“It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected as President of the United States. But, regrettably, I believe that the time has come to do this.

“It is time for Progressives to stop ‘whining’ and arguing among themselves about whether President Obama will or will not do this or that. Obama is no different than any other President, nominated by his national party. He was elected with the hard work and 24/7 commitment of persons who believed and enlisted in his campaign for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change.’

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist nor have a PhD in political science and sociology to see clearly that Obama has abandoned much of the base that elected him. He has done this because he no longer respects, fears or believes those persons who elected him have any alternative, but to accept what he does, whether they like it or not.”

***
“Daniel Roche, a 2008 Deputy Field Organizer in Nevada for Mr. Obama, is quoted in an email from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee saying that if the president ‘capitulates on this, there really is no point in voting for him in 2012.’

“‘The difference between voting for a Republican and voting for someone whose default negotiation strategy is rolling over and dying whenever the Republican Party says mean things is marginal,’ he said. ‘This should be a ridiculously easy fight to win.’…

“‘Like the public option, which enjoyed similar bipartisan consensus among voters, progressives are pushing President Obama to fight for both a policy winner and a political winner,’ Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said. ‘…President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight. Obama is demobilizing the troops and demoralizing the public right before he seeks re-election.'”

***
“Rendell offered two reasons for his belief: First, any primary challenge would be ‘too hard to do — it costs too much money.”

“And, second, Rendell believes that Obama has checked off enough boxes on the progressive scorecard to keep any challenge from the left at bay.

“‘Has he achieved everything that he wanted to achieve — or that [the progressive base] would have wanted him to achieve? No. But given the state of the filibuster rule in the Senate, I think he’s done well in moving the ball forward in a lot of areas, areas he doesn’t get credit for,’ Rendell said, rattling off a list of Obama’s accomplishments: not only the healthcare bill, but also the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, credit card reform, student loan reform, and the extension of insurance to low-income children in the S-CHIP program.”

***
“This discontent, to be sure, is completely genuine and, in many cases, well-grounded. But given that columns like these feed one of the media’s favorite storylines (Who will be the Democrat who takes on Obama in ’12), a reality check is probably in order: Obama is actually well-positioned to avoid a serious primary challenge in 2012. There are four main reasons why:

“1. Obama is actually not that unpopular with Democrats. For all the grief he’s taking from the liberal commentariat, Obama’s standing with rank-and-file Democrats is actually quite strong. According to Gallup’s most recent data, 81 percent of Democrats currently approve of the job he’s done as president. That’s 7 points higher than Bill Clinton’s score after the Democrats’ 1994 midterm drubbing and 5 points higher than Ronald Reagan’s score among Republicans after the 1982 midterms. Notably, the last Democratic president to receive a serious primary challenge, Jimmy Carter, was at just 62 percent among Democrats at this point in his presidency — the same score that Lyndon Johnson, who was challenged in the 1968 primaries, posted after the party was throttled in the 1966 midterms. It’s possible that Obama’s numbers will drop in the months ahead, particularly if opinion-shaping Democrats step up their attacks on him. But it’s worth keeping in mind that opinion-shaping voices on the left have been voicing profound displeasure with Obama for some time now, but it hasn’t trickled down.

“2. There’s no great ideological divide in the party. Yes, there is real disappointment from many prominent liberals that Obama hasn’t produced more results on their issues — or at least demonstrated more of a zest for confrontation with Republicans. But fundamentally, Democratic voters still view Obama as a guy who is on their side — and who is up against Republican opponents who are dedicated to destroying him.”

***
“But of course a lot depends on how we define Kilgore’s phrase ‘serious challenger.’ Somebody who can go the distance and conceivably take the nomination away from Obama? I’d say no. Somebody who could keep Obama under 60 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, just as Pat Buchanan did against George H. W. Bush in 1992? That is quite possible, in my judgment. And while such an outcome would not amount to a serious threat to Obama’s renomination, it would do serious damage to his political standing.

“And to that point I would say: watch how Obama handles the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The New York Times and its liberal allies are frustrated right now with the way Obama is handling the tax cut negotiations, but if there is a ‘galvanizing issue’ that could launch a primary bid against the president, my money is that it would involve foreign rather than domestic affairs. I have maintained for a while that the number one reason Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 is because he was the only serious candidate in the 2008 Democratic field not to have supported the Iraq War, and for him to continue his current policies with these two conflicts courts danger with the substantial Bryan-Wallace-McGovern peace faction within his own party.”