Reconciling the Two Obamas

I am deeply conflicted about the candidacy of Barack Obama.  There are many things that make me think he is a great, maybe the best candidate, and there are others that give me pause about what kind of a leader he would be.   I think that is because there are really two Obamas.  

The first Barack Obama is the guy I like, the one who emphasizes that he will shut down Guantanamo to restore America's reputation on human rights, and that stresses that he will be willing to talk and listen to any world leader.   These are powerful positions, and I would say particularly with respect to the latter, far more "progressive" than anything out of the Clinton playbook, and they would be likely to enflame the conservative base.  

The second Barack Obama seems very orthodox in many of his statements, such as bringing up social security as an issue when as so many in the blogosphere have convincingly demonstrated, it is a false issue (or not nearly as pressing as a litany of other issues our country ought to address).  He attacks unions as "special-interest groups" echoingArnold Schwarzenegger [previously incorrectly stated that Obama had said he wanted Arnold in his cabinet].

So how does one reconcile the first African-American presidential front-runner, someone who gave up a fast chance at the big bucks to be a community organizer at 12,000 dollars a year, a guy who has a powerfully progressive foreign policy platform, with the guy who says he will sit down with the health-care industry to fix health care?

I think the best way to reconcile these two lines of thought is this: Obama could not have such a progressive, in some ways radical foreign policy platform if he was trying to run a cautious campaign on the way to a cautious, completely "Third Way" agenda.   Rather, it appears that on all issues, Obama is weighing what is actually in the interest of the country, based on his knowledge and experience, and acting on his judgment.  In some cases, that judgment may not be something someone who is entirely progressive agrees with, and it is likely that an Obama administration would make some mistakes, but they would at least have the potential to learn from their mistakes and become stronger on some of the issues they are weak on now.  

If they are able to make it that far (this is not an endorsement of Obama or any candidate).

•  tips/comments?

  by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:26:09 PM PDT

  •  I would not trust a candidate,

    any candidate who tells me everything I want to hear. The best I hope for is to find the person who I agree with on most issues, the big issues. We all have differences, which is better by far than the Republican group think.

    by Vera Lofaro on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:46:05 PM PDT

    •  This is true

      but I think the ideal candidate right now would be someone who is willing to fight aggresively to turn our society in a more progressive direction.   The question is for me is Obama ready? The answer is maybe.  

      by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:48:56 PM PDT

      •  Is anyone ready?

        The world we live in today is so bizarre, no one can predict what our next President will face. I put my money on the one with the best judgement. I have been around long enough to know only a small portion of what is promised in a campaign ever gets accomplished. We need some new blood and some new ideas. Considering Arnold for a cabinet position may not be as  bad as it sounds, he is big on the environment in California. I think it is time to consider all options for a better America and a better world.

        by Vera Lofaro on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:56:04 PM PDT

        •  Arnold is a Republican first. Everything he does

          is from a GOP standpoint.  He is like the GOP was 40 years ago.  A progressive he is not.  He has been so bad on election reform that he shouldn't go any further than where he is now.  He won a recall of Gray Davis saying he would clean up politics, then outraised Davis in money and refused when good government groups tried to get him to support public funding of campaigns. He has been smart enough to give in to most of the overarching goals of the Democrats (some of whom are corrupt in themselves) which makes him look progressive.

          by hairspray on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:31:39 PM PDT

      •  The way to move society in a progressive

        direction is not to demonize the other side.  Polarizing the country doesn't shift the ratio of progressives to conservatives at all; it makes progressives more progressive and conservatives more conservative, and it turns off a huge number of people who aren't tied to an ideology from even participating in politics at all.  "Fighting" the conservatives won't give us a larger progressive majority, unless we actually kill them or take away their right to vote, and I'm pretty sure not even Edwards is proposing that.  The only non-genocidal way to shift the country to the left is to persuade people issue-by-issue that progressive policies are better.  

        Obama's style of bipartisanship is brilliant in that context.  To really understand his strategy and why it's so effective, check out this must-read Propect article:  http://www.prospect.org/...

        by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:10:59 PM PDT

        •  The more important article

          Must read
          Ezra Klein

          (Without getting deep into discussion over budget reconciliation strategies, many health wonks believe it's possible to force budgetary matters in a straight up-or-down vote, bypassing the filibuster. But in the past, Sen. Robert Byrd has disallowed the strategy.) The actual theory behind the ballot initiative process is applicable to national health reform. Americans don't vote on legislation, but they can pressure legislators.

          Reagan understood that in 1983, when he exhorted voters to flood their congressmen's offices with calls and letters in favor of his tax cuts. The people did as Reagan asked, and few congressmen dared deny their wishes. Conversely, the 1994 health reforms were an inside strategy that relied on cutting a deal with senators of goodwill, not channeling public sentiment to pressure them into support. Indeed, it was quite the opposite, as the anti-reform forces channeled public sentiment to unsettle supporters.

          The exact approach Edwards talks about when he says he will out everyone who votes against UHC, and use the bully pulpit to help defeat them.

          by LaEscapee on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:33:46 PM PDT

          •  Apparently, insurance companies love mandates

            but people don't. If Edwards is that heroic, he should "use the bully pulpit" to enact a single payer system.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:43:49 PM PDT

          •  Not really a case for Edwards

            That article makes the point that making a health care plan very popular will result in negative political consequences for those who oppose it, and that's how it will gain political support.  Ezra says that's the Edwards strategy.  So it is.  Good for him.  But it's also the Obama strategy.

            Where they differ is in how they'll muster this overwhelming public support for their plans.  Edwards seems to want to do it with fiery populist rhetoric.  This appeals to hardcore Democrats as evidenced on dKos, but those aren't the people who need to be convinced to support a Dem health care proposal.  To build overwhelming public support, our guy's going to have to sell the Republican and independent voters on his idea.  Obama's popularity among those groups in spite of his superior progressive voting record indicates that he's very well-situated to do just that.

            It's a question of who's going to have the stronger bully pulpit: the newly minted liberal firebrand, or the inspirational post-partisan pragmatic progressive.  I think it'll be Obama.

            Your quote mentions Reagan's success creating a bunch of "Reagan Democrats" who supported him and gave him a strong bully pulpit.  The question is, who's our best anti-Reagan, the guy who can create that same massive public shift but in the opposite direction?  Considering how many "Obama Republicans" there are (have you ever even heard of an Edwards Republican?) I think Obama's clearly the one in the best position to win converts back to our side.

            by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:58:10 PM PDT

            •  Actually I have

              by LaEscapee on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:30:33 AM PDT

      •  We need the voters

        on our side. You can't fight the voters. You can only persuade them.

        by kpardue on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:16:49 PM PDT

  •  LOL.. check out the comment I just made:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I don't agree with your analysis. Obama's lack of mandates is a flaw in his plan, by most accounts; furthermore, his use of a "Harry and Louise" style ad to attack plans with mandates should really be the last straw for true Progressives.

    by BoringDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:56:43 PM PDT

  •  Simple to reconcile: you're exaggerating the bad

    stuff.  Hillary and Edwards supporters have made a sport out of exaggerating anything about Obama that differs even slightly from the liberal orthodoxy.  

    One thing to know about Obama: He's not an ideologue.  He's a pragmatic problem-solver who cares only about which solution will be the most effective, not where it falls on the ideological spectrum.  Of course, most solutions are liberal, which is why Obama has a more progressive voting record than the other candidates.  But he votes for these positions because they're right, not because they're liberal.  That's one of my favorite things about him.  He knows what to do and why to do it.

    Because he understands nuance that sometimes flies over the head of partisan ideologues, he's been subject to some unfair attacks along those lines.  Practically all of these attacks misrepresent Obama's position or exaggerate a non-issue.

    such as bringing up social security as an issue when as so many in the blogosphere have convincingly demonstrated, it is a false issue

    Social security is not in as much trouble as the Republicans suggest; it is not as urgent or severe a problem as they say.  Privatization is not part of the solution, and it's not any part of Obama's plan.  But there is a solvency issue which could become a larger problem in the long term, and if we solve it ahead of time we'll be better off then.  We shouldn't treat it like we did global warming and ignore it until it's too late.  Obama basically proposes a minor tweak.

    You admire Obama's willingness to meet with our adversaries and work with them to alleviate conflicts, right?  What a lot of potential supporters don't realize is that Obama wisely applies that same logic to our domestic adversaries, the Republicans.  Addressing social security is a great start.  Lots of moderates and conservatives are concerned about it.  By addressing their concern, he gains a lot of credibility and good will with the other side.  And the solution he would apply (taxing slightly more income for the upper class) is a soundly progressive solution to an issue conservatives care about.  It's good policy and good politics.  It just happens to buck the liberal orthodoxy that "we don't even talk about social security," but Obama's an independent thinker and I salute him for that.

    He attacks unions as "special-interest groups"

    AFSCME has been running some really despicably dishonest ads basically lying about Obama's health care plan.  The national union establishment has gone against some of their nearby local chapters which endorse Obama.  Here you've got a case of arrogant national union bosses abusing their power to manipulate the political system against the wishes of many of the workers they represent.  Obama indisputably has a right to defend himself against these attacks.  Given the behavior of these particular unions, it's fair to call them "special interests" in this context.  That's how they're behaving with respect to the campaign.

    Obama has a very good pro-labor voting record.  Attacking him for defending against these attacks is the ultimate in purity trolling, a baseless exaggeration put forth by Hillary and Edwards supporters grasping at straws.  Attacking a very good pro-labor progressive because he's said one slightly bad thing about some specific unions that are attacking him is just ridiculous.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom he has also suggested he would consider nominating to his cabinet, along with other Republicans

    If you dig up the actual quote, you'll see he wasn't suggesting that he place the governator in his cabinet.  He was basically asked to name some Republicans who aren't evil and he mentioned that Arnold's been doing some good pro-environment stuff in California.  That doesn't mean he'd put the guy in charge of the EPA.  

    He did suggest, I think, that he might have a Republican or two in his cabinet.  Pretty much every President has some token members of the other party in his cabinet.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Cabinet members guide policy in a very specific area, and some Republicans hold views in lines with the Democrats on selected issues.  The bipartisan credibility that comes with nominating such people is worth a lot.  

    Again this "issue" comes from phony outrage based on distortions of what Obama actually said and/or lack of understanding of what it means.  Kind of typical of the Edwards/Hillary attacks on Obama.

    Rather, it appears that on all issues, Obama is weighing what is actually in the interest of the country, based on his knowledge and experience, and acting on his judgment.

    That is exactly right!

    by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:03:21 PM PDT

    •  Excellent comment, Troutnut. Thank you. n/t

      by Fonsia on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:18:40 PM PDT

    •  Here is a hint

      Using more words doesn't make your arguments any more believable.

      The fact is Obama talks, he says he is against the war until he actually has to vote to defund, or he begins a run for the presidency. His argument of sitting at the table and dealing with the enemy is laughable. Anyone who has watched the capitulating efforts of this congress to gat along with the other side realizes that. They only deal with you when they get what they want.

      We are at a time in this country that Americans are realizing the pugs are a detriment to our way of life, you don't give ground before the battle begins. Negotiation 101, yoy start from the strongest point then give ground when forced to.

      He is now and has always been financed by the same wall street backers as all DLCentrists of which he was a member until he was shamed into disavowing them, and that is in name only. Everyone says that he is just employing a stealth approach to fool the pugs. My question is, after reading his writings and watching his actions of late, why should anyone believe he is not applying that stealth approach to fool the progressives?

      by LaEscapee on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:44:30 PM PDT

      •  sounds like

        you think he might be the 2008 version of Bill Clinton.  

        by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:50:59 PM PDT

        •  One thing that is pretty telling

          to me personaly is the approach others take toward seekers. Do they have substantial reasons to support there candidate? Are there certain policies and issues they can point a reason beyond the platitudes of personality and hoped for change?

          I will be the first to admit that John Edwards is by no means perfect, he has done things I don't agree with. I also am aware that I have done things I wish I wouldn't have done, all we can do is try and right the wrongs we have made and make for a better future. I think some of the things John Edwards has had to deal with in his life have made him a stronger person, a person who knows that the future depends on what we do today not what we did yesterday.

          He is the only candidate out there who is not afraid to utter the "N" word NeoCon, he does it repeatedly, that shows me he is willing to tell the cold hard truth to whoever whenever at whatever cost. He is also theon;ly candidate who will tell you that you don't have to agree with him, that sometimes you aren't but he will be honest and that is all we can ask. Another thing he does is tells people straight up that we are all going to have to sacrifice to right this ship, and it is all our duties to work toward that end.

          What it comes down to is what you feel, what you decide is the correct direction for our country to travel. It is an entirely personal decision that only you can make and I appreciate you investing an effort to explore all options. Good luck in this and if there are any more questions we are always in the EENR in the evenings and I am sure someone will be able to provide anything you need.

          Thanks for listening

          peace

          by LaEscapee on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:12:08 PM PDT

          •  My substantive reasons for Obama

            Character counts

            His personality and "change" aren't just platitudes, although they are commonly over-simplified as such when the mass media distills the deeper qualities of his character into something that fits in a sound bite.

            Obama's extremely inclusive intellectual approach to the issues will serve him very well.  He has always been one to learn everything he can about every side of a debate, then make his decision after considering all arguments.  Progressives have the best arguments, so they win out in his mind, but Obama has the rare ability to discern when his own side is going a little overboard on some things.  And by listening to conservatives he makes them more likely to support him on certain issues.  The less divisive and hated he is, the more politically acceptable it will be for conservatives to break from the party line once in a while and support him.  Obama's tone will lead to very tangible results when he ends up needing 60 votes for something and we only have 55 Dems handy.  All this "wishy-washy" talk of bipartisanship is backed by a very real, very strong advantage in getting things done.  

            The policy differences between our main contenders are fairly minor.  I think it's very reasonable, given that, to largely base our votes on who we think can most effectively enact their plans.  I'm also considering whose approach will be most popular with independents and boost turnout in the general election to create victories down-ticket.  And I'm considering who will try to make the case to the public for progressive policies rather than relying on ideology as a justification in and of itself, because I believe that approach will create a larger permanent progressive majority.  All of these things depend largely on character and philosophy rather than stands on specific issues, but I think they're all more consequential than any of the issue differences between our big three.

            Also, Obama's character virtues aren't just inventions for 2008.  They're clearly evident in Obama's pre-political memoir as well as every character witness account of Obama from his college days onward.  He is who he says he is, and his whole development as a person is a matter of public record.  (A very interesting one, too.)  Edwards hasn't been as consistent like this.  I do think he has consistently been a pretty good guy, but he's shifted his message and emphasis a lot, so I can't take his current theme of a populist "fighter" all that seriously.  Obama's theme of pragmatism and civility has been his defining characteristic throughout his adult life.

            Process reform

            Obama's the only candidate who emphasizes reforming the process of politics.  I don't just want a candidate who will play the game for my side; I want a candidate who will rewrite the rules of the game, who will strengthen the checks and balances and shore up our inherent defenses against the abuse of power so that when he's gone, a George Bush Presidency and a Tom Delay Congress can never ever happen again.  I don't just want someone who will refuse to cave to influence-peddlers; I want someone who will permanently dismantle the mechanisms by which they peddle their influence.  Obama has the one of the strongest records of any politician on ethics reform at both the state and federal levels and his writings convey a deep understanding of the urgent need for more fundamental reforms.  

            And it's not just ethics reform he's concerned with, but the whole political process.  The House has degenerated into perpetual election mode with the rise of blogs and 24-hour news networks; there's no time to focus making policy, just campaigning and raising money for the next election.  That needs to end.  Campaign finance reform needs to be advanced.  The system has morphed so much into a game to be played and abused that it barely resembles a shadow of the deliberative body the founders intended to create.  Obama has shown in his writings that he will place the highest priority on permanently repairing the system.

            by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:14:11 PM PDT

          •  He is the only candidate...

            He is the only candidate out there who is not afraid to utter the "N" word NeoCon, he does it repeatedly, that shows me he is willing to tell the cold hard truth to whoever whenever at whatever cost.

            Yeah, what is up with that?  It's like the others are too polite to talk about this rogue group of traitors who did their level best to launch WW III.

            We need to tie that "N" word around those Republican's necks and make them wear it for the next 30 - 40 years.  You know, just like we had to wear the "liberal" tag.  

            Hillary and Obama seem quite willing to just move along and pretend like nothing ever happened.  And that is very, very troubling.

            by brentmack on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:20:18 AM PDT

    •  i am sorry but please clarify

      Kind of typical of the Edwards/Hillary attacks on Obama.

      Yes we know Hillary's plants have virtually called Obama a Muslim insurgent and drug dealer, but what has that to do with Edwards. Name one Edwards attack on Obama.
      (crickets chirping)

      The truth is that it has been Obama who started attacking Edwards this week, 2 days before Christmas.

      by wade norris on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:48:52 PM PDT

      •  Clarification: Hillary has been worse

        I meant that this deceptive exaggeration and construction of strawman issues is typical of Edwards and Hillary's policy-based attacks on Obama.

        You're right that Hillary has been far worse than Edwards because she engages in despicable character attacks and race-baiting.  She's really a dreadfully nasty person.  Edwards is not.  His attacks on Obama aren't justified but they also aren't inappropriate given that some level of spin and exaggeration is just good strategy in politics and I can't blame Edwards for trying to win.  I have plenty of problems with Edwards but I think at his core he's a good guy with good intentions and pure motivations.  Hillary is an unethical, cutthroat power-monger, and I don't mean to suggest at all that Edwards is like that.  But when it comes to policy-based attacks on Obama the two of them have been pushing the same hollow narratives.

        by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:18:59 PM PDT

        •  Clarify

          Can you give an example of an "attack" Edwards has made on Obama? In fact he was the one to call Clinton on the mailer that credited him with a quote.

          Obama is the one calling Edwards crap falsely I would add so could you give me an example of an "attack" he has made on Obama?

          by LaEscapee on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:42:15 PM PDT

          •  An example

            Edwards:

            Of course, if Sen. Obama is serious about real change, I hope he and Sen. Clinton will finally end their silence and join with me in calling on the Democratic Party to end the influence of Washington lobbyists by once and for all rejecting their money.

            He's attacking Obama for having taken some lobbyist donations early in his career (although there is no evidence of Obama being influenced by it to inappropriately favor those lobbyists).  Edwards fails to note that Obama spent his early life in low-paying public service rather than amassing a personal fortune.  I don't begrudge Edwards his wealth, but it does mean that Edwards had the personal resources to fund his early campaigns and could afford to be picky about who donated to him.  Obama was running on a professor's salary as a guy who still had loans to pay off from law school.  Beggars can't be choosers.

            Calling for Obama to once and for all reject lobbyist money is a deceptive little ploy, because Obama has already done exactly that for this campaign.  Edwards is implying that he hasn't.  That's certainly an attack.

            More recently, Edwards has attacked Obama for not being willing to "fight" hard enough, not including mandates, etc.  It's easy to find attacks.

            Most of these attacks are under the guise of "drawing policy differences", although they tend to misrepresent Obama's position in a negative way.  Again, I don't think what Edwards is doing is inappropriate for a campaign; he is entitled to try to win.  I would even say he has run a very civil campaign so far with respect to Obama, and vice versa.  I just don't think you should go denying that there have been attacks.  There have... the attacks have just been in pretty good taste compared to what's common in politics.  And they've been far less vile than Hillary's mudslinging and race-baiting.

            by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:33:05 PM PDT

            •  lol

              That is what you call an attack? That is one of the whiniest arguments I have evr heard. What is the good senator going to do when the pugs actually attack? That was a question of both he and senator clinton. Did Obama take lobby money? Legitimate statement.

              by LaEscapee on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:34:34 AM PDT

              •  Of course it's an attack; you abuse the noun

                It's not an inappropriate attack, but it's clearly an attack.  Edwards is calling attention to something that will be seen as negative about Obama, and he's even being selective about the facts and context to make Obama look bad.  I've said over and over that I think this kind of attack is fair game in politics.  Edwards is entitled to try to win, and since there's no real dirt on Obama he's got to spin some up.  I give him credit for being quite civil about it, but to deny that it's an "attack" of any kind is like denying that you're typing on a keyboard.  It's just an abuse of the noun.  

                by Troutnut on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:05:08 AM PDT

    •  Exactly right,

      and succinctly  put.

      It takes so very much patience to straighten out each and every (deliberate) misreading of everything Obama says.

      Well said, indeed.

      by kpardue on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:20:18 PM PDT

      •  You're right, it's tiring!

        That's why half the time I respond to the Hillary/Edwards people with just exasperated insults.  It gets tiring rebutting the same nonsense over and over and over.  But when I see someone who doesn't seem predisposed to a bias against Obama but does accept some of this misinformation (like the diarist) I figure it's worth trying to politely set the record straight.  That would probably be a good policy to use in all cases, but I don't have the patience!

        by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:32:04 PM PDT

        •  I understand.

          You do a good job for the campaign. Most of us have the enthusiasm without the ability to disarm and persuade.

          This kind of good, tight writing is just what is required to keep a thread from disintegrating into name calling.

          by kpardue on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:25:35 PM PDT

  •  Its the "learning from mistakes" you

    noted that concerns me.  We do not have time for a steep learning curve.

    by hairspray on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:25:42 PM PDT

•  I Can't Believe Any Viable Candidate Is Weighing

  solely the interests of the country in most of these questions. Not in the sense that citizens are free to look at an issue and muse about what would be best idea for the country if it could be magic-wanded into law.

  The Social Security crisis question has nothing to do with progressivism, it's a matter of numbers demonstrated not by the blogosphere but by professional economists such as Krugman. The numbers prove it is not a crisis at all, it never for example goes "bankrupt." Quite a few other issues measurably outrank it in degree and immediacy.

  It's clearly some kind of political calculation to go out of his way to use that frame.

  I don't see Obama as radical on foreign policy. Given the forces driving society, that's the last area anyone's governance is going to ever be radically liberal.

  Resuming to honor human rights and resuming to talk to foreign leaders is rudimentary civilized behavior, it only seems radical in contrast to the insane barbarians running government today.

  I too like the inspirational Obama. If I could add his persona to Clinton's WH logistical familiarity with the WH, and Edwards' domestic economics, and Kucinch's peace agenda, I'd have a candidate.

  by Gooserock on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:50:59 PM PDT

  •  actually,

    saying he would talk to the President of Iran is definitely radical, a departure from three decades of foreign policy.  I think this may be where Obama's experience living in other countries and interacting with different cultures comes into play and gives us the best of Obama.  

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:56:54 PM PDT

    •  Wait...

      Obama said he wanted to be the president of Iran.

      by Potus2020 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:59:11 PM PDT

      •  That was meant to be a question. ??? n/t

        by Potus2020 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:59:30 PM PDT

      •  he said he would talk to the President of Iran

        not that he wanted to be the President.  It was in one of the debates.  

        by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:02:49 PM PDT

        •  Whoa. Sorry.

          I totally misread that for some reason.

          by Potus2020 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:38:17 PM PDT

    •  But Hillary (and Edwards too, I assume)

      are willing to talk to Iran's leaders as well.
      At least one of them wants a reappraisal of our Cuba policy, but I've forgotten which.

      by BoringDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:59:48 PM PDT

      •  I think Hillary has just said

        that she would not do it without preconditions.  Which is semantically indifferentiable from the Bush stance.  Not sure on Edwards.  

        by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:30:34 PM PDT

        •  I strongly disagree. I don't think Bush has

          ever said he'd meet with Iranian leaders under ANY conditions; furthermore, Clinton made it clear she was willing to meet with them.

          by BoringDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:34:03 PM PDT

          •  true

            Bush refused the Iranian diplomatic envoy 3 times after 9/11, even after they were willing to accept Israel as a sovereign nation.  Achmenijad convinced voters that Bush was crazy and would attack Iran and he used the refusal of the envoys to defeat the moderate pro western incumbent in favor of him.

            by wade norris on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:52:03 PM PDT

            •  For that matter, Bush refused an offer by Saddam

              to go into exile before the war, IIRC
              (this came out much later, of course).

              by BoringDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:57:36 PM PDT

              •  ha ha

                I first read that as Saddam offering Bush a chance to go into exile to avoid the Iraq war...thing is, it would actually have worked out better for the country.    

                by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:01:20 PM PDT

                •  Damn, that's pretty funny.

                  Saddam probably made an offer like that too.. hah

                  by BoringDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:04:55 PM PDT

  •  I wish ANY of the top three would just hint

    at the possibility of a major reappraisal in US hegemonic foreign policy.

    by BoringDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:58:52 PM PDT

•  A couple disagreements

  Obama never, I repeat, never, ever said he would nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger to his cabinet. So you can set that worry aside.

  And why is everyone so concerned about Obama mentioning Social Security? It won't be privatized. The Republicans couldn't even privatize it when they controlled the entire government. Let him modify it, the American people will chill out about it, and we won't have to worry about Republicans trying to destroy it for a very long time. Thus he will protect a beloved progressive program.

  As far as sitting down with the health care industry, he should. There was a time in this country when corporations were profitable and American workers earned a fair wage. We don't need to destroy corporations, we need to regulate them. And shutting off communication with them like Bush does with Iran is not going to make that easy.

  I think you're right when you say Obama is weighing in the interests of the American people. I just don't think that weighing interests and being progressive are mutually exclusive.

  by Potus2020 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:53:30 PM PDT

  •  I remember the experience of 1994

    Hillary and Bill Clinton tried to sit down with the health care industry, and the health care industry strung them along until the administration was too weak to get any plan through congress.

    And I don't mean that a President shouldn't weigh interests, I just meant that in some cases I think Obama is not applying the proper weights.  

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:01:33 PM PDT

    •  But he is applying the proper weights

      Again you've kind of bought into the Edwards/Hillary supporters' rhetoric.

      Obama put it something like this: "The insurance companies will have a seat at the table, but they won't get to buy all the chairs."  Obama will look for input from doctors, nurses, economists, patients' rights advocates, and numerous other sources... including, incidentally, the insurance companies.  His point is that they will be appropriately weighted, but he's honest enough to admit that they won't be completely excluded from the conversation, either.

      Very few people actually have a problem with this admission.  It's extremely naive to think the companies won't have any voice.  So Obama's opponents have had to exaggerate it.  Even the way you framed the issue shows that their exaggeration has succeeded.  Your saying that he's going to "sit down with the health care industry" kind of implies a larger role for them than the one metaphorical seat at a big table that he's really going to give them.

      Edwards is being quite disingenuous on this issue, although I can't blame him too much for that because, judging by the latest netroots groupthink, it's an effective political strategy.  It's also nowhere near as dishonest as Hillary's daily routine.  But Edwards is playing a bit dirty and he's definitely wrong about Obama.

      by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:40:35 PM PDT

      •  is giving health insurance companies

        a seat at the table while fixing health care any different than giving tobacco companies a seat at the table when the government considers its tobacco regulations?  I am just trying to understand the dimensions of your and perhaps, Obama's belief in cooperation.  

        by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:46:50 PM PDT

        •  What's wrong with that?

          I don't mind giving the tobacco companies a seat at the table any more than I mind giving a murderer a seat in the courtroom during his sentencing, and even a defense attorney to argue for him.  At the end of the day Obama will call the shots; he'll be judge and jury.  No harm comes from listening to what people have to say before he crafts their condemnation.

          Giving people a voice in the conversation is not the same thing as giving them control over the outcome.  That's why Obama's agreement to meet with foreign adversaries is so wise.  It's funny that many liberals admire him for that but hate him for applying exactly the same philosophy to dealing with domestic adversaries.  It's just as good an idea, and for exactly the same reasons.

          by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:57:14 PM PDT

          •  just like he gave

            DONNIE MCCLURKIN a prominent role in his campaign as an anti-gay homophobic preacher?

            Yes, let's let the Klan on the Obama staff. that makes sense.

            by wade norris on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:02:46 PM PDT

            •  Wow. nt

              by Shem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:25:19 PM PDT

            •  You really should rethink this.

              He gave Donny McClurkin a spot in one rally.
              From my point of view, Donny McClurkin is an idiot. But I don't think it is accurate to say he is homophobic, more likely, stupid and confused. But the reason I get invested enough to respond to your post, and others, like it, is because you are extrapolating from this something is not there. Obama supports gay rights. I don't know whom you support, but most of the "I won't support Obama because of McClurkin" posts are from HRC supporters. The thing is, with the Clintons, is that they are big on symbolic gestures, that mollify peoples fears, but in the end nothing changes ( ex: ask don't tell). So please, I humbly ask you to consider more than a one-time mistake.

              by crankyinNYC on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:38:50 PM PDT

            •  wade norris

              It is true that Obama stuck with the homophobe McClurkin when his gay supporters asked him to, but I won't uprate a comment that uses the word Klan and Obama in the same sentence.  Shame on you.

              by DCDemocrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:12:11 AM PDT

        •  Health insurance companies ♥ mandates

          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:41:18 PM PDT

          •  not when they have to compete

            they don't. Don't mischarecterize. Both the plans of Edwards and Clinton require the private HMOs to compete with a government run plan.

            by cwaltz on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:03:45 PM PDT

            •  Obama's plan talks about a public

              plan a lot. link.

              It isn't clear if it's a govt underwritten plan (or simply a govt negotiated plan), but if it is govt underwritten, then that would be like HRC/JRE's public plan.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:21:15 PM PDT

              •  Yes but because

                it does not require people to purchase into a plan to begin with what will happen most likely is the insurance companies that he sits at the table with will cherry pick and the really sick folks will end up on the government plan. Additionally because you wouldn't have to purchase insurance until you got sick it would drive up costs and probably kill any chances of single payer.

                As I explained to my daughter, what is supposed to happen is that you pay a premium into health care and while you are well your premium goes to help to pay for the costs of those that are sick. If people are not required to fork over that money while they are well it drives the costs up.

                by cwaltz on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:32:06 PM PDT

                •  You're mixing up long/short terms in this

                  argument. Obama didn't say that he is diametrically opposed to mandates of some kind; what he's opposed to is rubbing in mandates before even a system is in place. Once a working system is there, should the cost of "free loading" be too high, then some measures will be taken to get more people aboard ths system.

                  I looked up the cost of emergency care, and according to my estimate, the cost of emergency room free loading under a new Obama type system won't be over 1% of the total cost.

                  "insurance companies that he sits at the table with will cherry pick and the really sick folks will end up on the government plan."

                  I think there are conditions that he places on insurers that participate in the national healthcare exchange, which is where people that don't have employer provided care and choose not to get the govt plan would go to.

                  "because you wouldn't have to purchase insurance until you got sick it would drive up costs and probably kill any chances of single payer."

                  THis problem of "people waiting till they're sick" actually extends to Edwards/HRC plan as well at the implementation level. According to Krugman, Edwards will catch them whem they show up for healthcare. But, by then they're probably already sick and that's why they showed up.

                  All of these arguments trying to hair split b/w the plans are full of holes. If Edwards was actually championing single-payer, that would be one thing.

                  As such, the only real difference between the packages is that Obama's plan has no mandates on adults.

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:47:37 PM PDT

                  •  Its a really big difference

                    I hadn't heard about catching them when they show up at an ER, what I'd heard is that you would be required to provide proof of insurance when you filed taxes. Do you have a link?

                    The reason I prefer Edwards to Hillary is because he has discussed his mechanism for enforcement. The bottom line is the system has to pool risk and you can't do that if you can opt out as long as you are over eighteen.

                    by cwaltz on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:38:02 AM PDT

                    •  Nuevo

                      Here is a link that details how he would enforce his mandated coverage. The biggest thing that I see is that this will probably cost to get the infrastructure in place.

                      http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

                      by cwaltz on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:41:14 AM PDT

                      •  glad to see the

                        specifics of implementing mandates laid out. Praise for Edwards for laying this down.

                        I was going by Krugman's description of what JRE would do, in one of his attack pieces on Obama, but that as I recall was before this 11/29 report you've linked to.

                        What do I think about this? Some interesting ideas are there, and overall it makes JRE's a consistent plan as far as I can tell outside of budgeting aspects, which would need me to take a detailed look. Not sure how any of the plans address illegal immigrants. Also, not sure how this would cover those exempt from filing taxes, but that's a fairly small fraction.

                        I do suspect that this system may run into a GOP-led congressional roadbloack similar to what we had on global warming for years.

                        Thanks for the link.

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:15:16 AM PDT

      •  i do

        including, incidentally, the insurance companies.  His point is that they will be appropriately weighted, but he's honest enough to admit that they won't be completely excluded from the conversation, either.

        Very few people actually have a problem with this admission

        .

        from david axelrod
        http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

        Speaking to reporters yesterday, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, put the difference on their approaches more bluntly. "But if you put forward a plan that that overlooks insurance companies, it's really hard to understand how you are going to execute it without talking to them. And that's really what Sen. Edwards is saying. We're going to have private insurance companies in my plan but we're not going to talk to them because they are evil and they're bad."

        look, most people like the family of Nataline Sarkesian, who had their liver transplant denied by Cigna, would say that insurance companies are evil and would react like this
        http://www.cbsnews.com/...

        John Edwards tonight cited the case of a 17-year-old California girl who died after her insurance company refused coverage on a liver transplant to save her life as a call to action to change the current system of healthcare in America.

        Nataline Sarkysian died last night at UCLA Medical Center after complications arose from a bone marrow transplant to treat her leukemia. Her insurance provider, CIGNA Healthcare, first denied the potentially lifesaving transplant, but relented after a loud public protest and outrage. By that time, though, Sarkysian passed away before the procedure could be performed.

        "Are you telling me that we're gonna sit at a table and negotiate with those people?" asked a visibly angered Edwards, challenging the health care companies. "We're gonna take their power away and we're not gonna have this kind of problem again."

        The advantage of Edwards healthcare plan, is that he enacts Medicare for all. There is no need to invite the insurance companies to the table because the Medicare system is already in place, assigned to every child at birth, with a 3% administrative cost and no high dollar CEO pay.(like private companies) these insurance companies know that this plan is the end of their golden calf. That Obama is taking the middle of the road route is soooo troubling for those of us who are progressive, the Kucinich wing, the Edwards wing, and even HRC who has tried to appease us with her plan.
        The truth is that Obama is not at the place where he wants to challenge the corporate power structure.
        too bad...

        by wade norris on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:01:06 PM PDT

        •  So is it a JRE dictatorship then?

          The advantage of Edwards healthcare plan, is that he enacts Medicare for all.

          How does he plan on enacting Medicare for all? no insurance company input and no congressional input either? I read previously here that his plan is done through the states.  So is it Medicaid for all?  

          by Hope08 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:50:59 AM PDT

    •  Hillary made the plan

      secretive and complicated. The American voters were easily dissuaded.

      by Potus2020 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:41:24 PM PDT

      •  Because we have a baboon

        in the White House, everything Clinton did looks good.
        But the fact of the matter is that they really screwed up the health care debate, as they did with Lanny Guenier, Zoey Baird, "ask don't tell" and a host of other problems that immediately diminished Presidential power during the first year of the Clinton administration. This is hardly the "experience" I look forward to from the Democratic President who takes office in 2009.

        by crankyinNYC on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:46:44 PM PDT

  •  here is a good primer on 1994

    http://www.pbs.org/...

    Thanks for setting me straight on Schwarzenneger.  

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:05:58 PM PDT

•  We Need A Liberal Ideologue

  If the Clinton years, followed by the Bush years, should teach us anything ... it's that "being a problem solver" is just patching up holes in the boat without dealing with the guys in the aft shooting their guns straight down.

  Robert Rubin, after spending years of hard work trying to turn the budget around in order to save social programs, saw all that work scuttled in a couple years of the Bush Administration.  All that work to balance the budget was turned into another massive regressive tax cut.

  Rubin looks back and now wishes that they'd pushed harder for their programs from the beginning, and didn't just try to "fix things" so that we could afford them later.

  We NEED an ideological debate in this country.  One side has been pressing their argument hard for 30 years, the other side keeps backing down.  It's not just about "being a problem solver" - right now it's about what kind of a society we need to be in the end.

  by balconesfault on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:23:53 PM PDT

  •  great comment

    has Rubin actually spoken to that effect?

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:27:54 PM PDT

    •  On an NPR interview

      He lamented how the Clinton crew were focussed in large part on eliminating the deficit so that debt service money could be freed up to support their social agenda, and so that Social Security's long term future could be assured.

      You could tell the frustration in his voice about seeing so much of their work destroyed so quickly by Bush, and an even deeper hole than the one they dug out of being created.  His conclusion was clearly that Dems need to take advantage of majorities whenever they get them to push a progressive agenda.

      by balconesfault on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:36:02 PM PDT

      •  it was amazing how quickly

        peace and prosperity ended.  

        by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:42:58 PM PDT

  •  No, we don't.

    We need a liberal.  Not an ideologue.

    Being an "ideologue" is not about the strength of your policy positions, but the source of them.  An ideologue believes in liberal ideas because they're liberal: he has picked a side and will follow the orthodoxy of that side without thinking much about it.  That's not Obama.  Obama is a thinking man.

    Obama does progressive things because they're right.  An ideologue does them just because they're liberal.  Somebody with Obama's approach is in a much stronger position to enact his policies, because he understands them and can make the case for them to convince skeptics and key members of the other side to support him.  It also allows him to see places where, on occasion, the liberal orthodoxy isn't quite right.

    At the end of the day, an Obama administration will be able to put in place more liberal policies in more areas than could a more ideologically driven, confrontational administration.

    by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:49:15 PM PDT

    •  interesting

      At the end of the day, an Obama administration will be able to put in place more liberal policies in more areas than could a more ideologically driven, confrontational administration

      was FDR confrontational?
      YES. so much so, that the grandfather of the current president was part of a coup attempt to assassinate FDR precisely because he wanted to rescue the poor and middle class. you obviously come from a standpoint that Free trade agreements and record mortgage foreclosures are a sign of a good things to come. I do not. And if you don't either, then stand up!

      by wade norris on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:06:42 PM PDT

      •  the House Democrats

        who investigated and prepared to impeach Nixon were confrontational.  Nancy Pelosi's democrats, not nearly as much.  I think at one point (and we are at that point) a certain amount of confrontation is necessary.  

        by gobacktotexas on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:11:13 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't It Be Great...

    We NEED an ideological debate in this country.  One side has been pressing their argument hard for 30 years, the other side keeps backing down.  It's not just about "being a problem solver" - right now it's about what kind of a society we need to be in the end.

    ...if there was an extended debate and our side showed up without apologizing for the positions we hold?

    I've read these comments (some very good ones, I might add) but I'm not sold.  I don't know how you confront the problems that have built up over 30 years without being confrontational.

    I don't believe you're going to soft-shoe this country into making a 180 degree change without giving that effort all of the firepower that's required for victory.

    The whole essence of this damn game is that Republicans tend to control money and the power that's associated with it - while Democrats tend to represent the interests of far more people.

    I want a president who's going to make that PERFECTLY CLEAR every day they're in office and leverage our numerical advantage into lasting change.

    A president who's going to do that has to be willing to make political enemies - and I think that's Obama's greatest weakness.

    There are ads running right now for a major movie called, The Great Debaters.  Perhaps you're familiar with it.  It's about a team of debaters from a small black college who successfully debated the issue of civil rights against major white colleges.

    In watching a show about the making of that movie - I didn't get the impression that the black debate team shied away from confrontation.  It appeared that they won by laying it all on the line and drawing the sharp contrasts that actually made winning easier for them.

    In my book, that's the kind of president we need.

    by brentmack on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:18:52 AM PDT

•  The only way Obama has been able to succeed

  this far is with your ' two Obamas'. I don't think there are two. He's not an idelogue, but that doesn't mean that he isn't rooted in a set of fundamental principles.

  by rikyrah on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:45:41 PM PDT

•  A couple things

  First on Soc Sec ask any 20 year old if they think it will be there for them, the likely answer is no. Just because Soc Sec isn't as pressing as say medicare doesn't mean it aint a problem. On Soc Sec Obama's suggestion was breaking the caps that's progressive reform and the polar opposite of privatizing Soc Sec, which is regressive deform.
  On health care Obama has said he wants to bring everybody to the table and disscuss healthcare reform with cameras, he wants to expose the people that run the private for profit and only profit healthcare to a little sunshine. They either show up and try and defend the indefensable or don't show up and, look like they got something to hide. It's a lose - lose proposition for the healthcare industry and when for profit and only profit healthcare loses everybody else wins. I love a little political jiu-jitsu.

  by hasdrubal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:15:01 PM PDT

  •  So reality teevee is good?

    heh

    How about using that teevee time to out everyone who is against UHC in thier own districts and campaigning to get them ousted, how's that for ju-jitsu?

    I must have missed the part in the constitution where it says "we the corporations". They have no right to sit at the table and decide where and how taxpayer dollars are to be spent. The congress passes the laws and regulations they abide by them. If you took the time to examine Edwards proposals you would see none of them would be deadly for any industry they would just reduce the obscene pofits corporations make at the expense of the people. They would still profit the profits just would be distributed more evenly between CEO's and stockholders.

    by LaEscapee on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:49:36 PM PDT

    •  Great Line! And Oh So True.

      I must have missed the part in the constitution where it says "we the corporations". They have no right to sit at the table and decide where and how taxpayer dollars are to be spent.

      Is it remotely possible that Obama doesn't know everything?

      I believe this is a lesson that JFK learned when dealing with the steel companies back in the '60's.

      As I recall there was a deal worked out regarding price hikes and U.S. Steel promptly went out and broke the deal - which severely angered Kennedy.  He called them either bastards, or SOB's - one of the two.

      But it seems that a lot of folks are just waiting for Obama to have to learn the same lesson.  

      by brentmack on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:38:02 AM PDT

•  Edwards

  states that he is open to raising the payroll cap for Social Security..same as Obama

  Edwards states that he is open to having republicans on his cabinet..same as Obama.

  Krugman and co. just somehow never mention Edwards when it is time to mete out punishment for these two items.. why?

  by Hawkjt on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:52:40 PM PDT

•  I don' think there are two Obamas

  I think there is one Obama and I think he is struggling with determining what he feels is viable politically in today's climate. I disagree with his philosophy and believe that we need to start from the strongest point we can rather than start out with a watered down version simply because we believe that is what we can get passed. Additionally, I believe if we start from a watered down version it will get more watered down because the GOP will demand concessions before they pass anything that benefits the middle or lower classes.

  I prefer John Edwards for this reason. It doesn't mean I believe Barack Obama is a bad person. It just means I do not believe that he is ready to be President at this point in time.

  by cwaltz on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:46:39 PM PDT

•  As I said at myDD, I agree with this:

  Rather, it appears that on all issues, Obama is weighing what is actually in the interest of the country, based on his knowledge and experience, and acting on his judgment.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:48:14 PM PDT

  •  So you really think

    He thinks it is in the interest of anyone in this country not to have health care? I sure hope not. IMO he's looking at political expediency and what he sees as viable solutions. The horrible thing is that he's ceded ground before even getting a thorough debate going.

    by cwaltz on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:02:32 PM PDT

    •  i am surprised you'd say this:

      "He thinks it is in the interest of anyone in this country not to have health care?"

      Obama's plan would attempt to cover anyone that wants to be covered. If people don't want coverage then Obama doesn't force them to get covered, but does force them to cover their children by getting help if needed. He does need to be flexible on the budget required to provide subsidies (as such, I don't think that universal coverage/access can be achieved for under $200bn outlay).

      His plan provides a "new public plan" (not clear if this will be govt underwritten), a national healthcare exchange, expanded help via medicaid and SCHIP etc.

      In short, if adequate budget is allocated, his plan is a universal access plan.

      I have come to the opinion that mandates to being with are a bad idea. Forcing something upon 99% of the population in order to try to reel in 1% of "free loaders" and thus to fictitiously claim "universality" is not a good way to get a working system passes and implemented. Once a working system is there, one can always look at how the "free loader" aspect is working out and then take some measures to bring most of them into the system.

      Also, apparently insurance companies like mandates because that brings them lots of new business.

      ~~

      "IMO he's looking at political expediency and what he sees as viable solutions. The horrible thing is that he's ceded ground before even getting a thorough debate going."

      You realize that one can use the same logic to ask why Edwards isn't calling for single payer UHC right? Gore called for it; since Gore doesn't take a position unless he's thoroughly thought through the matter, I am quite confident that SP-UHC must be implementable.

      Why isn't Edwards going for SP-UHC then?

      by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:18:23 PM PDT

      •  'mandates to begin with'

        by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:22:23 PM PDT

      •  So what your

        saying is that he isn't really interested in what is in the BEST interest of folks(which would be for them to have health care) but what he believes they want(which may or may not be in their best interest).

        Furthermore, Obama also has MANDATES. He requires anyone under the age of eighteen to have healthcare so this mandates are bad thing is tiresome.

        by cwaltz on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:26:54 PM PDT

        •  yes, people with children should make sure

          that they're covered (w/ help available for those that can't afford, through SCHIP etc).

          Likewise, he also requires employers to either provide coverage, or pay into the public plan.

          IOW, Obama places responsibility where it belongs.

          The employed condition also eliminates a majority of "free loaders", leaving only a small portion.

          "he isn't really interested in what is in the BEST interest of folks (which would be for them to have health care) but what he believes they want(which may or may not be in their best interest)."

          First of all, mandate are not easy to implement. Shit is going to hit the fan in MA on them come Jan 1, 2008 for the mandated system there. Is Edwards going to start prosecuting and jailing people that refuse, no matter what to get coverage?

          Second, let me give you an analogy: everyone should have a college degree (or a vocational diploma) in this day and age, but are we going to mandate that everyone seeking employment must first get a college degree? Or, is it better to make college etc affordable and accessible and thus encourage more people to get college education?

          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:37:00 PM PDT

          •  No

            He isn't going to jail them but he is going to charge them come tax time. Your analogy doesn't work because not every position requires a degree.(A degree as a Walmart cashier is a bit of overkill) That said, I dare you to find one person who has never been ill or will not be ill in their future. It just doesn't happen. Our bodies are made to fail at some point or the other. Requiring people to have insurance ensures that when their bodies fail a safety net is in place for them and their families. DO Ibelieve it is going to be easy to enact reform in health care? Absolutely not. Do I believe it is essential that we reform it so that risks can be pooled and that each and every person has access to a working health care system? Absolutely. I look at people like my daughter who at 13 has already had to have a skin biopsy and I worry because with the state of our system now she would in all likelihood be playing russian roulette once she turns eighteen because the insurance companies (that Obama would have us sitting at the tables with) would charge her an arm and a leg. Of course she could end up on the health plan but if everybody on that plan is in the same boat as my daughter than how exactly would that drive costs down? It wouldn't. The health insurance companies would easily game and bankrupt that system and kill any chance of single payer which is what I suspect they want.

            I want a system that says yes, you have to pay into it but it will be there for you or your family as a safety net.I'd prefer single payer but I think out of the top 3 Edwards comes closest to what I want and has the best chance of leading to single payer.

            The only way

            by cwaltz on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:33:29 AM PDT

            •  I note that

              my 'prosecute and jail' comment was prior to our discussion above on mandate implementation.

              "Your analogy doesn't work because not every position requires a degree.(A degree as a Walmart cashier is a bit of overkill)"

              Well, we were discussing your phrase "he isn't really interested in what is in the BEST interest of folks". You can't argue that the income earning potential of a given individual would generally be much enhanced by