Will The Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 05:11:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Dana Houle appears to argue that the President is irrelevant to the health care debate:

I'm still cautiously optimistic that we're going see a decent bill, quite possibly with a public option, clear the senate, and if it can clear the Senate it will become law.

Apparently, the President is irrelevant to those events. Digby sees it differently:

This health care debate is looking like it's finally going to tell us what our president really believes in. . . . The Republicans have completely taken themselves out of the debate and the only arguments are among Democrats. And that means President Obama's going to have to decide which side he's going to put his weight behind.

Will the President weigh in? I honestly do not know. In any event, the Progressive Block can hold the line and say 'no public option, then no bill.'

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Open Thread: The Lion Sleeps Tonight | Panel Recommends Reducing Marijuana Fines to $1.00 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will The Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

And, let's make sure the public option is (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by masslib on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 05:18:59 PM EST

a viable one, anchored to Medicare, national, and available to all.

OMG (5.00 / 7) (#2)
by lilburro on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 05:27:04 PM EST

Jon Chait:

Obama supporters who want the agenda they voted for to be enacted into law need to be exerting pressure on figures like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad. Yet these characters are accountable only to tiny, unrepresentative slices of the population. So they get angry at Obama instead, which only makes him less popular and which makes the Baucuses and Conrads even less likely to support him. [emphasis supplied]

Oh yeah, it's the "angry left" that is bringing down Obama's approval ratings and destroying the world. I call BS.

i'm almost sympathetic to that (none / 0) (#4)
by The Last Whimzy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 05:41:54 PM EST

poll numbers are never explained beyond a very surface measurement so sure. if 10% of the left insisting on a public option start giving Obama a thumbs down which sends his overall approval numbers down, say 3 pts, then the main stream media is only going to say he's losing more support from the middle, which really is only going to push the whole thing in the wrong direction.

i know it's not right, but i understand the logic.

if it was reported that obama was losing pts because people are ticked off about not getting a public option, then that's great. cause that's the truth.

but i don't think they report the truth really very often.


: But, pols read the polls more indepth (none / 0) (#34)
by Lacey on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 08:27:18 AM EST

So the media may say Obama's losing support from the middle, I imagine most politicians have a better understanding of the situation. It seems his falling support on how he's handling health care is coming from a loss in support from the left on his wavering commitment to a public option. The media will ignore that fact, but the politicians look at the raw data and likely understand it very clearly.

Can the Progressive block withstand WH (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MO Blue on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 05:35:12 PM EST

pressure if Obama choses to side with the Blue Dogs and conservatives?

Greenwald
When it comes to defiant progressive members of Congress -- as opposed to supposedly defiant Blue Dogs and "centrists" -- the Obama White House has proven itself extremely adept at compelling compliance with the President's agenda. Consider what happened when progressive House members dared to oppose the war supplemental bill which Obama wanted passed:
The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

The future for free (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by pluege on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:12:33 PM EST

this is guaranteed:

Obama will jettison public option in the name of bipartisanship even though bipartisanship does not exist except in Obama's mind.

Obama will eagerly sign the vichy dem no public option health care reform in name only sop to big insurance and Medical Industrial Complex bill lickedy split.

Here David Leonhardt's (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:15:02 PM EST

NYT column on the economic scene: Real Choice? It's Off LImits In Health Bills

An excerpt:

As a result, people may not like their insurer, but they don't hate it, either. If anything, they are more anxious about losing their insurance than they are eager to be given more choice. And that anxiety has driven the White House's decision to pursue a fairly conservative form of health reform.
To be clear, the versions of reform now floating around Congress would do a lot of good. They would make it far easier for people without an employer plan to get health insurance and would make some modest attempts to nudge the health system away from its perverse fee-for-service model.
Yet they would not improve most people's health care anytime soon. Giving people more control over their own care would. White House advisers, however, decided against that option long ago. They worried that opening up the insurance market would destabilize employer-provided insurance and make Mr. Obama's plan vulnerable to the same criticism that undid Bill Clinton's: that it was too radical.
They may well have been right. Then again, given all the flak they have been taking anyway, they may have been wrong.

[Italics added.]

: Who gets a flack free life? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:23:03 PM EST

There isn't even such a thing! If they were worried about destabilizing employer provided plans there could have been remedies to apply. Perhaps this IS the REAL incrementalization that I need to deal with and not just the incrementalization that comes from the hallucinations of liberal punditry. I understand where the concern comes from about destabilizing employer provided insurance. There is NO SUCH THING as a flack free life though, or a flack free job, or a flack free existence. You do have to have the flack scraped from your gumline though about every six months.

: Good post... (none / 0) (#10)
by BigElephant on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:09:16 PM EST

Unfortunately, even among those that support health care reform, it's not do or die. They'd rather ensure that they don't lose it than necessarily enable 100% coverage. While this is unethical to many progressives, its the world we live in.
It's the devil you know. And people get really nervous when you say you have a new devil for them, especially when they think the devil they have isn't all that bad "for them" (sure health care costs are skyrocketing, but I don't see the cost directly anyways, and insurance seems fine -- until they kick me off, but by then its too late). Sure others have a bad devil, and the last thing I want is to get stuck with that same devil.

How will we know if the real Barack (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:24:46 PM EST

Obama stands up?

You will feel the ground begin to shift :) (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:23:49 PM EST

: You must be confusing... (none / 0) (#39)
by desertswine on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:47:55 AM EST

the Real Obama with the Chia Obama.

Will the real God (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by SOS on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:37:31 PM EST

please stand up.

: Here (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by eric on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:47:44 PM EST

I am. ;)

: He did, but (5.00 / 5) (#37)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:18:10 AM EST

nobody noticed because the media didn't report it.
God now has St. Peter investigating the need for a new book -- maybe Dreams of Your Father? -- and new slogans and posters. And pillars, gotta have styrofoam pillars.
Then maybe someone will notice that God sent his son down thousands of years ago with some great slogans, like saying that we would be blessed if we would take care of the poor.

Me thinks he has already . . . (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:15:50 PM EST

but I would like to be proven wrong ;)

Is it okay if I just admit that I don't give (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:33:12 PM EST

a chait what Dana Houle has to say about any of this? I know he's relevant at Orange, but he's relevant at Orange. I'm told that I'm left of the left.

Houle is relevant (none / 0) (#31)
by Fabian on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 07:19:36 AM EST

when he puts his ego in cold storage and makes it about the issues, not himself.

After a smack down diary that laid out Houle's tendency to use intellectually dishonest, passive/aggressive tactics, he was quiet for a while and then more issue oriented when he did write. If Dana Houle can learn, then there's hope for Obama!


Thank you for the update (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 07:38:47 AM EST

I have not read him since Armando left Dkos. It's pretty hard for me to trust someone's opinions on a matter when they stick a fork in one of the very important instructors of the facts that surround issues on the net. And I'm not saying that Armando was overly nice either, but I didn't need a steward or stewardess to serve me political soup. Anyhow, the whole deal was as wrong as telling all the women that their issues weren't that important. I will from here on out read Houle since you've put a good word in for him that he has suffered a growing up. I'm prejudiced though until further notice.


Don't go over there anymore (none / 0) (#33)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 07:39:56 AM EST

Who did the well deserved smack down diary?


: Can't remember. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Fabian on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 08:54:29 AM EST

It was well received and even though Houle wasn't explicitly named, everyone seemed to understand exactly who personified those particular practices.

Seriously (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by eric on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:50:21 PM EST

it isn't hard to find a model that works. Look at Bush. He was seen as decisive and authoritative. Emulate him, but in a good way.

: If Bush enacted Single payer (none / 0) (#27)
by The Last Whimzy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 11:23:06 PM EST

he'd screw it up and then everyone would say "See. I told you single payer wouldn't work."

i think the health care reform debate (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by cpinva on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 12:01:42 AM EST

has already told us what pres. obama believes in: pres. obama. of course, for some of us, that was pretty much made clear during the primaries.

he's failed to use his bully pulpit to strongly support his purported position. his administration (and, in fairness, the dems in congress) failed to take lessons from clinton's failed effort. as a result, they were completely blindsided by the industry's hard pushback, aided handily by the republicans.

pres. obama is either venal or (as i have feared since he first announced his candidacy) so woefully lacking in hard political experience, that he actually seemed to really believe the republicans would work with the dems, in good faith, to improve the lives of the least of our citizens.

i'm not sure which disturbs me most.

: Quite right. They are equally (none / 0) (#44)
by oldpro on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 02:22:01 PM EST

disturbing.
The former was Obama's experience in the Illinois legislature where his fights were mainly with other Democrats while he 'reached across the aisle,' if you recall the promotional blather from his books and speeches.
The latter was to be expected from the '08 campaign rhetoric about post-partisanship and his receiving the torch from a role model who is lauded endlessly this week for 'crafting significant legislation by working with Republicans like Orrin Hatch and George Bush.'
You can color me not surprised on either account.

No matter (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by lentinel on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 05:50:52 AM EST

what the final bill looks like, the real Obama has already stood up.
He may as well sit back down.

The Real Obama (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by SeaMBA on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 10:53:47 AM EST

So far I have seen the Obama I expected to see.

It was pretty clear for everyone to see, but so many progressives and Democrats were so blinded by their (irrational) hate for Clinton that they missed the warning signs.

I seem to recall reading about how in the IL senate Obama was given credit for bills he had barely worked on -- getting credit for the hard work of others. I did not expect him to be a forceful leader or to stick up for important issues. So far he has not dissappointed (healthcare, DADT, DOMA, prosecutions of illegal government activities, torture, etc.)

While I didn't vote for him out of principle, I have no desire to see him fail. The country NEEDS Democratic ideas. He was handed a golden opportunity and he seems to be turning it into fools gold.

He will wait to see what shakes out and claim he was responsible for whatever success there is, if any.

Sorry I don't have anything of substance to add to the converstation. Just had to get that off my chest.

</frustration

He will weigh in, But not to any great degree. (none / 0) (#5)
by tigercourse on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:06:39 PM EST

Obama has made a point many, many times of saying that he intends to be a relativley hands off executive. While that's not something I would prefer, I can't really fault him on it either. He's been upfront about it.

Well, I can (5.00 / 11) (#8)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:29:47 PM EST

fault him on it, and I do.


Well, he also said he would change the world. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by masslib on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:40:25 PM EST

He was upfront about being a blank slate, though, I'll give you that.


: "Empty vessel." (5.00 / 7) (#12)
by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:17:38 PM EST

Yes, I have a long memory.

" hands off executive?" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by NYShooter on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 04:19:03 AM EST

Wish it were so; whenever he puts his hands in, I lose another one of my organs (or limbs.)


In some sense... (none / 0) (#11)
by BigElephant on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:15:35 PM EST

this really is the job of congress. Obama should enforce the bill, but what's actually in the bill should be decided by the House and Senate. Of course Presidents have influence, but being hands-off may be Constitutionallly consistent. Whlie at the same time probably pragmatically foolish.


Presidents just sign bills? (5.00 / 6) (#21)
by BrassTacks on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:33:12 PM EST

What about the bully pulpit?

Why elect a President if he's not going to be involved?

If Obama is going to be hands off on health reform, then nothing will be done. Congress just doesn't have the will or the guts to do anything that will risk their re elections, without some major pressure from the White House. If Obama doesn't care enough to do it, Congress sure won't either.


: Hasn't Congress already accept (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:43:05 PM EST

contributions from insurance and big pharma lobbyists? Aren't the side deals already made with the WH and these two industry groups? There has to be a bill.

: The bully pulpit ... (none / 0) (#41)
by BigElephant on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:51:00 AM EST

is owned by us more than anyone else. Sure the president gets the TV coverage, but ya know what, he gets exactly one vote. We the citizens should have a lot more sway than the president. We are their (congress) bosses. We decide if they keep their job.
If health care reform is so important to us, we should remove from office every congressperson that doesn't support the bill as we intend.
I think if the left put together a congressional hit list with real umph behind it, that would be effective. Yet I see nothing like this from the left.
It's put up or shut up time for the citizenry. Blaming this on any one person, while not making the legislative branch accountable is pretty weak, IMO.

Time's ticking away (none / 0) (#14)
by ademption on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:25:24 PM EST

I guess we'll all find out very soon what type of individual Barack Obama is and where he stands on healthcare reform. He won't be able to please everybody with his typical on the one hand but on the other hand treatment of issues. There's no win-win solution that will make everyone happy. He's going to disappoint someone. I'm guessing based on past history that it will be the base and that there won't be a public option. But at this point, it's anybody's guess.

As a student of political history, I'm fascinated to see what side Obama chooses. He can't stay on the sidelines forever....

It seems to me Pres. Obama can (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:30:00 PM EST

keep his distance unless and until a bill arrives on his desk.


: We'll hear the behind the scenes stories (none / 0) (#17)
by ademption on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:54:50 PM EST

about what Rahm et al did--who they leaned on--blue dogs or progressives. All of those actions will be attributed to President Obama. He is the leader of the Democratic party after all.
We haven't heard anything from Bob Woodward in a while. Perhaps he's writing a behind the scenes book as we speak. No, we'll know which side President Obama chose very soon....

Huffington (none / 0) (#36)
by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:10:14 AM EST

I don't pay any attention to Huffington anymore, but I happened to catch her on the TV yesterday and she made an interesting comment.

It's her contention that Kennedy annnointed Obama as the future of the Democratic Party when he endorsed him. In his speech he assured Dem's that Obama shared in his values of what the party stands for.

Her point being that, now that Kennedy has passed, will Obama rise to the level of promise that Kennedy saw in him?

I think we'll find out very soon. If Obama caves on HCR, Kennedy's faith was misplaced.

Yeah, well, no one gets "annointed" (5.00 / 5) (#38)
by masslib on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:29:47 AM EST

to lead me. Huffington is a former Republican hack. Why would Kennedy have to die before Obama would become a liberal? Please.


Reason (none / 0) (#40)
by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 09:49:13 AM EST

I merely posted it to illustrate how various early supporters of Obama are dealing with the realities of his leadership.

I will give her crdit for at least calling upon him to live up to expectations, rather than many, who just continue to move the bar further to the right to justify their decision.

As far as becoming a liberal, Obama isn't even one the "new" progressive's, let alone a liberal.


: Arianna Huffington is out of touch (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by masslib on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 10:18:41 AM EST

with bread and butter Democrats. Frankly, she probably doesn't think much of us. She said in 2004 "no cares about the economy". That the war was the only issue. That simply wasn't true. Bread and butter Democrats always care about the economy. They have to. They are not wealthy, entitled, former Republican bloggers, who can afford not to, so no credit to her from me.
But, yes, I appreciate your point.