The 2012 Presidential race is on, and I hereby announce that I oppose the renomination of Barack Obama for the Democratic party candidacy.
This is not a case of buyer's remorse despite my political leanings. I did not vote for Obama in 2008. Neither did I vote for John McCain. I made a very difficult choice to write in Ron Paul as the only candidate offered by any party that stood for something—anything—I believe in, and even choosing Ron Paul was a long stretch. I refuse to support candidates who feel free to "hippie punch" me, denigrate me, and stomp on all my goals (as expressed far better than I can do here. Julius Caesar taught me that one can only be stabbed in the back so many times before one succumbs, and I won't back down. So I support the growing effort to replace the ineffective Barack Obama on the ticket with someone else.
I thought I'd begin my advocacy with a little history of how this movement began and grew. And yes, despite the talk to the contrary, it grows still. Some of the sectors of growth might surprise you, and I offer a couple of examples in this post.
As of September of 2009, Keith Olbermann expressed the idea that progressives were willing to abandon Obama. "He's compromised on everything so far... If it's necessary to find somebody else to run against him, I think they'd do it..."
Others back then thought so as well. By the following February, blogger Patrick Roberts of irishcentral.com promoted Evan Bayh as a substitute, suggesting that the motive for the "more electable" Bayh was a grudge over repeated VP slot snubs dating back to John Kerry's campaign. Not the first time has spite had repercussions, right Scott Walker?
With the midterm races heating up, former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell suggested that Rep. Ron Paul will never have a better chance than in 2012 to run third party. Rendell admits that such a move would only benefit Obama's chances. Sneaky, Ed! I doubt that this is going to happen; and if it did, I doubt I would vote for him again. Get serious!