaries it might stop him repeatedly triangulating to the right
Cast your minds back to November. Barack Obama had received his "shellacking" in the midterm elections, as the Republicans regained a majority in the House of Representatives and seized control of 29 of the 50 state governorships. It was the worst midterm defeat for the Democrats since 1938. Just a week earlier the president's approval ratings had fallen to a record low of 37%.
Fast forward six months, and the president is enjoying the "Bin Laden bounce". His approval ratings stand at 52%, according to Gallup – up six points on April. Historians may look back on 1 May 2011, and the killing of Osama, as the day Obama secured his re-election.
But even before the al-Qaida leader was dumped in the ocean, Obama had reason to be optimistic. Just 18 months away from the next election he has no obvious or credible Republican opponent. So far, the listless lineup of potential presidential candidates resembles the characters from the bar scene in Star Wars – a motley collection of far-right loons, freaks and conspiracy theorists.
There's the former senator, Rick Santorum, who once compared homosexuality to bestiality and paedophilia; former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has said America must stand with "our North Korean allies"; Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who believes carbon dioxide is "not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas"; former governor Mitt Romney, who has said he won't appoint Muslim-Americans to his cabinet; Tea Party Congressman Ron Paul, who wants to scrap income tax and abolish the education department; and former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who published a book last year titled To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine. Oh, and the "birther" billionaire Donald Trump.
The heart sinks. Lamenting the presidency of George W Bush, the late JK Galbraith once remarked: "I never thought I would yearn for Ronald Reagan." The current Republican presidential field makes one yearn for Dubya.
The tragedy is that Obama needs to be held to account – but from a leftwing, not rightwing, direction. He has embraced and affirmed a centre-right world view utterly at odds with his 2008 presidential campaign, with its promises of "change", "reform" and a decisive break from the Bush-Cheney era.
Consider his record: he failed to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay; approved the use of military tribunals for detainees; "surged" 40,000 troops into Afghanistan; doubled the size of the detention facility at Bagram airbase; doubled the number of drone strikes inside Pakistan; gave CIA torturers immunity from prosecution; continued extraordinary rendition; said he didn't "begrudge" bankers paying themselves multimillion-dollar bonuses' ruled out a government-run "public option" on healthcare; froze pay for public sector workers; signed off on tax cuts for billionaires; vetoed a UN resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement-building; and joined China in sabotaging the climate summit in Copenhagen.
Liberals have given Obama a pass. Some avert their gaze; others proffer excuses. He needs more time, they say. But he has had 29 months in office. He is a good man in a bad world, they say, before blaming the Republicans for all America's ills. But it wasn't a Republican Congress that forced him, for instance, to double the size of the Bagram facility – where human rights groups have documented torture and deaths – and deny prisoners the right to challenge their detention. He did that on his own. Bagram is Obama's Guantánamo.
The double standards are glaring. Imagine, for a moment, the outcry from Democrats if Dubya had held the 23-year-old US soldier, Bradley Manning – the alleged WikiLeaks source – in conditions described as "degrading and inhumane" by more than 250 eminent legal scholars. Shamefully, however, Obama publicly defended Manning's detention, including his solitary confinement, as "appropriate".
The irony is that Obama, a self-styled conciliator and healer, has spent much of his presidency appeasing Republican foes on Capital Hill and capitulating to corporations and Wall Street banks. He has eschewed populism, allowing the Tea Party to surf public anger over bank bailouts and bonuses, job losses and home repossessions.
But what else should one expect from a White House stuffed with corporate-friendly, Clinton-era figures? The president's chief of staff, William Daley, appointed in January, is a former banker, and opposed Obama's healthcare reform. His treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, George Osborne's new best friend, was one of the architects of bank deregulation. Meanwhile, progressive economic voices like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are studiously ignored.
Obama hasn't just neglected his base, he has abused it. The president's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, dismissed liberals who objected to Obama's healthcare bill as "fucking retarded"; the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, ridiculed the "professional left" and said liberal critics of the president "ought to be drug-tested". Obama himself has described Democrats opposed to his compromises on tax cuts as "sanctimonious".
I have a proposal. Why not give him an electoral target for this animosity? Why not run a left candidate against Obama in the Democratic primaries next February? A Democratic opponent would act as a countervailing force to whichever Tea Party-backed Republican he ends up facing in the presidential election. It might force Obama to triangulate to the left as well as the right, and encourage the Democrats to have a long-overdue discussion about their values, policies and direction.
An Associated Press poll last October found an astonishing 47% of Democratic voters believed that Obama should be challenged from within the party for the 2012 nomination. Potential candidates include Dennis Kucinich, Ohio's leftwing Congressman; Howard Dean, the populist ex-governor of Vermont; and Rachel Maddow, the cable news presenter. None of them would win. But that wouldn't be the point. It would be about holding Obama's feet to the fire.
It is a risky strategy, given that none of the last three presidents to face primaries while seeking re-election – Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush – survived to serve a second term. Would a primary challenge from the left wreck Obama's chances of re-election? I suspect not, given the Bin Laden bounce and the weakness of his Republican opponents. The question that progressives should ask is whether they believe Obama should only have to answer to the likes of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
146 Comments so far
Show AllFrom the Left? Hell, Obama needs to be challenged from the CENTER as he's as wingnut as Cheney and Bush.
Really. This past week's sordid little episode of blowing someone's brains out in the middle of the night, then laughing about it & calling all detractors to have their heads examined..well, the man is a lunatic. And nothing short, thereof.
http://newprogs.org/contact-iowa-uncommitted-campaign
At this point, the ONLY principled position, after all the betrayals and broken promises and continuities with the Bush regime, is to say DUMP OBAMA -- withdraw all support from this hackneyed regime. The situation now is tantamount to what we had in 1967-68 with Lyndon Johnson, a lying warmonger with some liberal promises... Johnson, at least, had the decency to step down (and he was, at least, responsible for the Great Society social welfare programs). Unfortunately, Obama won't step down, no matter how bad Af-Pak-Libya-Yemen gets, and he's intent on destroying the last remnants of the Great Society & New Deal. Indeed, this is what he was hired to do -- put a smiley face on the U.S. Empire and be ax-man for corporate capital. There's no getting around it.
We need to realize the bankruptcy of the old game of Lesser Evilism... Even when we thought we were given a choice -- need I say the words Hope & Change -- didn't the Obama administration reneg on almost every single one of his campaign promises, making a nearly complete 180 degree turnabout which landed his position exactly in tune with the Bush & Reagan neo-con crew?
If there is to be any credible Left in the coming years, the only position is DUMP OBAMA.
And DUMP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! It is not enough to dump the current lackey of the corporations; you must not vote anyone funded by those corporations. There are other parties and independent candidates on the ballot. Breaking the two party strangle hold on our political system will open up possibilities for real hope and change.
wantrealdemocracy...I agree. A Democrat is a Democrat. Trying to change one is a waste of effort. Anyone who identifies with the "Party" is going to follow the Party rules.
We need to stop thinking in the party-box. I have voted for NADER for more than 30 years. Join me. We don't need a Party to tell us how to vote.
If you voted dem/repub you deserve what you have gotten... unfortunately the people in Iran, Iraq, Afgan, Pak, and the rest of the world don't get to vote in our elections.
I'm all for that. Any thoughts on who to replace him?
I remember how happy I was when he won the election because I believed that, finally, here was someone who would fullfill the American dream. In his inaugural address he asked us to hold his feet to the fire, which I have steadfastly done starting with the bailout and continuing through the unending wars, and finally with his "clean coal and nuclear" statement. Now I'm left to wonder what happens to these people we elect because we think they will fullfill their promises. Do they morph into politicians when they get to the Washington arena and leave their ideals and ethics behind? I have observed that a few don't, but the best I can say for Obama is that I think he has tried to follow Lincoln too closely as his ideal and forgot that you can't compromis with the devil. Perhaps he believes that his overwhelming victory in the last go around will carry him though this time or pehaps the Republicans will not come up with a viable canditdate. Personally, about all I am impressed with is his ability to make himself sound good, but anyone who does not stand up for their promises is as "dead in the water" as Osama in the next election. His show at the border was a politcal ploy and he has, indeed become the ultimate politician.
.
North America has to overcome it's prejudice against socialism and look to the south if they want to really change things. Socialism or continued Barbarism those are the realities that we face.
RR
No, maciek, we have a disguised EMPIRE as a government.
The US is now akin to "Vichy" France --- which was installed as a facade for the Nazi EMPIRE that had invaded and captured the real French government.
This Empire, which now fully controls our former country has merely installed a more sophisticated "Vichy" facade which now uses a TWO-Party Vichy sham of faux-democracy, instead of the single party "Vichy" facade that the Nazi Empire employed 71 years ago.
It is amazing that by merely changing to this TWO-Party "Vichy" disguise that the hidden Empire has been able to fool all the Americans all the time, instead of the French people who immediately knew that the NAZI EMPIRE was actually behind the former Vichy facade.
The other analogy that pertains is with Charles Schultz's "Peanuts" recurring strip, which showed Lucy each football season promising to "hold the football" for Charlie Brown to kick.
Most Americans reading "Charlie Brown" would think themselves superior and say, "that Charlie Brown. What a dope. Lucy fools him every season by lying and pulling the ball away, as he falls on his ass like a dope".
But all the disguised global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE has done is to use two Lucies --- one in a red (Republican) dress, and one in a blue (Democrat) dress --- and they have fooled all the Americans all the time, and continue to pull away the football of democracy each four years, and these fools buy this shit each four year faux-election season.
What dopes the Empire has played us for over the last three decades of phony (s)election seasons. Lucy must be laughing at us all.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty & democracy over violent empire -- New America People's Party 2012
No Lucy in a blue OR red dress in 2012
No TWO-Party "Vichy" government of Empire in 2012
BTW, maciek, your own disguise is showing --- in that you exactly contradict yourself in your above two comments; 1st we should unite against the system, and then 2nd that we will be fractured if we don't stay with Lucy blue.
Yeah, just a primary against Obama but what if that fails? You know what? Forget that we're eff-ing pissed off at articles that leave out other parties such as the Green and Socialist parties. Yeah, you just ask Kucinich and Gravel how it worked out for them in 2008. Don't take this to mean that I don't support challenging Obama in the primaries. I do but it doesn't have to stop at that. You know, most of us are pissed off that most voters can't be bothered to see what third parties are after but I'm nice enough not to blame them and I've been a dupe too but after all these years, the left is still in losers' world and part of the blame rests on all of the progressive sites including this one for failing to mention third parties in their articles. Yeah, the commenters will alert us to it but why the F should we be the only ones shouldered with that responsibility? Let me ask all these sites one question. What have you got to lose by giving us articles on third progressive parties to discuss about? If the Democratic and Republican parties do to you what they did to Green Party candidate for House in VA-2 in 2003, D.C. Amarsingh, then you're prepared to fight back and take those thugs to court and put them behind bars for a change. Need I say more?
Why Did the Dems demonize Nader for his 3rd party bid in 2000 for US Pres- in effect blaming him for Bush getting into the White-House? There were 4 reasons Gore didn't get into the White house in 2000: 1} the Busites / Neo-Cons HIJACKED the election in FL [& did a repeat act in 2004 OH]... 2} The Supreme Court's [5 out 9] members violated the Constitution's mandate that all votes be counted - ordering a halt to the recount - thus giving Bush FL... 3} Gore FAILED to protect either his &/or Slick Willie Clinton's home states of TN & AK (reverse just this tactical error & Gore would have won despite FL & the Court)... 4} Nader's 2000 bid- which only became significant after the first 3 conditions. Yet Dem [Dim] loyalist talking-heads have deliberately only focused on the least significant factor, Nader & scapegoated him - as a fear tool to keep progressives towing the Dems' [Dims'] line & thus stay locked into the Corp controlled 2 party poly-trickal paradigm.
Plus even so-called progressive Dems [Dims] like to give a hypothetical pipe{wet} dream about a Gore [who was a Clintonian Corp Dem just as Obama is] presidency- BUT- First - IF the official 9-11 'Conspiracy Theory has any validity [& that's a mighty Big IF] would not a [theoretical] Pres Gore have probably responded by sending the military into Afghanistan in search of that [just 'officially' killed off] Phantom Menace Bin Laden?! ALSO - These pipe{wet} dreamers, in their efforts to demonize Nader & 3rd party candidates, 'conveniently' over-look the fact the JOE LIEBERMAN was Gore's VP RUNNING MATE- So how about this post 9-11 scenario: Pres Gore is taken out by an attack on Air-Force One -or- whatever that hit the Pentagon or went down in Shanksville PA, crashes into Pres Gore's Oval Office instead. Thus Lieberman would have been the post 9-11 Pres. Would things really have been so much different under Lieberman than what occurred under Bush??? Would he not also have went after the Afghan Taliban, Saddam in Iraq, & even bomb-bomb-bombed Iran [in the words of Lieberman's GOOD-FRIEND JOHN {insane}McCAIN - who he backed vs Obama in 2008- hell he probably would have picked McCain as HIS VP or Defense Sec] all in the name of the [phony] 'War on Terror' & ‘Spreading Democracy’[IE: the whole 9 yards] - the same way Bush DID??!!
Dennab,
Nader was the Green Party candidate in 2000.
Nader's WAS a 3rd party bid.
recapitulationistUU, I think you're right, but does it really matter? We need something new, incorporating Nader not as the presidential candidate, but the symbol of the party. It could be called the National Progressive Response party. Already the great name recognition would be there (NPR). A group of leading progressives, some of whom I mentioned earlier, could go across the country holding rallies or meetings with well-known speakers (including Nader of course), the chief aim being getting on all the ballots and sticking by the core principles of anti-torture, anti-tax reduction for the fat cats, anti-Bush type preemptive war, and possibly pro-single payer. The ultimate objective would be to select one progressive who could prevail over all the other candidates, winning by a hair with 36% or so. The Democrats would rise up if Nader led this effort, obviously reprising their earlier thesis that Nader prevented Gore from winning. That would just provide more publicity to the NPR. The right-wing Republicans would go for whichever kook they nominate. The Democrats would stick with Obama, who's seriously wounded. Hey, we could actually win this thing!
I like your attitude and your ideas! But it's not only about winning. It's about standing firm, standing proud, and yes, standing righteous. It is righteous to be against torture, brutal empire, the corporate stranglehold on the less fortunate, constant environmental onslaughts, assassination of American citizens. The duopoly stands for all these things. As I have been saying for decades now, the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy is designed to move us rightward. It's a scam. Can you hear me now? I hope so because, man, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
Voting righteously is only a small step in the right direction. Every step we take must be in alignment with our values. We should never support anyone who does the things Obama does, I don't care how bad the other candidate is. I suppose, if your're religious, you could pray for him and do your best not to hate him.
Besides voting, we need to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Not only will we be helping to create a better society but we'll give our progressive values a lot of credibility. So get on your school boards, volunteer, let the do-gooder inside of you out of the house and into the world. Show the locals what it means to be a progressive. Join the Greens. They aren't perfect but with the help of more righteous people, we can make it shine. As you said, "Hey, we could actually win this thing!"
2000 was a different year from 2008 and yeah, I was then a Dim Party apologist. That changed over the years and Liebernazi's behavior made it clear that Gore or W, the neocons were winning. I'm ready to correct my mistakes but all indications point to the fact that most others aren't so we're most likely in for a repeat next year.
-------In the words of Bob Marley, it's time to get up, stand up. Things are about as bad as they can get! Our great nation has become a third world economy with the neo cons at the top and us peons left with no jobs and no hope. The only way is up.
Nixakliel said:
"3} Gore FAILED to protect either his &/or Slick Willie Clinton's home states of TN & AK (reverse just this tactical error & Gore would have won despite FL & the Court)."
Alaska, like so many other states vote for candidates that are good for their states major business economy..Alaska thought for sure that Bush would get them their gas pipeline and that is why Gore lost Alaska...The fact that Gore ran with Lieberman did not help him either, in other ways..{and people say Dennis Kuscinich looks funny}.Just look at Mark Begich of AK voting down the taxation of big Oil-A prime example..How many states have military contractors as A major source of revenue-you just know that they aren't voting in any doves...
If there is to be A serious third party, such as Green or "New America Peoples Party" then the only way that I can see any serious hard bark following is for there to be A super wealthy person or group backing them...Just look at what those bastard Koch brothers did in A few short years creating and utilizing the Tea Baggers. Well over half of the Governorships and A house Majority of Republican newbeys...Quite an accomplishment, but without the money and organizational skills it would not have been possible..
I see so many intelligent, influential and respected economists. labor leaders, ecologists, intellectuals and savvy progressives speaking truth and plain common sense fact all over the internet. This site alone has some awesome Progressive minds. There is one hell of A lot of persuasion for sanity out there. This movement just needs A massive amount of money to get it on it's feet. Truth and common sense will rule if it is given enough media exposure. How could any of these Republican mannequins or even Obama possibly out debate or out reason Intellects like Chompski, Hedges and Parenti to name but A few, if Feingold, Sanders,Grayson or Kusinnich were afforded A platform for debate..Feingold and Elizabeth Warren alone could stomp anyone in debate on strategies to fix our economy and save the middle class...
Maybe I am A dreamer, but there must be some mega wealthy people out there that would in some way throw their money and passion at A cause as great as saving this Democracy, Middle Class and planet...This is the only way that I can see A successful Third party candidate being elected that could throw A cog in the gears of this insane march toward Fascism and Empire...
Correction: That should be AR for Arkansas [Slick Willie's State] not AK for Alaska.
Correction: That should be AR for Arkansas [Slick Willie's State] not AK for Alaska.
Whether or not Obama is president again or Someone from the right is president again will not make one bit of difference in the big and real scheme of things. Their policies differ in ways that are not meaningful in the big picture.
If people are not happy with Obama, voting for a real presidential candidate knowing the cost may be a democratic loss sets those who have that level of integrity up to have a real candidate in the future. This short sighted election game plan of voting in the least of two evils over and over will only repeat what we have had over and over and over. Over and over we have had presidents who were unwilling or unable to represent the people, a government that does not represent the people is not a democracy. If you want that to change you have to change your voting patterns. I have no problem understanding that by voting for a candidate that represents me I am giving myself the only chance I have for getting a president that represents me. Voting for a president or a candidate that cannot and will not represent me just because they wear the mask of democrat, rather than the mask of republican is childish and silly. I voted for Nader last election because I did not want Obama knowing chances were greatest that he would do exactly what he did and not being able to vote in McCain either, I went with my best choice and chance for democracy and that was my little victory, my little contribution to building a real future for me, my children and my fellow humans. If you want to change the dynamics of the political system in a meaningful way you cannot vote for status quo. But understanding this fact is not won through politics or even liberal politics as usual, it takes a leap in mind altering consciousness that takes the sacrifice of the old. Forsake the old and forbear the new.
I can't argue with that but what pisses most of us off is that we're not even getting big time public sites that lean left to publish articles on the need to change our voting ways and we haven't touched the corporate media yet. Now as far as voting Republican or Democrat is concerned, it may not necessarily be childish and silly depending upon what put each of us there. Two or more people can vote for the same candidate for different reasons. What we need to do is get a hold of as many reasons for voting the way we do and figure out how to address each of the reasons. But any site or show that's left-leaning must also do that and lessen our burden of responsibility that's currently too high.
No, maciek, what we need to understand is that one and only one issue, Empire, is the cause of all the 'symptom problems' (or 'identity issues') that we otherwise DIVIDE OURSELVES OVER.
Empire is the disguised causal cancer that is singularly behind all the more visible 'symptoms' on the body politic; all the wars, all the corporate crime, all the economic oppression, all the racism, all the environmental death, all the tyranny, all the rising police-state spying, torture, and assassination.
Empire is behind all these horrors, and the death of our liberty and democracy --- and naturally, like a deeply hidden metastasizing cancer, EMPIRE wants to stay hidden and grow by eating the body politic to death for its selfish, and insane sociopathic purpose --- which Empire is doing a great job of accomplishing so far in our country and the whole world.
Get real.
Get EMPIRE.
If you don't expose and EXCISE the core tumor, the whole body will die.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty & democracy over violent empire -- New America People's Party 2012 (the last chance)
Like an over-growing cancer, Empire fights for its self-preservation --- but not ours.
Alan, you're a genius. This Empire is crumbling so the question remains how many are waking up and getting around to opposing the idea of an empire nation. The problem is half the people are in favor of keeping the empire running due to misinformation. The rest that oppose it are divided up on what to do about it again due to being misinformed. My bets are on this empire nation dying within this decade or at the most limping into the next decade but no more.
@Alan MacDonald:
I really like what you say and how you say it...Could you some time elaborate on "New American People's Party". I would like to know...
Alan,
I like the name "New America Peoples Party".
I made up a song during the 76 campaign, about building a New America. "When I feel it's gettin darker, when I feel my spirit gettin down I gotta let it out and say it my way, I feel it comin, I can feel it comin round.. a New America"
You may need to register the party or at least have a site or something and it would help to refrain from lecturing about Vichy, Vichy all the time. It is like talking about Marx all the time... It dates you and the young folks want something they can relate to NOW!
You don't need a ton of money to have an effect to challenge the fixed system, you just need to be open to Coalitions with independents, other forces and parties. And don't demonize somebody just because they consider themselves a Dem or Republican.. that is a loser if you want to grow.
Talk more about the People now and less "Vichy"... It is a loser.
Just a little helpful suggestion if you are open to improvements.
Reasons and issues to pick are 2 separate matters. I'm with you on the need to get the important issues at the forefront but I wouldn't count on polling to decide which issues they may be.
Thanks for your support maxpayne. I don't think that big time public sites that lean to the left would publish articles on the need to change because I imagine they are part of status quo. The majority of the 'left' represents the left leg of status quo and it is marching in tune with the right leg of status quo as they walk together to their goal. If 'they' are not publishing articles on the need for change then they are most likely part of status quo and they are not on your side. Imagine two teams, each with their own goal, do you get mad at someone on the other team just because they are winning for their side? I think that one of the hardest things to do when your heart is open and your soul is good, is to admit how bad it has gotten it hurts a lot to do so, but it is the final door to walk through when you are on the way of changing for good. The way of the peaceful warrior as some like to call it. You have to understand who is on your team and one heartening thing to consider is that most of the people in this country are on the team for change, it's just that they think change can come by voting in or supporting those who represent status quo and have no ability nor desire for change.
this confusion will eventually be cleared up, one way or another and I hope that it can be the best way that change can happen at this point rather than the worst way.
For people like you and I maxpayne, our happiness must rest upon a singular fact, that we are on the side of change even if no one else is. Many have died lonely terrible deaths even to be on the side of change and eventually through their brave acts change did come. So it is ok for us to suffer a little for our choices when you consider how in the past others suffered the worst fates imaginable for theirs. We are blessed by them, we have nothing to complain about.
Leea, this one I like and thanks. I don't wanna play team this or that but I like to go for the best of all worlds. I mean, what's to lose when you're better off doing it as an independent and not having to put yourself within the team's limits? It can take time to figure out how bad it hurts but I'm not the type who'll give up fixing that and making it all good again. We have to admit all faults and try not to frame anyone as "whining" about it and then we got to organize and see where to go from there. I dunno myself but I guess we're all gonna have to be 50% independent and 50% organized when it comes to solving life's problems. Take care and I'll try to keep up with replies, a little more difficult to do now that the "track" feature is now gone.
If only there was somebody with charisma and candidate skills, and a bunch of millions of dollars.
Rachel Maddow would challenge Obama from the left? Good one.
Newzflasher
I suspect that Diana was being facetious with her comment.
Erroll is right: I was being totally sarcastic (kinda like the snarky Maddow). Indeed, Maddow is no more than a corporate media shill disguised as a progressive 'voice of reason.'
We got a lot of those (add the toxic thom hartmann to the bunch), who end up convincing the angry public that Obama and the dems, for all their faults, are infinitely--and substantively--better than the opposition. This lets people focus their anger on a party rather than issues, sot that ultimately it doesn't matter as much what neoliberal policies Obama and the dems are directly responsible for, what matters most is that they're not republicans.
If it's a woman you want - try Cindy Sheehan or Angela Davis.
If its a woman [&/or person of color {for all Black & Brown Obama-bots] you want - why not Sis Cynthia McKinney?! She's got real political experience as well as smarts, guts, & real [not hyped] progressive, freedom-fighter & speak truth to power- credentials. And this is not to diss Sheehan or Davis- although Rachael Maddow??? I think her name is so-called "liberal's" celebrity analog to the repugs' Donald Trump hype- & it just as hard to take it seriously. And I do question if John Dean is really a progressive - though he certainly can't be much worse than Obama or Billary.
I am not worried about the current president losing. We need to evolve to a new level that is beyond left and right.
The people of Egypt and other middle eastern countries are attempting to evolve modern democracies and it is painfully obvious that the US is not interested in helping. On the contrary, the US Government supports dictators; one of its most recent democracy overthrow buddies, Lobo, is killing teachers in Honduras, with US supplied weapons.
The current president is just another war monger who needs to be challenged. Let's do it by evolving a new democracy that is modern and cannot be described as left or right. One of the war mongers will spend a billion or so and win the usual way, 24.1 to 24.7 %, the press will report it as something like 50.6 to 49.4 % of the total turnout, and the winner will say it's a mandate. We might as well try something new.
If the war mongers are beaten for zero dollars by people's write-ins at about 24.9%, it would mean a huge turnout. Think about it. 75% turnout would be huge news, but corporatist news would not publish the people's write-ins. Even-so, we the people would know we won. The people who actually believe in the constitution would be set up for the next election and be able to proceed with the people's evolution of democracy. Write in Nunuv Theabove for president in 2012, and be sure to vote for progressive clear thinkers if you have one on your ballot.
Reserve Nunuv Theabove for president in 2012 and start a new tradition that cannot be bought out.
Dennis Kucinich also understands monetary and central banking theory, plus the corporatist agricultural model, perhaps he could think a little more about how entropy fits in, I'll vote for him if he runs.
Your analysis of why folks like Kucinich [who has real not hyped- progressive, Pro The People, Anti-War creds] aren't seen as viable candidates for Pres - is spot on. Too many people are trapped in the current 2 party poly-trickal paradigm - & are locked into a celebritized image of what a viable candidate should 'look & sound like' - And Kucinich certainly doesn't fit the mold - he's too short, too nerdy looking & talking, etc. In the 2008 primaries his attractive glamorous looking wife got nearly as much attention as he did [probably because everyone was shocked & envious that a short nerdy guy like him could even be w such a good looking woman]. Thus too many voters are caught-up in style over substance. But what do you expect when so many folks are hooked on shows like ' American Idol, Dancing w the Stars', Survivor, Fear-Factor, & Donald Trump's 'Apprentice'? How else could a Trump or Sarah Palin candidacy even be taken seriously.
As bad as the Citizen United ruling is - It would be meaningless if the sheeple weren't locked into these false paradigms [all those Corp bucks are about controlling & projecting {false} images]. The main reason why progressive & independent candidates can't win - is because 90% - 95% will vote for either a Dem or GOP so-called 'viable' [labeled so by the so-called Corp controlled 'main-stream'] candidate- even if they prefer some-one else who's considered non-viable. BUT- Absent viable independent parties the public should demand that all elections have write in ballots & that if no-one gets 50% plus of the votes cast - there be some type of an automatic run-off. That way instead of being force to decide between 'The Evil of 2 Lessers [Dim or Repug]' -or- Sit It Out, They could write in a name- even if its their own. This has the potential to really shake up the system - if over 50% of the vote goes against both Corp controlled Dim or Repug celebritized candidates [IE: The Dems & GOP were forced to split LESS THAN 50% of the Votes cast]! And it could make an independent candidate viable- even without a strong independent party. But FIRST - people must begin to think out of the current poly-trickal box [trap]!
I am seriously considering running for President as a progressive Democrat to challenge Obama and educate the American people about progressive solutions. One idea is to gather a team of progressive to run together with each person campaigning on different issues but working as a team to decide the top position by consensus. You can read about my policies and approach at:
http://san.beck.org/ProgressiveDemocracy.html
Love and Light,
Sanderson Beck
san@beck.org
Thank you for responding, Mark.
I agree with you and think you misunderstood me. Only one person would be the official candidate, but a team of people would be supporting that candidacy as likely cabinet members or other advisors and work as a team. I am for ending the wars and the military empire and reducing military spending greatly while negotiating universal disarmament. Taxes should be made much more progressive, and a tax on assets over a million dollars could help reduce the national debt. We need to develop renewable energy with massive programs and restructure the economy to create more jobs. Green taxes could protect the environment, and progressive taxes could finance single-payer health care. This is only a rough outline of some of my positions.
Sanderson Beck
san.beck.org
Sanbeck, I proposed something like this elsewhere in this thread. I would like to see a group of progressives, maybe 20 or so prominent ones, who are interested in running speaking in two's or three's around the country, with a council to gauge the responses. All progressive issues would be on the agenda. After a time, the council would get a feel for who is drawing the most enthusiastic support. The results could be presented at a convention. My major difference with you would be in having a new party, or third party, sponsoring the process of selecting the best candidate(s), who would run under that party label. I.e., no primary challenge to Obama.
Just a thought. I have little experience, but benefit from age and motivation. I do want to study your plans more (no time right now). Good luck!
A challenge from within the democrat's own whorehouse, Brilliant!
Kucinich, Dean, or Maddow. Who will best replicate Obama (and Bush)?
Words and actions are oil and water in democrat-ville.
Russ Feingold
RUSS AS AN INDEPENDENT.. WITH JESSY VENTURA
Challenge from the Left ? Don't hold your breath. Many who voted for Oilybomber still think he's doing us right in spite of his dismal track record since the presidential election. And to think of how fooled I was too as I shed some real tears thinking that Oilybomber was goona be different the day he took his oath of office. What can't they understand about getting f__ked since the day he took office ? We ain't goin' nowhere till we see the lie for what it is. This country is in very serious trouble and the majority still can't see it - won't see it.
Obama utilizes Saul Alinsky's methodology against the left rather than the right wing opposition. This includes the practiced use of ridicule and name branding ostracism against critics that are on his side. The idea of unconditional acceptance is practically cult like and the acceptance of negative outcome is intolerably extreme and e3ven apologetic for him.
This is not only in finance but in warfare and military intelligence that he is matching the Bush/Cheney staffing and agenda setting standards. It is about time that the Democratic Party realize they may well have a hand selected "ringer" in place of the real thing. We have placed people in power all over the world to do our bidding, it is not a far fetched notion that the US government could not be maneuvered into a fixed presidency. elections around the world have been rigged, and our own elections are highly suspect over the past decade at least. The counter narratives legitimize him from the right wing rhetoric but everything else points to the fact that this guy lies like a psychopath and is essentially pulling a "counterinsurgency" infiltration tactic on the Democratic consensus. I know that sounds harsh but the level of denial among liberal intellectuals is so thick as to cause passionate apologies for him in words I have never dreamed to hear from the "idealist" elite. In the meantime, the black comunity of scholars are so bedazzled (and rightfully so...) that very few of them can get past the fact of history that finally a racial justice appears to have been established institutionally in America at the highest level. But what if History proves that this too...was the greatest of all manipulations and calculations to entice a population of wishful thinkers...into pure and even grateful submission.
But don't trust this portrait...think about the facts and DO THE MATH!
Bruce, Alinsky splintski, Obama has no defense against a principled anti-Empire candidate (and People's Party) --- because he can not DARE to engage in any debate about Empire being behind this phony government.
Once EMPIRE is the issue --- Obama is dead in the water. He becomes a mute and fearful idiot who can not dare to blow his cover by even allowing the discussion to touch or whisper about the global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE for which he is but a deceitful shilling pimp.
Every road leads to Empire. Every problem points to Empire.
But Obama can not under penalty of death whisper a word of defense or even respond to a challenge to the Empire that he is wedded to.
Empire is the real 'third rail' of American politics.
Obama,posing as a Democrat can not touch it, nor can any of the other Republican gutless and complicit 'bought and owned' political pawns of Empire.
Empire can only survive by remaining hidden --- for the American people will turn "Against Empire" (Parenti) in an instant, once the alarm goes out and it is exposed --- just as it was with the British Empire in 1776.
To the American people, Empire will be torn asunder to defend liberty and democracy --- and both "Vichy" parties of Empire know this.
Which is why the seminal issue of Empire is the only true 'game changer' in America, and why no faux-politician of either phony party can even speak to the issue of Empire without exposing themselves as treasonous turncoats, whether they claim to be part of red America or blue America --- they just wear different colored Lucy dresses disguising the same Empire.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty & democracy over violent empire -- New America People's Party 2012
A primary challenge to President Obama is not the answer for multiple reasons. A very important reason is that such a challenge could splinter Democrats and cause us to lose in 2012. Another important consideration is that independent voters, as we know, shift between the major parties. Too far left and the independents shift back toward the conservatives and vice versa when the conservatives go to far right. Face the music, the independent voters ultimately decide the election. But we also need a unified Democratic Party to make the coaltion work. In 2012 we may also be able to "shave off" some moderate Republican voters because their party has been hijacked by extremists. I call this opportunity a win, win.
A primary challenge to President Obama would be too expensive, too risky, and splinter the vote.
The bus driver is headed towards a cliff, but we'd better not try to stop him because the other bus driver will send us over the cliffat a sligtly faster pace.
Great reasoning. Stay with the war mongering, bank loving, Austerity espousing Obama.
" In 2012 we may also be able to "shave off" some moderate Republican voters because their party has been hijacked by extremists."
You must not be from around here. Let me clue you in, most people on thsi site are not your definition of "we." They don't see themselves as wedded to the Dem Party because they recognize that the Dems are just the other side of the plutocratic imperialist coin.
"very important reason is that such a challenge could splinter Democrats and cause us to lose in 2012. "
I don't know who this 'us' is that you talk about. I don't think the us you are talking about includes a lot of the readers on this site. Republican, democrat, doesn't make any difference to me and I submit many of the readers of this site.