[Peace-discuss] Panicky attempt by liberals to forestall obvious move

[C. G. Estabrook]

  [I'd certainly back an "Obama primary challenger," and I doubt that I'm alone. 
The parallel would be Democratic senator Eugene McCarthy's "primary challenge" 
to a Democratic president's illegal war in 1968, even though McCarthy proved a 
weak reed. On March 12 of that year, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote in New 
Hampshire to Johnson's 49%, a notably strong showing. Four days later, the 
opportunist Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York came out as an "antiwar 
candidate." Polling by Johnson's campaign in Wisconsin, the next state to hold a 
primary election, showed the president trailing badly. Therefore, at the end of 
a March 31 speech, he shocked the nation when he announced he would not run for 
re-election: "I shall not seek, nor will I accept the nomination of my party for 
another term as your President." Within the year, 70% of Americans were telling 
pollsters that the war in Vietnam was "fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a 
mistake" - a remarkable figure considering the fact that scarcely a hint of such 
a thought was expressible in mainstream opinion. Democratic party opposition - 
including McCarthy, RFK, John Kerry, etc. - regarded the war as a "quagmire" the 
US had blundered into - a "mistake," not what in fact it was, an aspect of 
continuous American policy. So maybe we can force Obama to imitate LBJ. --CGE]

‘Professional left’ not ready to back an Obama primary challenger in '12
By Sam Youngman - 08/13/10 06:00 AM ET

As angry as they might be, the professional left isn't ready to back a primary 
challenger to President Obama just yet.

Two high-profile liberals on Thursday said they are not interested in running 
against the president in 2012, and liberal bloggers say any challenge to Obama 
would be fraught with difficulty.

“I haven't heard of a credible name that has been floated that would challenge 
President Obama,” said David Sirota, a prominent liberal blogger. “I haven't 
heard of that. I think it would be very difficult to do.”

Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, who is also a columnist for The Hill, said he 
didn't think Obama would get a 2012 primary challenge "in a million years." In 
an e-mail, Moulitsas also said Obama shouldn't be challenged.

Still, some influential voices on the left, which erupted in fury this week at 
criticism White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made in an interview with The 
Hill, suggest a multitude of voices in New Hampshire and Iowa could be helpful 
to the party.

“I have always encouraged a diversity of voices in the primary process, within 
all parties and at all levels of government,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of 
Firedoglake.com, a leading liberal blog.

“It's a sign of a healthy democracy,” said Hamsher, who suggested this week that 
Gibbs’s comments could depress turnout in the November mid-term elections for 
Congress.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a frequent 
presidential candidate, both said Thursday they had no plans to challenge Obama.

Gibbs invoked Kucinich’s name in The Hill interview, saying some on the left 
wouldn’t be satisfied if the prominent progressive who has called for a 
Department of Peace was in the Oval Office.

But Kucinich told ABC he had no plans to challenge Obama in 2012, and he pressed 
Democrats to concentrate on coming together.

Challenges to sitting presidents have been uncommon in recent elections, but 
they are hardly unheard of.

President George H.W. Bush faces a primary challenge from conservative 
commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992 after Bush won scorn from the political right 
for breaking a pledge not to raise taxes.

After his election, President George W. Bush was determined to avoid the same fate.

Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, told The Hill Thursday that the 
younger Bush was largely inoculated from inter-party challenges because he 
worked to make sure he “kept an open door to all elements of the party.”

Like Bill Clinton in 1996, the second president Bush did not face a meaningful 
primary challenge when he was up for reelection.

Rove, who is now a commentator on Fox News, said Obama’s advisers need to take 
steps on a daily basis to protect him so that he does not face a challenge from 
the left.

“The president's people ought to be doing things in a way that keeps from 
providing people reasons to challenge him,” Rove told The Hill.

Liberal commentators this week said they had plenty to complain about. They’re 
disappointed Obama has not closed the detention center at Guantanamo Bay despite 
his promise to do so. Most also oppose Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan war.

The left was disappointed Obama did not do more to achieve a public option in 
the health insurance bill, and they would like the president to do more to end 
the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Sirota said liberals feel “100 percent” taken for granted by the Obama White House.

He and others on the left are worried Obama is taking a page from Clinton's 
playbook and using triangulation to move to the middle in advance of reelection.

Liberals are wary of some members of Obama’s inner circle, including Chief of 
Staff Rahm Emanuel, who worked in the Clinton White House and is a former 
investment banker.

“This is an administration that is teeming with Clintonites and former 
corporate-connected people,” Sirota said.

Rove believes Obama has little to worry about it. In the end, he predicts 
liberals will stick with Obama in 2012 in the primary and general election.

“They'll grouse about it, they'll bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the 
day they will [vote for Obama],” Rove said.

This story was updated at 7:13 a.m.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/114081-professional-left-not-ready-to-back-a-2012-primary-challenge-