Is Obama's inexperience showing?

[cali]

If, and it is just an if at this point, Obama drops the public option, one of the outcomes will be the repuke trumpeting a win. And they won't stop there. Obama will not win any bi-partisan support for healthcare reform no matter what he does. That's a given. Will he get blue dogs on board? Maybe, but he'll lose a lot of the Progressive Caucus in the house so he has no guarantee of passing legislation anyway. Should he drop the public option he's setting himself up for failure, and not a noble failure either where he goes down fighting for real healthcare reform.

[polichick]

1. Not sure it's inexperience as much as the influence of corporate advisors. nt

[cali]

2. I don't think it's that simple

not saying that isn't a factor, but I think there are a myriad of factors as to his lack of leadership on the issue. Some are within his control and others aren't.

[Klukie]

3. Huge mistake if he drops it....

I went to a townhall meeting with Bob Casey the other day and he is in full support of the public option...I am hoping that this is an indication that there is no "if" there regarding Obama dropping the public option. The way I see it, the public option is the only way to drive down the rising costs of private insurance premiums and they would be fools to drop it.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. And Obama and others have said the same....

that the public option is the only way to drive down the costs.

I'm also of the belief that, how Obama handles this (i.e., demanding public option or not) does indeed determine how the remainder of this term goes. This issue is the cornerstone of many things when it comes to turning this country around, not the least of which is our economy and our ethical standing. If he allows anything to move forward without a public option, it makes me sad to say this, but he will lose a lot of my respect and it will be a bellweather of the remainder of what I feel will be his one term.

Even a weak public option...creating the framework to build on as they did in '36...is an absolute must, though just a start.

No public option will tell us who wins: corporations or citizens.

[MercutioATC]

4. He won't "get the blue dogs on board"...he'll just further empower them.

I know this is going to piss a lot of people here off, but I don't see Obama exhibiting a lot of "leadership" on this health care issue. He's making speeches, but he's not leading.

We have a Democratic White House and a majority in Congress. Obama had good polls a couple of months ago. That's absolutely all we needed.

I'm not suggesting that we make a practice of using a majority to ram things down dissenters' throats. There's always a benefit to maintaining a dialog. However, this is a HUGE issue that we could be on our way to really solving had Obama just taken a stand.

[cali]

6. I completely agree with you- he's not showing leadership

at least not effective, clear leadership.

[marshall]

7. This is essentially an entry level position for him

At least insofar as executive positions go. It is logical that he will be learning as he moves along, making a few mistakes and finding the right path.

[tinrobot]

8. Exactly. I hate to say it, but he's being a pansy.

Take a strong position, get out in front of Congress and LEAD, dammit!

[MissDeeds]

14. +1 n/t

[okieinpain]

19. how do you get them on board when their voters are not necessarily

democratic party voters. when you get right down to it most people put their own survival first.

[MercutioATC]

21. That's what "leadership" is...the action of moving a body of people in a direction.

...ESPECIALLY when there's no overwhelming consensus.


Publicly stating that he won't sign any bill that doesn't contain a public option would be a hell of a start.

[okieinpain]

46. but wouldn't that be exactly what the repugs want. isn't that a win for them.

[polichick]

31. Maybe he actually agrees with the blue dogs - if not, why choose Rahm? nt

[MercutioATC]

32. Maybe he does...but Rahm doesn't prove that.

I thought Rahm was a great choice...not to keep the Repubs in their place, but to guard-dog against Dems.

The thought was that Obama the President was going to substantially resemble Obama the candidate. He had changes to make that would ruffle political and corporate feathers, so he hired Rahm as his political bodyguard/enforcer/doorman (which is what a good chief-of-staff is). As a Dem, he could have had almost anybody deal with the Repubs, but as somebody who really wanted to make changes, he'd need protection from entrenched Dems...and Rahm was PERFECT for that.

As time goes by, however, I find myself beginning to doubt Obama's desire for true reform.

[polichick]

42. I too have doubts about Obama's desire for true reform...

But I never saw Rahm as someone who cares much about the "democratic wing of the Democratic party."

[okieinpain]

9. I'm just shocked that everyone expects him to get everything he asks for

when in the history of the modern day democratic party have they ever been all in on anything. if he can just get them to stop dropping people and refusing treatment that would be big. I understand the need for the public option, but it's probably not going to happen. people have a natural dislike of government run anything, hell I hate going to the DMV, can't imagine if my health insurance was run by the government

yeah I'm expecting to called a few names, but please be honest have you ever had a drama free experience when dealing with a government worker.

[cali]

11. this isn't about expecting him to get everything he asks for. that's nonsense.

and what crap about how gov't can't run anything. what do you think Medicare and Medicaid are, genius? And those are two highly effective programs. And yes, I've had many drama free moments with gov't workers. Why on earth wouldn't I? Seriously, that's just ridiculous.

I'm on the public option in Vermont. I have Catamount Health which is run on a sliding scale and provides good healthcare access.

