Obama To Continue Centrist Push For Re-election Campaign

The New York Times reports President Obama will continue to push a path to the center for his re-election campaign.

When was he anything but centrist? Who but conservative Republicans trying to disparage him ever cast him as a liberal? Apparently, some Democrats are now becoming uneasy with Obama's centrism and compromising ways:

The question of where Mr. Obama’s bottom line is on Democratic priorities will be that much more urgent to his party as House Republicans, energized by their success in resetting the terms of the debate in Washington, press an aggressive conservative agenda in the coming months that includes deeper spending cuts and a fundamental reshaping of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Obama does not seem concerned: [More...]

The White House is hoping voters will view compromising and trying to reach consensus as signs of mature leadership in a partisan environment, not weakness.

I sure hope the White House is correct, because the thought of Republicans getting back into the White House in 2012 is too awful to even contemplate. Democrats need to think twice before running down Obama. He's all that stands between us and a radical right agenda coming back in 2012. We either get Obama or we get them. I'm saving my anger until after the 2012 election.

< New Bernie Madoff Interview: Predicts Victims Will Come Out Ahead | SNL: Obama on Budget, "Everyone's Unhappy" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What do you do (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    when you have someone like Obama who will go along with the radical right?

    and why (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:53:31 PM EST
    save your anger when you know he's already going ot do what the GOP wants?

    What's worse? Someone who actually enacts radical legislation or someone who lets them enact it?


    Obama sucks... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Thanin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    but he wouldn't do what a repubican president would.  Just look at Wisconsin if you want to see what 2013 would be like if Obama loses.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    considering he gave them most of what the GOP wanted in the negotiations I wonder if Boehner was replaced with Scott Walker if Obama wouldn't be giving Walker what he wanted too. You certainly CAN'T depend on Obama and trying to "scare" people is tiresome.

    If anybody knows what the GOP is capapble of I do. Look no further than where I live, GA and that's why I know that dealing with them is absolutely fruitless. With Obama you're getting the same end results as you are with a lot of Republicans. Obama is a garden variety Reagan Republican.


    Tiresome or not... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Thanin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:49:03 PM EST
    its the reality of the situation.  And I lived most of my life in oklahoma, so I know all about what it's like living with republicans.  

    So what's your solution?  Primary Obama?  Could it actually work or would it lead to a tea party republican president rather than just a reagen one?


    It's (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:57:08 PM EST
    a lose/lose proposition and I don't see any solution. Obama losing could spur a national movement when it's in everybody's face that the GOP really are the radicals who put on a shiny face when election time comes 'round.

    If you care about issues, then primarying Obama is actually something worthwhile but I don't know anyone who is going to step up to the plate.


    Nobody will primary him (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:09:24 PM EST
    he just threw down the billion $ gauntlet. And that's been common knowledge for awhile.

    Also... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Thanin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    he has currently locked up one of the most important blocks in a Democratic primary, the AA vote.  I just don't see how any challenger could have a prayer.

    Spurring a national movement... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Thanin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:05:01 PM EST
    would be a silver lining, but the path of destruction left by a tea party conservative isn't something I want to experience just for the off chance of a backlash.  

    Look at 2010 for how quickly people forgot after 8 years of bush.

    And I of course care about issues.  That's why I never want the (R) to win.


    How is it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:20:19 AM EST
    any better when Obama allows the tea party to dictate the agenda? And the Supreme Court: Obama could very well nominate a conservative because the GOP might have control of the Senate and it would be too hard to get even a moderate through.

    Still not sure what your advocating... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Thanin on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    vote for a primary challenger that won't run?  Not vote and let Obama lose?

    Also, while Obama "could very well nominate a conservative", a republican president will absolutely nominate a conservative.  Don't see any alternative but to vote against the sure thing in this situation.


    I don't know about anyone else (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by sj on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    but I've stopped advocating for anything.  Except maybe for voting your conscience.  If your conscience says vote Democratic or even (ugh) Republican than do so because you believe in it.  I won't try to convince anyone otherwise.  

    But if one is railing against the changes in the D party then one needs to step back and analyze the consequences of their actions.  If they sincerely believe in the lesser of two evils concept, then support the lesser.  But do so with clear eyes.  That used to be me and I understand it very well.  I also see where it got us to today.

