Who Obama Bargained With

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:02:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Related to this post. Matt Yglesias writes in disagreement with Ezra Klein:

What happened in the health care debate is that interest groups were able to get their way on most key points without needing to seriously attempt to deliver votes in exchange. [. . .] Basically thanks to their influence over “centrist” Democrats, the interest groups were able to get 85 percent of what they wanted in exchange for absolutely nothing.

Is this really true? I think not. Making deals with PhRMA on no drug reimportation and other interest groups for no public insurance program kept them on the sidelines but I doubt it swayed many Blue Dogs. What is more telling is who Obama did not have to bargain with - progressives. This is because they knew progressives would be rolled. This brings us back to MaryB's point:

I think the problem with the progressives is the same problem that Silver has - they do not have in their minds a clear definition of who the "counterparty" is and they have, therefore, created some imaginary counterparty who they have imbued with superpowers. Or possibly who they have imbued with such stupidity that they think they are unable to read the tealeaves.

If the Progressives had kept their eye on the ball from day one they would have (i)realized that the only counterparties who mattered to THEM in this negotiation were Obama and a few non-progressive Democrats, (ii)Obama and the non-progressive Democrats weren't stupid and would realize the progressives were from safe districts, and (iii) the progressives were always going to be able to claim victory on the baseline progressive goal of expanding Medicare.

The Progressives' inability to treat the White house as the counterparty is at the heart of their bargaining failure. Today we see it from progressive activists who whip for a bill in which they were completely rolled.

The reality is there is no authentic progressive activism - just Obama activism. The inability to keep their distance from the White House is their major failing. The unions have no problem being able to do this. It is why they achieve some success. Until the progressive view changes, nothing will change regarding the failure of progressive bargaining.

Speaking for me only

< Progressive Bargaining Failure: Once More With Feeling | Obama Executive Order Preventing Abortion Funding May Sub for Stupak >

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.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Who Obama Bargained With | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yup (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:19:57 PM EST

The Progressives' inability to treat the White house as the counterparty is at the heart of their bargaining failure. Today we see it from progressive activists who whip for a bill in which they were completely rolled. The reality is there is no authentic progressive activism - just Obama activism.

We've been seeing a lot of that around here lately, too.

: Mhmm... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:26:18 PM EST

True. Why whip for this bill? Why not whip for the alternative, which at least does no harm?

For the life of me, I could not figure out (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Anne on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:08:23 PM EST

why the progressives thought Obama was on the same side in this that they were; with gigantic clues dropping all over the place that he was not working for the same goals they were, they nevertheless just continued to treat him as an ally.

I have been saying for a long time that what the Congressional Dems needed to do was remember that the legislative branch is an independent one; maintaining tension between themeselves and the WH would have been one way to wield the kind of power their majority gave them. Instead, they just gave away their power and pretty much did what they were told; I think there's a term for this in the prison culture.

Had they acted as the independent body they are, the could have then put together the best health reform bill possible, and forced Obama to reveal just whose side he is on - ours or the health industry; threatening to veto a truly progressive bill would have revealed that Obama's progressivism might be only a costume and not a conviction. And maybe the role compromise and concession would have played would have us in a different place with this legislation.

I know that was too much to expect of a Democratic caucus that couldn't bear to flex the power it had in the last two years of the Bush presidency; how silly of me to think that if they couldn't assert themselves against a Republican president, they wouldn't be utterly compliant with a Democratic one.

I just have one question: how does this dynamic get changed?

One more question: do they want to change that dynamic?

I'm pretty much afraid I know the answer to both questions.

LOL (none / 0) (#10)
by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:21:36 PM EST

Congressional Dems . . . just gave away their power and pretty much did what they were told; I think there's a term for this in the prison culture.

Obama's progressivism could be revealed as a costume and it still wouldn't matter to some people. They look at him and all they see is a big "S," a pair of sleek tights, and a handsome, billowing cape.


: Like this? (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:37:10 PM EST

IF you can divulge any of your c.v. (none / 0) (#24)
by seabos84 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:20:52 PM EST

I'd be interested - your writing is digby caliber.

bob murphy
seattle high school math teacher, 50, 3rd career. cooked in boston fine dining 25 yrs ago, on alaskan fishing boats, got my my math b.a. in the 90's at the u.w. and managed to not drool in interview during seattle dot.bomb goldrush, worked for evil empire for 5 years, did NOT get rich.

if you need to stay in the shadows, I can understand.

rmm.


Painfully true... (none / 0) (#2)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:25:03 PM EST

"The reality is there is no authentic progressive activism - just Obama activism."

The hero worship has to end. I also get this feeling that way back in the primary campaign Team Obama was able to co-opt many progressives and progressive organizing groups not on issues, but on the themes his campaign offered. Once they felt part of the Obama movement, even after he moved on to higher office, they could not separate themselves from the movement. This is probably most true for progressive leaders, many of whom probably forged lasting relationships with the Team Obama and are having a hard time knocking the stars out of their eyes and recognizing when Obama is actually with them on an issue and when he is at odds, and how they must respond to achieve their own goals.

I was thinking about this (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by mentaldebris on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:33:57 PM EST

recently while some parts of the progressive blogosphere were working themselves into a frenzy to pass the bill and demonizing any who still opposed it for the very same reasons that the current cheerleaders opposed it not less than two weeks ago.

There's a difference between being effective progressive activists and party partisans. The difference is the ability to walk away from bad deals and let the party and President suffer the consequences.

They may try to be activists for progressive causes but when they perceive their activism on policy issues threatens the good of the party or the President, that activism quickly turns into partisan support. One cancels out the other. Depending on your perspective and the agendas involved it's either political pragmatism, taking one for the team, or selling out.

In a space of weeks or days there were some sites in the blogopshere that went from "No mandates without a PO." to "We have to pass this bill no matter what and you are with us or against us.". There were others whom I considered the Village Blogger Chorus with their "Democrats good. HCR good. Obama good " chant. They are unreachable to anyone who puts policy first because policy is secondary or always "good" with them.

But it's the actions and words of the ones who were until recently opposed that I find more troubling. It reminds me a lot of the rush to war in Iraq and the bailout. Same level of frenzy and demonizing of people who were saying, "Hey, wait a minute." Except this time people you thought were in the trenches fighting for the same cause are suddenly turning on you.

For these partisan sites the party now outweighs the policy and the principles. The concern for the damage to the party and the President outweighs the concerns for the damage the party's policies may cause, not only to progressives and their causes, but to the country.

It's not about progressive purity. Obama's backroom deals corrupted any chance of the citizens of this country without backroom access to get a fair deal. This type of bad faith dealing is something partisans will rationalize or ignore. Activists will find it appalling. The perfect can't be the enemy of the good in a deal made in bad faith.

I expect we'll be seeing a lot of this party over policy dynamic the next couple of years. If nothing else, it's rendered some sites as lacking credibility when it comes to actual progressive policy activism. Ultimately they are party partisans. That's fine. It simply means their progressive support is tenuous at best. If they feel the activism threatens the party or its leaders they'll fold. As long as you don't count on them to see a cause all the way through, you won't be disappointed.


I agree (none / 0) (#28)
by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:35:28 PM EST

The people that Obama brought in to the Dem party are not necessarily progressives - they might share some goals, but they are Obama Democrats, not movement liberals. Some of the liberal or progressive bloggers hopped on that train, and some did not.

It made sense to join forces during the general election - of course there was not going to be any progressive movement during a McCain-Palin administration.

What we are seeing now is everyone going to their natural home - movement liberal, or Obama Democrat.


: What is a "movement liberal"? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Politalkix on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:53:14 PM EST

Does progressivism extend to foreign policy (eg: obliterate Iran, taking nukes of the table, establishment of Dept of Peace) and attitude towards immigrants (eg: drivers license for illegal immigrants, no border checkpoints with Mexico, etc), opinions on crime legislation or is it only concerned about getting single payer health care?

Didn't candidate Obama take over (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:34:46 PM EST

the leadership of DNC and its coffers?


I'm not sure what you mean. (none / 0) (#6)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:44:15 PM EST

As standard bearer of the Party he has discretion over the DNC. I that what you mean?


As I recall, he moved entire DNC operation (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:46:04 PM EST

to Chicago and put his people in charge. Gateway to $$$ for re-election campains. Power. Not sure how much the Dems. in Concgress need this money, but if they do--better toe the line on HCR.


Of course, yes, he holds the DNC purse strings... (none / 0) (#8)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:57:20 PM EST

and more, his own fundraising ability. But I am not talking about how members of Congress react to pressure from Obama. Rather, I am commenting on the lack of pressure on Congress from the progressive crowd because as BTD says they basically now only engage in Obama activism.

But, to put our points together, the pressure from activists and Obama is only going in one direction, Obama's goal, and that doesn't help progressives in Congress stick with their principles.


: Do you know, offhand, how this works? (none / 0) (#25)
by EL seattle on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:21:10 PM EST

Is it a convention-to-convention term of "control"? Or is the DNC and Dem. party independent except during the presidential campaigns?
I don't recall Bill Clinton having a lot of control over the DNC in the 1990s when he was president, and I'd assume that Al Gore didn't have much control from 2001-2004 or John Kerry from 2004-2008. But maybe I wasn't paying attention.
I'm just curious about how that works out as an organisational process.

He moved the presidential campaign operation (none / 0) (#26)
by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:26:41 PM EST

of the DNC to Chicago - not the whole thing.


That makes perfect sense to me. (none / 0) (#38)
by EL seattle on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:14:05 PM EST

Unfortunately, that media reports that I remember reading at the time sounded a lot more drastic.

Interestingly, a google search comes up with several media mentions of this re-location, and most of them seem to refer back to a line or two from the Ben Smith Politico report. I think that one of the biggest weaknesses of the internet is the way that minor (and major) inaccuracies in a news report can so easily be further spread without any correction, clarification, or update through a cascade of cut-and-paste mentions by other writers and aggregators.


: I can't say it better than your (none / 0) (#42)
by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:30:38 PM EST

second paragraph. I think it is exactly what happened in this case. A story obtained from someplace with 'DNC' and 'moving to Chicago' in the same sentence got seized on and mangled to fit a narrative.
It is why I feel compelled to correct the facts on this particular issue whenever I see them. No offense intended.

we'll see if it is a decent bill I guess. (none / 0) (#5)
by Salo on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:43:22 PM EST

Hope all goes well with it.


My HOPE, after getting it (none / 0) (#27)
by seabos84 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:31:17 PM EST

squashed by stinking clinton and his sell outs -

my HOPE was that after the mind numbing lies, thieving and deprivations of the raygun-cheney decades, AND, after the obvious sell out-ism of the DLC crowd (I was 28 cooking in Boston in '88 when the DLC & Dudkakis were ascending)

MY HOPE was that IF this black guy was gonna be the FIRST non white boy elected POTUS, he'd take history by the throat ... and take on at least 1 of the big boys.

IF health care got sacrificed BUT defense was cleaned up, OR education was really started on the right road, OR financial & investment regulation was really started ... I figured we couldn't beat all of them, and would be lucky to get 1 of them on the right path ................

but this garbage? whew.

I've lived in Seattle or Boston for most of 30 years, and I've done o.k. moving from welfare to various o.k. servant jobs, BUT, the professional / managerial classes of uber educated elitists which constitutes the 'base' of the Dem party is one clueless bunch of dilettantes, or, just good old fashioned despicable sell outs.

Sounds like you might have been hoping (none / 0) (#29)
by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:51:24 PM EST

for more from Obama because he is African American. Is that the case?

I do think that was the case for many people, especially white upper-middle-class liberals.

The perception that the first African American president can be expected to deliver more by reason of his being "historical" also has a corollary, which I've seen on this site more than once: that the first African American president has to be cautious about being or even appearing too progressive because he cannot afford to be perceived as an "angry black man." That amounts to saying that there were circumstances--such as our own, which required and still require bold progressive action--that made it a bad idea for us to elect our first African American president.

I know you're not saying that. But if you're saying that "IF this black guy was gonna be the FIRST non white boy elected POTUS, he'd take history by the throat," you still seem to be holding Obama to a different standard because he is African American. And I think we need to be careful not to do that, even with the best of intentions, or the highest of expectations.


well... IF hillary had been elected (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by seabos84 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:19:47 PM EST

I think I would have felt kind of the same - my expectations would have been different than if we had just elected another white boy.

GIVEN the raygun-cheney resounding successes for 30 years (they were successful - they wanted to accomplish a lot of right fascist stealing, and they did) I would have HOPED that any Dem elected would have taken history by the throat.

Are my expectations different for obama or for hillary? Yup. Hopefully they'd figure out how to leverage their newness, but I don't know how.

As far as the "uppity" or whatever racist sexist crap - whatever. The flat earthers hate anyone who they're told to hate, and that includes Democratic leaders who are not sell outs (who is that these days???? ) and who are sell outs.

IF you run for a top political job, the fascists are gonna lie about you. Period. They're gonna pull EVERY smear they can. PERIOD. If you can't handle it internally, and you can't manipulate it back, then you're gonna get your butt kicked - if you're a white boy, a white woman, a black jewish who knows what ---- they're gonna lie, they're gonna smear. How someone fights back ...

I've already got a job to do. ;)

Precisely (none / 0) (#33)
by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:26:55 PM EST

. . . should not, IMO, be subject to expectations based on the president's gender, race, religion, sexual/affectional preference, and so on, but on expectations based on his or her policies and platform. Since the troglodytes are going to lie anyway, right?


: I've got 2 different answers - (none / 0) (#34)
by seabos84 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:33:45 PM EST

Answer #1.
IF I hit the big lottery, I'd start a messaging outfit which would FOCUS on destroying the karl roves & lee atewaters & roger ailes ... scum.
IF they'd stop destroying people, then I'd stop.
What is to keep me from becoming what I despise ... ummmmmmmmm ... isn't that what keeps poli sci and philosophy and psychology proffs employed.
In that no holes barred context, I think barack or hillary or any non white boy should do whatever it takes to win, including USEING their "unique" qualities.
++++++++++++++++
Answer #2. In the politics I want, people like Rove and atewater and ailes would have to get useful jobs, and policy would be decided on merits. yawn. let me find that chapter in The Prince, and get back to ya ;)
rmm.

No way out? (none / 0) (#11)
by Mitch Guthman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:32:19 PM EST

The problem with bargaining against Obama is that we have no realistic alternative except to support him and he knows this. In the end, we will always fold because liberals simply cannot allow his presidency and our party to be destroyed. Obama was willing to gamble that liberals would not allow his presidency to be destroyed and so we could be ignored (with liberal Obamamanics being further placated by another great speech). And, ultimately, despite some tactical successes by the unions, we toed the party line.

As a practical matter, there are only two political parties in this country. Ours is currently lead by a man who is basically a DLC/moderate Republican. The other is a party whose premier annual gathering was partly underwritten by the John Birch Society. In fact, the Republican Party is the John Birch Society. And its likely nominee in 2012 is going to be Sarah Palin, not Nelson Rockefeller. A Republican takeover of Congress in the 2010-2012 election cycles would likely mean the rollback not only of the Great Society but of the New Deal as well. And President Sarah Palin? The end of everything.

If there was a moderate Republican on the ballot in 2012, I wouldn't vote for him or her but I might just stay home. However, given the likely alternatives, I will be voting for Obama in 2012. There is no alternative. Obama knows this and also knows that he will never have to actually give me or people like me anything to ensure my support. Maybe a speech or some table scraps but little more than than.

So, my question is this: How do we bargain against Obama when we are necessarily so heavily invested in his presidency and his reelection? We are in a bad spot and I don't see anyway out.

(N.B, going "Nader" is mere childish self-indulgence. I do not consider it a valid solution to the current situation).

Once you have admitted (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by itscookin on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:53:15 PM EST

to a candidate that he has your vote no matter what he does and your money is unnecessary to his election (re-election), there is no way to hold his feet to the fire. If we have learned anything from this election and its aftermath, we should have learned this. The only way to make a politician listen to you is to make him earn your vote.


As long as enough people think (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:00:30 PM EST

there is "no realistic alternative" to Obama, then there is no realistic alternative to Obama.

But if people stop thinking that pushing Obama to the left means "destroying" "his" presidency and "our" party, as if preserving the status quo on either count were an end in itself, then you're right, there is "no realistic alternative" to Obama.

I disagree, BTW, that Sarah Palin will be the GOP nominee in 2012. The Repubs are letting her hang out there and be revealed as batsh!t crazy so that their more presentable crazy candidate will appear more sane when the time comes.

Anyway, you need to speak for yourself when you say things like this:

How do we bargain against Obama when we are necessarily so heavily invested in his presidency and his reelection?

A vital political party would have a bloc of progressive legislators backed by vocal and effective progressive activists. A vital party would have no qualms about challenging an ineffective sellout of a sitting president in a primary election. After all, Obama is an elected official, not a king, and "his" presidential term is served at our pleasure, or at least that's the way it's supposed to be.

You don't need third parties or Ralph Nader when you have a vital political party.

And as far as "realistic alternatives" are concerned, recall that the Bushies did not scruple to make their own reality.


Um (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:04:15 PM EST

What?

This is about the health bill.

Not caving to Obama on the health bill does not mean not voting for him.

Sheesh.


Watching the Obama pep rally (3.50 / 2) (#13)
by Cream City on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:52:16 PM EST

with the Dem caucus now, it's funny to read your comment about how childish it would be to not cast a vote in the presidential column of the ballot.

Watching this, I just was thinking about how adolescent the rally seems, just like the ones I had to attend in high school.

So the choice you give is to be childish or adolescent? Some choice there.


He's really talented at pushing (none / 0) (#19)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:28:36 PM EST

the guilt and the hero buttons. Not one word that specifically pointed to what part of the bill would do what he says in controlling cost and making healthcare accessible and affordable for all.

Horrifying.


Right, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:30:45 PM EST

These days he looks the way Edwards always used to look to me---"trust me, you suckers!"


His primary job is to make people believe (none / 0) (#22)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:48:49 PM EST

he's only doing what he truly feels is the best possible thing for the people he loves with all his heart.

I feel like I'm actually living in the story of The Lorax. Only the sneed is health insurance, and the people are the truffula trees.


: Thneeds, not sneeds (none / 0) (#23)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:50:53 PM EST

n/t

Take heart (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:57:56 PM EST

It won't be Palin. Lots of Republicans hate her too, and while she's raising some cash and very popular right now, they want to win, and if they smell blood in the water, they are not going to chance it by putting her in the nomination.

Romney is leading with 28% right now. Hucakbee's at 24% - Palin's at 23%. While it's silly to talk polls right now, especially ones that don't include other contenders, they know she alienates independents.

Anecdotal at best, but all the Republican women I know, especially hate her and just roll their eyes whenever she is mentioned as a nominee.


Obama or Prez Palin Apocalypse? Really? (none / 0) (#18)
by Ellie on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:20:36 PM EST

The creepiest thing about that aaaaiii!!! script is that anyone would try it outside a Creature Feature trailer.

Watching fauxgressive blogtopia's triumphal takedowns comparing Stoopid Palin to Talented Charismatic Schmatty Obama was bad enough.

Shaking an effigy of Sarah Palin is, I dunno, kind of cute actually, given that Obama/Palin aren't the two choices for 2012.

I'd even go further and suggest neither will be a factor.


We know what we want. But how to get it? (none / 0) (#30)
by Mitch Guthman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:08:14 PM EST

The conventional wisdom (to which I subscribe) is that Obama has staked the future of his presidency on the health care vote. It is widely believed, correctly in my opinion, that a failure to pass this package of legislation will result in devastating loss for the Democrats in November---perhaps even the loss of both houses of Congress. I think that is why many people such as Dennis Kucinich and other progressive House members changed their minds and decided to strongly support Obama's health care proposal, even though they basically got nothing in return.

How did we get to this point? I think we got here because the current proposal before Congress basically represents Obama's vision of what health care reform should be. Clearly, he opposed single payer, Medicare expansion and the public option and would have done so regardless of their popularity or the ease by which they could be moved through Congress. He believed all along that he could get something like the current proposal by giving the interest groups (insurance companies, BigPharma, the AMA) nearly everything they wanted in order to obtain their acquiescence. He was already assured support for his DLC-style plan from "moderate" Blue Dogs.

The Obama White House never bargained in good faith with liberals. In fact, they hardly bothered to talk with them at all except to make threats if they didn't fall into line. Others (including Glenn Greenwald, BTD and MaryB) have very professionally and comprehensively explained why the bargaining strategy used by most liberals lead to their being ignored. I do not disagree with their analysis.

The dilemma, which I tried imperfectly to raise in my previous comment, is this: If you say you'll still vote, work and raise money for President Obama's reelection whether your needs/interests are meet, you will be irrelevant and you will be ignored. On the other hand, there is only one threat a politician will ever take seriously----a threat to his reelection.

Since President Obama quite obviously believes the passage of what he himself describes as his "signature" legislative achievement is essential to his reelection, he might indeed be swayed if liberals threatened to block it. But could we really afford that? Are we really prepared to accept the consequences----in this case terrible losses in November and spending the next two years with replay of 1994?

Are we really prepared to see a primary fight in the 2012 election? Remember, every previous such revolt against a sitting president has meant electoral defeat. In any event, are we really prepared for the consequences of a Republican sweep in 2010-2012? Knowing everything that's at stake?

And so I return to my original question: If we liberals decide to take a stand and make demands upon President Obama, what should we do if he doesn't take us seriously? Should we let the hostages (uninsured people, the Great Society programs, the New Deal, etc) die to establish our credibility? Are we really prepared to do that?

Unless and until the liberals (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Anne on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:11:13 PM EST

in Congress take a stand, act like the independent body they are, put some tension in the relationship between them and the WH, and stop sitting next to the phone waiting for the latest call from the kidnappers in the administration who are holding their cojones hostage, it won't matter one whit what we liberals out here in the real world do or don't do.

Prior to Obama's arrival in the WH, and after the Dems gained their majority, they were still largely ineffective, in spite of calls, letters, petitions and every other citizen-driven action; when Obama took office, it got worse, not better. Worse. In what world did we imagine that we would have a bigger majority and the WH and still feel like they just aren't listening? And by all accounts, based on their actions, that feeling is accurate, not a figment of our imagination.

We are invisible. For now. They will see us leading up to November, come sniffing around for money, try to terrorize us with the fear of a Republican Congress; they will pretend to listen. They will paint their tenure as historic, and be oblivious to the collective eye-rolling that pronouncement will engender.

Fool me once...


Now Anne... (none / 0) (#39)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:24:48 PM EST

There were a few Dems who were ducking the WH calls...


: I would leave a recorded message (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:28:41 PM EST

saying that I am consulting with my pastor about how the bill impacts women.

Circular thinking, my friend (none / 0) (#31)
by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:17:07 PM EST

I think it comes down to (none / 0) (#35)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:47:36 PM EST

brinksmanship on Obama's part. In a way, he was willing to walk away from the table, telling everybody left of Reagan to eat it, or there wouldn't be any bill.

Something else that's very, very clear now: Obama is totally delighted with this bill. This center right piece of garbage is almost exactly what he wanted. You can bet he wouldn't be smiling ear to ear if he had a bill with the PO. Like Bush, he's great at pushing a winning hand, but he is terrible at hiding displeasure.
I don't think he wanted a Medicare expansion either, because Medicare cuts are supposed to help fund this bill---to be accompanied by SS cuts in the future, most likely.


Yes (none / 0) (#40)
by itscookin on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:25:39 PM EST