home

Obama Speaks To Nation On Health Care

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:45:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama will be speaking to the Nation on the issue of health care tonight at 8 pm.

Here is a thread to discuss the President's remarks and reactions to them.

Update (TL): You can watch live at CBS here. The feed is already live. (BTD) - Here are some of the prepared remarks.

(BTD) 50 minutes in - President Obama, politically speaking, has knocked it out of the park. Bully pulpit indeed. A bravura performance by a tremendous politician. For a contrary view, Kevin Drum thought Obama stank.

< House Subcommittee Passes Bill to End Crack-Powder Cocaine Disparity | Obama Discusses Gates Arrest and Racial Profiling >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Obama Speaks To Nation On Health Care | 204 comments (204 topical)
    Obama going gray (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    Another six months like this and he'll have white hair like me.

    Bill Clinton made the transformation (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:04:18 PM EST
    between 92 and 95 IIRC.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    Maybe it is a dye job to improve his credibility. Grey=wisdom

    Parent
    Toughest job in the world (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    Unless you are a frat boy idiot in which case - "what? me worry?"

    Parent
    Alfred E Neuman (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:10:01 PM EST
    Was smarter than our #43. But point well taken.

    Parent
    It's not the toughest job ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:15:34 PM EST
    in any world.  A lot of people have much tougher jobs, and don't have limos and private planes, and chefs, and laundry service ... and ... um ... healthcare.

    Parent
    Different measure (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    of "tough."

    Parent
    But isn't that a problem? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    A rich person has a bead of sweat on his forehead and he has the toughest job in the world.

    A poor person loses an arm on the job, and he's a malingerer.

    Parent

    Maybe my reception, (none / 0) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:49:08 PM EST
    but the make-up job seemed heavier than usual.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#88)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:45:34 PM EST
    he dyed his hair for the campaign to look younger. The grey has been there for awhile.


    Parent
    Huh? (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:06:46 PM EST
    Why would any pol who is accused of lacking experience do a dye job for grey hair?

    Makes no sense, as usual.

    Parent

    Face looks thinner too (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    I just tuned in and that was the first thing I noticed

    Parent
    I don't want Medicare benefits reduced (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    it sounds like "controlling costs in the future" means elders will suffer. Is it a trade-off, by providing health care to everyone, we have to cut medicare?

    Probably not (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:12:48 PM EST
    Especially if they can put the squeeze on the drug companies.

    Parent
    BTW, Medicare already covers (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    most of the expensive people (read: the old).

    Parent
    he talked the other day about (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    maybe a 99 year old should take a pain pill instead of getting a pacemaker. That should be between the patient and doctor...I'm concerned he'll impose limits on what tests and surgeries an elderly person can get. Just send them to Hospice isn't fair.

    Parent
    A legitimate concern (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:17:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Another legitimate concern for me (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:15:05 PM EST
    is the mentality of "extending death."  I had a sister who worked for years in nursing homes....from the seventies thru 2003.   She was basically a republican so this is not a political pov from her as far as that goes.  She said they did "assembly line" cataract removal on the elderly whether it would improve their quality of life or not.  And she said it was sad to see as "guilty" family members who never visited, never cared much about anything would insist on this and that and this and that for a person they never saw long enough to know what they really needed or wanted.

    There is a point where common sense must be taken into account.  For example my father had a bad heart, really bad but he was a happy man except when he was in the hospital.  He told my sister he wanted no heroics.....no pounding on his chest to revive him when his time came.  He had a massive heart attack one afternoon.  We got there when the EMTs did and we had to do battle to get them to honor his wishes.  He died suddenly and happily in his sleep (afternoon nap).

    On the other hand a year later my uncle had a massive heart attack.  Like my dad his heart was bad from years of diabetes.  His daughter INSISTED he be revived.  He lived three more months, hooked up to machines in the hospital and he was angry with his daughter because he had asked her to not allow heroics.  But she insisted because she told me "I love daddy too much to let him die."  As if my sister and I did not love our dad.  

    The point is that sometimes we must recognize there is a difference between extending life and extending death.

    Parent

    End of life care (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by ap in avl on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:01:15 PM EST
    should be decided by the individual.  Not corporations.  Not government.  

    Parent
    But getting people to make those (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:18:00 PM EST
    decisions while they still can and making sure they talk to their family members about decisions is so important.  Sadly too many Americans are so reticent about doing at a young enough age, it's hard at times for anyone to know what the individual wanted.

    In the end, common sense is a part of it.  Insisting a 94 year old who is bed ridden and has dementia needs cataract surgery strikes me as odd.   How does that happen?  Profit motive.  And if there is no family, guess what, they are easy targets for profit.

    Parent

    But one that will (none / 0) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    have to be addressed nonetheless.

    Parent
    Didn't he also say something (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:19:58 PM EST
    in regards to general HC about try the blue pill or the pink pill in regards to keeping "control" of things? It seems to me he shouldn't be messing in those areas. Drs should be able to be proactive, not tied by guidelines from the WH.

    Parent
    I missed that (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    But I think you can be confident that the AARP isn't going to allow Medicare cuts. You should have seen the hell and earth they moved last year when Dr.'s payments were going to be cut. Congress acted real fast.

    Parent
    and does it well: (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    my dad just paid $0 of $100K for emergency services, a hospital stay, and a heart stint.

    Parent
    Actually, where the Boomers and older (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    are concerned, many are Veterans. Their drugs are available to them for Free through the VA.  

    Parent
    Not free (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:02:19 PM EST
    not unless you are 50% or more disabled.

    Parent
    Medicare is seriously in need of (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    cost control and utilization review.  This isn't the same as cutting benefits.  

    Parent
    Costs vs. care (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    In the end, I think he is talking about taxing health care benefits of the wealthy (+350K per year incomes.)

    Parent
    I thought his number for "Wealthy" was (none / 0) (#103)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:54:58 PM EST
    $250K. Has he recently revised it?

    Parent
    Just on health care (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:56:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Ahhh...thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    So, the $250 still stands on the subject of taxes. That's fair.


    Parent
    Current proposal cutting $300 million from (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:20:11 PM EST
    Medicare and Medicaid budget.

    Parent
    Shifting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    not cutting imo.

    Parent
    Maybe, maybe not (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    This trial balloon on an Independent Medicare Advisory Council sounds uncomfortably close to the base-closing commission concept to me; you know, the kind of body to take the "tough decisions" that are tough only for the powerless.

    And I don't believe for a minute that Versailles, and hence the Democrats, have surrendured the notion of "entitlements reform."

    Parent

    From everything that I have read (none / 0) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:32:19 PM EST
    on the subject, they plan to cut $300 billion from the Medicare and Medicaid budget to offset the cost of their proposed health insurance program. Anyway you look at it, Medicare and Medicaid will have $300 billion less to spend.

    If you take $100 from my pocket and put it in yours, you have shifted the money and I'm still out $100 regardless of what word you use to describe the action.

    Parent

    Depends (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:34:03 PM EST
    on how much they can squeeze out of part D. I think the drug companies may have to eat this.

    Parent
    As always the devil is in the details (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    If he can squeeze the money out of big Pharma without them reducing the number of drugs that they cover, you will hear me cheering him on.

    Yet, these cuts along with wanting to take setting rates out the control of Congress make me extremely leery. These are actions that can be easily abused. If not by Obama now, by someone else in the future.  

    Parent

    I'd love to see that! (none / 0) (#116)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:58:53 PM EST


    Parent
    He has mentioned Medicare Advantage (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    several times in the past, as a way to cut Medicare, given that it's nothing but a direct application of our tax dollars to insurance companies' profits.

    I do wish that would be undertaken. Aside from saving money, it would also get the insurance companies used to not getting all the dollars just thrown into their trough.

    Parent

    Oops, should read $300 billion (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:53:02 PM EST


    Parent
    A big part of the funding plan is to come (none / 0) (#175)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    from Medicare. Reductions to hospitals and doctors and preventative medical approaches are to provide the money, apparently.   It looks like, to me, that it is being presented as a "free" program, grand savings from a new Medicare and a surcharge on people whose incomes are "between struggling and $ million per year/per household."

    Parent
    Good to know he thinks (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    ""We have been able to pull our economy back from the brink."

    Given the rising unemployment, why does he think so?

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    he, Geithner, and Summers believe Goldman Sachs IS the economy, not the unemployed.

    Parent
    Because after Lehman fell we were at the (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    brink of near total economic collapse that would have been much worse then what we have now. So in that sense, he's right.

    Parent
    We don't really know that, and so far, (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:42:46 PM EST
    he's done nothing to prevent a repeat performance down the road. Goldman et al now know that they can take whatever risks they want, because they're "too big to fail" and the taxpayers will bail them out.

    Parent
    I'd put this more strongly (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    Rather than:
    he's done nothing to prevent a repeat performance

    I'd say
    he's done everything to ensure a repeat performance

    The banksters are even bigger and more powerful, they've already got two trillion of our money, with the promise of trillions more, and all the incentives are exactly the same as before.

    What was it we used to say in the Bush administration? Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

    Parent

    No idea (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    Sour note for sure.

    Parent
    First question I saw (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:45:10 PM EST
    and I think it is a lame answer. I'll go back and watch the parts you guys said were good.

    Parent
    Evidently Obama has not stressed (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:15:47 PM EST
    the urgency to do more than just pass legislation.

