Wow. A new White House Chief of Staff..? Rahm going to run for Mayor of Chicago!!!

[BrklynLiberal]

That is what Keith said....

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[gophates]

1. Just keeps getting better and better.

First the Gallup news, now this.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. We've been hearing this for months

Why wait until after the his DLCness loses Congress again? Show him the door now and get a Democrat in there - maybe pull Dr. Dean out from under the bus.

[SmileyRose]

5. Well

IMHO as hard as they've tried to flatten Dr. Dean he's managed to evade the squish............

[xchrom]

3. Depends on who it is for a replacement. Nt

[still_one]

4. The damage may already be done to remedy it before November though, and it

should also be kept in mind that Obama made the decisions, not Rahm

[merh]

10. Actually, if Rahm resigned now and Obama made Dean his

chief of staff then folks would turn out in November out of excitement and with new hope.

IMHO!

I can dream, can't I.

[still_one]

11. Dean is not going to be the Chief of Staff. However, if the Obama and the

Democrats start to go on the offensive and lay it on the line what the republican agenda is:

Destroy social security and medicare, destroy unions, remove all regulation, not extend unemployment benefits, remove the right to privacy, etc. etc. etc. we might have a fighting chance

Also, if the young and progressives turn out in large numbers as they did in 2008 we WILL win

[merh]

26. You don't get out much, do you?

1/2 of the nation despises social programs. They want to privatize social security and they believe unions and hand outs are responsible for the down fall of the US.

Everything you want to put the word out about as an agenda is old news - folks see it and they don't care - they just don't want to pay more taxes and they want to keep their jobs or find a job.

No young progressives will turn out for an election as long as things remain the same, Obama has not made any changes, he hasn't kept promises. He is just another Bush in the eyes of a good many folks, including the progressives you are hoping turn out to vote.

Obama was the change people voted for and that change hasn't happened so why should they bother to vote now?

BTW, about Dean - I said I was dreaming - it would be great if Obama would recognize Dean's values and value.

[still_one]

38. Good, if they or you think it doesn't mater, stay home, who are they hurting?

That will really cause change to happen. Frankly, I have reached the stage where the views as you expressed are a reality, then they DO deserve republican unitary rule for the rest of their lives, and privatization of social security and medicare, though after the financial meltdown, that republican propaganda about privatizing social security isn't particularly popular anymore, especially among those currently on social security

If as you say that occurs, and the progressives believe Obama is another "bush", then frankly I am glad they aren't voting, because that view is as stupid as those who listen to palin and beck, and it will get them not only nothing but a worse situation, and it can get much worse

[merh]

40. Like I said, you don't get out much.

You need to go find a mixed politics board. I think everyone here needs to find one and read the posts. They don't have to participate but they need to keep informed.

[still_one]

44. I don't get my information from blogs, I get it from outside, and the country has shifted right

if you haven't noticed, and if your assessment is accurate, then if they don't participate, it will even shift harder to the right

but as far as your comment go find a mixed political board to see what the trend is, the trend in this country has been toward the right, and I don't need a mixed political board to tell me that, though I can refer you to non-partisan boards which support my contention

The point I am making is simply there is a difference between this administration and the republican platform.

Forget for a moment the controversy regarding the 2000 election, Gore didn't lose because of Nader or the progressives not voting for him in Florida or elsewhere, and Kerry didn't lose in 2004 because of Nader or the progressives either. They lost because the country had shifted to the right, and also because they ran terrible campaigns

It doesn't take rocket science to see this trend. Just look at either the control of Congress and/or the executive branch since 1980, the repugs have held a strong position. It has been argued the only reason Clinton won was because of perot, not because of the country shifting toward the Democrats

I also believe that the demise of the Democratic party this November is greatly exaggerated

[merh]

45. I'm not talking about blogs

There is a huge difference between blogs and message board.

Obama didn't win because the nation had shifted to the right. He won because he offered hope and change - folks don't see it.

You do need to get out more, your view is as twisted as those advising Obama. The nation is not moderate, they want a leader and they want to believe again.

'

[frazzled]

13. Damage? I bet 90% of Democrats don't even know who he is

Never heard of him. If you're suggesting people will stay home on election day because Rahm Emmanuel is the chief of staff, you're pretty whack.

They'll stay home because they don't even pay enough attention to know (a) that there are elections in November; (b) or if they know, they don't realize that if they don't vote for the local yokel, it could throw the House, or even Senate (if they know what those things are) to the Republicans; or (c) that important things are at stake.

Why do folks here always think that the entire country is composed of people exactly like themselves, even when it's clear they're a minority even here on DU. Boggles the mind.

[still_one]

14. No that wasn't my suggestion, and I do believe Obama makes his own decsions, however

I also believe that the advice supplied by Rahm is not always the best, and I don't mean because his politics isn't the "right kind". I believe that his view, which Obama accepted freely because he believed it, gave too much to a republican minority when compromising, even though 6 months into the administration it should have been very clear the repukes were NOT going to compromise

[frazzled]

17. Apologies, then

But part of my response still stands. Democrats are not failing to vote because the White House compromised too much with Republicans (actually, it was Democrats like Nelson and others who really but the kibosh on a lot of details). There are a number of reasons for the low enthusiasm: the party in power always has trouble motivating the people who voted in the presidential election to come out for midterms. A lot of those voters were new, and they don't vote regularly. Just as many are sitting out because they think this administration went "too far" in passing healthcare, financial reform, etc. Not everyone is a diehard progressive. Many are pretty conservative Democrats, and some have no coherent political philosophy at all. The vast majority, as I said, are not even aware there are midterm elections.

Republicans are hot to trot to get to the polls because they are angry at having lost power and have been fed a bunch of scary lies by their media personalities. The rest of the nation is doing what they pretty much always do: watching ESPN and not planning to vote in what they consider to be "local" elections--and they don't know who these people running are.

If we get angry at anyone, we should get angry at rank-and-file Democrats, who think they did all they needed to do two years ago by hauling their asses to the polls one time. And ourselves: we should be manning the phone banks and canvassing all 2008 voters, to let them know that the president's agenda is at risk if they don't get to the polls.

[still_one]

36. I think they wasted too much time with the republicans, and those resources could have

been spent better on pressuring the blue dogs when they first came aboard. I agree with your assessment, but I think the biggest problem with the Democrats in Congress is their lack of passion

I see the administration now starting to fight, and pointing out the major difference between the Democrats and republicans, and that is good, however, those running in their respective races cannot be lazy, and have to fight and call the republicans out by name

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Who will DU blame..

...if Emmanuel leaves and nothing changes?

Then what?

[still_one]

8. Obama makes the decisions not Rahm /nt

[Pirate Smile]

24. Gibbs.

[lonestarnot]

7. I heard it too. Not really saying also said.

[bluestateguy]

9. I'd love to see Howard Dean take the job

better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

I really do think that Dean wants to like Obama, and he tries to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Believe it when I see it

We were told a few months ago he was resigning.

Didn't happen.

[rocktivity]

15. I'll believe it when it happens

Of course, it would make the left happier if it happens before the elections, which leads me to believe this may be some kind of tease--especially since it's unsourced.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[mucifer]

16. I don't want Rham to be my mayor.

[tularetom]

21. Everybody has to do his or her part for the country

Besides, he doesn't actually have to be ELECTED mayor. All he has to do is resign his WH job in order to RUN for the office. He could be defeated, y'know. And he'd still be gone and the WH policy process would be the better for it.

[glitch]

41. Another Chicago DUer said yesterday the unions would slaughter him.

Mightn't that sweeten the deal? ;)

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. Good riddance Rahm!!! That will lift the spirits of progressives if he left.

He's an obnoxious thug who is addicted to power. He has led Obama down a horrendous path.

[Odin2005]

19. Good riddance! Fuck Rahm!!!

[Bitwit1234]

20. I heard they are looking at Daschele

wouldn't that be nice. He took on the republicans and had them running scared. That is why they did an all out campaign against him in South Dakota a really republican state. And remember he was one of the first ones they sent the anthrax to. So you know the republicans hated him. He is damn good. I hope if Rahm leaves he is appointed.

[glinda]

25. Daschele is a friend to the Health Insurance Industry.

[laughingliberal]

32. Big Time! nt

[Smashcut]

33. Please tell me this is satire.

[rosesaylavee]

22. Oh gawd!

Oh no... please no. Just no. Oh gawd.

[Radical Activist]

23. I'm glad Keith is so informed about the Chicago political scene...

:eyes:

I'm not even sure Obama would endorse him. He'll have too many friends in that race.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. So you're saying that President Obama has a "friend" in Chicago he'd support more than his own CoS?

How would that look?

Not endorsing your own Chief of Staff for the elected office he's seeking after he's served your administration from day one? Not recommended.

[Radical Activist]

28. Obama may have several personal friends and long time supporters in that race.

Some of the potential candidates did more to get him where he is than Rahm. How would it look for Obama to support any one of them over the others? It's unlikely that he'll get involved in the race unless the field is cleared for a consensus candidate. I don't see that happening for Rahm.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. Who would have to be seen as most competent as Mayor of a large city? The CoS or a "friend"?

Political favors get you farther than political performance?

[Radical Activist]

30. Are you trying to be obtuse?

Who says the other friends aren't qualified? Obama was an elected official in Chicago. He has a lot of personal and political relationships in that town, and some of them go back further than Rahm, who waited to endorse him over Hillary. And some of them may be better qualified to be mayor than Rahm.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Call me obtuse after answering these questions...

Wa Rahm's appointment to CoS due to political favors, or ability?

Should the person Obama supports for Mayor in Chigago be decided on political favors, or ability?

What's more important to Barack Obama... past political favors, or ability?

[Radical Activist]

34. There are potential candidates with more ability and longer ties to Obama than Rahm.

Do you really think Obama served in public office in Chicago without getting to know anyone qualified to be mayor other than Rahm? Are the abilities Obama needed in a chief of staff the same abilities Chicago needs in a mayor? You're only showing your ignorance of Chicago politics.

[Enthusiast]

35. I wish....nt

[Fire1]

37. How about L. Panetta????!!! LOL!!! I'm not serious. Besides,

PO is not going to pick an "old head."

[Dappleganger]

39. That's the kind CHANGE we need.

Arne, you're next!!

[JCMach1]

42. Chicago's loss is America's gain!

[BrklynLiberal]

47. Well said. LOL

[JCMach1]

43. Chicago's loss is America's gain!

[donheld]

46. I won't be happy till the door hits his big ass.