Obama Supports Reid On Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:52:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Not really, but let's pretend he does as Booman argues. I think it would be most helpful to the public option cause if the story played that way. Here is what White House flack Dan Pfeiffer wrote, basically a repeat of his statement to Ambinder on Friday:

President Obama [. . .] supports the public option [. . .] That continues to be the President's position. [. . .] President Obama completely supports [the Senate leadership's] efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate.

Certainly this makes it tougher for Obama to publically support triggers. That's a good thing. His earlier dithering has done plenty of damage to the public option cause, not just in the Senate, as Jon Cohn reports, but in the House, as Roll Call reports. Hopefully this will stop the bleeding. At least until Obama and his team try to gut the public option again.

Speaking for me only

< Start Spreading The News . . . | Reid Ready With Opt Out Public Option >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Supports Reid On Public Option | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think this must fit some reasonable definition (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:57:47 AM EST

of "triangulating."

Watching this cast of characters (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:15:08 AM EST

perform is as excruciating as watching a clueless teenager go through puberty. Painful. And you think it will never end. It always does, of course, but sometimes at a rather high price.

How long before the PO and Trigger become (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by nycstray on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:20:28 AM EST

morphed as one? Kinda how HCR became Health Insurance Reform, right down to the OFA signs . . . .

Then it would be really easy for him to support Trigger ;) Hey, HAY!

: It actually always was (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:20:31 AM EST

HCR has always been a focus on getting everyone under an insurance plan, it has just become more and more about how great the windfall for private insurance.

: Certain Dems have been (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:26:25 AM EST

trying to morph triggers into a public option since at least September.

Durbin said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he could get a filibuster-proof 60 votes for a public option "if there's a variation on the theme, perhaps," mentioning nonprofit cooperatives or the "triggered" public option as possible variations. link

Only problem is that a whole lot of people didn't buy into the "variation of the theme" and saw it for nothing more than trying to stick a faux public option label on bad proposals.

: Hey, HAY? I do believe both (none / 0) (#4)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:33:36 AM EST

Roy and Trigger have gone to that great corral in the sky. Dale too.

I offer my uniquivocal support to (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by kidneystones on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:35:32 AM EST

going forward with prudence without sacrificing all that has been gained over the years.

I promise to listen to wise counsel and hold on to my own deeply-held principles as long as the focus groups deem in my interest.

Then, I'll be wildly enthusiastic and wave as many bright, shiny objects before your eyes as I can lay my hands on.

Don't forget to keep those cash and checks coming in.

"televangelist" (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:08:18 AM EST

was my first impression to your comment. Something about all the right words and phrases that strike all the right notes.


The Anthony Robbins Presidency (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by kidneystones on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:15:57 AM EST

in installments. Get the tapes!

LOL. Nice to hear from you, Fabian. I didn't feel I'd be adding much to simply report how sick and tired I am of all the bs.

I see the last four decades as one long drawn out battle to make rich folks as rich as possible and to allow the enterprising the opportunity to steal what they can from the rest of us.

Granted the preceding eight years stand-out; and the notion that the efforts of this WH to control the press are similar to Jeff G and his planted questions is a bit of a stretch.

But the current exercise in 'He secretly supports my own personal agenda' may be worse. Under Bush, we were not required to actively participate in the deception.

Cheers.


: Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:39:51 AM EST

I don't think Obama cares if we actively participate or not!
While the obamadmin is not going to the extremes that the Bush administration did, they have copied the Bushadmin's strategy of controlling news cycles whenever possible. Thankfully they haven't had to stoop as low as repainting schools in Iraq yet.
What we'd like to hear about is steps towards resolution in Afghanistan & Iraq, progress in health care reform beyond mandates which benefit insurance companies more than consumers. Good news on the economy would be nice, but no one is expecting much this year, but 2012 will be here before long.

How many more petals are left (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:14:39 AM EST

on Obama's I'm-for-it/I'm-against-it/I-don't-know-can-someone-else-please-decide daisy he's been plucking, and will he just grab another one when he realizes he only has enough petals to end up with for-it or against-it?

Jeebus, this is annoying. How long before Obama is told, "look, just go to the World Series or have a star-studded WH dinner and get out of our hair so we can get some work done?"

He's not just a bystander anymore - he's a speed bump.

Chuck Todd reported this morning (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:34:39 AM EST

that the White House is extremely concenered about having courted Olympia Snowe all these months and having that work undone by a public option. If his reporting is accurate, then the Obama White House officially has the most wacked out priorities in governance of any presidency I've lived through.

If that is true... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:45:39 AM EST

then we'll know that Obama really believed there was a kinder gentler way to practice politics. That kind of heady idealism should be left to philosophers, IMO.

(I'd be curious what Carter, Clinton and Gore think of that idea. Carter tried that path and then reality caused him to reconsider. We already know the GOP doesn't believe in kinder gentler politics.)


"They don't believe in a kinder gentler (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:18:26 AM EST

anything", says the woman who tried to drop her handicapped son at school and had an Expedition with a big ole McCain Palin bumper sticker pasted on it sitting in front of and blocking the handicapped parking spaces today. It wasn't marked as a handicapped vehicle, nor was it actually in a handicapped space, just parked in front of all of them so nobody who was handicapped could use any of them. But I'm sure they had very important business to tend to this morning, unlike the rest of us.


Sigh.... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:26:51 AM EST

I was introduced to a Californian conservative blooger named Fetching Jen when she posted a rant against businesses having to provide handicap accessible facilities.

Why, oh why should she have to waste her business's money to provide something for other people? Why should handicapped people get the best parking spots? How do we know those people are really handicapped?

Figures she's from from the political home of Kinder, Gentler Saint Raygun.


: Fetching Jen huh? (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:34:05 AM EST

There are some fetching girls in the Republican party :) Fetch for your master Jen, Fetch!

At this point, (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:05:34 AM EST

I take a much, much darker view - one that isn't about hope and being all warm and fuzzy working together in a bipartisan way - but one that is about power and the power elite sticking together at the expense of the best interests of the people.

Don't forget that in politics these politicians don't ever really "come from nowhere". They are selected - hand picked - by power brokers. Remember that some of Obama's strongest and earliest support actually came from a number of more conservative Senators - Claire McCaskill being one that stands out for me - especially since she has been out actively campaigning against "new government programs" like the public option throughout this debate. She doesn't do anything without a nod from the White House, IMO.


Governance? (5.00 / 8) (#17)
by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:54:22 AM EST

Surely, you jest.

We don't elect people who can govern, we elect people who can campaign and advertise and collect money better than anyone else. We don't require much in the way of experience, either, because, really - experience just means your opponent has more to use against you.

Governing? Pssshhht. By the time people figure out you don't know beans about it, it's time to hit the campaign trail again.


: Add (none / 0) (#42)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:47:44 AM EST

We elect pretty people (now)....at least at the prez level.

Time for the people to send their own (5.00 / 7) (#26)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:27:28 AM EST

message....it's not about the WH relations with republicans. HCR is about the PEOPLE, and they need to start speaking loudly to the designers of the plan.

I seriously doubt if congressional democrats give a royal rip whether or not Olympia Snowe is onboard. They do care whether or not they go down with the ship and have people remembering them as one who was voted OUT of office because they failed to do the job they were elected to do. That's where we put the pressure.

As for Obama, he can choose to be a democrat or not. Of all the campaign promises to hold so tight to, "what she said, but I'll be able to reach across the aisle" should not be the winner.


Well, (none / 0) (#16)
by cawaltz on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:54:13 AM EST

now I have to wonder if ol' Olympia Snowe has a birthday comin' up and he was planning on giving her the "trigger option" as a gift. Isn't it sweet that it's more important to "court" one single opposition party legislator being paid a six figure income to help come up with solutions than it is to "court" the people who pay taxes and have the audacity to believe that "for the people" is actually supposed to mean something?

IMO If he wants to "court" her he should speak to Michelle's stylist about getting her a nice JCrew sweater set, not sell out a constituency.


No Way! (none / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:22:10 AM EST

The appearance of bipartisanship is more important than the health of every single American? Really?


Yeah - apparently. (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:53:43 AM EST

That was Todd's report this morning. They apparently feel so protective of their relationship with Olympia that they are willing to scr-- millions of Americans - and destroy the economy - which is what will happen if the healthcare crisis continues unimpeded - which it definitely will without a public option - even a public option is a weak response to the problems we have - making it weaker only reduces the chance that it will have a meaningful impact - not having one preserves the status quo. So in five or ten years, we'll all still be discussing the millions who are uninsured and who are paying penalties on top of it for not being able to participate. But Obama will be doing book tours by then and Michelle will be writing for Ladies Home Journal or something like that. They'll never have to worry about this stuff again like the rest of us do.


Well, it will be difficult to (none / 0) (#37)
by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:35:27 AM EST

replace Biden with Olympia if we make it difficult for her to support HCR.


I thought she was going to be (none / 0) (#38)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:48:17 AM EST

President? So confused. Why would she want the VP seat when she's been given what is tantamount to the Presidency on this issue.


Olympia was not given the (none / 0) (#40)
by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:54:34 AM EST

presidency on this issue, she took it. No primaries or nothing.


: Obama gave her the power (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:29:27 AM EST

with this bipartisanship at all costs thing he is so committed to.

Unity at any cost (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:21:41 AM EST

Obama has shown throughout the entire election cycle that his "image" was more important than principle.

When he actively courted the Evangelical's, women's rights advocates were told not to worry. He was just reaching out. (Yet the conscience clause is going to be part of the HCR bill)

When he brought McCurkin into the picture, gays were told not to worry, again, he was just reaching out. (DADT and DOMA are still well and alive)

He has the delusional concept that he can be the man that history will look to as the one who brought us all together as a country.

The problem with that concept is that the right wing extremists aren't going to budge. So for him to "reach" them, he's willing to sell out the left, the center and everywhere in between.

If this is what it's going to take to achieve unity, I much prefer to remain divided.


: Your post reminds me of a new special (none / 0) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:25:15 AM EST

I saw advertised. I think it was HBO, and I think it is called 'Poliwood'.

Dan Pfeiffer, the annotated version: (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:12:40 AM EST

A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option. Those rumors are absolutely false [we know, because we started it!].
In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option [maybe if we keep saying "the" public option, we can fool the people into thinking there's just one, and we won't have to explain or take a position on all the variations that currently exist] because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition. [kinda like the Cleveland Browns have the potential to win the Super Bowl] That continues to be the President's position. [he does believe in fairies!]
Senator Reid and his leadership team are now working to get the most effective bill possible approved by the Senate [we have people on the inside to make sure they do it our way, whatever way that is]. President Obama completely supports their efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate [the only thing that matters is being able to have a major speech claiming to be the first president to solve the health care problem - everything else is just window dressing].

At least, that's what I heard.

When I was taking Josh to school I started (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:29:35 AM EST

laughing outloud spookily. I just want all of you ungrateful, spite and spit spewing Obama haters around here who don't deserve a President's care about them because of how you act to know that Booman thinks that the Obama media outreach guys noticed he was really taking a beating lately, and this is probably what tipped Obama to publicly support Reid. And now I'm done laughing at anything that fool writes, probably only for today though. Because BTD is likely to find a reason to link to him again sometime.

Someone please convince me (4.50 / 2) (#33)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:19:54 AM EST

that there is any meaningful legislation in the current debate on the public option. I was hoping for health care reform leading to some sort of stepping stone to universal health care. In this debate I see nothing more than fiddling with the middleman.

I support President Obama's support (4.33 / 6) (#5)
by tigercourse on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:49:11 AM EST

of Harry Reid's support of Nancy Pelosi's support of the public option.

: You have my support, tiger... n/t (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:01:25 AM EST

Booman claims the White House (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:38:17 AM EST

has attempted to avoid religious devotion. Since when? They are pretty "devoted" to displaying religious devotion all the damn time. Religion isn't insurance or healthcare unless you're Evangelical though.

A positive sign? (none / 0) (#15)
by magster on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:52:35 AM EST

I think (hope) that this is an indication that Reid forced Obama's hand by Reid plowing ahead with his opt-out level playing field public option. Obama couldn't break with Reid publicly (although he came close on Friday), and now he's gotta go with what the Senate puts on the floor.

: If so (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by cawaltz on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:56:53 AM EST

this is the one time that I'm actually grateful at Obama's willingness to cave when push comes to shove.

Barry-come-lately. (none / 0) (#19)
by lentinel on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:08:56 AM EST

Obama must have realized that Reid, Finegold, Grayson, Dr. Dean and even Nancy Pelosi were stealing whatever thunder he might have left.

So now he is maneuvering to be a player in something that he had left to drift in the wind.

Things like this make me feel that America is waking up from its' long Bush-induced coma and beginning to demand something from it's government.

I don't want to get overly optimistic. I don't really feel that way.
But I'll take even a glimmer of sunshine.

I don't want to spoil the happy thoughts (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by cawaltz on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:46:54 AM EST

but most Americans were "awake" on FISA or on the bank bailouts and it didn't amount to a hill of beans. We all were wishing it was just a nightmare. The reason we are really having success is Reid is rightfully concerned about keeping his job. It begs the question of whether or not we get heard after the 2010 elections when the Senate Leader doesn't have skin in the game for 6 years. I sure hope the progressives have someone brainstorming that one.


: Let's make Reid the poster-Congressperson (none / 0) (#32)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:12:45 AM EST

for fear of reprisal from the people. Harry risks double "figures," though: 1. he could lose his job completely, or 2. he could keep his Senate seat, but lose the majority leader position. And, what he does is actually going to impact all Senate Democrats who are fighting for re-election in 2010.
If Harry were to learn that the people are shifting their focus from Obama to the democratic leadership in congress, we could see a really fast 180 turn....we could even force them to negotiate properly...start with single-payer and make slow, small compromises from there.
Obama thinks the minimal push-back he got from the stimulus package is an indicator for how he can do what he wants and the public will just settle in and decide there's nothing they can do.

: Not exactly happy, but... (none / 0) (#39)
by lentinel on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:02:37 AM EST

On FISA - the people were still in the mode to excuse Obama's absurd and quasi-immoral behavior on the grounds that he had to do things like that to win the presidency. He would prove to be more progressive once elected, they said. In any case, he was better than that scary McCain and that awful Palin.
The bailout also had already begun before his inauguration and could be glossed over.
But now he is out front.
Some people are beginning to hold him accountable.
It may add up to a mere hill of beans, of course.
Nothing meant anything to Bush - and it may be the same with Obama.
The only leverage we have is that if the democratic party feels really threatened by a voter revolt - it could apply effective pressure on Obama to begin to act in a less barbaric manner.
(I know that's a strong word - but so be it.)
Obama responds to pressure.
He is weak.
But just possibly we on the left might begin to pressure him whereas before he has responded only to nuts on the right.

Help me somebody! (none / 0) (#35)
by rrot on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:24:07 AM EST

Aren't "supports the public option" and "supports [the Senate leadership's] efforts," uhhm, if not exactly contradictory at least significantly in tension with one another???