Tweet
I was going to take a pass today, in honor of my favorite holiday, Halloween. But I was cruelly distracted by a headline at HuffPo: Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half of Dems Want 2010 Fight. The article cites an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll and states:
Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. …
Political operatives and polling experts caution that Obama’s poll standings say more about people’s frustrations today with the economy and other conditions than they do about his re-election prospects. With the next presidential election two years away – an eon in politics – the public’s view of Obama could easily improve if the economy revives or if he outmaneuvers Republicans on Capitol Hill or in the presidential campaign. …
The White House declined comment on the results.
Most significantly:
Nearly 3 in 10, or 29 percent, of Democrats who said during the spring of 2008 that they were backing Obama for the Democratic nomination now say they want him to be challenged in 2012. Seven in 10 want him renominated.
So it turns out that Dump Obama makes it into the mainstream. The pollsters knew it was a relevant question, and people definitely had thoughts about it. Yet “Democratic activists say there are no signs of a serious primary challenge to Obama.” They wouldn’t.
So what to make of this? First, as just stated above, Democratic activists reference a “serious primary challenge.” One fallback position they will use is to declare any challenge as not serious.
Secondly, the opposition to Obama within the party skews SLIGHTLY to the right, if one buys that Hillary supporters were to the right of Obama. Fact is, some were, some weren’t. Some were old party establishment types, and some were proud and radical feminists. Hillary’s support — branded as more conservative — tended to be, I believe, among the traditional DP organizations, among Obama’s main targets, and they represent a more organized force than Democrats in general. Then there is the Stupak factor. I recently read that another poll showed serious deterioration in Obama’s support among women, more deterioration than his deterioration in general.
Remember Stupak? The necessary compromise on abortion rights to get that piece of shit healthcare bill passed? Which women would get over soon enough? Yeah, right.
So I’m not sure what to make of all this. But tentatively, we can conclude that Dump Obama — whatever banner it’s under — is going to happen. It is clearly viable. But the political character of the challenge is unclear. In fact, as Democratic aspirants start to smell blood in the water, I suspect that he will face a multiplicity of challengers, some coming at him from the right, some coming from the left. Our responsibility as progressives — in my opinion — is to frame this as a left-wing challenge.
I’ve been throwing out the tactic of using the report from the Catfood Commission as some kind of jumping off point, a convenient launch date. Any word of support — or even waffling — on raising the retirement age or cutting Social Security benefits and Obama is officially Dumpworthy. I was thinking small. This might not be on the scale of the fight put up by the French workers and students, but somehow it goes to the heart of what the Democratic Party and Obama are about. And this time, unlike the healthcare fight, we go into it with our eyes wide open.
We can get this guy, and it will send a big, big message.
Now I can put on my mask and go around scaring people. Boo!
29 Comments
I’d rather make the dumping off point about the banksters. If Obama throws out the pocket veto and signs off on that horrible bill to give the mortgage fraudsters their Get Out Of Jail Free card, then toss ‘em and his whole crew.
We should attempt to make clear that this action is about POLICY, not personality. We stand with the people, and therefore support candidates, regardless of party, who make this stance in practice.
I’ve just finished Alex Abella’s book on the RAND Corporation and how this think tank influenced making rational choice theory, the idea that we are all consumers motivated by self-interest, enshrined bedrock philosophy in D.C. circles, particularly with the neoconservatives and the AEI. This is the groupthink, discredited by the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, than any progressive change agent needs to set about renouncing.
How about getting Mr. Abella in for a book chat, Jane?
, of the
“I suspect that he
will face a multiplicity of challengers, some coming at
him from the right, some coming from the left. Our
responsibility as progressives — in my opinion — is to frame this as a left-wing challenge.”
To many propagandized Americans, Obama IS very left wing. He coopted the concept, with the help of the media.
A challenge from the left of Obama would be portayed and believed by many to be even more Obama than Obama.
More unprincipled, more cowardly, more disingenuous, more elitist, more interested in forcing private products and services onto a reluctant and increasingly oppressed public.
Jeff, what are your highest priorities that you hope a challenger to Obama would inact
How might they be reprioritized to attract older, less educated, and those who think Hillary would have saved the world.
Is populist a good term to attach this outsider challenge to
Reformist
There’s got to be some other term that transcends the left-right paradigm used to make sure the oligarchy never loses, and pre-approved candidates always win.
We need some marketing expertise here. Picture Wolf Blitzer saying “challenge from the left-wing”
,,,,,,,,
There is logic to what you say. There are many lines in the sand we could draw.
The argument for doing the Catfood Commission report is:
(1) Obama set it up in defiance of Congress;
(2) It is simpler (raise the age or not, cut benefits or don’t); and
(3) The world waits with bated breath.
Remember, I already consider Obama completely Dumpworthy. This, to me, has a stronger news hook.
I really like “dumping off point”! Do you mind if I steal it?
My perspective is to fight for what we need, and try to form a cohesive force in the process. “many propagandized Americans” are going to think all sorts of things and we can’t try to work around that. PR gimmicks won’t cut it. These “propagandized Americans” are pretty savvy in some ways, and they’ll smell a rat. Better to be straightforward about what we’re about.
I don’t give a rat’s ass (smelly or not) about what Wolf Blitzer will say or think.
As for my highest priorities (not to dodge your question), I’ve written quite a lot about this, so please check these links:
Time for a Dump Obama movement
Dump Obama: more urgent than ever
Dump Obama: working today
Dump Obama: for a time of crisis
Dump Obama: time for a candidate
Allow me to add that when I initially proposed Dump Obama, many liberals thought this was crazed, foaming-at-the-mouth radicalism (see OpenLeft’s Paul Rosenberg) to primary Obama at all. Today, less so. Except for Rosenberg, who has declared, “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.”
I guess “change” is out too.
“Real Citizens United” or something.
Citizens might be a good buzzword, conveying active participation, perhaps combined with something conveying frustration, alienation, and relentless optimism.
Citizens for Dignity
The Dignity Party
Dignified and Unified
just thinking out loud. Any other ideas for good mottos and movement names
A well named movement could work inside and 3rd party as well, just like there’s the tea party and tea party republicans.
Btw Jeff, Dump Obama is a great motto!
Btw Jeff, Dump Obama is a great catch-phrase!
“Any word of support — or even waffling — on raising the retirement age or cutting Social Security benefits and Obama is officially Dumpworthy.”
you mean “officially” in the context of a “proper” primary challenge through “official” channels, I assume? But this shows how bankrupt this argument is. The notion that it would actually require something more to make Obama dumpworthy is one which could only exist in the Democratic Party paradigm. It is absurd, and frankly irrelevant. Let Obama run for a second term. But let him do so against a serious, left wing, third party challenger. No ifs, buts or compromises.
I’ve considered him Dumpworthy since I began this series in early September. (And before!)
It’s a tactical matter. At this point, Dump Obama sentiment among progressives has grown virally, but it is diverse, with a variety of nuances. This jumping off point is an attempt at getting people on the same page. Additionally, it’s an unbeatable marketing point for spreading Dump Obama word to the broader public.
As for your “serious, left wing, third party challenger,” that challenger will do better if they have an insurgent force within the Democratic Party to draw on.
My perspective is to build an alliance of progressive independents and progressive Dems. I infer from your comment — I hope wrongly — that you only see the outside wing of the tactic.
By “official,” I mean doing the work to get on the damn primary ballots. Do you see another way to run a primary challenge?
Spare yourself the trouble and take him on from a third party platform at the election itself. But this argument has been made before here and is still running. My feeling is people are slowly, ever so slowly, beginning to accept the complete irrelevance of the Democratic Party to any of their aspirations.
You are diffuse in your approach. It will not work. You must concentrate on one thing and one thing only. You are between two worlds, and precisely nowhere as things stand. Sorry if that seems harsh, but it is my judgment.
My OBSERVATION is more and more people are considering the Democratic Party a hopeless cause.
AND AND AND …
more and more people are starting to embrace the notion of an inside/outside tactic, an alliance of progressive independents and progressive Dems. This means that more and more independents are seeing possibilities within the Democratic base.
Programmatically, I think both can agree on a platform of Jobs (and safety net), peace and civil liberties. That is a winning cause regardless of the venue.
I would insist it is about the illegal spying, torture and wars. I think that whole thing needs to be dismantled and we need to stop engaging in war crimes. Otherwise there is really no point.
I think we should put every thing we don’t like about what he is doing together in a big list and then sort it into categories. Then plot out solutions to each and put it together in a big package. That package is our new party platform and then we look for politicians who agree with it.
The Repugs are making this easy for us, because they pretend it is about their stuffy old religion, the actual goal they are looking for is slavery. All this abortion bull shit is a ruse. They are trying to force women to have pregnancies, that is the real goal and it is consistent with an economic pattern that if taken to it’s logical conclusion is slavery.
We are getting awfully close so I’m glad people are finally waking up to the risk.
Good point, if we say we are from the left, we will automatically lose the media war. We need to frame our message in a way that attracts the Tea Partiers too.
How about we talk about ‘rule of law’?
I think populist is a good term. So is progressive. At some point it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves, they will still find a way to smear it. How about we go at it full face and call ourselves Truthers. They are always accusing us of being cowards, so that will surprise them.
And you aren’t building an alliance with anybody.
“You must concentrate on one thing and one thing only”? Since when?
I think you are ignoring the power of his technique. If the concept goes viral as we hope it will, it will be a lot better for us if we start out working on it from all angles.
One thing and one thing only is great, if you are the only person working on it, but what we have here (ideally) is swarm behavior. As the leadership we want the swarm to focus on ALL of our issues. That way they all get taken care of.
Does that make more sense?
How soon does that have to start? Is there a flow chart somewhere of each state, the process, timing, etc?
We are talking about the Democratic Party, do you have a candidate in mind? We need to start making a potentials list just like if we were CEOs and we wanted to hire a president. What qualifications are we looking for?
I think we need to pull together our party planks first.
A strong populist commitment to People and Saving The Environment, verses the corrupt and polluted corporate culture that has overtaken the two mainstream parties, is political copy that practically writes itself.
We also have to stand for ending the drug war and legalizing pot, those are needed to go along with a global peace plan, so I hope there won’t be any arguing about that on our side. We are for peace, they are for war.
We are for prosperity and health, they are for sickness and poverty.
Jeff’s right. He needs to be challenged the way Carter was. I propose Dr. Dean as a viable challenger, anybody but Hillary. She’s just as much a Corporatist as Obama if not even more so. Plus, I couldn’t stomach the thought of having to listen to her husband on an hrly basis always trying to hog his way back into the spot light.
See Dump Obama: time for a candidate for a further discussion of candidates.
I’ve done some looking into primary ballot access requirements. Signatures and filing fee requirements vary by state, but generally range from almost nothing to 10,000 signatures and a few thousand bucks. Some states are really horrible, but most are no big deal. Not insurmountable if there is a core organization in place.
There are (at least) 2 sets of questions here. (1) Who do WE want, and can we do the ballot access challenge? (2) And if the candidacies are outside our control, which among them (I think it’s going to be a THEM now) do we support?
Dumping Obama is all good.
He’s toxic for the country.
The sooner we can unload this loser, the better.
He does everything in secret. We have a back room government.
The only time he’s around is when he wants something.
This dump Obama theme seems to me to be rooted in our own psychodrama and tendencies to be followers with a need for a leader, and rejection of that leader who promised to deliver us to the promised land and failed for one reason or another.
His “conventional” position on religion and deferring to religious/military authorities on DADT, DOMA, allowing BP to spray the lethal chemical Corexit into the gulf, and doing the bankers bidding indicates he may be a Right-wing Authoritarian without leadership abilities and is able to be easily co-opted by amoral Social dominators. (not immoral himself, but a brown-shirt at the top of the heap, but who knows?)
Obama is a figurehead or a lightening rod. He may or may not be in charge personally.
See Bob Altemeyer’s – The Authoritarians
Maybe someone schooled in psychology can weigh in and tell me I’m full of shit or whatever.
There is one other branch of Government we can control much easier, and by leveraging that power we could push the President- no matter who he is. The Congress is entirely negligent in fulfilling it’s duties, and we are negligent in failing to hold their feet to the fire by not removing them for selling us to the highest bidder. We have got to get involved with pressuring our congressmen and senators.
Powwow lays this out almost every time (s)he posts. Here’s three times in just one diary.
This is just one diary
“…Neutral-state law of nation rights of Yemen that conflict, no doubt, with the asserted, but fraudulent, interpretations of the law of nations, and its subsidiary law of war, with which the Executive Branch (and the media, in the absence of judicial or congressional checks) is now thoroughly contaminated.”
…
“But even if the target language of that AUMF can somehow be stretched to fit its “armed conflict” over areas where there’s no actual fighting underway against U.S. forces a decade after 9/11 – a dangerous stretching that’s enabled by the continued absence of Congressional or meaningful judicial check on Executive action – so as to declare Al-Awlaki (but not Yemen) involved in the attacks of 9/11, it would mean that the rules of neutrality under the law of nations come into play.”
…
“Is the U.S. government’s sprawling “security” complex threatening/bribing/cajoling Yemen to kill (or to let be killed) an American (and Yemeni) citizen simply because it doesn’t trust Yemen’s justice system to bring Al-Awlaki to justice, won’t let the American justice system indict him, and/or won’t trust Yemen enough to share any American evidence of criminal acts that Al-Awlaki has committed? Or, in the absence of any independent check exerted by Congress and in the near term by federal district Judge John Bates, just because it can?”
There are three branches of Government, and the checks and balances are missing. If Absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is likely to happen to anyone he is replaced with as well.
Just my 15 cents.
You say: “This dump Obama theme seems to me to be rooted in our own psychodrama and tendencies to be followers with a need for a leader, and rejection of that leader who promised to deliver us to the promised land and failed for one reason or another.”
Or it could be a developing, well-considered plan of action to break out of our current box.
But if your bald assertion were correct, and if it is a mass phenomenon, shouldn’t we make the most of it? However vulgar it may appear to your sensibilities?
The arguments you advance against Dump Obama are in fact strong arguments for it. As a figurehead, he makes a great focal point, whether or not he is in charge personally.
Going after Congress (a good thing to do) is diffuse. Given the fragmented state of progressivism, it would maintain that fragmentation, while a single focal point could be the beginning of a broader effort.
I’m sure Obama’s replacement will turn out evil. The question isn’t what that replacement will do, but what we ourselves can build. We build successfully, we’ll handle all those other problems. If not, we’re screwed no matter what we espouse.
“However vulgar it may appear to your sensibilities?”
I don’t know where you got this from, but it’s an idea entirely of your own making.
Which “bald assertion” would that be? Hardly. Altermeyer inspired John Dean’s Book, Conservatives without conscience, did clinical trials of his theories on Right-wing Authoritarians and wrote peer reviewed papers before writing his own book. I didn’t just pull this outta my ass.
I didn’t make an argument against removing Obama, I made an argument for restoring checks and balances in the government, without which any President will become an imperial president. The total roll over and subservient abdication of congressional independence and duties started with Tom Delay under Bush, so it’s the second iteration of the phenomenon. Just like with Caligula, then Nero.. who’s next?
Rather that opening your mind to additional considerations, it seems like you knee jerk reject any alternative of, or expansion to your own ideas. Carry on.
You baldly assert that a well-thought out plan of action should be reduced to a matter of psychology in your first sentence. I don’t care where you pulled it out of.
After your bald assertion, you state: “There is one other branch of Government we can control much easier, and by leveraging that power we could push the President- no matter who he is.” It seemed clear to me that this was posed as an alternative to Dump Obama.
Likewise, “If Absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is likely to happen to anyone he is replaced with as well” seems to me an argument against Dump Obama.
Removing Obama, by the way, is an activity. Dump Obama is a plan with supporters that has been steadily evolving in the last month-and-a-half.
“Rather that opening your mind to additional considerations, it seems like you knee jerk reject any alternative of, or expansion to your own ideas.” Actually, going after the House was my perspective about a year ago. I had reasons for changing my mind. You are not the first to suggest this emphasis on Congress, it has been discussed, and your suggestion offers nothing new.
So you conclude a disagreement with another bald assertion about “knee jerk rejection.” And you get nasty.
The next two years will be much worse than the last two economy wise IMHO. If I’m right Obama may not even run. Y’all who are discussing a challenger should pick someone who can win the general because he/she will probably be the candidate.