Every independent voter stands for something different. The candidate who can cobble together that block will have made quite a pretzel to get it.

As a newbie to being Indie I respectfully suggest you are wrong about this.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist, LL.

That’s right, kris. For every independent you’ve got a different definition of what their political answer is. They’re looking for a personality to deliver on it. No platform or principles. They’re basically disaffected ex-Dems or Reps. That’s why it isn’t a “party.”

No, Imhotep, capitalism is not bad. It just needs regulation.

After Ensign crashed, Thune rose. I’m not surprised at all, but we haven’t seen Mitt get started. And again, don’t count out Sarah Palin and the rise of the tea party activists.

Isis says:
11 December 2009 at 12:33 pm

Brilliant assessment. Thanks so very much for taking the time to explain it so thoroughly; it was a pleasure to read your analysis, even if the deduction was depressing. I put this “In the News,” but you really must read it, Isis. It’s by Charles Blow of the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05blow.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

It will blow you away.

Hillary could have had just as much money “to pass around to Congress & to super delegates,” djjl, her team simply blew it. Let’s not try to float that Hillary is different from Obama when it comes to the corporate money game. She isn’t.”

I should have been clearer. My comment really had nothing to do with HRC and her campaign. My comment had to do with the amount of money the Freshman Senator walked into Congress with to pass around. Far, far more than Clinton or many other much more senior representatives.

I’m not talking about any money he raised during the campaign – I’m talking BEFORE he even announced an exploratory campaign.

http://tinyurl.com/yd7g6ad

JP Morgan fined extra 1.1 billion
http://wallstreetpit.com/5256-jpmorgan-to-record-11-bln-tarp-repayment-charge

Bank of America repays TARP fund and Citigroup scrambling to repay
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afcd2b4a-e399-11de-9f4f-00144feab49a.html

It is not that I disagree totally with what the author is saying but I think that (as too often) the article does not give the full truth and in that sense is misleading. The fact that TARP funds have been repaid or that other banks are desperate to repay the fund is relevant, especially when your argument is that the president is selling us out. It is also important to mention that one of the reasons banks were desperate to repay is that the TARP funds came with strings (more government control of profit distribution, remuneration and corporate governance). In my opinion these strings should have been stronger, but clearly intolerable for the bankers, desperate to get government of their back. So the taxpayers were not completely “sold out”: “we” have made some profit and we are recovering some of the money.

That said I sort of agree with the frustration behind this article. As a kool-aid drinker one of my main frustrations with the President is that he was elected to be a leader, behaved like a populist on the campaign trail (at least in my opinion) but since sworn into office is behaving increasingly like a remote technocrat. There was a grass-root populist tone to him that has almost completely disappeared. Why he and democrats in general consider that this (rejecting populism) is the right move, is a mystery to me. I think that I can often understand the rationale and political calculation behind many of his actions, but it is no longer “I will be the voice making sure that your concerns are addressed at Washington” but more “me and my guys we know better than you what is good for you”. I find it puzzling but he really underestimated the extent to which voters yearned for change, not only of direction but especially of leadership style.

As I said, I tend to ignore many of the criticism towards him as false or greatly overstated, but the charge of inexperience is increasingly ringing true. Instead of questioning the political wisdom, he is increasingly just accepting it and trying to sell it to us as good when throughout his political career he was against it. One example was the income redistribution debate. During the campaign, in one of the rare moment of him being caught off script and unguarded, he admitted to Joe the plumber (memories memories) that he thinks that it is good to spread the wealth around. Reps jumped on that as a proof that he has no clue of what the US is all about, some dems saw this as proof that he is inexperienced because spreading the wealth is a big taboo in the US, the WSJ talked of socialism and the rancor of the liberals, political wisdom was that this was un-American and was a big blunder. But a majority of voters who were actually yearning for more social justice put him in power. Yet is looks that Obama instead of seeing that as vindication, rather decided to surround himself with the “great, the good and established”, big names with fat CVs (as Palin would say) to ensure that we are all in awe of his economic team, that no one says he does not have the best mind and ensure that as regards the economy he is not caught off guard saying “un-American” things. I explain this by lack of experience.

As to your statement of “subtract the black vote,” that’s as bad as saying “subtract the women’s vote” and Hillary wouldn’t have been a viable candidate for president. With your “subtract the black vote” analysis close to exhibiting racism, which I’m sure was not your intent.

Marie205 says:
11 December 2009 at 10:56 am

This is a *very* good point of debate. It brings out the ultimate reality, though I still believe it’s too soon to look at 2012 yet, with 2010 a nightmare looming. But since you brought it up, the problem isn’t who would replace Obama; it’s the threat that Democrats won’t work to re-elect him (see LL), if passions run low, while the right comes out, putting Dems in the losing position by virtue of the fact they didn’t show up.

“Independents” stand for nothing, no driving dream or guiding principles. They’re simply waiting for a candidate to show up to lead them down a road without a map.

One other possible problem. Long time party activists like myself are pretty well done with this party and not likly to man the stations this time around. Personally, I’m thinking of re regristering as a liberal Independent. I’m looking for a third Party even though I know they are doomed just to be able to put energy into something I believe in,or maybe just giving up politics altogether for more community work.

That might explain Clinton’s ability to be a two term president,we shall see if Obama can pull off the same feat.Obama unlike either Clinton blew off the Reagan Dems and his supporters made a sport of trashing them.Now the dew is off the rose for many Obama supporters and unless he pulls off some miracles I don’t see the wave happening in 2012.

Matt is just pissed because he’s coming to realize that Obama slicked him. Obama is everything Matt accused Clinton of being.