    This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day, and the stories I hear at town hall meetings...This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer.

    IIRC the legislation now being considered make these Americans wait until 2013 for actual help. No urgency of now in actually providing health care just in passing the legislation.

    Good critique from the Left (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:17:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Great use of Change (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:16:57 PM EST
    v. Status Quo.

    For once, the CHANGE message has a real policy implication.

    I think Obama is succedding so far on 2 levels  the stylistic level - he sounds like he knows and makes sense and on the policy, there are specifics here about the issue.

    Very Clintonian tonight.

    ugh...people shoulldn't get (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    5 tests. What's next, no second opinions, no third opinions, where do you draw the line? One size fits all health care isn't any better than one size fits all justice

    There's a middle ground possible (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    that looks like the French system. Krugman discussed it on Charlie Rose a week or two ago.

    Parent
    are you kidding? Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:25:50 PM EST
    Cut test repetition so everyone is covered?

    I say, do it.

    Parent

    UGH! (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:27:05 PM EST
    I was just discussing something along those lines in Open. :(

    Parent
    "the stars are aligned" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:20:17 PM EST
    love it, an astrology reference.

    Heh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:20:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Chuck tTodd (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:24:21 PM EST
    another unfocused question.

    Wide open for the President.

    "I want to cover everybody." THEN Casts himself as a pragmatic moderate with his plan.

    Nice framing.

    I know single payer advocates will be infuriated by this answer,, and perhaps rightly so, but as an act of politics - this is extremely skilled.

    25 minutes in . . . (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    I think POLITCALLY, Obama is owning this press conference.

    He's killing it (in a good way.)

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:27:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes he is doing well (none / 0) (#63)
    by coast on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    but will he follow it up with giving Congress direction rather than just hoping something comes out shortly that he can sign?

    Parent
    Fair question (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    Let me put it this way, he has definitely improved the chance for that because of what he is doing to night.

    A bravo bravisimo political performance.

    Parent

    We're getting the unified Obama economy vision (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:33:15 PM EST
    which is a very good thing IMO.

    F-22, zapped! (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    He's on a roll.

    Parent
    Did he mention the number of jobs (none / 0) (#92)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:49:14 PM EST
    being lost because of it? Even 1,000 Boeing jobs just in the Seattle area are tied to the F-22.


    Parent
    It's frankly too bad (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:28:07 PM EST
    that so much of our economy depends on us being in wars. Time to fix that.

    Parent
    No question, some people lost out (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    But there are always worthy losers when a program is cut.

    Parent
    I am just curious if he mentioned it... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:56:52 PM EST
    the information was all over the Seattle news this morning on the number of local jobs at risk.

    Parent
    And winners too (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:19:17 PM EST
    There will be just as many people hired for the increased work on the F-35.

    Parent
    Or did anyone really think that money left the (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    DOD altogether? Hahahahahahahaha....

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#150)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:20:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Deficit cutter creds (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:34:53 PM EST
    And why fixing health care is necessary for deficit reduction.

    Parent
    I'm very wary about MedPAC (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    But Ezra and friends like it.

    It's actually not far from what the NHS does. . .

    Parent

    It's actually IMAC (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:07:23 PM EST
    From PNHP:

    There has been intense interest in providing the administration with greater control over Medicare spending in order to bend down the trajectory of projected increases in spending. Members of Congress and the administration have been considering an Independent Medical Advisory Council (IMAC) much like the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), but with one very important difference.

    Currently MedPAC serves only in an advisory capacity to Congress, and any recommendations must be specifically enacted by Congress. Under this proposal, IMAC would have the power to put into force these recommendations, with the approval of the President. Congress's power would be limited to the ability to reject, by a joint resolution of Congress, the intact, full package of IMAC reforms and updates.

    I'm not so sure we want something like this in the hands of the president - you know the GOP can't wait to kill Medicare, and I think this would give them the means to do it.

    I'm also not convinced that Obama has the best intentions where Medicare is concerned, so I don't think I really want that much power in his hands, either.


    Parent

    Hear, Hear (none / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:36:40 PM EST


    Parent
    he's good (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:34:56 PM EST
    everytime I think he's gonna say something dumb, he actually turns it around. Really amazing.

    Tremendous pol (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    Obviously also a brilliant guy.

    Now the policy? Time will tell.

    Parent

    agreed.. do you trust him? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    I mean as much as you can trust a pol. I'm curious. He seems fairly trust worthy to me.

    Parent
    I do not trust any pol (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:42:19 PM EST
    I DO trust that health care reform is critical to his political success.

    Parent
    You mean appearing as (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    if he has done something to reform health care in a positive way.  Political spin, not actual results, right?

    Parent
    No results matter (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    when he is up for reelection, the enactments will have to be perceived to be working.

    Parent
    But there will be no (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:50:06 PM EST
    results until after 2012, according to the plan.  

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:51:54 PM EST


    Parent
    But if the plan, as it is currently (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    configured, is not slated to go into effect until 2013, he's not going to be running on how the enactment is going.  And all those people he speaks about so eloquently, who need care now, will still be waiting 3 1/2 years from now.

    Parent
    he's changed the language (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by pukemoana on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:01:26 PM EST
    from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform"

    Parent
    Interesting catch (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    Having their actual care messed with is what scares people. Insurance reform probably polls better.

    Parent
    fair enough; (none / 0) (#93)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:49:30 PM EST
    do you think he comes off as trustworthy?

    Parent
    Very (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:51:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Me too, just based on these last couple of answers (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    Whether I agree with him or not he has the gist of the answers at his fingertips and comes across as honest.

    There is no answer on TARP that would make me happy, so I'm not talking about that answer.

    Parent

    CHANGE again (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:38:51 PM EST
    On his game. What a pol.

    I betcha Tweety signs up to the plan all the way.

    Tingle up his leg? (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:40:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Hell (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    I got a tingle up my leg. Seeing a great pol at the top of his game is fun to watch.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:42:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Not so much (none / 0) (#199)
    by NealB on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:33:20 PM EST
    Poor tone-deaf Tweety. He'll probably sing a different tune tomorrow, but what I saw on late night Hard Ball (after the news conference), Tweety was as disheartened as could be.

    Parent
    Nailing The Public Option (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    To keep Ins cos honest. The same plan that Congress has... good one.

    Public option pitch (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:48:45 PM EST


    Very well done, IMO (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:17:08 PM EST
    Simple, clear answer. I hope the actual plan is going to be as good as that answer, and meet those goals.

    Parent
    Skip Gates (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:56:22 PM EST
    good one, here (WH) I'd get shot...

    Good on Obmam....  The cop acted stupidly.. arresting someone in their own home...

    History shows disproportionate bias against blacks and hipanics..

    Still haunts us.  

    Great answer, sensitive yet tough..

    Fineman is killing Obama (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:09:40 PM EST
    on Rachel Maddow

    Is he still on TV? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:13:35 PM EST
    I love my MSNBC boycott better all the time.

    Parent
    None of the "news" channels get my time (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:14:35 PM EST
    anymore. MSNBCHD just showed up on my cable system though. . .

    Parent
    No great tv/cable choices (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:22:40 PM EST
    for coverage out there, last I checked.  It's pick your poison for the most part.

    And frankly, I can't stand Big Bill Bennett and Obnoxiously Interrupting Alex Castellanos over on CNN.

    Msnbc will have to do for us, most of the time.

    Up next:  Eliz Edwards.

    Parent

    I like C-SPAN (none / 0) (#154)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    except for when they take calls from the mouthbreathers. . .

    Parent
    Yeah, I have little (none / 0) (#166)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    patience for the call-in shows, usually.  Too many knuckledraggers and folks who ramble.

    I'll admit that I'm one of those who needs his daily dose of teevee professional punditry.

    Old habit from the Eric Sevareid/nattering nabobs of negativism years I suppose ...

    Parent

    I wish there was a good option (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:30:33 PM EST
    Can't stand CNN either.

    I have to come here for brilliant, incisive commentary!

    Parent

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:12:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I was just surprised is all. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:13:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Who knows who he is listening to (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    Fineman is a purveyor of CW, which means so much less than it used to.

    Before what Fineman thought would have mattered. It really doesn't anymore imo.

    Parent

    He was much kinder (none / 0) (#138)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    on Obama's Gates comments.

    Parent
    My problem with this all ... (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:20:56 PM EST
    politically is it's going to be attacked like it's nation healthcare even if the public option is as a weak as we've seen so far.

    But without having a true public option you cannot win the argument as to why they work.  And, instead, you're stuck continually saying "it's not that."  And that's never a good place to be in an argument.

    I still have not seen any breakdown (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by coast on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:33:31 PM EST
    yet of how you have a deficit neutral bill and not raise taxes on the middle class.  The surtax and Medicaid/Medicare shift only get you so far.  Seems they are still at least $100B short.

    Top tax bracket (none / 0) (#168)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    Party like its 1999.

