As Chris Bowers and many others have argued, bringing real change to the lives of millions of Americans means that people on the left need to challenge incumbent Democrats in primary elections. Given that Barack Obama either fails or refuses to understand important changes in the preferences of American voters, people on the left should think about potential challengers for the 2012 Democratic nomination.
The last time an incumbent president faced a serious challenge was in 1980, when Ted Kennedy came quite close to defeating Jimmy Carter. Of course, victory is not the only goal in such campaigns; a major argument in favor of challenging Obama is forcing him to fight for a progressive agenda. Nevertheless, despite what people like Chris Matthews and Marc Ambinder say, disaffection among liberals represents the major reason for Obama's slide in the polls, and it's far from inconceivable that a credible candidate could defeat him and, by extension, someone from the far less popular field of potential Republican challengers.
No doubt, intelligent and informed observers of American presidential politics will point out that Kennedy contributed mightily to Carter's defeat in 1980. Certainly, any candidate would face massive and powerful backlash from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and potentially rip the party as a whole apart, thereby delivering victory to what will surely be a weak Republican candidate.
Nevertheless, I tend to think of "Kennedy '80: Another Carter Layoff" as an idea that was ahead of its time. In many respects, Kennedy's campaign in 1980, like Jesse Jackson's far less successful efforts in 1984 and 1988, represented the New Deal wing of the Democratic Party reasserting itself in the wake of the party's lamentable decision to move to the right.
But unlike 1980, we are no longer waging a rearguard battle to defend a quickly disappearing status quo - we are fighting for the overwhelming majority of American people who say believe that government should play a big role in improving people's lives. The terrain upon which American elections are contested has shifted by every measurable standard. Parts of the south are no longer a lock for the GOP, and the Republican base in general is steadily diminishing and should continue to shrink for the foreseeable future. If Barack Obama is unwilling to take advantage of these structural changes, we must do it ourselves.
While the netroots is relatively small, it has helped to redefine the health care debate by forcing the president and the Democrats to argue far more vigorously on behalf a government-run plan than they would otherwise be inclined. Activists on the left can make their presence felt in ways that were unimaginable in 1980, and if Obama continues to sell out a real progressive agenda despite tremendous popular support, it will be our duty as citizens to find him a viable challenger who won't.
I would like for this to be a serious discussion (assuming this is a serious topic in 2009) and will conclude in an open-ended way by nominating Howard Dean as the most logical person for the job. I tend to think he was forced out of party leadership by the Obama-Clinton corporate neoliberal cabal, and has shown an increasing willingness to take on the administration in the health care debate.
Moreover, Dean does not have a conspicuous stake in wooing the corporate base of the party to guarantee his viability in future elections. In any event, Obama's administration has proven a major disappointment, from his team of economic advisors, his unwillingness to deliver on promises to the LGBT community, and now health care. We owe it to ourselves to fight for what we believe in using every tool available to us.
Lots of speculation tonight over the "real" reason for Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska. An Alaska-based blogger for HuffPo is talking about the possibility of criminal charges relating to how her Wasilla home was paid for/built. (Hey, that's just Alaska political tradition, nothing to see here).
But why would she quit over that possibility? Would it be easier to defend yourself on those charges as the sitting Governor or as an ex-Governor? I think the former.
My own take is that Sarah Palin quit to pursue what really matters to her now: money and fame. The politics thing was becoming a drag what with ethics investigations and questions - all those pesky questions! Somewhere inside it had to hurt looking like a fool on national television with Katie Couric blinking at you expectantly for an answer you had no idea how to give or even dodge gracefully. I don't think she wants to do that again or do the work involved to better prepare.
Anchorage Rep. Hawker noted that Palin's decision to quit "gives her unfettered ability to pursue her economic interests, whether it be a book deal or speeches, that type of thing, without being cluttered by state ethics law."
I think that's about right. She may even have lucrative offers before her now. I think the kind of easy money she could make right now is just too appealing for her. Last fall, instead of focusing all her energy on campaigning or preparing for interviews/debates, she spent considerable amounts of time shopping. $150,000 worth. Clothes for the family too. It was her time to cash in - after several years of work as mayor of Wasilla and 2 years as Governor, she was getting paid!
Here's another piece from the ADN story:
Larry Persily, a former aide to Palin in her Washington, D.C., office, said he thinks she is shedding all that is bad about her job as governor -- from the ethics complaints to her bruising fights with the Legislature -- "and she can just be a national star in front of adoring crowds." "It's like the kid who leaves college early for the NBA draft and says, this is when I am at my height in the market and I'm going for it," said Persily, a former Anchorage Daily News opinion editor who is now an aide to Rep. Hawker.
