Hillary's supporters were right

It is finally time that I eat some crow.  I supported Barack Obama in the primaries because I believed that he would win the general election and bring in lots of new Democratic Congresspeople into office with him.  I thought he had the ability to be a transformational President, much like FDR and Ronald Reagan.  I didnt support Hillary because I thought she would be another Bill Clinton, who would simply accomadate the nation's rightward drift.  

How wrong I was.  Hillary's supporters long said that Barack Obama didnt have the experience or political skills to be the kind of transformative leader that many thought he could be.  They appear to have been almost 100% correct.  Barack Obama doesnt understand a thing about how to control Congress or rally support for his legislation.  I think Hillary Clinton would have been able use the kind of threats and browbeating that Barack Obama doesnt seem to be able to use to get key members of Congress to go her way.

I wish that more of us would have given Hillary Clinton a chance.  

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

170 Comments

We just don't know yet.

While I get frustrated, I am still glad I supported Obama over Hillary.  My original candidate was right on the issues, but we came ot find out he had a flawed character.

Obama is to the left of Clinton, by a small amount, but you make an interesting point.

by TomP 2009-09-01 12:18PM | 0 recs
PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

PRIMARIES!!!

by Strummerson 2009-09-01 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: PRIMARIES!!!

How do you really feel?

by bruh3 2009-09-01 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: PRIMARIES!!!

a little bored

by Strummerson 2009-09-01 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: PRIMARIES!!!

Understandable.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: We just don't know yet.

It's the thread we've all been waiting for!!!

by Jess81 2009-09-02 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Maybe this is what Obama intended. Maybe he is doing exactly what he wanted to do.

by Alice Marshall 2009-09-01 12:21PM | 0 recs
Well, you know what to do!

Hillary is something like fifth in the line of succession, right?  Get to work on those articles of impeachment!

by JJE 2009-09-01 12:32PM | 0 recs
Now I know you're a troll

only a troll would've written this type of diary on THIS blog knowing it's history.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

I'm personally not into sour-grapes analysis of this type, and I think it's silly to believe that Hillary wouldn't have been disappointing in her own way.  But I still like this (pre-election!) bumper sticker so I couldn't pass up a chance to link it.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 12:37PM | 0 recs
lol cute

truth be told my biggest problem was never Obama himself...he made it clear he'd be a center left run of the mill Democratic President who would try to work across party lines for a change...my biggest problem was with some of his supporters, particularly on the blogsphere...in fact, only on the blogsphere, who put upon him an image of a person he never claimed to be.

The anger from Hillary supporters was misplaced. They took it out on him, bashed him, and continue to criticize him...it's not him, it's the kossack-types who swept him into power under delusions of grandeur...they had attempted with Howard Dean...living in a world where Dean was a progressive...and they did it with Obama and now they're shocked SHOCKED that Obama is governing the way he said he would. Of course the delusions of grandeur blinded them and left them deaf to what he was saying.

I do not feel sorry for any Obama supporter who is suddenly dissolutioned and sad because Obama isn't making miracles happen. Perhaps if they had paid a little more attention last year, they would see this is how he said he would govern.

And don't you PUMAs try to argue Hillary would've been any different. Even she admitted she wouldn't touch healthcare until her second term.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: lol cute

I don't think she "admitted" any such thing.  She said her goal was to get UHC passed by the end of her second term (really folks? this is how your progressive Muhammad Ali talks?), not that she wouldn't touch it during her first term.  And I recall that she very quickly backed away from that statement once it was ridiculed as laughably small-bore.

Say what you will about the pluses and minuses of Hillary's approach, but if she had the same majorities in Congress that we currently enjoy (would she? a debate in itself) I think it's pretty much a given she would have addressed the issue on the same schedule that Obama has.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: lol cute

As i said below, this Hillary v obama debate is b.s. because substantively there was not much difference between them, and despite clintons promise to fight, she was running a centrist. You also wrote a point that I agreew th from the other day-- that debate focuses too much on personalities. I think what right now is showing is that the problem in DC is system driven rather than personality driven. Personalities only matter to the extent they reinforce the existing system. I don't see and did not see either Obama  or CLinton changing that system. I don't see given Edwards personal issues him having suceeded either. So, really all of this is moot.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: lol cute

I may be incorrect, but I think she said it would get implemented by the end of her second term, not passed by the end of her second term.  Sometimes there is a delay between passage and full implementation.  (But I could be wrong).

by markjay 2009-09-01 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: lol cute

Yeah, but I mean, isn't that the sort of nuance that only a supporter could love? :)

by Steve M 2009-09-01 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: lol cute

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/hillary_ clinton_health_care.htm

Let's get prescription drug prices down by negotiating with the drug companies, for example. I am going around the country, and I'm asking people's advice, then I'm going to be proposing a specific plan. You know, President Kennedy said in his inauguration that he wanted to have a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: lol cute

I don't understand your point.  Are you suggesting this is inconsistent with what I wrote?

by Steve M 2009-09-02 09:14AM | 0 recs
I always attacked those deluded Obama supporters

They didn't have Hillary wrong, not by much, but they projected their 'fantasy President' onto Obama. If they hadn't done so, if a large portion of the mainstream media hadn't done so as well, well, maybe there's a small chance it would've made some difference. Let's say at least on economic policy, where, during the primaries, Clinton seemed much less in bed with Wall Street than Obama.

But who knows, if she were President I would expect tremendous gridlock in Congress and very little getting done, simply because she'd have zero grace period and a major and successful all-out 'image and style' wars waged against her. Similarly, with Obama, we look to be moving toward a gridlock (or worse, regressive legislation in order to get 'something' done), but for different reasons.

It seemed, during the primaries, the educatin' needed to be directed at the Obama fan club, an instance of a very disturbing political trend. I was usually motivated to write either because Obama supporters were too blissfully unaware of his C+ progressivism or because elections and important stuff shouldn't come down to who's got 'the look' or who's 'cool'.

by fairleft2 2009-09-01 02:38PM | 0 recs
If they hadn't done so

Hillary Clinton would be President and you'd be bitching about her and we'd be playing "what if Obama was President"...no one had a chance in hell of beating either one of them.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 03:39PM | 0 recs
[projection alert]

You'd be bitching, I'd be whining.

by fairleft2 2009-09-02 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

What an interesting post. I supported Hill over Obama because I believed she would know how to get a progressive agenda DONE! He was portrayed as the progressive, she as the middle of the road backslider. But many of us who supported her did so because of her stand on the issues--like universal health care--which he never, ever supported. Obama was much better at public image making, but he also had the infatuation and mindless adoration [it seemed to me at the time]of people who didn't understand that a person's history on the issues is more important than what they promise. And Hill who does have a history on many, many issues said this over and over and over. He also played progressive anger over the war in Iraq like a maestro. Now he will get us deeper into Afghanistan and I believe Hill would have known better--at least I hope so. It's all hindsight now. But it is interesting to discuss. If anyone flames me for this, the rays are going to come back at you and singe your manhood. And yes, maybe now some Obama supporters can see that not everyone who supported Hill did so because of racism, but rather because of fear that Obama would prove to be an academic in office, ala Carter.

by linfar 2009-09-01 01:04PM | 0 recs
You did realize

Hillary Clinton said she would wait till 2013 to even discuss healthcare.

And if you really think Hillary Clinton would be pulling us out of Afghanistan...well you're living in a delusional world too.

This is not interesting to discuss, this is a waste of fucking time.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You did realize

Nope . She didn't say that...

She said she would like to pass it before her second term ends , she has been talking about healthcare since the 90's , you are mistaken ...

However you are right on Afghanistan , Obama is on the right course on that and I believe Hillary Clinton would have done the same...

by lori 2009-09-01 01:45PM | 0 recs
Maybe Obama

should say health care reform should pass by January 20, 2017. Maybe he was wrong trying to do it in the first year. Right PUMAs?

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Obama

OK, I just looked up the info.  She said she would ensure that there was universal health care coverage by the end of her second term, not that legislation would pass by the end of her second term.  Given that Universal Health Care coverage hasn't been achieved in the 200+ year history of the U.S., and given that there is a lag time between the signing of legislation and the achievement of universal coverage, and given that she was criticized for her last attempt to rush the process and thus not handle things well, that seemed to be prudent.

by markjay 2009-09-01 05:13PM | 0 recs
Obama and the Democrats

get bitched out for not passing a healthcare bill in a month, I have a hard time believing the same people would be mighty cool with a President saying "Sometimes between now and 2017 is cool"

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and the Democrats

To be quite honest... one of the reasons I was not onbaord with her candidacy is that she didn't seem very committed to health care reform...  when she said that it would be implemented by the end of her second term?  C'mon!

by LordMike 2009-09-01 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and the Democrats

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/hillary_ clinton_health_care.htm

If you don't start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you'll never get there.

There's only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility.

The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I've been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I'm not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

Not committed to health care?  Seriously?!

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:37AM | 0 recs
Sounds like

what the other candidates said too..."by the end of my second term" doesn't scream committed...it screams "eventually, when I get to, in incremental steps"

If you wanted that, you should be plotzing over Obama right now.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Sounds like

Certainly was, until he started his three stooges impersonation.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:39PM | 0 recs
WTF does this mean?

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: You did realize

You know, President Kennedy said in his inauguration that he wanted to have a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

But to be fair her advisers had a history too.  Not everyone voted out of blind adoration to Obama.

An administration with Penn in the "Axlerod" role, you'd get a heavy plate of the small, feelgood measures that were the hallmark of Clinton II with no hint of bigger initiatives.

McAuliffe was going to get some sort of job in the policy shop.  That would have been a disaster because he has a major debit on his resume (the 2002 mid-terms).

Looking at the traditional policy/message shop spots to fill, I had zero confidence in her staff, who are more responsible for the day to day tasks that were necessary for implementing her vision.

So, I'm just not buying the "Obama is a disaster, everything would be roses with Sec. Clinton" meme that goes on around here from time to time.  

by AZphilosopher 2009-09-01 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Surely there are worse things we can say about Terry McAuliffe than that the party got clobbered in the first election after 9/11.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

There was gross incompetence in that wipeout though.  Part of it wasn't communicating just how dire the situation was.

McAuliffe:  We are doing really really well.

McAuliffe: We are doing really really well.

If that refrain were true, we wouldn't have gotten wiped out.  McAuliffe had to push every alarm button or say "We're sick of this 'Democrats caused 9/11' crap".   The exact problem with McAuliffism is that it is somehow dispiriting to the troops to tell the truth or to tell truth to power.  At that time if someone would have said "We're going to get our asses kicked if we don't go out there and work."

The whole easy going speak and inability to get fired up and fight would mean that he would get rolled in a communications/leg. liason/policy advocacy position.

Was the post 9/11 election a ticket to get Democrats wiped out? Probably, but that attitude and his public statements made it worse than it had to be.

by AZphilosopher 2009-09-01 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

If Democrats had voted against the Iraq War in a bloc(Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11), I think the 2002 elections would have turned out far differently.  

by Kent 2009-09-01 08:08PM | 0 recs
How so?

Do you think they would've GAINED seats voting against a war that was popular with 2/3 of the country?

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: How so?

People were very unsure about going to war in Iraq.  Democrats could have easily drove down support much like Republicans are doing to healthcare.  

by Kent 2009-09-01 08:53PM | 0 recs
Unsure?

What country were you living in?

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Unsure?

I can imagine a scenario where the war could have gone differently in a country with a different Democratic Party.  But you're missing the true comedy here - the same guy who thinks the Dems need to give up on health care RIGHT THIS SECOND and it's probably too late to hold the House anyway also thinks the Dems should have grown a spine and taken a bold stand against the frickin' war.  The same person who is terrified when an issue poll shows support dipping to 54% thinks the Dems should have ignored the polls altogether and sought to change the narrative on Iraq.  Only in America is Kent's story possible.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 10:06PM | 0 recs
singeing manhood?

Many women supported Obama.  If they flame you, will you singe their womanhood?

Additionally, most Obama supporters I know never thought or argued that a majority of Clinton supporters were motivated by racism.  But if you need a straw person to sleep at night...  If you consider that a "flame" then try to singe away.  I keep a fire extinguisher right next to my manhood.

by Strummerson 2009-09-01 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: singeing manhood?

Just as a historical point, linfar and Texas Darlin got hit with that label a lot, and since they were constantly on the rec list, it was thrown around a bunch.

Also, this guy Kent?  Show of hands: who here thinks he's full of it?

by Jess81 2009-09-02 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

My biggest reservation about Obama was the b.s. about being able transform how Washington worked.  Clearly he did not understand what he was up against and the health care issue has proved that.

I've got to say, that I'm not sure Hillary would have done any better with the "Party of No," but I think she would have done better in keeping Democrats in line.

by InigoMontoya 2009-09-01 01:21PM | 0 recs
I think she would've had

a harder time keeping Democrats in line.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

100% correct!

by Steve M 2009-09-01 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

I think she would have won my republicans...

by lori 2009-09-01 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

more republicans...

by lori 2009-09-01 01:49PM | 0 recs
A Republican?

If you think that the Republicans would have been any more agreeable to Clinton, who was their favorite hobgoblin in the '90s, then you're extremely naive.

They were rearing to run a general election campaign against Clinton until Obama sucker punched them.

But most of all, Republicans are 99% controlled by special and corporate interests, and would nigh universally vote against any and all reform as a bloc no matter what.

by Dracomicron 2009-09-01 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Republican?

She has always worked well with republicans in the senate , she has a solid record of that , despite the howling on talk radio . She would probably have disappointed many liberals in the party because she most likely would have governed from the center and included a lot of republican ideas like tort reform . Lets not forget she campaigned as a fiscal hawk , she talked about the budget deficits and fiscal responsibility . I believe she would have put into consideration all of that when drafting a health bill and would probably have pulled more republicans at the risk of losing some democrats...Obama is suffering from the perception of governing from the left , I don't believe she would have had the same perception...

by lori 2009-09-01 02:06PM | 0 recs
Well

She has always worked well with republicans in the senate

So did Obama. Ask Richard Lugar, John McCain, Tom Coburn, Johnny Isakson.

Having said that, what you're saying is she would've abandoned the left, which is the exact problem the diarist is complaining is happening with Obama.

But you're assuming Republicans would act differently than they are now.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Thats why I said in a post below , I don't see how Obama has abandoned the left ,at least not in any concrete way in the health care debate , thats why I don't understand the hand wringing especially from liberals... It is precisely because he is seen as governing from the left , thats why he is finding it hard to push the health care debate any further in August...

by lori 2009-09-01 02:41PM | 0 recs
In the view of many

he abandoned the left by doing the following:

(1) No talk of single-payer at all (Hillary wasn't too interested in single-payer at all).

(2) Making a deal with Pharma re: drug pricing.

(3) Floating trial balloons that the public option is not a must.

(4) Not being more active and vocal in his pressure on GOPs and conservadems.

I'm sure others have more.

by JJE 2009-09-01 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: In the view of many

Mostly right, but I would say the Pharma issue was also a question of trust as someone said because he did indeed run on good government and transparency. That deal was anything but.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 04:09PM | 0 recs
I think in some ways though

If we get something out of reconciliation that's better than a Baucus/Grassley compromise, a lot of the "process concern" will go away.  The angst is mostly short term thinking.

by AZphilosopher 2009-09-01 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

what? in either the congress or general public? I think she would have lost more republicans in the general election and she would be where Pres Obama finds himself because in terms of governing they are both centrists trying to placate the right flank of the party rather than redefining moderate as finding the pragmatic rather than conservative solution. That's the core problem with DC. They define centrist according to wherever the right is rather than the center of the American people's beliefs. Thus you have Pres Obama proposing policies that are actually more expensive than they should be because he's trying to address corporate interests like say in healthcare. as discussed, in the two posts I link to below:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/ 09/going-it-alone-on-health-care-dems-fa ce-tug-of-war-over-public-option.php?ref =fpblg

"51 Vote Rules May Force a Public Option Too Liberal for Some Dems"

The thesis being the program that would save more money is actually the liberal one since it would have the best chance of getting through concilliation which is about cost savings.

and

"Blue Dog Health Plan to Increase Insurance Premiums, Bureaucratic Costs"

http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/31/blue-d og-health-plan-to-increase-insurance-pre miums-bureaucratic-costs/#comments

In both articles, one can see the reality of centrism (what it stands for) versus the rhectoric, what it claims to stand for.

I don't see how Clinton or Obama would produce a different result since they come from the same centrism idealogy.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

I do not think Hillary would have had any more luck with the Republicans in Congress than Obama has.  I think many of them like or respect her on a personal level (this is true for Obama as well), but it doesn't matter.  Opposing something as important as health care reform is in their blood.

One of the reasons I favored Hillary in the primaries is because I felt she understood, based on past experience, that there is simply no way to get the Republicans on board.  It is not just a question of asking them nicely or what have you.  So my feeling was that she wouldn't have wasted her time trying to achieve bipartisanship on the really big issues where there is an ideological divide.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

Well , I am arguing the opposite . I believe based on her experience with the health care issue in the 90's , she would have understood that you shouldn't take a partisan approach on reform . Whether it is the public option or tort reform , or whatever the case , i suspect she would have done what it takes to take a bipartisan approach.

I am essentially arguing that she would have governed as a pragmatic centrist  which would have angered so many on the left but brought along some  republicans , just like the big dog did , you seem to conclude she would have governed from the left on these big issues .

by lori 2009-09-01 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

Your comments are not what Clinton herself argued during the primary or even after the primary. You seem to be projecting onto her things she did not say or believe.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

Well you would find it hard to find someone who supported her in the primaries like i did on this site .I won't forget the shoe leather i burn in Pennsylvania  and Ohio , it was a memorable experience .She was talking about fiscal responsibility , being a deficit hawk  , I remember one of her rallies in Bucks , she said she was the most conservative on the fiscal situation in the race republican or democrat . She campaigned on bringing back the pay as you go system... If she was more to the left I probably won't have supported her ...

If she could get 70% of what she wanted , I believe she would have taken it...  That would have angered a lot on the left...

I believe from the onset she would have incorporated some of the ideas of the republicans that made sense and would have put them in a tough spot , she would have likely escaped the perception of governing as a liberal , which is putting Obama in a bind right now..I suspect that perception is the cause of his loss of independents.( the deficits , and the general fiscal and economic situation ) . Clinton campaigned on these issues and generally is committed to them . I believe it would have influenced the type of legislation she would have put forth...

by lori 2009-09-01 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

I have no doubt she would have a) governed as a centrist (which is not fiscal responsibility although you seem to confuse them as such since the PO as liberals imagine it would actually be cheaper for the American public than the corporatism you defend) and b) that she may have said things to get your vote as a conservative.

However, a) conservatives were not the overarching themes of her campaign (ie, experience was code for I willf ight the Republicans because I have been through it and the race issue) and b) none of what you describe matters because "incorporate" the ideas of the GOP is exactly what is going on now, and the results would have been exactly the same. The GOP has no interest in negotiation. They are interested in winning back the WH. As Luntz has said, that path is through Democratic failure. This is a matter of self interest. For the GOP, their interest requires the Democratic policies to not be sucessful.

You are also, by the way, wrong about Obama losing independents.  His numbers there are fine. He's losing progressives. THis has been borne out in at least 3 polls that I can think of in the last few weeks. He's losing them because they seem him as capitulating to the right rather than compromising from a position of strength.

More over, next year will not be about inpendents. Off year elections are typically get out your base eleciton years. This was the case in 2006 when the Dems won and 2002 when the GOP won. I see no reason for that to change now.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 04:05PM | 0 recs
CNN disagrees

nice try, try again.

From CNN's poll today;

Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down.

Obama's overall approval rating of 53 percent is down 3 points from a month ago, and down 8 points from June. Forty-five percent of those questioned disapprove, up 5 points from a month ago and up 8 points from June.

According to the poll, nine in 10 Democrats approve of the job Obama's doing, up three points from a month ago, with 15 percent of Republicans approving, down 8 points.

It's nice to buy the great DailyKos talking point that progressives are abandoning him left and right because he isn't the long awaited embodiment of FDR, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson...of course none of it is true since in all those polls, his favorabilities among Democrats have dropped a few points but plummeted with Independents. In fact, if you look at the internal numbers on DKos' poll, turns out Obama's unfavorbility has barely risen at all among Democrats (from 9% in early June to a whopping 11% in the end of August), but risen pretty significantly among Independents/Republicans (from 23%/84% respectively in June to 35%/93% in August).

and since they don't break it down among liberals, moderates and conservatives, we can't really be sure if it's among liberal Democrats/Independents, or conservative Democrats/Independents. It's easy to assume it's the former if you live your entire life on a blog.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: CNN disagrees

I was referencing the Washington Post , CBS and Ny Times polling.  THe Daily Kos one I knew you would attack. You find one poll that says people disapproval is above 50 percent for independents, what in which way to do thos  independent's lean? What's more likely given all the polling data? That this one poll is right or that all the other ones are along with this one showing a picture of a Presidency that's endangering its majority? For the record, how does one figure out why progressives and independents are bothered by the Democratic President, but not conservatives who have seen their numbers remain about the same. I don't believe the 9 in 10 because no one else is showing that.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 04:33PM | 0 recs
Actually they are

WaPo is the only one showing a big drop in support from liberals, but not a rise in disapproval ratings, echoing DailyKos' poll, which says there a "wait and see" attitude among liberals.

This could be an effect of it being an off year election more than anything else.

WaPo also shows slide among Independents;

WaPo polling analyst Agiesta cautioned that independents were likely a greater factor

uh huh...that debunks our "he's doing fine with Independents" theory, which I can't possibly understand made you think that. Had you left that out, you might have had a defendable point.

Every other poll in the past week showed his approval ratings among Democrats between 79% and 88%, so I don't see why nine in ten is unbelievable...especially in the wake of Ted Kennedy's funeral.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually they are

I will have to re-look at the numbers. I remember them differently, but admitedly its been over  a week so I maybe wrong on this.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually they are

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby /obama-losing-support-amon_b_274013.html

Obama has lost even more support among 18-29-year-old voters, whose approval fell by 18 points over that time. The Democrats may be able to count on older, die hard party members to come out and vote, even when they may be disappointed. But those young voters could very easily sour on the Democrats and politics itself if Obama does not deliver on his message of change.

Our latest Zogby Interactive poll of 4,518 likely voters (conducted from Aug. 28-31) found 48% disapprove of Obama's job performance, and 42% approve.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:42AM | 0 recs
Zogby's credible all of a sudden

sure, like Rasmussen, they're credible when they prove someone's point.

Having said that, look at this;

Obama is now firmly between a rock and a hard place. Liberal Democrats want a strong health care reform bill with a public option. Republicans and more conservative Democrats disagree. Obama needs to enter the fray in a very public way, which may mean knocking heads with both wings of his own party.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 10:57AM | 0 recs
Heh

I don't think you'll get many around here to agree with you that Obama's big problems are that he's too partisan, too left, and not trying hard enough to get Republicans.

by JJE 2009-09-01 03:36PM | 0 recs
Which is why

the blogsphere is so out of touch with reality. What lori is saying is basically what I hear from 99% of those I talk to who have developed a problem with him.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

None of the polls. I mean- none- agrees with wha tyou are and your fellow conservatives are saying here.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 04:06PM | 0 recs
show me

c'mon, show me a poll that says Obama is losing support because he's being too bipartisan and not progressive enough.

I dare you to show me.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

I'm not saying she would have governed from the left really, but I think she would have understood that it has to be a Democratic bill because the GOP simply is not going to come along.  I'm not saying I can prove you wrong, but I find it interesting that you're advocating a theory that generally came from the Obama supporters in the primaries, the idea that you can win over "Republicans of good faith" if you go about it the right way.  You would just disagree with them on who was the best candidate to accomplish that, while I would contend that it wasn't an achievable goal either way.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 04:51PM | 0 recs
What kind of Democratic bill

I think it's pretty clear it's going to be a Democratic bill...the question is are Democrats like Mike Ross and Max Baucus going to write the bill.

this whole bipartisan nonesense is laughable since the only Republicans we're working it are three of them on one committee. It pretty much already is a Democratic bill.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: What kind of Democratic bill

Wehther you argree with t he AP report from yesterday or not or the report from today which is still about lines on the sand to get bipartisan support, the concern is that Pres Obama is still framing this as an attempt to get the GOP and  Blue Dogs despite the bad faith. We don't need even many blue dogs beyond the blue dog support we already have to pass a good bill. So, what's the point at this point of sending out trial ballons or whatever the WH thinks it is doing? Why even the pretense. Hit the ground running, and say we are going it alone. Let the real debate begain rather than this Kabuki. I don't see the point because it is making Pres Obama look weak while the GOP attacks him relentlessly in front of the talking heads in DC

by bruh3 2009-09-01 06:14PM | 0 recs
The problem isn't even Blue Dogs

Tom Periellio, Eric Massa, Betsy Markey, Rick Boucher, Steve Dreihaus all said or hinted they would vote against a public option and they're not Blue Dogs.

But none of this is relevant to my point, which is when we say "Hillary would've gotten a Democratic bill" what Democratic bill are we talking about?

Does anyone seriously believe she'd be able to push Max Baucus to get a Democratic-only bill out of the Finance Committee? Because that's where the problem is.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 07:29PM | 0 recs
Most of those guys will likely lose anyway

With the exception of Boucher.  What do they have to lose?

by Kent 2009-09-01 08:10PM | 0 recs
Well if they're going to lose regardless

then we can't really get much done, now can we?

So, I ask you, how would Hillary Clinton have solved this problem? How would see magically have made it easier for Tom Periello to win reelection and thus be forced to vote for a public option?

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: What kind of Democratic bill

The point is...do you think Baucus would even be chair if Hillary had won.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:45AM | 0 recs
Of course

why wouldn't he?

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

I'm with you Steve. It is amazing how different people can see nearly opposite qualities in a candidate. Lori saw Hillary Clinton as a consensus maker. I backed Clinton for the opposite reason - I thought she was the major candidate least inclined to take any more of their crap.

by itsthemedia 2009-09-01 08:59PM | 0 recs
See

and one of you two were bound to be disappointed and say "this is not why we voted for Hillary Clinton"

same holds true on the Obama side. Some people voted for him because of a delusionary belief that he's the progressive messiah and some voted for him because they wanted someone who wouldn't be the Democratic version of Bush.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: See

Heh, more likely, we would both be disappointed by something, because we both saw things we liked that are real aspects of Clinton's personality. Lori would see some of Hillary's more aggressive moves as missed chances to bring Republicans into the fold, and I would see some of her attempts at consensus building as capitulation.

Same holds true on the Obama side, although I would not put it in the harsh terms you did. Many admired his unifying vision, while others saw him as an agent of change. They were not wrong - those are real aspects of the man. It is just that - as the saying goes - the difference between theory and practice in theory is different than the difference between theory and practice in practice.

by itsthemedia 2009-09-01 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

Well , you are right .. Supporters of Clinton saw different qualities in her and came to different conclusions on what type of leader she was .. It sometimes is amusing .. I always thought she was more of a pragmatist and would be more likely to govern in a bipartisan manner when it comes to actual legislation and not merely the rhetoric of it...I am not saying she would leave her principles by the way side , but I suspect she would have included some of these republican ideas that made sense from the onset ( for example  some form of Tort Reform ) and would probably have put republicans in a bind...In a sense a pragmatic consensus builder governing from the middle... Obama hasn't shown his hands yet but he has left many of these decisions to the ideologues in the congress...

by lori 2009-09-02 04:58AM | 0 recs
That wouldn't have been her call though

tht would have depended on Max Baucus and how much influence Hillary would have had over Baucus.

She would have had little to none. So then it would have been a matter of putting herself up against the chair of the Finance Committee, which her husband did and lost, or let Baucus go where he wanted to, which is what Obama did.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: That wouldn't have been her call though

The point is, Baucus wouldn't be Finance Chair if Hillary won.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:46AM | 0 recs
What?

WTF are you talking about? How wouldn't he had been Finance chair? lol.

Wow, that's about to most delusional thing I've ever seen written.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: What?

Do you really think Clinton would have allowed Baucus to remain @ Finance?

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: What?

How and why would she have removed him?

by Jess81 2009-09-02 05:48PM | 0 recs
of course she would have

and even if she didn't, what the hell made you think Hillary Clinton could get a Senate chairman removed?

wtf are you smoking and can I have some?

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 08:02PM | 0 recs
Sure, and then she could have put in Evan Bayh!

LOL, Kent is such a loon....

by WashStateBlue 2009-09-04 08:11AM | 0 recs
I thought so too

but considering the way the Republicans have been lately, and how they've always treated her, now I don't think so.

Her strategy would have relied on getting Republicans too.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

I learned a lot about what we need to do to get it done. There's a big difference between calling for it, impassioned speeches about it, presenting legislation that embodies your hopes and dreams, and another thing to put together the political coalition to actually make it happen.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:28AM | 0 recs
Political coalition to make it happen

how bipartisany.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Political coalition to make it happen

Who said she would have to be bi-partisan?  Certainly not her.  She knew better, she told you, she told you how it would happen, and how hard they would fight to keep it from happening.

And your response, eh?...PUMA.  She must be wrong.

Forecasting, or obviously history is not a theme you should keep up.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 05:15PM | 0 recs
Who was she going to form

political coalitions with, her husband?

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Who was she going to form

The people who's arms she would have known to twist BEFORE they got out of hand or running loose off the reservation.

But I guess that would have been too establishment for ya.  Now, what do you have?  A third re-set on the sales pitch?

Great job.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:46PM | 0 recs
and who would that be?

In a delusional world where Hillary Clinton would successfully arm twist anyone outside of New York State?

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Who was she going to form

Now, what do you have?

A Democrat in the White House, which we wouldn't have if Hillary, Mark, Howard and Lanny had somehow managed to blunder their way to the nomination?

by BlueinColorado 2009-09-02 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I think she would've had

Her rhetorical point that rhetoric doesn't accomplish anything is dead on.

by Jess81 2009-09-02 05:50PM | 0 recs
Excuse me?

Why is anyone even considering taking what Kent is saying seriously?  Every one of his diaries has been, with the exception of his first, "OH NOES DEMOCRATS R LOSERING!" even when things have actually been going pretty well on the Democratic agenda front.

All this antipathy for Obama is ridiculous.  He's less than 8 months into his first term, has gotten some pretty important stuff through and is set to make even bigger gains, and somehow he's a disappointment?

Bizarre and ridiculous.

by Dracomicron 2009-09-01 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me?

I agree with you, I don't see how he has been a disappointment . At least not yet...

by lori 2009-09-01 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me?

I think most people realize that Kent is full of shit - and by the way, I intend to act on this knowledge in all of his future threads - but are playing along for the hell of it.

by Jess81 2009-09-02 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

And the Pumas come out of the woodwork.

I would venture to say Hillary would be having as much trouble, if not more with healthcare as Obama. The party of No would have still  been saying no. We would be getting out of Iraq just as quickly or slowly. And we sure as hell would still be in Afghanistan.

Did I think Obama could transform Washington overnight? NO. Do I appreciate the effort? YES. Do I still want him to continue to try?YES. Do I want him to know when he can't? Yes and I think he does.

It's always easy to say so and so would have done better with no proof to back it up.

And finally what I find stunning is the number of progressives who think the US Gov. is some Mom and Pop shop that you can walk in one day and say you know we going to do things differently and have it happen instantly. It took years to screw it up i will take years to unscrew it.

by jsfox 2009-09-01 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

There is no difference between either Clinton or obama. the issue is structurally we are set up to pick corporate democrats. As the GOP is set up to pick corporate conservatives.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 01:52PM | 0 recs
A system run by campaign contributions

gets you corporate whatevers. Refusing corporate contributions, that's a truly different kind of candidate, otherwise there is wave after wave of manipulation and disappointment.

by fairleft2 2009-09-01 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A system run by campaign contributions

That's why campaign finance is the centralizing issue above healthcare, climate control and so many other issues. Why? Because governing runs off of concerns over campaign finance. This is the issue that is true for both Republicans and Democrats regardless of idealogical beliefs. The party with the most money will tend to be corporate interests.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

I think the common refrain here is that there were a significant number of (Hillary/Obama/Edwards) supporters that (A) perceived their candidate as someone that they were NOT, (B) didn't listen closely enough to what their candidate said they would do, or (C) both A and B.  

In this case, Hillary would have triangulated for eight years (hence the "no health care until second term" presumptousness), and now Obama is being led down the path of two-term triangulation via Rahm and the corporate Dem/DLC/lobbyist types in the White House.

And Edwards.  Well, if that ain't hindsight...

I'm actually surprised that amidst all of this whining about real vs. fake progressivism that no one mentioned the one candidate from last year who was the only genuine, principled choice: Dennis Kucinich.

That's why I'm glad that I'm no longer inside of the circular firing squad that the Democratic Party has become.

by PD1769 2009-09-01 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Even Dennis Kucinich would have managed to disappoint us if he somehow got elected.  Remember, this is a guy who was pro-life right up until the moment he decided to run for President.

I realize there are those who see Kucinich as a uniquely principled individual among the roster of Presidential candidates, but really those people are just susceptible to a different variety of snow job than the rest of us.  Realistically what they're doing is imagining a hypothetical perfect liberal, and then deciding that since the system won't deliver that person to them they're just going to opt out altogether.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

The bottom line is that there's very, very little you can do with electoral politics alone.  Sure elections matter, but only up to a point.  After that the hard stuff begins.

This is why I'm a labor person.

by Jess81 2009-09-02 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Once upon a time when I was in College Bowl, our bonus round question was: "Who received over 900,000 votes for President even though he was in prison at the time?"  Our entire team was like "uh, uh, uh."

I just couldn't get the name off the tip of my tongue.  All I could stammer was, "The labor guy!"

For some reason, this triggered a synapse in my friend the journalism major, who exclaimed, "Debs!"

As smooth as can be, our team captain immediately produced, "Eugene V. Debs," just as the buzzer went off.  Points to us, thank you.

How the fuck anyone gets from "the labor guy" to "Eugene V. Debs" I'll never know.

This story has no point but it was a cool memory that you reminded me of.  I'm very proud to be a labor guy.

by Steve M 2009-09-02 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Ah neat, I was on College Bowl too, except we called it Flagship.  First woman captain, first to hold the captainship for two years (it traditionally went to a senior) and first to make varsity as a sophomore.

I think my parents have the Channel 12 tapes of our matches, with me answering every question as if it were another question.

by Jess81 2009-09-03 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Even though I supported Hillary, I'm not so sure that she would have been a better president in general, but I think she might have had more success on health care reform just because this was so important to her.  I think she would have focused like a laser beam on this one issue, cashed every possible chip, used every possible manuever, etc., to get a strong health care bill through.

by markjay 2009-09-01 05:16PM | 0 recs
This is counter-productive

There is no point in rehashing primary battles, but if the Democrats which includes over and above Barack Obama does not start showing some spine and pass a health care bill with cost-control measures (be it public option or an expansion of medicare) the Democrats are toast in the midterms and you don't need an expert to tell you that.

The progressive activists have had enough of this double talk and pussy-footing, it is now time to lead on change rather than find the most politically expedient cover.

by tarheel74 2009-09-01 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Yeah, 'cos Hillary did oh so well getting her health care plan passed... oh, wait, no... she didn't!

Diary fail!

by LordMike 2009-09-01 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Weak Steve.  Weak.  I'm trying to find it, but somehow can't find...when was Clinton POTUS or HHS?

And if not...how did she fail to pass health-care reform?

Semantics get slippery don't they?

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:49AM | 0 recs
She chaired

the task force that drafted the legislation.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: She chaired

Ah, but was it her bill?  Semantics my boy...semantics as Steve was indicating it was her bill.

And if you want to run with she chaired it...let's see how you wrangle this hat...Obama IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  And he's failing so far...badly.  But he's not responsible?

Can't have it both ways my friend.  All Hat and No Cattle.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: She chaired

Steve who?  I am the only Steve around here.

by Steve M 2009-09-02 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: She chaired

My bad, trying to keep up w/ all the posts caught up w/ me again.

I should say Lord Mike.

please excuse my faux paux...or think of it as my Faux News impersonation.  :D

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 05:17PM | 0 recs
I don't think

he's failing right now, sorry. Sure, I'm probably delusional in your mind, but looking at big pieces of legislation in the past and how they got passed and the process they took, I don't think he's failing right now at all.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think

He's having to make another SALES PITCH again!  Anyone in sales knows if you don't close the deal by the third demo...you're talking to a brick wall who likes eating your cookies.

What am I talking about, it was over 2.5 months ago, when he first waffled.

Sayonara, suckers on this one...

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:52PM | 0 recs
Do you know

how many SALES PITCHES LBJ had to give for Civil Rights or Medicare? Do you know how many Sales Pitches FDR have to give for Social Security?

A lot more than three. If Obama does it in three, he deserves to be on fucking Mount Rushmore.  

It was over 2.5 months ago? Well, gee, since Medicare took six months to pass, Social Security nine months, and Civil Rights a year and a half, we're in pretty good shape.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you know

In three months?  Its been frickin nine months already and the window is now 85% closed.  

by Kent 2009-09-02 09:40PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry

I must've missed the part where HR 3200 was introduced in January.

We didn't start discussing this until early June. HR 3200 wasn't introduced until July 14th.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 09:56PM | 0 recs
Hillary and Obama are UNITED

so this diary SUCKS.

Even Bill Clinton is helping Obama.

This is divisive when we Democrats need to be UNITED against a common enemy which is the Republicans.

by puma 2009-09-01 06:59PM | 0 recs
Laughing!!!

I rarely regress to the primary days anymore - I mean what's the point and it was a year ago. But as I was reading your post, this is what popped into my head...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzoiPnrCw Sc

(probably my favorite Hillary v Obama video)

But anyway - Hillary would be running into the same problems and opposition that Obama is. Here's where I think the difference is and why I always thought (and still think) that Hillary is/would be the better LEADER on HCR......

SHE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT APPEASING REPUGS!!

After what happened to Bill in the 90's and his lost opportunity at HCR - this has been the fight of her life (like Teddy's) and Hillary would have GONE FOR IT - used reconcilliation and the Repugs be damned. That's my opinion after years of watching her and seeing her passion on this issue.

I still think "O'bambi" will go for it, but just a little more like a lamb - not the BRUT that Hillary is.

by nikkid 2009-09-01 07:09PM | 0 recs
It's not about her

it's about the leaders in Congress. She can push, scream, yell all she wants. Would she be able to push Baucus to get a bill out of the Finance Committee? Would she compromise and allow him to get whatever bill he wants out?

Hillary would not have drafted the legislation, that's a repeat of the mistake her husband made. She would have left it to Congress and went around selling it. Again, that means whoever is President, their succeess on healthcare relies on Nancy Pelosi, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, George Miller and Henry Waxman.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not about her

I think Hillary would have had her own plan out there for Congress to consider, then alter it from there.

by nikkid 2009-09-01 08:08PM | 0 recs
Tht's what her husband did

and it was DOA in Congress. She said she wouldn't repeat her husband's mistakes.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Tht's what her husband did

that was then, this is now. The difference is a larger dem majority now, more americans wanting healthcare reform and she would have brought it out into the open instead of holding the 'secret' meetings that the clintons held in the 90's.

but it doesn't matter what coulda shoulda woulda happened. ALL that matters now is that Obama step up to the plate and HIT THE BALL. His opportunity is NOW and if the dems screw this up - then nothing can save them.

by nikkid 2009-09-01 10:25PM | 0 recs
The majorities are the same

at the least in the House. The same number of Americans want healthcare reform as then, we went over it years ago and the Clinton plan didn't die because of "secret" meetings. It died because Bill told Congress what to pass and they told him go to hell, we legislate, not you.

So unless she had some secret plan to get Max Baucus to ram her legislation throug the Senate, there was no way that plan was going to work unless she does what Obama did...outline goals and let Congress write the legislation. Otherwise she'd be forced to renege on promises.

by DTOzone 2009-09-01 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not about her

We've argued this before, and it seems that Obama is now going to finally start leading the issue.  The difference is...Clinton would have laid out at least a framework within which to draft legislation.  Not just let the Congress run wild and draft what they want.

Don't think so?  Read...

If you don't start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you'll never get there.

There's only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid.

The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I've been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I'm not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 08:52AM | 0 recs
Oh yeah

that really screams a plan.

by DTOzone 2009-09-02 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yeah

If you don't start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you'll never get there.

That comment right there is 10^10 more than we have gotten from Obama now.  How's that for a plan?

But if you need to read more details, here ya go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinio n/04krugman.html

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

I think Hillary Clinton would have been able use the kind of threats and browbeating that Barack Obama doesnt seem to be able to use to get key members of Congress to go her way.

What magic beans do you think she would have used?

Also, assuming she would have one is a pretty big leap of counterfactual faith.

by BlueinColorado 2009-09-01 09:25PM | 0 recs
***yawn***

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster! I voted for Hill in the primary and Obama in the general. Never looked back. My president is Barack Obama and he is who he is...  Fogeddaboudit already!

by Nag 2009-09-02 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

It's not over yet, but I'm starting to agree with you.

Obama is a serial compromiser, and the Dems are serial cave-iners.

Obama has sold out the left repeatedly (FISA, torture investigation, weak energy bill, gays in military (fierce advocate my ass), Wall St. bailout, strip mining, small stimulus) and had no trouble browbeating liberals on war funding, but refuses to even shake a stick and Blue Dog Democrats who lie about being fiscally responsible.

If they really were fiscally responsible, they'd be for single payer: it's more efficient.

The irony is that I didn't vote for Hillary because I feared she'd be like Bill. A triangulator and DLC Dem (with Mark Penn in tow). Turns out Obama is the real Clinton clone: he brings in the DLC economic team and shuts out Krugman, Stiglitz, and Reich. He hires DLC cheerleader Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff.

Rahm's fingerprints are all over the HC disaster, but it is Obama's responsibility.

If he screws this up, I'll do everything I can to try to get Hillary, or Dean, or someone to run next time who really gives a damn instead of just talking a good game.

by Searching For Pericles 2009-09-02 06:59AM | 0 recs
Hillary had her chance

in 1993.

While I agree Obama's performance on healthcare has been underwhelming so far, he hasn't failed yet.

She has.

by corph 2009-09-02 07:11AM | 0 recs
More sour grapes

Not "transformational" like Reagan? ROFLMAO!

by Jersey Devil 2009-09-02 07:30AM | 0 recs
great diary!

highly recommended. its too bad though that its all a figment of our imaginations though of what could have been - AMIRITE?!?!

by canadian gal 2009-09-02 07:35AM | 0 recs
Cultists.

Yes.  People like this diarist are cultists, with no evidence or reality, just worshiping HRC.

Get over it.

Your characterizations of Obama supporters were offensive then, and ironic now, and I submit this diary as exhibit A of the latter point.

by Pragmatic Left 2009-09-02 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Cultists.

I don't think the diarist is sincere.

by Jess81 2009-09-02 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Hillary would not have put up the crap!

by gwojtowy 2009-09-02 08:16AM | 0 recs
Perhaps not

Patiently putting up with crap, however, is about the only thing a president can do if he/she wants to get anything lasting done.  

Strongarming congress into doing what you want is a good way to recieve powerful backlash.  How permanent was the Permanent Republican Majority, anyway?

by Dracomicron 2009-09-02 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

I don't know about the experience issue, but I think she would have put up more of a fight for the public option.  Would she have won?  We'll never know.

by Drummond 2009-09-02 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

She never planned to call it a "public option". Her plan was always to "expand" Medicare. It's all in the framing and she had 15 years of learning the traps you can't walk into framing these issues.

a) offer everyone the "Congressional Plan" sounds so much better than "Create new insurance Co-ops".

b) Expand Medicare sounds so much better than create a new public plan.

by hwc 2009-09-02 07:00PM | 0 recs
All in the framing

Obama's death panels are a bad idea.

by Strummerson 2009-09-02 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: All in the framing

Well, he didn't frame that.  That was Fox News.

by Drummond 2009-09-03 03:11PM | 0 recs
Ya know, the thing about the primaries

is that they are over.

Do people really miss them that much?

Seems like if you offered people around here a choice between

a) universal health care

b) comprehensive peace in the middle east

c) an unemployment rate of 2%

d) the chance to piss primary vinegar again

a frightening percentage of MyDD folk would choose option d), though they likely wouldn't admit it.

Maybe it's just weird that the Obama administration is making some mistakes when all sane people last November were convinced of its future infallibility.

by Strummerson 2009-09-02 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Ya know, the thing about the primaries

I guess then all of us have chose option D!

At least we'll all hang together.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 05:19PM | 0 recs
Reality check

 Everyone who is running around with their hair on fire and their pants down around their ankles is, I take it, aware of how many actual votes have been counted on actual Bills working their way through the Legislative process. You are all aware of the actual facts, right? I mean, you making up these panic attacks for fun, right? You aren't completely fucking insane, am I right? Throw me a bone, here. You're all just pulling my leg!

by QTG 2009-09-02 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

The biggest problem was that the biggest supporters of Obama just refused to look at how he voted, and instead listened to what he said, and interpreted that into some sort of belief or hope about what sort of President he would be in office.

Turns out, he's exactly the sort of President he was as a Senator while voting; and that's not terrible, but it seems a pretty middle-of-the-road rudderless sort of politician.

I'm not convinced that Clinton would have been any better in the situation either. She voted for TARP and would be doing the same continued invasion into Afghanistan. My main contention was all along that they were about the same policy-wise.

On healthcare?  

Who knows. This is going to tell us a lot about whether Obama will deliver when it counts. Lets hope.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-09-02 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Seriously?  You break your vow of silence for THIS?

Ye Gods.

by Jess81 2009-09-02 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Alright, who in seriousness says this?

"I thought he had the ability to be a transformational President, much like FDR and Ronald Reagan."

It's like if I were to pretend to be a Clinton supporter disappointed in the election I wouldn't say "I thought she'd be ready on day 1.  I thought she was in it to win it."  Not to mention "Kent"s points are all over the place: "oh noez!! the public hates reform!" "oh noez!!! no votes for the public option!" "oh noez!!! new WSJ poll says public option more unpopular than ever!"  and now "damn Obama for failing at pushing something through that by my own posts for the last five months we shouldn't even be attempting and has no support".

TROLL.

by Jess81 2009-09-02 06:09PM | 0 recs
in other news....

that image you posted upthread is both hilarious and disturbing.

by canadian gal 2009-09-02 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: in other news....

Yeah, I reserve it for extra special occasions.  If that thing fell into the wrong hands we'd all be in danger.

by Jess81 2009-09-03 08:38AM | 0 recs
It's his committment to

Hitlerian euthanasia that sank Obama's initiative out of the gate.  Not sure why that's so unpopular.  I have several relatives who would be excellent candidates.

A friend of mine who is a public health physician opposes the death panels for being too narrow.  He wants them to be more democratic and participatory.  Basically, we should be able to citizen's arrest anyone we want and bring them before the death panel.  Maybe Kent would like that better.

Also, today was my daughter's 3rd day of kindergarten.  Too bad she didn't get into Harvard 13 years from now.  This whole thread has a serious tense problem.

by Strummerson 2009-09-02 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: It's his committment to

The case for euthanasia is made at this site every day.

by Steve M 2009-09-02 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: It's his committment to

And some days I am ready to volunteer.

by Strummerson 2009-09-03 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

What should make Democrats sick to their stomachs is the Republicans demanding that Dems vote to give up their Congressional health insurance and accept Obamacare. Hillary saw that one coming years ago. That's why her health care plan was built around offering the Congressional plan to everyone. Politically, how can a congresscritter vote against that? Alas, the rookie in the White House had no clue about the politics of health care. He thought he could just vote Present or something.

And, remember, the Dems the nomination from Clinton by disenfranchising Florida. Put Florida's delegates on the table, along with every other big state in the country and you have an experienced, tough-nosed, politically-astute woman in the White House, who is probably the biggest expert on the politics of health care of anyone in the Democratic Party.

C'est la vie.

by hwc 2009-09-02 06:53PM | 0 recs
Haiku for you

Time moves on and on

Primaries were last year's game

Only dorks still play

by Strummerson 2009-09-02 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

who is probably the biggest expert on the politics of health care of anyone in the Democratic Party.

Why, then, did she abandon the cause by leaving the Senate for a cabinet post that has nothing to do with health care?

by BlueinColorado 2009-09-02 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Because her President asked her to serve, in a non-health care related post.

Maybe you should be asking, why didn't Obama ask her to serve in that role instead?

Hmmm?  Don't worry, I don't expect a real response.

by TxDem08 2009-09-02 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

It's Obama's fault she was bored with the Senate? He forced the "fighter" who's been "fighting for thirty five years" and "will never stop fighting" (she told me so repeatedly during the campaign) to walk away? She couldn't say no to Obama, but she was going to break Max Baucus and Kent Conrad?

Do you know for a fact he didn't offer her the lower profile office of HHS? When he reached out to her to join his cabinet, she asked for HHS and he refused? Hmmmm?

by BlueinColorado 2009-09-02 09:28PM | 0 recs
please cut it out.

you're arguing in a troll diary about things more pointless than the diaries contents.

by canadian gal 2009-09-02 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

This was good.  I enjoyed this.

Not really, I just felt like saying that.

by Jess81 2009-09-03 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

I enjoyed the title.  In fact I am still enjoying it.  I can't even remember what we were supposedly right about, but I don't care, it's just nice to hear that you were right.

by Steve M 2009-09-03 11:14AM | 0 recs
You're right

It is nice to hear that one is right.

by Strummerson 2009-09-03 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's supporters were right

Any Democrat would have faced hellish opposition on this issue. This is the way Republicans wanted to run in '08, outlandish misrepresentation and hecklers galore, but Obama was a teflon target and Bush's standing placed them in a weakened defensive.

Now the GOP finally senses a clean slate after four post-Katrina years of Bush anchor, and, to quote Denny Green, "They are who we thought they were."

I remember 1992 very well. Three things stood out, and attach to 2008:

* My apolitical-type Republican friends were immediately paranoid over losing gun rights

* My conservative friends from college days were incensed over Hillary and her health care plan

* There was a widespread relief among fellow Democratic friends, finally returning our side to the White House. I could tell immediately it equated to no energy toward 1994. Same thing this time. Kos and Nate Silver are correct to warn about the 2010 midterms and lack of intensity. Too many liberals, and lefty bloggers, don't grasp the situational benefit we enjoyed in '06 and '08. That's gone in 2010, although it will resurface in 2012, at least in Obama's case, incumbent with his party in power only one term.

I supported Hillary over Obama -- and would make the same choice again -- but I'm not going to pretend she'd be sledding this through. She'd be more forceful and likely would have prioritized it earlier.

Obama was always an overvalued upstart, with arrogant tendencies, and unfortunately part of that was false belief his popularity was not subject to typical steep decline in year one.

by Gary Kilbride 2009-09-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
upstart? arrogant tendencies?

Fair post, except for those last two unfortunate comments.  First off, "upstart" generally signifies that someone does not possess the right to do something.  As a natural born American citizen over 35 years of age who has been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years, Obama had every right to run for president.  You may not be convinced that his qualifications are ideal, but they certainly are not non-existent.  I don't think Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush possessed adequate qualifications, but that didn't make them upstarts.  They certainly were in their rights to pursue the presidency.

As for the "arrogance" meme, particularly when put together with "upstart," whether you realize it or not, you are participating in standard smears that have been used historically to discredit those of under-represented groups, particularly African Americans, and to block their social and economic advancement.

Let me be clear, I am not calling you a racist.  I don't know you and see no reason not to give you the benefit of the doubt.  But you ought to be savvier about avoiding discourses that have been manipulated by racists and used to mask overt racism.  You may as well have called him "uppity."  It's similar to those who call assertive women "bitchy" while praising men with a similar disposition for leadership and initiative and toughness.  But let's stay with arrogant upstart, if anyone accused a young and talented and charismatic woman of these things, I'd object as well.  Indeed, HRC was faulted by her opponents with similar smears when she sought to be an activist first lady.  Let's face it, of all the adjectives I would use to describe Hillary Clinton, whom I admire even though I ultimately supported Obama in the primaries, "humble" isn't exactly at the top of the list.  And I'm not sure I want a president whose central characteristic is humility.

A better way of arguing this is by simply asserting a preference for HRC due to superior experience and suggesting that Obama's run for the presidency was premature.  It's exactly this insensitivity with regard to discourses with a distinct racist history and a general "arrogance" displayed by many of Clinton's supporters in the primary, who suggested Obama supporters were all culty immature simpletons, that contributed significantly to the animosity of the primaries, which are over in case you missed that.

by Strummerson 2009-09-03 03:24PM | 0 recs
Between the FINAL Straw and eating crow...

I think UpstateDem will be busy for a while

BON APPETIT!

by WashStateBlue 2009-09-04 07:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads