Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiProgressives to Obama: Time to Step Up
It's time for your close-up, Mr. President.
![[US President Barack Obama is pictured here playing basketball with personal aide Reggie Love, at St Bartholomew's Church in New York City, in September. Obama has lashed back at critics who fear he lacks the steel to be a successful president, saying "I'm skinny ... but I'm tough." Yes, Mr. President, tough. But will you fight?
ask progressives. (AFP/Pete Souza)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obama_jumps.jpg "obama_jumps.jpg")
Now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.) has announced he'll try to push through a health care reform
bill with a public option, liberals are turning their focus - and their
frustrations - on Barack Obama, the man who brought them to the
outskirts of the progressive promise land.
Even before Reid announced Monday that he would back a public option plan that would allow individual states to opt out of the controversial plan, progressives had begun to shift from pressuring legislative leaders to stiffening Obama's spine on the issue.
Democratic senators and House members didn't need to shift their attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.: They have been grumbling for weeks that Obama needs to step up.
"I hope the president speaks out strongly for the public option - this health care bill really becomes his at this point," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of about 30 Democrats who have pressured Reid to back the controversial option.
"[Reid] took the temperature of his caucus and found that he had to go with the public option," added Brown. "And now it's the president's turn. ... He needs to speak out strongly on a number of issues ... affordability ... the subsidy question - really on the whole package."
Darcy Burner, executive director of the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, which favors a robust public plan, said the fact that the White House was "hands off" has forced Reid and other leaders to take political risks they otherwise might not have incurred.
"They have not played a strong leadership role in this fight," she said.
Administration officials have been annoyed by what they percieve as a drumbeat of unfair criticism - much of it from unnamed Hill Democrats. They say they have given Reid and other Democrats the freedom to craft a deal acceptable to members - and have only expressed a preference for the public option plan that stands the best chance of passing.
The flashpoint for many liberals was the president's huddle last week with Senate Democrats - a meeting in which reportedly he remained noncommittal about the specifics of reform and re-asserted his "preference" but not outright support for the public option.
That drew a lot of attention on the left, including a broadside from PBS host Tavis Smiley, who expressed frustration with Obama on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC.
"I think we voted for this president because we believed in his character," Smiley said. "The question now is does he have courage, does he have conviction and does he have commitment?" he added. "The only way this thing is going to succeed is if the president leads on this issue."
At the same time, Senate Democrats were quietly expressing frustration that Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel still favored a version of the public option that includes a "trigger," which would kick in only if insurance companies fail to reduce costs and continue to deny coverage - an assertion administration officials also deny.
On Sunday night, seeking to blunt criticism from the left, White House officials posted a blog entry saying "rumors" of a Senate-White House rift on the public option were "absolutely false" and emphasized that the administration was still working closely with Reid.
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has pressured Reid and others to back the public option, wasn't buying that argument.
"Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option," wrote Green, whose group has posted an online petition to pressure the White House.
"President Obama will be judged by many of his biggest 2008 supporters on whether he fights for a strong public option at this critical moment," he added.
Reid and his brain trust still believe the president needs to play a hands-on role in securing the votes of two or three conservative Democrats wavering on the public option.
The Nevada Democrat, who spoke with nearly all of the members of his 60-member caucus this weekend, currently has between 56 and 57 votes for a proposal to create a national insurance plan but allow states to opt out of it, according to Democratic aides.
Reid said he will not send the "trigger" option to the Congressional Budget Office - which endangers the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has not signed on to the opt-out idea. But Democratic aides say that if Reid fails to generate enough support for the opt-out, he could eventually call a vote for the trigger plan - which could be expected to draw between 58 and 59 votes.
With the wrangling over the public option dominating the debate on Capitol Hill, the patience of Senate Democratic aides is running low. They have grown exasperated with the White House over its hands-off approach to settling a dispute that has so thoroughly divided the party.
"The White House needs to step up here and needs to indicate what they want on the public option and whether it is important for them to get to 60 or not, and they need to implore both moderates and liberals in the caucus to get agreement on this, or they could see this bill fall on the Senate floor," said a Senate Democratic aide.
"The White House has got to be more forthright and more forceful with members," the person added.
Still, Brown and other public-option supporters say that the president's strategy has turned out to be effective thus far, even if by accident.
"It's worked so far," said Brown. "I knew we would have a public option, even back in August when we thought it was dead and buried."
44 Comments so far
Show AllProgressive Greens, Independents and progressive Democrats could form a coalition to run and support progressive candidates to take the Dem Party back from the conservatives who took it over.
The next parties cons infiltrate and sabotage will be the Greens and Independents. The cons have the money, the media and the 24/7 machinery to blitz them too.
All you progressives who voted for Obama--you've been hope-a-doped! If you listened to what Obama said during the campaign, you should not have expected him to be progressive. Then he made his chief-of-staff Rahm Emmanuel, and for some reason you were still hopin'. Enter Geithner and Summers, and you still kept hope alive! If you're still hopin', well you're already on the canvas in a foggy haze and the legs aren;t working, and you faintly think you are hearing the count going, "six, seven, eight,..."
It's time for progressives to step up and declare what it takes to earn our votes.
Tell your members of Congress that unless they support Medicare for all, you won't support them.
Take the Medicare For All Pledge today:
http://bit.ly/medicareforallpledge
Unless we get Medicare for All I'll never again vote for either party.
If nothing else, simply having the statistics on national support for single payer, the doctors on record (with the obscenity of SP advocates being kept from participating in the early discussions) has registered the temperament of the time and the disgust with the corporate model is now met. They are on notice. The weight now exists for it.
Mass. HC activists reportedly deeply regret having bought into the compromise system they got.
I have called my representative's office to request that a 'no' vote be cast on the legislation.
Someone once said that conviction is fast, but justice is slow. I would submit that the numbers will only increase for support of SP.
Care documentation, Economic analysis and straight bottom line issues will hoist the industry by its own petard.
I am very sorry to see Sen Brown come out in favor of this...I guess I have absolutely NO reason not to "opt out" of going to the polls in 2010 and 2012.
I used to believe that Senator Brown was in favor of single payer but I never heard his take on HR 676 or Sanders's S 703. Then again, John Conyers hasn't used his powers to put HR676 on the table. It's hard to determine who to trust anymore. Dennis Kucinich could replace either senator of Ohio and push forth Sanders's S 703 bill which is the closest to single payer HR676 as far as I'm aware of. As for 2010 and 2012, I'm staying independent and will vote on the issues as usual which almost always convinces me to vote third party and be proud of it.
Compare the national debt today to FDR's 1932.
Maybe Obama is smarter than Clinton.
FDR said "go out and make me do it" and maybe Obama knows he cannot order the Congress or tell them what to pass...
The longer he stays out of it, it seems the more progressive the Dems become.
Now, some Republicans in Congress say they would like the bill to save the Medicare Advantage plan.
It is still too early to know what the final bill will be or what Obama will add in a signing statement.
We'll See.
good old billy clinton has already let the cat out of obama's bag when he said "it doesn't matter what's in the bill.....people don't pay attention to that....it only matters that some kind of bill gets passsed so he has something to campaign on".....
there is the model for the obama white house.....screw the progressives and give a shitty corporate dominated bill to the public because the WH thinks we're all to stupid to know better.
and it made clinton god-awful rich in the end didn't it....
I've always said Obama can be a president like FDR who stood up for the little guy and became the greatest president ever or be a smuck like Clinton that sold out to the corporate interests and enriched his family for generations....the country be damned.
It looks like Obama is going for the clinton model not the FDR model.
Obama's a fraud of the greatest order, but McKinney and Nader warned you Obamabots 2 years ago, didn't they?
The Black Bush is fighting tooth and nails to protect the corporate criminals who financed his brilliant run for the White House, but Dem Party Apologists and Lesser Evilists are still finding excuses to explain this creep's behavior. Blind fools.
Right you are. And it's so easy to find excuses when the MSM is chock full of such vile extremists that the intoxicated-with-Obama left has all it can do to defend him against the nonsense. Pile on calculated lack of real news and you have massive distractions of every sort. Glen Beck, 'economy stabilizing,' Balloon Boy... It's a great plan.
And while they defend him, the horrified and complacent electorate will allow Obama a pass on things--like putting an end to the burdensome communist welfare plans like Social Security and Medicare--that have been the wet dreams of extremists for decades. Bush III will make it happen!
Spot on Uncle Charlie. When are these people going to give up waiting for Obama to be what he isn't???? I see one more article vis a vis "it's up to us to push him" I'm gonna puke!!!!
Obama is the true manchurian candidate - the guy who is going to ruin the democratic party and turn the country back over to the republicans by being a sellout. Progressives and 1st time voters will say "screw it, why bother". Obama thinks he can let the progressives in the party go by turning to the right and gathering all the middle of the road republicans........
Start over. If we can't have an honest national dialog on single payer, we can at least start again with the premise that healthcare has become unaffordable. How to address that problem (although that is not the only problem).
Business Roundtable says: Healthcare is unaffordable because millions aren't buying it. Make them buy and the cost for everyone will go down.
Single payer says: Healthcare is unaffordable because private companies game the system like Enron gamed energy, and the solution is to make healthcare a public utility.
I would love to see an honest debate, but corporate media will not allow it. Nor would they allow asking what other options there might be. Here's one: Regulate the industry. Place caps on the amount of profits any company receiving government subsidies for healthcare can make. Regulate the amount of compensation. Confiscatory tax on windfall profits. If corps don't want to have their profits regulated, don't take government subsidized profits.
Step Up? Obama the gelding has already Stepped Down. Morality was for getting elected. Now it's for money and doing what he's told.
And public option? Cygnus-X1 is right, it is a red herring stuffed with bullshit.
Nice Post JDR.
Cyngnus seems to know his facts and conclusion that the current bill is worse than useless. No insurance for unemployed? Forced purchase? Is that Constitutional?
I suggest that single payer has to be established this administration, I see Demo's going down in flames next election cycle.
"...a meeting in which reportedly he remained noncommittal about the specifics of reform and re-asserted his "preference" but not outright support for the public option.."
And yet, in the face of intense pressure from all sides, the final outcome is exactly what he prefers and has said he prefers since the Campaign.
How does that consititute failure or betrayal?
So he doesn't bully people and throw his weight around in public, to me, that's a refreshing change.
He's included all the stakeholders in the discussion, he's given many legislators a slice of ownership of the final bill. He's given the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves and they've obliged, he's given all of the elements involved room to fight it out in both houses of Congress, much of it on C-Span, in fact, the appropriate venue for the creation of legislation, which the WhiteHouse is not (remember? Legislative branch, Administrative branch, Judicial branch, Cheney bra... no, that was wrong, there's only three).
And still it comes around, after months of wrangling, pretty much the way he wants it. He obviously doesn't have to shout to be heard.
Why does that bother people?
This is Teddy Rosevelt's "Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick" in play and it's working. It's the diametric opposite of the Bushies' bluster and blunder.
I do not consider it a big stick when Obama effectively gives the Repug minority a veto power on every issue in the name of meaningless bipartisanship.
What good is unity if nothing wrong is ever corrected?
let us just say that for purpose of "optimism" we give Obama the benefit of the doubt -- that "he knows what he is doing strategically and using tactics well"...
in the end - time is RUNNING - not just for him - but for people - actual PEOPLE who are HURTING. every day that he DITHERS or "compromises" or "accomodates" or tries to be perceived or act as "umpire" is a day that MORE people suffer - and the MORE people suffer - the WORSe things get..
in the end - he will have to show - SHOW where he stands . no more about "strategy and tactics"
but a DECLARATION of EXACTLY where he stands.
There is only one way this consummate, con man will ever step up and that is if his constituency of 50 million people that put him into office wake up and realize they have been screwed; surround the White House and demand him to step up,hell even though I did not support him I would be happy to join 50 million BO supporters in D.C.
Obama speaks big but carries a little stick. He needs others to do his fighting for him. He will only join a fight if it's already been won. Obama's little stick is too small to tip the balance on health care, but watch his bravado after Reed and Pelosi win the battle. The word twerp comes to mind.
That is one the most disgusting parts about it. If the Progressive Dems and Reid and Pelosi do the right thing and good legislation passes Obama would definitely take the credit. On the other hand I would love to see Obama's face if the Progressive Dems stay strong and sink a bad bill, which I would hope they would do, and certainly should be urged to do.
The word twerp comes to mind.
I haven't heard the word "twerp" used in many years. Glad to see it's still around. Very accurate description of Obama. There are many other accurate descriptions of him as well.
Why don't progressives hold their own teabag protest with fake testicles on their foreheads with signs saying " Grow a Pair."
Historically, ancient Greek women wore such pins as symbols to bestow them with fertility. So historically they were used as supplication rather than as a statement of prowess.
Barack Obama, the man who brought (progressives) to the outskirts of the progressive promised land.
Outskirts? Not even close. How about way over the horizon in Republicanville, in Jesusland. We're still there with George Judas Bush, aka Barack Obama.
President Obama has been a disappointment to people from the very beginning of his term. He isn't even 1 year into his term and already many of his supporters feel betrayed.
As time goes by I am glad I didn't vote for him. He had not earned my respect because I knew he wasn't honest. I want a President who is not afraid to be honest and tell the American people the truth. If he didn't have the courage to tell the truth and stand by the promises he made in the election I knew that he would not have the courage to be honest and stand for the truth when President. I left the Democratic party and became a member of the Green Party. I have not regretted that move for one day.
I don't have to list all the issues that he has been a disappointment on because we Progressives already know what they are. I just hope that more Progressives wake up to the truth that President Obama is not going to stand up and do the right thing on the issues. He will continue failed policies and no real change will be done on such issues as Mountaintop Removal Mining, drilling in the Artic, FISA and the American Patriot Act. The war will continue on, the Health Care Reform will not be real reform, and on and on the list continues.
What does Obama really stand for? Does anyone really know? He seems very good at promising people a lot of things to get what he wants, but he doesn't seem to have the will power to finish one job before moving on to another. I can respect people who hold different political views than me if they really believe what they believe with passion and are willing to fight for it. President Obama lacks passion!!!!! I don't believe he has the passion to fight for health care or any other issues that Americans in this country feel strongly about.
I am not a member of the Democratic party anymore, but the way things are going I hope that that another Democrat will have the guts to challenge him in 2012 or that real Progressives will join the Green Party and we work really hard to build that party from the ground up and start electing qualified people to political office on a local, state and national level. My goal is to see a member of the Green Party elected to Congress. If we could convince Democrats who already hold political office to become Greens and they ran on the Green ticket we just might become the true Progressive party. Progressives have got to wake up to the truth, that the Democrats are just as corrupted and part of the problem as the Republicans.
Congrats on your decision, chrisy58, to not continue to be a member of the the Democratic Party. I quit decades ago. Some people catch on, but unfortunately at lot of loyalist Dems continue to support a party that doesn't represent them, and it can't represent them because the Democratic Party must support its funders, the corporations.
Third parties do have a rough time of it in the United States. They lack the corporate dollars of the Democratic and Republican Parties. So campaigning and organizing is tough for the Greens, but they haven't sold out.
We can see that most Democratic elected leaders today have sold out. Witness Max Baucus screwing with healthcare finance reform after so many campaign contributions from the insurance industry have traveled to his coffers. This current review of healthcare financing is reminiscent of Clinton's earlier abortive attempt. The point is not to create a system that provides healthcare for all. Rather, the threat of passing legislation brings in lobbyist dollars to replenish Democratic campaigns for the next election. In other words, it's just a shakedown, or bribery.
Probably, the Greens will continue to lose campaigns because the numbers of progressive voters are much smaller than the number of ignorant liberal voters that rally to the Democratic Party. The real problem is winner-take-all politics, which shuts out Green Party representation. Other countries allow parties to gain power based on the percentage of the vote, but not here.
So, for the time being, we all must embrace losing - it may sound weird to say that, but it's true. The only message the Dems will hear is a challenge to their power. Progressives should opt out and not be taken for granted. They aren't represented when the Democrats win elections anyway.
As you note, we have a Democratic majority in Congress plus the a Democratic President in the White House and yet we still continue to face Bush III policies of endless wars, USA PATRIOT Act Constitutional violations and other affronts.
So vote third party. What have we got to lose?
-TIA
chrisy58,
The only problem I find with your strategy is that it takes tons of money just to get the media and the people to get to know your candidate and then maybe elected.
Any Dem in office who switched to the Green Party would lose.
But if the Greens decided to take over the Democratic Party and help their candidate by running as a Green Democrat, that could be a winner. The Greens could be a real power if they just used reality.
I don't believe he has the passion to fight for health care or any other issues that Americans in this country feel strongly about.
He will, however, fight like a trio of junkyard dogs to get reelected.
George Bush comes in all shapes and color. Banka O Bomb-ya works for the same money little George worked for. George's exact words were "my constituents, the haves and the have mores." What the hell why shouldn't they steal rob and screw the public. They get away with it. Nothing is going to change until these elite bastards are scared to step out their doors.
Obama sure likes to lead from the rear.
Come on Barak...grow a pair.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Obama sure likes to lead from the rear.
Are you talking about the end of the line or his ass? Or both?
No bargaining with Pharma thanks specifically to Obama's personal dealmaking.
Cygnus will a better plan be presented in this administration?
Obama to the right of the Senate, how pathetic.
All you Obamanationists need to do a Gaza style siege to the WH, maybe then ole snake tongue, as he crawls through a tunnel for food, will notice you.
I try to weigh all the people desperately in need of medical attention come the year 2013 and then factor in how long it'd take before this plan and our whole health care system implodes as it is designed to do and will do.
I then compare that to "blowing up" this plan and digging in for the next fight for real change.
I think starting from scratch and fighting another day is a better option, based on what I heard was in Harry Reid's Senate plan yesterday.
If they keep the Kucinich amendment in I might be inclined to change my mind.
Or if they move the start date up by several years.
I know people are suffering NOW, but they will be suffering THEN too after this weak proposal fails and the Republicans bury real reform, SINGLE PAYER, in a grave for a couple decades.
- Rates not tied to Medicare.
- Public Option not available to those who get insurance through employer.
- No bargaining with Pharma for lower drug prices.
- Wouldn't kick in until 2013.
This is a plan designed to FAIL.
The Republicans will be screaming "TOLD YOU SO".
Single-Payer will be pushed back another 20 years.
Conclusion: Blow this plan up.
Cygnus: I think you are totally right about the grave shortcomings of the "public option" and further I think that, if Obama is anywhere nearly as knowledgeable and intelligent as we think he is, he very well knows about these shortcomings so that a defender of his might say he has, because of these deficiences, only "preferred" the option rather than "fighting for it." But this won't wash, if it is tried by either explicit or implicit statement. Why would you "prefer" something you know has no chance of helping you? That is, unless you are so desperate for a solution-any solution- to your problem that you'll grab onto the least inadequate remedy so you can say to yourself and others that you are "doing something" about your problem? Sadly, I'm afraid this is the way this President behaves with difficult issues of any sort (the Afghanistan military operations, for one): put off deciding, never quite deciding, trying to split the difference between parties of extreme differences. If government is a horse trade, he may be a good trader but I don't feel that he's getting, on behalf of the American people, even a hobbled nag out of anything that he is sparring and not fighting for.
By the way, I don't think this endless string of admonitions to the President to do the right thing are going to have any effect at all. Imagine a player who doesn't willingly and eagerly "step up to plate" or otherwise step into the lineup of a game with great enthusiasm. No coach in the world would want a player whom he has to urge and cajole to get into the game, and I don't think that we citizen coaches are going to be effective in "pressuring" Obama. At some point you have to say to a reluctant player: if you ain't gonna hit, sit down and let some other kid bat.
As usual, I agree with you, Jerry-- and Cygnus too, of course.
Unfortunately, perpetual pirouetting, taking superficially appealing Baby Steps, and placating the ignorant and submissive with token improvements are the pragmatist's stock in trade. Ironic, isn't it, that a political philosophy ostensibly based on "What Works" inevitably prioritizes "What Works" to give the "pragmatist" maximum political cover, appease critics, and co-opt or marginalize resistance-- all in the service of temporizing?
Turns out that the fullest expression of the phrase is "What Works for US". Who knew?
· Yr Obd't Servant
The progressives in the House should be playing hardball now as RUSSELL MOKHIBER suggests.
The Single Payer Caucus and Obamacare
The Weiner Charade
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47321#at
Pitchfork: agreed, even if it puts you in the same bed with Joe Lieberman!
Politics makes strange bedfellows, but that's going to give me nightmares!
More from Russell Mokhiber:
But the insiders know this is a charade.
It's a way to make single payer forces feel good - hey, we got a vote on the
floor of the House.
Without getting anything accomplished.
So where does that leave single payer activists?
What to do?
Urge your member of Congress to vote against Obamacare.
And start from scratch.
Onward to single payer.
I've found that one of the best times to leave the negotiating table is when the deal is close to done...when everybody thinks it's fait accompli.
If the progressive caucus were to turn their backs at this late hour they may be able to reinsert single-payer into the mix.
Even if this doesn't result in single-payer legislation it may pull the current legislation further to the left, educate Americans, and plant the seed of single-payer in their minds which may bloom later.