I see so many of you saying that you either won't vote or won't vote for Obama. Well if the choice is him or Michell Bachman then please please please I beg you 4 more years of Obama will seem like a cake walk compared the the literal hell on earth we will all be in if she gets in the White House. We cannot as liberals and moderates who lean left not stand against her and the right wingnuts. Even if you detest the centrist/left candidate, you have to support them against the TEA Party and start looking at 2016 for what we really need in a president.

I agree that we need serious change and I agree that the current measures being put forth in congress are little more than a latticework of bandaids on a gaping wound but we cannot let the TEAParty go rip that off and gut the bleeding beast. We need to actually fix the problems.

We need real solutions.

Here is one:

http://americandeal.blogspot.com/2011/08/usap-10-point-plan.html

After you read it sign the petition to get it implemented if you agree with it.

"The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles."

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands."

--Eugene V. Debs, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

these things were said over 100 years ago. when will we learn?

We all voted for a latter day Franklin Roosevelt and got Herbert Hoover instead. Or is it more fair to suggest that he has already managed to make himself the worst Democratic president since James Buchanan?Either description is accurate and I for one, will not support Obama a second time. If no one challenges this duplicitous politician I will write in Bernie Sanders, a true progressive who unlike Obama, possesses both courage and integrity.Paraphrasing EV Debs, it is better to vote for someone you want and can't get, then vote for someone you don't want and get him. Matt Thomas

We all voted for a latter day Franklin Roosevelt and got Herbert Hoover instead. Or is it more fair to suggest that he has already managed to make himself the worst Democratic president since James Buchanan?Either description is accurate and I for one, will not support Obama a second time. If no one challenges this duplicitous politician I will write in Bernie Sanders, a true progressive who unlike Obama, possesses both courage and integrity.Paraphrasing EV Debs, it is better to vote for someone you want and can't get, then vote for someone you don't want and get him. Matt Thomas

To those voicing concern that a challenger would give the presidency to the Republicans, consider this. With a Republican in office, bad as is may seem, the Democrats would be much more united in their opposition to the same stupid policies that Obama is pushing right now. If McCain has tried to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare, he would never have gotten to first base with it. Progressives will never be taken seriously by Democrats or by Obama if we let him get away with his corporatist allegiance.

I'm challenging the whole system by putting my efforts into creating local food systems, neighborhoods with vitality, and perhaps a local currency.The military industrial complex seems to be a bad thing for humanity. So unless someone can prove to me otherwise, I'm not sure I'll be a cheerleader for it anymore.

The one thing people need to understand about modern Democrats and Republicans is that in terms of real results, not what they say but what they actually do, the only actual difference between them is their marketing departments. Look at what Obama has actually done and the only conclusion I can reach is that he is a right wing corporatist. He isn't weak, he's doing exactly what he really wants. The eleventy dimensional chess moves weren't for the Republicans, they were to be used against you and me.There is no Lesser of Two Evils anymore. Both sides are equally evil. Both sides are totally owned by Corporations. Obama got my primary and general election vote, but by the end of 2009, I realised what a horrible mistake I had made. The first depressing clue was the reanimation of the Clinton era zombies for his cabinet choices and the selection of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Sec. Then the continuation of Bush's wars, ramping up AfPak, drone strikes, the continued erosion of American civil rights, declaring the right to assassinate American citizens without due process, the less than liberal Supreme Court choices, the war on whistleblowers, the taking of the public option off the table at the first meeting while saying to the American people he was still for it when he knew it was off the table. Then let's not forget all the current secret wars in Yemen among other places, Libya and the straw that broke the camel's back: putting the social safety net on the table for cuts. That wasn't the Republicans, that was 100 percent Obama. Obama is not a liberal or a progressive or whatever term one might use for a Democrat that FDR, JFK or LBJ might actually recognise.

I just had a thought.... Tell me if this makes sense.. We are all aware of the sad situation our country is in. Greed and lack of accountability by the powers that be prevails much more than at any time in history. It seems lying and corruptness has become acceptable, especially from the right wing. Corporate owns our politicans, with, in part, a big thanks to the Supreme Court. I realize part of Obama's donations for the presidency came from corporate and quite possibly his vague responses to promises he made us during his campaign are payback to those corporations. Maybe it's a longshot but do you suppose his second term will produce a different Obama, one that has nothing to lose by standing up to the Baggers/GOP and pursuing the promises he made to the American people? I just find it so difficult to have listened to this man running for president time after time with his determination, toughness, pounding away at his promises, and then in the last 3 1/2 years have had to observe a totally different personality in office. He has allowed himself to be attacked brutely, backed off from healthcare debates, kept away from Walker's attack on union workers, and allowed himself into a compromise situation on the debt ceiling, even going as far as laying SS and Medicare on the table) instead of telling the Baggers NO from the start period! Had he gone to the people and told them why he is saying 'no' over and over, it would have sunk in. His argument would have been legitimate since this country has never used passing the debt ceiling as blackmail against another party to suit its agenda. It had nothing to do with spending, taxes or anything. It should never have been a debate and Obama should never have allowed it. Even Clinton told him to go for the 14th amendment. His spineless behavior tells me there is more to this than what appears on the surface, more than simply dishonesty.

I will not vote if Obama is the nominee. I probably will not vote unless the nominee is Elizabeth Warren. Period. End of story.

Amen. The best thing for this country is to get Obama out of power PERIOD. Where is a blue dog when we need one?

I voted for Obama and even sent money,the first money I ever sent to a politician.My disappointment is such that I believe only his immediate resignation can save the election for a democratic candidate. The president has proved he doesn't have the savvy or the courage to handle the job. The VP is a seasoned politician who could handle the job, and he could appoint a new VP and begin grooming him/her for the job.

Can't help but wonder who our Appeaser in Chief really is. I chose Hillary, but when Mr. Obama was elected I took solace in knowing that he was black and had been a community organizer. I figured he had to know about the plight of the working stiff and the disadvantaged. Because he had openly embraced single-payer health care I thought finally we'd join the rest of the western industrialized nations in exterminating the parasitic, health-insurance industry. His professed love for his daughters led me to believe he cared enough about their future to work tirelessly to guarantee that they would grow to old age breathing clean air, drinking clean water and living on a planet whose climate had not caused the last polar bear spontaneously to burst into flames. Instead, what we got was a spineless castrato desperate to "negotiate" with a crowd opposed to everything he formerly espoused, and resolutely dedicated to pitching him headlong out of the Oval Office. Mr. Obama earned his political credentials in Chicago. Had he earned them farther south he might have learned to appreciate what it means to attempt to negotiate and compromise with a lynch mob.

Forget the theory that Obama needs a challenger to get him to return to his base.

Obama needs a challenger because we need somebody else in the Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket in 2012.

A Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich might do the trick. Maybe Rep. Schakowsky could take a shot. Even Alan Grayson might do it.

Whoa. There are many long, well thought out comments. I'll just add a short one. Great idea! I'd also vote for Bernie long before I'd vote for Obama again. Sure Obama will get the nomination, but it would be good to remind him of what his base is supposed to be.

Mary, I voted for Obama, took my youngest daughter from LA to Washington DC to witness history. But sad to say, this man is not a leader, and while he has liberal values, (please excuse my language) he has no cohenes. Neocons and conservatives are all about acquiring and using power. They (probably correctly)see Obama as weak and vulnerable, and they will continue attacking him like sharks cause he is floundering in the political seas. If he can get re-elected, don't set yourself up for disapponitment because he will never have the guts to impliment a true progessive agenda cause he's afraid.

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR DEMOCRACY IS THAT NOBODY NEEDS TO LISTEN TO "WE THE PEOPLE" ANYMORE in order to get elected. They just need to manipulate us better than the other guy, and the best way to do that is advertising money from the big moneyed special interest groups (read big corporations).
Obama is beholden to the financial sector that paid for his election, and he will be in this election, too. The interesting thing will be to see how he acts once he's a lame duck. I believe he will get very progressive, if we're lucky. Why he has caved so wholeheartedly on healthcare reform, on the debt ceiling, and so many other things ... well, it's uncanny. Could he really be that bad a negotiator? Are they threatening an atom bomb, or what?
I still believe somewhat in him, mainly because I read his book, "Dreams from My Father", written soon after he graduated from law school, before there were any plausible dreams of the Presidency, but probably dreams of a political life. It included soul-searching passages and his philosophical views in a very open way; it was a much better book, I think, than The Audacity of Hope.
WE have a threat to our Democracy and we need to address that! Not argue over who's running for President.
I believe the Citizens United decision necessitates having a national conversation about what to do about the problem that most Americans understand--that corporations and their CEOs have too much influence in our politics and policies. A January 2011 poll has found that four out of every five Americans oppose the decision in Citizens United and support a constitutional amendment to reverse it.
It is our view at Move to Amend ( sew-mta.org for our SE WI site, movetoamend.org for the national site) that this decision goes to the heart of the key problem with our government: that it is far more responsive to corporate interests than to the needs of the people who live and work in this country. And, we do not believe that this major failure can be addressed through some narrow regulation or compromised statute. Aiming for such an amendment is a powerful organizing tool that can help unite a variety of issues people care about, which have their roots in excessive corporate influence, and can open a path to create pressure for a range of solutions to help restore our democracy and achieve policies to serve the basic interests of the vast majority of the American people.
Corporations aren't people and money is not speech. It's that simple.

Bernie's great, I love the guy just like Nader. Actually I think he's a tad more in touch with reality. BUT, I don't think Bernie's taken into account the way his challenger and his/her coterie of progressive press zealots are going to go to work on Obama.
In fact, this author (Nichols) was swept along in the media wave led by Nader and Amy Goodman that made mincemeat of Al Gore in 2000 and helped us get eight of the worst years of our lives and possibly the only chance we had to escape a truly brutal future.
Quoting Spike Lee to Amy Goodman; "it matters who's President". I'm from Madison and I know from experience that too many progressives are all about that one event or candidate and don't have the patience and class stand for real, loyal and consistent solidarity.
Obama is consistently pleading with the concerned public to get active. If progressives really want to change things they'll lose a little of the culture club ego they like to hang their campaign buttoned hats on, recognize the reality they and Obama face and take the struggle out of the coffee house to the neighborhoods that need to know who the enemy is.

Finally, the call for a challenger to Obama rises to the surface. Obama needs to stop ignoring his base and the base and a primary challenge would do it. Even the threat of a challenge would work. Think of this as a strike vote, and we'll need over 90% support if we want to negotiate the terms of Obama getting the candidacy.

Why is it that the Democrats are crying out that if the Republicans get 51 in the Senate they can have their way, (which is really odd because they already seem to be getting their way) but for these last years when the Democrats had House and Senate they have been saying that they can't do anything without 60 in the Senate! Why can the Republican do so much with 51 and the Democrat can't do anything with 59? Are they not playing by the same rules?
The Democrats are doing exactly what their corporate masters expect of them. The republicans drive America to the right the democrats come in and stagnant the country there and create a new "Center". The republicans come back in and take the country further right. Repeat as often as needed until the "Center" is private and corporate ownership of everything.

PS, if stronger forces abound, and a primary contest becomes inevitable, the person I would most want to see here, would be Howard Dean.

The problem is, he has said he isn't interested, and he hasn't been setting up for a run, and let's face it, it takes years to do so. More time than Howard would have.

Bernie Sanders voted FOR Medicare and other entitlements cuts when he was in the House of Representatives under Bill Clinton, something he conveniently forgets. As for his repeated charge that Obama means harm to Social Security and Medicare, he ignores and I think sometimes misrepresents what Obama has ACTUALLY said about these things because he doesn't want to mess up the nice, simple narrative he's weaving together. Obama has REPEATEDLY said he wants hands off of Social Security. He has repeatedly said he DOES NOT want cuts to the benefits, but he IS worried about the long term viability of Medicare in particular under the current system, so he is open to suggestions on how to maintain its long term viability. The thing is, he's NOT making it up. There IS a problem with long term viability of Medicare, something Bernie willfully ignores in his bombastic denunciations of Obama and his intentions. Medicare is headed for insolvency in a few years. He knows it, too.There's a lot I like about Bernie. He's articulate and forceful. But he's also the lone Socialist in the Senate and he doesn't have to get along with anybody to get anything done. And he doesn't get things done. Please look at his legislative record. It's great being the gadfly and the progressive purist giving eloquent speeches, but he DOES NOT GET THINGS DONE. He has been in Congress forever and he understands more than most just what impediments lie in Obama's path, but rather than admit their reality he'd rather play the idealist and criticize Obama for dealing with the realities he's been dealt rather than the alternate fantasy reality he'd rather have. Obama doesn't have Bernie's option of being the Senate loner who rails against injustice and corporatism. That's Bernie's schtick because he doesn't really have to govern, just put in his two cents. Unfortunately for Obama, he must govern, which means he HAS to talk to people whom Bernie is free to ignore and he HAS to seek votes from people Bernie chooses not to have anything to do with. For a smart old guy who's been a politician his entire life Bernie sure likes to pretend he doesn't see the problem. In that way I find him intentionally dishonest and it disappoints me. But all this talk of primarying Obama is just that. It's destructive and counterproductive and all it does is feed into people's anger and frustration. Instead of talking about and supporting revision of the Senate's rules which allow tyranny of the minority Bernie would rather attack the most progressive President we've had since FDR. Instead of attacking the process he just attacks the people involved, as if process had nothing to do with the reason why more has not been accomplished. However, attacking the process means he'd have to explain it first to people and he'd have to consider the deep complexities of the system in his criticisms and there's no fun in that. Bernie should shut up and see what he can do to help, for once, instead of constantly standing on the outside bitching about how the guy who's in charge of getting things done is doing it wrong but offering no helpful suggestions of how HE would do it to make it work.