« That NBC Poll on the Public Option | Main | Don't Believe the Scorpion »
August 19, 2009
Rift At 1600
by Lee Stranahan
The best explanation I have for the White House's teeter-tottering on the Public Option is that there's a rift in White House; a conflict caused by the clash between the principles that Obama was elected on and the 'experienced political experts' who don't care about the Public Option at all.
Jason Linkins lays a lot of this out in a great, fun to read piece on HuffPost....he echoes the points Bob has made about the press but I think it's obvious there are some people working in the White House with some real contempt for progressive ideas. More pushbank and maybe the President can cut them loose.
I've said for a long time now that the press has long endeavored to diminish the public support for the "public option," characterizing it as one of those foolish and untenable pipe dreams of "the left" when it actually has mainstream support. At the same time, the Obama administration has spun like a weather vane, conveying that a robust "public option" was essential to health care reform on one day, shruggingly suggesting that it would not be all that important the next. In today's Washington Post, we have an article in which they attempt to make these two great tastes taste great together.Michael D. Shear and Ceci Connolly's piece is headlined, "Debate's Path Caught Obama by Surprise." Of course! WHO KNEW THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION WOULD BECOME SO IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE? Circa August 19, the President apparently had no idea that people were so het up over it!
Filed under: Healthcare || jason linkins || Public Option || White House
 |  |  |  |  |
Posted By Lee Stranahan | August 19, 2009 4:33 PM
Comments
Oh, Lee, c'mon. Who are those anonymous "people" that so manipulate our president? Obama is no dummy, you can be sure that nothing (as important as a possibility of dropping the public option) gets considered and promoted without his support -- if it's not his own idea to begin with.
Obama never was really progressive. He has appeared so in comparison with Dubya, but when you look at his record, he is just another skillful centrist politician, interested mainly in winning his own game. But progressive -- really progressive, like, say, Kucinich, and not as contrasted with the Rethugs -- he is not. Never been. The principles and slogans -- change we can believe in, etc. -- were for the campaign purposes, not for the governing.
So it's beside the point to blame the press -- yes, they revel in "shocking" news and yes, this is shocking enough -- for something that has originated with our leader.
Posted by: Elizabeth ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.bobcesca.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 19, 2009 6:35 PM
Obama has clearly shifting from his own stated positions during the campaign...
Posted by: Stranahan at August 19, 2009 7:12 PM
Yeah, Lee, that's the difference between campaigning and governing, as my 16-year-old reminds me when I go off on one of my -- customary these days -- rants.
Obama dangled the health care reform (now called the health insurance reform) in front of our noses like the proverbial carrot. And yes, we will get a health insurance reform, I'm almost certain of that -- Obama's and Dems' political futures depend on it -- but as he himself has been signaling for a while (the latest during his weekend town meeting in CO), the public option is not necessary.
A health insurance reform is needed, sure, but nowhere near the real solution for our ridiculous health "care" system, the solution which is a single-payer government-run insurance for all, something that was never under Obama's consideration when he began his journey to the presidency. He did advocate it as an IL senator, but apparently quickly realized which way the political winds -- and monies -- are blowing.
But, again, no surprises here, really: look at the man's political record. He is not a progressive -- not the way you and I are. And, btw, read this.
Posted by: Elizabeth at August 19, 2009 7:50 PM