    Parent
    Its going to need to be more like 1969! (none / 0) (#171)
    by coast on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:25:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama gives in and gives up the names (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    of the industry execs he's met with (their affiliation in brackets, my addition):

    From Politico, which has the text of the letter:

    Anne L. Weismann, Esq.
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
    1400 Eye Street, NW, Suite 450
    Washington, DC 20005

    Dear Ms. Weismann:

    I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the United States Department of Homeland Security dated June 22, 2009. The request seeks records relating to any visits to the White House by eighteen health care executives since January 21, 2009. I understand that the Department of Homeland Security responded to your request by letter dated July 7, 2009. The letter stated that the legal status of White House visitor records is the subject of ongoing litigation and that the White House is reviewing its policy governing the discretionary release of such records.

    There is no more important issue than health care reform, and the President is fully committed to helping Americans live healthier lives, preventing illness, and increasing the competitiveness of our country. Given the compelling public interest in the health care debate and the President's goal of increasing transparency in government, we have reviewed the White House visitors records related to the eighteen individuals listed in your request through June 30, 2009. The President has decided to exercise his discretion and release the following information, which is reflected in the relevant visitor records:

    · Bill Tauzin [president, PhRMA] visited the White House on March 5, May 19, June 2, and June 24.

    · Karen Ignagni [president and chief executive officer of America's Health Insurance Plans]  visited the White House on March 5, 6, and 11 and June 30.

    · Richard Umbdenstock [President/CEO at American Hospital Association] visited the White House on February 4, February 23; March 5, March 25, March 30; April 6, and May 22.

    · J. James Rohack [J. James Rohack, MD. President. American Medical Association] visited the White House on March 25, June 22, and June 24.

    · William C. Weldon [Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Johnson & Johnson] visited the White House on May 12.

    · Jeffrey B. Kindler [Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer] visited the White House on March 5, May 6, and June 2.

    · Stephen J. Hemsley [CEO of UnitedHealth Group]  visited the White House on May 15 and 22.

    · Angela F. Braly [President and Chief Executive Officer of WellPoint] visited the White House on February 13.

    · George Halvorson [chairman and chief executive officer of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals] visited the White House on March 27 and June 5.

    · Jay Gellert [CEO and President of Health Net, Inc] visited the White House on February 10, March 11, and March 20.

    · Thomas Priselac [President and CEO of the Cedars-Sinai Health System] visited the White House on April 3.

    · Richard Clark [Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Merck & Co] visited the White House on March 24.

    · Wayne T. Smith [CEO of Community Health Sys] visited the White House on June 4.

    · Rick Smith visited the White House on May 19 and June 2.

    In addition to the above information, the White House visitor records reflect that Mr. Tauzin, Ms. Ignagni, Mr. Umbdenstock, Mr. Rohack, Mr. Kindler, Mr. Halvorson, Mr. Gellert, Mr. Priselac, David Nexon, and Rick Smith were scheduled to attend a May 11 meeting at the White House. We understand that all the individuals attended the meeting except Mr. Kindler, and that Mr. Clark attended as well. Finally, the visitor records do not reflect any visits by the following individuals: Ben J. Lipps; William A. Hawkins, III; or Robert L. Parkinson.

    We are continuing to review your specific FOIA request, as well as the White House's general policy governing the discretionary release of visitor records.

    Sincerely,

    Gregory B. Craig

    Counsel to the President

    That's a lot of visits in such a short time.

    And we only get transparency when (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:47:31 PM EST
    the lawsuit is filed? Looks like job security for CREW's attorneys.

    Parent
    Anyone who is at all familiar with Deming (none / 0) (#180)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:58:36 PM EST
    would say that the proper way to truly fix the system is to task the people who DO THE WORK with implementing better practices.

    Put the executives in charge of procedure and implementation and you'll get their lack of knowledge built right in.

    Real change happens from the bottom up. I've taught it, and I've seen it work time and again in every company that had the intelligence to practice lean.


    Parent

    Krugman (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:29:25 PM EST
    loved it too

    Uh oh?

    Style does not equal substance (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:46:17 PM EST
    The key number is 9 million in the public plan by 2019 according to the CBO.

    That's not enough to keep the insurance companies honest (if indeed anything could).

    And if the insurance companies aren't forced to compete with a public plan, the whole complex, unproven, and Rube Goldberg-esque structure collapses.

    Comparing Obama to FDR? (2.00 / 0) (#204)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    I just threw up a little in my own mouth.

    Partial transcript (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    available.

    Is he caving on the public option?

    I should say (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:48:58 PM EST
    statement as prepared.

    Parent
    A drink for every time he says, (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:56:41 PM EST
    "Let me be clear," and we'll all be drunk on our a$$es by 8:15.

    From what I read at the link, this is nothing he hasn't said before - and nearly word-for-word - in his many appearances in the last week or so.

    I'll probably follow along here and read the entire transcript when it's up; I'm more likely to stay sober that way, too.  :-)

    Parent

    Repetition (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    is a key component of political speaking.

    Parent
    The attack on the GOP (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    is pretty effective imo.

    This is a President ready to fight in partisan fashion.

    Most FDR we have seen in this Presidency.

    Parent

    Not exactly the MSG speech (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    but he's getting there.

    Parent
    For him? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:12:36 PM EST
    This is about as good as it gets on that type of rhetoric.

    I am happy to see it.

    They could also go back to the convention speech, his best ever imo.

    Not the 2004 speech, the 2008 speech.

    Parent

    nice to have a President (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:15:22 PM EST
    who is able to be clear.

    Parent
    he's also going to address (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:40 PM EST
    the economy and unemployment, according to the AP.

    Wise to tie them together (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:53:33 PM EST


    Parent
    And doing it well IMO (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:03:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    I thought it was just health care.

    Parent
    No mention of the public plan (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:06:27 PM EST
    I think he's pulling back. So there's your headline: bluedogs win.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:07:59 PM EST
    This is a general message appearance.

    In fact, I like the whole GOP tax cuts not paid for schtick.

    This is a shoulder to the wheel effort now.

    Obama putting his head down and he is going to grind this one out.

    Parent

    Hope you're right, obviously (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    I've got to admit, he really does this well. And the bully pulpit is one of the biggest things he has going for him.

    Parent
    He does, that's for sure (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:11:04 PM EST
    that's why turning over the lead on health care reform to the institution with the lowest approval rating going, and the worst spokespeople, (I speak of course of the current US Congress)  was a very bad idea IMO.

    Parent
    This is his FDR impression (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:10:05 PM EST


    Parent
    So if he uses partisan rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    but passes an awful bill that is more Nixon than FDR (or LBJ), that is still FDR?

    Parent
    remember, Medicare was a compromise. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:14:56 PM EST


    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#32)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:16:05 PM EST
    not medicare.

    Parent
    It could be (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    Depends on how strong the public plan is.

    Parent
    Well if the House version is (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    the strongest "public" plan we could get, then we already know the answer.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    I think the House bill is pretty good as a foundation. And if you pass it, you can expand it later. Medicare expanded over time, remember.

    Parent
    Nope. Sets up the (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    public option for an epic FAIL.  

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    Passing legislation isn't easy.

    Parent
    My opinion also. (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:39:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Details (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    Let's see the bill.

    I admit I am no expert on the issues.

    Trying to bone up.

    I speak more to the politics of it cuz I feel I know that part of it.

    Parent

    You'll be busy - HR 3200 is 1000 pages long. (4.00 / 3) (#179)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:53:14 PM EST
    And dont miss section 1233's discussion of Mandatory "death with dignity" meetings with your doc when you start getting old enough to really push up those utilization numbers - that is, you're kind of getting up there, let's make sure you're not tempted to get too many medical services, Grandma. Nice touch - I'd love to know who's responsible for that one.

    Parent
    I wonder if Cheney's doctor (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    will be having that conversation with him. "We're sorry Mr. Cheney we've given you the lifetime limit of pacemakers you're allowed." Not bloody likely.

    Parent
    Cheney has the sorcerer's stone. (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:21:47 PM EST
    and has placed part of his soul in several objects so he cannot die.

    Anyone care to guess which objects?

    Parent

    having just watched my aunt die slowly (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:20:30 PM EST
    I really resent your cynicism. This is critical to be addressed. It is just as horrible to force someone to have more tests and proceedure when they are ready to have peace as it is to deny them their proceedures to extend their life.

    And it all starts with a frank discussion with the doctor

    Parent

    AP question (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    pretty unfocused.

    Easy for Obama to just hit his talking points.

    This press conference should be all offense for the President.

    Agreed....Unprepared (none / 0) (#28)
    by coast on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    Why did he fumble when he knew he was getting called on first?  I know his boss is happy.

    Parent
    Where did he say the $100B was coming (none / 0) (#39)
    by coast on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    from with regards to Medicare and Medicaid?

    Rehits Change v. Status Quo (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    Very effective on "what's the rush."

    I know that what is in the bill is what matters, but Obama doing a great great job tonight.

    Imo, a virtuoso POLITICAL performance.

    He really is a great politician.

    Being asked about the sacrifices (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:28:30 PM EST
    which is good.

    Answer even better (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    Here is a pol on the top of his game and as good as there is.

    This is for ones we've seen in our lifetime, Clinton at the top of his game.

    Parent

    Let's see if he actually gets the bill passed (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    But in form, he's very good tonight.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:31:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Jake Tapper (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:29:11 PM EST
    gives the President another unfocused question and the opportunity.

    CHANGE again.

    Honestly, he is killing it.

    Obama talks change better than (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    just about anyone - that's in large part how he got elected - and he taps in really well to people's real desire for something better; in practice, though, a lot of the change he promised has not only not materialized, but we have seen affirmative efforts to maintain elements of the status quo that people never wanted to see again.

    That all leads to whether he really has the kind of credibility on change that he had a year ago, when it was just an idea.

    For people who have not immersed themselves in the health care issue, as many of us have, it probably does "kill," but I think at this stage, many of us are more concerned with how the famous Obama rhetoric translates into action - and, most importantly - whether someone who continues to entertain the negotiability of so many elements of reform really has the passion and commitment to the cause as much as he has the passion and commitment to winning - which are, in his case, I think, two things with no nexus.

    Parent

    Completely agree (none / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    with your comment.

    Very perceptive.

    Parent

    Anne is right, as usual, and on the point, (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    his track record so far is not encouraging. I believe he wants to pass SOMETHING so badly that he will negotiate the public option into irrelevance. He's already thrown everyone in my current economic situation under the bus by generously allowing those in "dire straits" an exemption. that's OK, I didn't want to go to the doctor anyway (snark).

    Parent
    Hitting CHANGE again (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:31:17 PM EST


    Chip Reid (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:36:38 PM EST
    usually a very hostile questioner (here is a fellow on his way to Fox), indeed asks a pointed question on Medicare, but then gives the President an out with his tack on - Obama grabs it and runs with it.

    a pol on the top of his game.

    Diction (none / 0) (#158)
    by Spamlet on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:28:27 PM EST
    on top of his game

    at the top of his game

    pick one

    thx

    Parent

    Sufferin succatash . . . (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:37:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I predict a 6 point jump (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:41:07 PM EST
    in the President's approval ratings on health care after tonight.

    He has owned the 40 minutes on health care.

    Just an A+ political performance.

    Great. (none / 0) (#172)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:26:17 PM EST
    Now let's see what actually happens.  I'm not swayed by his rhetoric.  A pol is a pol, afterall and what they SAY is not worth a nickel.

    Parent
    Remember (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    this picture?

    Who's going to be in the next one?

    Big legis achievement for (none / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    Johnson and the Dems, for sure.  Different time though.  More Rs in both chambers back then willing to work with Ds for a major bill.

    And that one key House chair, W Mills, formerly obstructionist on Medicare, saw the writing on the wall following the massive Dem landslide in 64 and immediately began going to work to write a substantive bill, cleverly incorporating AMA/Repub amendments intended to be substitute bills.

    Actually Mills was the most important player, not Lyndon.

    Though LBJ had his cleverly deceptive moment  -- getting one key senate obstructionist before the tv cameras, by ruse, as he grilled him about whether he would in fact be promptly holding hearings, moving them along.  The senator couldn't wriggle out.  Very sneaky, but effective.

    Parent

    Interestng question on the Gates situation (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:53:29 PM EST
    Obama gives a careful answer.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:55:46 PM EST
    Obviously, the President can not say too much on this, but it is amazing how much he is saying.

    Clearly, the President is a good friend of Gates.

    Pretty brave answer.

    Maybe a political misstep in a sense. Let's hope this does not become the headline.

    Parent

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:57:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I doubt it too ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    this was a big story for a lot of people.  And justifiably so.

    My mother called me just to ask me if I'd heard the Gates story.  And, though she's very politically, she never calls me with stuff like that.

    Parent

    Good answer with all points of view (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:56:51 PM EST
    tied in. I think that was great.

    Parent
    It's an interesting technique (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:54:46 PM EST
    that we also saw at the Sotomayor hearings. Instead of actually answering the question, describe the situation.

    It would get you an F on an exam, but it works for TV.

    Parent

    I Dunno (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:00:07 PM EST
    I think he got an A. His hedge was only that he was not there. He was able to address a hot button topic (racism and police in america) in a cool handed way by Gates example.

    Great answer, imo.

    Parent

    He went a little further than I expected (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:04:44 PM EST


    Parent
    did he say (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:56:05 PM EST
    the cambridge police officer acted stupidly?

    He did (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    and the police officer did.

    Surprised he said it.

    Parent

    i agree (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    but was surprised beyond words...

    Parent
    Skip Gates is a friend (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    Maybe the motivator.

    Parent
    Actually, I thought special favors for (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    friends was a politically careless thing for elected officials to do. I would have preferred he decline to answer and direct questions back to the subjects of his speech.


    Parent
    Special Favor? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    WTF are you talking about.

    Gates is not in jail. Charges were dropped.

    Obama hit a homerun with every POC who has worry about being harassed by police on a daily basis.

     

    Parent

    LOL LOL LOL LOL (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    Hysterical. You think every police officer is going to change their behaviors because Obama answered the question in favor of his good friend. That's too funny.

    So, why do you suppose Gates thinks he now has a PRISON RECORD?!

    Keep up.

    The favor, of course, is taking his friend's side in a situation he knows nothing about. He wasn't there. And, as POTUS, he's out of line speaking on the topic to the entire nation (and beyond).

    Parent

    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    Every police officer changing behavior??? Wow.

    Where did you get that from?

    Parent

    thanks for the context (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:06:09 PM EST
    it helps

    Parent
    He Started Off (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    Answering the question by saying, I may be biased about this because Skip is a dear friend....

    Parent
    my wife and i were talking over him.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:31:47 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Certainly (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:07:49 PM EST
    A way to bring in empathy so it is not just about race.

    Wouldn't most think the cop stupid if he did that to a dear friend of yours.  

    Parent

    Cambridge police acted stupidly (none / 0) (#107)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    wish he didn't say that.

    Glad He Did (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    It is the elephant in the room. Arrested in ones own home??????

    Moron would have been the word I would use.

    Costs $$ and does nothing to serve the community. That was what happened.

    Parent

    He wasn't arrested for being in his own home. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:08:01 PM EST
    He was arrested for disorderly conduct after he continued haranguing the cops (who DID identify themselves, by the way) and accusing them of racism. They received a call and were doing their jobs in responding. Personally, I think both sides overreacted, and also wonder if Prof. Gates would rather NOT have police respond to a suspected robbery call at his home.

    Obama should have left it at "I wasn't there, no comment, next question."

    Parent

    No One Twists Facts better than (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:40:02 PM EST
    squeaky.

    Personally, I think both sides overreacted, and also wonder if Prof. Gates would rather NOT have police respond to a suspected robbery call at his home.

    I'll bet they don't respond in the future. In fact, there may be some burglars thinking that very thing right now...good time to strike that house if they don't want the cops coming out. And, one thing's for sure, no neighbor, or passerby, will be calling in the suspicious behavior.

    It was not to Gates' credit to speak out so accusatory of the police officer. At no time did anyone suggest that the officer used any slurs or implied that his actions were motivated by race, yet Gates called the officer derogatory names and explicitly stated he had been profiled for his race. Apparently, he's not just a teacher, he's a mind-reader. If Obama were truly being fair and diplomatic, he would have seen the obvious and refused to comment. Then, no one knows if the question was planted, either.

    Parent

    Politically? (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    I agree. As a matter of fact, it is obviously true.

    Parent
    For the record (none / 0) (#119)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    I think they acted stupidly too; I just don't want to see all the cops getting their backs up now and that becoming the issue, but maybe it needed to be said. Maybe adds to his "trustworthiness" as he says what he thinks, etc.

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:03:47 PM EST
    Maybe instead of getting their backs up, thinking twice about acting stupid, a much better option.

    I would think that many good police are slapping their forehead on the Gates arrest and saying to themselves what a stupid move.

    Parent

    Depends on whether O said (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:06:34 PM EST
    just that one arresting cop acted stupidly -- that would be accurate and appropriate.

    If however he said "the Cambridge police" -- indicting the whole dept, not so good.

    Parent

    You put on the uniform... (none / 0) (#157)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:25:33 PM EST
    ...strap on a service revolver and wear the badge, you are no longer an individual but rather a representative of the Department and the City.  An individual officers actions are a direct reflection on both entities.  

    They're partly reasonable for the actions of this officer, after all.  Whether it's a issue of lack of training, lack of supervision/evaluation, workload or whatever.  

    Parent

    I don't disagree, generally (none / 0) (#165)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:43:02 PM EST
    speaking, but here it's the President answering the question, and so it becomes a delicate matter of what's politically appropriate to say in public.

    Sweep too broadly with the brush, and he's got a fair-sized media backlash to deal with, drowning out the whole purpose of the news conference.  

    I think he handled it right by referring (as I believe he did) to the one officer only.

    Parent

    Oh, I get your point. (none / 0) (#167)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:56:32 PM EST
    It's always a dance most delicate.  One misstep ruins a whole performance.  

    I wouldn't mind a little less of the political
    appropriate and a little more of the straight-up truth though.

    Parent

    He SaId (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:01:32 PM EST
     The cop acted stupidly.. arresting someone in their own home..

    Nothing about Cambridge or the police in Cambridge.

    Parent

    He knocked it out of the park. Agreed. (none / 0) (#188)
    by NealB on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:00:53 PM EST
    And so glad to read it here. Obama owned the press corps tonight. They hated it. That's all they can report. Shame is now all on them.

    I thought he did a good job. He answered a lot of questions that I've been concerned about. He was honest. He was smart. He enjoyed it. I hope he does it again tomorrow.

    Fact checking (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 08:48:18 AM EST
    By the AP

    Obama Speaks To Nation On Health Care | 204 comments (204 topical)