I know it's a cliche, but we really do need President Obama to win because of Supreme Court...

[WI_DEM]

Four Justices are 73 years or older--

Stephen Breyer, 73
Anthony Kennedy, 75
Fat Tony Scalia, 75
Ruth Badger Ginsburg, 78

Two are Democratic appointees (Breyer/Ginsburg under Clinton & Two are GOP appointees (Scalia/Kennedy). Scalia is the leader of the conservative coalition and Kennedy can, at times, be a swing justice.

I'd rather have Barack Obama than Rick Perry or Mitt Romney appointing possible replacements.

The two Justices that Obama has so far appointed to the court have been qualified and on the whole if not progressive at least center/left.

[treestar]

1. Yeah, then problem with teaching Obama a lesson for not

being whatever enough is that Obama doesn't suffer much, but we do.

[Drale]

3. If Obama loses, he's still set for life as a former president

but we are fucked beyond belief with a Republican president. If a Repuke wins, you might as well pile all your stuff in a big pile and set it on fire because its all going to be taken away from you anyway.

[abelenkpe]

2. We do need Obama to win

but we also need to take back the house and elect as many liberal dems to office as possible. Seriously. How do we get people motivated to start a serious effort to do that?

[gateley]

4. Yes - even if Obama was doing everything we are convinced

he should and channeling Alan Grayson, he still couldn't get a vote through the House.

And we can't rest because of our teensy lead in the Senate -- McConnell screams filibuster every time something actually ends up there.

And there may be motivated people, but the big money isn't behind them and I fear that's too often the deciding factor.

EXCEPT (it just now comes to mind) it didn't help Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, but they got MASSIVE media coverage which may have helped Brown even more.

Plus, that was CA.

I just don't know.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Too much media money will hang 99% of whatever the product

might be. I'm making up the figure, but 'lots of ad time' does not equal 'lots of positive results' although every ad exec wishes it did.
The other thing, however...all the 'no matter what he did, the House would block him' posts neglect what is to me the most important factor in politics, the power that comes from the energized people. If Obama was speaking out strongly, if he was laying the blame where it belongs, the entire paradigm would change.

[gateley]

10. I thought that the current polls - showing that the constituents

are disgusted with ALL of Congress, would have made the Republicans a little more flexible. THEY'RE doing the same old stuff, too. We can be energized and holler, but to what avail until we can speak with our vote? In the meantime, people continue to lose their jobs and lose hours at work and face more difficult hurdles to just maintain.

The money and ads make a candidate more visible -- saturating the airwaves works to a far better extent than someone who can only air a spot once in a while and relies on mailers and phone volunteers.

Obama DOES need to speak more strongly -- and concisely (I always say lay it out a la Rachel and I'm serious). The way we address this now is almost just like throw away lines here and there. The Republicans get their talking point, and hammer it home relentlessly, and it's always a good one. Catchy and usually fear-inducing. Death Panel. Job Killing Obama Care. We have nothing in our arsenal to compete and I don't know who is responsible for that. It can't just be Obama, it's got to be every single elected Democrat saying the exact same thing over and over.

How do we do that?

[kickysnana]

5. We need a vaiable challenger who will appoint moderates to the SC. Who knows who he will appoint? n/

[Demeter]

6. Correction: We Need a DEMOCRAT to Win to Appoint Supreme Court

It doesn't have to be Obama, if he can even be counted as a Democrat.

[Donnachaidh]

7. +100000!

Amen!

[leftstreet]

8. +1