ATTN: Hillary Supporters - Please call Obama on Health

The Premise:

1)    One of the most passionate arguments made for Hillary over Obama was the idea that she would be better on health care reform.

2)    Millions of Hillary supporters - almost all of them - ultimately voted for Obama.

3)    Obama (in my opinion) needs a hard push towards being much more aggressive with arrogantly corrupt, corporate-owned democratic senators like Baucus, Landrieu, Feinstein, Lieberman, Conrad et al.

4)    People who voted for Obama after passionately supporting Hillary are in an ideal position to give him that hard push.

5)    Whitehouse:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
202-456-6213
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC 20500

Interesting things to Discuss:

1)    What if we were in the 7th month of a Hillary Clinton presidency?

2)    How would she be handling health care reform differently?

3)    How would the election have differed (e.g. would McCain not have chosen Palin? Which states would have gone differently, etc.)

Tags: Health care, Hillary (all tags)

Comments

80 Comments

it's hard to answer

and would depend on what she could get passed, but she'd make it clear what she wants and she'd ask for that.  

We should all weigh in on heath care, and not just to Barack, to our congress who ultimately need to pass the bill.  They need to hear it loud and clear, elsewise they'll listen to the industry.  They pay, but we vote.  

by anna shane 2009-07-03 03:25PM | 0 recs
Other interesting things to discuss

4)  Why do so many people insist on spelling The White House "Whitehouse"?  It can't just be because there is a senator by that name.

by Khun David 2009-07-03 11:35PM | 0 recs
while I bet this is only gonna bring back

hard feelings, if Hillary had been the nominee, as the exit polls show she woulda won by a bigger margin, with the exit poll showing 52-41-5(no vote) in C vs. M, this means she woulda won 55% of the vote to McCain's 43%, which means in the electoral, I bet it woulda been similar to Obama plus West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, give or take a few other states, and her pop vote woulda been held up by the Appalachian votes O lost. On health care, I thought her mandate idea that everyone have health care was a great idea, simple, probably much cheaper for sure. Foreign policy is where she really endeared herself to me over Obama, along with her knowledge of the political process, where Obama is starting to get tripped up, as his first economic plan really only passed because of the honeymoon and hate for Bush, as his plans are starting to hit resistance.

by Lakrosse 2009-07-04 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: while I bet this is only gonna bring back

I gave you mojo since you'll soon be attacked. Anyway - Alas - we will never know. My guess is her Presidency would be very similar to Obama except, perhaps in her management style. Not sure Healthcare would be any closer than where it is right now even knowing how passionate she is/was about this, still takes consensus to get this through. At any rate, maybe we'll still have a Hillary Presidency in 8 years.....

by nikkid 2009-07-04 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: while I bet this is only gonna bring back

Why so modest?  I'm certain she would have won all the states you mentioned, plus Tennessee, Arizona, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Columbia, Oz, The Last Train to Clarksville, and Smallsville.  Anyhoo, why are 100% of your posts just batshit crazy?

by Eweiss 2009-07-05 04:27PM | 0 recs
Don't forget

"blacks are naive."  If you're going to reprise your greatest hits, don't leave out that gem.

by JJE 2009-07-05 07:24PM | 0 recs
Voting patterns might have been different

black turnout would not have been so high, and youth turnout might not had been so high, so she may not have been able to win Indiana and North Carolina which Obama only won because of black/young voters. She definitely would not have won Nebraska-1 electoral vote and probably not Colorado or Virginia...she would have had more trouble in the Pacific Northwest, where I suspect Obama will have trouble in his reelection campaign no matter how popular he is. (Merkley may not have won his race).

However, yeah, she would've won West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas and possibly Kentucky...we would have been able to beat McConnell but Lunsford would have been a Landrieu-type Blue Dog anyway, so I'd trade Lunsford or Merkley any day.

The structure of the House may have looked different too...but Obama's coattails were limited in House races to perhaps only CT-04, VA-02, NC-08, FL-08, OH-01.

by DTOzone 2009-07-06 06:43AM | 0 recs
Also

What if Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra had defeated Octavian and Agrippa at Actium.

Thoughts?

by Strummerson 2009-07-04 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Also

Interesting question. Well the war probably would have dragged on as that victory would have solidified Anthony's support among his legions. As the war dragged on the Parthians probably would have started nipping at both sides territory (if only as a way to get the rambunctious degans something to do. With that stalemate and Political pressure in Rome would have probably led to the eventual split of the Empire. With Rome oriented to the north and east and Alexandria oriented to the south and north African coast.

by Judeling 2009-07-04 08:14PM | 0 recs
Or if Pete Best had stayed with the Beatles?
Wither Ringo?  
The mind boggles....
by WashStateBlue 2009-07-06 12:13PM | 0 recs
Surely you jest...

He wanted Harry & Louise....he got them.

by TxDem08 2009-07-04 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: ATTN: Hillary Supporters - Please call Obama o

Does anyone remember the Harry and Louise ad Obama ran against Hillary and this very same healthcare plan in Ohio? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02 01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again

Hard to believe that this is the same guy who is now trying to pass Hillary's plan-
I'm afraid Obama's best days are behind him- "Just words" can take you only so far- Pity.

by Menemshasunset 2009-07-04 07:24PM | 0 recs
Yea Obama is surely done....
So I bet you are working on the Hillary 2012 campaign .
 Or are you working on Palin 2012 already ?
by WashStateBlue 2009-07-06 11:59AM | 0 recs
Well, if nothing else,

This comment section settles just who it is that's still fighting the primary battles.

by nathanp 2009-07-05 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, if nothing else,

I'm afraid I'm guilty too, even though my candidate won.  I can't resist playing "tease the halfwit".

by Eweiss 2009-07-05 04:29PM | 0 recs
Who's fighting? It's just a car wreck in slowmo

Primaries are over my friend.  No one is fighting them one whit.  But as Malcolm said, the chickens have come home to roost, and some are very interested on-lookers at the car wreck, that I will grant you.

The time has long come and gone to talk the talk.  It's now high time to walk the walk.

But here's some advice that I've found particularly insightful.

"Find out what it is in life you don't do well, and then don't do that thing"

by TxDem08 2009-07-05 04:08PM | 0 recs
Yeah, no one.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2009/7/3/15 3346/5361/7?mode=alone;showrate=0

Note the date on the Krugman column,  and the vintage on the attack line in the last sentence.

Or did you mean nobody worth listening to?

by Eweiss 2009-07-05 04:24PM | 0 recs
it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad...

Krugman foretold several items that Obama really should have paid more attention to.  If he had maybe he wouldn't be in the position he's in now.

But the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.  Meanwhile Healthcare and a real public option get's pounded into the ground, all through the town.

by TxDem08 2009-07-05 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad...

LOL.  The Krugman piece is about penalizing people for non-compliance.  Your doggerel is about the public option getting attacked by conservadems, and the economy (clearly Obama's fault, since there were absolutely no economic trendlines whatsoever that existed on January 20th), neither of which are addressed in the Krugman piece at all.  Yep, if Obama hadn't joined Mitt Romney in praising a public-option-free system of manditory private insurance, none of this would be happening.  Those mailers featuring a man and a woman ruined everything!

Like I said, nobody worth listening to.  Anyway, I'll leave you to (not) refight the primaries.

by Eweiss 2009-07-06 01:07AM | 0 recs
Re: it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad...

It was worth it for "Krugman foretold".

by meggers 2009-07-06 01:27AM | 0 recs
Re: it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad...

Excuse me, I guess I'm dealing w/ someone who needs to be led by the nose and can't take in the big picture....oh, yes I forgot who I was talking to.

I said Krugman foretold about many items...in general...but I guess I should have known how specifics and details are not big on the play-list.

Who's talking about economy and trend lines?  And if you think the state of the economy was a trend line on 1/20, wow, that's a whole other argument.

Your expostulation in regards to the public option, which it is quickly becoming the albatross he lampooned and not a public option at all, and compliance shows the rabbit hole we are heading down.

The comment was that Obama wanted Harry and Louise, he used them to fight an option that 76% of Americans want, and is instead fighting to see how much of it he can give away in order to piece-meal a bill, for prosperity.  He wanted them, he got 'em.  And those words, just words that he's using to piece-meal the deal, are the one's he demagogued  last year.  Sometimes, a piece-meal deal is not a deal if you've still left the "option" to those who control the choice.

But as in all car accidents, there is always someone who is complaining about those who are watching it happen, as they give a commentary, while doing the same themselves.  So, while not refighting the primaries, I'll leave you with some great ideas, and specifics this time since it's clear generalities don't go far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinio n/04krugman.html?_r=1

I guess Obama didn't think it was worth listening to either, and well we see how that's worked for him so far.

Enjoy.

by TxDem08 2009-07-06 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad...

"But as in all car accidents, there is always someone who is complaining about those who are watching it happen, as they give a commentary, while doing the same themselves."

Huh?

by Jess81 2009-07-06 07:34AM | 0 recs
In the first post, TXDem says

"No one is refighting the primary", then in his second post, TxDem refights the primary...in a way that screams "mentally disturbed"

by DTOzone 2009-07-06 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: In the first post, TXDem says

I dunno, I thought it was catchy.

by Jess81 2009-07-06 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: In the first post, TXDem says

I thought it was a little catchy...spending all day w/ a 3 year old kinda made it stick in my head.

Oh well, I guess some people are itsy bitsy spider types.

:)

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: In the first post, TXDem says

LOL.  No one is re-fighting the primaries.  As I said, it's just fun watching the aftermath of the car wreck chickens w/ their heads cut off squabbling about.

"Mentally disturbed".  Yes, that's a great summation, for the taxing of employer benefits, excluding a public option, the mish-mash of tic and tac course corrections from the administration on this issue.  And that's just on this issue.

Mentally disturbed fits quite nicely, when referring to the chickens....

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 07:19AM | 0 recs
WTF does any of this mean?

Chickens? huh?

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF does any of this mean?

Yeah I take it back, it does sound kind of crazy.

by Jess81 2009-07-08 09:52AM | 0 recs
I recommend art therapy.

Interesting things to Discuss:

1)    What if we were in the 7th month of a Hillary Clinton presidency?

2)    How would she be handling health care reform differently?

3)    How would the election have differed (e.g. would McCain not have chosen Palin? Which states would have gone differently, etc.)

Because someone at PUMAPac asked and answered these very questions in pictoral form, and I think it sums up the replies of MyDD's members of The Exalted Cult of Our Lady of State pretty well.

Here, the three doves represent the axis of evil, post-"obliteration".  The Seven Dwarfs clearly double for the seven Virtues, but have the double meaning of also representing an adoring and compliant Senate.  Notice how there seems to be TWO Bashfuls?  Exactly.

by meggers 2009-07-06 01:19AM | 0 recs
The obstacles to the public option are:

A) Republicans
B) Blue Dog Democrats

It is utter fantasy to suppose that one of these groups would be somehow more supportive of the public option had Clinton won the nomination.

by nathanp 2009-07-06 09:48AM | 0 recs
Bingo!
Unless the Clintons had pictures of Nelson, bachus,
Bayh etc having sex with farm animals , she would be fighting
the same corporate bought senators.
by WashStateBlue 2009-07-06 12:07PM | 0 recs
And even if they did

are we naive enough to think they wouldn't share that information with President Obama? I mean Hillary is his Secretary of State.

by DTOzone 2009-07-06 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

That's not the point.  The issue is whether Clinton would have strongarmed the dissidents into doing the right thing.  The "legend" is that the Clinton's play hardball to get their way.  Well, this is one issue on which we need the president to play hardball, not "why can't we all just get along."  You have to force them to get in line.  That's what an effective politician does.  If we don't get effective public health care, the Democratic party will have surely given up its mantle as the party of the people.  

by orestes 2009-07-06 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

Right, because attempting to force Congress into line worked so well the last time we tried public health care.

by nathanp 2009-07-06 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

Forcing Congress had nothing to do with the last time it failed.  A public and willful demand that Congress do it, which is exactly why it's failing this time is why it failed.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 07:24AM | 0 recs
Um...no, that's not what happened last time

What cloud were you stuck in? The plan was spearheaded by a task force led by the first lady. President Clinton outlined his plan in front of Congress in September, 1993...but Democratic Senators were upset that their own plans weren't being considered and decided not to unite behind the President's plan. The reason it failed was because Clinton tried to push his plan through without opening up discussions to other Senators and their plans.

It seemed like a great plan and great idea at the time, but as we learned from that, Senators like to have their moments in the sun and like to have control of the process...which is why Obama is letting them hash it out at the moment, because Clinton didn't and that's why it failed.

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Um...no, that's not what happened last time

Obviously not your cloud, which you still stuck in obviously.

The President outlined the plan.  The problem was the task force was formed and most of the ground-work was already done, BEFORE Senators could get in and chip away at the foundation of the plan.

Sure, Senators want to have their moment in the sun, and get a little air-time as well.  But it's not just the years that have changed, political will, and economy have as well.  Yet, the current administration is screwing around and letting it happen all over again, simply due to having too many chiefs in one wigwam.

Like control of the process...Obama sure is letting them hash it out, right out of the basic premise of the plan, and it will be exactly why it's gonna be a failure of any real change at all.

Enjoy....

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/ 07/emanuel-suggests-white-house-may-supp ort-public-option-alternatives.php?ref=f pa

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel suggested Monday that President Obama wants competition injected into the private insurance market--even if that's accomplished without a public option.

And the kicker:

Republicans and conservative Democrats have proposed a small handful of alternatives to the public option--all of which have been rejected by reformers. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Obama isn't standing so firm. "Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own."

That hissing sound...is the sound going out of the bubble.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 07:47AM | 0 recs
What are you talking about?

none of this makes any sense.


The problem was the task force was formed and most of the ground-work was already done, BEFORE Senators could get in and chip away at the foundation of the plan.

The problem you admitted was the task force didn't allow differences of opinion

Yet, the current administration is screwing around and letting it happen all over again, simply due to having too many chiefs in one wigwam.

And now you're saying the problem is they are allowing differences of opinion.

You somehow think the Clinton strategy would work NOW...but then suggested that Clinton used Obama's strategy.

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What are you talking about?

No, sorry that's what you're admitting.  The task force was formed, and did allow for opinions and suggestions, within the framework of what the bill would be.

The current administration is allowing Congress to drive the legislation and frame the bill saying what will and won't be accepted.

That's the difference, and why it's stalled and why it's going to fail to bring any real change.

You can try to obfuscate but the fact is Clinton's strategy would have worked now, and Obama is clearly not using it.

You can spin it, you can rinse it, but that mis-direction won't dry.

Nice try.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 08:05AM | 0 recs
Somehow in your world

what Clinton did in 1993 would have worked now for some unknown reason...yeah ok. Here's a scoop; On Sale, Brooklyn Bridge, Great Price.

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Somehow in your world

Would have been a hell of a lot more effective and goal oriented rather than the cluster f*ck we have now.

But I guess that happens when you actually have to come up w/ details.

No thanks on your recently purchased bridge, but I'm wondering if you're gonna include the Chicago property you were suckered into as well?

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Somehow in your world

These are very different political times.  You can't compare the political landscape of 1993 with today.  Over 70% of the Ameican people want a public option and they are less susceptible to the scare tactics used in 1993.  

by orestes 2009-07-08 04:48PM | 0 recs
Different how?

In April 1993, 55% of Americans thought the healthcare system needed to be completely rebuilt, today, only 41%. In April 1993, 83% said healthcare should change the healthcare system so that all Americans are covered for all necessary care, today that's 75%

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1 534

If anything, there is LESS of a mood to change healthcare than there was in 1993, so it's MORE likely Clinton's way of doing it would fail.

Even Hillary Clinton knew that...when she campaigned, she admitted that she would pursue healthcare differently than she did in 1993...which is part of the reason why I supported her.

by DTOzone 2009-07-09 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Different how?

41% huh?  Wow, I guess there is no real mandate for the administration to do any now is there.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/090617_NBC-WSJ_poll_Full.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17 /obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html

76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."

But that said, it's not all roses for Obama...

That said, the president still has his work cut out for him. In the same NBC/WSJ poll, only 33 percent of respondents said they thought the president's health care plan, to the extent they knew of it, was a "good idea;" 32 percent said it was a bad idea.

However, there is some good news, sort of...let's see if this rings a bell:

But when read a description of the general outline -- requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, an employer mandate, tax credits for lower income families to buy coverage, and tax increases on wealthier Americans to pay for it - the number of respondents in support rose to 55 percent.

So, 55% think it's a good idea...like 1993.

A health-care plan that covers pre-existing conditions, ala 1993.

Tax credits for lower income families...hmmm...yep, 1993.

So, despite your attempts to refute the mood of America for change, you're showing how much there is, and how much success it would be having right now.  And yes, Hillary did say she would do it differently, only those that continue to make their mistakes of their past have (R)'s behind their names.  But you can bet she would, as she stated many times, what would be the minimum "line in the sand" and what would be "negotiable"-my words.

Oh, and for the Moynihan comment, I love it that you sublimely forgot to include the beginning of his quote, shall we...

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" ... "there is an insurance crisis"

Nice.

by TxDem08 2009-07-09 07:51PM | 0 recs
You contradicted yourself

Forcing Congress had nothing to do with the last time it failed.  A public and willful demand that Congress do it, which is exactly why it's failing this time is why it failed.

and

The problem was the task force was formed and most of the ground-work was already done, BEFORE Senators could get in and chip away at the foundation of the plan.

First, you say the problem in 1993 was, just like today, we allowed Congress to take the lead and the same mistakes are being made today, then you admitted the problem was we didn't allow the Senate to get involved, but somehow that would work fine today.

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You contradicted yourself

Again, sorry, your own confusion is leading to you jump to conclusions w/out reading or comprehending your own logic.

Forcing Congress to pass healthcare is not why it failed.  Congress will do what the electorate mandates and demands it do.  Both of us know that.

You can't have it both ways, and try to say 1993 is like today.  Congress was consulted and opinions polled AFTER the ground work was done and the frame work within which options would be accepted.  Obama is allowing Congress to drive the issue and w/out a framework on any boundaries at all.  And thus, is allowing the basic foundation to be chipped away.  

You are confusing yourself and trying to make it an Alice in Wonderland scenario.  But I'm not gonna follow you down that rabbit hole.

But good luck w/ someone else.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 08:10AM | 0 recs
lol what a nut

you're not making any sense at all

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: lol what a nut

Just because someone won't follow you down the rabbit hole, they don't make sense?

Sure, sure.  I get it.  See through the obfuscation...that person doesn't make sense.

Got it.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Um...no, that's not what happened last time

Bill Clinton did not have the capital Obama has today.  He faced an extremely hostile repub/conservative political base and media.  Hell, they conducted a witchhunt of every sneeze from the man to try to bring him down.  ANd the Dems prostrated themselves to the republicans like cowards.  Unfortunately, not much has changed in that regard.

by orestes 2009-07-08 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

You cannot compare the national mood in 1993 with today.  At that time, more people had decent health coverage and a greater sense of personal security.  Political realities are not constant.  This is one of the biggest mistakes made by those who are too timid to act today.  Ooh, it didn't work the last time, so it won't work now.  Well, today people are more fearful of their economic futures and have suffered 16 additional years of degenerating health care services and rapdily rising costs.  Then, national health care would have been a good and moral thing.  Now, it is a simple necessity.  No change would ever be achieved if people continue to fear the past.

by orestes 2009-07-08 04:37PM | 0 recs
by DTOzone 2009-07-09 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

I don't know about the "legend."  The "record" is that the Clintons have shown consistent readiness to adopt conservative positions to retain power.  HRC's thesis aside, they are far from Alinsky radicals.  Ever heard the terms "New Democrat" or DLC?

by Strummerson 2009-07-07 02:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

I made no comment about the political positions of the Clintons.  I was commenting on their supposed hardball tactics.  Based on history and campaign rhetoric, I do believe HRC would have strong-armed a proper health care bill through congress, whatever her personal motives may have been.

by orestes 2009-07-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Correction

Would have TRIED to strong arm a bill.

Unless you have some wormhole into the alternate K6-14-XLW-6504 time line, where Senator Clinton won the election, because Rev Wright's fiasco happened one week BEFORE Super Tuesday, that is a speculation.

There is NO evidence that "Arm Twisting" would convince politicians who are bought and paid for by the health care industries to turn on their sugar daddies, especially when it seems they will suffer no ramifications at the polls for killing the public options in their very conservative states?

You think Evan Bayh's wife serves on those 13 corporate boards cause she is a master of finance?

Sheesh!

Again, the Clintons have pictures of Nelson and Bayh doing it with Porky the Pig and Gertie the Cow, THEN the arms get twisted.

Otherwise, these Senators for life are impervious to pressure.

If you want to know WHO can assert pressure, it's the Senators themselves.

That is why LBJ was such a great politician, he basically did a bait and switch bribe job, if any Senator wanted ANY pork or bill for his home district to pass, he had better play ball.

When HE ruled the senate, stuff got done.

And in the WH, he used the same system.

But now, it's corporate dollars that determine if you get re-elected, because the bacon never stops and it certainly is NOT used to keep everyone in line as it was in LBJ's day.

Obama is hamstrung with Reid and others, who themselves are so ingrained in the corporate welfare system, that the threat of losing the pork scares them not compared to the threat of losing their corporate sponsorship and not having the millions it takes to get relected.

by WashStateBlue 2009-07-09 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Correction

The only legitimate reason why lobbyists have an effect on senators is because senators are fearful of a lobbyist-supported opponent in the next election.  Well, the administration can threaten the same thing- putting up and endorsing an opponent in the primary.  That's hardball.  

If they are tied to the lobbyists for personal monetary gain alone, they are corrupt and should be run out of the senate anyway.  

Oh, to a more discerning reader, it would have been understood that of course I was speculating.  Thanks for pointing it out to the reading impaired.

by orestes 2009-07-09 01:01PM | 0 recs
That maybe the single craziest political strategy

I have ever read in a blog.

You're suggesting the Obama admin basically tell Evan Bayh, we are going to "primary you" if you don't stay in line?

Clearly, the impairment is the blog disease of "Let's primary them" as a political tool because that works just so darn well in the real world. I see that nutty idea run out, against Pelosi, against Reid.

Do you have any idea the size of the egos of these Congress Critters?

Only when like Arlen Spector, they are clearly facing their own POLL TESTED Doom, does the pressure of the primary scare any of these guys.

Plus, as anyone that actually knows how politics works will tell you, any Senator that the WH threatens with that rallies ALL the other Senators to his defense.

Black-mail blowback works, Obama would have a Stonewall of massive proportions from virutally the ENTIRE Democratic Senate if he tried that tactic.  

The Senators ACTUALLY believe they are a seperate body of deliberation, I know that comes as a shock to the blogs. And, particularly Democratic Senators, we really haven't had the kind of tight machine control the Republicans, who are natural born lemmings anyway, exhibit.

It always was the Republican Senator Leaders, who threatened to withold campaign funding from the RNC to these guys..

But, these days, again, WHO CARES?  

When Primera Blue Cross pays for your relection campaign, F the parties money.

Besides, the party will always pony up, and the party DOESN'T like to primary it's own.

Lamont found THAT little fact out.

by WashStateBlue 2009-07-09 01:43PM | 0 recs
Um

do you understand why Senators are afraid of lobbyist-backed opponents?

Because the lobbyists have money...the administration does not and elections are won with money.

by DTOzone 2009-07-09 04:46PM | 0 recs
Legends and Beliefs

Yes.  It's clear you "do believe" in the "legend" of "the Clintons."

I thought we were trying to engage in political analysis, not mythology.  Nonetheless, my commitment to the principle of free speech--which you irresponsibly impugned and then did not even have the decency to respond to my rebuttal--means I respect your right to mythologize.

by Strummerson 2009-07-09 11:30PM | 0 recs
Huh?

You're being paranoid.  Where did I impugn you?  And what are you talking about when you say I didn't respond to your rebuttal?  What would you like a response to?

by orestes 2009-07-11 02:07PM | 0 recs
Paranoid? Not at all.

Here's the diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/6/7/23451 0/6367

You accuse me of calling for censorship by using an irresponsibly imprecise definition of the term.

I take your arguments on point by point here:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2009/6/7/23 4510/6367/31#31

You don't respond.

But I am not sure why you throw out "paranoid" here.  Your forgetfulness may be convenient, but it certainly does not equate to my paranoia.  What is it you think I am afraid of, imaginary or otherwise?

by Strummerson 2009-07-12 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Paranoid? Not at all.

Sorry.  I thought you were talking about this diary.  I did not respond to your earlier post because over a week had passed before I had time to review and thought the point was moot.  I did not intend to be rude.  I will offer a response at some point today.  I thought you were being paranoid because I thought you were reacting to my comments in this thread which clearly would not illicit such a response.

by orestes 2009-07-12 10:04AM | 0 recs
Well if that's the legend

then they are terrible at it, so thank God she isn't President and trying to strongarm healthcare through Congress.

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Well if that's the legend

Terrible at it?  Sure, then you have to take everything Clinton(both) did and say it's bad and wrong.

The best thing she would have done was set clear and exact guidelines as to what she will accept and what is a deal breaker.

A public option, mandatory enrollment, etc., etc.  With the vagueness and wandering through the forest, all the administration is doing is allowing the Congress to do what they do best.  Set what is in their best interest while getting further and further away from what was intended and allowing a diluted and piece-meal incremental change.

Or in other words, ceteris paribus.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 07:30AM | 0 recs
Wow

The best thing she would have done was set clear and exact guidelines as to what she will accept and what is a deal breaker.

This is exactly what happened in 1993 and Democratic Senators said "well then, the deal is broken"

do you not remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the man who Hillary Clinton replaced in the Senate saying;

"anyone who thinks Clinton's healthcare plan can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."

Bill Clinton draw the line in the sand and Democratic Senators crossed it anyway...what the hell makes you think that would be any different now?

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Moynihan was the one who attached riders and amendments to the bill to kill it, because he wasn't consulted on it before hand.

That was the plain truth and he was going to kill it no matter what, like attaching tax increases on gun ammunition, and the like and submitted a proposal almost like Obama's that still left people uncovered, instead of pushing to cover everyone when at the time it could have happened easily.

He was also the impetus behind the Whitewater and Ken Starr investigations as respite against the Clintons.

Monyihan wanted welfare reform, not healthcare, and was determined to punish Clinton for not listening.

That is the Monyihan you're referring to.  Well done.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 08:01AM | 0 recs
The Moynihan who handpicked

Hillary Clinton to replace him in the Senate.

by DTOzone 2009-07-07 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The Moynihan who handpicked

Wow you really do believe every hook line and sinker thrown at you dont'cha.

I've got beach front property in Arizona...interested?

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 04:12PM | 0 recs
I see your from Texas

I'm from New York and everybody and their mother here knows Moynihan picked Hillary to be his successor.

by DTOzone 2009-07-09 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Well if that's the legend

I thought HRC was your candidate?  Your slip is showing.

by orestes 2009-07-08 04:49PM | 0 recs
She was

and her and her husband were still terrible at strongarming, what's your point?

by DTOzone 2009-07-09 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

The obstacles to the public option are the politicians that we are not holding to their campaign promises.

Promise one thing, attempt to placate with another, and then laugh as others give excuses as to why.

The obstacles to the public option are:

US.

We are asking them to deliver what they promised instead of demanding they do it.

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

Really? The Blue Dogs promised they'd institute a public health care system? The Republicans did as well?

Got some links there?

Yell at Obama all you like. He's not the one voting "no" in the US Senate.

by nathanp 2009-07-07 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

So far no one is voting "yes" or "no", but thanks for the laugh.

What he's also not doing is saying that he wants w/out equivocation a Public Option or Universal Health-care.  He's not saying much of anything, and when he or his staff do, it's to show how much they are actually waffling and caving in.

As posted above enjoy....

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/ 07/emanuel-suggests-white-house-may-supp ort-public-option-alternatives.php?ref=f pa

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel suggested Monday that President Obama wants competition injected into the private insurance market--even if that's accomplished without a public option.

Republicans and conservative Democrats have proposed a small handful of alternatives to the public option--all of which have been rejected by reformers. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Obama isn't standing so firm. "Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced ONLY if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own."
Emphasis mine.

So, with this, how does the Congress interpret?  Go to the mat?  Fight, but not hard?  We're gonna cave so get what you can and then hit the eject button?  Fold like a cheap lawn chair, 'cause I'm not backin' ya!!!!

Why fight if the coach is giving the other team the plays before you line up?  Seriously?

by TxDem08 2009-07-07 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

So I take it the links showing the support of the Blue Dogs (and Republicans) for the public option isn't forthcoming then?

Digress and divert all you want, the point stands.

by nathanp 2009-07-07 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

You can't argue with a cultist (although it is tempting).

by Jess81 2009-07-08 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

You have to force the blue dogs to go along with it.  Obama can go their states and speak with the people.  Sure, they'll be pissed for a while, but they'll easily get re-elected when they can say they heled pass national healthcare.  That's politics, not the cowardly game playing that seems to be so popular around here.

by orestes 2009-07-08 04:53PM | 0 recs
Well that depends

Obama can speak to the people all he wants in Nampa, Idaho, Dothan, Alabama, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Chalmette, Louisiana and Cottonwood Heights, Utah all he wants, it probably wouldn't help seeing as he isn't popular there

However, peeling off Blue Dogs where he does have an effect can help.

I saw that one of the holdouts is Mike Ross of Arkansas;

. The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition plans to present a letter to House Democratic leaders Thursday raising concerns about costs and other issues and asking for more time, members of the group tell The Associated Press.

Democratic Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas says that if the Democrats' liberal legislative plan came to the floor as proposed, an "overwhelming majority" of his group would oppose it. The Blue Dogs claim 52 members so that could endanger the bill.

The move comes just as House Democratic leaders are trying to finalize the proposed legislation and unveil it Friday.

But Stand With Dr. Dean lists Ross as a support of the public option;

http://www.standwithdrdean.com/where_con gress_stands?chamber=&party=&sta te=AR&hc_status=&commit=Filter

Having said all this, cost is a concern...but should be an easy one to allievate.

When the Labour Party in Britain instituted the NHS in the late 1940's, it nearly bankrupted the country, because the cost problem hadn't been thought out properly.

by DTOzone 2009-07-09 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The obstacles to the public option are:

To have been expecting any support of the "Blue Dogs" and Republicans was pure un-adulterated folly to begin with.

What I want to know is, since you obviously didn't even look or read any of the non-approved memo literature is...when is the support of a public option going to be forthcoming from the Administration.  And better yet, from the guy who promised it?  Just words?

Yell, with all the kool-aid in your mouth you want, game...set...match.

by TxDem08 2009-07-09 07:57PM | 0 recs
Confused

I thought the primaries were last year.

by PD1769 2009-07-07 07:55AM | 0 recs
On MyDD

It's always March 2008....

by WashStateBlue 2009-07-09 01:45PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads