I'm not sure, I might be missing something here... and I'm sorry for writing another diary on this subject but I didn't really see this point being focused on in any of the other ones: Why are we surprised about Obama saying he didn't campaign for the Public Option? Haven't people been complaining about that for months now?
I'll say upfront, I would have loved for a public option to have been included in this health bill coming out of the Senate. I was thrilled with Harry Reid coming out and putting the opt-out in the Senate bill at the time, because I thought it would actually satisfy people like Lieberman and Nelson, Landreau and Lincoln. And I would've loved to have seen President Obama come out stronger for the public option, something I've seen repeated by many different people here.
But reading the article that has caused so much consternation tonight, I'm not sure where the new problem is coming from.
From the Washington Post article:
"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."
In listing those priorities, he cited the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage, estimated savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades, a "patients' bill of rights on steroids," and tax breaks to help small businesses pay for employee coverage.
Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. "I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.
Throughout the health-care debate, the president has declined to weigh in with specific preferences. The tactic has exasperated his supporters, but his advisers have deemed it key in keeping the bill moving through a balky Congress. Obama called the public option his preferred choice to ensure broad coverage and provide cost-cutting competition to the private insurers. But he has never demanded that it be part of a final bill.
The thing that bothers me about this article is that we don't actually get the text of the interview. But it seems to me that Obama was asked about the differences in the House and Senate bills and then followed up about the lack of public option specifically.
That leads to the part emphasized above... throughout the last few months, President Obama has talked about his preferences, but he's not really gone too deep into the weeds on details, including the public option. And he certainly hasn't pushed it... Senator Feingold said so, Senator Lieberman said so. But let's take another example of a difference between the House and Senate bills... the House raises money with a tax increase on the wealthy, I believe. The Senate taxes "Cadillac" health plans. Someone can please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Obama campaigning on one of those against the other either. He would just say things like "cost under 900 billion, be budget neutral, etc." Again, the details aren't there... more of the tactic described above as being so exasperating to his supporters.
I think what we really need is clarification on what Obama's answer was referring to... the presidential campaign? The last year? If the response was referring the health care debate that occurred THIS year, I would have to agree (and from a lot of diaries I've seen here this year, I think a lot of people here too would as well) that President Obama DIDN'T campaign for the public option. That's why I, for one, would love to see a transcript of this interview. I'd love to see what the question was that was actually asked, and what else Obama said in response to it... he doesn't usually give one sentence answers!
My two cents... and apologies again for another diary to beat an already dead horse.