Over 150 prominent activists, authors, and academics have launched a petition with a statement that begins:
“We the undersigned share with nearly two-thirds of our fellow Americans the conviction that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be ended and that overall military spending should be dramatically reduced. This has been our position for years and will continue to be, and we take it seriously. We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them.”
Among the signers are:
Elliott Adams, president, Veterans For Peace
Nellie Hester Bailey, Harlem Tenants Council & Black Agenda Report
Medea Benjamin, cofounder, Code Pink*
Frida Berrigan, War Resisters League*
William Blum, author of books on U.S. foreign policy
Jean Hay Bright, Maine’s 2006 Democratic US Senate candidate
Patty Casazza, 9/11 widow, former 9/11 Commission Family Steering Committee Member
Jeff Cohen, author/media critic
Sibel Edmonds, founder & director, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Roy Eidelson, past president, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Daniel Ellsberg, former State and Defense Dept. official, whistleblower of Pentagon Papers
Lisa Fithian, convenor, United for Peace and Justice
Chris Hedges, author, Death of the Liberal Class
Steve Hendricks, author, A Kidnapping in Milan: The CIA on Trial
Dahr Jamail, journalist/author
Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence*
Howie Klein, publisher, DownWithTyranny.com
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun/Network of Spiritual Progressives
David MacMichael, Ph.D., former CIA analyst
Ethan McCord, IVAW, VFP, former army specialist from “collateral murder” video
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy*
Bruce Nestor, past president, National Lawyers Guild
Gareth Porter, author and journalist
Bill Quigley, Center for Constitutional Rights and professor of law, Loyola University New Orleans*
Jesselyn Radack, former Department of Justice legal adviser
Garett Reppenhagen, chair of the board of directors, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent, one of TIME’s 2002 Persons of the Year
Michael Steven Smith, Law and Disorder Radio; board member, Center for Constitutional Rights*
John Stockwell, former intelligence officer, author
Elizabeth De La Vega, former assistant U.S. attorney, author
Marcy Winograd, former Democratic congressional candidate
Ann Wright, US Army Reserve Colonel and former US diplomat
*for identification only
The full statement (and full list of initial signers) is available with a petition at http://warisacrime.org/primary and reads as follows:
We Will Oppose Obama As Long As He Supports War
We the undersigned share with nearly two-thirds of our fellow Americans the conviction that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be ended and that overall military spending should be dramatically reduced. This has been our position for years and will continue to be, and we take it seriously. We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them.
Since he became president, Obama has had three opportunities to work with Congress to reduce military spending, but instead has championed increases in that spending each time, despite the fact that this spending represents a clear threat to the economic future of our country. He has continued as well to try to hide the true costs of the wars by funding them with off-the-books supplemental spending bills, despite the fact that he campaigned against this very practice.
The President has escalated a war on Afghanistan in which rising civilian deaths and atrocities have become routine.
He has given the CIA even greater freedom of action to launch lethal drone strikes against civilian houses in Pakistan on mere assumption of some connection with Taliban or other organizations, despite the warning from the U.S. Ambassador in late 2009 — revealed in a Wikileaks cable — that such attacks could “destabilize” the Pakistani government, despite many reports that civilians, including children, are disproportionately victims, and despite the contention of the United Nations and many U.S. allies that this practice is illegal.
Obama has approved an increase in covert operations by CIA-controlled Afghan troops into Pakistan, and his administration has remained silent while the U.S. command in Afghanistan leaked to the New York Times plans for new Special Operations Forces raids into Pakistan aimed at Afghan Taliban targets.
The President has expanded the use of Special Operations Forces (SOF), operating in virtually total secrecy and without any accountability to Congress, in one country after another. SOF troops are presently in some 75 nations — 15 more than when Obama took office.
President Obama has, on a later schedule than he campaigned on, finally reduced U.S. troop presence in Iraq. But he has not fully withdrawn U.S. combat forces from Iraq or ended U.S. combat there, his claims to have done so notwithstanding. His vice president has suggested, without correction by the President, the possibility of a U.S. military presence in the country even after the deadline for withdrawal under the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement, if only through the use of military contractors.
The Obama administration has announced plans to form an army of mercenary troops from private military contractors in Iraq which is to have its own air force and its own fleet of mine-resistant military vehicles. The plan includes continued contracts with the company formerly called Blackwater, despite the knowledge that it was guilty of atrocities against civilians in that country, and despite the openly declared opposition of the Iraqi government to such a continued role.
Obama has overseen increased weapons sales to foreign nations, and assisting in those sales has been a major function of his State Department. He has approved increased funding for work on nuclear weapons, even while supporting an arms control treaty. He has established a policy of potential nuclear first strike against Iran or North Korea.
President Obama has argued for the justness of war-making in widely watched speeches from the Oval Office and in Oslo, Norway, where he was accepting a Nobel Peace Prize. He has, in his Oval Office speech last August, defended false statements that took our nation into the current wars and false statements that have prolonged them.
The President has supported sanctions against Iran and Syria that punish the people, especially children, and not the leadership, of those countries. He has sent ships and missiles to Iran’s border. He has risked hostilities with North Korea through the ongoing construction of new military bases in South Korea and provocative war games exercises. His administration has helped a military coup succeed in Honduras.
President Obama has sought to allow more Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. He has protected Israel’s killing of activists on a humanitarian aid ship, not even protesting at the murder of an unarmed American youth. He issued a presidential memorandum on October 25, 2010, giving U.S. approval for the use of child soldiers by Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen. He has backed Indonesian armed forces that assassinated civilian activists in late 2009. He has expanded the U.S. military presence in Colombia, Costa Rica, Haiti, Guam, Italy, and Diego Garcia, as well as overseeing an enormous military base construction project in Afghanistan.
President Obama has not closed the prison at Guantanamo Bay and continues to maintain a network of detention facilities in Afghanistan through which prisoners, according to the most recent information available, are still being subjected to harsh treatment. He has claimed the right to imprison people, including American citizens, indefinitely without charge or trial, thus further cementing in place the elimination of the rights of prisoners of war and the elimination of the right of habeas corpus for anyone, as well as the rights found in the Fourth through Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The President has claimed the power of rendition. His CIA Director Leon Panetta and his senior advisor David Axelrod have asserted, without correction by the President, that the President maintains the power to torture. In the recent case of Gulet Mohamed, the Obama administration, for a time, claimed the power to forbid an American to reenter the country, absent any conviction or even any charge of a crime, and apparently collaborated with Kuwait to torture that American. The President has also openly claimed the power to order the assassination of Americans abroad. In Iraq, the U.S. military has continued to work with and protect from accountability an Iraqi military that is known to regularly use torture.
The President has expanded the use of warrantless spying. Under his leadership, the FBI has infiltrated peace groups and raided the homes of peace activists. It has set up and entrapped in terrorism charges people whose training and motivation came largely or even entirely from the FBI. He has supported the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act, which strips away Americans’ civil liberties.
President Obama, in direct violation of the Nuremberg Charter, a U.S. treaty commitment, has publicly instructed his Attorney General not to prosecute individuals responsible for crimes, including torture. His administration has worked hard to provide retroactive immunity to corporations engaged in warrantless spying and individuals engaged in sanctioning torture. He has kept secret a vast trove of documents, photos, and videos pertaining to prisoner abuse. He has advanced unprecedented claims of secrecy powers in defending the crimes of his predecessor. President Obama’s White House has put great pressure on European states not to investigate or prosecute U.S. war crimes.
This president has restricted the release of the names of White House visitors and has pursued the prosecution and punishment of government whistleblowers more aggressively than any previous president. His administration is responsible for the cruel and unusual lengthy confinement in a 6′ by 12′ cell, prior to any trial, of alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning. His vice president, Joe Biden, has publicly labeled an Australian journalist, Julian Assange, a “terrorist.” President Obama has used a private propaganda firm that had been exposed planting lies in Iraqi media, to screen potential embedded reporters for coverage of the U.S. military. He has used the military to restrict reporting by American journalists on an oil spill in American waters.
Perhaps most perilously, President Obama has claimed the right to engage in many of these activities without the authorization of Congress. He has even claimed the power first developed by his predecessor to rewrite new laws through the extra-Constitutional use of presidential signing statements. Expanded powers that are not opposed now will be far more difficult to oppose later with another president able to claim past precedent.
The President’s own deficit commission recommended cuts of $100 billion to the military budget. The United States spends about $1 trillion each year on the military, through a variety of departments, and has spent over $1 trillion already on the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Over half of every U.S. dollar of income tax is going to war making. The Department of Defense budget alone is larger than the military expenditures of the next largest 16 militaries in the world combined. That budget could be cut by 85% and still be the largest in the world. In addition to the lessening of hostility toward our country that would result from a significant decrease in U.S. military presence around the world, by shifting our financial resources we could create jobs, green energy, top quality free education, public transportation and infrastructure. We could also end all talk of reducing our Social Security or health coverage. We intend to support public servants who put our money where it serves the public.
We are not concerned with whether President Obama is acting enthusiastically or reluctantly in pursuing a militaristic policy abroad and more repression of dissent at home. It matters little whether he is submitting to powerful forces or freely following his preferred course. We do not elect his soldiers or spies, his advisors, his campaign funders, or the owners of our major media outlets. We elect the president. We will not support his nomination for another term, and we believe that a large proportion of Americans who voted for him in 2008 will not do so again unless he reverses the most egregious policies to which we have referred — especially by taking decisive steps to end the war on Afghanistan and to make deep cuts in the military and war budgets.
##



65 Comments




A perfect bill of particulars, presented in a manner as to represent EVERYONE. No D’s or R’s attached. Decency does not require policing party affiliation.
I just wish it didn’t focus so exclusively on foreign policy. There are plenty of reasons to find Obama completely unacceptable on domestic issues as well. He has been eroding the rule of law through his benign attitudes toward bankster fraud (especially foreclosure fraud) and his numerous crimes against constitutional civil liberties.
A good start. But “not supporting” Obama is a bit vague. No bite. Why aren’t you threatening him with a primary challenge?
He’s not going to become a peace-monger. You know that. If no major Democratic politician jumps into the fray, how about having one of your illustrious signers enter the race? Then we’d have a real voice beyond those of us who haunt the blogs.
There’s an idea. Let them put their egos where their mouths are by stepping forward as candidates. The sooner we know who’s seriously interested, the sooner we know who to start doing due diligence on.
Let’s petition the petitioners, while simultaneously referencing and explaining the “veal pen”, and pointing out the lack of aggressive leadership amongst progressives.
I agree.
I feel like Diogenes out here. God how I wish someone would step forward to primary Obama.
Sure there are plenty of reasons to find Obama unacceptable, but I’d say this is a pretty big reason, and it’s a cause both the left and the right can rally around.
I don’t understand why you’d criticize this.
Well, I think they know what the veal pen is. Many of us are more concerned about the wars than the Obama worshippers. Are you saying Daniel Ellsberg, Medea Benjamin, Chris Hedges, and Sibel Edmonds aren’t aggressive enough?
We’re trying to create the public demand for challengers – primary or general, and to pressure the incumbent to shape up. I can’t detect any disagreement with that here, and yet the criticism seems to be of us for … what? Not running for president?
If you haven’t done it yet, I’d suggest you contact Justin Raimondo @ http://www.antiwar.com/ . If you could get some of his peers to sign on, you’d double the number of signatories in no time.
You have to understand that some of us here at FDL have been working to generate a Dump Obama campaign since September.
That said, I see your petition as a significant step in that direction. I would gather that among your signers, some would support a primary challenge, while others would see it as a threat to not just Obama, but the Democratic Party as a whole. You will have to navigate those waters in the next few months.
I believe that opposition to Obama will grow from its current doldrums of Obama triumphalism off his good speech in Tucson, as the economy continues to rot and his plans to collaborate with the Republicans bear fruit both rotten and bitter.
I think the practical deadline for a challenger is late summer, to put a timeframe on it. So on behalf of me and myself, I heartily welcome your move.
Focusing on foreign policy may actually be a good thing at this moment. The 67-70% of the population opposed to O’s and his cohort’s dreams of Empire likely share a similar view regarding the butchery of civil liberties. If they expanded their grievances into FIRE, and god forbid some cultural issues, the thing would be a straight off the diving board belly-flop.
What they should perhaps do, is offer a stand alone anti financial industry petition; lay out the criminality in much the same way and, lo and behold, they would likely find a similarly large number of signatories there.
The consensus between these two petitions could then serve as the power base from which to mount a possible electoral challenge. Just leave the D’s and R’s out of it. It’s a paralyzing frame and should be rejected. Just the damn issues on their merits, please!
Pressuring the incumbent = bad.
He’s done bad things already (i.e. crimes) too late for sunny “look forward/come by yah/bygones be bygones”. Make it clear. When the government changes, he’s going to be doing time, along with his mates slippery Eric, GWB, Darth, Skeletor, Yoo, Mr Pastry (Bolton), and most of the CIA.
No half measures. If you want to ever have a chance of reversing the end of the rule of law in your country, all criminals must be prosecuted.
That is ONE staggering list of evidence. Wow. It really is an empire and aggressive. Thanks for pulling this together.
First, let me say that I am 100% supportive of this effort. While there are many other reasons not to support Obama, the militarism his administration has promoted is unconscionable.
Second, I think the statement that “Over half of every U.S. dollar of income tax is going to war making” is not quite accurate. My research indicates that 54% of DISCRETIONARY spending goes to the military – that’s different from the overall budget. Further, I think it’s fair to differentiate between “war making” and other military expenditures no matter how wasteful they might be.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, again couched in my full support for this effort, are two additional disagreements with its details. Why target just Obama and not the Congressional Democrats who show little or no inclination to resist Obama’s agenda? Also, while military spending is indeed bankrupting the country and depriving Americans of other critically important spending, there are many other areas, even more important areas, on which to focus.
Top among them is the loss of “people power.” The US is controlled, i.e. totally controlled, by corporate power. The voice of the American people has been stifled. That, even more than Obama’s military obscenities, is ground zero. The very idea of cutting military spending in a climate that caters to the largest and most powerful corporations is ultimately nonsense. It’s nonsense because it will not be achieved by electoral temper tantrums. Worth trying? Sure. Absolutely. Prayer in hell of succeeding? No way.
It’s great to see that we actually have 150 “leading activists.” If they think this tactic might be useful, fine; I’m with them all the way. What really is needed, however, is the building of an “in the streets” movement. What really is needed is the building of a mass media outlet that speaks to the American people with our voice. What really is needed is a new entity outside the corrupted corporate confines of the Democratic Party.
Ultimately, this “we won’t support your re-election unless…” ultimatum is a dead-end. Let’s be real about this – does anyone actually believe Obama is going to call for massive military cuts because he’s getting pressure from the Left? During the Vietnam and civil rights era, we were able to build a movement because so many of us, especially young people, felt personally invested. In today’s “boiling the frog slowly” demise, too many of us don’t realize we need to be personally invested. Perhaps many see it as hopeless. If we have 150 leading activists, awakening the masses to the perils we face, defining our values, and organizing a growing resistance should be the primary mission.
Hear, hear!
“Why target just Obama and not the Congressional Democrats who show little or no inclination to resist Obama’s agenda?”
Absolutely dead on right! It should have been addressed to to the Commander in Chief and the leader and leadership of the supine democratic party.
On the other two points, I’d disagree for the reasons mentioned in the above response to Sebastos.
I’d rather see the issues not commingled, and certainly not this early stage of electoral politics. Other petitions addressing separate issues on their merits should be crafted and offered up for support. In the end all such petitions, addressing Civil Rights, the Financial sector, the Corporate sector, a two tiered system of justice, etc., would each form a chapter of a devastating record of criminality aimed against the American public.
Agreed, good read, recommended and thanks.
“What really is needed, however, is the building of an “in the streets” movement. What really is needed is the building of a mass media outlet that speaks to the American people with our voice. What really is needed is a new entity outside the corrupted corporate confines of the Democratic Party.”
All this is true. But none of it is going to happen between now and 2012 — those are longer-term projects. My concern is that this long-term perspective fails to address how to use this short-term motion as a tool to build with towards the longer-term goals.
Otherwise, you end up in lefty heaven with all the other lefties who were right but irrelevant.
“Why target just Obama and not the Congressional Democrats who show little or no inclination to resist Obama’s agenda?”
It’s a matter of resources and focus. Why not target the entire capitalist system? Because we have no levers for doing so. We have levers through the Democratic presidential primaries for building a broader movement that can be expanded upon ONCE ESTABLISHED.
Any public calling to account such as this, even if only on the subject of war and peace, is to my mind a great start. The very first notice Obama gave that he was not going to be the president we thought we were electing was when he signed off on a drone strike in the very first week of his administration. It seems appropriate to begin public disaffection with his policies in this manner.
I always thought the approach of both Bush administration and the current one was to pile wrongdoing upon wrongdoing, to complicate and diffuse opposition – we have to start somewhere.
One name I was very interested in was that of Marcy Winograd. I remember she was on our earlier list of potential challengers. Way to go, Marcy!
What’s your plan for prosecuting all criminals? If you’re going to quarrel with Swanson’s tactics, then you have to put forth better tactics. Prosecuting all criminals is not a tactic. A tactic is something you can do.
adding three words and clarifying that the problem is not solely Obama’s is not too much to ask, is it?
Because if you get rid of Obama, you’ll still be stuck with the Democrat(ic) Party doing the elite’s job.
we have reached out to them and encourage you to do so
I am deeply disappointed in President Obama, and feel like rather a fool for having been taken by his campaign’s line of B.S. (I supported him because he would keep Team Hillary and the DLC out of power. Silly silly me.)
That said, Obama is a symptom of a more general rot and putrefaction of the Democratic Party. It’s time to discuss whether the disappearance of this party would, in the long run, be a net plus for progress.
this statement includes signers who disagree on a general election challenge but all agree on a primary challenge
i’m sure that could have been made clearer, but not sure how
yes, we’ve been on this for years — just trying to help it along, not pretend efforts just began or anything of the sort.
Thanks for everything you’ve been doing
First you gain power. Then you apply the rule of law, looking backwards as you are supposed to.
I actually agree both with going after congress and with going after the entire system
None of this was going to happen today in Egypt or a week ago in Tunisia either. Until it did.
Marcy would be a great challenger!
Wider point Jeff. You do not reach accommodations with criminals. And Obama has done some serious crimes. You cannot look past or around this. Any attempt to do so will leave you with a state with a cancer eating it from the inside. He must be put on notice. We know what he’s done. He’s going to answer for it.
You can ask. But it’s not that simple. If it were just Swanson’s personal letter, he could add 3 words for you. But clearly this petition came out of a political process involving many people. This is what was agreed upon. To add those 3 words would require re-opening that process, which would entail delay in its publication.
Personally, I would change all sorts of things in it, or I could write my own. But my signature list would maybe add up to 10 at best. It would have less impact.
Thus I try to figure how to use this as a tool, though that may take more creative effort.
As for leaving us stuck with the Democratic Party, etc., I can think of nothing achievable in the next 2 years which wouldn’t leave that still being the case. Thus as an argument, so what?
Dear President Obama:
I hereby put you on notice.
By the way, you may have noticed that I have been advocating Dumping Obama. How are you supporting this effort?
jeffroby January 25th, 2011 at 11:15 am
you seem to be so stuck with your DO baby that you are totally missing what’s going on and where it is leading, imo. It’s bigger than DO, and getting way fucking bigger by the day.
No problem. The situation transforms even as we try to develop tactics. A couple pieces of mine, fyi:
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/12/09/dump-obama-we-who-have-nothing-to-lose/
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2011/01/03/dump-obama-for-a-tough-new-year/
A work in progress, as is yours.
I am persistent, you are stuck, he has a serious fetish.
Dump Obama’s relative smallness is its virtue. It’s something people can actually do, rather than just talk about.
Exactly. Don’t forget that Obama is an alumnus of the Capitol Hill Democrats, which have made pre-emptive concessions to the right wing for over a generation. It’s in their institutional DNA.
Right.
A second, standalone petition on domestic issues would be fine. My apologies for the negativistic tone of my remarks; I think this petition is a great step forward just as it stands, and I was intending to propose further improvements, not to argue against the merits of the petition as it stands.
As noted above, I wasn’t intending to criticize at all, and I apologize for phrasing my remarks to make it sound that way. My intention was to propose further steps forward, not to argue against anything these petitioners have already done.
But, yes, I think running for President against Obama would be one of the most important of those further steps forward. Or, if there’s someone suitable who is already running, endorsing that person would be an alternative to stepping in personally as a candidate. As to whether the challenge should be in the Democratic primary or as a third-party candidate, my answer would be, either or both – preferably one after the other, starting with the Democratic primary, and proceeding to a third-party or independent challenge if the primary challenge is unsuccessful.
Good point, WelshTerrier.
Er…this is a great boon to the anti-war movement I just called ‘almost indiscernable’.
Thank you. ;o)
Even if all of them know what the veal pen is, the idea (which I didn’t elaborate on, to be sure) would be a public petition of the petitioners, which would be designed to teach, not just inspire. And I do mean teach the public, in general, and inspire the public, in general.
This would be a tertiary purpose, the secondary purpose being to get the signers of the petition to help primary not just Obama, but large numbers of ‘Obama’s henchmen’. I.e., other Democrats in Congress.
And the primary purpose, of course, is to start a persistent progressive movement, which doesn’t stupidly fold it’s tent after every Presidential election, or every 2 years. This process would be hastened along if the petitioners united in a call for candidates to take on some of Obama’s Democratic ‘henchmen’ in Congress, and if 2 or 3 of them offered to run against Obama, themselves.
This petition is a welcome step in the right direction, and I thank the signers for lending their good names to this effort. However, these trying times call for more – much more – than a step or two in the right direction.
BRAVO! This is cheering to see. Since the president started picking people starting with John Brennan and ending with whatever right wing Business toady he picked last week I have never never understood why someone calling himself a Democrat was enough.
I look at what they do.
Again, with my theme-words are cheap. Actions are all that matter.
I support and would have signed this petition, but I have a more ambitious goal.
I dream of a million people descending on DC from everywhere with another million on their way to join them. It’s a non-violent army made up of people from the 2 million 99ers, the 3.5 million homeless, the 15 million unemployed still collecting benefits, and the 10 or so million who are underemployed. Arriving one at a time, by twos, by threes, by fours and fives, and then by ever larger groups, like a river swelling into a flood and filling all the streets. In my dream, we shut the city down. Completely. And we don’t leave until Obama and every member of Congress resigns.
I no longer believe that it’s possible to change the government by working within the system because it’s too corrupt.
I’m sick of this tweedledee and tweedledum bullshit.
somehow working for that very goal these past several years hasn’t prevented me from signing petitions :-)
so many discussion threads are lists of good ideas that believe they’re in competition with each other
sign
march
blog
organize
agitate
Hi, David. Please try to take suggestions/criticisms that “leading activists” do more – such as running for President – in stride. People are hungry for strong leaders. Like everybody else, being compared to an ideal can be painful. There may be more of it than you think the “leading activists” deserve, which actually has it’s genesis in deep-seated yearnings, and not really specifics of said activists.
You might find my diary DUMP OBAMA Manifesto – Open question as to what points it should make of interest. I argue that a prime component of a Dump Obama movement is to generate new leaders.
However, making current leaders that are not inside the veal pen, and that are respected, more aggressive (even to the point of running against Obama), is a variation of this theme.
Please try not to take things personally…
BTW, I’m thinking of writing a diary on a sort of pyramid organization of what a reform movement should look like. Admittedly, the basis of this would be my intuition, not scholarly research. At the top, are leaders such as those in your list of 150 activists. At the bottom – the large majority – are what the ancient Athenians called “idiotes” – people interested in their own lives, not civic life. (For are purposes, I’m considering that portion of the idiotes who will at least vote.)
At the center of the pyramid are activists who are not well known, and probably never will be.
Question: At this beginning stage of the game, and at the current level of societal dysfunction, where should a citizen who wants to help grow a Dump Obama movement focus their evangelistic efforts?
I don’t want to develop the argument, but my money is on the middle level of the pyramid. Perhaps you can give your own anwer and analysis in your own diary.
Obama lost me in 2009 with “the public option is just a sliver…” Liberals and Progressives must do anything possible to remove the moderate Republican, Barack Obama. If your reason is Iraq, Afghanistan, public option, or GWB tax cuts, I don’t care. Please help us send Barack Obama back to Chicago or Hawaii as soon as possible.
Please read and vote accordingly: “My Pledge to the Democratic Party” http://binquick.blogspot.com/2010/12/pledge.html
Great work David and thank you for all your efforts.
Please include my name Conrad C. Elledge.
I agree.
Get right in there with Michele Bachmann !!
Actually, this probably helps Obama by giving him an arguable separation from The Gawd Awful Left of song and fiction.
But where the Bachmanniac ended with a bizarre reference to the Iwo Jima flag raising picture, our Peaceniks need to draw up a copy of the February 2011, National Geographic Magazine and show all them nasty Afghan poppy-whackers mowing down the heroin crop.
Bad drug war ! Bad! Bad! Bad!
So much worse than Romney, McConnell, Rand Paul, that funny guy from Arkansas, and the ghost of St. Ronnie.
Betcha the ghost would win their primary!
Who’s your alternative ?
I love Russ Feingold, but he was so out of touch that he tried to run for re-election without raising the serious base-level cash he needed to succeed. The days of a Bill Proxmire career — his Golden Fleece award, particularly, being all he needed to win — are long gone.
I love Grayson. He’s not a fruit loop.
Who you think could run the presidency within a country mile of what Obama is doing ?
I’d think it would take another Eisenhower, a George Washington but in his early 50′s, a Lincoln with a much better education, or maybe a James Madison or a Polk. Helluva short list.
Obama is a great, great president. Let not the blip of the 2010 midterms obscure what he is achieving.
Yesterday was a significant anniversary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/25/938781/-R.I.P.-Florence-CioffiWall-Streets-most-infamous-killing
“They can kill us. They can walk away.” Five blocks from the New York Stock Exchange.
Sorry all these McCain voters are so disappointed.
Or were they Chomsky voters?
Or Nader, Browne, Buchanan, or one of the three (3) Socialist candidates ?
You folks are funny. LMAO.
It’s a nice sentiment. It really is. Obama should not be the Democrat Party’s nominee to run for the office of the presidency in 2012. It’s as simple as that. But the people who created this petition have the same problem certain others have, and it’s a killer: they need a candidate to put up against Obama, and there is none forthcoming. You can sign all the petitions you want stating that you won’t support Obama for the Democrat Party nomination, but if you have no one to run against him and he’s the corporate bag man the Democrats want, then it’s all just showboating. Find a candidate who actually represents the left and America and run him or her in a primary challenge that will make headlines that can’t be ignored by the corporate-owned media. At this late date, there is no excuse for foot-dragging.
Obama is worse than Bush ever was, and the only things he’s achieving are exactly what the Republicans wanted to achieve but couldn’t on account of they got voted out of nominal power in two consecutive wave elections. So now Obama, having with the full backing of his party wasted two years continuing far right GOP policies instead of reversing them, has a GOP-dominated House and, likely before 2012 (just a plane crash or two away), a GOP-dominated Senate that some want to be able to pass anything its wants without any check on that power whatsoever.
Name even ONE “achievement” Obama has made that can be called even remotely progressive. You won’t be able to do it, guaranteed.
Jeff’s deadline for finding a challenger actually passed in December, if not sooner than that, but the point still remains: you needed a candidate to put up against Obama and you waited too long to find one. Now there is no one willing to challenge the incumbent from within the Democrat Party. If such a person existed, he or she would have stepped forward by now. But no one has.
Like it or not, you’re going to need to come up with a third party challenger — NOW, not several months from now — to run in 2012. Otherwise all these petitions are just useless showboating that won’t accomplish anything. And you have to be willing to do the work of actually, seriously campaigning for any third party candidate you do manage to recruit.
Let’s start working on it.
No challenger will be great if they don’t sign a pledge to run against the presumptive Democratic nominee in the primary (Obama or Hillary or whomever) AND run on the ticket of a third party in the General. In the few times that a primary campaign has lasted til the convention, the loser has followed teh script and “thrown their support” to the nominee in order to foster “party unity.” Until we call this out for the romanticized, status-quo-preserving, blatant manipulation of public sympathies it is, nothing will change.
It is time for an in-their-faces, issues-not-image primary challenge that makes no bones about its intention to TAKE APART the co-opted Democratic Party in the primary and REPLACE it in the General with an unapologetic, unremitting voice for the progressive agenda. Not a person who inspires individuals to vote for him/her, but a movement of, by and FOR the people which individuals will aspire to represent, rather then selling out their ideals to be a part of.
We’re building that movement. To join us, write admin_at_themalcontent_dot_com.
Thank you David, for all your work in this same direction.
David,
When I said I would have signed the petition, I meant that I would have signed it if I knew about it, but I didn’t. Probably my fault for not knowing. I’ve signed many others, but this one slipped under my radar.
I’ll follow the link you provided and sign it, if it’s still possible.
You’re a stalwart dude. Thanks for all you do.
With all due respect, jeffroby, you have no way of knowing this for sure. I assume you are basing your opinion on the lack of such actions up ’til now, but the overriding truth of chaos is its unpredictability, backed by its tendency to increase exponentially once it has begun. We’re both working on the premise that electoral activism has a role to play, but discounting the power of protest and failing to encourage popular unrest ensures that any movement will be viewed as working within the system, not opposing it.
I’m all for the power of protest, and encourage everyone to engage in popular unrest.
However, we function on the basis of probabilities. Appealing to the unpredictability of chaos is not a very good argument, as it could justify just about any feeble argument. You too know nothing for sure.
I don’t expect massive civil unrest to break out between now and the end of 2011, based on my evaluation of the political environment we are currently in. That is not the same as thinking this because it hasn’t happened so far.
Some civil unrest? Good chance. But the devil is in the details, or the extent, as it were.