Again, this sounds right to me. Instead of her basketball metaphor - a point guard facing a full-court (and hostile) press who passes the ball to their Lt. Governor teammate - Palin is dropping out of college after 2 years so she can get paid. Losing a Republican primary in 2012 would leave her past her earning peak (anyone heard from Dan Quayle since his aborted Presidential run?).
So, where does that leave Republicans? Let's see. Bobby Jindahl bombed in his non-State of the Union response. Besides, he's 10 years younger than President Obama. He won't run in 2012. Utah Governor Huntsman is off to China. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is running for Senate in 2010. If he wins he would take office in January 2011 which is also when he would need to announce plans for a Presidential run. He's not running. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is still named "Bush." South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is..... oh, you get the point. Pretty much it's Mittens' nomination if he wants it.
In the LA Times today Michael McGough is pushing Rush Limbaugh for Congress. It would put Limbaugh, he argues, in a better position to help President Obama fail.
I think instead that Limbaugh should make a run for President in 2012. First, he's already the de facto head of the GOP as Rahm Emanuel pointed out yesterday.
This fact became even more clear in the last 24 hours. Yesterday RNC head Michael Steele said "No, I am the head of the party" and at the same time criticized Rush and his show. Today Steele is apologizing for those remarks. Limbaugh is easily the most popular figure among GOP voters. If Sarah Palin for VP was such a great idea based on how she fired up the base, increased donations, etc., Limbaugh should clearly be seen as manna from heaven. Imagine the contributions. And unlike Palin he is capable of speaking in complete sentences.
But as popular as he is among the far right, he is simultaneously the least popular media figure on the scene today. A Gallup poll last month shows Independent voters against him 2-to-1 and a previous Gallup poll from 6 years ago is much the same. Another poll last fall showed Limbaugh less popular that Jeremiah Wright.
And check out this poll by Rasmussen two years ago showing Rush Limbaugh as, by far, having the highest unfavorables of the media personalities they polled.
Al Franken was among the first to capitalize on the deep well of animosity Americans have for Limbaugh. His 1999 book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" spent 23 weeks on the best seller list and helped launched his career as a political commentator and, sometime soon, as a Senator. I think that book may have ultimately made it harder for Franken to be taken seriously as a candidate but, that issue aside, he clearly tapped into a reservoir of Rush hate.
A run by Rush would crystalize everything people already believe about the Republican party and virtually guarantee continued minority party status for the GOP. So I second McGough's call: Run Rush run! For President.
The closer election day and the more likely a positive outcome for the Democratic ticket, the more you can see and hear about Sarah Palin getting ready for a 2012 run for the nomination.
This got me wondering: has anyone ever won the nomination of their party or even the presidency after being the running mate on a losing ticket?
Follow me below the fold for what I found. Let's just say history does not bode well for Palin 2012.
Palin is a divisive force for the Republicans. She is rallying the far-right rednecks, while McCain wants to keep a shred of dignity to his campaign, in the hope of appealing to independents and moderates.
In a previous post ("Carving up the elephant - the future disintegration of the GOP"), I speculated on how we might turn the different factions of the GOP against one another. Someone replied to my post with the suggestion that Palin might form a splinter faction within the Republicans. We can hope for that outcome, and try to encourage it.
As a Briton I'm less bothered than most of you about the outcome of the primary election. There are two good but not perfect candidates, either of whom would be an improvement on the present administration and either of whom could win. That would in turn be good for Britain's foreign policy, the political situation the world over and Britain's (currently craptastic) world standing.
So I could go with either candidate. But neither of them excites me especially. I admire Clinton's ability to fight and Obama's rhetorical gifts (and I admired John Edwards' willingness to say what doesn't get said enough.)
But however much Obama may have rebuilt the Dean coalition or have come to political prominence contemporaneously with the blogosphere, he's not the candidate of the section of the blogosphere with which I'd identify myself.
He's the candidate of those in the blogosphere (a fairly large proportion) and those who followed in their tracks (the overwhelmingly majority of this group) who want Obama to lead a return to civility, forcing a mutual rhetorical disarmament. If you want that, fine. Good luck with that, but I'm far too cynical to believe you'll do that without first making the situation much worse.
I'd identify myself with the other section of the blogosphere - the one which wants to reduce the conservative movement to a gibbering wreck, so it's safe for us to disarm slightly. The movementarian section, if you will.
[Cynical aside - I'd probably prefer a Clinton victory as her shortcomings are well known and she won't be associated with us. Failures on her part negatively impact us and our ideas much less than failures from Obama, and I think he'll have to use every inch of his not inconsiderable talent to have even a 50% chance of leaving office with his credibility intact. But I'm a cynical and hateful bastard, so feel free to disregard my opinion.]
Lots of speculation tonight over the "real" reason for Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska. An Alaska-based 
In the 
