Taking on Obama within the Democratic Party

Obama's gambling here with Afghanistan now. It might only a matter of time until Obama is facing a challenger for his 2012 nomination in the Democratic Party. 

As Ackerman blogged, with Obama saying that his going to Petraeus is a change in personnel, but not policy, that's party true, but also party not the case.

Today Obama clarified what July 2011 means — somewhat. It means what Gen. Petraeus, his new commander, told the Senate he supports: not a “race for the exits,” but a “conditions-based,” open-ended transition. If that still sounds unclear, it’s because the policy itself is unclear. But by placing Petraeus at the helm, it means that 2012 will probably look more like right now, in terms of troop levels and U.S. troops fighting...

This will get clarified shortly. McCain has already stated that he'll use the Peatrus hearings to clarify that 2011 is not a withdrawal date:

The concern that we have is, and the issue that will be raised in General Petraeus' confirmation hearings is, exactly what is meant by ‘withdrawal in the middle of 2011,’ whether that is ‘etched in stone’ as the President's spokesperson … stated or whether it will be conditions based.  ... The withdrawal of U.S. troops must be based on conditions at the time, not on an arbitrary date.”

The "etched in stone" remark was Gibbs last year, multiple times stating that 2011 was the departure date.

I found the Rolling Stone article blah, but with this nugget of truth, regarding to fallacy of nation building through the military:

"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense."


I am not convinced that Obama will be challenged from within the Democratic Party, but, his near complete adoption of the Bush military strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and missing his promised withdrawal date in Iraq (done) and Afghanistan (July 2011), certainly provide a huge populist opening against him for prolonging these open-ended wars.

Its also deadly for Obama's brand. An oppositional candidate would easily attack the above as a complete betrayal of what Obama promised (though there are loyalists that connive a myth otherwise). I'd surmise that his political team would advise Obama to move to the get out the wars asap if a serious challenger emerged. Which is good reason for a challenge to emerge.

But whom is the current Democratic Senator that resembles Eugene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy?  None that I have heard. Come July 2011, would one emerge? By 2012, will there even a pat Buchanan like voice to run against Obama?

Too early to know; but if Ackerman is right about 2012, and McCain & Peatrus get their way with staying in Afghanistan, the oppositional groundwork over this important issue is done.

Tags: (all tags)



There will be the demand

but it's not clear that there'll be the supply. Who could and would run a credible challenge? Howard Dean? He supports the war in Afghanistan. Feingold? Can't see it. And while I welcome a challenge from the left (on both economic and war-peace issues), I wouldn't welcome the racial division it would cause (assuming the challenger weren't black.) 

At this point it seems that the only antiwar challenge may come from Lou Dobbs, who's called for the troops to come home from Afghanistan. 







by david mizner 2010-06-24 12:30PM | 0 recs
RE: There will be the demand

Good points. From a historical standpoint, the issues that Obama has taken and left undone certainly leave him open, but there are some important distinctions that leave me thinking that's not enough, and if there is a challenge from a newscaster or such, it won't be that dangerous for his nomination.

After 2008, no one looks forward to a bloody primary; with all the baggage you note.

The preception is that the GOP will nominate a weak candidate probably helps Obama too; as people think he'll be re-elected, though its looking more dicey.

The Independent candidate certainly looks more likely at this point, for the GE; I would almost bet on that happening.


by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-24 02:51PM | 0 recs
Isn't this a little hysterical?

The initial withdrawal date for Iraq was August 2010. The modified withdrawal date is end of 2010. Do people care? No. The important point is that we are leaving, as Obama promissed. People understand logistical delays.


by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-24 01:00PM | 1 recs
RE: Isn't this a little hysterical?

Ok, come on, when are we leaving? Obama is continually re-inventing his promise on this one. A few pointers for you:


Running for the Democratic nomination, he needed an issue to separate himself from the pack. he put forth a bill to leave Iraq by the end of 2008.



"I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now," the Illinois senator said in excerpts from a speech he was to deliver later in Iowa. The excerpts were released by his presidential campaign.

He said he would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of 2008.

This turned into a campaign promise:

Obama campaign Web site: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al-Qaida attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al-Qaida."

So quit making lies up. The important point that you need to reconcile is that we are not leaving under Obama anytime soon, from Iraq or Afghanistan.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-24 02:33PM | 1 recs

Well, Barack Obama wasn't President in 2008. It's sort of difficult for me to become angry that Preisdent Obama didn't do something he wanted to do before he had the power to start doing it.

The clock started on January 20, 2009, and the drawdown must proceed in an orderly manner. I'm looking at the graph of troop numbers, and low and behold, they are steadily decreasing.

What if there is a logistical problem? He said 16 months during the primary, which would be May 20, 2010. Okay, we're leaving but not gone yet. Is it really that much heartache if we will be gone soon enough? I really think people only care that we are leaving, not in a few months' delays after all these years.

And why must you throw out accusations of lying? Where did I lie?

I'm simply looking at the troop numbers and the time, and I'm aware that it isn't August 31, 2010 yet, or even December 31, 2010 yet.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-24 03:18PM | 1 recs
RE: Timeline

You claimed "initial withdrawal date for Iraq was August 2010" while you realize now its not. His was May. Then it was changed, now again... I will bet you there will be another reason why we are still there in Iraq in 2011 too...

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-24 03:57PM | 1 recs
RE: Timeline

Do people really care if it is May or August? You may. I don't.You know what I do care about? That it is done in a safe and secure manner. That's what I care about. I find it rather frightening that you don't seem to feel the same way. The troops are leaving Iraq. You cannot argue that. They aren't going the other way. Who cares if it is May or December?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-24 04:30PM | 0 recs
RE: Timeline

Well, I'm sure the ones impacted by it care; might not be you, guess your one lucky fella.

Really?  You can't argue that, says who? But aside from all that, the post is premised on 2011; we'll see then.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-24 07:42PM | 1 recs
RE: Isn't this a little hysterical?

I rarely come around hear anymore becuse it's usually just sloshing around in all that koOlade, so it's good to see the voice of reason is finally being heard.  


In spite of all the spiteful appeassers it's good to see that J. ArmSTRONG is hear calling out the loosers and liers.  There may still be a chance for the real democrats to take charge. 

by 2010-06-29 01:50AM | 0 recs
Man is that over the top

The idea that a four month delay from a deadling stated in the middle of 2008 constitutes a major lie is sheer nonsense.  

The poster here is hardly spouting lies.  In fact, your are actually far more misleading.  In February of 2009 Obama said he would withdrawl combat troops from Iraq by August 30th, 2010.


As of this writing, it appears the deadline set in 2009 may be missed by a couple of months.

The number of troops in Iraq has declined significantly, and the idea that he has betrayed his promises on Iraq at this point is hysterical nonsense - and says more about the person making the charge than it does about Obama on Iraq. 


by fladem 2010-06-29 05:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Man is that over the top

Ok, is some world, yours I guess, leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq, and making a semantic change to call them "non-combatant" (which is no true), constitutes a withdrawal.

Besides, all Obama is up to is a bait and switch, by sending those and more troops into Afghanistan, on the way to north of 100,000.

July 2011? Opps, that means nothing now.

You get to believe whatever lies you like, and you can call those lies whatever you'd like, but there's only one reality.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-29 08:51PM | 1 recs
RE: Man is that over the top

That sure cut him down to size!


Its great to see a fact master at work! 

by 2010-06-29 10:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Man is that over the top

Youre using an awfully w-e-a-k argument against J. ArmSTRONG.


Let me help you out here, it's a given that Jerome is the smartest and most esperienced person here, and he's the owner too!  The man has earned the name the Blogfather!  If you want to challenge J. ArmSTRONG then do your homework, check your facts and be ready to back them up, because youre arguing with a man who really knows his stuff!  Trying to pretend a lie isn't a lie just because youve drunk enough of the koOlade isnt enough to dig the war-lover in thief out of the much that he's already buried in.


Now go try some yoga or yogurt or something else not too demanding. 

by 2010-06-29 09:58PM | 0 recs
Jerome? hysterical?

Noooooo, really?

by DTOzone 2010-06-28 10:40PM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome? hysterical?



But people like you and you'r koOlade klan on the other hand...

by 2010-06-29 01:52AM | 0 recs
Stop mocking Jerome

his bitterness is funny, but you don't have to mock him like that.

by DTOzone 2010-06-30 08:34AM | 0 recs
RE: Stop mocking Jerome

Is this all you have left?   You want to make believe that youre still the center of the universe?  Well I have news for you, the world has seen what a failure we've ended up with and J. ArmSTRONG is one of the few clear voices telling us what we can do to get out of this hopey rut.  in the good old days of MyDD he was the force behind the reason tis blog was the last refuge for the realists in the Democratic party!  Its people like you and the rest of your koOlade kids that, now that you see Jerome is back taking center stage and clearly stating the truth, try to take him down, along with any decent from the appeasment DNC line, by mockery and belittiling!  


Theres nothing funny about the sad truth of the sad state we've been brought to by all the people who followed the fold instead of exercising logical thought when it came to the choice of a decent man to lead our party.  Now its time for you and the others to stop being defencive and to work your a**es off to be part of the solution!



by 2010-06-30 10:26AM | 0 recs
RE: Taking on Obama within the Democratic Party

Give it a rest, Jerome.

I always come to MyDD first, but I'm beginning to wonder why. Between the lefty freeper rants of Jerome, Upstate Kent, Charles Lemons, Nathan Espenall, Nate Silver, desmoinesdem and the rest of the little old lefties in tennis shoes, I'm not sure what the use is.

Maybe we could just impeach Obama. You want to go there? I'm sure Darrell Issa would welcome your support.

Besides, it's going to be another 30 years before the country's ready for your perfect leader (the liberal Shrub) and they won't last 10 minutes with you, anyway.

by spirowasright 2010-06-24 02:58PM | 0 recs
RE: Taking on Obama within the Democratic Party

Well, I will vehemently defend Charles and Nathan. They may be vocal critics, but at least they have intellectual honesty and consistency in their criticisms.

I've been using this site mostly as a portal to some of the blogs listed on the left.

I have switched to reading Taylor Marsh as my balance. I can get my clintonista fill and talk to someone who is famous.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
I don't know why you "come here first"......

This blog used to be great, but it's no longer a daily visit for me like it was long ago.  There is still good front-page content here, so I stop by and check it out.  It's otherwise just an amusement to see the Obama bashing go off the deep end.  It's just like visiting the Hillary sycophant blogs in 2008 post-primary.

On the substantive issue in this discussion, Obama's popularity within the Democratic Party has been steady for his entire Presidency.  There's been erosion with independents and Republicans (that is, those GOPers who early on claimed to have approved of Obama's job performance), and that's been the entire decline.  The sniping from the left comes from the same tiny fraction of people who snipe at Democrats all the time, for whom no one and no legislation and no policy is ever good enough, and the politics of the possible are wholly rejected.

The notion of a primary challenge is delusional fantasy.  Obama will run for reelection unchallenged within the Democratic Party and win in the ballpark of 90% of Democrats in November 2012, same as last time.  Afghanistan is not going to change that.

by DCCyclone 2010-06-28 12:24PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't know why you "come here first"......

I come to MyDD a half dozen times a week to enjoy the delusional fantasy, but then  leave within minutes because of the deafening sounds of crickets. One of the sanest voices will abandon Obama if he fails to produce the withdrawal of at least two brigades and the implementation of a timetable in Afghanistan by some arbitrary future date based on something or other. I love this place.

by QTG 2010-06-28 04:02PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't know why you "come here first"......

If he fails?  





by 2010-06-29 01:56AM | 0 recs
RE: I don't know why you "come here first"......

Now that J. ArmSTRONG is exerting is powerful (and CORRECT!!!) voice, this blog will quickly return to its proper state of greateness.  It was just all the koOolade-swilling hopeless hopeponies that had dragged this place down for a bit.  I guess they started drownding in their own koOlade. *heh!*


So why don't you calm down and soak up the wisdom?  I lot of dems are realizing that they were suckered and hoodwinked, it's not to late for you to join the smart side of the D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-i-c party!

by 2010-06-29 04:41AM | 0 recs
RE: Taking on Obama within the Democratic Party

Why don't you "give it a rest"? 


Jerome is one of the few people who speaks sense in this place.  Unlike so many slide-by snipers, he's reamained clear and consistent.  The people like you could learn a whole lot from Jerome.  So stop arguing without facts or logic and listen up!

by 2010-06-29 01:55AM | 0 recs


by greenvtster 2010-06-24 04:12PM | 0 recs
RE: Challenger

He couldn't challenge; he's not even in the Democratic Party... but its a nice thought.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-24 07:43PM | 0 recs
Dean, Feingold, hell, even Kucinich

If anybody is going to do it, they better do it fast.  This isnt just about Afghanistan.  Its about Obama's refusal to do anything significant about jobs and his pissing on progressives over and over again.  Out of these three, they only one I can see running is Kucinich and I would vote for him simply because he isnt Obama.  Maybe he will run as third party, which would be good enough.

by Kent 2010-06-24 11:46PM | 1 recs
RE: Dean, Feingold, hell, even Kucinich

So you finally got off the koOlade?  

Of course you waited until after you supported this catastrophy of hope.  Do you ever think that if you hadn't been such a pushover for Mr. A  Speach Can Change the World, that you could have helped to save us from having this war-lover instead of a leader?  


Even though you seem to see the fally of your ways now it was people just like you who put us in this DISASTEROUS position in the first place!  Look at yourself and cry!

by 2010-06-29 02:00AM | 0 recs
the only person that can run and win in 2012

is Hillary Clinton. Lefties will assume she will want to stay in Afghanistan forever, but that's not what this is about. It's about leadership, and Obama is failing on this front in many cases that go beyond Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton has shown tremendous leadership as SOS - yes, it's easier than President; but according to the last Rassmussen poll she is the ONLY politican to garner a high approval rating (and this includes republicans) and the only politican to garner a 57% rating when asked if she is qualified to be President.Obama has allowed the right wing to win on most of the arguments. Hillary is a fighter this would not have happened. Afghanistan is only ONE of a multitude of crappy problems we've been left with. There at least has to be the PERCEPTION of leadership which there currently is not.

Hillary will run if Obama steps aside and he may actually be smart enough to do this.

Otherwise, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, etc. - ANY challenge from within the Party if Obama wants to fight guarantees a loss of both the whitehouse and congress. NOT a good move.



by nikkid 2010-06-25 12:17AM | 1 recs
No, for Jerome

this is about the inadequate black man winning. If President Hillary was staying in Afghanistan forever, he'd be very silent.

Hillary wouldn't allow the right wing to win arguments since she herself would have coopted them anyway.

by DTOzone 2010-06-28 10:43PM | 0 recs
No, for Jerome

this is about the inadequate black man winning. If President Hillary was staying in Afghanistan forever, he'd be very silent.

Hillary wouldn't allow the right wing to win arguments since she herself would have coopted them anyway.

by DTOzone 2010-06-28 10:43PM | 0 recs
RE: No, for Jerome

Sayin it twice doesnt make you seem any smarter.

by 2010-06-29 02:01AM | 0 recs
Oh for God's sake!

Now Obama is LBJ? Give me a freakin' break, Jerome. The war in Afghanistan was supported by a lot of Dems and progressives and how dare you pull the "well, I guess it doesn't affect you, lucky fella" bullshit. We all care about what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq but it's difficult to disengage, as Hillary pointed out during the campaign. We've asked a lot of Afghan people to work with us to create a more stable society and government there, not exactly trying to recreate the entire Moslem world--nice sloppy extension there. Afghanistan is a huge problem but was even moreso when the Talibam government provided support for Al Quaeda terrorists.

Obama is directing a careful withdrawal from Iraq without putting a lot of people at risk and there is an opportunity there for some stabilty after we're gone. He inherited a mess and is maing progress in getting us out of there. No Democrat will offer a serious challenge to Obama--even raising it as a legitimate possibility is doing nothing but undermining his presidency at a most critical time. We don't need MyDD for that, Jerome--there are plenty of opposition sites for that.

by Thaddeus 2010-06-25 01:03AM | 0 recs
No serious challenge to Obama?

Are you kidding me?  The Democratic party was at the top of the world before this bumbler came into the White House.  Barack Obama has done more to wreck a political party long term than any other President since Herbert Hoover.  Six more years of Obama and the Democrats will be down to 150 seats in the House and 30 in the Senate. 

by Kent 2010-06-25 02:09AM | 1 recs
You're adorable

you are

by DTOzone 2010-06-26 03:23PM | 0 recs
RE: No serious challenge to Obama?

And we'd STILL be on top of the world if you didn't falll for this turkey when it mattered!  If youre suddenly this smart then why weren't you out there sounding the alarm that this war-lovin' looser would take us all down the cliff? 


Youre bing hard on Hoover, he's looking like a knight in shining amor compared to the koOlade king we got now!


by 2010-06-29 02:06AM | 0 recs
Obama mobilized millions

and helped deliver the current large majorities in both chambers.  But then, you probably knew that once, not so very long ago.

by Thaddeus 2010-06-27 10:19PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama mobilized millions

Wierd psyco-idol talk.

Wierd, who know Obama had the force in 2006 when we gained the majority.

So its all his fault when we lose in November this year too?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
RE: Obama mobilized millions

Impressive Mr. ArmSTRONG!  


Its so worth putting up with their whiny crybabying just to see you slap them down with fact, reason and logic!

Rah Rah Rah!

by 2010-06-29 02:09AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads