The Pre-Mortem: Punch the Hippies

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:44:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here it comes:

The real question Democrats have to ask themselves is: how come the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare is something a progressive Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat has to speak so defensively about?

And we can look no further than Howard Dean, and MSNBC, and Arianna Huffington, and, yes, some columnists at the Times and bloggers here at TPM--you know, real progressives--who have lambasted Obama again and again since last March over arguable need-to-haves like the "public option," as if nobody else was listening. They've been thinking: "Oh, if only we ran things, how much more subtle would the legislation be," as if 41 senators add up to subtle. Meanwhile the undecideds are thinking: "Hell, if his own people think he's a sell-out and jerk, why should we support this?"

Now there is a winning political strategy . . . for Republicans. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. If the Dem Party reacts likes this guy, that will be blowing off a leg.

Speaking for me only

< Seattle City Attorney To Dismiss All Marijuana Possession Cases | "The Controversial Differences" >

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.

The Pre-Mortem: Punch the Hippies | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Another view (5.00 / 7) (#1)
by MO Blue on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:02:48 AM EST

Robert Kuttner

How could the health care issue have turned from a reform that was going to make Barack Obama ten feet tall into a poison pill for Democratic senators?
Whether or not Martha Coakley squeaks through in Massachusetts on Tuesday, the health bill has already done incalculable political damage and will likely do more. Either way, the Massachusetts surprise should be a wake-up call of the most fundamental kind.
...
Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people.
As policy, the interest-group strategy made it impossible to put on the table more fundamental and popular reforms, such as using Federal bargaining power to negotiate cheaper drug prices, or having a true public option like Medicare-for-all. Instead, a bill that served the drug and insurance industries was almost guaranteed to have unpopular core elements.
...
Obama needs to stop playing inside games with bankers and insurance lobbyists, and start being a fighter for regular Americans.

: Yep (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:14:28 AM EST

this completely explains the situation.

One sentence tells you everything you need (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by esmense on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:16:20 AM EST

to know about this guy (describing MA voters) --

"Like most of us, they have a certain humility and expect famous people and experts to tell them what to think."

His vision of a democratic electorate is chilling. When did a nation of bootlickers become the ideal? And why didn't I get the memo?

: Count me in as viscerally skeeved by this (none / 0) (#21)
by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:21:14 PM EST

Mmm-hmmm, pull a lever and thousands of mindless zombies humbly do some overlord's bidding.
Utopia! (or, as they might say in Mass., Utopier.)

Um OK (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:35:16 AM EST

Obama decided not to be in front of the health care bill. So the opportunity to control the framing was relinquished.

The author of the piece even says that:

The "undecideds" in South Boston and working class suburbs like Lynn don't like Cambridge and Back Bay, but they respect its winners, when they act like winners. They watch hockey for the fights. Like most of us, they have a certain humility and expect famous people and experts to tell them what to think. But they haven't heard of Uwe Reinhardt; and they smell insincerity a mile away. I wish I had a bluefish dinner for every time Coakley referred to the health package as "not perfect." It all came out so forced and fake. [emphasis supplied]

Oh, wow! Did Obama do any of those things in bold? Hell no! What Coakley gets to stand on is indeed an imperfect bill, one that is the result of a love of process.

Whatever. No one cares what people at MSNBC think. Obama could've easily painted them as he did during the electoral campaign as crazy liberals, and then said what he thought should happen. But he didn't do that this time. I mean seriously, no one really measures the President by what Arianna Huffington thinks of him.

She didn't even want to (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:06:30 AM EST

stand on it and opposed it until she reluctantly switched. I suspect she was told from On High she would not get Dem. Party support, never mind White House, unless she got in line.


: If (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:50:30 AM EST

If those on high had wanted her to win, they would have allowed her to oppose the bill during the election....and of course, when she won, she'd be forced to accept it...from on high, of course.
As it stands, I believe they want her as scapegoat for dumping the bill.

What the h is he talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:41:55 AM EST

They've been thinking: "Oh, if only we ran things, how much more subtle would the legislation be," as if 41 senators add up to subtle.

I have not got a clue what that even means. If anything, the progressive legislation I would favor would be about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

: The post is (none / 0) (#9)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:05:00 AM EST

an absolutely breath-taking piece of cr*p from start to finish.

You lost the Indies Fool! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:56:28 AM EST

What an ignoramous. Dear Bernard, you can beat on your brothers and sisters until your knuckles are bloody.....but the Indy voters are who ponied up with the majorities and the walk away Presidency. They did this because in their assessment the country needs to go Left! The country did not go Left, and now the Left went Right and is thinking they'll go Righter. If I'm an Indy voter I'm voting for the Republican this go around because at least he is talking about not enacting really really bad policies. Wake up Bernard, snap out of it!

I read the link (none / 0) (#2)
by kmblue on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:10:10 AM EST

and the comments thereto (a long slog.) A commenter pointed out that probably few of the voters in Mass. read lefty blogs or watched Rachel Maddow, so perhaps the diarist's anger was misdirected. (no offense to you, BTD. If I had my way, everyone would read you every day!)

: Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:35:51 AM EST

They are probabaly better off if they don't watch Maddow (or Olbermann or O'Reilly or Beck or Matthews, etc.)

Lets be honest here (none / 0) (#11)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:11:25 AM EST

if HCR fails we will debate it again in 2025 or so, it will fail again and then in 2040 will get a truly great bill.

Can I say how much I hate (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:24:02 AM EST

that posts aren't always sequential on TL. It's way to easy to miss that there are newer posts under the top post.

I thought they were and I was just (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:35:10 AM EST

missing some occasionally, only to find them the next time back. Glad I'm not as oblivious as I thought I was.


what do you mean? how do you have your display (none / 0) (#15)
by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:09:47 AM EST

settings set?

I use "oldest first" and "ignore ratings"

Then they are sequential


I don't mean comments (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:16:52 AM EST

I mean stories on the front page.


Aha! (none / 0) (#17)
by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:18:58 AM EST

I suspect the powers that be rearranged (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:30:31 AM EST

the posts today.


Indeed, and that's fine (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:33:31 AM EST

but I wish there were some indication (other than scrolling all the way down the page) that this had happened.


: If only we ran blogs! (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:17:49 PM EST