Will democrats replace their pro-war president?

[zipplewrath]

The democrats threw out the last president that descended into such a war. Will they have the courage to do it again? Will they treat Obama the same way they handled LBJ? Is there a Bobby Kennedy out there to support in the primaries? I'm dubious that the political system will allow such a challenge these days. Incumbent presidents are hard to beat and the body politic has bought into a pretty partisan point of view with respect to "them vs. us". Everyone would prefer to maintain their majority position than risk it throwing out an incumbent.

I'm dubious Obama could be beat. But he could be pulled hard to the left if a strong candidate could be generated for the primaries. Just need to find that strong candidate. Not sure there are any Bobbies anymore that would even try such a thing.

[cbdo2007]

1. It depends on if it works or not.

[tekisui]

7. By 'works', you mean troops leaving in 2011?

Is that the measure we will use?

Or, will it be the number of Afghan's trained?

Or, will it be when we get the surrender slip from AQ?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

9. "Works" will mean a decrease in attacks and the stabilization of the country.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[tekisui]

11. That is a weak an squishy definition of working.

How do you measure stabilization?

How long do attacks need to be decreased to say it is working?

If we decrease attacks, and then there is a major attack, is it no longer working?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

36. What's "squishy" about a decrease in attacks? That's one of the easiest things to measure

You measure stabilization by the decrease in the number of attacks and the functionality of the government. Both of which are fairly easy to determine.

Secondly, one should measure it over a matter of months. After all, if attacks are down in the winter, one would want to make sure that trend continues into the spring before declaring it successful.

Third, no.

[elocs]

20. There will never be enough Afghans trained. No matter how many there are,

more will always be claimed to be needed. Remember Iraq and the divisions trained and 3 months later there would actually be fewer divisions trained? If getting out of Afghanistan is based upon Afghans trained there will never be enough and therefore a ready excuse to stay longer.

[ananda]

2. The imperial presidency is by its nature corporate rightwing.

nt

[havocmom]

3. Huh?

Sorry, but he has to deal with reality, and reality is he inherited a rather large mess. Now, if he came in with a clean slate and started a war, I might think you had a point with your nasty-ass label.

[zipplewrath]

5. Technically

Technically, LBJ inherited his mess too. He just ramped up the scale of it beyond his predecessors dimensions. Unlike Obama who..... Oh, yeah.

[havocmom]

10. LOL Fail

LBJ did not inherit two wars, or any wars of this magnitude. Not nearly the same mess.

[zipplewrath]

13. He inherited Vietnam

Depending upon how one wants to measure, it can be traced back to Truman. The Afghan war was small when he came into it. He has almost literally doubled down at this point. We'll never have the magintude of uniform personnel in the war as vietnam because the vast majority of support services are no longer provided by uniform personnel. But in terms of combat capacity, we are moving in that direction.

[havocmom]

39. In 63, there wasn't as big a force as now in another location

And Viet Nam did not share a border with a very unstable nation with nukes.

The situations are NOT even close

[Orsino]

4. No. Too many Democrats fear the admission of defeat...

...and the exposure of the futility of all the death and misery so far.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Probably not. But, a challenge from the anti-war left will certainly come.

See 1968, Chicago, and President Humphrey for what happened then.

[redqueen]

8. Will we help usher in another Republican administration? Perhaps.

Seems like that's what most of the "Dems" here want, anyway.

[zipplewrath]

14. Choice between two evils

In the primaries, dissenting voices are suppose to support alternate candidates. It is how they influence the process. We can't all just "Fall in line" or the opposition will control the process. In the general election we'll have to vote for the most "left leaning" candidate. But in the primary, are we not suppose to vote for candidates we actually support?

[redqueen]

17. I'm sure if not enough liberals fund the challenger, the GOP will help

by passing along some cash... so that we can 'dissent' our way into another Nixon. If we're lucky. Judging by recent history, the next GOP candidate will be much, much worse.