    I can only speak for myself when I say that I will no longer vote against my own interests.  It's very disturbing to find that I may very well have nothing to vote for.  But I know what I won't vote against.


    Basically (4.50 / 2) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    I'm advocating for nothing because there aren't any choices. Right now I'm just not going to show up to vote. I live in GA so it won't matter.

    I don't believe that 3rd party is the answer. We are stuck with a wimp who can't negotiate his way out of a paper bag who doesn't care what you or I want. He only is interested in pleasing some imaginary independents out there.


    So (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    wishy washy Obama who might nominate a conservative is better than somebody who will nominate a conservative. Talk about lose/lose like I said before. If you can't count on Obama to do the right thing and you can count on the other guys to do the wrong thing then we are totally screwed.

    I'm sure Obama will believe that Jeff Sessions will be negotiating with him in "good faith" on Supreme Court justices.

    The best hope on that account is for Obama to find another Justice Souter.


    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:58:31 PM EST
    Obama does a pretty good imitation of a Reagan president and also I think he might just be a tad more conservative than Reagan...Sad Sad Sad...

    Look at the recent (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by dead dancer on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    elections in Wisconsin.

    They had a taste of the radical right and don't seem to like it very much.

    Let the T party republicans win. If we survive their lunatic years, true change will come.


    What a big "if" you have there. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Thanin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    And like I said, it only took 2 years to forget about 8 years of bush.  Then add in the possibility of Ginsburg retiring after 2012.  No, it's just too much damage for me to be ok with.

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#59)
    by dead dancer on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:43:59 AM EST
    I should have been explicit in that my "Change will come" comment was a snark.

    We did go through eight years of the lunatic Bush and we voted in change and we got more of the same.

    You might as well get used to the damage. It has only just begun.


    Cynics for the win, eh? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Thanin on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    How do you get up in the morning?  Or better yet, why do you get up in the morning?  If I really believed what you do, I wouldn't even bother.

    A lot more going on (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by dead dancer on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    than the idiots politicians.

    Does sound like you should take or own advice and stay in bed, no matter how absurd that advice is.

    And thank you for your concern over my getting up in the morning ability. I do find early morning sex enjoyable.


    Quit bragging (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:20:24 PM EST
    TMI? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by shoephone on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:27:55 PM EST

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Thanin on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    I should have been more explicit that my entire post was snark.  But, um, thanks for images of you I didn't want in my head?

    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    you kind of asked for it.

    In no way did I ask... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Thanin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    for dead dancer sex.  That's gotta smell so bad in so many ways.

    LOL (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    lol!~ @ "mature leadership" (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    dude really needs to quit trying so hard to show everyone that he's 'the only grownup in the room' . . . it is a serious sign of weakness, imo.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    it's lame and it's tiresome and it's also becoming very condescending.

    AP not using its columns to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    congratulate Obama on his "mature leadership."

    Analysis: GOP won first round of budget battle

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican conservatives were the chief winners in the budget deal that forced Democrats to accept historic spending cuts they strongly opposed.

    Emboldened by last fall's election victories, fiscal conservatives have changed the debate in Washington. The question no longer is whether to cut spending, but how deeply. Rarely mentioned is the idea of higher taxes to lower the deficit.

    Their success is all the more notable because Democrats control the Senate and White House.

    Hecka job, Obama.


    actually its alarming, (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    Indicating an out of touch egomaniac or a drooling moron behind the mask.  About 85 15 i  would say. I believe obama is a dire threat to the nation

    Oh, and someone needs to clue him in (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:56:03 PM EST
    the center is back that way <<<<<

    Yes, if Obama was truly going to move (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    towards the center, he would definitely have to move further left.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#13)
    by phat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:48:34 PM EST
    That's hilarious.

    This is the way I feel about everything: (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    The Nazis are marching in to take over and we've sent Neville Chamberlain (Obama) out to meet them. It's a lose/lose proposition.

    wisconsin shows (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by observed on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:28:19 PM EST
    Its better to let the gop overreach, imo. Obama is poised to undo the new deal. There is no reason to de
    fend him.

    That's (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:29:16 PM EST
    what I'm wondering. Obama is really giving cover to the radical agenda of the GOP.