President Obama's outreach and leadership on healthcare reform has not been very good.

[okieinpain]

17. well I haven't and I went in with the best of intentions of not causing any

problems but oh lordy did I get the royal treatment. maybe where you're at it isn't like that but here in oklahoma oh yeah, it was a freak show. I'm not on medicare or medicaid but my mom is and she's had her moments with the officials.

"President Obama's outreach and leadership on healthcare reform has not been very good."

as I said I'm surprised by how much people expect for him to do, given what he has to work with. the democratic party is not the easiest to get in line, it would be nice to have the full sixty in the senate that we now have to pledge to vote for the public option, but you can see where were at now, they're are all over the place.

I would love to see you in his shoes.

[cali]

20. ugh. fourth rate "thinking". look. i'm not in his shoes.

this isn't about me. that's such a silly red herring that it doesn't merit anything but contempt.

And your mom's on medicare. but it's government run and you in your brilliance have stated that the goverment can't run and shouldn't run healthcare programs. btw, so what if your mom's had moments with governor workers? how does that suggest that Medicare isn't an effective program? And do you actually think that people don't have lots of moments with private insurance employees?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

36. what you said.

Obama risks several things if he drops the public option.
first, the GOP and the lobbyists will be inspired, knowing EVERY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION WILL BE UNDER THEIR MINORITY CONTROL.
Man, seeing how the GOP acts compared to us when we were in the minority. . . I just shake my head.
second, the blue dogs either obey, or else. There is no other option. If he drops PO, these guys will own his presidency, and he will no longer have any control over the agenda.
third, he risks upsetting, permanently, his biggest base. Us.

[MercutioATC]

18. As a "government worker", I understand your generalization...but it's nothing more than that.

It's a generalization.

I happen to be one of the "government workers" that keeps your airplane from bumping into other airplanes when you fly...and believe me, if we ever have anything less than a "drama-free" experience, you'll only know about it for a few seconds.


MY health insurance is essentially "public option". I's not "Cadillac" insurance, but it's good. Most uninsured or underinsured people would be happy to have what I have...but they only think about it when they need it. They'll complain about having to pay for it, but they'll appreciate it when they have to use it (sorta like having somebody making sure your flight gets where it's going safely instead of having your flaming body falling from the sky).


We just need a leader who can either convince them of the fact beforehand of make it happen and let them realize it over time.

[okieinpain]

25. yes I understand, but you're not government worker that I'm speaking of

hell really it's not government workers, it's people at in a position that can make your life miserable just because they can, and the worst of the lot just happen to be workers in government offices. just as an example needed to get a copy of a birth certificate, get this one lady who gives me nothing but hell, you don't have, you didn't sign this, even ask me why and how I lost my birth certificate. while filling out a so called needed form, I end up with a different person, first thing she ask me is why I'm filling out that form, I explain to her what happen she just rolls her eyes and within five minutes I have my copy.

and I'm not saying that can't and doesn't happen with private insurance, but with a private company you can at least threaten to do business some where else.

[MercutioATC]

29. And THAT's my point.

I completely agree that dealing with incompetent workers is a well-known hassle...whether they be restaurant servers or DMV employees. ...but the objection is having to deal with incompetence, not having to deal with government workers.

If somebody actually tried to make that clarification (and worked to reduce the number of incompetent government employees), public sentiment might begin to change.

[Captain Hilts]

27. He let the healthcare debate start too far to the right. The progressive option never got on the

table.

[uponit7771]

10. You do realize no Rescission and Precondition reform will bankrupt the HCI's in less than 2 years

...and that alone along with somewhere for these people to go will be reform.

If we have a national NFP CoOp or a Pub Option HCI will be reformed in less than two years

[cali]

12. Really? provide some expert evidence backing up your claim- not from some

loony right wing source.

[asdjrocky]

13. If he drops the public option,

then I'm done. I've said that before, and I mean it.

[OHdem10]

15. I thought they said during the campaign, he would be different from

Bill Clinton. This is why we were suppose to vote for him
instead of Hillary.

Will Health Insurance Reform end up doing for the country what
Nafta has done, and how about that Welfare Reform that the GOP
just love.

[traxster]

16. I don't understand why he doesn't forcibly call them out for being liars...

He has been treating the republicans as if they are being reasonable and logical and that only gives validity to their whacked out claims. I know, this was the thing I felt during the election, that he wouldn't fight back. But this is important. And like Moyer said, the time for finessing is over. Its time to fight.

If anything, he is idealism is showing, but thinking that he could have a logical and thoughtful debate on healthcare. The republicans have become infested by this irrational and dishonest tone and like any virus, the President needs to eradicate it immediately. These republican lies spread faster than the swine flu.

[Dawgs]

22. Why do you assume he's going to drop the public option?

He's been on vacation for the past two weeks, and there's a strong indication that the House won't pass it without one.

I do agree that Obama has done a very poor job of leading on this issue. Although, I don't think it's inexperience, I think it's a different style from a new President.

[noel711]

23. How did Obama behave/react during the campaign?

There were times he was blatantly assailed by his competition,
called a liar, a commie, a terrorist, an angry violent revolutionary..


Did he blink? Did he rail back at them with anger?
Did he accuse and blame?

No.

He kept his cool, kept on track,
doing what he does best.

He's playing on a bigger stage now;
he's not going to change his character.

The problem is ours: we live in a 24/7 news cycle
of reactivity and impulsive jibe and pokes.
But that's not Obama.
He ain't Sarah Palin.. the jerky puppet queen.

Give him some space, give him some time,
and stop expecting him to play the game that is
generated.. and expected.. by the manipulators.

He's gonna pull this one out,
but not according to our (or the republicans)
expectations.

Let Obama be Obama.

He's got a major gordian knot to undo,
and it takes time.

[cali]

24. Sorry, I stand by what I said. Obama's leadership has not been effective.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. Let Obama be Obama? WHY?

He campaigns great. But administratively, he seems lost at sea. Hell, he hasn't even filled a majority of the spots he has open to fill throughout government. His actions have empowered the crazies, and scared off a lot of supporters. Worst of all, the issue is now permanently framed in a way that helps Big Insurance, and hurts the entire reform movement.

So far, to be perfectly honest, I am very disappointed in his lack of leadership. Considering how much we have to do to fix what Cheney/Bush broke, we don't have time for a laid-back, hands-off, distracted leadership that does nothing to lead.

[Captain Hilts]

26. He'll always run to the middle no matter what. NOT the progressive people thought. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. No. I just think Ed Schultz is spot on when he asserts that Obama is behaving like a Senator...

rather than our presidential leader. A senator seeks bipartisanship and compromise. A leader seeks compromise but knows where to draw the line.

Hillary was a senator as well. I don't think there's any indication that she would have behaved differently, so please stop trying to surreptitiously rehash primary battles.

[Clio the Leo]

33. Did you read The Audacity of Hope?

Specifically chapter one?

Might want to give that one a whirl.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Actually I did. And Obama never claimed to be a liberal. So all the liberals

crying and moaning about why he isn't doing this and why he isn't doing that, I point the finger at you. The guy was never really about being a leader; he's all about trying to please everyone. I think it is his biggest flaw that could ultimately lead to his downfall. Like Ed said, he's behaving like a senator, not a leader, not a statesman.

[Clio the Leo]

39. Well, personally, if I wanted a "leader" who lead with their...

..... cojones, I would have voted for that Palin woman. ;)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Actually, you would have voted for Kucinich!

:smile:

[Clio the Leo]

43. Not if I wanted someone who could have actually gotten elected. ;-) NT

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. True dat! n/t

[Jakes Progress]

30. In my best moments

I credit Obama and the wavering Democrats with just being products of Washington. For a few decades, Democrats have been going hat in hand to the republicans asking for a morsel or two, willing to give up 90% to get 10%. They are victims of not being able to see that things have changed. They listen to the media more than we do. They believe the beltway insiders, the Washington press corps, and the lobbyists. They basically don't have a very good idea of what is going on in the country.

Hillary caught all the flack for being the "third way" candidate, but she is certainly no more so than the very corporate and investor friendly administration we have now. I even give Bill a little leeway because of the time when he ran, coming off raygun's idiotic adulation. But Bill neglected to change when his popularity surpassed the wooden actor. He and his men kept to the right half of the dividing line when it came to legislation.

Now, after 8 horrible, liberal-vindicating years of liars, crooks, and buffoons running the country, we are poised to do better. But Obama has staffed his offices with those steeped in the now dead conventional wisdom that the country hates Democrats and loves republican. So they still go to those soulless bastards asking pretty please, afraid the public will trounce them for being tough with republicans. Obama needs people near him who have a better idea of the country than he does now. He needs someone like Howard Dean, who could prove to him that you don't need Wall Street money to get elected. I think Moyers was scary honest when he said that Rahm thought that Obama would need Pharma and Wall Street money to get elected and was determined not to ruffle those feathers.

Now that's how I feel in my best moments. I don't like when I start feeling that the whole thing is a rigged game played in a corporate owned stadium, that it really doesn't make any difference whether I vote for one party or the other or even at all because the contract is already signed and the players all know their parts and only we, the audience, are left to be surprised when the corporations win again....and again.....and again.

[zulchzulu]

34. Alas, I remember the days when the naysayers said Obama "couldn't finish the deal" in 2008

It's good to be concerned and great to be vigilant.

But it is also foolish to underestimate Barack Obama. My two cents...

[Robb]

35. Some DUers certainly are showing theirs. nt

[Phx_Dem]

41. He's done more in 8 months than any othe president. How does

that make him inexperienced, exactly?

[Better BeLIEve Bull]

44. NO