If Obama doesn't coming out and deny the Huffingtonpost story, what does that mean?

[still_one]

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

[cliffordu]

1. Nothing. It means more nothing.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. According to that very article, the WH spokesperson denied it.

[still_one]

7. Yes, it is in the middle of the story, after the damage has been done

""The report is false," Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide whose portfolio includes health care, said of a story in Talking Points Memo. "The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills. We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform."

However, someone isn't being quite honest, and that in itself means that Obama should come out and clarify it

Pelosi was out in a few hours after the politico story saying it wasn't true

[yellowcanine]

58. So - the WH has to deny it again because of how the reporter wrote the story????

What is the point of that?

More denials could be seen as "protesting too much" don't you think?
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't comes to mind. The WH said it wasn't true. Why is that not good enough?

[still_one]

88. Quite simply because the blogs and MSM are not putting emphasis on the denial /nt

[yellowcanine]

91. That is a problem for the blogs and MSM then, not the WH. Blogs and MSM are not supposed to be

MAKING news - they are supposed to REPORT news. The WH made the denial. That is sufficient.

[lonestarnot]

3. What story?

[still_one]

9. There is a link in the thread regarding contradictions on where Obama stands on the public

option with or without and opt out clause in the healthcare legislation

[rucky]

4. Maybe we should all ask the White House?

[sandnsea]

5. Why do you keep posting this?

What's your real agenda?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6851223

[still_one]

11. Because I wanted it to be the main thread. My agenda is that I want a public option

You don't like, post your own thread

I would like to know who is trying to either undercut Obama, or what exactly is happening

[Ikonoklast]

6. Unnamed Democratic 'sources'.

Nothing to deny, just more bullshit opinions as to what is actually happening, which the 'source' is only guessing at.

[Overseas]

8. It means they missed one of the 12 latest back & forth "insider" stories

A couple of days ago they did deny one of the latest of those stories, but there have been so many.

It is hard to tell how many of those "some administration officials say" kind of stories are real and how many have been concocted to stir up more controversy.

Sometimes I think the administration has held back a bit in order to get more of our darned Democratic legislators to step forward more strongly themselves in defense of a public option open to all who choose it.

[still_one]

14. thanks. good insight /nt

[tritsofme]

10. Does the President of the United States have to respond to every rumor emanating from a blog?

It would probably mean he is busy doing something important.

[still_one]

12. Gee, that is what Kerry did during the swift boating, until weeks later the story stuck

The fact is that someone is trying to either undercut Obama, or worse, and I would like to know who that is

[Liberal Veteran]

13. It means that you will have grandchildren who hate sweaters.

[SidDithers]

18. +1...

an excellent answer to a silly OP. :applause:

Sid

[tridim]

15. Huffpost and Politico are committing journalistic suicide lately

Apparently they both aspire to be more like Faux Newz.

[still_one]

16. I hope you are right /nt

[tridim]

17. I am right, just like I was right last Sunday..

There is a record here on DU, the same FUD starts flying every Sunday like clockwork by all the usual suspects.

It always generates a chicken-little freakout on DU for a few hours and then eventually peters out, usually before the day is done. Wait a week and it starts all over again.

These fake news outlets need to get a clue, their bullshit simply doesn't work any more.

[HipChick]

24. I also noticed the pattern...and Sheeple fall for it everytime..

[Spazito]

33. Yep, I noticed the pattern as well...

It starts Friday evening and raises to a phony crescendo by Sunday afternoon. It is quite obvious and it is very consistent. One can almost set their watch by them, lol.

[sandnsea]

41. Silly Sunday

Although it is spreading to the rest of the week more often than it used to.

[blondeatlast]

67. Indeed. nt

[Captain Hilts]

19. They're trying to have it both ways. nt

[tinrobot]

20. Huffington also called for Joe Biden's resignation,.

Arianna Huffington is an attention whore on par with Matt Drudge these days.

[sallyseven]

87. Yes she is.

I always thought she was an idiot

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Babylon Sister has reposted it. Her thread will probably get some recs

because she has fans on the board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6853040

I am behind you, still_one. I am sadder than I can say, right now. :(

[sandnsea]

23. That's kpete, and in any event

The recommends would come from Obama haters, not "fans".

Some people post news because it's news. Others seek out every negative thing they can find and only they really know why they do it.

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Obama "haters"?

One can be concerned about what Obama is doing without hating him.

[sandnsea]

26. And some actually hate him.

Even here. Have since Edwards and Hillary lost the primaries.

Just like there are Kerry haters who are still holding grudges from when Dean lost.

Why deny it?

[Nikki Stone1]

29. But most Edwards and Hillary supporters voted for Obama

Even if they were angry. They are still Democrats. What bothers me is NOT the personalities involved, but the policies.

[sandnsea]

30. I didn't say anything about you

I was simply pointing out that there is more than one way to look at posters and their posts and unrecommends. People do discern the difference between those who just post news, good or bad; and those who post to stir the pot.

[Nikki Stone1]

32. I don't know if people can really tell the difference.

And when unrecommends go on without comment, you never know why people unrecommended.

[sandnsea]

36. kpete, babylonsister and prosense

post news. Everybody knows it.

Just like everybody knows you have an issue with unrecommend.

[Nikki Stone1]

45. It's no secret I have an issue with unrecommend. I talk about it all the time. :)

But as to the others posting news, I don't know. Kpete is consistent. The others, not so much.

And I don't believe everyone can tell news from opinion on this board.

[sandnsea]

48. You mistook kpete's post

for babylon sister's. And now you say you don't know if she regularly posts news?

Sure. Okay.

Enjoy Silly Sunday.

[Nikki Stone1]

51. And what does that have to do with the price of tea?

Seriously. Anyone can get a name wrong. But that doesn't mean that one can't tell fact from fiction. You seem to be one of those people who support Obama to the point of having to name call others. I'm sorry that Obama's not perfect. I voted for the guy, but I am willing to deal with facts. Many people want to believe that he does no wrong, and that is the problem. He's not doing the things he said he would.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. Flamebait.

[sandnsea]

34. But saying posters get recommends

only because they have "fans", isn't flamebait??

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. So it's ok for you to throw some of your own incendiary language

into the mix is ok?

I am sick to death of the expression "Obama haters" here. Period.

[sandnsea]

40. There are Obama haters. It's Truth. And I'm sick to death of that. Period. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. And I'm sick to death of people that call others who disagree with some of President Obama's

actions, "Obama haters". I find it flamebait and passive aggressive intimidation.

[sandnsea]

43. I find Obama haters users of overt intimidation

and flamebait. If you find the need to freak out every time politico posts some unknown source that says Obama might think something that might not be 100% Cindy Sheehan approved - then you're an Obama hater. Or just an idiot if you prefer.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. Oh bullcrap! There are enough named sources in the Senate and House

who have said Obama is not pushing for a PO and his bait and switch with supporting mandates (that made me decide him over Hillary), and the briefs, submitted by his JD in regard to DODT, DOMA and also defending the Bush policy in regard to the Telecoms are there for public record.
Continued killing in Afghanistan is public record also.
As I said, actions, I didn't say rumors, and if I'm pissed with these actions, it isn't because I hate him, it's because I have just cause to be pissed. I know that I am not alone here on DU, and you're passive aggressive bullsh*t with your use of "Obama haters" just isn't flying.

[sandnsea]

47. He is most definitely pushing for a public option

And the fact that you would say otherwise is more than enough for me to decide what camp you're in.

Nelson supports an opt-in public option, Reid supports and opt-out public option, Snowe supports a trigger, which Wyden and others have supported in the past. Just because the White House is expressing an opinion on all proposals - does not mean he is "not pushing for a PO". His choice would be to have a full PO, tomorrow, and he and the White House have repeated that almost daily.

If you can't hear it, that's a problem with you and your biases, regardless of where they came from or when.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. And you know he rigorously supports a public option? Link please.

BTW....he never drew a line in the sand. He did say he wouldn't sign a bill without pre-existing conditions, but he never did that for a public option.

[sandnsea]

50. My god, how many times does he have to say it?

He's said it in almost every health care speech for 6 months now. Are you honestly saying you have NEVER heard him say he supports a public option?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. I have heard him mention it without stressing on it. I have heard him

discounting it as a good "idea" but not drawing that line in the sand. Words are empty, it's actions that count.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6852424

To put this story in context, we learned earlier today that both Democratic Senators Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown confirmed that the President is not doing enough to support the public option. Harkin called Obama's support "lukewarm." And Brown said he hoped the president would speak out more forcefully in favor of the public option. These are not anonymous sources. They're two Democratic US Senators we like and trust. And they're telling us, publicly, that the President isn't really supporting the public option, and isn't doing nearly enough to help.

Now quite frankly, I have known Senator Harkin (and his actions) far longer than I know our President, and I trust his words.

[sandnsea]

56. So you have heard him say he supports the public option

You haven't heard him draw a line in the sand. That would be because he doesn't operate that way, which should be clear by now.

Harkin and Brown both said they wish Obama would be more vocal about advocating for the public option, which is not the same thing as saying he is working against it.

This is real simple. The government is OURS. If we want the public option, there are 3-4 people that we need to convince.

And by the way. The stupid mandates have come from the same Democrats who are also attacking him over the public option. He already gave them a pretty big concession.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

72. Frankly, I have no idea how the man operates and why are you so sure you do?

1000 dimension chess perhaps? How long have you known him for and did you like it when he voted in the Foreign Relations Committee to confirm Rice (IMHO a war criminal) or did you like his vote on FISA and protecting the telecomm companies? I voted for him over Hillary because of the mandate that he has acquiesced for. Where the hell is is backbone over that. There are enough people falling into poverty without having to worry about a mandate! Or do you admire his selection of Rahm as COS, the same Rahm that actively supported centrist or right wing Dems for Congress and cast aside Progressives? The same Rahm that has been rumored to be the brains and wind behind the "trigger".

For all his faults with the Vietnam War, when Johnson wanted something done, a bill passed, he got the job done with arm twisting. Without that, we wouldn't have had Medicare or Civil Rights Legislation. Bill Clinton got the job done with NAFTA with some arm twisting. Even Shrub used arm twisting to get many of his agendas passed. I have listened to each and every time Obama has talked about the PO, and he is, IMHO, as Harkin said, lukewarm about it. Listen to him again, objectively. The speeches are online at the WH site. If he was behind it, he would INSIST and REFUSE to sign any bill that didn't have it included. Period.

And the government is not ours, it belongs to the highest bidder. I feel as if you are much younger than I am and/or politically inexperienced.

[Nikki Stone1]

53. Bill Clinton twisted arms to get NAFTA passed

Once Congress realized Clinton meant business, they changed their votes. All Obama would have to do is what Clinton did. Twist some arms. And make it known that he is doing so.

[sandnsea]

55. No he did not

Somebody posted that last night. Just because someone pulled it out of their ass as an argument to attack Obama - it doesn't make it true. NAFTA passed 61-38. It was a very mixed vote. Nothing like the current senate or legislation AT ALL.

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Yes he did. I was there for it and remember it well.

Your memory is faulty. Or perhaps you're too young to remember.

[sandnsea]

60. Oh I remember. There was no "arm twisting"

NAFTA was one of the easiest pieces of legislation Clinton passed.

What you might remember are the number of Democrats who were against it and consequently, thought it was difficult to pass. But it wasn't. He had the votes from the gate. He just wanted more since it was such a big deal.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. Bullshit. I remember that Congress was having a hard time with it

It took a personal visit from the President to Congress and the arm twisting--letting everyone know that NAFTA was his priority--that sealed the deal.

I remember it. I don't think you do.

[sandnsea]

73. And yet he couldn't get health care through

I don't think you get it. Clinton had the NAFTA vote. People who maneuver for favors are not people who are genuinely going to vote against something.

Maybe I just look at the world a little more realistically or read between the lines better. I don't know. I saw games played with NAFTA, but the only people who truly opposed it were from labor intensive areas or states. The media favored NAFTA, it was going to pass.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. One source.

Another one of Clinton’s goals was to pass trade legislation that lowered the barriers to trade with other nations. He broke with many of his supporters, including labor unions, over free-trade legislation. Many feared that cutting tariffs (taxes on exports or imports) and relaxing rules on what could be imported would cost American jobs because people would buy cheaper products from other countries. But Clinton argued that the country would be helped, not harmed, by free trade because the country could boost its exports and grow the economy. Clinton also thought that foreign nations could be moved to economic and political reform through free trade. See also Foreign Trade.

Clinton’s first trade effort was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would gradually reduce tariffs and create a free-trading bloc of the North American countries—the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Opponents of NAFTA, led by Ross Perot, said it would drive American companies to Mexico, where they could produce goods with cheaper labor and ship them back to the United States. Clinton argued that NAFTA would expand U.S. exports and create new jobs. He persuaded many Democrats to join most Republicans in voting for the measure. In 1993 the Congress voted on the treaty and passed it.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_3/Bill_Clinton.html

[sandnsea]

64. That's actually just wrong

"Most" Republicans did not vote for it, unless as little as 51% now qualifies as "most".

http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=15960

"Persuaded" is not twisting arms to ram through a bill. Look at the vote yourself. Clinton didn't need to do any arm-twisting or ramming on NAFTA. The person that said that, made it up.

[Nikki Stone1]

66. Clinton WENT UP TO CONGRESS and made it his first priority to get NAFTA passed

If Obama really wanted the public option, he would do the same.

I am convinced you are not old enough to really remember what happened. I was there, I was an activist with the left, and watched in dismay as Clinton pushed NAFTA through.

[sandnsea]

71. Uhm, Obama "went up to Congress"

and expressed his strong desire for a health care bill - with a public option.

I am convinced you interpret events any way you want to.

Biases will do that to people.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

74. From the President's Address to the joint session of Congress

re a Public Option

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (Applause.)

BTW.... this is not the way to go up to Congress to get the job done.

[sandnsea]

75. *sigh*

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

76. We Can Take. Not That We HAVE TO TAKE! There is a big difference

and you willfully ignored the section about being open to other ideas.

[Nikki Stone1]

80. Amazing how bias works, isn't it.

I want a PROGRESSIVE DAMMIT.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

84. Me too! lol!

[sandnsea]

81. Obama Hater. That's all there is to it.

You just want to nitpick the man to death. Ignore. Bye.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

83. What a wonderful argument! If you can't answer spout the passive agressive

bullshit. Good going! Bye!

[Nikki Stone1]

86. When the facts win, the fact-less call names.

Done.

[Nikki Stone1]

79. +1

Exactly.

[Nikki Stone1]

78. Obama gave a speech to staunch the bleeding due to the town hall protests all summer

His speech was more for the public: to bring up his numbers and to bring back support for the bill which the RW and Dick Armey (Freedomworks) had eroded with their nutty and scary campaigns over the summer. He did a good job with that, no question. He saved health care reform from the trash heap, and I will give him that. Clinton did not have the same situation with NAFTA, although he did lose on healthcare.

But, now that there is a real bill--actually, a number of real bills--Obama needs to do some arm twisting. It is unlikely that HCR will fail now--but the type of bill we get is crucial. That's why he needs to go to Congress.

And if you weren't so biased, you would see that.

[sandnsea]

82. And 4 of 5 have public options in them. If you weren't so biased

you WOULD see that. And ignore to you too. Jesus fuck how do you even function with all your negativity.

[Nikki Stone1]

85. And if you weren't so biased (some game, eh) you'd see that the options VARY in strength

We will probably get the weakest public option.

Remember, in the end, this bill makes US pay for all this. We will be subsidizing large insurance companies to provide universal coverage at whatever rates they deem necessary. And if you don't believe me, take a look at hell Wellpoint is suing the state of Maine:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8735

Even a public option won't stop suits like these.

And if you think I'm being negative, then go smoke your weed and feel happy. I prefer to remain clear headed and in the real world.

[OHdem10]

22. Could it mean he has decided to be a one-term President a nd

he is going to do what he wants to do.

[bullwinkle428]

38. If I was in his shoes and didn't care about getting re-elected in 2012,

I'd be beating Congress over the head with the "Single Payer Louisville Slugger"!

[Nite Owl]

27. Well they did deny

the pharma deal story and that one turned out to be true. No knowing what to believe anymore.

[Canuckistanian]

28. It's just Rahm's little elves

Toiling away in the disinformation workshop.

[adamuu]

35. It means he was born in Kenya

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

37. That he's too busy to worry about an article on the internet?

[Nikki Stone1]

70. That he's too busy to worry about his base-the ones who read that website.

That's the problem

[Starbucks Anarchist]

89. The same website that said Joe Biden should resign?

I'm sure Obama will get right to their article. :eyes:

[Posteritatis]

44. Well done, Mr. Beck! (nt)

[Nikki Stone1]

54. Silly comment.

Beck doesn't want a public option. He doesn't want the health care bill at all!

[Posteritatis]

69. I'm reacting to the "not denying something means it's true" implication

It's exactly the same thing as the trick that Beck's been making such great use of until that website slamming him on it started to get handed around.

[mariawr]

57. It means not one damn thing. GAL. Geez. nt

[JNelson6563]

62. It means he doesn't think HuffPo doesn't merit a response.

You are working from the premise he a.) knows about it and b.) cares about it.

I'd wager what HuffPo says carries more weight with you than the WH or the general public.

Julie

[Peacetrain]

63. If he does not come out and acknowledge the Masons built DC.. what does that mean?

:crazy:

[whistler162]

68. about the same as his lack of response to my accusation...

that he is a illegal alien from Pluto!

[Rudy Adams]

77. I had this, katandmoon had this, more than 12 hours ago

The key thing now is: How accurate is the report? I've noticed that the MSM appears to be ignoring it.

[adamuu]

90. White House: "Absolutely-False" That Reid And Obama Aren't On Same Page

Happy now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/white-house-absolutely-fa_n_333271.html