home

To Ignite Obama's Movement, Make Health Care Reform About Obama

The Obama Movement was never really about issues. His campaign was personality centric, it was about him. This is why the Obama grass roots has been incredibly disappointing on health care. His supporters have not seen this is as being about Obama - that failure on health care reform will be a supreme failure by Obama. Some Obama folks, like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, have forwarded the line that a President can't get it done in order to deflect the blame from Obama. This is not only wrong, it is counterproductive to actually getting health care reform done. The reality is not only is the success or failure of health care reform on Obama, to succeed, Obama needs it to be seen as being on Obama. Today the New York Times reports:

Mr. Obama engendered such passion last year that his allies believed they were on the verge of creating a movement that could be mobilized again. But if a week’s worth of events are any measure here in Iowa, it may not be so easy to reignite the machine that overwhelmed Republicans a year ago. More than a dozen campaign volunteers, precinct captains and team leaders from all corners of Iowa, who dedicated a large share of their time in 2007 and 2008 to Mr. Obama, said in interviews this week that they supported the president completely but were taking a break from politics and were not active members of Organizing for America.

(Emphasis supplied.) For these folks, it was about Obama, not the issues. To get them reengaged (indeed, to get the Media back on his side), Obama needs to make health care reform about Obama.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Failed "Washington Strategy" For Health Care Reform | Obama Explains Health Care One More Time >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Were those more than a dozen (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    Obama volunteers personally in need of health care coverage?  Was health care coverage for those without an important issue to them?

    I mentioned watching Sicko again the other (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    night, and I saw my daughter come home the other day after discovering that she doesn't know where her future health insurance coverage will come from, and I think that the most impoverished in our nation have become so demoralized that we aren't even hearing from them.

    Parent
    Quelle surprise (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    in the "American Idol" era.

    The Obama Movement was never really about issues. His campaign was personality centric, it was about him. This is why the Obama grass roots has been incredibly disappointing on health care.


    Yep. Obama may be our first true (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    ...celebrity president.

    It irked me to no end to see him compared to MLK and RFK, leaders who took bold and definitive stances on controversial issues because they believed in the principles that they represent.

    If Obama could somehow convey that sort of deep and passionate commitment to a strong public option--because it's good for Americans, corporate interests be damned--then he'd expand his base of fans.

    But to do that, he has to state clearly what he will NOT negotiate on. Has he ever done this?

    A movement has to be about ideas. It is led by charismatic and principled spokespeople who are committed to the ideas, but the figureheads aren't the movement. For this to happen (and I think BTD is right) Obama has to define just what the hell he won't give away to pass a plan, any plan.

    Parent

    JFK was a celebrity pres. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    Big Difference (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    is that young people excited about JFK actually became involved in public service.

    Thousands joined the Peace Corps (not actually Kennedy's original idea but a part of his campaign - 1st proposed during the campaign at U of M if my memory isn't totally shot) and became involved in other government service as well.

    The differences between JFK and Obama and what happened are of a considerable magnitude.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    That slot is filled. JFK was our first celebrity president.

    Parent
    Nothing wrong with (none / 0) (#16)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    celebrity status as president.  So long as there's some substance there.  JFK had it in spades.  Obama is no empty head either.

    You take advantage of the advantages you have with the public and use them to get things done.  

    Obama has a tougher job of getting health reform passed than Johnson did back in the relatively easy and favorable days of 64-5.  And arguably Obama has it a little tougher than Bill and Hill did in 93-4.  

    Expectations for substantial reform are even higher than they were 15 yrs ago and the hostile Right is even more well-funded and organized and able to penetrate and influence MSM coverage.

    Obama does need to play the most prominent public role in getting the job done.  But he should also call forth all those versed on the issue -- like the more skilled messenger Bill for instance -- who can be of assistance in delivering the message and developing some enthusiasm for (hopefully) generally good progressive legislation.

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    It is laughable in fact to argue that Obama has it tougher than Clinton in 94.

    Parent
    What is laughable (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:11:51 PM EST
    is to advocate to make health care reform about Obama as you are.

    If real heath care reform can't stand on it's own two feet then we don't have a chance.

    You see Obama doesn't even have a vote on this - well - other than to veto it. Where this battle will be won or lost is in congress.

    And if the lazy Obama Idol Worshipers can't get off their collective butts for an Issue on their own what good is it going to do th make this about Obama and mobilize them? Mobilize the for what? To go to Town Halls as I suggested the Left needs to do and be vocal. Hell if the idol worshipers even cared and wanted to be vocal about heath care they would already be doing it.

    Besides there are millions more Lefty's who outnumber the idol worshipers and where are they? Silent that is where. Oh yeah we do have the 'Sit At Home and Blog" types but they are not doing anything productive. They are not countering the GOP voices in the Town Halls.

    What we need is people 'Showing Up' and that isn't what the idol worshipers are going to do. We need others but as a group the Left Grass Roots is failing miserably.

    While thousands party and hobnob at the Netroots Nation, Health Care reform burns.

    Or maybe all of the above is for naught anyway because as Frank Rich of the NYT asked the other day - is Obama "Punking" us? Is he famously saying one thing for public appearances and secretly working for another? With his weak performance so far one has to wonder.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    Those wise American People, who could be effective underestimating them? Mencken had some words on that.

    Parent
    Another of your flip remarks (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    that says nothing to the issue.

    In case you haven't noticed the Vocal Left are NO SHOWS at the Town Halls.

    How many Pro-Health Care Reform Rallies have we had? Who is organizing a Million Man March for Health Care Reform at The Mall in DC?

    As Obama has, the Left has failed miserably. DOA is what they are. Not an ounce of effort.

    Parent

    I think my comment says (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    everything to the issue of the politics of the issue.

    Parent
    I don't agree that it's (none / 0) (#26)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    laughable!

    In fact I tried to suggest that the point is debatable

    And arguably Obama has it a little tougher than Bill and Hill did in 93-4.

    But points in my favor:  The rise of RW Media compared to 93 -- Faux News, more RW talk radio, increased RW influence on MSM.

    Increased expectations game Obama faces today compared to Bill's time, with roughly the same political makeup in congress,  makes it somewhat harder for Obama to achieve a true victory.  

    Had he appreciated it better then, Bill could have walked away with a 1/3 or so loaf of a bill -- instead of going for 85% -- and won the day with most people.  Obama doesn't quite have that luxury today, though his side is now at work (wisely) in trying to lower expectations.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:05:57 PM EST
    As I said, we disagree.

    To start, the problem now is not the RW media. It is the MSM and its coverage of the issue.

    The fact is Obama stands in much better with the MSM than Clinton ever did.

    Two words for you - Howell Raines. Two more words - Jeff Gerth.

    Can you imagine the NYTimes today going after Obama?

    Parent

    As I say, (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    it's a close question in my mind.

    As for today, nothing the NYT does would surprise me w/r/t Obama.  They are as political a media outlet as any in the MSM, and if they decide to go after Obama on health care reform, they will do so.

    And by going after him I mean on his attempt at substantial reform.  The Times and other MSMers seem to be okay with a small incremental outcome, something that won't overly upset the GOP and insurance industry.  

    But anything too disruptive of the status quo, they will resist.

    Parent

    Geezuz (none / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:17:20 PM EST
    I mean on his attempt at substantial reform

    Are you really that far in the bag or are you joking?


    Parent

    He Has Recently Said (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    He is going to get this done even if it costs him a second term. Seems to me that he is going to emerge a fighter, and make it about Obama, once he has congress' bill in his hands.

    Hope so (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    and think so.

    Mostly I am railing about the Klein/Yglesias arguments about what a President can do.

    Parent

    At this point (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    they are right. At theis point Obama can't move mountains by himself. You seen to think he can but don't even give readers a clue on how you think he can do that.

    You see, Obama blew his chance when he handed the keys to the bill to congress. It is in the writing of the bill where the rubber meets the road and Obama ceded that, therefore ceded all the power he was going to have.

    At this point (read the news) he is being REACTIVE, not Proactive. When you are being reactive after the core of the bills have already been written then you have pretty much lost the battle already.

    So for now he is out there pretty much trying to save face. But then maybe that was his plan all along. maybe he never wanted the bill most of us wnated and knew by letting both sides of the aisle fight in out in congress we would never get what it is we want.

    Remember it was Obama during the primaries who was bashing Clinton for wanting health care for all. It was he who ran the Harry and Louise ads. But of course that was 'not a nickels worth of difference', but I digress.

    Harry and Louise was a Big Tell - and here we are.

    Maybe in the end that way things are shaking out and looking at Obama's history, Klein/Yglesias/and You are all wrong.

    Parent

    At this point? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    Was there a point when they were wrong in your estimation?

    Parent
    Flip Flip Flip (none / 0) (#64)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    Why do you bother?

    Well at least you didn't disagree with the 'substance' my post.

    Parent

    No answer to my question (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    I don't read them (none / 0) (#78)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    other than your weekly bashes of them I have no idea what they write.

    FYI - No answer to the rest of my post but that is par for you it seems.

    Parent

    Still not an answer (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:28:17 PM EST
    I think you simply are incapable of understanding the question.

    Parent
    If he gets this done (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    the p*$$ed off will have the same force upon his life as they did with the Dixie Chicks (another conversation this morning).  Once everyone wakes up with healthcare one morning, he's America's president for two terms period!  Jesus, they'll put up statues of him all over the place......right next to FDR.

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    But the key will be to pass a good bill.

    Bush, of all presidents, could say that he got Medicare prescription relief for seniors--and did so in a bad bill that most people realize was way too costly, too confusing in its implementation, and serves mainly as a boon to Big Pharma, the same folks Obama has been playing footsie with in the drafting of this bill.

    No one is erecting statues for Bush. Granted, his screwups in other massive affairs would have overshadowed even a good Medicare prescription bill, but I think that people also know when a bill is not what it could have been, when its benefits are modest to the citizens in exchange for larger benefits for the campaign donors.

    For Obama to truly benefit politically, this bill has to provide tangible relief to all of us--affordable and reliable insurance and health care. That means being able to afford copays on prescriptions. That means no longer having to work past your ability to do so merely so that you can have health insurance, which you would not be able to purchase on your own. That means being able to be insured even when you bust your butt working two minimum-wage jobs to support yourself and your children.

    And so on.

    Sorry to rattle on. I get wound up about the burden that unaffordable and/or unreliable health insurance places on so many.

    Parent

    YES! (none / 0) (#81)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    If Obama pushes through a bad bill, one which contains mandates but no effective cost controls and no viable public option, we are worse off than we are now.

    This is what I fear will happen.

    Parent

    "Once he has Congress' bill (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    in his hands."  Too late, no?  

    Parent
    Too Late? (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    Too late for what?  Not sure I understand the question. This is what Obama appears to be doing:

    The president should stay on the sidelines and keep Congress invested in an outcome until the time for serious horse-trading arrives. At that point, Obama will probably have to mollify centrists concerned about the cost of a plan, while preventing liberal Democrats from peeling off from what they view as a watered-down compromise.



    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    That was a bad strategy imo.

    But it is all we have now.

    Parent

    The Clintons were criticized (none / 0) (#22)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    for their failed health care strategy.  Now Obama comes along and adopts a totally different tactic. Hillary was too "hands-on" so Obama's approach has been too "hands-off."

    Maybe presidents shouldn't try so hard to distance themselves from their predecessors.  

    As you say, that's all we have now.   We have to work with it.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    It has been the Clinton veterans on Obama's team, who are pushing for the back door approach. Supposedly President Clinton wanted to do it this way but Rostenkowski insisted that Clinton lead from the WH.

    Parent
    Leading from the WH (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:09:29 PM EST
    was the way to do it this time.

    The obvious reason being the Media and indeed, the country, were (hell still are) much more behind Obama than they were Clinton.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    That game would have been super exciting. I can hear the speeches in my head. And your play by play analysis too.

    Oh well, this is certainly way more boring.

    Parent

    More importantly (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    Less effective.

    Instead of running his 3008 campaign again, this time for health care reform, we are stumbling around answering death panel questions.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    What annoys me the most has been the total mis-reading of the situation. This time around the President is hugely popular and the Congress is hugely unpopular.  And yet they let the distrusted, unpopular gang lead the public discourse and be the most visible sausage-makers.  

    Obama has taken over the spokesman role in the last month, but the crafting of the bill is still attached to Congress' name and not his.  I have no doubt he will get something passed. If it is limited to the consumer protection package and does not even try to pretend any kind of a 'public option', at least it will do no harm. But it will be a huge missed opportunity.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#112)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:59:27 PM EST
    and the "Hillary was too hands on" shtick was an MSM thing, another theme for bludgeoning both Clintons.

    If the result of all of this is that there's no truly meaningful reform it will be entirely Obama's fault and no one else's, not the RW media, the GOP, the MSM or the Blue Dogs.

    Strong leadership from the top is required to enact any significant new program and Obama opted out of leading.

    Parent

    Obviously, You are Opposed to it (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    You have been arguing against that strategy since day one, and before. Regarding health care reform, this may turn out to have been the best road. At least that is what many who lost the debate in 93-4 have been advising Obama.

    Parent
    I suppose we will see (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    But now seems to be the time for Obama to come out swinging hard.  We'll see if Obama really does live by the serenity prayer, because the difference between accepting what you can't change and the courage to change what you can morphs daily.

    Parent
    Has he sd. the serenity prayer is his (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    credo?

    P.S.  Perhaps my memory is faulty--frequently is--but I thought the plan Hillary Clinton devised with a team of experts and advisors didn't fly because corporate America and the AMA weren't invited to participate.  Oh, plus the uppity wife of the President was carrying the flag.

    Parent

    Obama called Niebuhr his fave philosopher (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    Chicago connection no doubt. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    I like him too (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:28:59 PM EST
    It is a sort of spiritual path where I can never get away from my obligations to the process :)

    Parent
    Interesting Wiki article on (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:40:49 PM EST
    Serenity Prayer

    In 2008, Yale Book of Quotations editor Fred R. Shapiro published evidence showing that versions of the Serenity Prayer[9] were in use as early as 1936, years before it was first attributed to Niebuhr in 1943.[2] Curiously, all of these early examples were from women, typically women involved in volunteer or educational activities.[10]

    - - - - - - - - - - - -

    The philosopher W.W. Bartley juxtaposes Niebuhr's prayer with a Mother Goose rhyme (1695) expressing a similar sentiment, but without comment:[17]

    For every ailment under the sun
    There is a remedy, or there is none;
    If there be one, try to find it;
    If there be none, never mind it.



    Parent
    It's been a long time since I researched (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    the serenity prayer.  It was pre internet.  I was always under the impression that Quakers likely had to do with it.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    Reinhold Niebuhr.

    Parent
    And, (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    if I remember correctly, the Dems in Congress were perfecting their CDS, fifth column role also. There was no "Clinton-love," (or support) as there is "Obama-love" today.

    Parent
    That last part (none / 0) (#113)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:05:46 PM EST
    the uppity wife of the President was carrying the flag

    That was the MSM story line that so many people, in retrospect, have chosen to believe was a structural fault - Hillary was too hands on. Another triumph of mythology.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#118)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 12:41:52 AM EST
    I brought that up in another post somewhere here.

    Parent
    1993-94 is not 2009 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    I think, though I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:06:15 PM EST
    that back when Hillary attempted to take this on we didn't have all this pre-existing denial of coverge problem, premiums weren't through the roof, CEOs weren't raping their corporations, and there were other forms of coverage out there.  I was a single mom and I was part of a subsidized plan during that time that was offered by the state.  We don't have those anymore that are affordable.

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    Health Insurance sucked back then too. I remember being so fed up with blue cross blue shield or whatever they called themselves, that I switched to the bright new shiny object called Oxford.

    They were really nice, for a time, but morphed into the same creeps I quit in the early 90's.

    Yeah it was cheaper back then, but so was everything else.

    Parent

    Since However (none / 0) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:13:03 PM EST
    costs have skyrocketed at a faster pace.  Employer provided health insurance has significantly eroded and continues to erode at an alarming rate.

    What Obama said should be the base of our health insurance (employer provided health care insurance) is rapidly diminishing.

    The public clamor for real reform is stronger now than it was then.

    Parent

    We did have those problems then (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    I wasn't very happy with my coverage (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    then or the doctors that took it, but it seems to me the situation has become much worse.

    Parent
    True at least on one count: Premiums (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    Premiums definitely weren't as high in those days.  My premiums have increased 34% in the last 2 years (this is for a Blue Cross plan).  Generally premiums have increased at a far, far, far, FAR higher rate than inflation over the last 8 years.  

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    You take the position that there is nothing to learn from history because the present is never the past..

    Very postmodern of you, but your thesis is more radical than any poststructuralist I have ever read has said.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#44)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    But congratulations on distorting the "position" you read into my brief remark.

    Had I stated an actual position instead of using shorthand, it would have been this:  political conditions are different in 2009 than they were in 1993-94, and Obama's dithering in the interest of post-partisan "unity" has been foolish at best and may turn out to be counterproductive.

    I hope I turn out to be as wrong as you surely think I am.

    Parent

    Distorting? (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    I did nothing of the sort, your accusations are just mindless flaming.

    You stated a truism, that certainly suggested, among a plethora of other things, that you believe learning from history is overrated.

    If you want to be understood, be more clear.

    Parent

    Pressing "ignore" button now (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    lol (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    Looks like your ignore button is broken..  Please do me a favor and get it fixed..

    Parent
    the devil's in the details (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    And when making that declaration Obama didn't define exactly what he hoped a successful bill would contain. I'm wondering if he considers a bill minus a public option to be successful health care reform. Will any passing bill be a good bill? He's being mighty coy about that....

    Parent
    I don't believe that the Progressive Caucus (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:42:03 PM EST
    in the House will support ANY bill that does not include a strong public option. They already sent Obama a letter two weeks ago stating as much. Obama has a distinct choice:

    Either continue playing footsie with the Blue  Dogs -- who don't give a flying fig about fixing health care in the first place -- or dance with the ones that brung him. If he squanders support from the likes of Woolsey, Lofgren, McDermott and about a dozen others in the caucus, he loses exponentially in the long run. The constituents of those in the Progressive Caucus are in no mood to accept the House and Senate leadership bargaining away any more. It's enough to swallow that single payer was never on the table. No public option included? Buh-bye.

    Parent

    To me it depends on WHAT he's willing to fight for (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    What's known so far is not good.

    Parent
    Action not words (none / 0) (#5)
    by jmacWA on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    I will believe it when I see it.  

    What I believe is Obama will say he tried to get this done, but just couldn't, do to issues beyond his control.  Currently I see nothing Obama is doing that is going to do anything that doesn't help the players who helped bring him to the table (i.e. Insurance Companies, Drug Companies, etc).

    This is not about Obama, this is about the fact that the American system of health care is woefully inadequate.  The biggest players seem to be the insurance companies, who add NOTHING to health care, but overhead.

    Parent

    Congress' bill (none / 0) (#38)
    by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    isn't going to be worth spit if things continue down the present path. And once congress has spoken Obama can't do squat. He can't write a bill and pass it.

    Parent
    I know Ezra is a pundit (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    But I can't stomach calling healthcare reform a prize after listing off all the Presidents who failed to claim the prize.  It is a basic human need Ezra.  It is a basic human need that America has denied its people in the name of capitalism.  It is our shame and the only prize to be found is redeeming our humanity from the garbage heap of propaganda.

    He might just want to try producing a good product (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    Republicans might be good at selling smoke and mirrors. Democrats not so good.

    It's true (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    I come with a built in aversion to anyone blowing smoke up my arse.  Seems I was born that way.

    Parent
    This seems so obvious (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    I'm surprised it wasn't planned this way from the beginning.

    Mobilize the Obama movement for an issue.

    The only things I can think of that would be problematic are...

    1.  The media love for Obama would only go so far as making him president.  And once that was over, it was known that it would be all downfill from there.

    2.  If 100,000 people showed up to see Obama speak we can't assume all of them really gave a crap about this issue.


    I went to an OFA health care organizing meeting-- (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    There was no one there under 40 except for the three leaders. 90% wante single payer. Except for a handful who said they would back whatever Obama wanted, everyone had questions about what it was that Obama wanted. We were told "public option" -- no one had any details, nothing concretel.

    It really deflated the energy in the room.

    LBJ knew what he wanted with Medicare; he told the Congress what he wanted; he told the people what it was and what it would do. He got his proposal passed.

    Parent

    Obama is no LBJ (none / 0) (#103)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:44:18 PM EST
    He doesn't like to get his hands dirty, from what I can tell.

    Parent
    Many of Obama's supporters on DKos (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    firmly stated that they against mandated health insurance. They were young and healthy and did not want to spend their money on health insurance.

    Parent
    I think if you really want to sound the (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:45:05 PM EST
    death knell for substantive reform of the health industry, making it about Obama is probably the best way to do it, because what will come out of it is the successful passage of some version of the terrible legislation that is on the table.

    Obama really loves process much more than he loves issues and principles, and whipping the Obama movement will over-indulge that focus with terrible results.

    With the health and financial security of millions of people at stake, I'm not sure I want to light any fires under the people who were so taken with celebrity and rhetoric that they allowed themselves to forget the stakes.

    Hi Anne (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    I don't care how long you have been a commenter here, I do not believe Jeralyn would approve of your constant misrepresentation of what people are clearly stating.

    I have concluded myself after some time here, that this behavior IS actually approved of when it comes from some commenters here. It is the only rational explanation for its continuance for so long. After all, if one wanted to stop it, there are several simple solutions. This is not my blog, so I don't know the reasons why, but there is no denying that this behavior has been tolerated for a long long time, and so I would not have any expectations for change.

    In any case, you can expect that this banality will be directed at you for some time, but then will switch to someone else for a while.

    No it is not (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 12:30:22 AM EST
    but if it is not reported to me, I don't see it. I don't read all the comments. This thead just got reported and I'm cleaning the insults. The twisting of Anne's words and insults to her are not acceptable.

    Parent
    OK, thanks Jeralyn. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 06:49:45 PM EST
    Just to explain, it has been my impression here based on long observation that the obvious provocateurs are often left to do their thing, while those who respond are subject to warnings and suspensions for being insulting. The former even taunt the latter much of the time, telling them to 'take it up with the management if you don't like it', 'I've been here a lot longer than you', etc. because they know they will keep getting away with it. I suppose it's easy to ignore sometimes, and other times not so much. But it just keeps happening. And it is so obnoxious and repetitive and, yes, puerile - as Anne said.

    Today, in fact, was one of the worst days, with nearly every thread ruined by the same old 2-3 noxious commenters calling others 'coward', 'hypocrite', 'troll', and continually picking fights with those they don't like. It is just so juvenile and tiresome to others, and I guess I just wish these commenters would finally be warned and made to stop it once and for all.

    I understand, however, that you can't be here to see it much of the time.

    Parent

    Clown Shoes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    Taking your thesis in another direction you could also say his version of health care reform doesn't fit the image they had of Obama.

    Liking a teenager who looks up to some cool guy at school, and wants to be like him. And one day this guy shows up at school wearing clown shoes.

    And the teenager is left in a muddle.  He may still want to be like his idol, but the clown shoes don't fit his image of this cool guy. Part of him tries to justify the clown shoes bit, but another part starts looking for another hero.

    Maybe there just isn't a way to make clown shoes cool.

    Perhaps Obama hasn't fully linked himself to health care for a similar reason, to protect himself and his image.

    In short, to be able to play off his wearing clown shoes as just a gag.

    Finding your metaphor a bit opaque (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    I think BTD's post addresses that portion of Obama's constituency that blindly supports him:

    More than a dozen campaign volunteers, precinct captains and team leaders from all corners of Iowa, who dedicated a large share of their time in 2007 and 2008 to Mr. Obama, said in interviews this week that they supported the president completely but were taking a break from politics and were not active members of Organizing for America.

    For people who claim to support the president completely, this is not the time to take a break from politics. But they don't care about the issues. They only care about blindly "supporting" their idol, no matter what kind of shoes he wears.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    Why framing this as a fight to save Obama's Presidency is what is needed and to be honest, I think it is somewhat true.

    Parent
    You frequently (none / 0) (#39)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:14:31 PM EST
     argue that Obama is a pol and pols will be pols. We agree.

      Given that healthy skepticism (or at least warranted cynicism) why would you expect him to risk his personal prestige to such an extreme degree on a single issue-- even an important one?

    Parent

    Cuz he has no choice (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    His personal prestige is at risk.

    Parent
    But good policy is also ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    critical.

    One of the reason Clinton rebounded after '94 was his budget bill, which had been unpopular, seemed to work.

    That bill (and the health care failure) may have led to Democratic loses in '94, but it also led to his win in '96 and the EDM.

    If he passes a bad bill, it might help in '10.  But it could ruin his chances in '12, and the Dems chances in subsequent elections.

    Parent

    some of it, for sure (none / 0) (#46)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:19:22 PM EST
     but how many pols risk more than must?

    Parent
    Out of his hands now (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    I refer you in particular (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    to Bill Clinton discussing how the "winners" get to frame the history of what happened and what it means in the 1994 health care fight.

    Parent
    Are you suggesting his Presidency (none / 0) (#59)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:38:37 PM EST
     is doomed if meaningful health care reform is not enacted?

      I find it hard to see things in such apocalyptic terms, even if there was not always the tactic of blaming the Republicans for killing it. I'm guessing that realizing meaningful reform will sooner rather than later cost more than he now cares to admit,  he sees the risks of being too closely aligned with the movement-- whether or not is succeeds.

    Parent

    Severely weakened (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    Weaker than he might be otherwise... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:59:09 PM EST
     all other things being equal? OK. Severely? I think it is overly simplistic to think this one issue will be that influential one way or the other.

       If the economy improves, unemployment declines, fewer Americans are being deployed and killed overseas and we are not victimized by a significant terrorist attack I think he will be just fine w/o a health care bill. In the opposite situation even free health care for all at no cost wouldn't help him that much

    Parent

    Obama needs this win (none / 0) (#90)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    As I posted in an earlier thread, I think Obama has to pull this off. This is his test of strength and leadership. Health care has been at the fore front since the primaries. If he loses on this, the political sharks will circle around and he's doomed. At this stage there's no turning back. Republican's will be looking for the jugular!

    Parent
    I think the GOP will still (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    have access to the jugular, even if this mess does get passed.  Why?  Because unless they change it, it will be over three years before it gets implemented.

    If you think that is not jugular material, you are kidding yourself - the ads write themselves:

    [scary narrator] "A year ago, President Obama said we were in a national crisis on health care, but the plan he fought for and the Democratic Congress passed will not go into effect until 2013.  How much could president Obama and [insert name of Democratic Rep/Senator up for re-election here] care about your health if they were willing to wait three years to get reform started?  It's time to send [insert name of Republican challenger here] to Washington to take back the majority and fight for real reform, now."

    Yes, I know the GOP has offered no alternative, and that will be part of the calculus, but I still think the three+ year delay is going to be very hard to justify.

    Parent

    I detect (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:15:14 PM EST
      a bit of br'er rabbit psychology at play here.
    You want "Obama fanboys" (and ultimately Obama) to believe his Presidency and legacy are at stake so they will (and he will) commit more energy and capital to achieving what you want achieved-- which is to you more important than Obama's electoral position and political legacy.

     

    Parent

    But you're arguing ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    against your own point.  Your quote shows that they didn't blindly or completely support him.

    And that was all my analogy was trying to suggest.


    Parent

    The quote from BTD's post (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    exposes the contradictions in Obama's fan base.

    His fans--by which term I certainly don't mean everyone who voted for him--supported Obama blindly when he was a glamorous presidential candidate. But now that he actually has to govern, and could use a continued show of support, they don't get it.

    They saw "politics" as putting their American Idol in the White House--mission accomplished, time to take a break. They never understood that "politics" was about issues, not an uncritical frenzy over one man.

    BTD is saying, among other things, that it's time to make the health care fight all about Obama because that's all these blind followers really understand. And bodies are needed on the ramparts, as in the 2008 campaign.

    As I said, the "clown shoes" metaphor lost me because it seems to imply that these blind followers would be disturbed if their guy showed up in clown shoes. I think they would all just start wearing clown shoes themselves.

    Parent

    I was arguing ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:54:56 PM EST
    that if you accept that Obama's support was image based, you could also argue that if you change the image you change the support.

    Is that clearer?

    Parent

    The "clown shoes" metaphor (none / 0) (#70)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    is premised on the idea that Obama's fans are paying attention to the issues. But if they were, how could they be "taking a break" instead of continuing to work for the president they claim to support? And if they're not paying attention to the issues, how can they know that Obama's version of health care reform doesn't fit their image of Obama? Many who voted for Obama are now disappointed by his handling so far of health care reform, but I don't think those voters are the ones BTD's post addresses.

    Taking your thesis in another direction you could also say his version of health care reform doesn't fit the image they had of Obama.


    Parent
    It was just an analogy ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    based on BTD's thesis which I don't even fully agree with.

    But, given that, they don't have to pay that much attention to the issues.

    My notion was his fans glance over at what he's doing now and think, "Hmmm ... that seems a bit silly.  Thought he was cool.  Maybe not."

    Parent

    Thanks for understasnding my argument (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    I thought I expressed it clearly. but from some of the comments, I guess I did not.

    Parent
    Is that not inherently (none / 0) (#66)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:50:47 PM EST
      contradictory?

       You expect people not invested in this issue to decide it is worth Obama staking everything on it when he personally is more important to them than the issue? And, you are suggesting HE should be catalyst for creating that perception at the risk of his own future?

    I think I just threw-up in my mouth a little... (none / 0) (#79)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    But, hey!  If Obama does decide to make this about him, I'll for sure lose 10 pounds before summer vaca!

    Make it about Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    but also educate the movement about what it means to be in a coalition. I don't blame the younger people if they do not 'get' this. Health care might not be on their radar screen since they are going to be young and healthy forever, but explain that maybe some of the issues they care more about do not directly effect my life either. But if the coalition suffers a hit on health care reform, Obama may not be able to do a thing about the other issues.

    Talk about it in terms of what exactly Obama won't be able to do if he loses his prestige.  Actually, someone better explain it to me too, because it seems to me he has compromised already on most everything I care about.

    Maybe it's time to pull out the big gun - promise a prosecution of Cheney if 'the movemnet' makes Obama look good on health care.

    Could it be that these younger (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    supporters understanding of the issue is that it is just a lot of old-timers fighting about their Medicare--something that glazes over their eyes?

    Parent
    It's not as exciting (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jbindc on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:27:05 PM EST
    as "Hope" and "Change", getting to know the VP pick via text message, and telling people how hip you are for voting for the first black president. This is a very complex subject, and wow! he's not getting 200,000 people at a rally who all love him (not that that ever happened anyway). They see older people at these townhalls, and since they don't think they need to worry about health insurance yet, they aren't interested.

    This topic isn't sexy, and doesn't lend itself to catchy slogans.

    Parent

    Yes, and it seems (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:22:36 PM EST
    that a recent focus (or one is being made the focus) for the extended health program is about those who are uninsured.  Of course, this is a major issue, but it is getting to be seen, falsely,not only as a new welfare program. but also, a welfare program coming at the expense of their own and/or employer sponsored plan.  The benefits of the whole must be explained as well as the parts.

    Parent