    If this is all we have (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:02:40 PM EST
    We're done.  Obama is NOT a centrist, he is a conservative man and politician by nature.  He is not redefining the terms of the center in more liberal or progressive terms, he is CONCEDING the center to the right.

    For heaven's sake, the dirtbag who heads Obama's committee/commission/junta on "jobs and competitiveness" is the biggest tax evading CEO serial killer of the moment.  And Obama simply says he "stands by" the man.  What more do you need to hear?  That is not anyone the average American can pin their hopes on as President. For anything.  

    So there we are, stuck with complete sh*t, or slightly less stinky sh*t.  Either way, there is no light ahead.

    Obama is Neville Chamberlin n/t (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:03:46 PM EST

    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    great minds think alike. I said it's like having the Nazis marching into your country and you sending Neville Chamberlain out to meet them. Either way you are going to lose and lose big time.

    And this is how we will continue to slide (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:28:04 PM EST
    ever more to the right.  What seems crazy now, like Paul Ryan's plan will be the Democratic plan in 10 years.  Why?  Because the left keeps accepting the idea that it has nowhere else to go but the Democratic Party, which frees the Democrats to chase the corporate money and pursue authoritarian policies because they don't have to give the left anything.   Why should Obama listen or care about what you want, Jeralyn, when you've already said you'll vote for him.  And what you'll get are Republican policies and each year they'll be worse and worse because there is no left pulling the Democrats the other way.  They don't have to give their base anything but a fear of the GOP (which the GOP is happy to help them with, recognizing that this way they win in the long run).

    Since Obama came into office, he's normalized - made it bipartisan and acceptable - to hold people indefinitely without trial (even if they've be acquitted), spy on Americans without a warrant, prosecute medical marijuana facilities, torture prisoners, bomb civilians indiscriminately, and a whole host of other things that at least when a GOP President did it, the "progressives" declared it unacceptable.  In fact, Obama's record is so much like Bush's that I think the left owes Bush a big apology.  Obviously, it largely has no problem with huge tax cuts, gutting social spending, restricting abortion, starting wars against countries that pose no threat to us, and shredding civil liberties.  Many alleged liberals and progressives are going to vote for someone who has done all of that - the very same stuff that made Bush unacceptable and even led to calls for impeachment.  

    I guess I don't understand how certain policies make Bush unacceptable, but still make Obama a good choice.  Because if the 15-20% of the populace who are truly left/liberal would stop propping up the Democrats with their votes, time and money, then we might have a shot at real change.  But so long as they're willing to support a Democratic version of Bush, we're all screwed because it means the very best we can hope for in 2012 is a Fourth Bush Term.  

    BTD too depressed to post (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    and Jeralyn is saying look out, it could be worse.

    I think I'm depressed too.

    hmm...the stupid speak again (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by JamesTX on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:18:36 PM EST
    Maybe I'm through pouting.

    I guess this feels a lot like being the child of an abusive and neglecting parent. Typically, such children fear being separated from that parent, and will react like any other child at the prospect.  This is because even the worst parent is a child's only source of stability, familiarity and predictability in the world. If Obama doesn't love us, who will? Voter Protective Services? Will the Republicans put us into re-education camps and teach us the true underlying moral value of thinking like social Darwinists?  How can we learn to be good social Darwinists when we have already lost the selection battle and are doomed for extinction?  Where will we go?  Where will we live? Who will tuck us in?

    The only people who got anything -- anything besides complete and blatant abuse and rejection from the Obama administration -- were the people who believe the most crucial and important crisis facing our country is the dying remnants of heterosexism.  Perhaps it is. I don't know. Maybe forcing the military to come to terms with the presence of the side of humanity which their paradigm has traditionally denied at all costs will spawn a real restructuring of social thought and policy. Maybe it will help expose the irrational sources of most aggression. But as of now, human and civil rights writ large seem to be taking a clear second priority to the right to say one is gay. I am not sure what good the right to say I am gay will be if I have none of the other rights which formed the infrastructure of freedom from which the gender and sexual revolution movements grew.  

    I seem to remember strong resistance to Obama during the campaigns because he was not pro-marriage.  In fact, I think there were calls to not vote for him on those grounds? So, he has rewarded the people who campaigned against him because his platform did not include their core cause precisely as specified, and he has punished and humiliated the people who supported him most. In all areas, he has continued or advanced Bush's policies unchanged without even offering his heartbroken, depressed, and hopeless supporters the dignity of an explanation. His justice department is a shameless continuation of the Bush administration and continues the unrelenting march toward complete destruction of the Bill of Rights as most of us grew up understanding it.  Military action has been escalated with no explanation. The drug war continues in full force -- including some fairly good evidence that it is now a military objective. All its cost and collateral damage continues while our intelligence is insulted with linguistic parlor tricks like the administration's policy to cease use of the "war" metaphor in official rhetoric on drug policy. All the while, though, the administration continues the drug war destruction and continues the full funding and escalating empowerment of that branch of law enforcement which has the least respect for civil liberties.

    Instead of health care reform, we got left at the mercy of the insurance companies.  Those companies know better than most Americans the clear and distinct difference between having health insurance and having health care. They run the best funded and most technologically advanced system conceivable for denying health care while maintaining the illusion of "coverage".  They will undoubtedly implement their knowledge in full force as the law takes effect, and will profit from it.

    Yes, this is what it feels like to be an abused child. In case you weren't one, perhaps now you can understand. The question is, is it better to keep families -- even abusive families -- together, or do we just turn ourselves in to the Republicans and let them plan our fate? Me? I'll stick with Dad. He'll beat me and rape me, and pimp me out to strangers, but I fear whatever is out there in the dark even more. In the end, I think I'm probably toast either way.

    Holy Smokes... (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    Me? I'll stick with Dad. He'll beat me and rape me, and pimp me out to strangers, but I fear whatever is out there in the dark even more. In the end, I think I'm probably toast either way.

    Quite a summation of our present situation.

    Although you are afraid of the an even worse scenario, your impression of the Obama administration is one that is abusive, beats you, rapes you and pimps you out to strangers.

    But you will vote for him anyway.

    I'm not faulting you, but what a mess we're in.


    I just wonder (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    what the goals were behind supporting Obama (as opposed to H. Clinton) in terms of the progressive community.  By booting out "the Clintons" progressives thought they had a chance at something more.  And I don't think "Post-Partisan 2.0" is what progressives wanted.  It's not what I wanted.  I worked for Clinton AND Obama...and basically it seems like the money could've come from anybody.  My feet on the ground mattered little, in terms of respect for the average joe/joan. Heck if I'm Obama in the WH I would feel like I was doing the right thing - the GOP is truly crazy enough that giving them the controls is utter recklessness.  Americans are used to the Dems as America's babysitter...its like unconditional love.  Of course they'll compromise.

    It's like we are living in a dream where basic economics do not matter.  And the people who can make the strongest arguments about why things happen as they do are marginalized (hi Krugman).  

    Sad that the primaries became an argument that had nothing to do with these issues, and everything to do with taking the piss out of each other.  

    Well..I have to wait and see (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Madeline on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 12:32:11 AM EST
    I am a Democrat that did not vote for Obama in the primary. I figure I have two choices: one, vote for him because of the scary Republicans who are going to continue to be the complete polar of Democratic principles or two, not vote for him and ride it out and hope for the best.

    I don't think that is too off base. It will get bad as predicted; I don't know about the SC because I don't think Ginsberg would ever retire with Republicans in power.

    I can wait it out.  I just can't mark that ticket.

    The only thing that can change (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:12:17 AM EST
    anything up in this lose/lose situation is real courage.  This is a democracy, we will have many more horrible leaders after this one.  So saving anger thinking you can get beyond it is sort of delusional and you aren't affecting the discourse in a meaningful way to induce future change when it is time for that to happen.  I just can't live that unauthentic and lacking credibility either so I won't able to save my anger for two plus years...and then finally express it when it won't even matter.

    I think about (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    Jeralyn right after it was announced that Obama was going to pick Biden as his running mate. She said that it was - or could be - a deal-breaker for her.

    Then, she got together with Anita Thompson, had several very interesting mixed drinks, and by the next morning she had resolved her misgivings.

    So, the apparent solution for the present is to imbibe judiciously every time Obama makes our eyes spin in their sockets.

    Then, after the election in 2012, we can start screaming and banging our heads on the wall.


    I think it is a bad idea (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    And like the damage that the party suffered on the heels of Jimmy Carter's presidency, that is where dealing with Obama in that manner leads.  I am unwilling to go down that road.  I just won't

    Totally agree. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    I won't either.

    And I do think it is bad for ones health to bottle up these strong emotions that range from deep sadness to revulsion to contempt to rage.


    Rx (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 05:03:02 AM EST
    I'm saving my anger until after the 2012 election.

    I don't think saving anger is healthy.

    Obama Destroying Whatever Reason Exists for Dems (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    single handedly too.

    For that reason alone he should be opposed.  I'd rather take my chances with radically insane GOP and a retrenched but principled Dem party in opposition than the automatic rollover Dems who "compromise" by giving into the Right.  They serve NO purpose.

    Pitiful state of affairs but NO to Obama, not again.  He's a world class BS artist.

    Too bad the center is now about (4.83 / 6) (#25)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    half a mile to the right of where it was two years ago, huh?

    Jeralyn, you said:

    Democrats need to think twice before running down Obama. He's all that stands between us and a radical right agenda coming back in 2012. We either get Obama or we get them. I'm saving my anger until after the 2012 election.

    And what I say to that is, we're getting "them" regardless - how is that not obvious?  If you didn't know the president was a Democrat, is there anything about his policies or agenda that would identify him as such?  I don't think so.

    Saving your anger until after 2012?  I don't even know what that means.  Wait until there's nothing you can do?

    Here's the thing, Jeralyn: the days when the Democrats are always the good guys are over. O. V. E. R.  That dynamic is dead.

    Where we are now is that it's them - Republicans and Democrats in office - against us.  On issue after issue, they are on the same page - the only difference is how quickly we are going to get where they - they - want to go.

    It's unbelievably disheartening and depressing to realize that Democrats - and Obama in particular - are not going to save us, Jeralyn, that we're probably stuck with someone who is almost completely antithetical to what the Democratic party used to stand for, and there is probably little we can do to stop it.

    Democrats - Obama - are not going to save us; after the battle over the budget, that ought to be obvious even to those who haven't been paying any attention at all.

    Saving your anger until after 2012 (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    From what I can tell this means giving Bush (D) a fourth term because he's better than the next GOP nominee.  And in 2016, we'll need to give the McCain/Huckabee/Romney-esque Democratic nominee our support because he will be better than the GOP nominee.  Then in 2020, we'll need to give the Paul Ryan/Rick Santorum-esque Democratic nominee our support because he will be better than the GOP nominee (who by that time will probably have horns and a tail and blood dripping from his or her fangs).   And by doing this we will avoid being ruled by those awful Republicans!  

    We're totally screwed.  


    Just finished (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:42:19 PM EST
    reading Charles Blow's article (NYT) in which he paints a pretty grim picture of the untenable political box Obama has managed to build for himself.

    As bad as that is, what's worse is the virtually unanimous negative comments. "Negative" may be a little misleading, venomous is probably more accurate.

    It's really ugly out there.

    That is (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    a very honest article on the situation as it stands now:

    I found this interesting:

    Last week, National Journal published a fascinating analysis that predicted that Obama would have to win about the same amount of, or more of, the white vote in states like Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia if his support among minorities dropped by just 10 percent. That's problematic on both counts. Obama's approval among whites remains below 40 percent. (He won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008.) And if present trends continue, his support among minorities could be off by much more than 10 percent.

    I just also listened to an interview with Glenn Ford of the Black Agenda Report who said that African Americans are losing hope with Obama. It's the strawmen that he constantly uses in arguments against African Americans that fries him and his cohorts.


    I think (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:26:39 PM EST
    that 10% drop was for AA's. Hispanics.....off 25%

    If I recall (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:28:36 PM EST
    Black Agenda Report has always been anti-Obama from a genuine lefty position.  I like them, but I wouldn't take what they say about public opinion in the AA community without corroboration from somewhere else because they do have an agenda.

    Apr Gallup poll confirms (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:32:35 PM EST
    that Obama's support from the AA and Hispanic communities has slipped.

    COMMENTARY |According to a new Gallup Poll, support for President Barack Obama has slipped substantially in two groups that no Democrat can afford to lose. Obama is down 7 percent to an 85 percent approval rate for African Americans.

    Obama is also down to a 54 percent approval rating among Hispanics. link

    IIRC Obama's support was running about 95% among African Americans at the time of the general election in 2008.


    And gee, he has a whole yr to (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:36:31 PM EST
    drop those %s even more . . . . gawd help us all.

    Jeff Zeleny finds his inner ABG (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    He writes
    "Polls regularly suggest that the independent and moderate voters -- particularly women -- who abandoned Democrats in 2010 prefer compromise to partisan feuding, and in that sense Mr. Obama has an opportunity to win back an important segment of the coalition that sent him to the White House."

    He must (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    not be reading the same polls I've seen. Obama has a huge problem with white working class voters especially women. Last poll I saw had obama with a 44% approval rating for women. He ain't gonna win with those numbers. I think Obama has the lowest poll numbers ever recorded for white voters with the Democratic party.

    PPP (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:05:15 PM EST
    reports that BHO can compete with Newtie in Georgia. I personally think that BHO's poll numbers are OK (though not great) but if Obama can compete with Newtie in Georgia, you are reading deceptive poll numbers.
    I can tell you that Mittster will lose his home state (MA) to BHO, same will happen to TPaw.

    Not (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:10:26 AM EST
    surprising because everyone down here hates Newtie. I keep telling everybody that Newt is not a threat but no one will listen.

    Look, if Obama couldn't carry GA in '08 he is not going to carry it in '12 with worse economic numbers. He's not going to carry, IN, VA or NC either it looks like.


    Poll Numbers (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:26:04 AM EST
    at this stage do not mean too much. I am myself not expecting BHO to carry GA in 2012 (he does not need to)but the fact that he is competitive there indicates that he has more support than some people here can imagine.
    I feel good about VA.
    He has a good chance in NC (if Republicans think that they have a chance in PA, why shouldn't Democrats feel that BHO has a similar chance in NC?).
    IN will be tough; not impossible but difficult.

    He is (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:30:22 AM EST
    not competitive here. The demographics right now aren't there for him. The most reliable voting bloc gives him a very low approval rating. If his approval rating was that high, the GOP wouldn't have had the rout in the state they had in '10.

    Even people like our former Attorney General Thurbert Baker has said that Obama has created huge demographic problems for the Dem party. He said if we can't get back white working class voters that we aren't even going to win. And that's not just GA, look at the upper midwest too.


    That's kind of a low shot there (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:17:11 PM EST
    to my knowledge she has never been a kool-aid drinker.

    Please.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by BTAL on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    I respect her legal arguments (even if I don't agree) but all you have to do is go back the last couple days to see many many here on the left who have both disagreed and even called her out on her Dem cheerleading comments.

    No low blow unless you want also call out several here (BTD included).


    Dem cheerleading is different (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:47:05 PM EST
    than the KA drinkers. We have a perfect example or 2 'round here and there's a selection over at the orange place also.

    When J whips out the list of Obama 'accomplishments', then we know we've lost her  ;)


    I'm not singing Obama's praises (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:41:55 PM EST
    I'm making the argument that Republicans are more dangerous....on the Supreme Court and on crime issues and for demolishing social security benefits and Medicare.

    There is no alternative to Obama in 2012 except a Republican. And that's worse.

    I never expected more from Obama, it's why I didn't support him until he won the nomination. I'm even less of a fan of Biden. But for those of you who did expect more, you need to see the bigger picture, otherwise you're going to give away the farm.

    There's two choices for 2012: Republicans or Democrats. A third party candidate can't win and Obama is a lock for the Democratic nomination Republicans are batty and dangerous. Even a centrist Dem is better than a Republican. We've already got too many conservatives on the Supreme Court. A Republican president will just appoint more of them. Republicans will pass more tough on crime bills. They are terrible on immigrants rights. They are terrible on everything.

    All this cat-wailing against Obama is going to help Republicans have a better shot at the White House and Congress. It's being very short-sighted.


    Then I guess I'll just say nothing (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 12:33:54 AM EST
    Your only message, J, seems to be "pull the lever for Obama" because your only choice is between bad and worse.  If that's the case, it seems to me the political equivalent of telling a suicidal person to hang on a second.  

    But you know most of us will suck it up and vote for him, and you know he'll win, and you know liberals will still be the reason he just couldn't be all he could be.  Whatever.  

    I'd also respectully suggest that by not fighting, by not leading, by being a poltical coward in general, Obama made it worse in the long run, which is as short-sighted as you get.


    Obama will not win (none / 0) (#84)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    when hard core lifetime Dems have tuned him out completely, he's toast in 2012.

    I cannot see any other candidate (none / 0) (#89)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 05:59:28 PM EST
    from the Democratic Party with a better chance of winning.

    At what point, J, do you finally (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:55:26 AM EST
    say "Enough?"

    Is it when Obama agrees to destroy Social Security under the guise of saving it? Is it when Medicare is revamped in such a way that it is almost useless to seniors who actually need it? Is it when taxes on the rich decrease even more, and the working and middle classes find themselves paying higher taxes to try to pay off the deficit?

     Obama's decision to agree to cuts in education, heating assistance for the poor, childhood nutrition programs, high speed rail, to name a few, clearly isn't your breaking point. And apparently his quiet acceptance of an unemployment/underemployment rate over 20% isn't your breaking point. And his continued shredding of the Constitution isn't your breaking point.

    Perhaps you will finally break if, god forbid, another spot on the Supreme Court opens up, and Obama, in the spirit of compromise with the GOP, appoints someone well to the right of Kagan, who is at best a centrist if not a bit center right.

    At what point do you say look around and wonder just how much worse could things really be if the Republicans win the White House?

    I had such very low expectations of Obama. And yet, I am stunned at how bad a president he is.


    The farm was sold to Wall St. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    two years ago. You are trying to protect the cesspool that remains.

    Immigrants rights? Deportations under Obama are higher than under Bush and the Dream Act is an unfulfilled dream with no action taken when the Dems controlled Congress. No action, besides talk, taken to actually do open up a path to citizenship for the millions who have been here for decades.


    If things keep going at the rate (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    they are, by the time 2012 gets here, what we're really going to have a choice between is two varieties of Republican; Obama's best chance will come if the GOP nominates a Tea Party-controlled candidate, leaving him looking, at least, like the sane choice, but he will really be indistinguishable from a garden-variety Reagan/Rockefeller Republican.

    Not much of a choice, in my opinion.

    And it's going to be harder to make a convincing argument that electing a Democrat will save us from terrible Republican policy when the current president is already giving us terrible Republican policy - and I don't think many of us see that situation taking a turn back to the left, to real Democratic governance.  


    Neither one (none / 0) (#73)
    by TJBuff on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    has any prayer of actually doing anything about the big problems.  Things like climate change don't really wait around until it's convenient.

    Found the mirror image of post # 61 in Red State (none / 0) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    I am reproducing the post from Red State below...
    "Nancy Pelosi, who you rightfully point out has more courage of character than the entire Republican leadership didn't have the courage to put forth this this spending as a budget. Instead they manipulated the Republicans into doing it. Next election that will come back to haunt the Republican

    The way I look at it, in 2012 we have a choice. We can vote for the Democrats who want to spend us into oblivion, or we can vote Republican who want to spend us into oblivion 1% slower.

    That is a Hobson's choice."


    Maybe hanging out at Red State (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    Isn't such a good idea if you want focus on good policy that will heal our nation?  Neither party is currently offering that.  The Democrats have the better chance of delivering that though if we make them.

    Not with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    & certainly not with an Obama who does not have to face re-election.

    Legacy (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    is a very important motivator for Presidents.

    Well, after just 2 yrs . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    O's setting up a "historic" one so far . . .

    Obama will have the legacy (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:34:38 AM EST
    of being the Democratic president that "tackled" the entitlement programs. If Paul Ryan is being depicted on most news channels as being courageous for offering a plan for dismantling Medicaid and Medicare, just think how courageous Obama will be for actually cutting SS, Medicare and Medicaid.



    Agree (none / 0) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:39:56 PM EST
    Once in a while I visit sites like Red State to get a dose of comedy. I do not hang out there.

    Agree with the thought that "the Democrats have the better chance of delivering that though if we make them."


    Not my problem (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by TJBuff on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    Tell Obama to read the Democratic party platform sometimes.  

    Personally, I can't get excited when the choice is between a direct route to hell and the scenic route to hell.  YMMV.


    I totally understand where you are coming from (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:01:20 PM EST
    There's some seriously scary sh*t on the right (more so than the past, imo).

    I wish we had some muscle pulling the party left . . . I worry about when O doesn't need any support from Dems after 2012 . . .


    i'm sorry to say (none / 0) (#46)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:16:47 PM EST
    that i completely agree w/you on this Jeralyn - well said

    Sad, isn't it. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    Of course your'e not... (none / 0) (#51)
    by NealB on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:54:40 AM EST
    ...singing Obama's praises.

    Aside from ending DADT and what may survive of the ACA, and Sotomayor and Kagen (both better than worse), there's little to praise.

    Best can be said about Obama is that he seemed to have tried.

    If I were him, the first black president facing the full force of the racism latent in our culture, I'd be cautious too. Liberals disliked him from the beginning because he's timid. Ironically, if he wasn't diffident he wouldn't be president.

    Anyway, if it's Romney for the Republicans next year, I might vote for Romney over Obama. Depends on the prospects for Democratic control of the House and Senate certainly, but Obama is a problem that refuses to solve itself. It's hard to come up with a good positive reason to support Obama next year.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    Is objectively right of course.  How could any other answer be correct?  "we are so angry at Obama that we want a person even worse to win!!!!!"

    "Obama is more conservative than Reagan!!!!!!!"

    C'mon people. I get the need to vent frustrations. Heck, I am frustrated.

    But the tendency to wildly overreach is a characteristic that can infect the left just as easily as it infects the right.

    And the idea that a republican is better than Obama or hat a republican in office isn't a disaster to be avoided at all costs is just sick.


    I deleted that comment for (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 12:27:29 AM EST
    containing personal insults.

    Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:17:28 PM EST
    is republican, without the card.

    But on the upside, I suppose the longer Obama is in office the more hope for change people will have....  

    Is (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    it similar to what people feel in a Casino after they have been losing and losing and losing?

    Just one more hand....


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    People in a casino also fool themselves into thinking that all the bets they previously made in the casino were "investments" they think they can't just up and walk away from?

    The 2012 election. (none / 0) (#62)
    by DFLer on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    is not just about the presidency. The House, and how many Senate seats, are all important. We can't abdicate the whole damn show.

    I want to understand (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    what you are saying fully.  Are you pointing out that by not addressing Obama's failings as a Democrat and how he fails his base simply in order to attempt to get him reelected, that we stand a chance of other Dems losing their seats?  Because I feel like I saw a bunch of Democrats lose their seats or have their seats in danger during the midterms that had our President acted like a Democrat and supported Democrat solutions and legislation, would have never been lost or in danger.

    For me what Feingold, Reid, and Boxer (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    went through was directly due to Obama's "economic decisions", just letting banks run over the top of us and inducing enormous unemployment.

    MT: see below (none / 0) (#98)
    by DFLer on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    Abdicating (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    on Obama doesn't mean abdicating on everybody. There are some good candidates out there worthy of time and money. Obama can get money from Wall Street and the millionaires he's so willingly handed the country over to. They paid for him and they're the ones that can spend their money on him.

    As for the rest of us, I will donate ONLY to candidates that I believe in. I'll not waste my hard earned money or precious time on Obama.


    MT, GAdem (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by DFLer on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    I guess I'm trying to say that I don't want my disappointment with this administration to enfeeble me from working for my congressman's reelection, for example, and just wanted to urge others to do so too. There's more at stake than the presidency. Selective contributions? Why not.

    I'm at the point of such weariness with politics that I feel like withdrawing some from the fray and from DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) party activities, like the county exec committee, of which I am a member. Yet there is much to do at the local, CD district and state level. As long as that battle looms, I just have to pull up my shorts and get to work.


    A Rose... (none / 0) (#87)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    It will be comforting when we sit down with our grandchildren, should we be lucky enough to do so, to tell them that everything that had been part of the American landscape since the New Deal got wiped away during a Democratic administration.

    It would be just awful if we had to tell them that this happened during a Republican administration.