Monday, December 6, 2010

Should Obama face a primary challenge?

Well, that's the discussion at Huffington Post today

The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012.

I don't have a problem with primary challenges. The more democracy, the better! But angry liberals should understand this: sitting presidents who face in-party election challenges always lose. Always: LBJ, Carter and Bush I all left the presidency after serving a single elected term. Mount a primary challenge to Obama and you're probably conceding the presidency to the Republicans. If you think there's *no* difference between the parties, then it's no big deal. But while I'm frustrated with the Barack Obama presidency, I feel reasonably assured that President Sarah Palin would be worse. Really.

No comments: