Grow up and get over it, folks. Your fantasies weren’t Obama’s promises.

by Karoli on July 9, 2010 · 46 comments

Here’s a big sad pug face for Eric Alterman to go with his whining, entitled column over at The Nation today. Yes, you heard me right: He’s a big whiner who needs to put on his big boy pants and get with it. For someone who has been around long enough to know better, his latest column pours rain all over everyone’s sunniest day. You can read it here, but let me summarize it for you: We’re all doomed! Doomed!!!!

Ordinarily, I’d simply fume a little and move on, but there seems to be a real need on the part of the progressive blogosphere to give Republicans some decent ammunition at a point where Republicans are doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot. It’s one thing to play fair and another to give the opposition a leg up when they’re about to lose, after all.

So let’s have a look at Eric Alterman’s screed about “Why a Progressive Presidency is Impossible, for Now“, and see where fantasy intersects reality.

The myth of the supermajority

Alterman: “But what they cannot do, even with supermajorities in both houses of Congress behind them, is pass the kind of transformative progressive legislation that Barack Obama promised in his 2008 presidential campaign.”

The House of Representatives has a nice healthy majority, and they’ve delivered consistently. The Senate has only had FIVE MONTHS of a majority, and not a supermajority. Al Franken wasn’t seated until July; Scott Brown was elected in January. The Senate was in recess in August, so Franken was on the vote count in September to January with Kirk, at which time 58 Democrats became 57. Further, Ben Nelson has a D behind his name and so adds to the number needed for a majority, but his votes are as Republican as they come.

No, Professor Alterman, there has been NO supermajority.

Never hold Congress accountable when you can blame the President

This just doesn’t die. From Alterman’s first paragraph:

In order to pass his healthcare legislation, for instance, Obama was required to specifically repudiate his pledge to prochoice voters to “make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president.” That promise apparently was lost in the same drawer as his insistence that “Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange…including a public option.”

Of course, Alterman fails to note that there actually is a public option in the current health reform bill. It’s just not the public option he and everyone else wanted. It’s the option that includes the same health plans which are offered federal employees as negotiated by the OPM. What it isn’t, is a government-run public option, and that’s still got a lot of panties bunched up among the blogging elite.

Alterman also fails to note this: Obama could have kicked and screamed, sent Rahm down to Capitol Hill to bust kneecaps and break arms, held their children hostage, exiled their spouses to Guantanamo Bay and certain Senators — Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman — would have lifted their middle finger to the President, the 60% or so of the people who supported it, and everyone else who glared at them while they voted the big NO. On the question of whether a public option could have been slid through reconciliation, it’s doubtful, given that it would have required the establishment of an agency to administer it, amendments to include it in different sections regarding minimum benefits and the like, and those sections would not have been strictly budget-related.

As far as the Roe v. Wade issue goes, everyone paying attention knows exactly who was responsible for that problem, and it wasn’t the President. So yeah, let’s just blame the President anyway, because damn it all, that dude promised.

Alterman doesn’t stop there. He hangs the failure of climate change legislation (at least, as it stands today) on the President, too. And the horsetrading over financial regulation, also. All of which leads me to ask:

What part of ‘CONGRESS SHALL MAKE THE LAWS’ don’t you understand, Professor Alterman????

NO, to Alterman and his sidekick Cenk Uygur, it’s all the President’s fault, and worse yet, it proves — PROVES, I TELL YOU — that Democrats elected a Republican in Democrats’ clothing.

Comparing promises to results instead of fantasy to reality

Alterman seems to have watched an entirely different campaign than the one I saw and participated in back in 2008.

But the truth, dear reader, is that it does not much matter who is right about what Barack Obama dreams of in his political imagination. Nor is it all that important whether Obama’s team either did or didn’t make major strategic errors in its first year of governance: in choosing to do healthcare before financial reform; in not holding out for a larger, more people-focused stimulus bill, in eschewing a carbon tax; or in failing to nationalize banks and break up those that are “too big to fail.” Face it, the system is rigged, and it’s rigged against us. Sure, presidents can pretty easily pass tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful corporations. They can start whatever wars they wish and wiretap whomever they want without warrants. They can order the torture of terrorist suspects, lie about it and see that their intelligence services destroy the evidence. But what they cannot do, even with supermajorities in both houses of Congress behind them, is pass the kind of transformative progressive legislation that Barack Obama promised in his 2008 presidential campaign.

Here’s what was promised in 2008:

Health Care
As written to JAMA-AMA in response to their questionaire in October, 2008.

The Obama-Biden health care plan will:

  • provide affordable and accessible health coverage for every American by building on the current insurance system and leaving Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Check
  • lower annual health care costs by $2500 for a typical family. For Americans satisfied with their current health insurance, nothing will change except their costs will go down. - check, though there may be increased cost for those who don’t qualify for subsidies.
  • Americans will also be able to choose from a range of private health insurance options through a new National Health Exchange, which will establish rules and standards for participating plans. The Exchange will also include a new public plan that will provide coverage similar to the kind members of Congress give themselves. Check-plus, just about to the exact letter of the promise.
  • Cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity, disease management, and mental health care. Check.
  • Costs will be low, and Americans who cannot afford it and do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance Program] will receive a tax subsidy to pay for coverage. Care will be high-quality, and coverage will be portable and easy to enroll in and use. – Um, check.
  • …will require coverage for all children and require that employers either make a meaningful contribution to coverage for their employees or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, but our plan will create an incentive for them to cover their employees via a refundable tax credit worth up to 50% on premiums paid. Yup. Check.

There’s more that looks exactly like the Affordable Care Act, but this is really the heart of things. The only piece of the plan that was laid out in 2008 and not passed in March, 2010 was the drug importation piece, which was a forcible Senate sacrifice.

Note what was NOT included in the Obama-Biden plan in October, 2008:

  • Single-payer health insurance
  • A public option administered in a similar way to Medicare
  • Early Medicare buy-in

So, Mr. Alterman, what part of the promises here (which were in writing on the Obama site as early as January, 2008) disappointed you?

The largest stimulus package in US history fails to satisfy

In his very first month in office, the President spent all sorts of political capital to get the $787 Billion stimulus bill passed, which included such horrendously conservative benefits as a 65% government subsidy for COBRA premiums to the unemployed, funds to build out and improve infrastructure, funds for green industries, for high-speed rail, for improved broadband, for roads, for bridges, for extra money in unemployment checks, and more and more and more.

And yet, it wasn’t enough for Professor Alterman, or Cenk Ugyur, or just about every progressive out there who thinks, evidently, that John McCain would have rescued the economy in a better and more efficient way while spending more. Oh, and just in case they’ve forgotten, the vote on the stimulus bill (taken before teabaggers got shrill and all that) in the Senate was 61-36. There was no Senator from Minnesota named Franken seated at that time, and only three Republican Senators voted for it: Snowe, Collins, and Specter (who hadn’t switched parties at that time). Gregg and Cornyn didn’t vote on it at all.

Note, Professor Alterman, that it missed a filibuster by two Republican votes that were not available for any other votes of substance as the year went on.

And yet, it’s all this President’s fault. Gotcha.

Afghanistan – A promise kept, not broken

At no time during Barack Obama’s campaign did he ever, ever, ever promise to withdraw summarily from Afghanistan. In fact, this was his promise, verbatim and repeated throughout his campaign and memorialized in the 2008 Democratic Party platform (see page 4):

Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism

  • Win in Afghanistan
  • Seek a new partnership with Pakistan
  • Combat Terrorism
  • Secure the Homeland
  • Pursue Intelligence Reform

Check, check, and check. I guess I was listening but Professor Alterman was fantasizing.

Living in the ‘age of forgetting’

In fairness to Alterman, after he pummels the President verbally for a few paragraphs, he does acknowledge that the previous administration more or less brought the country, constitution, and system to its knees. By the time I got to those paragraphs I’d stopped paying attention. That’s because I arrived at this observation:

We live, as Tony Judt has written, in an “age of forgetting,” and nowhere is this truer than in our political discourse.

No frickin’ lie. I’ve just demonstrated how much has been forgotten (or fallen on deaf ears) by progressives.

In the age of forgetting, a plan EXACTLY like the health plan he promised in 2008 is delivered in 2010, yet all progressives can do is pout and stomp over the fact that the puny ineffective public option Congress offered didn’t make it into the final bill.

In the age of forgetting, progressives forget what an extraordinary feat it was to pass any health care reform bill at all, much less a bill that looked exactly like what the President promised before he was president. (Yep, that’s YOU I’m looking at, Jane Hamsher)

In the age of forgetting, progressives forget that despite the President’s order to close Guantanamo, funding for the transition has to be authorized by Congress.

In the age of forgetting, progressives forget that troops are being drawn down and are returning to this country from Iraq right on schedule, as promised.

In the age of forgetting, progressives forget that major steps have been taken toward negotiating nuclear non-proliferation and weapons reductions treaties with Russia, Australia and India, as promised.

In the age of forgetting, progressives imagine that $800 billion is a pittance, simply something to dismiss and write off as trifling and unimpressive. Congress, of course, had nothing to do with it, because progressives forget that in the Senate, it takes 60 to get anything done.

In the age of forgetting, progressives forget that we had a President who left the place in a mess, trashed, barely surviving and created the environment that led to millions of lost jobs, foreclosed homes, and a stalled economy.

In the age of forgetting, progressives forget that the President has repeatedly pushed on Wall Street, pushed for the Volcker rule to be part of the final financial regulatory legislation, and yet, Congress bargained it away to get something passed that would at least install some basic consumer protections. Not Rahm. Not Biden. Not the President. The conference committee, led by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd.

Here’s something else forgotten in the age of forgetting. Telling your readers the ‘system is rigged’ is suppressive. It invites voters to sit down, cross their arms, pout and push the apathy button.

You think Republicans are apathetic? You think Republicans think this President has failed to deliver on his promises?

Think again.

It’s time to grow up, listen to what people actually say rather than what you want them to say, and take them at their word.

The ones who have broken the faith are progressives immersing themselves in self-indulgent fantasy. When reality bites their ankle, they wake up and scream BUT HE SAID!!! He didn’t say. You wanted him to say it, but he didn’t say it.

There is a difference between holding someone’s actual promises to account and inventing a fantasy from which a barrage of invective is launched. It would be worth learning to discern it.

Remember when we elected a President who said he’d do stuff and he did it and got re-elected despite shrill lies from the right and hating from the left?

Me either.

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Grow up and get over it, folks. Your fantasies weren’t Obama’s promises. -- Topsy.com

  • http://twitter.com/plutoniumpage Page van der Linden

    This is great! Thank you.

  • http://pammcallister.com Pam McAllister

    Thank you for this, Karoli. I tried to read the Alterman piece, but only managed to skim it. (Sometimes poor thinking and poor writing go hand in hand.)

    This is what I especially want progressive folks to take away from what you've written:

    “Telling your readers the ’system is rigged’ is suppressive. It invites voters to sit down, cross their arms, pout and push the apathy button.”

    We cannot afford apathy. There's just too much at stake.

  • Applejuicefool

    Um..he didn't say supermajorities in both houses. He said “super majorities.” As in, they're both just SUPER!

  • Andrew

    Dude, I actually agree with you on the “blame the president?” debate, but you are

  • Andrew

    (sorry, here's the rest of my comment)

    …but you are really arrogant for someone with such poor reading comprehension abilities. Alterman's piece was all about institutional constraints on the president, yet you couldn't get past the lede to understand what he actually wrote.

    For instance, Obama did promise to work to pass a cap-and-trade system reducing US carbon emissions 80% by 2050. That ain't happening. Alterman's piece explains why. Read it, you might learn something.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    No. Alterman's piece was all about how the President's bent for pragmatic politics falls in with the system failures. But you know…they're only failures when we hold the majority. Have you seen similar pieces from right-wingers pissed off about not being able to end the Department of Education, terminate Social Security and privatize everything? They're out there too, and they blame the system as well. The only difference is they don't blame the President.

    My biggest issue with Alterman's piece (and yes, there were certainly aspects of it I agreed with, particularly regarding Fox News and the media bias) was his tone, and his need to tie back every systemic failure to Obama. Nothing could stand on its own without some reference to how Obama allowed it to continue.

    The bottom line is that the more we see pieces like his and Uygur's get traction, the more likely it is we will be fighting and scratching for even the most basic reforms after November. Depressing the base further is a very, very bad thing.

  • Andrew

    I actually have often made the same point you make here, that the righties didn't attack Bush personally for failing to do this or that ridiculous right-wing thing (well, until the end of his presidency), so the progressives should stop personally attacking Obama and trying to hurt his image. Again, I agree with you that blaming Obama for the troubles his agenda has faced is ridiculous and silly.

    But I do think that's exactly what Alterman's piece was gently trying to point out to the FDLers and the Greenwaldites, in a language that they could understand. (If he doesn't mention the public option, they'd just blast him in response by saying “you didn't acknowledge how Obama sold us out on the public option!”)
    I think he's trying to redirect the “blame Obama” emotion to a more accurate and hopefully productive “blame the institutions.” And I think he's actually very persuasive, empirical, and accurate in diagnosing the institutional problems.

    His essay doesn't really propose productive things for progressives to work for that can address these institutional shortcomings. But it tries to move progressives away from blaming Obama personally and attacking his character, toward really understanding the true causes of the problem. Once progressives have agreed on the causes of the problem, then we can figure out solutions.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    My alleged lack of reading comprehension skills notwithstanding, leading an article off with statements which aren't even true in an effort to get the attention of the Hamsher and Greenwald groups seems somewhat counterproductive. If he follows the 'thesis-support-conclusion' style of writing (and as an academic type, he must on some level) then those openers gave the framework for the support — an exposition of how the press, the courts and the Congress contribute to the brokenness of not being able to get it all done at once — with the conclusion that we are all lost in a system that is, in his own words, “rigged”.

    I don't buy it. Nothing is all that different than it was in 1964 or 1934. FDR was not a dreamer. He was coldly pragmatic and calculating about how he approached the New Deal and legislative initiatives. There was one difference: he enjoyed the support of 86% of the country and huge Congressional majorities. Still, he scrapped all efforts for national health care to save Social Security from being blocked.

    Imperfect humans spawn imperfect systems. The option is to work with what is there, or not.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    I voted for McKinney because I saw Obama as a lying SoS who was a coporate puppet.

    Still, I think that Alterman missed out because he failed to make clear that O could have done things he didn't try to do. Alterman blamed the system. But a prez could have put pressure on “the system” that O didn't (and wouldn't) do.

  • http://twitter.com/txvoodoo txvoodoo

    This is absolutely wonderful, thank you.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Out of curiosity, what things did he not do that he 'could have done'? Would they have changed Lieberman's vote? Got Nelson to drop the blackmail? That cynicism is yours to nurture as long as you don't mind not moving toward your goal.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    thanks for saying so…I just don't quite know how to rebuild the fragile and broken coalition that we had, and it concerns me.

  • http://twitter.com/txvoodoo txvoodoo

    I'm in favor of some elements losing their supposed credibility.

  • eclecticbrotha

    Wow, great article and thankyouverymuch for actually paying attention.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    Aside: don't get the cynicism comment.

    As head of the party, he could have done what he did to the Progressive Caucus when they proposed to vote against the war supplemental: pull all funding help for their election campaigns.

    He could have actually proposed a health care bill, he left it all to Congress and then put no pressure on individuals to push it in any direction (while, of course, he ws cutting deals with the industry). But these are all what a president could do if he weren't a corporate puppet, which is, I think, what you are asking me.

    He could have made a case for programs in regular news conferences, as well as attacked opponents for their consistant lying. Instead, he has held very few news conferences.

    Basically, he could have done the kind of stuff than he's had Rahm do anonymously and behind closes doors, but for the agenda that Alterman talks about.

    Of course, that's not who Obama is or ever was.

    Does this give you the idea?

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    What coalition are you talking about, btw?

  • Feline11105

    Thank you. Wonderful article. I definitely think there's room for improvement WRT Obama, but I remain a cautious optimist.

  • Feline11105

    Agreed. I swear, we're seeing Obama Derangement Syndrome on the left and the right.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    the one that got him elected in spite of the rw noise.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    michtom, he was in the Senate before he was elected. Do you not think he had a clue about what they could squeak thru the Senate and what they could not? And I demonstrated pretty clearly that he was truthful about his ideas on health reform…what he communicated in the campaign was more or less what was passed. So…how is that HIS failure?

    He bypassed the press on purpose, and rightly. How many times did he need David Gregory to play the right wing concern troll games to know it was a waste. He took his case to the people, despite having an elected Congressman shout “you lie” in the midst of his speech. There are failures here, but let's ascribe them to the proper people.

    You had the right wing spreading (and continuing to spread) lies and scares about the bill itself. You had a press more concerned with all the fluff around the bill than the bill itself, a press quite happy to allow the ridiculous “death panels” claim to gain traction along with whacked out teabaggers at town halls.

    Let's see…Clinton did the “propose a health care bill” routine and was shut out because Congress pouted that THEY didn't draft it. There was no way to win, and yet, he did what no other President — including FDR — could. He opened up access to health insurance and by extension, health care, to everyone.

  • So Sad

    He bypassed the people and pushed through a health care bill that the majority of Americans do not want period. That is not a lie. The Right has not been lying. The Right does not ascribe to nationalizing health insurance. Karoli, you make things up in these blogs.

  • Joe

    Thanks for this post. I read the enitre Alterman piece and am now backing away from despair having read yours. While I agree with you that the problems are not as intractable as they appear, I do think that the media environment is a game changer. I've got to believe that there are still 75 million reasonable people in the country, but the big lies of the right wing echo chamber are getting increasingly hard to resist for many. After all, the Texas board of education is working on the population from the moment they enter a public school. I don't blame Obama for everything, but I do wish he'd harness the media to call out the propagandists more forcefully. Maybe then people would demand more from their representatvies than Reaganite quackeries.

  • Stuart J Oneill

    There were 76% wanting HC reform. They got a good portion and a start on the rest.

  • Pingback: Alterman’s Kabuki Democracy « New Deal Democrat

  • So Sad

    “Health Care Reform” covers a wide range of ideas. What we got was not what 76% wanted.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    “provide affordable and accessible health coverage”

    The passed plan is not affordable because there are no cost controls for the insurance or pharmaceutical companies.

    One analysis: “A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.”
    snip
    “This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:

    -Public Option ($25-$110 billion)
    -Medicare buy-in
    -Drug reimportation ($19 billion)
    -Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)
    -Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)”
    The whole story: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill http://bit.ly/afGpfx

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    As to the effectiveness of right-wing propaganda, I suggest you stop watching Gregory, CNN and the rest of the so-called liberal press (and a big hat tip to Alterman for his What Liberal Media?) as well as Fox.

    While many people buy into their crap, many don’t: did you follow the propaganda failure of Pete Peterson’s America Speaks? If not, go here: Backfire at “America Speaks” Propaganda Campaign vs. Social Security and Medicare « naked capitalism http://bit.ly/d4U5Un

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    “Obama could have kicked and screamed, sent Rahm down to Capitol Hill to bust kneecaps and break arms, held their children hostage, exiled their spouses to Guantanamo Bay and certain Senators — Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman — would have lifted their middle finger to the President”

    This is your interpretation of what happened. But, the kicking and screaming is exactly what Obrahma did to defeat the progressive caucus when it wanted to vote against the war supplemental. Obama and Lieberman are long-time allies. He campaigned for Lieberman in 2006 against Ned Lamont.

    Lieberman seems to have done exactly what Obama wanted him to. Obama certainly did't **try** to defeat the activities of Nelson, Lincoln and Lieberman. Because he couldn't have stopped Lieberman? Support that statement with evidence.

    What Obama does is exactly what Clinton did: talk a good game (gays in the military, Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General, for example) and then do nothing to actually support the good stuff. What did Clinton fight for? NAFTA and GATT.

    Obama campaigned for Lincoln against a more progressive candidate in Arkansas after the fact. These three were his allies, not his enemies.

    I may be cynical (though I still have no idea why you say that), but you are naive.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Grow up and get over it, folks. Your fantasies weren’t Obama’s promises. -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Clinton is responsible for DADT; Obama has the ball rolling toward its repeal.

    Clinton is responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall; Obama is working with an utterly recalcitrant Congress to reinstate at least some of it via the Volcker rule.

    Clinton did a lot of things that were good, but he couldn't get any form of health insurance reform passed, despite the fact that the Clinton plan looked a helluva lot closer to what you claim 76% wanted. (I doubt that statistic completely, given the backlash to the mildest of universal coverage provisions). Obama gets health reform done as best as it can be given a decent majority in the House and an in-name only majority in the Senate and you say well, he's just no better than Clinton.

    Allrighty then. Did you have some magical candidate that would fit the bill? Ralph Nader, perhaps?

    Good luck with that.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Clinton is responsible for DADT; Obama has the ball rolling toward its repeal.

    Clinton is responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall; Obama is working with an utterly recalcitrant Congress to reinstate at least some of it via the Volcker rule.

    Clinton did a lot of things that were good, but he couldn't get any form of health insurance reform passed, despite the fact that the Clinton plan looked a helluva lot closer to what you claim 76% wanted. (I doubt that statistic completely, given the backlash to the mildest of universal coverage provisions). Obama gets health reform done as best as it can be given a decent majority in the House and an in-name only majority in the Senate and you say well, he's just no better than Clinton.

    Allrighty then. Did you have some magical candidate that would fit the bill? Ralph Nader, perhaps?

    Good luck with that.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    The media environment is indeed the biggest challenge — both on the right and the left. Best we can do is keep trying to counter it. After all, it was a constant problem during the election in 2008 too, but somehow the message got out there.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    76% wanted an end to pre-existing conditions exclusions. Check.
    76% wanted an end to rescissions. Check.
    76% wanted to be able to afford their insurance when no employer was providing it. Check.

    What part of the 76% didn't folks want?

  • http://twitter.com/PatTibbs Pat Tibbs

    Karoli, you go, girl.

  • Francinebeck

    Thank you Pat Tibbs for bringing this article to my attention and Thank You Karoli for writing it. I consider myself a progressive Democrat and a feminist, but what is going on with “progressives” and Dems. turning into Independents against Obama??? I don't get this. That's right, turn into bubbling little factions that produce the Nader affect that will really get us somewhere. Where the hell would we be if McCain were in office? I'd hate to think. We got the guy we wanted, we're supposed to be standing together and pushing him in the direction we want him to go, not abandoning the dreams we put on his shoulders.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    I become more and more doubtful of your take on things as you show yourself more and more wedded to what you “see” through your ideological lens:

    “Clinton did a lot of things that were good, but he couldn’t get any form of health insurance reform passed, despite the fact that the Clinton plan looked a helluva lot closer to what you claim 76% wanted. (I doubt that statistic completely, given the backlash to the mildest of universal coverage provisions).”

    Your statement assumes that nothing changed between 1993 and 2009. But you say nothing to support that assumption. Additionally, political circumstances were much more difficult for Clinton. He was already being attacked for the bogus Whitewater “scandal,” that had been invented during the ’92 election. [Whitewater controversy: http://bit.ly/c0rF2Z

    Here are some articles on health care polling from 2009:

    First Posted: 06-17-09 Obama Boost: New Poll Shows 76% Support For Choice Of Public Plan http://huff.to/bEhRcu

    Published: June 20, 2009 Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. http://nyti.ms/b9aB0I

    June 17, 2009 On Healthcare, Americans Trust Physicians Over Politicians http://bit.ly/8ZtT5h

    Fri May 29, 2009 WASHINGTON (CNN) — A national poll indicates that most Americans are receptive to having more government influence over their health care in return for lower costs and more coverage.

    Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they would favor an increase in the federal government’s influence over their own health care plans in an attempt to lower costs and provide coverage to more Americans; 36 percent were opposed. The poll also suggests that slightly more than six out of 10 think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, with 38 percent opposed. http://bit.ly/betMwY

    Doubting things because they don’t match your anecdotal observations or your political conclusions is a poor attitude toward political discussion, and toward research in general. You’re a better writer than I am, both because you clearly have a love and a facility for it that I don’t (especially in terms of pumping it out), but you seem loathe to back up your feelings with facts. This is particularly disappointing for me because you have the skills and the focus.

    I hope you don’t feel I’m being patronizing. I wouldn’t be busting your chops if I didn’t think the discussion and the discussant were worth it.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    “Clinton is responsible for DADT; Obama has the ball rolling toward its repeal.”

    Where is that ball rolling, exactly? And, if it is, what prevented an executive order from stopping it a year ago while the process worked itself out.

    Also, he has supported DOMA when he could have made a case that it was unconstitutional (14th Amendment, Full Faith and Credit clause, which DOMA so clearly tramples on). He claimed in the campaign to be “a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians.” He has worked against them.

    It is not my responsibility to come up with a magical anything. My obligation is to not to accept lying, hypocrisy and illegality as though it isn't happening.

    Hey! The emperor has no clothes!

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    http://bit.ly/b1VWrc: Proving everything you say about Obama’s lack of responsibility for the corrupt health care act is untrue. Obama was part of the deal from the beginning.

    Plus, you have been unwilling (unable) to respond to the details of my critique. Poor Obama would have been given the finger by Lieberman, et al.

    No–and you should know better–Lieberman and Obama have been playing you for a very willing fool.

    Explain Fowler.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    http://bit.ly/dstBQ1 is the correct link for my previous post.

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    In Obamalamadingdong land, we are racing toward the revocation of DADT behind our “fierce advocate for gays and lesbians.”

    Meanwhile, in the real world, http://bit.ly/dh6na0.

  • Carolinajoe01

    I guess some people still don't understand how Congress works, it's money for God's sake! What Democrats got last 18 months, in my opinion, is a miracle! All that despite hostile GOP, stupid americans that don't have a clue, and what 30 years of misanagement fixed in 1 year, media running around after ratings, and Democrats in Congress that don't know a thing about governing (most of them). And on top of that $2 bilions of lobbying money? And add to that some idiots out there are running around and waving Constitution? How more freakish that could be????

  • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom michtom

    I become more and more doubtful of your take on things as you show yourself more and more wedded to what you “see” through your ideological lens:

    “Clinton did a lot of things that were good, but he couldn’t get any form of health insurance reform passed, despite the fact that the Clinton plan looked a helluva lot closer to what you claim 76% wanted. (I doubt that statistic completely, given the backlash to the mildest of universal coverage provisions).”

    Your statement assumes that nothing changed between 1993 and 2009. But you say nothing to support that assumption. Additionally, political circumstances were much more difficult for Clinton. He was already being attacked for the bogus Whitewater “scandal,” that had been invented during the ’92 election. [Whitewater controversy: http://bit.ly/c0rF2Z

    Here are some articles on health care polling from 2009:

    First Posted: 06-17-09 Obama Boost: New Poll Shows 76% Support For Choice Of Public Plan http://huff.to/bEhRcu

    Published: June 20, 2009 Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. http://nyti.ms/b9aB0I

    June 17, 2009 On Healthcare, Americans Trust Physicians Over Politicians http://bit.ly/8ZtT5h

    Fri May 29, 2009 WASHINGTON (CNN) — A national poll indicates that most Americans are receptive to having more government influence over their health care in return for lower costs and more coverage.

    Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they would favor an increase in the federal government’s influence over their own health care plans in an attempt to lower costs and provide coverage to more Americans; 36 percent were opposed. The poll also suggests that slightly more than six out of 10 think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, with 38 percent opposed. http://bit.ly/betMwY

    Doubting things because they don’t match your anecdotal observations or your political conclusions is a poor attitude toward political discussion, and toward research in general. You’re a better writer than I am, both because you clearly have a love and a facility for it that I don’t (especially in terms of pumping it out), but you seem loathe to back up your feelings with facts. This is particularly disappointing for me because you have the skills and the focus.

    I hope you don’t feel I’m being patronizing. I wouldn’t be busting your chops if I didn’t think the discussion and the discussant were worth it.

  • Ronnie Harper

    You make some excellent points in response to the Kabuki Democracy article. I just wish that the LGBT community would get their fucking rights already – that's really the only thing that I'm super mad about. Otherwise, I really do like Obama as a pluralistic solutions-oriented President.

  • Ronnie Harper

    My sentiments, too, Joe. lol@backing away from despair. I wish the left were controlling the debate, but for whatever reason, it isn't.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Obama has supported DOMA how, exactly? By instructing the DOJ to continue pressing the case through to the Supreme Court to get established precedent? You may not like or agree with him, but he's not stupid. If you want DOMA gone and dead, you get SCOTUS to either affirm lower court or rule on it. I get a kick out of the argument that he is “supporting” something when DOJ is doing what they're supposed to do, unlike our previous administration, who invented exceptions to laws and then pressed forward without rulings.

    The one area where you truly have an argument is with regard to civil liberties. I will agree with progressives on that — he has not been stellar in that regard.

    FDR's universal health care proposal looked nearly identical to the Affordable Care Act. He did not press for Medicare for All to the exclusion of insurers, because he understood that it was sure to fail.

    As it was, he withdrew that piece of New Deal legislation completely, fearing that trying to press for universal health care AND social security would cause both to fail. Pensions took precedence. Not only did he withdraw it, he buried the reports on it so they couldn't be used to claim he was trying to turn the US into a Soviet client state.

    If progressive legislation is the goal, then progressives could really benefit from understanding the political climate and having a sense of what is possible. There's an excellent article in The Prospect today that really does a good job of putting some responsibility on progressives to stand up and do more than sign online petitions and write their congressmen. Where were all these Progressives when I was standing on the street last year? Most who stood with me were solid mainline Democrats, union members, retirees, with at most, 5 young people. Where were you? Where are you when it comes to promoting candidates, walking precincts, getting out the vote for them?

    In Michigan tomorrow a solid progressive will likely be defeated by a phantom democrat, leaving a competitive district as a free gift to the Republican incumbent. There's really no excuse for this guy to be out there on his own without any backup from other like-minded progressives.

    If you want progressive legislation, do the work to elect a progressive Congress. And then start communicating to people WHY they should want what you want instead of bashing anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Previous post:

Next post: