I guess being a corporate sellout is a prerequisite for ANYONE to be president

[alp227]

regardless of party. I mean the conservatives and Big Business have perverted the political atmosphere so much that "welfare state" or "stimulus" have become taboo terms and ANY government intervention in the "free market" can be shouted down as "socialist." That's the conclusion I'm drawing based on the commentary around here about Obama's jobs plan, and in fact I'm even reading Thom Hartmann's book Screwed right now too. If the middle class had more influence on our politics, then we'd have more effective leadership. Unfortunately, we have members of Congress whose primary constituents are lobbyists not locals. And pro-corporate viewpoints run unchallenged on the broadcast media (supposedly with a liberal bias) and spun even further as fact on thousands of corporate-owned radio stations that broadcast syndicated trash talk while the counterbalance is limited to those already-progressive or heck let's say politically mixed markets that are lucky even to have left-wing radio shows. We SHOULD get active and vote if we want change. But is progressive action really enough to counter the Fox News/Drudge/Breitbart/Limbaugh/Koch noise machine?

Who do you think was the last TRULY progressive president besides Franklin Roosevelt? Not Obama (all the capitulation to the Republicans) or Clinton (NAFTA, welfare reform, had to deal with Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican congress) for sure. Would you choose Carter, Johnson, or Kennedy? Or hell even EISENHOWER...though a Republican he maintained a HUGE top tax rate for the richest Americans and invested in public education and highways (in contrast with today's Republicans who answer to Grover Norquist's "cut, cut, cut" mantra). Eisenhower successfully campaigned on peace and prosperity back in the '50s, in contrast with George McGovern's flopped 1972 anti-war campaign. I doubt that any presidential candidate who doesn't suck it up to the military industrial complex (again something that Eisenhower famously commented on) would get much campaign contribution support.

[GoCubsGo]

1. Thanks to Citizens United, yes, it is. n/t

[alp227]

2. well, Reagan had many corporate-friendly policies

like not enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, dismantling regulation and the Fairness Doctrine, and lowering corp tax rates.

Then George HW Bush and Bill Clinton with NAFTA.

And of course George W. Bush with all the money going to defense contractors and favoring big businesses in hurricane-ravaged areas after Katrina (taken from Hartmann's book Screwed, again).

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. I hope you're not just figuring that out now

[alp227]

4. so what is it with the people advocating a primary challenge to Obama

when chances are the primary challenger - who will like Obama did in 2008 promise all sorts of progressive changes just decides to defer to Congress and do what John Boehner and Eric Cantor and the lobbyists want.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. I doubt that any good would come out of a primary challenge

As much as a Wall Street hack the President certainly is - no one any more progressive and any less of a corporate hack is going to even get out of the starting gate. They will be completely marginalized by the media and the Party leadership before they can even open their mouths. Obama may be center-right but the simple reality is the only real alternative to Obama in 2012 are right-wing extremist and most likely someone who would make George W. Bush look like a liberal.