[zipplewrath]

29. Should the Dems not have challenged LBJ

I'm always curious if people think that was a mistake. I always considered it one of the modern dems finest hours. They demonstrated they weren't all just about maintaining power but that they would actually hold their own accountable.

[redqueen]

31. That deserves to be an OP.

I'd love to see the discussion.

IMO they were wrong. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of politics... and boy did we pay the price. We're still paying the price, really... because those who served Nixon are still fucking things up today.

But I would dearly love to see the conversation... so please... please do post that as an OP.

[sad sally]

34. Or for many of us old people, we'll rediscover that voting doesn't really matter

so we won't...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Sounds like what Obama wants by playing to the right.

[redqueen]

18. I'm sure that's exactly what he wants. That's stellar logic right there.

:sarcasm: (in case it's necessary)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. About as logical as escalating a lost war to appease the generals.

But, what the hell flag waving and cannon fodder are the way to America's heart.

[redqueen]

22. The electorate is against the escalation. Did you notice that?

I guess not, since you seem to think this is somehow a way to win America's heart.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Then he must be an idiot.

There certainly isn't any other logical explanation for the escalation of the killing.

[redqueen]

25. Definitely. Yes, he's definitely an idiot. (nt)

[johnnie]

12. No

They may replace the candidate, but the Presidency will probably go to the repugs. The truth of the matter is that there was a huge minority vote that helped get Obama elected and I think that will be lost in 2012. Obama has pissed off so many Democrats yesterday that I am guessing many won't vote for him again.

People here keep saying how the GOP is splitting up and are in trouble, last night split the left pretty bad and only time will tell if they will pull together for 2012 let alone by next year.

[cowcommander]

15. There are more than enough pro-war dems here for Obama to count his support on

[NightWatcher]

19. no, but the republicans will replace our pro-war (democratic) president

I'm not going to donate like I did last time for Obama and the Dems
I'm not going to volunteer like I did last time for Obama and the Dems
I'm not going to advocate.........

Neither will thousands more. Apathy and disgust will do in the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

38. With all due respect, why? Obama made his position on this war clear during the last election

If you found it so damned unfavorable, why did you support him then?

[Speck Tater]

24. Wake up. People don't elect presidents, corporations appoint them. nt

[harun]

27. +1

We live in a Corporate Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

[NYC Liberal]

26. I fucking hope not.

I will be supporting Obama as the Democratic nominee in 2012. It would not show "courage" to cause a right-wing Republican to take office, because I can guarantee you that you will be bitching a hell of a lot more if that happens. But I guess it will be worth it for you to have a "pure" candidate, even if he or she loses and nothing you wanted gets done, as opposed to at least some of it under the liberal Democratic administration of Barack Obama.

[zipplewrath]

30. But in the primaries

I'm curious if it is some sort of aposty to support a candidate that you actually, ya know, agree with or whether we're suppose to just support the incumbent because of the other party. Does party unity really start BEFORE the primaries?

[quiller4]

32. When it comes to incumbent presidents? In my view, "Yes" which

is why I was a Carter delegate way back when...

[NYC Liberal]

33. Well I support Obama, so I would be supporting him in any primary in 2012

Fracturing the party will only cause a Republican to win, that's a fact. So yes, if you don't support Obama, you still shouldn't wish for a serious primary because then you will get a Republican, which is the worst thing that could happen.

There are people here who claim it's "not about winning it's about doing the right thing." Well you don't get to do anything if you lose.

[orwell]

28. Yeah...

...when I think of the President, the first words that come to my mind are "pro-war."

The only one who didn't authorize this war on the Dem side is Barbara Lee.

Nice try though...

[MadHound]

35. Don't know about that,

But I do know that I can't support Obama at this point. Can't vote for a 'Pug either, so it will probably be Green for me in 2012.

I also imagine a lot of folks on the anti-war left will do the same thing.

[dajoki]

37. There will never be another like RFK n/t