Obama Thus Far

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Oh pooh. It's important -- the thing is that it's more important to get SOMETHING done than to try to do too much and end up getting NOTHING done. He took the Hillary Clinton lesson to heart.

But he's repeating Hillary Clinton's 1993 strategy! The Clinton's in 1993 weren't Ted Kennedy. Kennedy would have started by proposing a Medicare-for-all plan, then compromised on something like what's in the 2008 Edwards and Hillary Clinton plans. Not the Clintons. They proposed a Rube-Goldberg, keep-the-insurance-industry-happy, try-to-win-the-moderate-Republicans-over compromise as their initial bargaining position. Then they ran into fierce opposition from Republicans and the insurance industry against the very idea of public health care. And so the Clintons' plan fell flat.

Now Obama seems to be doing exactly the same thing. He may get something passed that can be spun to gullible voters as health care reform, but it will be an impenetrable, dysfunctional mess. Exactly what lesson do you think Obama has learned?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Since I carried a lot of water for Obama from early on here on A2K, thought I’d do a little note every so often on where I am relative to how he is doing …

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Snood, dear Snood, There's a hole in the bucket, dear Snood, There's a hole.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Edwards had been doing pretty much nothing but preparing for 2008 since he lost in 2004. Clinton had similarly been working hard on running for president in 2008 for quite a while. Obama got a much later start than those two,

Did you buy it when he said he wouldn't run 2008? I stopped buying it as soon as I read The Audacity of Hope, in which was obviously throwing his hat into the ring. The book was published in 2006, so probably written in 2005. That would have given him two to three years to think of specifics.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Attitude and approach above all. Hillary was pugnacious and confrontational. He's approaching this much more strategically. (Which is what he's being criticized for here... not tough enough, etc.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The health plan wasn't based on just what he was thinking about. I'm 100% sure he was thinking about it, yes. But a whole lot of things only started happening once he actually started the campaign. A health plan -- with meetings, experts, and all the rest -- takes time. It's not like he just sat down and wrote it out in his own words one night.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Hillary was pugnacious and confrontational.

... in addition to not being elected president at the time, nor into any public office. What comes across as pugnacious and confrontational when the president's wife does it may merely come across as leadership when the president does it. Which is part of why I wish Obama were more pugnacious and confrontational.

But I'll take your point about attitude and approach for the sake of discussion. So, theoretically ... if Obama had started out proposing Medicare for all, but doing it in his deep, soothing bass-baritone voice, with plenty of uplifting generalities, and maybe a few Ronald Reagan quotes thrown in to charm conservatives, would you approve? Because that would have made me happy, too. I like his style; it's his substance I always found too mushy. (We've been arguing about this since pretty early in your Obama thread.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Need I remind you that his baritone voice has zero effect on me?

But attitude and approach includes content. It means that he's not demanding (no matter how sonorously or soothingly) things that are simply unachievable. He's backing off on things to get other things. He's being a politician -- which I want from a president. He's not a dictator, he needs to get cooperation to make things happen.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Need I remind you that his baritone voice has zero effect on me?

I'm sure the spirit of it gets through somehow. Smile

Sozobe wrote:

It means that he's not demanding (no matter how sonorously or soothingly) things that are simply unachievable.

Social Security was once "simply unachievable". Medicare and Medicaid were once "simply unachievable". Affirmative Action -- not that I approve of it -- was once "simply unachievable". Roosevelt and Johnson, the presidents who made them happen, didn't get the job done by being convivial. They did it with intense arm-twisting. And at least one of them (Roosevelt) enforced it with tactics you would probably characterize as dictatorial.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I wouldn't say Obama is exactly convivial either though. Andrew Sullivan has a phrase that I don't remember exactly -- iron fist in a velvet glove, maybe? I'm results-oriented, here.

Edit: also, those things were achievable by dint of being achieved. Some things are unachievable no matter what is employed (so long as it's legal anyway).

And we had this conversation so many times during the election -- Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to Hillary, Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to McCain, Obama wasn't going to be able to win. But, ya know, he did.

4 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Andrew Sullivan has a phrase that I don't remember exactly -- iron fist in a velvet glove, maybe? I'm results-oriented, here.

So am I. It's a nice metaphor, whether it's Sullivan's coinage or yours. My problem is that I see only the velvet glove, not the iron fist. Can you name three events where Obama manifested the iron fist part? (Dammit, now I have to think of Bud Spencer!)

sozobe wrote:

Edit: also, those things were achievable by dint of being achieved. Some things are unachievable no matter what is employed (so long as it's legal anyway).

My intended point is that a Medicare For All is no more radical today than Social Security and the other things once were. I don't accept your assumption that it would have been unachievable by Roosevelt-style arm-twisting, and needed Obama-style pussyfooting around.

sozobe wrote:

And we had this conversation so many times during the election -- Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to Hillary, Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to McCain, Obama wasn't going to be able to win.

I'm sure you had this conversation many times, but I'd be very surprised if you had it with me. Although I always had more reservations about Obama than you did, "he can't possibly win against _____" wasn't one of them.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Quote:

And we had this conversation so many times during the election -- Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to Hillary, Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to McCain, Obama wasn't going to be able to win. But, ya know, he did.

Yup, and I think this is what will keep on happening - Obama isnt' showy or fussy about policy, but just keeps plugging away at it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

and [Medicare For All] needed Obama-style pussyfooting around.

Okay, that was an unfair way of putting it, because Edwards and Clinton never endorsed Medicare For All, either. What I meant is this: Given that even Medicare For All wouldn't be any more radical today than Social Security was in 1933 -- probably much less -- even that plan wouldn't have been "unachievable by any means". Hence, there was no good reason for Obama to open the bargaining with a plan that was even softer than Edwards' and Clinton's, and to backtrack further from there.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Obama isent keeping his promises made during the campaign. And as to his winning so did Bush twice. He than procided to destroy the economy while he fought one unnecessary war. When the democrats gave up the public option they made the health industry,doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies very happy and showed that there isent much difference between the political parties. When it comes to money as opposed to the public good the public sucks hind tit. Your proud of Obama? To me he has proved to be the same crooked politician I always thought him to be and is only interested in big business where the big money is. The only thing i can say in his defense is he isent Bush.

0 Replies

Roosevelt didn't do anything remotely "dictatorial" to pass Social Security. He simply used a congressional majority, in the time-honored manner. He didn't even have to twist any arms. The country was ready for it--in those few places where any kind of social assistance was available, it was on the order of a dollar or less a week.

Johnson was the one who did the arm-twisting to pass what was essentially Kennedy's agenda. Johnson's contribution was to have translated Kennedy's ideas about civil rights into "doable" legislation. Johnson twisted arms as though there were no tomorrow. He knew where the bodies were buried, he knew who had skeletons in their respective closets, and he used that knowledge to get the votes lined up which he would need for the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Social Security disability and survivors benefits were a part of Kennedy's agenda, and he could use the mood of the country in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination to pass those.

I don't think that there's any plausible comparison to be made between the situations of FDR and LBJ to Mr. Obama's situation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't think that there's any plausible comparison to be made between the situations of FDR and LBJ to Mr. Obama's situation.

Why? Accepting your correction about Roosevelt, why wouldn't it be a plausible comparison to say that America is ready for a strong form of universal healthcare? That Obama could have done a better job of using his party's congressional majority to achieve it?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I don't think that there's any plausible comparison to be made between the situations of FDR and LBJ to Mr. Obama's situation.

Why? Accepting your correction about Roosevelt, why wouldn't it be a plausible comparison to say that America is ready for a strong form of universal healthcare? That Obama could have done a better job of using his party's congressional majority to achieve it?

The largest problem for Obama is that his own Congressional majority is in part against the reforms he wants to pass, and the Republicans have gone nuclear in opposing everything that would help the Democrats, so - we don't have the votes. Thanks to Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and other Dems who are firmly in the pockets of the Health-care industry, we've managed to mostly blow this chance at reform.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There ya go, Cyclo did the light work for me. The opposition to Social Security had no appeal to a vested interest. The same for Social Security disability and survivor's benefits, and the Civil Rights and Voters' Rights Acts. The opposition to all those measures was ideological, with no industry vested interests threatened. As Cyclo points out, Mr. Obama faces a determined resistance of vested interests, in addition to ideological opposition.

Thanks Cyclo.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I wouldn't say Obama is exactly convivial either though. Andrew Sullivan has a phrase that I don't remember exactly -- iron fist in a velvet glove, maybe? I'm results-oriented, here.

Edit: also, those things were achievable by dint of being achieved. Some things are unachievable no matter what is employed (so long as it's legal anyway).

And we had this conversation so many times during the election -- Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to Hillary, Obama wasn't going to be able to stand up to McCain, Obama wasn't going to be able to win. But, ya know, he did.

A shame he can't show that same ability to stand up to the MINORITY in the house and his own democratic congress now that he's President. And don't think he stood up to Hillary orMcCain... after bush+Palin+the way Hillary was Pilloried (cute, eh) he didn't need to stand up just stand patiently. With REAL, ROBUST challenges he doesn't seem to be so tough.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There ya go, Cyclo did the light work for me. The opposition to Social Security had no appeal to a vested interest. The same for Social Security disability and survivor's benefits, and the Civil Rights and Voters' Rights Acts. The opposition to all those measures was ideological, with no industry vested interests threatened. As Cyclo points out, Mr. Obama faces a determined resistance of vested interests, in addition to ideological opposition.

Thanks Cyclo.

quite so.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The opposition to Social Security had no appeal to a vested interest.

I find that hard to believe. Before Social Security, people secured their old-age income with annuities. The banks that offered those annuities would have had a major vested interest in preventing Social Security from passing. Admittedly I can't refute you, because I don't know America's history of the thirties down to specific motions and lobbying efforts. But since Social Security had private competitors with political muscle, I am deeply skeptical of your claim that it faced no opposition from vested interests.

1 Reply

Obama Thus Far

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know