Mr. Weisberg wrote:

"Barack Obama, too, seems to be caught in this dialectical rut. His early difficulties with health care reform, which will probably be the defining domestic initiative of his presidency, are the consequence of over-learning Clinton's lessons."

Am I closely following the same health care reform process as Mr. Weisberg? Do I understand Mr. Obama's philosophy in the same way? Apparently not. He was a candidate who said he was personally a liberal but that he would govern from the center. That's what he's doing.

In the first place, Obama has said it so many times that the press must just disbelieve him out of cynical habit. He is a liberal promising a an agenda of moderate to liberal change. His personal preference for a health care system is a single payer system. He knows that won't happen. So, his proposal is for a public option and a dozen other progressive details. He knows and has said he knows that many of these features will need to be compromised so long as the ultimate bill addresses his key concerns. He has brilliantly allowed the factions within his party to work out their philosophical differences without polarizing the debate by firmly taking sides.

Why has he taken this approach? First, he wants to guarantee that he gets a bill. Second, and significantly, he actually prefers a bill that can begin a national consensus around health care reform. This won't be the last health reform measure during his administration, and he needs as much support as he can get to make the new approach as non-controversial and effective as possible.

The fact that the most progressive wing of the Democratic party is unhappy is no surprise to me and certainly no surprise to Obama. But he has never been on the same page with the left, even though he is philosophically aligned with them. He believes in change with the added virtue of bringing in as many factions as possible.

The most surprising part of the Weisberg quote above is the very notion that he is having "early difficulties with health reform." The only early difficulty I have seen is that he needs to get his own message clearer when he talks about healthcare to the public. It's complicated and he needs to put it into populist terms.

But the progress on the Hill has been no less than stunning. Even if dozens and dozens of liberals don't get their way on every important detail -- do you think they'll vote against a package brought to the floor by Pelosi and Reid? Hell no! Nor will the Blue Dogs want to earn a reputation as the giant killer by blocking a bill. In a few months, they have come close to enacting changes that have eluded our nation for fifty years of trying.

As usual, Obama is winning and the media doesn't get it. Obama is on his way to revolutionary progress influenced and adjusted by moderate thinking. That is his trademark and its working again.

"As usual, Obama is winning and the media doesn't get it. Obama is on his way to revolutionary progress influenced and adjusted by moderate thinking. That is his trademark and its working again."

Energetic spin and I can agree that Obama is doing well on his number one priority, generating campaifn contributions from healt care lobbyists and getting re-elected in '12, but I don't consider an industry approved band aid costing $1t over ten years to be a win over a single payer, European style system that would save the country $10t over ten years. Maybe I just have different priorities.

tsdek;

My sense is that your ideal health care package and mine are similar or identical. Our difference is in our understanding of real politics. If you can show Senator Feingold, a single payer advocate, how he can get a bill passed to his liking in this atmosphere, or even in ten years -- you are a political genius and should be advising Obama. Feingold will vote for what he can get even though he shares your passion.

"Campaign contributions from health lobbyists" are a large but certainly not a complete explanation for the inevitable watering down of legislation. In the first place, Obama could not care less about these contributions given his campaign financing structure --so they don't explain the president's behavior.

Second, the reactionary interest groups in this country will remain in the driver's seat so long as the left holds out for perfection. Let's say Pelosi puts up a single payer refrom bill for a vote and refuses to compromise -- it goes down in flames immediately. What next? We're back to Obama's proposal which creates the need for Blue Dogs to flex their muscles, as they are now doing, to look god back at home.

My guess is that the final package is going to look something like the Kennedy/Obama plan with slight compromises for the Blue Dogs. As much as these conservatives don't want to be "not re-elected" as you point out, they also don't want to be challenged in the primaries from the left. If they are indeed successful in stoppinghealth care reform -- they will be tossed in the Democratic primaries. If that happens -- guess what? -- we lose Congress again. Try to get any reform passed under that scenario,

You wonder if you simply have "different priorities" than mine. Well, that depends on whether you consider the difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama as significant. The historical way to express discontent with both parties is to start a third party -- such as the Green Party. The Greens are admirable and may do some good around the edges and influence future debates. I'm all for them being in existence.

But my priority (and the reason I am a Democrat) is to do the most we can now -- and hope that the future provides opportunities for even more progressive steps. The option is to moan about how the program is just a "band-aid" and is not comparable to the European model. Bravo! But you tell me how we are going to get there without waiting another fifty years?

If you look the reality of politics and not just at its evils, you would know that Rahm Emmanuel is going to deliver the best bill that can be delivered this year. If we wait until next year, the bill will just get weaker. Real Politics.

JOHN

"My sense is that your ideal health care package and mine are similar or identical. Our difference is in our understanding of real politics. If you can show Senator Feingold, a single payer advocate, how he can get a bill passed to his liking in this atmosphere, or even in ten years -- you are a political genius and should be advising Obama. Feingold will vote for what he can get even though he shares your passion."

My plan is "Medicare for All," which apparently can't even get invited to a meeting. I would phase it in over a few years, starting with the under 18 crowd, then add a new 15 year block every year with matching Medicare tax hikes. I would also expand the taxes to apply to all earned income, as, currently, my short-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income pays no FICA taxes.

"Campaign contributions from health lobbyists" are a large but certainly not a complete explanation for the inevitable watering down of legislation."

Phil Gramm's insurance industry money beat Clinton's health care plan, in spite of poll numbers showing it initially favored, and industry money is driving the compromises on this bill, even though polling shows a strong public desire for national health care.Money speaks much louder in Washington than anything else.

"In the first place, Obama could not care less about these contributions given his campaign financing structure --so they don't explain the president's behavior."

Obama will be unable to offer more tax cuts in exchange for small contributions and he will be running on his own wars, his own deficits, his own bank bailouts, his own corporate welfare, his own FISA and New Patriot Act, and his own unemployment numbers. Obama cares about the money deeply, which is why he has been so kind to his big bank friend Goldman Sachs, one of his original big industry contributors.

"Second, the reactionary interest groups in this country will remain in the driver's seat so long as the left holds out for perfection."

Possible, but it could also be suggested that the left lacks leadership from a president unwilling to spend his political capital on even suggesting a single payer UHC, much less redirecting campaign mode to sell it. He just needs to take a page from Ross Perot, makes some charts, and remind people that they are paying double what the civilized world pays for health with worse results.

"Let's say Pelosi puts up a single payer refrom bill for a vote and refuses to compromise -- it goes down in flames immediately."

I'm not sure it would. The choice would be between the gold plated band aid crafted by the insurance lobby and UHC on a Europan model that cuts annual health expense in half. The first will cost $1 t over ten years, the second will save $10 t over ten years. It should be worth an effort, at least.

"What next? We're back to Obama's proposal which creates the need for Blue Dogs to flex their muscles, as they are now doing, to look god back at home."

Blue Dogs aren't in love with Obama, so can see that the current ideas are an ineffective boondoggle, an effort by the administration to deliver something they can call reform without taking responsibility for it or paying out political capital for it.

My guess is that the final package is going to look something like the Kennedy/Obama plan with slight compromises for the Blue Dogs. As much as these conservatives don't want to be "not re-elected" as you point out, they also don't want to be challenged in the primaries from the left."

And the left shouldn't want that either, being a gift to the GOP. Bear in mind the "conservative" and "left" are relative terms. A New York conservative is a Missouri Marxist and the BD's. like Ike Skelton, are quite mainstream here.

"If they are indeed successful in stoppinghealth care reform -- they will be tossed in the Democratic primaries. If that happens -- guess what? -- we lose Congress again. Try to get any reform passed under that scenario,"

You'll lose Congress anyway by '12, just because continuing Bush policies will not play well with voters. I would think the Democratic Party future is less important than delivering an effective plan that will fix the problem and cut the expense in half.

"You wonder if you simply have "different priorities" than mine. Well, that depends on whether you consider the difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama as significant."

On my core issues, the wars and the economy and the deficits and the debt, I see no difference. I refer to Obama as "Beige Bush."

"The historical way to express discontent with both parties is to start a third party -- such as the Green Party. The Greens are admirable and may do some good around the edges and influence future debates. I'm all for them being in existence."

I'm sure you and Newt Gingrich both love the Greens, totally under funded and facing a battle to get on ballots and get free air time from the MSM. My hope is Mike Bloomberg running against Obama and Romney in '12; a social liberal, fiscal conservative with money, name recognition, and a power base.

" The option is to moan about how the program is just a "band-aid" and is not comparable to the European model. Bravo! But you tell me how we are going to get there without waiting another fifty years?"

By having the president go to Congress, lay out the plan, Medicare for All taking maybe ten minutes to speechify.

"If you look the reality of politics and not just at its evils, you would know that Rahm Emmanuel is going to deliver the best bill that can be delivered this year. If we wait until next year, the bill will just get weaker. Real Politics."

And that is why I thought that Obama, working from the strongest moment in his entire presidency, should have gone for a good program. He gets weaker by the day, as we can see from the Blue Dogs getting out of the kennel. They, and the GOP, know that Obama will sign anything sent him, so will play that for their own advantage. Once again insurance money will win.

identify for me "the most progressive wing" of the democratic party. Kusinich? He's been marginalized and silenced. Who else? Please don't serve up Reid, Polosi, Shumer, et al. What did the "progressive wing" do when the dems got the majority in 2006? They stumbled over themselves to support the Bush agenda. Are they IN ANY WAY nudging the big O to the progressive side?

Long live the Empire!

I suspect Obama is clever in doing what he is doing. If he gets this bill passed, he will be seen as sucessful. Once national health care is in place, it will be much easier to slowly fix it into what it should be rather than trying to push a Clintonesque all-at-once, all-or-nothing perfectly planned bill that could never pass.

tsdek;

Reading your comments reminds me of the same debate I have had with friends on the left for decades. Articulating the ideal dream landscape does not even mow the lawn in the fight for justice. As one song says: the water is dirty but it's getting a little cleaner everyday. We havve to fight everyday for change and build on that change, year after year. In this country, revolution is for poets.

We live in a society that permits and will permit great forces of profit and conservatism to prevail so long as we on the left behave the way these interests hope and predict we will. If we demand a ten but after bloody battle can only get a five, our choice is limited to five or zero. It does no good to keep lamenting over our loss of perfection -- which we never had!

The insurance industry counts on the left to remain unwilling to create consensus because it knows that hardened positions result in zero change.

You said it all when you wrote: "On my core issues, the wars and the economy and the deficits and the debt, I see no difference. I refer to Obama as "Beige Bush."

Notwithstanding the stupid skin color reference, you have made yourself and your views irrelevant in the health care debate if you see no difference between Bush and Obama. If that is true, your true calling is to become a hermit and I hope you know that hermits don't vote. What's the use? If you can't have it all, you'll take your marbles and go back to your cave.

John

"tsedek;

Reading your comments reminds me of the same debate I have had with friends on the left for decades. Articulating the ideal dream landscape does not even mow the lawn in the fight for justice. As one song says: the water is dirty but it's getting a little cleaner everyday. We havve to fight everyday for change and build on that change, year after year. In this country, revolution is for poets."

Our history shows differently, but that was before political office became an entitlement.

"We live in a society that permits and will permit great forces of profit and conservatism to prevail so long as we on the left behave the way these interests hope and predict we will. If we demand a ten but after bloody battle can only get a five, our choice is limited to five or zero."

And I agree. My point is that our president, with a veritable landslide, a strong congressional majority, and the opportunity to play off recent memories of an incompetent administration and 8 years of weak kneed, enabling Congresses, came out of the gate and didn't even offer a 10. Had he done so I would be fighting for him. As was, he asked, after Cheney-esque conversations with the leaders of the industry, for a 5, maybe, if that is what the Congress offered him. So now our choice will be between a 2.5 and a 0.

"It does no good to keep lamenting over our loss of perfection -- which we never had!"

Again, perfection, or even a system that even mildly copied the civilized world's existing UHC plans, was never offered.

"The insurance industry counts on the left to remain unwilling to create consensus because it knows that hardened positions result in zero change."

The insurance companies count on the fact that we have the finest government can buy and that we lack the leadership to hold Congress' feet to the fire.

"You said it all when you wrote: "On my core issues, the wars and the economy and the deficits and the debt, I see no difference. I refer to Obama as "Beige Bush."

Thank you. Iraq id still costing lives and hundreds of billions, the other un-winnable occupation is being surged, with predictable costs. The economy is on life-support from massive borrowing that makes Little George look like St. Bill. Obama's deficits are record setting, but consistent with his senate votes. Obama has added nearly a trillion to national debt in his first six months.

"Notwithstanding the stupid skin color reference,"

Obama ran as a sorta negro and "Beige Bush" is alliterative, so I like the title.

"you have made yourself and your views irrelevant in the health care debate if you see no difference between Bush and Obama."

Not sure how seeing Obama as yet another chicken hawk proving his manhood with other peoples' lives affects a comparison with Bush. Obama has, at least, made UHC an issue, like Perot and Clinton did several years ago. Obama is well above Bush on this subject, just as one is infinitely greater than zero, while being considerably less than 10.

"If that is true, your true calling is to become a hermit and I hope you know that hermits don't vote. What's the use? If you can't have it all, you'll take your marbles and go back to your cave."

You're babbling now, as my posts show nothing of the sort. Perhaps "Beige" caused your left knee to jerk spasmodically and strike you in the forehead. Take two aspirin, then see if you can spin our Afghani casualties in the morning :)

tsdek;

You lost me and probably any civil person reading this thread when you wrote:

"Obama ran as a sorta negro and "Beige Bush" is alliterative, so I like the title."

I thought we were talking about your views on health care reform and not your racial insensitivities.

Signing out.

John

"tsdek;

You lost me and probably any civil person reading this thread when you wrote:

"Obama ran as a sorta negro and "Beige Bush" is alliterative, so I like the title."

I thought we were talking about your views on health care reform and not your racial insensitivities.

Signing out.

John"

You were getting your butt spanked on healthcare and your spinning of the Timid One's passivity in fighting the good fight from a position of overwhelming advantage, so you tossed out the overly sensitive race card, so go fuck yourself, if you can't find one of your senator buddies to do it for you :)

For our readers, Obama, like me, had a white momma and was raised white, so "sorta negro" describes him fairly well and describes some feelings about him among American blacks, descendants of slaves, who fought their way up from the ghetto rather than going to Hawaiian prep schools.

tsedek;

Ok, go fight the good fight and lose -- and then return to your twisted world of racial stereotypes. You have exposed enough of your mentality that I suggest you stop before it becomes Slate abuse.

I hope you're right!

L.

another example of Obama compromising reform away in return for Big Pharma and Insurance funding and in the face of the lobbyists:

"In today's Los Angeles Times Tom Hamburger reports on the extent to which former Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin has managed to integrate himself, and the interests of the lobbying group he heads -- the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) -- into the health care debate. The Times piece practices a studied neutrality, but I can't see how any proponent of meaningful health care reform can possibly read this piece and not conclude that President Barack Obama has essentially given away the store:

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama lambasted drug companies and the influence they wielded in Washington. He even ran a television ad targeting the industry's chief lobbyist, former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin, and the role Tauzin played in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.

Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.

"The White House blessed it," Tauzin said.

Yikes! What's been blessed? Something that reeks with the acrid aroma of a Faustian bargain. The pharamaceutical industry "has pledged $80 billion in cost savings over 10 years to help pay for it." What did Tauzin get in return?

For his part, Tauzin said he had not only received the White House pledge to forswear Medicare drug price bargaining, but also a separate promise not to pursue another proposal Obama supported during the campaign: importing cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe. Both proposals could cost the industry billions, undermine its ability to develop new cures and, in the case of imports, possibly compromise safety, industry officials contend.

Of course, Medicare drug price bargaining is precisely the sort of thing that would benefit actual health care customers. In essence, this reads as a deal by which corporate interests help to hurdle the political obstacle of deficit cost control without creating an effective bill. The White House can claim credit for "reform," while alleviating the actual health care impact on families gets kicked down the road, once again.

PhRMA has spent huge sums of money lobbying Congress for a health care bill that will ensure their profitability. In the first quarter of this year, Tauzin's outfit spent $6,910,000 in pursuit of the bill they wanted. They matched that amount in the second quarter with another $6,150,000. The efforts seem to be paying off!"

"tsedek;"

At least you finally spelled my name right.

Ok, go fight the good fight and lose -- and then return to your twisted world of racial stereotypes."

You will be unable to support your claim, so I'll continue to write you off as a has-been loser who plays the race card when he can no longer stay on the field with the issue. I would think you could have done better selling the campaign wide talking point about politics and half better than nothing.

"You have exposed enough of your mentality that I suggest you stop before it becomes Slate abuse."

Go fuck yourself twice, you washed up pussy. Now, go rat me out to the freditor. I'm wondering how he will ban me for the words "beige" and "negro." Maybe he could ban me for suggesting that you fuck yourself, but that seemed a reasonable reply to your Little Barry-esque comment about stupidity and racial insensitivity. Maybe you could demand special treatment because of your heightened sensitivity and diminished abilities? Or maybe you could cry and threaten to tell your mommy? Beyond that, you don't have a leg to stand on, but report away. It's all you have left in this thread.

BTW, if Obama has a stronger partisan for his gold plated band aid, have him send him or her over. This is an important issue and and Team Obama needs to send the first string in.

John may have run off crying to freditor, but I will continue to mop the floor with his well worn backside and continue looking at this important issue. I emphasized number 5, as it ties into an earlier post on this thread:

"Democrats and progressives are clearly rattled by how quickly the right has come out of the gate in the much-anticipated August health care battle.

Zandar, keying off Josh Marshall, explains:

Josh Marshall considers the health care town hall ambushes by the teabagger crowds and asks: "Folks can whine on endlessly about outfits like Freedom Works putting these rackets together. But if the president's plan has any public support they should be able to get supporters to these events too, right? Not to pull the Black Shirt routine but to provide some public demonstration that there's real public support for making reform a reality. ... If there is. So that's the question. Where's the other team?"

If they're waiting until after the Senate recesses on Friday, then they're ceding an entire week to the goon squads here. They were ready to go as early as this weekend and will continue to attack for the next four weeks. It's a very good question and very indicative of the problem Obama has had in the last six weeks: for the centerpiece of his administration's policy initiatives, he's sure not acting like he wants this very much.

The GOP, on the other hand, is treating this fight as what it is: an existential battle. They know that if robust health care reform passes, they are beyond toast. Democrats will run the show for a generation. They are pulling out all the stops on the attacks and the pressure. To use a crappy sports metaphor, they want the win more.

Team Obama has gotten hamstrung here in the last three days. Multiple Democrats have been jumped at appearances. The GOP telegraphed the plan well in advance. So far it's looking like the Dems don't have much of a "boots on the ground" response. I am hoping this changes and fast. The best organized grassroots political machine ever conceived rolled over the landscape last fall. Where is it now?

A major question (and source of angst) on the left is encapsulated in that last sentence, namely, where's the vaunted Obama operation and why can't it counter a ragtag group of so-called "teabaggers"? [For the record, as someone who protested the Iraq war and believes in citizen activism, I don't like using broad-brush pejorative terms for grassroots activists, even if I disagree with them politically. Two exceptions: astroturfers organized by big moneyed interests deserve all the disdain they get, and those who have a race-based anti-Obama agenda are despicable beyond words.]

Weeks ago, I cautioned that the White House was in perpetual campaign mode. Now we read that the Obama team will once again turn to the tried and true methods of the 2008 campaign.

Therein lies the problem. The August health care battle isn't the presidential campaign. Here are five reasons why:

1. The media and punditocracy have a different agenda. Back then, the favored narrative was David vs. Goliath, i.e. the unthinkable and exhilarating notion that Obama could vanquish three formidable foes: the indomitable Clinton operation, the resurgent McCain campaign, and the rightwing Swift-Boat machine. Today's narrative is also David vs. Goliath, but in reverse: can the downtrodden GOP, with the aid of insurance companies and assorted Obama detractors, deal him a gut-wrenching political blow? And can they convince enough rank and file Republicans and independents to work against their own best interests and sink the Obama agenda?

2. Obama's much-talked about online 'army' of 13 million people doesn't exist. At least not in the mobilized, battle-ready and efficient form we saw during the campaign. Between natural attrition rates and typical open (and conversion) rates, that 13 million is closer to a tenth the number who actually read the emails and far fewer who take concrete actions. The singular focus of a presidential race is absent in a multi-faceted legislative fight. Mobilizing an online 'army' on the scale of a presidential campaign is significantly more difficult in these circumstances, if not impossible.

3. Republicans and conservatives have far less to lose. When McCain-Palin were a few percentage points away from the White House, there was an incentive to be somewhat (and I emphasize 'somewhat') restrained, for fear of completely turning off the country. Now there's much more to gain politically by throwing caution to the wind and being total obstructionists. The dirty politics everyone expected during the campaign is showing up in full force now.

4. Inside baseball is less effective when you're on the inside. The media manipulation that helped win the White House, the masterful messaging, the leaks, the back-scratching, the hard-hitting conference calls with strategists and advisers while the candidate stayed above it all, the playing of one outlet and one reporter against the other, the smart turns of phrase, the snarky retorts, the outsider vs. insider kabuki, all these lose a good deal of potency when campaigning gives way to governing. Especially when bankers are running away with taxpayer money, polls are shifting and the public is hurting.

5. The netroots, excited and energized by the prospect of an Obama presidency, are disillusioned. The administration's Bush-affirming decisions on secrecy, civil liberties, torture, gay rights, etc. have alienated a good number of influential bloggers and progressive activists. These are the elite opinion-makers on the left, and their voices have been perennially marginalized (and their impact underestimated) by Democrats.

As Democrats fight for a signature issue, a serious strategic blunder has left them scrambling to catch up with their opponents. The White House should have laid out clear, unwavering objectives, a solid plan, rather than leave the health debate to meander through Congress. That vacuum has enabled the proponents of the status quo to marshal their forces.

Perhaps resorting to campaign tactics will turn the tide, I certainly hope so, but it bears acknowledging that the landscape has changed.

Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou