Obama and 2012

Huffington Post's Sam Stein examines the prospects for a primary challenger to President Obama in 2012. He finds it highly unlikely. Even in the nadir of the post-2010 election, when talk of a challenger was highest, there were no obvious takers who hadn't already said they would not.

Now that his star is rising again, it seems even less likely. Comparing Clinton's prospects at the same point: 78% of Democrats say they want Obama to be the nominee in 2012, compared to Clinton's 57% in 1994.

What would be the prospects of winning from a position to the left of Obama, given that the winner will face a conservative GOP opponent? And would there be any viability to a third party candidacy?

Of course, I'm talking about political realities and winning the presidency, not what progressive policies I would like for a president to be able to get for us. The reality is that, for the foreseeable future, a centrist or slightly left of center position is the most we can hope to elect.

That doesn't mean I'm completely against someone running to keep the progressive message out there and possibly force the nominee to adopt a more liberal stance -- just not so much that it would cost us the election.

In an interview with The Valley Advocate earlier this year, Rachel Maddow defined her political position as "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."

Such are the times we live in. I would like to change it. Obama would like to change it. It ain't gonna happen over night.

Ralph