TPMDC
WH Says Obama Supports Senate But President Unlikely To Talk Health Care For A Few Days
Christina Bellantoni | October 26, 2009, 9:56AM
Deputy White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer
Share
Send to a friend!
The White House wants everyone to know President Obama "completely supports" the Senate leadership as a final bill emerges this week.
In response to TPMDC and other outlets reporting that the White House is pushing back against efforts to include a public option in the merged bill, the White House press shop issued a rare late-night blog post from Dan Pfeiffer.
But Obama himself is unlikely to chime in for several days. He's meeting with his national security team about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, then heading to Florida for a meeting with troops.
Tonight Obama will headline a Democratic fundraiser where he's likely to continue outlining his administration's accomplishments thus far, reminding activists change doesn't come easy and asking people to keep fighting.
Tomorrow the president does an event related to energy before heading to Virginia for a big campaign rally with gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.
So that means unless his schedule changes, Obama probably won't be weighing in loudly on health care negotiations until at the earliest Wednesday.
Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is targeting Obama with a new ad, said the president seems to be refusing to fight.
Green blogged last night at OpenLeft the White House needs to understand:
Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid "good luck with that" is not the same as the president saying, "I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes." Americans clearly favor a strong bill over a bipartisan bill and are clamoring for President Obama to make good on the mandate for sweeping change that was given to him in the 2008 election. President Obama will be judged by many of his biggest 2008 supporters on whether he fights for a strong public option at this critical moment.
We've been getting a lot of reader notes and comments on stories that Obama supporters are frustrated he hasn't been firmer about the public option, and that he's been deferential to his former senate colleagues, a charge being repeated privately by Senate leadership aides.
Here's Pfeiffer's note:
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.In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition. That continues to be the President's position.
Senator Reid and his leadership team are now working to get the most effective bill possible approved by the Senate. 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.
In his blog post, Green mocked Obama's speech to Organizing for America volunteers last week, where he detailed the good things in "the bill you least like."
"Does this sound like President Obama fighting for the public option to you?" Green wrote. (TPMDC's reporting on that talk here.)
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column (VIDEO)
- Jon Stewart: Obama's Teleprompter Is No Match For Palin's 'Mavericky Notecard Hand-Scribbled Buzzwords' (VIDEO)
- Colbert: 'Sarah Palin Is A F--king Retard' (VIDEO)
- At A Whole New Level
- What's the Deal with The Ryan Budget?
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- Backhanded Compliment
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- History
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column (VIDEO)
- House GOP-ers: Start Over And We'll Come To The Table. White House: No.
- Bachmann: 'Wean Everybody Off' Social Security And Medicare
- Ben Nelson Helps GOP Block Obama NLRB Nominee
- Jon Stewart: Obama's Teleprompter Is No Match For Palin's 'Mavericky Notecard Hand-Scribbled Buzzwords' (VIDEO)
- Allegations Against Leader Cause Turmoil In CA GOP
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- Deconstructing Rush Limbaugh
- Bachmann: 'If We Reject Israel, Then There Is A Curse That Comes Into Play'
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
VLaszlo
October 26, 2009 10:04 AM
So all the published reports of democratic Senators supporting a strong public option and begging for a more active role by Obama (instead of a pushback supporting Snowe's "trigger" are false and intended for what purpose? to embarrass Obama? Why? Where's the gain? It make s no sense. The only plausible explanation is that Obama is giving tepid and token support for a strong public optoion in the present political climate and prefers the lower-risk safety of a watered-down health care bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 26, 2009 10:29 AM in reply to VLaszlo
This is sloppy stuff. You keep referencing this group which is using TPM as its sole source. And mixing a WH blog post denying TPM reporting with commentary with this guy Green. TPM seems to be weirdly manufacturing this story. Can we expect more "news" involving quoting opinions about TPM reporting?
A more likely scenario is that many of these Senators, who to date have NEVER said anything good about the public option -- were looking for a way to blame the WH and shift focus from them. Conrad, Lincoln, Bayh, Lieberman, Snowe, Reid ....
But I guess if you are all primed to believe, mostly based on preconceptions, that the president is eager to 'stab you in the back', you'll see everything through those lenses. For my money, I've been hearing the president trump the PO for months, while I haven't heard it from moderates in Congress. If anyone is likely to go wobbly on us, it would be senators from red states. imho.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VLaszlo
October 26, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
your ability to ignore all evidence to the contrary is certainly remarkable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindaR
October 26, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Yes, I've been hearing the president "trump" the PO for several months too.
Obama has undercut the public option from the beginning, when he took single-payer off the table before anybody opened their mouths, and when he cut a backroom deal with pharma.
Even if/when a weak public option ends up in the final bill, it's too late for Obama to say he fought for it. He will have agreed to it over his resistance. He has already tried to get us to take the bill we hate -- and like it.
Let's put it this way: Now, whenever President Obama talks about health care, my emotional response is the same as my response to those commercials where the guy substitutes a fake pony for the real one and tries to blame it on the kid who wants a pony.
I will always believe we got the public option in spite of Obama, not because of him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 26, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to LindaR
Excuse me. Obama told everyone before the election that Single-Payer wasn't going to happen. There was no political will to do it. He had to have gotten that impression from somewhere. He didn't come down from the mountain and declare single payer dead and all of Congress just followed. Democrats are supposed to be independent thinkers, right? So where was the outrage and outcry from all those in Congress who wanted single payer? Since we can't even get the Dems in line for a PO, I will take the presidents word for it that single payer would not have passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VLaszlo
October 26, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Excuse me. Nice change of subject. Obama has been undercutting the public option from day one. Maybe you can address that issue without the requisite "Obama really said in the campaign that he was against single-payer and if you listened really closely he wanted to bailout the banks and expand the Afghan war and keep DADT in place and keep the lid on Bush-Cheney criminal acts..." Sure he ran as a right wing Dem and we should have all known. Let the buyer beware.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sparklplenty
October 26, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Have you ever heard of a bargaining chip?
The unholy deal between insurance robber barons and pharma has already been made. If you have watched and listened closely you can easily read between the lines. O has never wanted a strong public option and he clearly is not fighting for one. If one passes he will take the credit but I for one will not give it to him. If it passes it will be because of the outrage of a lot of folks who held congress and the prez's feet to the fire. Lobbyist money is a very high hurdle, but hurdle it we must.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
October 26, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Pass this along....
There is a whole article on Rueters about waste in Healthcare....This proves Obama was right all along but it will push the Dems to pass this quick to avoid fallout from the HC donor dollars...Other wise the bill will get tighter..
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSTRE59P0L320091026
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to LindaR
Obama has been talking about wanting a public option for 6-8 months. But if we get one, it will be in spite of him?
Exhibit A in why you nutbags aren't taken seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 26, 2009 7:51 PM in reply to FreeRider
Sure, keep 'em honest and keep up the pressure, but I'm with you -- I dont get the haters who seem eager to villainize our side. They want to create some kind of "stabbed in the back" mythology whereby even success is a betrayal ("it will have been despite the president..."). To me that can be summed up in a single word: non-falsifiable. That's an article of faith, much like the birthers. I'm not sure some of these cranks can be argued with.
While it's not impossible that Obama is 'secretly against' the PO, Occam's Razor would suggest that the half dozen wobbly Senators who are ON RECORD for opposing the public option are the easier answer for obstructing a robust PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plynch22
October 26, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to VLaszlo
Obama knows what he's doing. He's not going to publicly get behind any option until its passage is certain. Is that not obvious enough? A big loss on healthcare would cripple his term. And publicly backing one option, and then having the Ds in Congress decide they want to go a different direction, creates a media storm about a fractured party. I didn't vote for him to get all reckless at a precarious moment like this; I voted for him because he would remain calm, ride out the rough seas (including hysterical reporting and pushback from the left) and make the best decision.
He's going to make sure a good public option passes. The last thing we should want him to do is stake himself to a specific position, even if that would fire the cockles of your ideologue heart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
October 26, 2009 12:15 PM in reply to plynch22
co-sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VLaszlo
October 26, 2009 1:42 PM in reply to plynch22
Sure. whatever he does it's good. And no way to disprove it because his heart is pure. If he doesn't publicly support and promote good policy, and all the reports are thyat he is opposing the strong public option because Snowe won't go, then he must be supporting it privately. How do we know. It's OBAMA. Hooray!!!! If he does (on occasion) support and promote good policy...it just proves the point. Double Hooray!!!!! He's so smart the doubters are fooled; even his supporters are fooled. But not the true, the loyal, and the faithful. Semper Fi!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
October 26, 2009 10:22 AM
"Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid 'good luck with that' is not the same as the president saying, 'I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes.'"
This comment by Green is unreal. Do people like Green actually think Obama is staying out of this? Do you actually think that he is entrusting this bill, which he will own when it's done, and therefore entrusting his own fate, to whatever happens to come out of the Senate? The naivete of some of the chicken littles on the left is mind-blowing.
When this bill passes with a strong public option, the whiners at Open Left will have to eat crow. Of course they won't, they'll instead pretend it was their pressure that won the day. Just as they pretend now to be Obama's "base" even though most of them fought tooth and nail against Obama in the primaries until the last possible moment, endorsing 2 other candidates and only coming to support Obama when the other choice is John McCain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 26, 2009 10:49 AM in reply to joseph
People who hang out on Internet blogs believe that the shadow play that takes place in the public space is the reality and the only reality. There are no people casting the shadows, there's no possibility that the shadow's are being projected for purposes that aren't perfectly evident from the shadows themselves.
They're like people who think reality TV is real.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 26, 2009 10:55 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
People forget that Obama's administration is the most transparent ever. Health care negociations haven't even begun yet. I know this because Obama said he would televise them on CSPAN.
So don't believe any of these reports of Rahm Emanuel meeting in secret with lobbyists, or Obama backing the "trigger": it just can't be true!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 9:43 PM in reply to Why oh why
Except it was true. Read Senator Schumer's account of the meeting with President Obama.
I voted for President Obama in 2008. I've vote for him in 2012. My bedroom wall is decorated with a framed copy of the New York Times from President Obama's inauguration. I am proud to think of myself as a strong supporter of the President.
We don't, however, effectively support him with blind hero worship. We need to question what he does and push him from the left. To paraphrase FDR, President Obama needs us to make him do what he wants to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 26, 2009 10:54 AM in reply to joseph
The thing I like Obama is he takes a lot of plays right out of the Saul Alinsky book. And one of Alinsky's strategies was to give the community the feeling that they were having an effect and making real change, even if that was an illusion.
To wit, if health care reform with a strong public option passes and people at FDL and Open Left think it was only through their heroic efforts that they pushed Obama into getting it done, then so be it. I don't think Obama really cares who claims credit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to joseph
Co-Sign. The Netroots are impotent but continue to believe they are all powerful.
They have repeatedly claimed that Obama promised a public option during the campaign and is now going back on that promise. The reality is that he never promised a public option and is still pushing for one.
If we get a public option they will claim it was in spite of Obama, not because of Obama and only because of their hard work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to FreeRider
"The reality is that he never promised a public option..."
In 2008, Candidate Obama told us that his plan for health care reform would "establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small business that want to offer insurance to their employees."
You can read Candidate Obama's 2008 "Plan for a Healthy America" here: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/files/30/files//2009/09/5996811583d82a33cd_6muomvq5x.pdf
(h/t: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 11:26 AM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
he likes lying to himself and others.
You can even link to Obama's site:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
•Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
and he won't care.
or show him stuff like:
But President Obama did campaign on the public option., It was part of his health-care plan that he unveiled in the primaries. I asked Ezra Klein to verify it for me and he did.
Berkeley's Jacob Hacker, who was the first to persuasively articulate it; to the Economic Policy Institute, which fleshed out the specifics; and to the Campaign for America's Future, which took the lead in selling it to advocacy groups and the presidential campaigns. John Edwards picked it up and made it central to his proposal, and the other candidates followed suit to protect their left flanks.
And I found that Paul Krugman has it also.
The idea of letting individuals buy insurance from a government-run plan was introduced in 2007 by Jacob Hacker of Yale, was picked up by John Edwards during the Democratic primary, and became part of the original Obama health care plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to Indie Pro
or even more recently:
The White House has stressed, repeatedly, that the president favors the public option. It was, as one administration aide put it, a major part of his presidential campaign.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/white-house-absolutely-fa_n_333271.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to Indie Pro
How stupid are you? Don't answer. We know. REAL STUPID.
What does what President Obama says now about the public option have to do with the fact that he never even mentioned a public option during the campaign? Nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 11:40 AM in reply to FreeRider
It was, as one administration aide put it, a major part of his presidential campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 11:44 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Yet, you can't find ONE example of Barack Obama articulating this "major part of his campaign"?
IndiePro, you're so sad. Would a puppy help?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Wait. So Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman and John Edwards mentioned a public option? So they said candidate Obama was for the public option?
You can find all of these people who say that Obama said "public option" but can't find ONE instance where Presidential Candidate Barack Obama ever uttered the words "public option"?
Wow. That's really proves your point. I bet you can find somebody to say that Barack Obama was raised in madrassa and was born in Kenya, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to FreeRider
this is my last time to engage you on this, because, from now on all your denials are just hilarious and show what a moron you are.
I did one search, when we did this the other day, and found:
Obama's "Plan for a Healthy America".
Today, when I saw that you wanted to continue ti lie to yourself and others, I did another search.
Found a place on his website where it is, and then other people who confirm it was part of his campaign, including an aide in Obama's administration.
I won't search anymore, as I'm sure you'll deny that. Something like, oh so you found Obama saying it only 5 times in 2 years or some such nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 12:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
In other words, you're finally willing to admit that in 2 years of campaigning, 30 debates and hundreds of media interviews, Obama never once uttered the words "public option."
Well, it took you long enough, asswipe!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Let me chime in to Obama sounded like a supporter of the Public Option during the campaign. But it was always qualified support, and his lawyer-speak left wiggle room to accept something less than a PO if it achieves their pillars of reform: cost control, choice and competition. He's a frustrating guy to pin down, and he rarely does anything to dissuade people from projecting their ideals onto him. This was a skill that came in very handy during the campaign. But this is governing now, not campaigning, and I will be right there with you crying foul and feeling betrayed if the bill he signs does not offer actual "Hope" and deliver real "Change".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to Dorn76
this has nothing to do with whether I'll feel betrayed. Obama and I differed on many issues prior to me voting for him. I don't need a representative that agrees with me 100% of the time. When I think they are acting wrongly, I'll call them out.
But for the love of all things holy, you people are beyond reason. It is in his fucking plan. On his fucking site. If I cared more, I'd search it out more.
Unbelievable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to Dorn76
Of course I don't believe for one instant that's going to happen. I think you will be OK with what results, even if you think it happened despite the Prez.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to Dorn76
I care about the policy, whether it is just, and how it affects people.
cheerleading the President, stifling any commenter that disagrees with the president, apologizing for the president -that's for others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Oh, quit whining, you pussy! Nobody is stifiling you.
You've been asked repeatedly to find just ONE instance of Obama campaigning on or even MENTIONING a public option. You can't do it and you compensate by having a hissy fit.
Unbelievable! LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 1:27 PM in reply to FreeRider
again,
in his campaign literature I found Obama's "Plan For Heathcare" where he mentions it.
I found on his campaign website where he mentions it.
I don't need to search any further.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Sooooooo, you can't find ONE instance of Obama saying "public option" in two years of campaigning?
OK. That's what I thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
oh. You think campaigning means talking.
I'm not gonna go look through speeches. I found him campaigning on it all ready. That you don't understand what a campaign consists of is your deficiency.
I've given you two examples of Obama campaining on the Public Option. That you're too stupid to know what campaigning means is your problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
So, you can't find a single instance of candidate Obama ever saying "public years"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
October 26, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
FreeRider:
It was clearly in the plan Obama proposed in his campaign. And he's argued for endlessly in the past few months. You're a 100% troll. And BTW, did you notice the Senate just put a public option in the bill? You and the chicken little whiners at Open Left should be eating crow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 8:07 PM in reply to joseph
You're an idiot if you think (a) I'm opposed in ANY way to the public option and (b) I agree with those nutters at Open Left who think Obama has betrayed his campaign promises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Look, I respect your viewpoint as your own, and have no interest in "stifling" debate, even if it's swearing at me and calling me names.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to Dorn76
I don't think I called you any names, nor did I intend to imply that you try to stifle debate. I meant to label freerider with those things. Where they rightfully belong.
That you'd join that moron in claiming Obama never campaigned on the Public Option, that was just extremely disappointing.
There is no mistaking his Plan for Healthcare Reform, nor his website.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 2:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Have you found just ONE instance where the words "public option" ever passed candidate Obama's lips?
You've got 2 years, 30 debates and hundreds of campaign speeches and interviews so surely he said "public option" ONCE . . . since he campaigned on it, that is!
LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 3:01 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Don't be so disappointed, I'm not trying to rewrite history....I definitely heard him support it during the campaign, and the literature you link to is pretty clear, so I don't think you are wrong at all thinking he was strongly in favor of a Public Option. I also think that was a necessary position to take in order to keep progressives from going batshit crazy. But I've also heard him dial that back since the election, and the WH statements for a long while have stuck to that less than definitive tone, "we believe the PO is the best option for achieving, etc., etc.".
They intend to leave wiggle room, that's all I'm saying.
Finally, let me be totally clear, I am not, and have never been a member of the "you people".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to Dorn76
I think its a mistake to wait until until the bill is passed to be concerned. I think the most important quote for Progressives to remember during the Obama Administration is that one from FDR that has become so famous lately: "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."
As a politician, and a person conciliatory by nature, President Obama will always seek the middle ground. Our job, as progressives (if you consider yourself one), is to keep pushing him from the left. Otherwise, that middle ground will be far right of where it ought to be.
If my criticisms of the Obama Administration on this issue are totally wrong, that's great. I'll be happy to be wrong, but I'll still be glad that I helped to push him from the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 26, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
I totally agree that the Left has to push hard to get what we want from this President, and of course we shouldn't wait until we see a final bill to advocate for what we want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
When a candidate campaigns for two years, has 30 debates and gives hundreds of interviews and the only way you can link him to a particular policy is through one mention in one document on his campaign website, that's pretty lame.
Obama never uttered the words "public option" during his entire campaign. Period. When a campaign employs thousands had has hundreds of advisors, you can't really believe that the guy at the top personally wrote or even read all of the material.
I think Obama has always believed in a public option but to say he "campaigned" on one when he ever even mentioned it in two years is bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to FreeRider
That document (which was put out by the Obama Campaign in 2008 as an official statement of the candidate's position on health care reform) was what I found with a two-minute search on google. That's all it took to prove your claim wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
My claim was that Obama uttered spoke the words "public option" during an entire two year campaign.
A document on the campaign website does nothing to refute that claim. In the age of YouTube, if Obama said it, there would be a record.
NEXT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to FreeRider
Whatever lets you sleep at night. The bottom line is that readily available documents from the Obama campaign show that he promised "a public insurance program." That's what the public option means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
I'm certainly not losing any sleep by your inability to find ONE instance of Obama campaigning on a public option.
Wake me up if you find one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
I did. Its posted above.
I realize that it can be difficult for people to admit mistakes when they are heavily-invested in believing that they are always right, but here your facts were clearly wrong.
If its this difficult for you to admit a simple mistake, perhaps you should put more effort into researching your facts before you post. As mentioned above, it took only a two-minute google search to discover that you were flat wrong in claiming that President Obama never promised the public option as a candidate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 26, 2009 2:20 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
So, again, you can't find ONE instance of candidate Obama ever uttering the words "public option"?
IndiePro finally fessed up after weeks of claiming otherwise. Save yourself some time and admit defeat now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
The example is posted above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to joseph
"Do people like Green actually think Obama is staying out of this?"
To me, it looks like the Obama Administration is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They want the progressive base to believe that they are supporting a strong public option, but they've also privately concluded that the "Snowe Trigger" is the best that they can achieve politically.
Consequently, the Administration puts out public statements that proclaim support for the public option, but stop short of providing the support that a strong public option needs right now. That allows the Administration to claim to the progressive base that they did all they could and also claim a victory to the mainstream media when the "Snowe Trigger" passes.
While I understand the political logic of this tactic, I nonetheless see it as a betrayal. Meaningful healthcare reform, including a real public option, was one of the core promises made by Candidate Obama. Its time for him to stand up and support his promises, even if that means risking some political capital and even if that places some conservative democrats in a difficult position for re-election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 26, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
EVERYTHING that happens in DC is part or all politics. It's DC!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
October 26, 2009 7:36 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
Except the "Snowe trigger" didn't pass. The opt out public option did. So, so much for your theory. Obama, BTW, has argued for the public option hundreds of times in the past few months. Not sure how much more unequivocal he could be. Chicken little bloggers like Green were flat out wrong here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 9:26 PM in reply to joseph
Not quite. Read Senator Schumer's account of what happened in the meeting with President Obama. The Senate is going ahead with the opt-out version despite the White House's efforts, not because of them.
As for what more President Obama could have done, that's very simple. He could have said, "I won't sign a bill without the public option." If he didn't want to go that far, he could have said "I support the public option" WITHOUT then immediately adding the weasel words "but its not essential."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
October 27, 2009 8:39 AM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
You need to reread Shumer's account, because you have misread it, or are misrepresenting it. Schumer himself said "I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger ... We talked about this for a while in leadership and the White House wanted to hear our thoughts--and when they heard them they thought that this was the right strategy to get our caucus together."
Again, Schumer himself says he thinks the White House also preferred a "stronger public option" to a trigger. Not the least bit surprising to anybody watching this debate over the past few months who has seen Obama himself advocating again and again on behalf of a public option, at dozens of events and in dozens of interviews, including in his address to congress.
I'm not sure why so many have such an interest in twisting the facts here to make the nonsensical claim that the White House spent the past few days advocating against what Obama had spent the past several months advocating for. I think some leftist bloggers are way to eager to pat themselves on the back for "winning" a war with the administration that only existed in their imaginations and on their blogs. I suspect most of the them are Edwards or Clinton supporters that now go around boasting to be Obama's "base".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 27, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to joseph
That's some valiant cherry picking, but I'm confident of my reading of Senator Schumer's comments, especially when you combine them with the comments of Senator Durbin. Its quite clear that we are getting the opt-out version (instead of the Snowe Trigger) despite the White House, not because of it. The White House made a tactical decision that the Snowe Trigger was the best it could manage, and it moved off of that position only due to the relentless effort of progressive senators.
I certainly empathize with your desire to express unwavering support for President Obama. Your speculation that I was an Edwards or Clinton supporter is flat wrong. I voted for Obama in the primaries. I voted for him on election day. I have a framed copy of the NY Times front page from his inauguration hanging on my bedroom wall. I am a fan of our President.
We don't do him or the causes that we believe in, though, any favors by supporting him blindly. He is conciliatory by nature and constantly seeks to find the common ground. That is an admirable quality, but it also means that, unless he is pushed hard from the left, his policies will drift right. It is the job of the President's progressive supporters to push him hard from the left with cries of outrage when he drifts right. I consider myself one of his progressive supporters, and so I consider it my duty to watch what he does with a clear eye and voice my outrage when appropriate. It was appropriate here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
October 27, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
I'll just repeat what Schumer himself said: "I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger." That's clear from the fact that Obama has advocated consistently for the public option for months. The White House isn't who needed to be pressured here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 27, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to joseph
No. President Obama has not been supporting the public option. Since August, every time President Obama spoke about the public option, he would first say that he thinks its a good idea, then he would immediately say something to the effect of it not being an essential part of health care reform.
That equates to not supporting the public option. The only constitutional role that the President plays in legislation is the veto. That means that when a President says that something isn't essential for a bill, it means that he is not putting the weight of his authority behind it. It doesn't matter how often he talks about it being a good thing. If he says its not essential, and the other side adamantly opposes it, then he isn't supporting it. That's why President Obama's comments led all the mainstream media to conclude that the public option was dead.
And that's exactly what Senators Schumer and Durbin told us continued behind the scenes. As much as President Obama would have liked a true public option, the White House had reached the tactical conclusion that the best they could do was the Snowe Trigger. Progressive Senators, however, pressured the White House and the leadership into fighting for the opt-out public option.
If Progressive Senators had simply kept quiet and voiced support for President Obama, the Administration would have settled for less, at most a Snowe Trigger, more likely co-opts. Fortunately, they did not keep quiet.
Fortunately, they and their supporters, no matter how much they liked President Obama, remembered those words of FDR that have been quoted so often of late: "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 26, 2009 10:22 AM
I don't think that you can assume that at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
October 26, 2009 10:56 AM
Middle game is almost over, now to the end game.
So far, amazingly well played by the POTUS and his supporters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
October 26, 2009 11:41 AM
I just hope we don't lose sight of what's really important in all this, which is to please the Villagers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 26, 2009 11:58 AM
I think what Green says has merit because if the WH were truly and forcefully pushing a PO they would not have gotten off message so frequently in the last couple of months. You have Sebilous telling us that the PO is only one element and not essential, as did Linda Douglas and Valerie Jarrett. Axeldrod is as coy as Obama. Not a single one of them will come out directly and unequivocally and say Obama believes it must be part of the Bill. They toss out these "it's really not that important to the big picture" statements and then back track with it hits the fan. It is the public polls and the push back against Congress that has moved this along, not the WH or the eargerness of the Senate. The Senators would like nothing better than to please their corporate pay masters from the health industry, but it simply isn't a safe strategy anymore because the people in this country are angry. FDL has been huge in moving the PO likelyhood through the House and targeting both Reps and Senators. It is unlikely that the WH would be fighting vigorously for the PO behind closed doors and so apathetic or antagonistic in pubilc. Even if this is their strategy, which I doubt, it is a truly dumb one because it has alienated much of the base. If a good PO passes, it will be Congress that is credited and not the WH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 26, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to xargaw
Well, they genuinely don't care about it; they just want to pas a bill. I mean, Rahm has been a trigger proponent all along and is credibly reported to have been heavily involved in drafting the Baucus bill, that should give people a pretty good idea of where the White House is coming from.
Do I like that? No. But does it surprise me? Not at all. It's a position that fits both Obama's "post-partisan" schtick and the main political calculation that pretty much ANY President would make- he needs something he can call a success.
I've moved on from worrying about that (even though I remain disappointed- some real leadership from the WH certainly couldn't have hurt). I'm no fan of the imperial presidency and Congress is SUPPOSED to be where the action is. Time for them to step up to the plate. If they pass a decent bill Obama will be more than happy to sign it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
October 26, 2009 12:44 PM
This is smart once again...Let the Congress- Reid- do their job! DO not weight in ---the wingnuts will have something more to whine about!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
October 26, 2009 3:08 PM
It seems to me we're up against the reality v ideal paradigm again. Apparently, even Pelosi -- who's pretty liberal in a pretty liberal House -- couldn't round up 218 votes in a majority of 259 for a "robust" public option. What's the point of railing against Obama? He's the guy who has to get to 218 and 60/50+.
For whatever reasons, it appears that the "robust" public option doesn't have the support of a majority of the Congress. I'm scanning the above posts, and I don't see the solution. Plan B has got to be some version of the public option -- opt out, trigger, whatever -- that gets a majority. Period. What's left?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 26, 2009 8:08 PM in reply to George C
The vote will be razor thin. We've known for months now it will be close. The Dems easily have 50 votes for HCR, but getting to 60 for cloture was going to be hard. If they pull this off, it will be a remarkable accomplishment.
Look at the whip count -- hasn't been updated lately but shows you we are talking about 1 or 2 vote margins:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/observer2/2009/08/public-option-senate-contact-l.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 26, 2009 8:09 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Er, this:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/observer2/2009/09/public-option-senate-contact-l.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 26, 2009 8:04 PM
All the reports = a single report, regurtitated endlessly. Sorry, I like TPM but one means nothing.
"And no way to disprove it because his heart is pure."
True enough, and yet no way to disprove the Obama-bashers who posit sinister intentions. Just like there are some for whom Obama can do no wrong, there are some for whom he can do no right. And it's not falsifiable, it's an article of faith. These people have been skeptics since the primaries, and seem to parrot rightwing talking points about "empty suits" and "snake oil salesman".
Obama is neither evil nor a saint. He's flubbed some things -- the bank bailouts for one -- and his position on HC was pre-compromised to begin with, which left him little to bargain away. He should have started with single payer and then moved to public option as the "centrist" compromise.
But it has been clear for half a year that the lack of 60 truly Democratic votes in the Senate will be a problem on every issue, and one which is extremely difficult to get past. For christsake, one of those "60" is Lieberman! One is sick, one died, and half a dozen are red staters fearing for their seats and in some cases totally paid for by industry.
That said, I have always believed, even when the MSM was declaring the PO dead about a dozen times, that we would get there. We will have a PO, and it will be the proverbial foot in the door. Future legislation can easily expand it when the public sees results and likes what they see. It is much easier to pass some amendments at improving an existing program than to pass a 1000+ page comprehensive health reform bill. The GOP has never been able to kill entitlements once enacted. Having a PO is a huge victory, even though it has been hard, and required a ton of pushback from progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 9:28 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Turns out the TPM report was pretty much dead-on correct. Read Senator Schumer's account of what happened in the meeting with President Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?