It's just that most didn't expect a President Obama to be so willing to move that half-way point so far that it amounted to merely the beginning or first step in a process of constantly moving half-way to the other side in a process the other side would be allowed to control.  

Just sayin'.

So other than the Supreme Court, what has his election gained us?

So please continue to logically support the dismantling of all safety net programs, the poor doing without food or heat and all tax cuts to the wealthy by continuing to vote for the president who signing these measures into law.

We're here in large part because a bunch of "smarter than though" types gave Kennedy the bright idea that dog gone it, Jimmy Carter needed to be shown what real democratic leadership was about, consequences be d*mned.

is just wrong.  Actually most of the TK inner circle were against his run in 1980.  It was mostly Ted himself who wanted it -- for personal reasons (re the way JC had disrespected him in private) primarily I suspect.

1968 was a more positive example of primarying an incumbent who went off doing crazy things in a distant unimportant little country and who wasn't listening to the base.  It was the right and necessary thing to do (re McC and RFK both), but alas some unfortunate events ensued.

As if the Republicans aren't going to highlight a lot of bad things about him if he gets the nomination?

That's a good one.

I'm sure you think you are staying above the fray by casting those who disagree with you as angry, silly children having tamper tantrums, but all you're doing is avoiding the reality that people have reason to be angry - and that they are looking for ways to channel that anger to effect the kind of change that was promised, but never delivered.

You say this is true, "Obama has a better chance to win re-election than any challenger has to win against th republican?"

But how do we know that if he runs un-opposed in the primary ?  Of course he will have the best chance if he has no competition, but the reality is he would be the only chance, not the same.  Best implies a population greater than one.

That's the circular reference, in order to know who has the best chance to beat the R's, we need a primary, then we decide who has the best chance.  We know you have already decided, but I haven't and your assumption is beyond a stretch.  A stretch very similar to the one HRC made in 2008.

Without a primary, McCain or Hillary would be President because no one gave Obama any sort of chance, Hillary was the candidate pre-Iowa.  But then the primaries gave Obama an opportunity for us to decide who we wanted, and for some it boiled down to 'best chance' but for others, we simply liked what he had to say.  

The primary is like a sporting event, normally the power house wins, but from time to time the underdog pulls one out.  Like they say, "It's why the game is played".

Without the primary, he is the only chance, which doesn't necessarily make him the best chance.  So please stop saying we shouldn't do X, because Y is true, knowing damn well for Y to be true, X has to be done.  

I don't care if a challenger can't win - that's not how I decide whether something is worth doing; I'm not all about the personality and adoration, about sacrificing my own interests and my own economic future so Obama can win - I'm about policy, and Obama's just sucks.  It sucks.  It's hurting people every day, and that's not acceptable to me.

News flash: we HAVE a conservative president, ABG - that's the problem; we're getting failed Republican policies up and down the line, and we're getting them from a Democratic president who thinks they're good ideas.

But if you aren't voting for democrats or you don't vote at all, any credibility you have is lost IMHO.

If you want someone who represents your interests, it's confusing that you advocate a position that would elect Pawlenty or Newt to represent you.

So, I should vote for one candidate - Obama - who doesn't represent my interests because if I don't, the other candidate who doesn't represent my interests might win?  No.  I'm not voting for any candidate who doesn't represent my interests; I've held my nose and voted for candidates that way for too long, and I won't do it anymore.  It's my vote, and it has to mean something, and voting against my interests is a betrayal of that vote.

Let me say that again: you can't claim to want a representative who is aligned with your interest and take a course of action (through vote or non-vote) that bring a person to power who is even less representative of your interests.

And I will say again that voting for one candidate who doesn't represent my interests to prevent another candidate who doesn't represent my interests from winning is what makes no sense.

Period. It cannot be logically supported.  Anyone who says that they hate conservative ideals but just won't vote for Obama because he's disappointed them isn't using their head (understatement).  They are making a decision based on emotion

I don't know where you get the balls to come to this blog, which is awash in people who are educated about the issues, the history behind those issues, who know the facts or do the work needed to find them, who understand and continue to educate themselves on the economy, on foreign policy, on the Constitution and the law, and reduce the considered, credible and coherent arguments of the commenters here to "emotion," but you could not be more wrong.  

Not voting in 2012 is the same as voting for the conservative.  There is no logical way to support the concept of not voting because you are disappointed in Obama when you know that the alternative is even worse.

Not voting is the same as not voting.  The vote I don't cast does not get given to anyone else - why don't you know that?  And one other thing: don't tell me what I should or should not do with my vote.  It's mine, it's personal to me, and - make a note of this - it's none of your business.  None.

This isn't about being "disappointed," ABG; this is about - for some of us - choosing not to legitimize or make credible the damaging and regressive policies this president has supported and advocated.

None. Zip. Nada. Zero.  I don't care what you have to call it to make yourself feel better. Hold your nose. Curse Obama's name. Do whatever you have to.

But if you aren't voting for democrats or you don't vote at all, any credibility you have is lost IMHO.

Heck of a winning campaign strategy you've got there - you might want to call Plouffe and Axelrod to see if there are some nifty bumper stickers or t-shirts you can come up with using that strategy.  

Do you find it al all ironic that that's pretty much all you've got?  

Things are very different now. The lines have been blurred to a point where today's Democrat would have been considered a right wing Republican 30 years ago. The party has lost it's direction and all sense of humanity and the common good for the country.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) criticized Obama's plan to extend all tax rates for two years as following in the vein of "Reaganomics," the free market-oriented policies sought by the GOP president when he was in office in the 1980s.

"If we recklessly cut taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent, then Obamanomics will look an awful lot like Reaganomics," Jackson said in a statement.
...
"I'm worried that the deal President Obama cut with Republicans sets us up for a Reagan-style set of bad choices," Jackson said, worrying that new tax cuts would empower a GOP-held House next year to pursue cuts to social programs.

"That was President Reagan's strategy: a 'starve the beast' plan of lowered taxes and increased military spending that would force Congress to make deep cuts in programs for the most vulnerable," the Chicago Democrat added. link