George Soros Implies Support for a Primary Challenge

Or maybe not, since his people are walking it back a little bit:

According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is "used to fighting losing battles but doesn't like to lose without fighting."

"We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line," he said, according to several Democratic sources. "And if this president can't do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else."

……

While Soros's comment gave some attendees the impression that he'd cheer a primary challenge to the president, the point, sources say, was different. Rather, it is time to shuffle funds into a progressive infrastructure that will take on the tasks that the president can't or won't take on.

"People are determined to help build a progressive infrastructure and make sure it is there not just in the months ahead but one that will last in the long term," said Anna Burger, the retired treasury secretary of SEIU. "Instead of being pushed over by this election it has empowered people to stand up in a bigger way."

"There was frustration," said one Democratic operative who attended the meetings. The main concern was about messaging. I think they are frustrated that the president isn't being more direct. But I did not get the sense that anyone's commitment to the progressive movement was wavering... The general consensus is that support has to move beyond being about one person and more about a movement. I don't know if we've moved beyond there."

So, it could be that Soros is saying that he thinks that liberals should disassociate themselves from the Obama political operation, and go back to funding people 3^rd party political operatives, because you can't trust the Obama team to fight for you, or to fight period. (true)

It's been well known that the Obama administration, and the associated political operation, has been tremendously hostile to 3^rd party political operations, both out of a need to micromanage the message, and because of their ceaseless focus on process at the expense of results.

I think that the message, particularly as put forward by a billionaire, is a shot across Obama's bow.

I think that there was the intention to tell the Obama White House that if they kept trying to veal pen and defund independent groups, then there is a billionaire out there who is willing to dump a significant chunk of change on making his life difficult in 2012.

For myself, I support a robust primary challenge.

Obama's weakness, and his eagerness to please the malefactors in this situation (do nothing Republicans, dishonest bankers, etc.) while casting his behavior as liberalism could cripple the party, and the solutions that our country needs, for decades to come, much as Herbert Hoover crippled Republicans and conservatism for a generation.

The difference is that Barack Obama's PPUT (Post Partisan Unity Schtick) is a refutation of liberalism, while Hoover's activities were an endorsement of conservatism.