home

Obama's Troubles With Democrats

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:33:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Daily Kos' poll demonstrated it and so does the Washington Post poll, as reported by Greg Sargent:

A major factor in President Obama’s slide in today’s big Washington Post/ABC News poll, which is preoccupying the political classes today, is his surprisingly sharp drops among Democrats and even liberals, according to crosstabs that were sent my way. Much talk today has focused on Obama’s difficulties with independents. But the drop among Dems and liberals is also a key driving factor in the President’s skid, according to WaPo polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta, who graciously provided the additional data.

Ahh, the windfalls of the Post Partisan Unity Schtick. See Digby, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, AmericaBlog and Steve Benen for more.

Speaking for me only

< Nate Silver: No Public Option Would Be On Obama | Health Care Suggestions I Could Do Without >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Troubles With Democrats | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Cokie Roberts gets a bad rap here, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:38:00 PM EST
    but on NPR's Morning Edition earlier this week, she sd. why try to placate the GOP on healthcare reform when, whatever they propose, they then nix that and propose another deal killer.  See Grassley on stimulus package.

    Why indeed? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    I refuse to get the vapors because one of the 40 minority members says she won't support a public option.

    The Dems have a majority. Reid needs to herd the dogs along with the cats and get the reform done.

    Parent

    To quote a country song (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    "You got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything........."

    Obama at some point or another is going to need to take a stand to get re elected. I suspect a good portion of the Democratic party is going to disappointed when he does. He has surrounded himself with a bunch of people that seem to have corporate interests over individual interests.

    I'm hoping I'm wrong though and with adequate pushback the community can if not make him see sense then make him see his own personal interest.

    Why do we have to pushback? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by mexboy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:32:51 PM EST
    I'm hoping I'm wrong though and with adequate pushback the community can if not make him see sense then make him see his own personal interest.

    He was elected by the majority to bring "change" to Washington. Bush accomplished his agenda without a mandate because he pushed it through. Why do we have to lead the leader?

    Parent

    Uh because (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    you actually want health care that works? That's my rationale anyway and I didn't even vote for the guy.

    Furthermore, if he tanks, then so do the chances of the left, at least for a while. The pendulum swings back right if he's a failure. That's what happens when you have a two party system.

    Parent

    Wrong! (4.00 / 1) (#59)
    by mexboy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    My point is: That is Obama's job! That's why he wanted to be president. He claimed to want to change American's lives for the better...I'm waiting.
     I am so tired of leading the leaders and forcing them to do their job.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:43:49 PM EST
    Let me know how pouting about the fact that you have to lead the leader works out? (Hint: it won't)

    Democracy is hard work(even for the citizenry) but it beats most of the alternatives. Part of the problem is that most people seem to think they should only have to go to the ballot box every 2-4 years rather than actually participate in this grand experiment.

    Industry is banking on the fact that you aren't willing to work as the lobbyists they pay.

    Parent

    Pouting? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by mexboy on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 08:42:11 AM EST
    What the hell are you talking about?

    You obviously have not read any of my posts, otherwise you would not make such ignorant assumptions. In fact everyone who blogs here, or at the other site, is by far more informed and more active in this "grand experiment."

    Part of the problem is that most people seem to think they should only have to go to the ballot box every 2-4 years rather than actually participate in this grand experiment.

    The problem is that you have been trained to believe the so called leaders don't have to do the job they were elected to do and that you have to be on their behind in order for them to do their job.


    Parent

    I've been trained to believe (none / 0) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Democracy is participatory and no amount of whining about having to work and provide guidance to those you elected is going to change that.

    I'm sorry if you felt that you did your job by voting at the ballot box for them and that was enough. Take heart though, there are people out there actually dying in hopes they might be able to recreate a government that is as participatory as ours. The fact that you might need to pick up a phone, talk with your neighbors, or commit to  pen and paper when issues like health care arise is really not that big a deal in retrospect.  

    I do understand your frustration. My sympathy however, will not get this country a workable health care system.

    Parent

    Stop the condescending tone. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by mexboy on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    This is called a blog; where people come and express their opinions. You've injected passive aggressive jabs at me in both your responses.

     In the first one you said I was pouting then went on to talk down at me. Now you're calling me a whiner, and your tone continues to be condescending. Stop it!

    Democracy is participatory and no amount of whining about having to work and provide guidance to those you elected is going to change that.

    You know nothing about what I've done on this or any other issues, but that doesn't stop you from stating that I've basically sat on my behind pouting, whining and doing nothing.


    I'm sorry if you felt that you did your job by voting at the ballot box for them and that was enough...The fact that you might need to pick up a phone, talk with your neighbors, or commit to  pen and paper when issues like health care arise is really not that big a deal in retrospect.

    You're either willfully misconstruing my posts or incapable of understanding them; because you blatantly ignore my points to continue trying to lecture at me.

    You can disagree with my point of view and post your disagreements about them, but I will not allow you to disrespect me. Is that clear?

    Parent

    You are right about the problem of a (3.66 / 3) (#31)
    by my opinion on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    two party system, but maybe that is Obamas' goal? That may sound odd, but look at his actions.

    Parent
    I don't know Obama's strategy (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    I'm too busy working on my own strategy to worry much about it at this point. I'm pretty sure he's gonna land on his feet. I'm less certain about the millions he is supposed to be representing on the issue of health care reform, banking reform, etc, etc.

    Parent
    Wow a troll rating from DA in LA. (none / 0) (#36)
    by my opinion on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:31:29 PM EST
    I feel proud.

    Parent
    I wouldn't troll rate you but (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:30:07 AM EST
    that's a pretty ridiculous idea, if it means what it seems to mean.  Just sayin'.

    Parent
    It means that I judge Obama and all (none / 0) (#76)
    by my opinion on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:02:16 AM EST
    politicians by their actions. His actions will result in the people voting for the only other choice they have. I don't agree with the two party system or what will happen, but that is reality.

    Parent
    I have no loyalty to the democratic party (none / 0) (#22)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    But I do think I have some loyalty to the truth.  A comparison between Bush's ability to ram stuff through congress and Obama's may not be fair because Obama is not a fearmonger who had 9-11 drop into his lap.

    So in a discussion about bipartisanship (which we know is turning out to be a failure for Obama) and implicitly, partisanship, I have this to say:  Bush was not empowerd by partisanship.  He was empowered by events, a fireman and a megaphone.

    Tom Ridge's most recent admissions are shocking but also illustrate the advantage Bush had.

    Parent

    Loyalty to a party is over rated (none / 0) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:57:38 PM EST
    I prefer to be loyal to principles and ideas, which is why I am one of those Independant critters.

    The reason I want Obama drug over to the left is my own self interest moreso than any loyalty to the Dems.

    That being said I do believe he can be drug left if enough pressure is applied. The one thing I believe about Obama is that he is more than willing to look after his own self interest. The closer we get to HIS re election the more skin HE is going to have in the game.

    Parent

    And "Ya gotta know when to hold 'em (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:03:10 PM EST
    and know when to fold 'em."

    Isn't he a poker player, at least?  Or only chess?

    Parent

    mayabe Obama has (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:06:50 PM EST
    a song for the left?

    "how can I miss you if you wont go away?"

    Parent

    wow (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    The conservatives are a clownish group of know-nothings whose approval ratings are in the single digits. They should not, in a democratic society, have the power to shape strategy to the extent they are and the president should not be empowering them.

    why does everyone get this but Obama

    Why would you assume (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by my opinion on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    he doesn't get this? Follow the money and look at his actions. He is exactly who he wants to be.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:06:41 PM EST
    he's slavishly devoted to high broderism and lives in the DC bubble. Heck, the national press doesnt realize this so why should these politicians?

    Parent
    Because he doesn't read blogs? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:43:23 PM EST


    Parent
    How about papers then? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    I mean geez the polls don't JUST appear on blogs. How insular is the WH that he won't understand that the GOP party is bound and determined to stand in the way of majority opinion on health care?

    Parent
    Yes, remember when he said (none / 0) (#9)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    he didn't want to be in a "bubble"?

    Parent
    Martha's Vineyard--today. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:06:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Not much of a bubble there, imo n/t. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:21:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep, Pretty Bubbly (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    At least six presidents have visited while in office, say Vineyard tourism officials.

    Comical aside: Some UK press reporting Chelsea Clinton will get married there this weekend. Evidence offered for this? HRC's  'hairdresser' is rumored to be expected soon on the island.

    Parent

    Oh, for God's sake! (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:31:31 AM EST


    Parent
    <Snark> n/t. (none / 0) (#56)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:55:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Y'know, BTD (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    It's not like we didn't warn him.

    About the Republicans.

    About the Bipartisan Unity Schtick.

    About the Blue Dogs.

    About how his actions would wind up getting the base - his base, his rabid Obamabot base - angry with him.

    Angry enough to sit and do nothing, or even block, him.

    And he went his own way and chose not to listen.

    He has no one but himself to blame for this.  Not that he and his staff won't spend time, effort and capital looking for some scape-liberals and scape-progressives to pin it on.

    The real question is, what took so long? (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    This is who he is; always has been.

    Straw that broke the camel's back (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    Of course it's not a bit of straw, It's a semi full of straw.

    Obama made promises, then he started breaking them. Eventually the promise breaking catches up with you.

    Parent

    The Axelrod Brilliance (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    anyone see it lately?

    Parent
    Last week someone forwarded me an email (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:25:15 PM EST
    from Axelrod, all about how we-can-get-this-done-here's-the-five-point-plan-so-join-us-in-fighting-for-health-insurance-reform-

    At "health insurance reform" I stopped reading and deleted the little muthah.

    Parent

    That's how I see it too (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:32:31 PM EST
    but it still doesn't change the fact that we are stuck working with what we have to get health care reform through or anything else through. Once he's gone things aren't likely to be better so we might as well get used to being oppositional.

    We squandered our best chance, now we are stuck with a remote chance. Sigh.

    Parent

    Now, here's the line (5.00 / 14) (#11)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    that really grabs me:

    "among Democrats and even liberals

    Doesn't anyone else consider it, well, odd that those now are considered as two different groups?  

    I've said it before, but rarely has it been so evident as it is in this line above that it's just not my father's and mother's Democratic Party anymore.  As for what it is now, I really dunno.

    Not to me (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    because I broke with the party after the primaries but you are right that it should seem weird to the actual party that what once was its active base and surefire supporters are now considered a separate entity.

    Parent
    I like that they are seperating it (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    as I broke with the party also. I like where it puts me now  ;)

    Parent
    I'm so anal (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    on the subject that it isn't uncommon for me to remind my conservative/red neighbors that just because a Democrat is in charge doesn't mean we have a liberal agenda. I have laundry list of differences with the Democrats. We've even gotten to the point we've bonded over how BOTH parties seem to ignore the large portion of this country and put corporate interests first.

    I have one neighbor tell me he absolutely does not agree with me but I am grade a good people and a smart cookie.

    Parent

    Well O has actually spread some political unity (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:42:44 PM EST
    it seems, lol!~ My Rep parents (moderate, not the far right religious kind!) and I have done some political bonding also over the past year or so {grin}. We don't always agree, but, the conversations are much more sane these days. What the Right was offering up, I think, had my parents looking at the more centrist Dems for sanity at one point. Mom has pretty harsh words for both sides and their corporate interests . . .


    Parent
    Joe Conason has something to say (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    on the matter as well: Now more than ever, bipartisanship is for suckers

    "...and even liberals" (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    That cracks me up.  I'm a liberal.  Obama is not.  Even as a yellow dog, I'm not inclined to be supportive of Democrats who don't seem to take the liberal agenda seriously.  Obama lost a lot of my confidence when he didn't invite single payer proponents to those early meetings.

    Everyone should have been at that darn (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    table. It really ticks me off that he felt insurance industry and Republicans have a place at the table but a core constituency of his own darn base(the people who voted for him) were treated like vermin.

    Parent
    That's the thing. (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:58:19 PM EST
    He wasn't willing to listen to the full spectrum of perspectives.  Sure he'd listen to the self-interested and the right wing, but he didn't give those policy folks who have correctly concluded that the best bet is single payer based on facts and data rather than ideology.  It is very frustrating.  I understand that liberal ideas aren't always going to be politically feasible, but the notion that they cannot even be discussed in a forum of that nature is a betrayal in my mind - because we liberal lefties aren't idiots - we know who is liberal and who is not when we are voting for a pol - and when they turn around and marginalize us like in this case in almost a humiliating way - we won't just march blindly behind these guys as they selfishly lay waste to our ideals.  11ht dimensional chess or whatever -pfft.

    Parent
    Before calling something unfeasible (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    you should at least listen to the arguments for it and against it. They didn't even allow that.

    I may not agree with Grassley but I at least have the courtesy and decorum to listen to what he has to say and wait until after he is done talking to call him out on his ideas.

    They didn't do that though. It speaks volumes about the Democratic party that it allowed one of its leaders to act in such a way to its own constituency. Hubris, big ones. Too bad they aren't equally as willing to use those hubris to shut the minority who has declared "no public option" down.

    Parent

    The real irony is that if single payer (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    had been fully vetted, the Public Option would look like the compromise that it really is.  As it stands now, it looks like the "left of the left" or whatever that anonymous White House staffer said we were.

    Parent
    You know, (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    We look for all the possibilities as to what Obama's real game plan is; what core beliefs he has, and/or what his strategy is. But, I think the answer is really simple, and I thought it throughout the primaries and campaign, and now in his Presidency. And, to tell you the truth, the answer is, he's just not ready.

    Not ready, as in unprepared, inexperienced, and boxed into a corner. He ought to really be ashamed of himself.

    What hubris! Can you imagine a doctor, pilot, or even an auto mechanic demanding to be put in a critical role, but refusing to exert the requisite effort to gaining the mastery required. He was willing to risk millions of lives while using his considerable skill as a showman to convince people to shun experience for his quixotic, ephemeral, "vision."

    Maybe my experience as a salesman and negotiator for so many years has let me have insights into his psyche that is clear, but profoundly disturbing. If he were a daredevil, and could only hurt himself, that's one thing. But like many troubled souls (it's not necessary to name names) if, and when, he flames out, he's going to take so many well meaning, naive, yet innocent people with him.

    He looks to me like a person suffering anxiety attacks. Following the "Peter Principal" perfectly, he got himself into a real mess, and he just wants to get out. Doesn't anyone think how strange his, and Rahm's animosity towards his most ardent followers is? (Shades of Markos) I know as young kids, when things go astray in our lives; we sometimes get mad at our parents. Why? No good reason, it's like kicking the cat, I guess; it's safe, and does provide some relief.

    Boy, they sure could use some grown-ups in the WH right about now.


    Parent

    It's pretty clear (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:43:30 AM EST
    that the main, probably the only, reason he ran for president is because he thought he could win.

    I said from pretty early on that I thought it was very possible he'd do one term and then quit.  I think what he really wants to be is a former president like Bill Clinton is now, a revered and adored elder statesman without any actual responsibility for doing anything.

    Books could be written about Obama's psyche.  Bottom line to me is that it's just as damaged as George Bush's, and also primarily by father issues.  It would be fascinating if it weren't so tragic for the country and for us as individuals.

    Parent

    I think it's as much about (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 01:37:01 AM EST
    who else thought he could win.

    Btw, re the psyche, who knows?  But at least he admitted his "father issues," to an extent, with his book.  However, it would seem as likely to be about "mother issues," with years of abandonment, too -- and more problematic if not admitted. (That odd comment in the campaign about white women was thought to be about his grandmother, but I wonder.)

    Whether we'll ever know, who knows again?  Because interesting things are being heard about books that were in progress but now may never see print.  The  people in power behind this White House have influence so far-reaching. . . .

    Parent

    And C C, (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:09:02 PM EST
    I think you hit the nail squarely on its head.
    As long as we're playing amateur psychiatrist tonight, I think the father abandonment thing is at the root of his seemingly contradictory positions, and actions. Maybe "the mother" too, but being a male, I think "the father" more.

    Now, being abandoned by a parent is devastating for any child, but Obama's case seems pretty unique: Half black-half white, truly accepted by neither, smarter than most of the social class he grew up with, and blessed with likeability & impish good looks that allowed him to attain things without much effort, the die was cast.......a troubled young man.

    Again, excuse my practicing medicine without a license, but I think his groveling at the feet of persons such as Coburn, Grassley, Rev, Wright, Rezco, et al is metaphoric of his search for his father.

    Now, that's all for today, I'll see you in two weeks, and don't forget to see the receptionist on your way out.

    lol


    Parent

    Interesting point.... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:46:50 PM EST
    "one term" and all. I also think he may be harboring feelings like, "boy, this sucks; I wish I could just go back to being a Rock Star."

    Years ago I asked my father (he was a psychiatrist) why do so may movie stars, athletes, singers, etc. end up killing themselves with booze, drugs, and/or other dangerous activities? He said it was what he, euphemistically, called the "is that all there is syndrome."   Once a person has gotten all the money, the best looking boy/girl, the latest "hot" dope, etc, the let-down of realizing "that's it," there is no more," there's nothing more to look forward to," can be depressing.....to the extreme. I guess it's like we laypeople say, "The trip was better than the destination."

    I'm afraid our young "Barry" learned that lesson too late, and now, we all will have to live with the consequences.


    Parent

    He didn't want Single Payer... (none / 0) (#24)
    by trillian on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:55:41 PM EST
    ...at the table because it would have proved to be too popular.

    He had to kill it and this was the only way. And of course it worked.

    Parent

    It's only dead (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:02:34 PM EST
    if you completely give up on the idea. Right now a single payer plan is still a possibility if it is sold as a public plan.

    Since everything is still up for grabs we need to keep pushing.

    The GOP is banking on us not being willing to fight for a plan that includes everyone or that will be cost effective. They are banking on the Democratic Party being conciliatory despite them having a broad majority. It is our responsibility as the constituency to tell them it is absolutely unacceptable to have this plan be a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

    Parent

    Not so sure that popular (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:13:27 PM EST
    Single Payer was only popular in far left circles. Most Americans don't actually know what the heck Single payer means. But if you explain it to them they freak out and think communism, which the right wing is all to happy to use against it.
    I think Americans by and large are much more supportive of a public option because it gives them a safety net choice but it doesn't take away what they have. Single payer scares people. Not left liberals [like me or you] but the rest of America.
    I'm pretty sure we can get a public option that is workable.

    Parent
    So you sell single payer (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    as the public option and you explain it's like the Medicare most of elderly recieve and are happy with. You explain to them that it doesn't mean the government runs the doctor's office or the hospitals. They hold the purse strings only. No different then your HMO except that the government is not for profit.

    You cement your argument by talking about how much we spend on health care and what we get versus other countries with universal plans. You ask that if we have the best health care then why do other places who have universal or single payer coverage not only pay less but experience greater longetivity?

    The facts are on our side. We just need to use them and edge our way up to that darned table.

    Parent

    Sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:37:27 AM EST
    it's not an "option" if there's no other option.

    I'm totally, 100 percent, passionately in favor of single-payer, but it's never going to happen here at one blow.  The "public option," as one option, is absolutely the camel's nose under the tent.  It allows people to try it out, and if it works out well, people can be reassured that it will work.

    But there simply is no support in this country, unfortunately, for abruptly abolising the devil people know, the ins. cos, and going whole hog into the unknown of government-run health care as the only option.

    Parent

    Single payer (none / 0) (#72)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 01:59:44 AM EST
    does not get rid of choice(Just look at Medicare.) The biggest difference would be instead of an HMO deciding what procedure you can have or can't have in order to improve the bottom line, you'd have the government administering and controlling the purse strings. I think people would relax once they realized the government wasn't going to make them start all over with a new doctor and a bunch of bureaucracy telling the doctors how to operate.

    I do think/hope we end up with at the very least a Halpin like plan which basically allows the constituency to choose a government run plan. In order to do so single payer needs to be on the proverbial table as long as it can and pushed as hard as you can. If the insurance industry and the GOP sense weakness they will undercut as much as they can any real plan of reform. Their very existence could depend on failure on this issue by the Democrats. If you give them co ops then next they'll want concessions on subsidies and next thing you know you've whittled away reform into a industry giveaway.

    Parent

    I am just frustrated (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:04:29 PM EST
    that Obama is spending so much of his political capital for so little in return.  

    THAT's the biggest problem (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 09:40:23 PM EST
    He's lost SO much, for so little.

    Parent
    Has Obama decided though (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    that maybe he can't just weather my anger?  And why does Yglesias assume that it is the Republican attacks that have lost Obama Independent support?  My husband is an Independent who lived in Florida when he joined the Army.  He voted for Obama as a Floridian to get us out of Iraq, take on Afghanistan the way it needed to be tended to, and fix this healthcare crap like he promised to.  Now Obama only wants to feed the corporations.  After Halliburton got done with ripping off the American people and the soldiers....he's basically done with hand feeding corporations.

    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:05:03 PM EST
    everybody should start putting Obama under the bus and running over him.

    Parent
    I predict Secret service (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    will be at your door in 10 minutes.

    Parent
    He doesn't own a bus (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:30:42 PM EST
    They are checking that now though :)

    Parent
    How about that! (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:29:07 PM EST
    Obama campaigned for Lieberman.

    That should have been it for progressives.
    But they had another agenda.
    Now that the confetti has been swept up and incinerated, we are left with the reality of who it is we have elected.
    And it is a guy who campaigned for Lieberman.

    If we could only (none / 0) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    create health care with "I told you so's" eh?

    There is no going back. We can only move forward.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    Let's move forward.

    Parent
    Ooh there's a big surprise! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by weltec2 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:12:07 PM EST
    I'm going to die and have a heart attack from that surprise. What are we going to do? We've got a bit problem here, a big problem.

           -- Iago the Parrot

    See, Paul Krugman, here.

    The Smackdown According to Joe Galloway (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    The president has clung far too long to the hilarious idea of bipartisanship -- the idea that if he bends over backward he can entice the support of any Republican besides Sen. Olympia Snowe.

    Galloway

    Ouch (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    Galloway didn't hold any punches in that article.

    Parent
    He rarely does <n/t> (none / 0) (#81)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 03:17:39 PM EST


    Parent
    The problem with Obama's support (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by tokin librul on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 08:21:35 PM EST
    has always been that 10 percent who put him over the top. The desperate, "hopey/changey" folks who voted for Obama to be the candidate/president they imagined him to be, not the Obama he was and is.

    The Obama they hoped imagined and for was some kind of half-african folk hero, a skinny, well-spoken Shaft, who'd clean up the streets and then take on the Man, in the name of the People.

    The Obama that is/was is/was always a polished, articulate, charismatic functionary for the Corporate State. There is less chance of Obama turning on the Masters than there ever was of The Chimp doing it...

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    But he's still better than McCain would have been, a relief after eight mayhem filled years of Bush/Cheney

    Even this is debatable. The health insurance reform he's offering is no better than McCain's plan, we're still mired in two unwinnable, hugely expensive wars, we're still torturing people and threatening to "bomb bomb bomb bomb" Iran, we're still handing money fist over fist to corporations and banks and (if Obama has his way) insurance industry execs, unemployment is worse than it ever was under either Bush--and hey, at least Poppa Bush paid lip service to "jobs," a word Obama can't bring himself to utter, and the country has shifted far more to a robber-baron system than I think any of those Republicans ever dreamed of...with more on the horizon as we are supposed to cheer for the wonderful "jobless recovery" that ensures ongoing super-bonuses for Wall Street and more misery for us. Yay!

    So the difference is....?

    Too far left not possible (none / 0) (#44)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:07:32 PM EST
    Most of you want a president who is further left than is possible to actually get into the White House. Sorry but the country is not that far left and therefore would not put someone in who is Kucinich-left.
    I mean, they may want health care and they may want a public option but you are kidding yourselves if you think you could ever get someone futher left than Obama in the White House. So the Democrats who are dissapointed with him - in my opinion - are purists who could probably never actually be satisfied. And probably won't be even if we get a Public Option.

    It's the same with the attitude I read with far right with regards to their leadership.

    My husband is fairly (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    conservative and he thought Kuchinich had some pretty good ideas. He gave the guy lots of credit for not being wishy washy.

    Parent
    Getting the message out (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    Conservative has always been successful at sliding the bar of what the "middle" is in the country. Medicare, Social Security and intergration are just a few of those radical left ideas. I grant that the country isn't as left as I would like, but most of that comes from the fact that Democrat's are pathetic at marketing their message and allow conservative the megaphone.

    Parent
    Please. There's a whole lot of space to fill (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:43:55 PM EST
    with varying levels of liberalism between Obama and Kucinich on policy, strategy and "the vision thing". Anyone to the left of dead center is now considered "extreme", "the left of the left". And if the gap is growing into a gulf it's because Obama wants to keep his toes dipped in Republican waters while reaching one arm up to grab the centrists and the other arm to swat away at us dirty liberals -- the true base of the party.

    I love when Democrats call it "extreme" to want a leader who'll work for health care for all Americans. Under the new rules, FDR would be tarred and feathered today.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:45:25 AM EST
    NIXON would be considered a "hard-left" DFH.

    Parent
    People (5.00 / 9) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:52:58 PM EST
    don't respect wimps and Obama continually wimps out.

    Secondly, Obama made a lot of promises to appeal to the "far left" and they believed him and are now becoming disilusioned I guess. Frankly, I blame that really more on them than him. They should've checked out what he's actually done and not listened to his words before buying into the rhetoric.

    Parent

    Yes, yes and yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by rghojai on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 02:08:04 AM EST
    Couldn't agree more, happened to relate as much this week in a brief conversation with my congresswoman, Jackie Spier--something like, "Fight! People respect fighters even if they don't agree with them."

    Parent
    What I want ... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:54:08 PM EST
    ... is a Democrat that does not throw the left of his party under the bus.  No Republican would do it to the right of his party.

    Parent
    Yeah, why is that? (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:46:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#75)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 08:44:48 AM EST
    because there are so few 'moderate' Repubs left to do it?

    Parent
    In fact people all thought him very liberal (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 08:06:59 PM EST
    and those of us who said he wasn't were thrown under the bus.

    He was elected to be liberal, not just by self-defined liberals but by the "moderate" and center in the Dem Party, and by the independents.

    Parent

    Not All (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    Plenty of us KNEW he was not a liberal, but rather was/is another Dem presidential candidate who trends 'centrist' and sometimes veers a little left on certain key issues.

    I've spent my whole adult life facing Dem candidates (from Carter on) who were not my idea of liberal or if they even came close (Dukakis) were such abysmal candidates as to set liberalism back even further on the national electoral stage.

    Anyone who seriously nursed delusions or hopes that Obama was going to govern from the left, should have had their eyes opened with his FISA vote during the campaign.

    But he's still better than McCain would have been, a relief after eight mayhem filled years of Bush/Cheney, and I still hold some hope (though it's hanging by an ever more slender thread every day) that we'll get some reform on health care worth having.

    Parent

    Obama's Troubles With Democrats | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment