At http://www.dailykos.com/... makes an excellent, well-stated case why, as his title suggests, the Senate bill should pass. I do not plan to use this space to rebut any of his points as I do not consider myself necessarily qualified to do so and I actually agree with many of them. I do, however, wish to provide some perspective as to why, from an emotional standpoint, the cogency and persuasiveness of his logic does not address the bitter disappointment citizens who supported Obama are experiencing right now. (And why, for the 4th time this week, I am up at 4 in the a.m. penning a diary.)
Follow me past the fold.
During the campaign, as an Obama volunteer, I would listen to the candidate distinguish his health care plans from Senators Edwards and Clinton and then proceed to make calls to voters in my state and elsewhere in which I would distinguish his plans (when asked) from those of the other candidates. Also I would go to meetups in my neighborhood where some Obama supporters would say how much better Obama's plan was than the others.
For me, I knew that the details of the plans would barely see the light of day once the legislative process started so I would take issue with Paul Krugman's regular assailing of candidate Obama by asserting this very point. And follow up by asserting that my preference for Obama was based upon my belief that he could uniquely generate the popular support to get a better health care reform bill thru Congress regardless of the details.
Last week I wrote a diary (see http://www.dailykos.com/... in which I discussed the disillusionment of being an Obama supporter in view of the recent developments in HCR. One of the more thoughtful responders, RenaSF made the valid point that FDR got little of what is now attributed to him in Social Security and some other areas. Fair enough. But FDR did not campaign on specific, detailed plans and enlist a group of thousands to distinguish him from Democratic candidates for the nomination. (FDR deliberately, and to the consternation of some of his advisers, kept extremely mum until after his inauguration on what he planned to do.) But Obama did campaign on a detailed plan upon which he asked voters to favor him because of his plan .
So while many of liberalpragmatist's points may be valid (that this bill is not as bad as many claim and we should accept what we can get now) that does not account for the fact that many of us were systematically used to push ideas that he did not fight for and that the process he oversaw did not take place in the realm of transparency (open meetings on CSPAN) as he said they would.
Call me a crybaby then but recognize that, as a human being, it is difficult to repeatedly hear from a candidate for which you worked that he stands for a,b and c and to advocate on his behalf by reiterating these very points over and over and then see him not pursue such aspects when he is elected. No one wants to be recruited as an unwitting co-conspirator making representations which the boss does not eventually follow. And furthermore, one hates to see that the reason one chose the candidate - his ability to galvanize public opinion to influence senators and representatives - was either a mirage of my imagination or a seriously mistaken belief on my part.
So while I am not going to take issue with your technical arguments on the merits of a bill like the one now in the Senate, I will just state that any citizen in a democracy who makes an emotional connection with a candidate in a very, hard-fought contest where barbs are thrown daily by supporters (and opposition alike) would have to be a cold, lifelss person not to feel profound disappointment at the way this process has unfolded. In a democracy, few voters make their choices for candidates devoid of any passionate connection. Once developing that preference, they identify with the candidate far beyond the mere acceptance of the merits of the arguments he (or she) makes. The reason political contests generate such huge emotion derives from this human penchant to identify with candidates in a personal way. So whether one supports or opposes the HCR bill pending now in the Senate, it should be recognized that the profound disappointment which Democrats and progressives are now experiencing is a direct result of this phenomenon. The President and progressive Senators (such as Franken and Harkin who have enthusiastically made the case for this bill in the last 24 hours) need to understand they have substantial work to do in explaining the necessity of this bill because so far their efforts, in this regard, have been completely ineffective.