When I first proposed that it was time for a Dump Obama movement, I argued that the immediate task was to build a movement. I did not want to focus on organizational questions, did not want to get hung up on questions of who the candidate would be. Build the base of support and the candidate(s) would follow.
I was immediately assailed by supporters and detractors alike who insisted that I had to have a candidate. At that time, I restated my position on building the movement first. Without passing judgment whether my original assessment was correct or not, it is now time to find that candidate (or candidates).
Taking into account overt Dump Obama, third party, throw-them-all-out, write-in Public Option, and abandon the Democrats sentiment in the aggregate, I’ll say that Dump Obama sentiment was greater than even I had thought. The Dump Obama concept has gone viral, the movement exists in nascent form, a topic on Democratic Underground and MyDD, among Democratic Party sites. A topic of speculation in mainstream venues. Not because we’re so mighty (I’d be a liar to pretend otherwise) but because Obama is doing so badly. So to echo Robert Redford from The Candidate (1972), “What do we do now?”
We indeed have to move to tactics. So let’s talk candidates.
In a recent comment thread, I delineated a few possibilities.
(1) big names like Howard Dean, Kucinich, Elizabeth Warren. Liberal Democrats. I don’t rule them out. Whatever their professed loyalties today, a year from now they may see dumping Obama as a necessity to save the party from the disgrace he has brought upon them. There are times when moderate, or even conservative, figures are driven by the forces of history, and my crystal ball is in the pawnshop.
(2) small names, not on the radar yet, who could still enter some primaries, get media, get the right message, and be thrust forward by history (and us).
On the independent front:
… there’s the matter of independents in the general. Greens? My personal belief is that they tend to think small. But ballot status is a major asset in many states.
Or a populist independent, running on a 3-point program (for instance) of jobs, peace and civil liberties. Could such a candidate go big? Especially if any Dem primary challenger failed to get the nomination?
For today, allow me set aside the independent wing of Dump Obama and focus on the Democratic primaries (though commenters should feel free). I am now leaning strongly towards option 2 in the Democratic primaries. Run a 3-point campaign of Jobs (and safety net), Peace and Civil Liberties. As Mike Kwiatkowski said, time’s a’wastin’! I do not like the passivity of awaiting some Big Liberal to step up. Nor do I trust that such a liberal wouldn’t turn out to be Obama Junior, whatever their past track record. Feingold or Warren or Kucinich jumps in, we can have a very interesting debate.
I’m not getting into the name game myself. Others are better-positioned for that. But let’s suppose that some progressive with little name recognition takes the plunge. For starters, how to break the inevitable media blockade she or he would face?
File with the FEC! Then we of Dump Obama sentiment would have to step up, say it proud, say it loud. Dump Obama has already gone viral. A concrete candidacy would likely do so as well.
Develop a ballot access plan! It varies by state, but entering a Democratic presidential primary takes gathering signatures and plopping down a filing fee. In most states, it seems to run from zero signatures to about 10,000, though in a few states the process is quite brutal. The filing fees — if any — are generally not prohibitive. It does require some work, and we might not be able to handle all 50 states, but certainly enough to be players as far as getting in the primaries.
We need a lawyer here.
Fight for media coverage! Of course they’ll try to freeze us out. But in this case, the fight for coverage is in some ways the campaign.
Fight to get in the debates! Again, as above. And as above, the fight for coverage is also the campaign.
I’m thinking worst case here. Suppose someone like Olbermann or Hamsher decided to make the move. And consider the hysteria that just a few Dump Obama pieces have generated.
Metamars referenced one of my early Dump Obama comments on Daily Kos some time back, and got one of the worst of their ritual 5-minute hate displays. But hell, that’s Kos.
When I wrote my initial Time for a Dump Obama Movement in early September, I was a front-pager at Docudharma, but when I tried to schedule it, the reaction was deranged. Front-paging it would “marginalize” the entire Docudharma site, and the people at Kos wouldn’t love Docudharma anymore. So I agreed to do it as a side diary. Nonetheless, I was summarily stripped — without the courtesy of notice — of my front page privileges there. Wow!
On OpenLeft, I became the cause celebre (or is that bete noire?) of their Paul Rosenberg, who has written a total of 8 diaries either totally targeting Dump Obama, or taking major side-swipes at it, and referring to me as jeffroby666. (The Devil makes me do it.) It is there that I received my greatest honor (and I must modestly state for the record that he overstates the case), as Rosenberg wrote in a comment:
I really have no time for the likes of you, Jeff. You are probably the most effective force in demobilizing the left so far as building electoral power goes.
My point is that — even if we’re not all that powerful, and I know we feel our weakness keenly — the Democratic Party feels ITS OWN weakness keenly as well. They walk a fine line between serving Wall Street and keeping their base in line. They HAVE to pretend that Obama is their only alternative. You’d think they could just chill out and hope we go away. But instead they react with the very hysteria that brings us front and center.
I am not at this point claiming that a Dump Obama challenger would win the primaries and become the Democratic nominee. But here’s where it gets interesting. There most certainly will be at least one independent challenger to Obama (and I say to you, Mike Kwiatkowski, time’s a’wastin’ for independents as well), and at that point we say to those Democrats who agree with our call for Jobs (and safety net), Peace and Civil Liberties, are you loyal to the Democratic Party that just dumped YOU, or do you stand on the principles that brought you here? If you are to be true to your principles, back the independent!
So when I first threw this out, I was frankly taking a shot in a dark. But at this point, it seems to me that we are developing — just a whiff at this point — some real power. But as they say in the TV lottery commercials, you gotta be in it to win it!



41 Comments

The usual disclaimer that diaries by this author on this topic do not reflect the views of FireDogLake and the Seminal, etc., etc., etc. Of course, many of the views expressed on FireDogLake and the Seminal do not reflect the views of me.
I’d personally like to try to make an effort to recruit a Hollywood celebrity we know has been very well informed through the years.
(…if one of Susan Sarandon’s people is out there flipping through blog pages…)
Hollywood hadn’t occurred to me, but you make a good point.
Any one of us could do a better job running this country than the little queef currently in the WH.
How about Lady Gaga? I heard Gary Null say recently that she’ll run out of ways to make an exhibition out of herself, and what’s she gonna do next, wear the Eiffel Tower on her head? :-)
But seriously, she’s shown some interest in political issues. (Well, at least gay related ones. Not sure about other areas.) GW Bush and Sarah Palin prove that you don’t need to know much of anything to run for President, and in the case of Bush, actually win. So, I actually think Gaga is viable in that sense (though she doesn’t have any executive experience, unlike Bush and Palin, who were both governors).
I suppose the trick is for her to unofficially run for VP (even if she’s officially running for President), where she only makes joint appearance with the #1 of her choice (say, Ralph Nader), and makes it clear that she is engaged in study of foreign policy and Constitutional issues (e.g.), in the event that she is elected VP and the President dies. To make this credible, she’d be well advised to put her music career on hold.
The second part of the trick is for her to announce, immediately, both the fact that she is seriously running for President (with the thought to defer to a more traditional candidate, and be his/her VP), but also to encourage other outsiders to fun for office.
How about Michael Moore for President? He at least knows a good amount about many issues, and think how cool it would be to have a President who wears a baseball cap?
Can Lady Gaga save the world? At this point, I’d welcome just about any savior, no matter how gaudy they dress.
Kucinich? After proving he has no guts by folding on HCR? And on what, his third wife? (Never fly with some independents.) No chance.
Dean? Not much there to convince me he wouldn’t play the insider’s game if elected (or during the campaign if he got the nom). So also a “No”.
Warren? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Hollywood? Sarandon, never married to Tim Robbins, now dumping him for a 20-something boy toy? No chance and no thanks.
George Clooney? You bet. Principled, charismatic, politically active and motivated. But told he’s friends with the Great Pretender and would never go up against him. Plus, he’s single and he has, you know, girlfriends. (I know — horrors, a handsome single guy sleeping with someone!)
I think the Yippies had the right idea when they ran Pig for President. When he loses we can have a great Barbeque and see what it’s going to be like for the rest of us after the Corporatists consolidate power.
In response to various people:
A key criterion would be the candidate’s willingness to actually campaign. From time to time there are candidates who announce and do a media trip, but never lift a finger to actually get on the primary ballots and fight to get in the debates.
Personally, I would rather have a serious nobody than a spoiled celebrity. But I don’t despise the advantages a celebrity would bring if they understood the work.
Ben Affleck has mentioned an interest in politics. I seriously doubt if he would run, but I got the sense from him in interviews, that if he did, he would take care of business. That’s a for-instance.
State legislators? City council-persons? There are lots of places to look.
Jeff, thanks for taking what I wrote the other day into consideration. Please know that I wasn’t so much bitching you or metamars out as simply offering my own analysis of the Dump Obama movement and how and why it needs to start moving forward. I know you were thinking, if I understand you correctly (and feel free to point out if I’m wrong on this), that such a movement has to grow first before we can think about running candidates. But sometimes that nasty old catch-22 comes along — we need to grow the movement enough to be able to put up candidates, but in order to grow the movement, we need candidates people can get behind — and then the choice becomes, do we wait and maybe watch the movement die on the vine, or start moving forward? I think moving forward to draft candidates is the better course of action at this point. We’ve reached the stage, I think, where it’s time for recruiting people to run in elections.
As to finding candidates, I am going to see if I can talk to Kucinich about re-registering as a Green Party member. There’s ample reason for him to do so. His own party not only doesn’t support him, it actively opposes him at every turn. If he steps too far out of bounds, he loses party money and gets primary challenges from the right, as he did in the last two election cycles. As a Democrat, he can only do so much to represent his constituents without running up against the brick wall that is the party’s leadership, and they are actively trying to get rid of him. He has no choice, if he wants to retain his committee seats or the Ohio 10th Congressional seat, but to cave in and support who- or whatever the Democrats tell him to. So there’s ample justification for him to make the jump now, especially once the midterm is over and he finds the Democrats back in the minority come January.
What’s more, changing his party affiliation would have another added benefit: many progressive Democrats, especially younger voters disillusioned by Obama and other corporate Democrats, would follow him over to the Greens, thus ensuring a larger base of support in his own district. I think the only reasons Kucinich hasn’t made the jump yet is because there hasn’t been a coordinated effort to get him to do it, and there’s maybe still too much for him to lose politically by leaving the Democrats, who would undoubtedly see him as a party traitor and step up efforts to remove him from office. If we can change that situation, it may be possible to get Kucinich to re-register as a Green. Then the party would have a representative in Congress, and it’s a start.
Likewise, Russ Feingold or some other liberal Democrat likely to lose office this year could feasibly be tempted to run in 2012. Feingold has name recognition nationally, and like John Edwards, would not if he is voted out next week be constrained by the requirement of having to triangulate rhetoric or adopt positions contrary to his stated beliefs.
Whoever we do recruit, both from within the Democrat Party and from the third parties out there, those people are going to have to have certain requirements that they must meet in order to gain the support of the left.
1.) First, whoever we put up absolutely has to have a track record of genuine progressive ideology and legislative, executive, or judicial office policies to go with the name. It’s not enough to get a Johnny-come-lately progressive like Edwards. We have to have someone with a consistent record of representing the public on board. Who do we have who really, really meets that requirement? Kucinich, for one. There’s also Mike Gravel, and let’s not forget Cynthia McKinney. Yeah, people write them off as lunatics, but then, we elected a guy who thinks without any credible evidence whatsoever that Iran is developing The Bomb and who has a hit list of American citizens that he keeps under his bed. When the incumbent is that loony, someone like McKinney is quite sane.
My picks so far are Kucinich, McKinney, Gravel, and Ralph Nader (you just know he’s gonna run again). Jesse Ventura MIGHT be a decent pick, but I don’t care for all of his politics and he doesn’t seem to have the desire to run. Still, he does at least have the experience of being a governor under his belt, and he’s not afraid to publicly call it like he sees it.
Bear in mind that these are only some of the politicians who might be recruited, and that there may be more, or simply others with a better shot, who can be floated. We could do a thread or three devoted to evaluating potential candidates, picking some, and drafting methods for recruiting them to run.
2.) Even when or if we do settle on a candidate (or candidates) to run, we still have the work of building up a third party movement at the local and state levels that oughtn’t be ignored. We can do both at once. Vermont, Oregon, and Washington State all have the Progressive Party (which is a homegrown organization, unlike the internationally-originated Greens), and I think we can expand that presence to more states. Likewise, we can and should continue to build the Greens up locally and state-level. Whoever we run is going to have to have enough of an organizational backing from Movement Left-Wingers to pose any kind of serious challenge. No house is built without the foundation being laid first, so while we’ve got people trying to work on the Democrats from within the party, we’ll need to be getting people committed to working outside it as well, so there is always that incentive to cater to the left. Primaries from the left (and I DON’T mean candidates only slightly to the left of their opponents; I’m talking Kucinich-variety leftists) combined with strong third party showings in the general elections will help to serve notice to the Democrats just how serious we are and that we are not to be taken lightly. This tactic may even include running primary opponents who are already prepared to run as independents in the general elections if they fail to win the primaries. That should help build a solid base of support for whoever we put up to Dump Obama.
3.) Finally, we really do need to build up an online organizing and fund-raising set of tools. Since we can’t rely on the gatekeeper blogs to do this, I suggest we form our own sites that are devoted primarily, perhaps even solely, for the purposes of fund-raising, organizing on-the-streets campaigning, and raising awareness of our candidates from across the party spectrum. I am more than willing to lend my web site to the cause, as one of several we can be using to this end. We could do a regional setup to help make it easier to coordinate activities across the country, so that resources are allotted properly.
Andrew Romanoff of Colorado. I believe he could be convinced to leave the Democratic Party. He ran a very strong campaign against Bennet and would have won if not for that fact that he refused to take any PAC or Corporate money. Bennet and the DNC flooded Colorado with ads just before the promary. Romanoff won every cuacus in the state by 20+ points. If he was the Democratic candidate, there wouldn’t be any doubt of who would win the Senate seat from Colorado right now. He is easily the most popular politician in Colorado. He is young, charismatic and a true progressive.
Okay, good suggestion. If he’s already held public office, we should verify his record. If it holds up to his stated positions, then yes, let’s add him to the list of potential candidates.
FWIW, Lady Gaga is #4 in Forbes’ Celebrity 100 List. The first 3 are:
Oprah Winfrey
Beyonce Knowles
James Cameron
I don’t think I was initially mistaken, and comments verify that, but as you say:
… and that is where we are today. I agree with so much of what you say (and am pleased that Kucinich is left enough for you), that I’d like to focus on some differences.
(1) What you put forward is maximalist. If it is the case that we cannot recruit a candidate meeting your criteria, but a less ideal candidate primaries Obama (and did not have huge negatives like Sestak supporting the war in Afghanistan, for instance), I would be inclined to back that candidate.
(2) I would not make a willingness to go Green an absolute requirement. For one thing, I have worked with or for candidates who have made that pledge and reneged, Frank Barbaro for NYC mayor in 1981 being most egregious.
Secondly, I believe independents must start grooming an independent candidate or candidates now. If the Dem primary challenger actually did go independent, you’d have them squared off in opposition. If the Dem primary challenger backed down and you didn’t have one already in motion, you’d be left hanging.
(3) It would be advantageous if the independent candidate so groomed would focus on Jobs (and safety net), peace, and civil rights — rather than emphasizing a full Green program — that would maximize compatibility on both sides of the fence. Specifically, we shouldn’t ultra-left the Dem base left hanging after the Dem nomination.
(4) The relationship between candidates (especially left candidates) and their supporters, is usually antsy at best. One criterion I would want to insist on, if I were in a position to insist, is that the independent candidate be committed to organization-building after the election. I consider Nader very weak in this regard.
(5) On the inside track, I would hope the Dem challenger supporters would support the independent in the general, but there might also be merit in their remaining within the Democratic Party as well, IF they could establish infrastructure for ongoing primary challenges in a similar vein ongoing. Again, here is why I consider the relationship between supporters and candidates touchy. I wouldn’t necessarily hold the primary challenger to a pledge to go independent — pledging to the nominee after the convention may turn out to be an irresistible requirement to make the challenge at all. I wouldn’t want the whole thing to break down over this.
So the above is what I would shoot for. You did mention Feingold. There is a world of difference between what a Feingold challenge would look like, as opposed to some good state legislator, for instance. All sorts of purity vs. impact issues if we had both in play. Likewise, suppose a major figure like Ventura ran independent. Again, all sorts of issues between his less than ideal impact versus the power of his name recognition.
But it’s a start. What I like most about your comment is its seriousness in insisting that we deal with organizational requirements rather than just shooting the shit about who would be cool.
And like Edwards, you repudiated his Iraq war vote, the first thing Feingold would have to do is denounce his HCR vote and lay bare the WH/Dem leadership machinations that forced him into it. But even then, a lot of people (including me) wouldn’t trust him as far as they could throw him.
Critical factor.
Haha. Well, I guess the first among many show-stoppers for her is the constitutional age requirement for the officeholder of the presidency–35 years.
Whoops! Guess I was gaga for Gaga. Well, Madonna it is!
(“Showstopper” – nice touch :-) )
Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon.
I simply threw out the names I did for consideration. As I wrote, there may indeed be other candidates out there who better fit the broader spectrum of progressive ideals, both within and outside of the Democrat Party, both current office-holders and former. I am certainly open to suggestions. My criteria for vetting candidates’ records is based on the disastrous result that came from promoting Obama as the Second Coming of FDR even though his record as an office-holder was clearly that of someone who is to the right of Ronald Reagan. I don’t think we can afford a repeat of that when choosing people to run against Obama.
As for the Greens, they are but one of several independent political parties. Like I’ve pointed out, there are the Progressive, Socialist, and Working Families Parties that exist in multiple states and can be used to help grow a third party movement. I think metamars was the one who asked why Greens don’t support the strategy of promising to vote for Democrats at the national level in return for getting disaffected progressive Democrats to vote for our candidates at the local and state levels. After thinking about that for a while, it seems to me that this is a failed strategy in the making, for it is contingent upon people in the Democrat Party keeping whatever promise they may or may not make to vote for our candidates, and then by our own word we are obligated to vote for the same politicians who oppose everything we stand for. But I do think we can feasibly use this strategy with other left-wing political parties. For example, a Socialist Party candidate can support could Party candidates in races where Socialists aren’t running, and likewise, Greens can support Socialists where Greens aren’t running. Specifically, Dan La Botz, the Socialist Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, got my vote because there is no Green Party candidate on the ballot. And Dan has indicated that he supports Greens in races where there is no Socialist Party member running. Since either way my vote went to someone whose positions on the issues best reflect my own, I am comfortable giving my vote to members of another left-wing party. That can help unite progressives into a more cohesive political movement. It does us no good to give our votes to Democrats or Republicans because we cannot guarantee reciprocal voting from their members.
Sorry; I got a bit off track. At any rate, I do think we should be throwing out the names of potential candidates now, and forming recruitment methods for getting these people to run in 2012 — you know, “Draft [Insert Name Here] for 2012!” or something like that. I do agree that Nader has neglected to build up solid, effective political organizations and therefore is probably not suitable for what the left needs, but he’s one of the few people we have that voters generally know of. Again, I simply threw his name out there as an example.
I have to go drop off literature for my county executive candidate, but I will be back later to discuss the Plan.
Also, I agree that we need an independent ready to run in the event that a Democratic primary challenger fails to continue on as an independent. Someone like Kucinich would most certainly fail to do that, because he’s done it in the last two elections and the result has been continued frustration within the progressive base of the Democrat Party.
And yes, I am serious enough about making this Dump Obama campaign work that I am focusing on organizational issues instead of who I think would be cool to run for president. I don’t mean to suggest that others who have floated the likes of Lady Gaga and George Clooney aren’t being serious, but I think if we’re going to be considering candidates, we need to be thinking along the lines of likelihood versus desire. How do we propose to draft Clooney or Michael Moore, for example, especially considering that neither one has expressed serious interest in running for president?
Alrighty then, looks like we’re starting to develop a list of potential Democratic challengers to Obama in 2012. In alphabetical order, they include:
Peter DeFazio
Russ Feingold
Dennis Kucinich
Andrew Romanoff
Elizabeth Warren
I threw in Elizabeth Warren because I’ve read entries and comments wherein the writers have expressed a desire to see her run for president, and on the surface at least, her politics appear to be more in line with those of movement progressives. For third party and unaffiliated candidates, the list so far is one name shorter:
Mike Gravel
Cynthia McKinney
Ralph Nader
Jesse Ventura
Again, this is only a tentative pair of lists and is highly subject to change as we develop them further. But it’s a start.
Good start. How do we make the approach? I generally despise online petitions, but in this case, it has merit. A general petition? Or specific petitions for each individual?
Also, I don’t consider it out of the question to run an absolute nobody, or another progressive who’s never held office. Then we would be reliant on our capacity to get some ballot access done, but in some states, that’s really no big deal, and generates a news hook.
One dynamic is that a “nobody” could get someone a little bigger to step in, and could then withdraw.
Greenwald?
Hamsher?
Sirota?
Aravosis?
Dan Choi?
Cockburn?
Huffington?
I’ve said above that a “nobody” candidate’s fight for media coverage would at one stage be the campaign. Later, inclusion in the debates could be the campaign.
At this point, the search itself could be the campaign. In other words, in the absence of publicizing a candidate, we could publicize the search itself. Publicly call on various figures to run, see what shakes out from that.
Why not Al Gore?
I heard Rahm really knows how to get things done in D.C.
Just throwing that out there…
A comedian! Just what we need!
He hasn’t expressed any interest in running since the 2000 non-election, and so far I’ve seen and heard nothing that indicates he’s going to ever again. Of course, we could float the idea by him anyway and see what happens, but I’ve not seen any real call for him to run again coming from the left.
How about Bill Black?
I don’t know him personally or much about his politics, but he is a genuine American hero who firmly believes in equal justice for all, accountability for criminal acts no matter who or how rich you are, and the Rule of Law. His passion for integrity and justice is unassailable. He is a giant among mere mortals and he knows that the key to fixing our economy is substantially increasing government spending to create jobs, not austerity measures.
He understands that the disparity in income and wealth between the rich and the rest of us is a major problem that must be addressed and he has the courage and gravitas to do something about it.
We need a tough guy. Somebody who is gonna tell the special interest to go “Cheney themselves” not some wimp (like Obama). Somebody like Trumka. He’s got kind of a tough guy image. (not a thug, though, right?). Thats why I like Grayson, but everybody says hes a sellout too. I don’t really see anybody else, who is not already on our list, out there fighting for us with a record that backs up his/her rhetoric.
Does anybody know what would happen to a candidate who posed a real threat to the bipartisan, authoritarian, plutocratic control freaks who already resent that the US standard of living is STILL higher than China
The gloves would come off, and the methods have been practiced in many different countries around the world, as regimes are changed, altered, or protected from real democratic, populist threats.
The ideal candidate would be a world famous orphan bachelor(ette) with an epic military career behind them, a Smedley Butler-like devotion from the military rank and file, and a Glenn Greenwald-like passion and eloquence in defending the constitution and its protections.
Jesse Ventura would appear to be the closest thing we have. Pat Tillman would have been absolutely perfect, as would have JFK Jr.
Too bad they both died extremely suspicious deaths, hint hint to Jesse Ventura.
You can bet that the powers that be have been looking to identify potential charismatic outside upstart candidates as well, but for very different reasons, and equal passion.
Also, a realistic candidate would NEED to attract voters across party lines. Otherwise Palin/Romney wins, and Obama will just be glad the establishment survived the threat.
Define a progressive agenda.
What are the most essential components of it that would attract libertarians and moderate, disgruntled Republican voters
Reform of the Fed, returning/maintaining Constitutional protections, camaign finance reform (including Citizens United repeal), and major scaleback/investigation of our MIC are together more important than most every other progessive wedge issue combined.
How does DADT compare in importance to the systematic destruction of the global economy, the neverending repeal of every Constitutional protection that threatens the oligarchy’s unlimite thirst for ever greater control, and global war designed to never end. You can be the hit list doesn’t end with Iran and Pakistan. Villages can be systematically bombed in any country, including our own, to create more enemies that must be defeated.
The challenge at hand is fundamental and existential, and the enemies are control freaks who will feel persecuted when their boot is threatened to be lifted from our necks. This will help them justify and rationalize anything.
Our problems go waay beyond the failure to impliment a progressive agenda.
Lets end the parasitic banking cartel, and their lackies’ control of Government, media, business, and many state houses, and then we can worry about the rest of the progressive agenda.
And scout the ranks of veterans and active duty military types, because they have bipartisan appeal, know how to fight, and know how to keep their head down.
Only problem is, our dream candidate might be handed to us by a secret employer, much like I suspect Bill Clinton and Obama were.
Alan Grayson
hehe, yes, I’ve heard that he’s exceptional at performing “right full rudder, all ahead flank” maneuvers. /s
Well said. I personally like Ventura because he’s brave and upfront, and I agree with everything else you wrote.
I like Feingold. And Sanders for that matter…
“On January 26, 2009, Sanders and Democrats Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold and Tom Harkin were the sole majority members to vote against confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be United States Secretary of the Treasury”(source wiki)
Believe it or not, if we’re careful not to give the moderators any excuses to ban us (and they still might), I think we may be able to use the new features on FDL to network with people like Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota. Dan Choi seems like an ideal candidate to run for either the House or the Senate.
@Jessabrams @#_____? no more #s on postings? that’l be missed.
That’s one of the best comment/posts ever as for getting real, IE:
“dream candidate might be handed to us by a secret employer.”
Dump the bum…
To all of the above:
Beyond identifying candidates who’d fill our bill, we need ideas for how to actually recruit them. Many of the above are “great if only they would.”
Additionally, someone might jump into the ring who’s not on our list. I believe we should find the best candidate we can — and can get to run. But if someone is running to the left of Obama and not his right, there is also great value in the very fact of opposition.
I voted for Obama, and I don’t regret it. If he had lost, we’d still be waiting for a Democrat Party savior. The fundamental problem was that we were not able to use his campaign to build something that stood for us in our own right.
So yes, find the best candidate we can. But recognize that the choice may not be in our hands. However, what we build most certainly is.
In a similar vein, who were the few Democrats to vote against renewal of the Patriot Act? It passed the House 315-97. In the Senate, it passed by voice vote.
The presidential campaign offers us all sorts of news hooks. As I mentioned above, our very search for a candidate can be used as a campaign event, even prior to landing a candidate.
So suppose we send out “invitations” to those House members who voted against the Patriot Act renewal. That could be news, and it’s the kind of move that further exposes the depravity of the Democrat Party.
Calling their offices via telephone, online and paper petitions, PACs designed to draft certain candidates — these things can help, I think. I’m not so sure about the feasibility of forming PACs, but phone calls and petitions might work. And I’m not talking about rinky-dink petitions, either. I’m talking about mass-organized ones that can’t be ignored.
Ventura is a joke. I live in Minnesota and his administration was pathetic. He is the epitome of a loose cannon. All mouth and little substance. His one good idea was light rail and he worked hard to get it done. The man is ultra thin-skinned and is very combative with the press and anyone who dares question him in any way. Couple that with his late obsession with conspiracies and he’s completely unfit.
Nader? Seriously? He couldn’t inspire a good bowel movement.
Rep. Grayson has definite possibilities. Calls them like he sees them and willing to push back hard on any right-wing crazy crap. The guy is as smart as a whip.
For reference, here is a consolidated list of candidates that people came up with:
Al Gore
Alan Grayson
Alexander Cockburn
Andrew Romanoff
Arianna Huffington
Ben Affleck
Bernie Sanders
Bill Black
Cynthia McKinney
David Sirota
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Elizabeth Warren
George Clooney
Glenn Greenwald
Howard Dean
Jane Hamsher
Jesse Ventura
John Aravosis
Madonna
Michael Moore
Peter DeFazio
Ralph Nader
Richard Trumka
Russ Feingold
Susan Sarandon
those congresspeople who voted no on extension of the Patriot Act
Lady Gaga were ventured but do not meet the age requirements.
Tactically, I think that Dump Obama will take a jump when the catfood commission makes its recommendations, which I believe Obama will endorse at least in part. That’s the next major line in the sand that Obama will cross. That’s where we need to launch a heightened offensive. (Not that we shouldn’t earlier, but it will thrust us more into the public eye.)
Time to consider:
website
petition
letter to prospective candidates (one letter or tailored to each?)
Can Dump Obama leverage Colbert’s and Stewart’s Rally as a jumping off event?
See my comment, here.