That question is the subject of this front-page Hill newspaper story that serves as a follow-up to the Hill's original story about the White House attacking the so-called "professional left" (FYI - as outlined in an earlier newspaper column, I have a much different definition of "professional left" than Robert Gibbs). In the piece, I am quoted saying that I haven't heard yet of a credible primary challenger to Obama and that I didn't expect it to happen. What didn't make it into the story, but what I told the reporter, is that there's an important and telling reason for that.
In my discussion with the Hill's reporter, Sam Youngman, I made clear that I believe it is too early to evaluate whether Obama will prompt a primary challenge, and that we also don't know for sure if after the mid-term elections he will move into an even more oppositional posture against progressives than he's already in. But even in the worst case scenario -- even if he does move hard to the right from his already center-right positions on so many issues -- I don't think he'll face a primary because I don't think the progressive movement is at a point where it can mount one.
The fact is, much of the "American Left" is organized around the Democratic Party and specifically around Obama. The professional Left as I define it are all the major, well-funded liberal interest groups (what Jane Hamsher sometimes refers to as "the veal pen") and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be more loyal to the Democratic Party and Obama than their alleged policy/ideological missions. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's clear that kind of Left is not built like successful social movements of the past -- and it doesn't yet seem to have the structure, independence or stomach for oppositional politics that could fuel a genuinely credible presidential primary like those we've seen in past eras.
This isn't to say I think a presidential primary would be bad. I don't -- at all. because I think the more contested elections the better -- and that goes for president or dog catcher. Yes, that's right, I think every incumbent officeholder -- even the ones I love -- should face a primary. I think all that because I believe the more democracy we have -- ie. the more electoral choices voters get -- the better the policy outcomes and the more electoral pressure there is on officeholders to actually represent the values of their constituents (as opposed to their special-interest Big Money donors).
But at this moment in history, the Left, while certainly having pockets of social movement-like power, is still not yet built as a genuine social movement -- one willing to take on either party in the name of an agenda. And without such a social movement posture, the prospects for a presidential primary are slim.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
I am not. The worse the Republicans get, the more the Democratic establishment can take the progressive vote for granted. They can always say, "What's the alternative? You HAVE to vote for us!"
Meanwhile, 2012 will be a grab your popcorn moment. I think that if the Republicans find a candidate who can actually sell himself as a "centrist" - that will be the Pres's "primary challenge". I've totally thrown D vs R out the window for how to view the situation.
I am a dem and have been all my life, but I am not a progressive and I support the president comepletely.
I do not share your sentiments about the president, and I wish that you on the far left would realize that you don't speak for everyone in this party.
I don't know why you think you're any different from the tea party, because while they are trying to push their party to the far right, you are trying to push this party to the far left, and I ain't going.
That's why I'm leaving the Dem Party. I'm not a life-long party member; was an independent for a LONG time. Maybe I'll go join the Green party, or try to help form a TRUELY Progressive Party.
You can have the Dem Party. You can be in the "center" -- whatever the heck that means, and positions it holds. Go for it!
Just don't expect to EVER get any of "your" candidates elected -- your point of view is that of maybe 30% of the electorate -- maybe 2/3 of the current Dem party, plus some independents; you'll get essentially no Republicans, Conservatives, or Tea Baggers.
I know, the positions I hold it seems like maybe 20% of the voters support. So I'm not expecting to see very many really progressive folks get elected, or even be able to run.
What I wish is there was more than two corporate-sponsored so-called "political parties."
You can continue voting for the Dem Party, and think that is actually substantially different than voting for the Repubs. In some ways it might be.
For me, though, it is not enough different, and enough aligned with the values I hold -- that I guess are just a lot more progressive than those held by many in Unbelievable Stupid America ...
When Obama is 75% or more like W, then for me, he is WObama -- being 25% different than W is NOT what I am interested in supporting!
Project much? A rethug value, project what they are doing on the Dems. LOL
Nobody is buying what you are trying to sell dude.
President Obama has slain candidate Obama.
GITMO still open.
Haliburton/Bechtel/KBR/Blackwater still thriving in the No Bid/No Accountability world.
Rendition/Torture still thriving.
Weapons corporations still ruling the American budget.
Wall Street written financial "reform".
HMO/Insurance corporation written health care "reform".
Double down on troops/contractors in Afghanistan.
A Senate that whines about "not having 60" (Did Cheney need 60?)
Not to mention the fact that he continually stands on the sidelines and allows the Republicans to dominate EVERY issue when he could slap back their lies with ease.
He is a corporatist, through and through. He can speak to his audience in exactly the manner they need to hear. Then, can let them down and know that there are sufficient acolytes and sycophants to defend all the let downs and capitulations with the standard "he hasn't had enough time".
Watch carefully when the tax cuts for the upper 1% are on the line. He will crumble, yet again, and his apologists will say "imagine how bad it would be with the Republicans in charge".
I don't have to "imagine" it, it is clearly visible now. Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges predicted these failings before the election and Obama has lived down to every one of their assessments.
Obama was for doubling down on Afghanistan and you have no one to be angry at but yourself for expecting anything different.
Defense contractors have been dealt blows by Robert Gates and will continue to be targeted for waste.
The reforms while not perfect were better than nothing. People are insured and insurance are barred from their heinous practices. Finance reform though not ideal has important aspects that will lessen the chance of a meltdown
Cheney was a corrupt b stard and not a role model.
Yeah Ralph Nader, the racist tool who called Obama an Uncle Tom. Exemplary guy...
If one drafted a Hispanic Progressive and utilized Spanish television and radio resources – one would overcome two major obstacles in challenging Obama in the primaries: votes and money. Telemundo reaches 93% of U.S. Hispanic viewers in 210 markets; 30 million U.S. TV households and Univision routinely challenges (and frequently beats) NBC, ABC, CBS as well as all cable networks. Politics is a business – first capitalize it by “creating†a product (Hispanic candidate) and promote it in targeted markets. After generating revenue from consumers (Hispanics) in initial markets, proceed to other demographic and geographical opportunities. Hispanics are not monolithic but are sufficiently progressive in numbers to produce immediate
What happens in the next legislative session will determine what happens in 2012.
But then again, we can primary Obama with Rachel Maddow and Russel Means. We can win the Iowa primary with that and New Hampshire and.....
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
Even so, I feel it would require an almost total collapse of the president's administration for Mrs Clinton to be able to mount a credible challenge in 2012.
One therefore concludes that Democrats who squandered the opportunity to choose the correct candidate in 2008 must now be contemplating a repeat of the Carter debacle.