The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I was reading a piece earlier that said Sotomayor started with questions that pointed out the coercion and then Kennedy picked that up.

Weird that the decision has already been made, but we'll have to wait until June.

Well they have to write it . And go over the decisions with a fine toothed comb to make sure they didn't unwittingly create some other problem somewhere else - I'm betting that part takes even longer than writing it.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Does Clinton carry a lot in terms of appealing to the moderate and independent base? She doesn't seem to have the charm or that fresh pedigree that might work in the swing states.

A lot of her appeal is to moderates, IIRC. That's why there are always rumors of a more progressive Democrat challenger in the primaries.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A lot of her appeal is to moderates, IIRC. That's why there are always rumors of a more progressive Democrat challenger in the primaries.

You might be right.

[Dutch]

Is Hillary considered more moderate than Obama or less?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is Hillary considered more moderate than Obama or less?

Daily Kos style liberals see her as too Moderate/establishment. They were all in for Obama during the primaries. And they are pushing for an Elizabeth Warren-type to run to her left this election.

I am not sure how she is seen by conservatives.

I think that, like most politicians running for national office, she wants to be seen as moderate.

In reality, I think that she will take whatever positions her pollsters advise her to take. Her biggest weakness, IMHO, is that she is not seen as having strong convictions one way or the other.

Our last 16 years of presidents have been two guys who (whatever the reality) were seen as guys with strong beliefs--both by their enemies and their supporters.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I am not sure how she is seen by conservatives.

...

In reality, I think that she will take whatever positions her pollsters advise her to take. Her biggest weakness, IMHO, is that she is not seen as having strong convictions one way or the other.

I'm not as conservative as some (still lean that way, but moderate enough for my wife and son to call me a closet Democrat), but that's how I see her - as someone who will do whatever she needs to to get elected (like move to New York for a senate seat). No idea what she actually stands for. I have more respect for Warren.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Daily Kos style liberals see her as too Moderate/establishment. They were all in for Obama during the primaries. And they are pushing for an Elizabeth Warren-type to run to her left this election.

I am not sure how she is seen by conservatives.

I think that, like most politicians running for national office, she wants to be seen as moderate.

In reality, I think that she will take whatever positions her pollsters advise her to take. Her biggest weakness, IMHO, is that she is not seen as having strong convictions one way or the other.

Our last 16 years of presidents have been two guys who (whatever the reality) were seen as guys with strong beliefs--both by their enemies and their supporters.

I thought it was interesting that Warren Buffett last week said that Warren was too angry and demonizing in her rhetoric; but he's a Hillary fan.

I agree with you on her lacking strong convictions; she seems to play to the position that is popular or works to her advantage without really any conviction or clarity for it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is Hillary considered more moderate than Obama or less?

More moderate. Obama outflanked her on the left in 2008, remember. Hillary's main base of support were, aside from women, white working class Democrats.

[Solecismic]

Warren is a lot like Huckabee. She's from a place where she can take extreme positions without worrying about losing a state election. She says things that one side really, really wants to hear, which makes them feel very energized that there's a candidate out there who is unafraid to truly serve the people. So she'll instantly reach 15-20% in polling the same way Huckabee did.

But does that drive moderates away from the party? Like Huckabee, is she someone who can possibly win the nomination, but polling suggests an absolute slaughter in the general? Or is she more like Palin, a good idea on paper ("oh, look at this "true conservative" who has 70% approval ratings in Alaska"), but was a disaster on the campaign trail?

She does have the advantage of being a media favorite, so she won't have to contend with the constant Palin gotchas. That's probably worth ten points on its own.

So the question becomes whether this does any damage to the party in the general? Look at 2004, when Bush was fairly unpopular, yet still won the general over Kerry. I think it was in large part because the Democratic primary - this months-long beauty contest designed originally to introduce candidates to the country - was a mess.

The whole party is on trial during these things. The Democrats learned this lesson in 2004 and have done a better job looking at primary season as an important part of the general.

I think the Republicans learned in 2012. We saw this in 2014 to a certain extent in their Senate selections. No more Todd Akins or Christine O'Donnells. A more consistent platform. They beat expectations.

I think, behind the scenes, the Democrats are telling Warren not to run. They want an alternative to Clinton just like the Republicans wanted an alternative to Romney. Both are safe and uninspiring choices. But they'll take Clinton if no one else emerges because Warren will bring out arguments during the primary that will hurt them in the general.

Candidates need to be vetted now rather than during the primary process. In this day when news is national in an instant, the primary plays a very different role than it did even 20 years ago.

[larrymcg421]

That's true, but there are many misguided liberals out there, upset about Obama constantly compromising, who cling to this idea of Hillary as some sort of progressive goddess. Part of what I will enjoy if she wins is seeing how those people will react when she ends up governing the exact same way.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's true, but there are many misguided liberals out there, upset about Obama constantly compromising, who cling to this idea of Hillary as some sort of progressive goddess. Part of what I will enjoy if she wins is seeing how those people will react when she ends up governing the exact same way.

I actually see it slightly differently. A bunch of progressives don't see Hillary as different than Obama or Bill Clinton in terms of policy, but they realize that Hillary isn't going to give two shits about "bi-partisan" bills that seemed to really bite Obama in the ass with the left.

[Kodos]

Hillary is certainly more hawkish than Obama.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Hillary is certainly more hawkish than Obama.

Her Iraq War vote is what turns me off. That's probably my biggest litmus test.

Though as senator she had a pretty liberal record overall.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Warren is a lot like Huckabee. She's from a place where she can take extreme positions without worrying about losing a state election. She says things that one side really, really wants to hear, which makes them feel very energized that there's a candidate out there who is unafraid to truly serve the people. So she'll instantly reach 15-20% in polling the same way Huckabee did.

But does that drive moderates away from the party? Like Huckabee, is she someone who can possibly win the nomination, but polling suggests an absolute slaughter in the general? Or is she more like Palin, a good idea on paper ("oh, look at this "true conservative" who has 70% approval ratings in Alaska"), but was a disaster on the campaign trail?

She does have the advantage of being a media favorite, so she won't have to contend with the constant Palin gotchas. That's probably worth ten points on its own.

So the question becomes whether this does any damage to the party in the general? Look at 2004, when Bush was fairly unpopular, yet still won the general over Kerry. I think it was in large part because the Democratic primary - this months-long beauty contest designed originally to introduce candidates to the country - was a mess.

The whole party is on trial during these things. The Democrats learned this lesson in 2004 and have done a better job looking at primary season as an important part of the general.

I think the Republicans learned in 2012. We saw this in 2014 to a certain extent in their Senate selections. No more Todd Akins or Christine O'Donnells. A more consistent platform. They beat expectations.

I think, behind the scenes, the Democrats are telling Warren not to run. They want an alternative to Clinton just like the Republicans wanted an alternative to Romney. Both are safe and uninspiring choices. But they'll take Clinton if no one else emerges because Warren will bring out arguments during the primary that will hurt them in the general.

Candidates need to be vetted now rather than during the primary process. In this day when news is national in an instant, the primary plays a very different role than it did even 20 years ago.

You seem to completely ignore the 2008 Dem primary. That was a far more contentious primary than 2004.

As much as I like to talk about process, I'm not sure it really matters much. The GOP did well last year because of where they were running, and the approval rating of the President. In 2008 the same thing benefited Dems.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but regardless of who won the 2008 Primary, they were going to win, by virtue of not being a Republican after 8 years of Dubya.

[larrymcg421]

I wouldn't put it past Mark Penn to screw up the general election much like he screwed up the primary.

[ISiddiqui]

It's amazing how Penn was SOOO good with Bill Clinton in the 90s compared to how bad he was in 2008.

Though, he's currently and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer for Microsoft, so he's unlikely to leave that position.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but regardless of who won the 2008 Primary, they were going to win, by virtue of not being a Republican after 8 years of Dubya.

Right. The primary being cleaned up after 2004 really had nothing to do with it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but regardless of who won the 2008 Primary, they were going to win, by virtue of not being a Republican after 8 years of Dubya.

Would it surprise you if I said I really miss GWB?

[Izulde]

I could go on a really long rant now, but I'll limit myself to saying Tom Cotton and the other GOP Congress members who signed that letter are fucking idiots.

[SirFozzie]

If the tables were turned, you'd be hearing right wing biovators yell "TREASON" from every soapbox around

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Warren is a lot like Huckabee. She's from a place where she can take extreme positions without worrying about losing a state election. She says things that one side really, really wants to hear, which makes them feel very energized that there's a candidate out there who is unafraid to truly serve the people. So she'll instantly reach 15-20% in polling the same way Huckabee did.

But does that drive moderates away from the party? Like Huckabee, is she someone who can possibly win the nomination, but polling suggests an absolute slaughter in the general? Or is she more like Palin, a good idea on paper ("oh, look at this "true conservative" who has 70% approval ratings in Alaska"), but was a disaster on the campaign trail?

She does have the advantage of being a media favorite, so she won't have to contend with the constant Palin gotchas. That's probably worth ten points on its own.

So the question becomes whether this does any damage to the party in the general? Look at 2004, when Bush was fairly unpopular, yet still won the general over Kerry. I think it was in large part because the Democratic primary - this months-long beauty contest designed originally to introduce candidates to the country - was a mess.

The whole party is on trial during these things. The Democrats learned this lesson in 2004 and have done a better job looking at primary season as an important part of the general.

I think the Republicans learned in 2012. We saw this in 2014 to a certain extent in their Senate selections. No more Todd Akins or Christine O'Donnells. A more consistent platform. They beat expectations.

I think, behind the scenes, the Democrats are telling Warren not to run. They want an alternative to Clinton just like the Republicans wanted an alternative to Romney. Both are safe and uninspiring choices. But they'll take Clinton if no one else emerges because Warren will bring out arguments during the primary that will hurt them in the general.

Candidates need to be vetted now rather than during the primary process. In this day when news is national in an instant, the primary plays a very different role than it did even 20 years ago.

Honestly, and I've been saying this to whoever will listen (and many who won't) for some time now:

From a policy perspective, progressive Democrats are much better served with Warren in the Senate for 15-20 years than they are with her in the White House for 4-8. If she runs for President and gets elected, her influence on policy beyond her term in office is going to be limited to "does Ginsburg retire? Does Scalia stroke out in apoplectic rage? Do Democrats have control of the Senate to enable her to get progressive replacements on the Court?"

The legislation that reaches her desk would largely depend upon the makeup of Congress. If, somehow, Republicans still control the Senate after 2016, there is zero chance she sees anything she would want to sign. Democrats aren't getting the House back until at least 2020 or 2022. That's the penalty for going "wahh the President can't wave a magic wand and defeat Republican obstructionism so I'm staying home in a census year." And honestly I don't think it'll even happen as soon as 2022 unless there's either a major Republican backlash in 2020 or the Democratic candidate loses in 2016 and whoever gets the nomination in 2020 is so dynamic that his/her rising tide swamps statehouse Republicans.

What Democrats should be focusing on right now is running Presidential candidates who are moderate enough to keep the Republicans out of the White House, and figure out a way to recapture statehouses in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.

Liz Warren might get the left excited at the prospect of an actual progressive President, but until Democrats figure out how to undo the redistricting damage of 2010, Warren's ability to advance progressive policies will have far more impact from the Senate than they ever could from 1600 Pennsylvania.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

The question might be whether census data allowing for redistricting is available before the 2020 elections (allowing Republicans to redraw lines before Democrats get an opportunity, be it in 2020, 2022, or later in the decade). If it's not, winning in 2020 gives the Democrats a chance to "right the ship," so to speak. If it is, then the question becomes: if they win a mid-decade election, will the same courts that said "it's totally okay to re-draw the lines in the middle of the decade" to Republicans say the same to Democrats if/when they redraw the districts and Republicans sue?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I could go on a really long rant now, but I'll limit myself to saying Tom Cotton and the other GOP Congress members who signed that letter are fucking idiots.

Nothing will happen, but it seems a rather clear violation of the Logan Act.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

More moderate. Obama outflanked her on the left in 2008, remember. Hillary's main base of support were, aside from women, white working class Democrats.

Do those still exist?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I actually see it slightly differently. A bunch of progressives don't see Hillary as different than Obama or Bill Clinton in terms of policy, but they realize that Hillary isn't going to give two shits about "bi-partisan" bills that seemed to really bite Obama in the ass with the left.

More-or-less this. Despite being liberal, I had no illusions about what Obama would actually be able to do as President, regardless of whether or not he wanted to pursue a true liberal, progressive agenda.

But Obama spent the first two years of his administration trying to craft legislation through compromise with the GOP, the same GOP with the stated goal of making him a 1-term president. That was frustrating. I don't see Hillary making the same mistake, and that's appealing for me.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

From a policy perspective, progressive Democrats are much better served with Warren in the Senate for 15-20 years than they are with her in the White House for 4-8.

Absolutely. I am completely bemused that DailyKos Democrats can't seem to wrap their heads around this.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If the tables were turned, you'd be hearing right wing biovators yell "TREASON" from every soapbox around

Rargh!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

From a policy perspective, progressive Democrats are much better served with Warren in the Senate for 15-20 years than they are with her in the White House for 4-8. If she runs for President and gets elected, her influence on policy beyond her term in office is going to be limited to "does Ginsburg retire? Does Scalia stroke out in apoplectic rage? Do Democrats have control of the Senate to enable her to get progressive replacements on the Court?"

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Absolutely. I am completely bemused that DailyKos Democrats can't seem to wrap their heads around this.

And it appears the national Democratic Party has realized this (which is shocking that they have this level of competence... I'm sure it won't last ). Warren can influence policy like Ted Kennedy did in the Senate, while Hillary Clinton goes into the White House as someone who knows she is going to face an obstructionist GOP majority and will be prepared to fight them.

[flere-imsaho]

On top of all that, I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate that either a) Warren is interested in running for President or b) Warren doesn't realize how much more effective she can be in the Senate.

Maybe I'm idealizing her a little bit, but she strikes me as someone who is very serious about persuing a specific agenda (progressive, heavy on cleaning up Wall Street) and knows exactly how she wants to pursue that where she is.

[NobodyHere]

Warren has repeatedly and emphatically denied that she's running for president in '16.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Absolutely. I am completely bemused that DailyKos Democrats can't seem to wrap their heads around this.

See, I would kind of expect the netroots to be all "ooh she'll break up the banks and everything will be wonderful forever"! The Internet isn't exactly known for rational thinking. "DailyKos Democrats" itching to bust a nut over a Warren announcement? To be expected, really, even if it would be a bad idea for the previously-mentioned reasons.

I'm not saying HClinton is my ideal Democratic candidate (I'd have far fewer reservations about supporting Jim Webb), but Clinton in the White House and Warren in the Senate is much better for Democratic policy pursuits than Warren in the White House and Clinton done with elective politics.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And it appears the national Democratic Party has realized this (which is shocking that they have this level of competence... I'm sure it won't last ). Warren can influence policy like Ted Kennedy did in the Senate, while Hillary Clinton goes into the White House as someone who knows she is going to face an obstructionist GOP majority and will be prepared to fight them.

And this is the other thing. I'm not sure the national Democratic Party DOES have this level of competence. It can be hard to figure out which group is spamming me with 'we want...!' emails, but I get emailed almost daily by one group or another looking to "draft" Warren and begging for donations to make it happen. Are they all idealistic netroots organizations, or are some of them cynical DNC organizations looking to raise cash for the party by using a name who insists she isn't running?

[Kodos]

The first page of this thread is pretty entertaining for its wildly incorrect predictions:

Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) - Front Office Football Central

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Kodos

The first page of this thread is pretty entertaining for its wildly incorrect predictions:

Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) - Front Office Football Central

Speak for yourself. This was what I wrote on June 18th:

As an Obama supporter, I am cautiously optimistic, but there are also 4+ months to go.

The thing that strikes me is how many people in that thread don't post anymore. Oh, and how it was 7 years ago?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

The first page of this thread is pretty entertaining for its wildly incorrect predictions:

Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) - Front Office Football Central

It's interesting too to go back a little further and see who people thought would win the nominations in October 2007, 7 months further along in the process than we are now. Hillary had more than 3X more votes than Obama. A lot of Huckabee and Guliani predictions on the Republican side at the start, but McCain did win in that poll by the end. People stopped voting in the Dem thread pretty early, I guess because it was assumed that Clinton had it wrapped up. The Republican thread went on longer.

(Politics): Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? - Front Office Football Central

Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008? - Front Office Football Central

The moral - maybe we don't have 2016 figured out yet.

[Dutch]

Haha, the earliest opinion I have is "McCain is lame" followed by "Given Huckabre, Romney, Obama, and Hillary...I'll take Dick Cheney.".

I think that goes a long way to show that while I am a right-wing conservative/traditionalist...the Republican Party doesn't quite line up with what I want in a counter to the Dems. I wish I could find a candidate that was hawkish on economics and foreign policy and liberal on social and religious concerns...and one that would be appealing to more blacks and more Hispanics.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But Obama spent the first two years of his administration trying to craft legislation through compromise with the GOP, the same GOP with the stated goal of making him a 1-term president. That was frustrating. I don't see Hillary making the same mistake, and that's appealing for me.

Would we be in the same position still if the GOP retains the house--at least--if Hillary does run and win the election?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Would we be in the same position still if the GOP retains the house--at least--if Hillary does run and win the election?

No, because Hillary (or any Dem nominee, at this point) isn't going to be naive enough to think they can actually work with GOP leadership.

[ISiddiqui]

While Obama ran on ending partisanship (oh how naive), any Dem who wins the nom is basically going to be running on how the GOP is fucking up the country and they need to be destroyed (in subtext, not explicitly - though Hillary may explicitly say that in an inauguration speech ).

[flere-imsaho]

What Imran said.

Though I don't suspect she'll say that in her inauguration speech, but possibly in her victory speech and certainly in her nomination speech.*

*Assuming those things come to pass, of course.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, because Hillary (or any Dem nominee, at this point) isn't going to be naive enough to think they can actually work with GOP leadership.

And why should she....they only represent 45-55% of the nation anyway.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And why should she....they only represent 45-55% of the nation anyway.

Well maybe this time the GOP leaders won't meet before the first inauguration and plan how to obstruct literally everything the President advocates.

[Dutch]

Oh stop. What did the President set out to do that he didn't accomplish? Leave Iraq, gay marriage, ACA, raise the national debt, class warfare... what am I missing? Guantanamo Bay, I guess. I think he was very successful in accomplishing his goals.

[JPhillips]

David Obey, then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was, ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’ ” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’

Lewis blames Obey and the Democrats for the committee’s turn toward extreme partisanship, but he doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he says. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

“It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

Mr. McConnell said the unity was essential in dealing with Democrats on “things like the budget, national security and then ultimately, obviously, health care.”

Obama was ready to give in on SS and Medicaid, but even that couldn't get any GOP support.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Oh stop. What did the President set out to do that he didn't accomplish? Leave Iraq, gay marriage, ACA, raise the national debt, class warfare... what am I missing? Guantanamo Bay, I guess. I think he was very successful in accomplishing his goals.

The fact that this nonsense is still part of the narrative just proves to me that Obama's real weakness is leadership.

[Dutch]

You will have to explain that, I am giving Obama a compliment. . He had certain goals and he achieved them. Except for Guantanamo...which he admitted was a whole lot less of a priority once he got briefed on who was still there. And realm, if the only residual from Iraq is ISIS...thats a pretty big win too....that he gets to share with Bush, of course.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You will have to explain that, I am giving Obama a compliment. . He had certain goals and he achieved them. Except for Guantanamo...which he admitted was a whole lot less of a priority once he got briefed on who was still there. And realm, if the only residual from Iraq is ISIS...thats a pretty big win too....that he gets to share with Bush, of course.

Some of your examples seem to come from a secret agenda he must have had, gay marriage and class warfare.

Others like raising the debt and Iraq were achieved by a bipartisan congressional act, not Obama's pen.

ACA, is his, but I bet just as many on left dislike it for not being a single payer than those on the right proclaiming its socialism.

It is his I inability to command the narrative that makes this presidency luke warm. Bush created prescription drug act and sold to the same people who decry ACA as totalitarian. Clinton gutted welfare and gained popularity among liberals. Reagan sold expanding the military complex was not the same as increasing big government,

Obama, played defense on nearly every big moment.

[PilotMan]

Bin Laden and NCAA Football Playoffs.

What else did you need?

Are you not entertained?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Haha, the earliest opinion I have is "McCain is lame" followed by "Given Huckabre, Romney, Obama, and Hillary...I'll take Dick Cheney.".

I think that goes a long way to show that while I am a right-wing conservative/traditionalist...the Republican Party doesn't quite line up with what I want in a counter to the Dems. I wish I could find a candidate that was hawkish on economics and foreign policy and liberal on social and religious concerns...and one that would be appealing to more blacks and more Hispanics.

The two of those are mutually exclusive, Dutch. You can't have austerity and the social safety net at the same time. I think what you mean is "libertarian on social," not "liberal on social;" that what you want is someone who doesn't give a shit about whose peener is in whose pooper. Social liberalism doesn't begin and end with same sex marriage. A socially liberal candidate is likely also to be to the left on reproductive health; to the left on access to health care for the working poor and single mothers; to the left on housing security for those same groups; and to the left on things like food security and living wages for those same groups.

Unless you want to redefine socially liberal as "to the left of Ted Cruz," that's the kind of candidate you're talking about. Most of those priorities are going to require spending to back them, and probably at higher than current levels.

You literally cannot have a candidate who wants to balance the budget and wants to maintain current levels of military spending while at the same time looks to leverage the power of government to help the working poor and single mothers. You have to choose two of three:

A) Maintain current levels of military spending
B) Pursue socially liberal policies
C) Balance the budget

Unless you're willing to return to the tax rates of the 1950s, you literally cannot achieve all three of those aims.

This post isn't meant as a slam on you, Dutch. Just to point out that either you meant something other than what you posted, or your ideal candidate is a unicorn in contemporary discourse. JFK might qualify, but military spending under him was 70% of what it is today in 2005 dollars. A candidate who proposed cutting military spending to JFK levels to subsidize his socially liberal policy pursuits would not be considered a military hawk.

(Hell, military spending under Obama is higher than under any president not named FDR, and he's being accused of gutting the damn thing.)

[ISiddiqui]

I wish Obama accomplished "class warfare", but no Democratic President is going to really go after their rich and corporate rulers.

[albionmoonlight]

It is helpful to remember Dutch's main point. We hear a lot of disillusioned people say that it does not matter who is in charge because both parties are the same. And, certainly, for things like bending over for corporate interests at the expense of the people, both parties are much more similar than different (even as the Dems pretend that they are not like that).

But then a couple of events happen close in time that make you realize that it really does matter who is in charge:



http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...age-3-6-15.pdf

The picture is members of the Texas GOP sharing some cake to celebrate ten years of banning same sex marriage in Texas.

The link is to the brief filed in the Supreme Court by President Obama's Department of Justice in support of full marriage equality.

Whatever your thoughts on this issue, you cannot say that who is in charge does not matter because both parties are just the same.

[Edward64]

With Obamacare taking root (I hope), I will consider a GOP next cycle as our Foreign Policy is lacking. But Ted is not going to be it.

Ted Cruz to announce 2016 presidential bid on Monday - CNN.com

Cruz, 44, will be the first candidate to formally throw his hat in the ring for what's expected to be a crowded GOP primary, with more than a dozen high-profile Republicans expressing serious interest in a White House run.
:
:
A constant and vocal critic of the Obama administration, he's perhaps best known for his stalwart fight against Obamacare in 2013, which led to a tense standoff between Democrats and Republicans and ultimately resulted in a 17-day government shutdown. The showdown was punctuated by Cruz's 21-hour speech on the Senate floor.

While popular in conservative and tea party circles, Cruz has a long way to go in terms of broader support in the GOP base, according to public opinion polls. A CNN/ORC International survey conducted this month of the hypothetical Republican primary showed Cruz came in with 4% support among Republicans and independents who lean Republican.

But the field is still relatively open, with the top contender -- Jeb Bush -- coming in at 16% support, followed by Scott Walker at 13%.

[SirFozzie]

If you vote for R's, you're voting to remove the ACA. straight up.