I listened to that speech and when Mr Obama started to outline the insurance exchange idea I had to shake my head. Same old failed market dogma, same old path to ultimate failure.

I share the author’s disappointment. The last two years should have had the same effect on the flyblown, neo-liberal free market economics as the falling of the Berlin Wall had for communism and Eastern European socialism. At least Eastern Europeans had the balls to walk away from their failed ideas.

Politicians in the anglo-saxon world either are too arrogant, too deluded or too in hoc to wealthy forces to show the same courage in the face of the total collapse of 30 years devotion to Friedmanite thinking.

The fact is this: Health will never be covered universally by the private sector. As in education, only the State can guarantee that all citizens have access to high quality services.

The article says far more about the attitudes of liberals than it does about Obama, whose conduct since taking office is consistent with both his campaign and previous Democratic presidencies. If you’re disappointed by the fact that Obama is shaping up as yet another neoliberal, warmongering occupant of the Oval Office, you haven’t been paying attention.

May I suggest Dennis Perrin’s book Savage Mules as a corrective to such wishful thinking, especially if you are tempted to believe that the current Labour Party can be torn from its neoliberal destiny.

I have to agree with John Brissenden (#2) to a significant degree. It is interesting to watch what you might call the liberal mainstream yet again react with disappointment at unfolding events. The institutional structures which determine policy remain unchanged, therefore the new face in the White House is not going to make a radical difference. Of course, following a strain of Republicanism as virulent as W’s, anybody would look a little more liberal but it is ridiculous to expect much more.

[1] BenM

The thing is that I do believe that you need competition among providers for your money in order to get the best healthcare outcomes.

The problem is how you pay for the healthcare of the poorest. They too should be able to benefit from a market approach but to do that you need to give them tax money in some form of ‘healthcare account’ so that the money can only be spent on health insurance.

It’s a question I don’t think any country has the ultimate solution to (otherwise everyone would copy it) so you could ask a million people and they’d come back with a million different solutions that they think are better than the questioners solution.

American’ looking at our NHS probably put them off, however if they had examined healthcare systems France, Germany or Scandinavian countries Obama may have had more success.

Another tack may be to say to American businesses that a national form of insurance would reduce or remove their costs . Apparently Ford used to spend more on health care insurance than metal.

As one doctor pointed out the administration costs of the American system is very high. Perhaps Obama should have started at looking at the waste in the American system.

Just a quick correction to Charlie2’s point – it wasn’t looking at our NHS that put them off, it was looking at the absurd cartoon of our NHS drawn by right-wing commentators and certain British politicians that put them off.

@ John Brissenden 2:

“The article says far more about the attitudes of liberals than it does about Obama, whose conduct since taking office is consistent with both his campaign and previous Democratic presidencies. If you’re disappointed by the fact that Obama is shaping up as yet another neoliberal, warmongering occupant of the Oval Office, you haven’t been paying attention.”

You appear to be saying that what I have missed is that Obama doesn’t really want to pass his own policies. That is not credible, IMO. The public option is part of the ‘Obama Plan’. It is on the White House website as such. Backing down on it, as he is, represents a clear failure on Obama’s part. Nobody could maintain that it is not bad for him to be seen backing off on the public option.

@ frolix22, comment 4:

“The institutional structures which determine policy remain unchanged, therefore the new face in the White House is not going to make a radical difference.”

Do you really want to claim that the public option is not passable, given the ‘institutional structures’? This isn’t about institutional structures. It is about Obama failing to play a smart game.

Or maybe Obama isn’t actually as ‘progressive’ as many people wishfully projected him to be…Not every politician tries to triangulate everything to buggeration. Some are just middle-of-the-road-ish, others are plain inconsistent.
Oh, and Cruddas. Not left-wing. Talks the talk, but consistently votes for all the NewLab ‘project”s follies, from FTs to ID cards etc. He’s simply testing the water for the Newlabbers like Purnell, the Milibands etc to rebrand the party again. Same old Third way, neo-liberal (and neo-con abroad) shite.

So why claim that they’re more left-wing than you have to?

Desperation: the floating voters have vanished for New lab, the centre and centre-right to whom they pandered have a new daling in Cameron, so they hope to get some Leftist votes by feigning a move to the left. Doomed to fail, as, having been shafted once by the careerist, entryist NewLab crew, those of the Left aren’t going to be so easily fooled again.

“You appear to be saying that what I have missed is that Obama doesn’t really want to pass his own policies. ”

No, you’ve missed that what he is wanting to do now is what he always wanted to do. Rose tinted glasses obviously go on sale earlier than usual these days.

I am with #2 and #4 here.

No offence, well-written article and all, but I’m afraid it’s exactly that sort of attitude (shall we call it “liberal purism”) that handed the US (and the world) on a plate to GW Bush and friends. I mean, guys, but are you aware of all the constraints Obama he’s fighting against? Do you really think he was gonna turn up at the White House wearing a sandinista hanker and go it alone?

I personally can’t believe how scathing he managed to be during his speech (i.e. when he had a massive go at “”insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it”).

Also, issues of practicality here are completely glossed over.
If you watched Obama’s speech you may have noticed that, after acknowledging the positives in the option of a Canadian style health service (fully public, that is), he also stated that it would be nigh-on impossible to start from scratch and go for total overhaul.

Not to mention, bottom line, that he wouldn’t have the numbers in the Congress for that, which is a tiny detail, isn’t it? How come the OP forgets about it? You mention “despite the size of his mandate” but in the Congress he hasn;t got the number for the kind of reform the left-Democrats and himself would have wanted.

None the less, it’s impressive that Obama made it very clear: he will not back down from the fundamental principle that no American should go uninsured (or go bankrupt) because he or she gets sick.

To me, Barack Obama is actually banging on the subject of health reform which much stronger resolve than Bill Clinton ever did in 1993.

This brand of left-wing defeatism is lethal.

Claude- sense at last. Thank you.

If Obama made the sort of arguments advocated in this piece and many of the comments then 47 million Americans would remain uninsured and the US healthcare system would remain unjust.

How progressive would he be then?

Context…..

@ Alisdair Cameron, no. 9

Or maybe Obama isn’t actually as ‘progressive’ as many people wishfully projected him to be…Not every politician tries to triangulate everything to buggeration. Some are just middle-of-the-road-ish, others are plain inconsistent.

I didn’t wishfully project anything onto him – I only assumed that, after the president had constructed an ‘Obama Plan’ that included a public option, that the public option was part of the Obama Plan. But if you think you have greater insight into what Obama wants than the evidence of what he says he wants, fine.

@ Lee Griffin, no. 10:

No, you’ve missed that what he is wanting to do now is what he always wanted to do. Rose tinted glasses obviously go on sale earlier than usual these days.

You seem to think that Obama is some sort of evil political mastermind. That gives him too much credit. Explain to me how it was part of his grand plan all along to commit himself to the public option, then back down over it. In what world is that a shrewd move?

@ Claude, no. 11:

Also, issues of practicality here are completely glossed over. If you watched Obama’s speech you may have noticed that, after acknowledging the positives in the option of a Canadian style health service (fully public, that is), he also stated that it would be nigh-on impossible to start from scratch and go for total overhaul.

I know Obama said that single-payer is infeasible. I also know that plenty of moderate Dems think otherwise. Who are we to know who is right, on the practicality side of things? The point is, dissing single-payer as a utopian, unworkable, extreme left pipe-dream was not good tactics, IMO. Obama did not start from a position of strength on the public option after doing that.

Not to mention, bottom line, that he wouldn’t have the numbers in the Congress for that, which is a tiny detail, isn’t it? How come the OP forgets about it? You mention “despite the size of his mandate” but in the Congress he hasn;t got the number for the kind of reform the left-Democrats and himself would have wanted.

Sure, he doesn’t have the numbers to get single-payer – I never said he did. But he does have the numbers for a public option, and has made getting it much harder than it should have been. Obama has spent far more time talking down the public option than he has putting pressure on the holdouts to accept it. He is working against the progressive block in Congress, if anything.

@Soho Politico. I’m not claiming any special insight into Obama, merely noting that many people projected unfeasible powers upon him, seeing him as some kind of thaumaturgical figure who’ll deliver their own notion of the ideal society. They are bound to be disappointed. Whether you class yourself among that category is down to you, and your expectations. I didn’t put you in it.

I’m with Claude here (though obviously biased as I campaigned for the guy).

Look, America is an incredibly right-wing nation, especially on economic issues. Obama won because people hated the Republicans and the Democrats organised better – but that doesn’t mean he’ll get his entire programme through. There is a small matter of due process, which you guys seem to be ignoring.

Is he meant to magically wish the bill through all senate committees? Can he wish away Glenn Beck and the townhall crazies?

If he acts bullishly, as if he doesn’t care, then he not only risks jeopardising the current legislation but also future stuff.

The only bit I agree with is on gay rights – but I’m confident he’ll deal with that sooner or later. I can understand Obama’s reluctance to take on the culture wars in the first 6 months.

It is right to attack him from the left and hold his feet to the fire. But I’d rather we do it strategically, while understanding the constraints he’s under, than just issuing blanket condemnation.

@12, @16, yes, hurrah, sanity.

@ Sunny, no. 16:

I don’t think I am ignoring the constraints of the process. Obama has played an exceptionally good hand very badly. He came in on a large mandate, as a transformational politician, and was faced with a crushed and dispirited Republican party. But he has breathed new life into the Republicans, because of his obsession with triangulation.

Bill Clinton, who was nothing if not a realist, had to triangulate to get what he wanted, but Obama needn’t have. He chose to triangulate even though he was in a position of strength, for reasons I simply cannot understand. He brought the Republicans to the table, and rehabilitated them, by being so adament that they had good ideas, and ought to be listened to and respected. That strategy was nuts, and he is now paying the price. Ironically, he will now have to keep triangulating from now on. But he needs to at least learn to do it well, and certainly better than this.

It is right to attack him from the left and hold his feet to the fire. But I’d rather we do it strategically, while understanding the constraints he’s under, than just issuing blanket condemnation.

I agree with all that, but I don’t think the piece is just blanket condemnation. It is not unrealistic to think that Obama could have handled this much better. The majority of the country support the public option. But Obama hasn’t fought for it: he keeps giving the whip hand to the blue dog antis, and Rs like Olympia Snowe. They’re only in the driving seat on this bill because Obama put them there.

The bottom line is, I’m just not one of those people who thinks Obama’s trying the best he can under straightened circumstances. He is bipartisan to the end, but negotiates without any clear purpose. What are his lines in the sand? What are, to Obama, the essential elements of healthcare reform, which he is prepared to fight for, and won’t compromise on? Nobody knows. He’s not providing any leadership. If a public option survives in this bill, it will be because the progressive block in Congress stop waiting for Obama, and start making demands of their own.

But he has breathed new life into the Republicans, because of his obsession with triangulation.

I’ve always believed that the offer to be bipartisan was a good strategic move, because it kept the centre-ground on side. His rhetoric was always ‘one nation America’ etc, and never hardcore Democrat bias. So you can’t accuse him of traingulation now since he has always talked of bipartisanship and bringing America together.

I think he breathed new life into the Republicans because the crazies got fired up by people like Glenn Beck, and that had enough momentum over the last 6 weeks to throw him off guard. It wasn’t long ago we were laughing at how we was using Limbaugh as a wedge issue to divide Republicans.

I agree that he’s not provided enough leadership on healthcare. But I also think Americans are inherently uncomfortable with one party having complete control over both Houses and the Presidency, and that President then doing whatever he wants.
They like their checks and balances, which is why the committment to bipartisanship relieves that pressure.

Basically, he handled the healthcare fight badly, but he did a much better job with the stimulus bill.

18 – “Bill Clinton, who was nothing if not a realist, had to triangulate to get what he wanted, but Obama needn’t have. He chose to triangulate even though he was in a position of strength, for reasons I simply cannot understand”

He doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to do what you think he should. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com is good on this – there are fewer than fifty senators (let alone 60 to override a filibuster) who support the public option.

I think Obama’s handled the healthcare stuff just fine – there was always going to be a ferocious Republican response and the media were going to do a backlash irrespective of his tactics. I reckon he’s going to get a bill passed which materially improves the current situation – which is more than Roosevelt, Truman or Clinton managed.

Here’s a paragraph that illustrates well what I mean:

By offering Republicans olive branches during his address to Congress on Wednesday, Obama has set up a win-win situation. If GOP lawmakers embrace compromise, a healthcare bill would pass Congress easily. But the more likely scenario is that Republicans will continue to oppose Obama’s plan, and the president later this fall will be able to note he tried to strike a deal with the GOP but could not.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/58233-obama-sets-stage-for-using-budget-maneuver-to-pass-health-reform

@ Sunny:

I’ve always believed that the offer to be bipartisan was a good strategic move, because it kept the centre-ground on side. His rhetoric was always ‘one nation America’ etc, and never hardcore Democrat bias. So you can’t accuse him of traingulation now since he has always talked of bipartisanship and bringing America together.

It was shrewd to promise bipartisanship as a candidate. I didn’t think he’d be daft enough to try to govern that way, though. Or, at least, if he initially envisaged doing so, the quality of his GE victory should have persauded him otherwise.

I think he breathed new life into the Republicans because the crazies got fired up by people like Glenn Beck, and that had enough momentum over the last 6 weeks to throw him off guard. It wasn’t long ago we were laughing at how we was using Limbaugh as a wedge issue to divide Republicans.

Talk radio and Fox are not the ones standing in the way – their opposition is a given. The problem is the extra influence that Obama has handed to people like Sen. Snowe. He should have entered negotiations on the basis that the people had decisively repudiated Republicanism, and he did not have to deal on terms he didn’t accept. He did the opposite.

he did a much better job with the stimulus bill.

I think the stimulus was also mishandled. It is striking, to me, how little he has learned from that first confrontation. Obama’s opening proposal included a load of non-stimulative tax cuts, designed to buy off Republicans. And then he acted all surprised when they played for even more!

@ donpaskini:

He doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to do what you think he should. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com is good on this – there are fewer than fifty senators (let alone 60 to override a filibuster) who support the public option.

Nate Silver is wrong. The Dems have 59 votes right now. When Ted Kennedy is replaced, it’ll be 60. You really think that, when the chips are down, any Dem will join the Republicans in filibustering the president’s healthcare reform? Honestly, he can call their bluff on that.

@SohoPolitico
“Sure, he doesn’t have the numbers to get single-payer – I never said he did. But he does have the numbers for a public option, and has made getting it much harder than it should have been. Obama has spent far more time talking down the public option than he has putting pressure on the holdouts to accept it. He is working against the progressive block in Congress, if anything.”

Sorry but this is just false and unfair. “But he does have the numbers for a public option”. This is evidently not true, given the need for Obama to give the very speech you quote from. There are many Democrats from conservative states that have set their stall out against a public option. One of them is Senator Conrad (D-ND) for example, who has himself said that presently the Senate doesnt have the votes to pass a public option. If it did, Obama would have signed the bill and saved himself a summer of embarassment.

Look at the furore around the public option, it almost very nearly destablized and damaged the administration with independents. Imagine the effect Obama rooting for a single payer would have had! He’d look like the crypto-commie the right are desperate to paint him to moderates/centrists – which lets face it, is the vast majority of the American population. It’s not exactly controversial to state that as a country they have a centre of political gravity to the right of ours; there is much more widespread suspicion of government investment/subsidy than here.

Obama has to work to get the votes and to conjule a fairly moderate electorate along with him. Sorry, but that’s the democracy and political culture they have over there – polarized and awash with money maybe, but we could do with a dose of it sometimes over here.

When Blair was elected he famously said “We were elected as New Labour, we will govern as New Labour”. The same can be said for Obama. He was elected as a centrist/centre-left candidate and he has to govern as one. I still believe his history shows him to be comfortably the most liberal President in generations, but it’s irritating to constantly read the left criticising him as not progressive enough because in nine months he hasnt enacted their entirity of their agenda, point for point. On LGBT rights, for example, nothing he has said or done has suggested he isnt committed to repealing DOMA and DADT, but timing and priorities in politics are crucial. If he hasn’t done these things in four, or seven years time, then maybe we can have this discussion.

Of course it’s healthy to keep pressure on him to remain firm to certain principles and promises but a bit of context for the constraints he faces before throwing hands up in the air and dismissing him as another corporate crony would go a long way.

“Nate Silver is wrong. The Dems have 59 votes right now. When Ted Kennedy is replaced, it’ll be 60. You really think that, when the chips are down, any Dem will join the Republicans in filibustering the president’s healthcare reform? Honestly, he can call their bluff on that.”

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-many-votes-does-public-option-have.html explains it all quite convincingly (to me).

There are 42 senators on the record as supporting a public option. Waiting til Kennedy’s replacement means delaying until next year.

Your strategy sounds awfully weak to me. If, say, Joe Lieberman decided that he didn’t want to vote to override a filibuster, then that would be that. Seeing as how Lieberman didn’t even vote for Obama and campaigned for his opponent in last year’s elections, not sure how you think Obama could force him to vote the Democrat line.

Let alone if a group of 5-6 “centrist” Dem senators decided to tour around the TV studios urging a more ‘bipartisan’ approach without the public option included (as they have already done).

That guarantees that the public option get defined for the media and public as the left / liberal policy, which is exactly what you warn against.

To be fair, what they might have done was tried in some way from the beggining to amplify voices on the left of the Democratic party who want single payer. Let them be very vocal for a few weeks, let speculation grow about his support for single payer then come out against it etc.

That way he could have presented the public option as centrist from the beggining rather than trying to acheive that now.

Of course this is all easier said than done but something like that approach could have been possible I suppose.

Yeah, agree with what Steve said above.

Also, Obama definitely does not have all the Dem Senators on side. Two are independents and may switch. Then there’s the pesky Blue Dogs.

@ Sunny 21:

I think that quote is too quixotic. There is no way, IMO, that if the Reps destroy reform, it will come back on them, and not Obama, in the longrun. The quote makes Obama sound like a political Obi-Wan Kenobi. He isn’t. If they strike him down, he doesn’t come back more powerful than they can ever imagine. He stays down. Strong Obama supporters have a limitless tendency to imagine that Obama is playing some kind of long game, that stretches out into the future further than the rest of us can see. That’s not true IMO.

@ Steve

There are many Democrats from conservative states that have set their stall out against a public option. One of them is Senator Conrad (D-ND) for example, who has himself said that presently the Senate doesnt have the votes to pass a public option. If it did, Obama would have signed the bill and saved himself a summer of embarassment.

Yeah, but there’s a difference between Conrad saying the votes aren’t there, and actually standing up and say he will personally join a filibuster. They all want to say that there are others (not them) ready to do it. But I don’t think any of them would on the day. Do any of them want to be the ones to have joined hands with the ‘Party of No’ to bring down healthcare reform?

Obama has to work to get the votes and to conjule a fairly moderate electorate along with him.

But a strong majority of the electorate is for the public option. Or, if they aren’t still, they were until very recently. And if they aren’t still, Obama has squandered a serious amount of public goodwill.

@ donpaskani, 24:

Your strategy sounds awfully weak to me. If, say, Joe Lieberman decided that he didn’t want to vote to override a filibuster, then that would be that. Seeing as how Lieberman didn’t even vote for Obama and campaigned for his opponent in last year’s elections, not sure how you think Obama could force him to vote the Democrat line.

Lieberman had to crawl back after the election, to avoid being booted out of the Dem caucus and losing the Homeland Security chairmanship. Apparently it is Ben Nelson who is most likely to step out of line. I really don’t think that even the most opposed Dems will want the notoriety that would come with sinking the bill. And even if I’m wrong, there’s the reconciliation option, which some Dems are starting to seriously talk about.

Really, IMO you guys are over-reaching when you imply it’s just not possible to pass the public option. If so, somebody really should have told Obama when he proposed it in the first place. And what is clearly true is that, if he was ever serious about passing it, Obama made all the wrong moves. And that, of course, was the core conclusion of my post.

I love you Soho but I’ve no time with Obama bollocking posts, the man is doing a fine job, the speech last night was a fine one, you’re trying to apply rules to American exceptionalism that just won’t fit and unless your memory is very, very short, I’d much rather have this man in charge than the previous fucking maniac.

Try to give Obama some credit, he has already made some great strides and pushed through much legislation so this whinging falls short with me.

Agree with seperate points in all those comments above…

1) It was never gonna ‘NOW’. The US has existed under 50 odd years of neo liberalism that went really hardcore when Raegan came on board and before that you have a country founded on the essence of capitalism. Trying to develop change will be long in coming…esp the mental mindset of those repub town hall folks and the Fox news crew, as well the tedious Repub congress men..

2)I’ve been really disappointed in his leadership, he’s given more then he should to the insane Repubs but somehow I’m thinking he is hoping they will ‘hang’ themselves..

Bottom line, why didn’t learn from the stimulus bill..who knows? Arrogance?

What’s happening now and is giving fuel to the right winger and racist Hilary supporters, is that the Dem party is fighting within the party. He’s really loosing some of the gay vote and he pandered to them big time during the campaign..

@Soho Politico, comment 9. “Do you really want to claim that the public option is not passable, given the ‘institutional structures’? This isn’t about institutional structures. It is about Obama failing to play a smart game.”

What I want to claim is that meaningful or significant healthcare reform will not pass and that this is due to the structure of established power and wealth in the United States. It has little, if anything, to do with whether or not Obama is playing a “smart game”. The attitudes and aptitudes of the current White House incumbent are not irrelevant to such issues but they are minor in the great scheme of things.

I don’t look forward to being proved right but I inevitably will be.

If progressives in America reached the point where significant healthcare reform could be instituted they would already have won a far greater battle, in creating the conditions where such a thing could actually occur.

Missed this:

@ Steve, 23:

On LGBT rights, for example, nothing he has said or done has suggested he isnt committed to repealing DOMA and DADT, but timing and priorities in politics are crucial. If he hasn’t done these things in four, or seven years time, then maybe we can have this discussion.

You do realise that the Obama administration’s DoJ has been to court to *defend* DOMA, don’t you? That is not commitment to repeal in my eyes. It is heart-breaking. And the way the defence was mounted was pernicious.

@ Daniel HG: point taken mister, but how much longer do liberals have to keep thanking Obama for just not being Bush? Do gay people have to give him a pass on his pernicious defence of DOMA, just because he isn’t Bush? Really, what was the point of giving him support if liberals aren’t ever going to ask for a little payback?

I had a feeling you may bring up the Bush thing and of course, nearly anyone would’ve been better but that is not to say that Obama isn’t doing great work and making the right sounds and the right efforts, which he is and for an American, he IS liberal.

Regarding LGBT issues, Obama has done well on this front, with the celebration of Stonewall, the first LGBT meeting at the White House and also his pushing of AIDS testing and the stigma around the illness.

Perhaps I was a little harsh.

Polling today following his speech on Wednesday shows that Americans have swung strongly in favour of Obama’s plans.

Perhaps Mr Obama simply needed to be more visible in the reform debate through August?

@Soho

“Yeah, but there’s a difference between Conrad saying the votes aren’t there, and actually standing up and say he will personally join a filibuster. They all want to say that there are others (not them) ready to do it. But I don’t think any of them would on the day. Do any of them want to be the ones to have joined hands with the ‘Party of No’ to bring down healthcare reform?”

Sorry mate but when it comes to Blue Dogs like Conrad, that just isn’t the case. They, and Conrad in particular, have not only opposed the public option as too expensive but have proactively touted a co-op as a ‘bipartisan’ alternative. Blue Dogs like Conrad have set themselves up as opposing the public option partially through their genuine beliefs but also because it is very good politics back home in their (conservative) states. The people of North Dakota aren’t going to turn against Conrad if he blocks a public plan, they will fete him. If he backs down completely there is a good chance he’ll be thrown out in 2012.

Not to say Senators like he, Nelson or Baucas can’t be cajoled in some way. The administration has got to give them room where they can make a U-turn. Which is why I think Obama very intently said it wouldnt add a single penny to the deficit, announced new ways to pay for it etc. That is directly aimed at people like Conrad who have opposed on deficit lines. Obama has got to keep trying to do this but there are certain Democrats who sadly seem to have too firmly set their stall out against it, no doubt thinking about campaign contributions too. It’s tricky, but I don’t think it’s fair to say on healthcare Obama has set his tent too far to the right; on the stimulus maybe, but not on healthcare. This is the downside to the American political system that otherwise seems so attractive, anyway.

Also, on DOMA. I know the defence of that brief was hurtful. But it is worth considering that not only is there a convention (with exceptions in the past, I accept) of defending legislation on the books, but (according to Paul Hogarth hat Huff Post anyway) that the brief didn’t exactly come from the top at the White House. Unacceptable no doubt, but the important thing is Obama’s personal intent to repeal DOMA and DADT and the question to ask is: “is it still there?”. He has said it is and he his intimations toward Stonewall and HRC suggest their time will come under his administration. I know is a thin defence that basically amounts to “trust him”, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable one.

Interesting discussion anyway!

@ Steve, 34:

Sorry mate but when it comes to Blue Dogs like Conrad, that just isn’t the case. They, and Conrad in particular, have not only opposed the public option as too expensive but have proactively touted a co-op as a ‘bipartisan’ alternative. Blue Dogs like Conrad have set themselves up as opposing the public option partially through their genuine beliefs but also because it is very good politics back home in their (conservative) states. The people of North Dakota aren’t going to turn against Conrad if he blocks a public plan, they will fete him. If he backs down completely there is a good chance he’ll be thrown out in 2012.

I think that over-simplifies the situation of the blue dogs. They don’t get re-elected just by destroying Democratic bills. Their fates are more tied to the success of the party than you imply. What the blue dogs succeed by doing is painting themselves as brakes on the liberal progressive wing of the party. But major failures for the party are also failures for them, and the conservadems are particularly electorally vulnerable when the party nationally looks bad. What the blue dogs want to do is to either to be seen voting against a bill that passes, or be seen to have successfully watered down some of its more progressive elements. But filibuster it? I doubt it. And again, even if I’m wrong, there’s the reconciliation option.

Commentators who aren’t really interested in the future of the public plan (Ezra Klein, etc.) are constantly peddling this weak line that, honestly, it can’t pass, because the blue dogs will filibuster, so just forget about it now. Why do they focus on claiming that the blue dogs are immovable, rather than on the progressive wing in the House, who say they won’t pass a bill *without* a public option? Why has *their* immovability not been taken seriously? The Progressives in the House may or may not stand firm. Pelosi, worryingly, seems to now be showing signs of backing off her earlier insistence on the public plan. If the progressives bottle it, it will be because the Obama administration has applied relentless pressure on them to cave, and none on the Conservadems. The strategy of going to the progressives and saying, ‘look, the other guys jut won’t budge’ could have been used the other way around. In fact it still could. In the face of progressive insistence that no bill without a public option passes the House, the adminstration would lose the bill if it did not either start persuading the Blue Dog senators not to filibuster, or exploring reconciliation. If they go the latter route, they only need 50 votes in the Senate. The bottom line is, all these claims that there is simply nothing the adminstration can do are exceptionally weak. They ignore the fact that it just hasn’t tried.

the important thing is Obama’s personal intent to repeal DOMA and DADT and the question to ask is: “is it still there?”. He has said it is and he his intimations toward Stonewall and HRC suggest their time will come under his administration. I know is a thin defence that basically amounts to “trust him”, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable one.

In light of all the above? Honestly, the heyday of the ‘trust in Obama’ crowd is over.

@ Steve: “Look at the furore around the public option, it almost very nearly destablized and damaged the administration with independents.”

No, it really hasn’t. It’s enraged the hard right and got the mobs out (‘controversy’), but the fact is that the insurance companies are widely hated, and to paint all public options as far left – even in an American context – is just missing the point. Just look at the polls. Despite the hype surrounding the Republican rage, there is support for this.

The public option is also an easy argument to make, and if it had been made more forcefully the polls would probably be better – but Obama has simply not been making it since he was elected.

The real constraint is not public opinion, or his alleged lack of influence over Senate Democrats, but the fact that Democrats generally fear that any measure which dents health insurance profits will result in their being destroyed in the next set of elections by a Biblical-scale flood of corporate campaign money to the Republicans and hostile coverage from the commercial media.

Oh God, the “P” word again. Definition please………….