Skip to main content

Photobucket

Democrats, independents and Republicans who are tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington, who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable, who understand that, if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there is no problem we cannot solve, there is no destiny that we cannot fulfill. Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

Barack Obama's Post New Hampshire Primary Speech

So how many seats can they buy Senator Obama?  Am I being picky?  I mean, why does he chose the word buy rather than give?  The American people should not have to "buy" a seat at the table, should they?  This struck me as an important word to pay attention too (pun intended).

Is it a slip?  I mean, was it on purpose or was he just not thinking?  Haven't we had enough of big corporations buying their seats at the table?  And aren't they buying their seats with our money?  Nataline had health insurance and she was refused treatment, where does that money go?  Is that to "buy" a seat at the table?

According to Miles Mogulescu at the Huffington Post, this is a common phrasing for Obama.  

Obama's political strategy is quite consistent with such financial backers. One of his big applause lines is "The insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table...they just can't buy all the chairs."

John Edwards responds that "some people argue that we're going to sit at the table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it's a complete fantasy; it will never happen." If Obama thinks the way to bring change to Washington is for a bunch of insiders to sit around the table with the corporate special interests, he is dreaming. These special interests are all about using their money and power to manipulate the government to increase their bottom lines. Insurance companies and drug companies are not interested in universal health care for all Americans. Big energy companies are not interested in developing alternative fuels, capping greenhouse gases, or ending America's reliance on oil. Hedge fund managers are not interested in having their billion dollar incomes taxed at a marginal rate of 28% like the wage income of the companies they invest in, instead of at the special rate of 15%. Edwards will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to mobilize the American people to take on these special interests in the name of the public good. He is the most progressive major party candidate since Bobby Kennedy, perhaps since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Obama does receive money from insurance companies, right?  We've seen these graphs before and I know none of the candidates are pure, it's just not possible.  But I want to know how to buy a seat and much it costs.  I think Obama supporters bring up a very valid point and it was unfair to use donations to the campaign.  My main point is about the usage of the word buy. Maybe it's time that no one should have to "buy" a seat at the table at all.

Many of us just can't afford to pay anymore than we already are, in our taxes, our insurance premiums, gas prices and falling wages.  John Edwards understands that so many have already paid the price for these corporations seats at the table.  How many go without health care?  How many have died with health care?  And how many of us already believe we've paid enough that we should get our own seats?

As Edwards has said, "Will these people voluntarily give their power away?" (HT to NCD Amy).

No.  So why should we give them, let alone let them "buy" a seat at the table when they leave no room for the millions of Americans with out health insurance, millions of American who have to chose to either pay for heating oil or food and the millions of Americans who have to chose if living is more expensive than dying.  John Edwards knows that letting these people buy seats at the table has gotten us no where except politicians who now rely on this corporate money to keep their political careers afloat.

And I want to know, how much does my daughter have to pay to get a seat at the table?  Because how much is it going to cost us in negotiating with these people?  I think John Edwards would agree that Americans have already paid enough.  It's time to fight and it's time we had a President who wants to fight on our behalf, to fight for those who have not been heard and who have paid the highest price of all.

John Edwards is asked to describe one of his greatest Senate accomplishments - the Patients' Bill of Rights. He goes on to talk about the personal nature of his lifelong work, fighting against powerful insurance companies and special interests. "We need a president who believes deeply in this battle." Recorded during the Democratic Debate sponsored by ABC News, WMUR, and Facebook on Saturday, January 5, 2008.

Cross posted at The Liberal OC

I'm sorry, Edwards and Obama are not the same on this issue.  John Edwards believes that they don't deserve a seat at the table at all.  It's a huge difference and if you think that the only people that understand the insurance industry are the people who run it and profit from it, then you've you been bought too.  People who profit from life and death deserve to sit by the sidelines, they do not have our best interest at heart, if they did, then they would allow doctors and patients to approve treatment rather than underwriters.

Originally posted to Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Wait, you're attacking doctors and nurses now? (22+ / 1-)

    Really?

    Health Professionals

    All health professionals are included in this category: all specialties of physicians, psychiatrists, dentists, chiropractors, pharmacists, nurses, nutritionists and everyone else providing health care services—as well as their professional associations. (Chiropractors, dentists, and nurses are subsets of this industry and are profiled in greater detail within this section.)

    Are you really saying that health professionals are a problem (and more so than lawyers)?

  •  Throughout American history (9+ / 0-)

    Populists have titled at windmills (Don Quixote) and failed.

    Unless we wish to have a revolution of the people and abolish private property and create a Utopian Marxian state, corporations will have a seat at the table.

    Obama seeks to limit their influence.

    Edwards would shoot the moon and fail (just like all of the great populists of American history).

    Hillary will announce "No seats from me!" and proceed to give them the whole dang table. Her explanation?

    "I said no seats, I never said no table"

    It's a meaning of words thing.

      •  Hillary is not FDR (9+ / 0-)

        if that is your implication.

        FDR also was not a populist, if THAT is your implication.

        William Jennings Bryan was a populist.

        = = =

        Anyway, do I know you from somewhere?

        •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

          William Jennings Bryan was also a devout creationist.


          "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

          by Zackpunk on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Many people were creationists at and before 1900 (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pioneer111, inertiac, cybrestrike
            •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              stevej, scoff0165

              Not many people were the prosecuting attorneys at the Scopes trial. I mean, he didn't just "believe" in creationism -- it was his life's cause.


              "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

              by Zackpunk on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:24:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  After his run at President failed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                countrycat

                Before that he was an economic populist.

                My source is Wikipedia.

                1896:

                At the 1896 Democratic National Convention, Bryan galvanized the silver forces to defeat the Bourbon Democrats, who supported incumbent President Grover Cleveland and who had long controlled the party. His famous "Cross of Gold" speech, delivered prior to voting for the presidential nominee, lambasted Western monied classes for supporting the gold standard at the expense of the average worker. Bryan's stance, directly opposing the conservative Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats, united the agrarian and silver factions and won him the nomination. Just 36, the youngest presidential nominee ever, Bryan formally received the nominations of the Populist Party and the Silver Republican Party in addition to the Democratic nomination. Voters from any party could vote for him without crossing party lines, an important advantage in an era of intense party loyalty. Republicans ridiculed Bryan as a Populist. However, "Bryan's reform program was so similar to that of the Populists that he has often been mistaken for a Populist, but he remained a staunch Democrat throughout the Populist period."[2] The Populists nominated him only once (in 1896); they refused to do so in previous and later elections mostly due to an incident that occurred during the 1896 election.

                Small "p" populists is a general term distinct from the Populist party.

                Later, this:

                Following his failed presidential bid in 1900, the 40-year-old Bryan re-examined his life and concluded that he had let his passion for politics obscure his calling as a Christian. He now prepared a number of speeches in defense of the Christian faith and hit the lecture circuit, especially the Chautauqua circuit. For the next 25+ years, Bryan would be the most popular Chautauqua speaker, delivering thousands of speeches, even while serving as secretary of state. He spoke on a wide variety of topics, but he preferred religious topics. His most popular lecture (and his personal favorite) was a lecture entitled "The Prince of Peace": in it, Bryan stressed that religion was the only solid foundation of morality, and that individual and group morality was the only foundation for peace and equality. Another famous lecture from this period, "The Value of an Ideal", was a stirring call to public service.

                As early as 1905, Bryan was warning Chautauquans of the dangers of Darwinism: "The Darwinian theory represents man reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate - the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak. If this is the law of our development then, if there is any logic that can bind the human mind, we shall turn backward to the beast in proportion as we substitute the law of love. I choose to believe that love rather than hatred is the law of development."

                He found a second life as a Christian preacher, not uncommon in American history.

                •  Right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  scoff0165

                  He believed that the one true source of morality was the Bible, and he saw Darwinism as a threat to the Bible, so he devoted most of his life towards preaching against evolution. This was not a "common" thing to do with one's life, like being an engineer or bricklayer. I'm not sure what your point is.


                  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

                  by Zackpunk on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's redeem Bryan, shall we? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wystler, jlb1972

                    I think his anti-evolution thing was goofy, but put it in context.

                    The evangelicals of the time (not now) equated Darwin's theory of evolution to rampant Capitalism whereby "the fittest survive" and the weak were left to rot.

                    Remember the Gilded Age?  Trustbusting? the Great Depression?

                    Big business and big corporations ran amok with unlimited power and access to government. They controlled our economy and average people got steamrolled.  Sound familiar?

                    Many Evangelicals of the time objected to the theory of Evolution because it was used as an excuse to prop up a corrupt social order and economic system.

                    Naturally, NONE of this applies to the current Creationists, but Bryan wasn't the great, unwashed no-nothing that he's protrayed as now.

                    He was WRONG in Dayton, but he was still an extraordinary man.

                    Yes. There ARE progressive Democrats in Alabama. Visit with us at Left in Alabama

                    by countrycat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hard to pack a whole U.S. History Course (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      countrycat, jlb1972

                      into a few comments.  Anyone who has spent any time at all studying American political history would name Bryan as one of the great populists.  The silver standard was even more of a rallying cry of the people than universal health coverage is now.

                      You've tried to lift the veil.  No need to keep beating your head against the wall.

                      •  the thing is, I used to think he was a doofus... (0+ / 0-)

                        my favorite play in high school was "Inherit the Wind" which, while kind to Bryan in the end, doesn't portray him in the best light.

                        Then, years later, reading a New Yorker article, I ran across more info about him that made me think, researched him, and became a fan.

                        Unfortunately, now I hawk his memory with the zeal of a missionary (which Bryan would probably approve of !  ;-> ).  He was so wrong about a lot of things, but so RIGHT about so many important issues that haven't gone away.  Just can't toss him aside as a know-nothing because he was anything but.

                        Yes. There ARE progressive Democrats in Alabama. Visit with us at Left in Alabama

                        by countrycat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:31:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  The problem is... (0+ / 0-)

                      There were plenty of other social vehicles available to him at the time to promote the cause of human rights, without being anti-science. I'm not arguing that Bryan wasn't a populist -- of course he was. But I think your attempts to redeem him are a bit intellectually dishonest. You're basically saying that he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Can we use that same rationale to defend Hillary Clinton's war authorization vote?


                      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

                      by Zackpunk on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:22:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  a lot of people do the wrong thing (0+ / 0-)

                        for the right reasons.  I don't expect anyone to be totally consistent and pure anymore.  If they were, they either wouldn't be human or would be so damn annoying that nobody would listen to them.

                        As I've gotten older, I've become more tolerant of peoples' failings - having so many of my own.

                        I'm not being intellectually dishonest, oh judgmental one.  I'm recognizing that things were different 100 years ago and people's worldviews, motivations, and life experiences were way different than mine.

                        Yes, I disagree with many of the choices that Bryan and others made then.  But Bryan wasn't a malevolent figure.  If he were alive now, I THINK he'd be a Democrat and a strong voice for change.

                        I don't know, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because I'm not willing to judge that one moment against his life's work.  Hillary's vote on the war: same thing.  She's not my candidate, but I'm not a single issue voter.

                        People are packages of conflicting notions, actions, and beliefs.  The best we can do is pick the one who best fits our agenda.

                        She screwed up.  We all do.  She won't admit it.  That's a problem, but it doesn't make her a monster any more than Bryan's failing in Dayton negates the other things he tried to accomplish.

                        Yes. There ARE progressive Democrats in Alabama. Visit with us at Left in Alabama

                        by countrycat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                          You act as if his role in the Scopes trial was some kind of aberration, when in fact it was entirely consistent with his life's work. That, I think, is the intellectually dishonest part. I don't think Bryan would want you to view Dayton as some kind of a mistake -- something that didn't truly represent what he was about. I suspect it's something he would have been very proud of, had he not died a week later, and I don't think it's fair to him to brush the moment aside.


                          "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

                          by Zackpunk on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  completely false (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                countrycat, BWasikIUgrad, Bill White

                it may have been more important to WJB that the textbook used in TN openly supported eugenics and social darwinism.

                WJB life's cause was helping the little guy.

            •  almost everyone was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bill White
        •  FDR - Populist (13+ / 0-)

          "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1936

          •  FDR - A NY silk stocking guy with a knack (0+ / 0-)

            for good rhetoric

          •  FDR - Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

            Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882 in Hyde Park, in the Hudson Valley, some 100 miles (160 km) north of New York City. His father, James Roosevelt, Sr., and his mother, Sara Ann Delano, were each from wealthy old New York families, of Dutch and French ancestry respectively. Franklin was their only child. His paternal grandmother, Mary Rebecca Aspinwall, was a first cousin of Elizabeth Kortright Monroe, wife of the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe. One of his direct ancestors is John Lothropp, also a direct ancestor to Benedict Arnold and Joseph Smith, Jr. One of his distant relatives from his mother's side is the famous bookwriter, Laura Ingalls Wilder. His maternal grandfather, Warren Delano, Jr., a descendant of Mayflower passengers Richard Warren, Isaac Allerton, Degory Priest, and Francis Cooke, made a fortune in the opium trade in China.[2]
            Young Franklin Roosevelt, with his father and Helen R. Roosevelt, sailing in 1899.
            Young Franklin Roosevelt, with his father and Helen R. Roosevelt, sailing in 1899.

            Roosevelt grew up in an atmosphere of privilege. Sara was a possessive mother, while James was an elderly and remote father (he was 54 when Franklin was born). Sara was the dominant influence in Franklin's early years.[3] Frequent trips to Europe made Roosevelt conversant in German and French. He learned to ride, shoot, row, and play polo and lawn tennis.

            Hey, he did a whole lot of good. Make no mistake.

            But FDR was no populist.

        •  People throw the word "populist" around (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          countrycat, jlb1972

          and it's yet another one of those Village talking points.

          It's like a synonym for "bad."

          I see Edwards as someone who understands the problem: Overweening corporate power.

          I see Obama as someone who not only doesn't see it, but whose oratory obscures it.

          Simple as that.

          [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

          by lambertstrether on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  BS - we can get rid of corporate health care if (4+ / 0-)

      we want to. Its that simple. And no its not some Marxist utopian fantasy. What utter tripe.

      The world is my country, science is my religion.

      by ReadyForChange on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:53:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  McCarthyism is back, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Predictor

        but now it's within our party. How sad.

        John Edwards is the most electable candidate. It's official.

        by priceman on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:36:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ooh, can we get rid of mean people after that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        `cause mean people suck. It's that simple.

        Just "getting rid of" corporate health care "if we want to?" How exactly? I have a number of friends working in this industry. Not CEOs, not lobbyists - people who work in cubicles for middle class wages, who have families to feed and mortgages to pay.

        Are you going to take care of my friends when you just "simply" get rid of corporate health care? If not, then quit saying that this is "simple." That's "utter tripe."

        this isn't simple. It's complicated, and it will take a lot of work, and the changes will likely be incremental.

        And Edwards supporters think Obama's the one who wants to hold hands and sing "Kumbayah."

        -8.25, -6.26 Pardon our dust, sig line under renovation in order to serve you better.

        by snookybeh on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:41:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have a number of friends working in this indust (0+ / 0-)

          thanks for being honest. I

          Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

          by jlb1972 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  just to be clear... (0+ / 0-)

            when I say "friends in the industry," I'm not talking about the people who would buy these seats we're arguing about.

            I'm talking about people working in call centers for $12-$15 an hour, or people who do data entry, or people who work with accounts. Not exactly captains of industry. And they're not any happier about the state of health care in this country than you or me. But, unlike the captains of industry, the people I'm talking about don't have golden parachutes to rely on if their job disappears. They're regular folks who are a couple of paychecks or so away from being homeless, like me (and maybe like you).

            If you think I'm some kind of supporter of for-profit healthcare, you are mistaken. I just know that fixing things isn't going to be "easy."

            -8.25, -6.26 Pardon our dust, sig line under renovation in order to serve you better.

            by snookybeh on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough - (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              countrycat

              unfortunately, I've known a lot of people who have had their jobs destroyed because of social or economic changes, and it was never really fair or compensated for. Management got greedy, yes, but our society let this happen, and we're going to have to deal with it. I don't want to see any nurses or data entry people out of a job, but I don't really care if the Frist family has to do some honest work.

              Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

              by jlb1972 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Regulation (0+ / 0-)

      It's called regulation.  All the best capitalist countries do it . . . often times to benefit the biggest companies for that matter.  

      I think the suggestion by our 3rd place player (i.e., JRE) is that the regulatory regime currently needs to be bent a little bit more . . . hold on . . . this way to benefit the American people at large.  

      Capitalism thrives on intelligent regulation; currently it's out of whack and needs adjustment, which requires someone with leverage (e.g., a President with a strong pro-regulation mandate) to execute it.  

      Unfortunately, looks like it ain't gonna happen in any really strong manner.  Too bad.

  •  Lobbyist seats at the table (23+ / 0-)

    This is very concerning. I really don't understand why Obama feels so compelled to give corporate lobbyists a seat at the table. Don't they have a big enough megaphone already?

    They don't need a seat at the table. Regular Americans do. Those of us whose voices are being drowned out by big corporate lobbyists.

  •  Health care professionals (12+ / 0-)

    You're going to have a reformation of health care without health care professionals.  Sounds pretty stupid to me.  

    He said a seat and that implies one.  Pull up a chair and let's get it done!!!

  •  maybe if we (14+ / 0-)

    pool all our money we can buy one seat at the table ....

  •  hes compelled by his investors(donnors) (4+ / 0-)
  •  I don't think he thought about the word "buy." (12+ / 0-)

    I think Obama is just so accustomed to people buying access in politics that it was totally natural for him to use the word "buy." He's admitting that he's selling access. No surprise there, really.

    •  He used the word "buy" intentionally and with a (14+ / 0-)

      specific meaning.

      Here's the point for the diarist and the many people who don't seem to get it.
      Obama will give the drug and insurance companies a seat at the table because because they are an integral part of the healthcare issue and Barack needs to hear and understand their points of view.  A seat at the table doesn't mean decision-making power.  It means an opportunity to voice opinions and be heard.

      But they will be only two out of many voices to be heard around that table.  All stakeholders will have a clear voice.  All stakeholders will be heard.

      When a president takes big donations from drug and insurance lobbyists, he/she may be tempted to listen disproportionately to them.  That scenario is represented by the metaphor "buy all the chairs at the table."

      Barack is not selling any chairs.  He is determining which players have relevant information and input that needs to be taken into account in shaping a plan, and he is using his judgement (not their influence) to give all relevant players a seat to be heard.

      His judgement of their input will be independent.  But frankly, it's naive and foolish not to get their input at all.

      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

      by Happy Days on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:47:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They've had years (6+ / 0-)

        to give their imput, they've had years to profit from exploiting their power and their ability to buy power.  Who is being naive?

        http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

        by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who is being disingenuous? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity, MJ via Chicago, ccyd, Pegasus

          This space intentionally left blank.

          by nightsweat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:54:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think you are very naive about business. (6+ / 0-)

          To forge a plan with no input from affected parties is a blueprint for disaster and an open door for a raft of unintended consequences.  It is pure ignorance.

          Again--you don't give them the control.  They aren't the decision-makers.  

          But you uncover and make sure you understand the specific implications of various options and courses of action.  

          A concept is one thing.  But a plan and its implementation is another.  The devil is in the details.

          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

          by Happy Days on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right Happy Days (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Foodle, Happy Days

            These companies exist. They will fight reform whether they have a seat at the table or not. And at least the drug companies do bring some benefit, namely the drugs they produce. But if you allow them to be part of the process, if they are completely intransigent, then the Prez can turn the public against them ("We gave them a chance for input and they blew us off...."). If the Prez blows them off from the start then he looks like the bad guy.

            This is the collaborative leadership style and it really works.

        •  Elinorianne, also... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MarkC, highacidity, Foodle

          You say "they've had years to give their input."

          That shows you didn't understand my comment at all.

          We are talking about shaping a specific plan, and getting input from all stakeholders who will be affected.

          Obviously they have not given their input on something that hasn't happened yet.

          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

          by Happy Days on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Who will speak for me? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by givmeliberty on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:17:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you are a doctor, the doctors at the table (0+ / 0-)

          will speak for you.

          If you are a hospital administrator, the hospital administrator at the table will speak for you.

          If you are a patient, the patient representative at the table will speak for you.

          The point is, Barack will have a large table with all stakeholders represented.

          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

          by Happy Days on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:52:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The fairy dust gets thicker by the day over here. (0+ / 0-)

            No one speaks for me - or for people like me.  The uninsured or underinsured.

            I am not a doctor, or hospital administrator, and your reference to a patient advocate is laughable.  Who might that be that would advocate for me?  Someone like UnitedHealthCare?  No thanks.  I am in this position because they allegedly speak for me.

            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

            by givmeliberty on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:16:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  it's useless (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, Happy Days

        those who are determined not to understand will simply not accept your excellent explanation and the similar comments of several other O supporters here.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
        IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stop embarrassing yourself (8+ / 0-)

      Do you not understand a man speaking metaphorically? He's calling the undue influence of lobbyists 'buying seats at the table' because their money gets them access. It's not meant to be taken literally, unless you want it to be taken literally because you're looking for something to hit him with.

      This shows how thin the oppo on Obama is. He's so unblemished that people have to make smears out of nothing.

  •  And bear in mind that ... (20+ / 0-)

    ... if it was not for John Edwards putting the pressure on, Senator Obama would not even have been addressing the issue in the first place.

    John Edwards: The Five Levels of Victory ...
    ... Change Worth Fighting For.

    SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

    by BruceMcF on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM PST

  •  Buying government is wicked cheap! (3+ / 0-)

    At the prices posted, the average starting offensive linesman in the NFL could dictate health care policy. (Steroids for all!)  And the average starting quarterback could abrogate the Constitution and have himself declared Emperor!

    "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

    by Rich in PA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM PST

  •  300 million. (6+ / 0-)

    You can have a seat at the table, but that doesn't mean you to get to dictate policy.

    I believe Obama when he says this.

    Health Insurance knows something about health care, even if they aren't always so great at delivering it.  I wouldn't run the SEC without input from our nation's business leaders or the federal highway system without talking to the automakers.  It doesn't mean I would turn I-90 into the autobahn.

  •  Lame ass hit piece. (26+ / 0-)
    1.  You bash Obama for getting more donations from doctors and nurses, i.e. health professionals.  Are trial lawyers purer than doctors and nurses?
    1.  Edwards and Obama are equal in donations from health professionals and insurance industry employees as a percentage of their overall fundraising.

    What does that mean?  It means Obama raises three times as much money as Edwards does from EVERYBODY, including doctors and janitors.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM PST

  •  Reading comprehension ftw (15+ / 0-)

    "while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair"

    All he's saying is that everyone (insurance companies, the American people, your daughter, whatever) should get a seat, but no one can buy more than that.

  •  the guy is a judas goat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sgary, Predictor, BBelle

    he was raised as a person of priviledge, continues to be one and is leading the rest of us who aren't to the slaughter.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM PST

  •  Wow, this is the most nitpicky semantic diary (33+ / 0-)

    It's relatively simple. Right now corporate interests buy most if not all of the chairs at the table.

    In an Obama administration they won't be able to buy any, though they will get a seat.

    And just so you know, there is no actual table, and there are no actual chairs. It's a god damned metaphor.

  •  Another attack diary on Obama...boring (13+ / 0-)

    And pointless. No information just the diarists self serving willful misstatement of Obama's focus on working government.

  •  why not just compare (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    folgers, Foodle, Kimball, Mojo Jojo

    their records on ethics, campaign finance, transparency, lobbyists, etc?

    •  Because (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Mojo Jojo

      Obama wins that comparison.

      Duh!

      For all their talk the last thing the Anti-Obama people want to do is compare records.  Obama's record in Illinois and in the US Senate is really quite impressive.

    •  Obama barely HAS a record... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dazy, scoff0165, Ellinorianne

      That's part of the point!  He's almost a 'tabula rasa' that progressives get to paint any way they want!  
      You want Obama the healer? Cool. Not a long record there.  

      Obama the fighter? Still looking for that one...
      we'll have to get back to you... especially since on congresspedia.com says,  "Obama's first action in the Senate was to decline to be the Senate co-sponsor of a move to question Ohio's Electoral College votes following the 2004 presidential election. He then voted against the resolution."

      Remember the stolen election? Let's make nice, instead.

      His energy policy for the automakers? ""pay 10 percent of the $6.7 billion in annual health costs for retirees that are weighing down General Motors, Ford and Chrysler if they'll commit to building more fuel-efficient cars."
       No equivocation there.  The US public pays either way, I guess.

       But hey, I'm not a member of the 'anointed followers'  I'm for Edwards.  Read Obama's bio yourself.  
       Obama will get run over by his 'friends'.... the corporations, who get to 'buy seats'.
       The American public gets one seat at the table, for all 300 million of us.

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/...

      "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, every post WWII US President would have been hanged." =Chomsky

      by abenjaminc on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's record (6+ / 0-)

        Obama has a long substantive record for change and achievement, starting from his work as a community organizer, where he organized families on the South Side of Chicago and in Indiana hurt by the closure of steel mills and helped them get the health insurance and other benefits they needed to survive.  

        He then worked for several years as an Illinois State Legislature, with distinction, reforming the Illinois death penalty, lobbying and causing the passage of a law requiring the videotaping of confessions, writing an education law that expanded early childhood education, created the state Earned income tax credit, and passed ethics reform.

        In his brief time in the United States Senate, he has co-authored the revisions to the Patriot Act, to remove its most dangerous provisions for civil liberties.  He did this with Russ Feingold.   He co-authored sweeping ethics reform bill that banned lobbyists from funding dinners and corproate junkets for representatives.  He worked across the aisle with Tom Coburn to pass a transparency law, that requires public disclosure of all federal funding. He worked across the aisle with Dick Lugar to reauthorize Nunn Lugar, to lock down the "loose nukes" threat of nuclear terrorism.   He worked across the aisle with

        •  Listen to yourself, will you? (0+ / 0-)

          You're going out of the way to prove he's bipartisan?
          God damnit, that's the whole fucking problem with this guy!!
          Allow me to quote 'Dr. Evil'.... 'you just don't get it, do you?'

          "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, every post WWII US President would have been hanged." =Chomsky

          by abenjaminc on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  How many will Edwards give them? (6+ / 0-)

    "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation, you want to make the system work for everybody. I think there's a difference between a healthcare plan that builds on the existing system but deals with some of its deficiencies and problems as opposed to a complete new way of doing healthcare in America. The latter will engender huge opposition. And it will engender a lot of just plain political opposition. If on the other hand you're taking the system that exists, dealing with the problems with it, making sure everybody gets covered, it's just much more likely to be achievable."
    --Edwards, Feb 07

  •  You've got to be freaking kidding me. (5+ / 0-)

    I just did some digging and I think you're onto something. This, I think, is concrete evidence of the "seat buying" you discuss!

    Oy. I hear he's also a satan worshiper. He ordered DEVILed eggs last week in NH!

  •  Please (0+ / 0-)

    Let's face a simple fact: all the candidates, save Kucinich and Paul and Gravel, are establishment candidates.  Yes, it's true that Edwards is a bit less establishment than Clinton/Romney/McCain/Obama, but let us please play a game called "remember" and dredge up Edwards' vote for the Iraq War.  It's not pretty, is it, that little truth?  No it sure isn't.  But Edwards did vote for the war, and he's offered the same bullshit platitudes as all the rest when it comes to other deep issues.  (Let's also remember that Edwards offered the lamest and most pathetic rejoinder when questioned on his Iraq vote: he said his consultants thought it was a good idea.  Yeah, great, just what we need, a president who can't think for himself.  Makes me think of a certain faux Texan, whose name I refuse to type in this box.)

    John Edwards has righteous balls when it comes to enunciating the plight of the common man/woman in this money-is-everything-if-you-don't-got-it-you're-fucked world...yes, absolutely, I'll give him that - and I'll even say that the issue of ecnomic fairness has always hovered at the top of my list of priorities and passions.  But blood spilled in a desert 8,000 miles away owes its trickling into the sands to people like Edwards, you know?  He's  just another establishment junky in the end, and if you don't know that, you're naivete is fairly staggering.  He'd fight for the middle class, sure, but then he'd ship them off to war, believe it.  He can't change the system because, in his essence, boiled down, he is the system - a multimillionaire ex-office holder, like Clinton and Romney and Giuliani.  

    We need regular people in these positions, not expertly coiffed challengers to the fortunes of Croesus.  A janitor is worth more than all these people mashed into one.  Definitely worth more than any single one.  Know that much is true.

    Go to Myspace.com/crappyjack, take a break from politics for a while, rock the fuck out!

    by Nathan Hammersmith on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM PST

    •  A valid point. (0+ / 0-)

      Which is why Edwards is my #2 choice behind Kucinich.  Sure, he's talking a good game now that he's no longer a U.S. senator and doesn't have to pander to conservatives in North Carolina.  That doesn't necessarily mean he's the guy who most deserves to be president.  Having said that I do think that, like Al Gore since the 2000 election, Edwards has undergone a genuine change.  Not having seen anything substantive to make me do otherwise, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Kucinich most closely matches my political views, however, so he is my candidate for the Ohio primary.  If Edwards wins the nomination, I'll confidently vote for him.  If he doesn't...well, voting for Dennis as a write-in is still giving my vote to the Democratic Party.  And I'll vehemently defend the eventual nominee against smear jobs by the GOP candidate.

      •  I'm with you on every point (0+ / 0-)

        I came on a bit strong with Edwards, and you're correct that the pressures of being a Senator aren't on his shoulders anymore, and he can be himself and let it all hang out (and I want to say further that he is the devil doll, in terms of entrenched corporate interests and wretched greed; unfair of me to paint him like he's a money-grubbing asshole, which he surely is not).

        However, let me come on strong with Obama, who deserves a bit of deflation as far as I'm concerned.  He's smart, he's staggeringly good on the stump; as a pure politican, nobody can touch the man.  But wherefore the beef, Barack?  How carefully are you playing it, and why?  Do you think the country isn't gonna embrace a liberal who lets the colors fly?  They will, man, they will!  But so far it's just empty crap like "change" and "hope," nauseating words even when it's not an election season.  I follow this stuff pretty hardcore, and I haven't heard Obama enunciate any real details of anything - and I don't mean policy positions here, because those don't mean a damned thing pre-presidency, and are hardly worth more than damn once the White House is secured.  No, I mean speaking on torture, lawless wiretapping, Guantanamo, Iraq, the grotesque abuse of executive power, etc.  These are the substantive issues, and it's Kucinich and Gravel and Paul who speak on them and none of the others.  And don't tell me that Obama couldn't speak on, say, torture or Bushian malfeasance right now, right now, and get away with it, because he's got the power and he could speak on those issues right now and...yes...the Beatlesque crowds would love him all the more for it.  He'd garner massive support.  He'd also (probably) put his life at risk in the process.  But we need brave women and men in 2008 more than we've ever needed them, you know?  

        Establishment candidates go so far, then stop.  That's Obama, Clinton and all the rest of the moneybags politicians.  They know that justice and peace and a real, true economic bounty for everyone everywhere shivers the gatekeepers' timbers, guarantees a raising of the sword to keep them out...but you can't keep hundreds of millions out, and Obama could have that kind of backing, were he so possessed of the courage.

        I ramble.  However, file this whole damned rant under "terribly sad."  Arggh...

        Go to Myspace.com/crappyjack, take a break from politics for a while, rock the fuck out!

        by Nathan Hammersmith on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:41:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  None. (12+ / 0-)

    Anyone who thinks an Obama Administration is for sale obviously knows nothing about his history, policy positions or personal character.  They don't get to buy any chairs, let alone every.  Does he really need to spell that out for you?

    They "get a seat at the table."  A seat.  One.  And they "get" it.  It's an invitation, not a quid pro quo.  In fact, inviting them in actually eliminates their power to "buy" admission at all.  Go ahead.  Talk to me.  It's a free country, he is saying.  Don't think you get a special deal.  You get the same deal - one free chair, as everybody else.

    There's a change right there.  Meaning we the people getting the same deal as they the powerful.  And we get more seats.  Because we are going to stop them from "buying every chair" and shutting us out like has happened in the past.

    Government will finally be open and transparent enough to allow citizens to leverage power over corporate interests.

    Just assuming you can tell them to stay out of the room is, shall we say, "naive and inexperienced?"

    Knowing they are going to do whatever it takes to undercut you, and actively developing a strategy to limit their power, that's real change.

    If we want hope to survive in this world today, then every day we've got to teach on, teach on. - Ysaye Maria Barnwell

    by Femlaw on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM PST

    •  In context that sentence was clearly (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MarkC, highacidity, dgb, Foodle, Femlaw, Mojo Jojo

      contrasting the past when health insurance companies, big Pharma etc. bought access with a future when they can't.

      And, since this is clearly an Edwards diary, when he says "fight", what is he fighting with? That is, what allies, strategies, weapons, tactics does he plan to use?  

      Hillary is promising that she knows where the levers of power in Washington are and how to push them (aka experience); Obama appears to be planning to galvanize the mass of the American people to counterbalance the power of entrenched interests.

      What technique(s) does Edwards plan to use? Could you direct me to his plans in that regard?

      Happy the man and happy he alone--he who can call today his own ... John Dryden

      by ohiolibrarian on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The initial comment (4+ / 0-)

    about how many seats can be bought at the table is not about the number of seats for sale, it reads to me as meaning that they don't get to buy chairs at all.  The emphasis being on buy as opposed to all.  

    Just my reading.

    Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. Vonnegut

    by otto on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM PST

  •  They have already been compensated (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scoff0165, Predictor, Ellinorianne

    Those who have, have all they deserve, and more than they deserve.

    They just don't get anymore, at all, for about two generations.

    They don't get to profit from the provision of health care anymore. They don't get to profit from the provision of education anymore. They don't get to profit from stalling the development of a new energy infrastructure anymore. They don't get to profit from shipping jobs overseas anymore. They don't get to profit from suppressing labor unions anymore. They don't get to profit from selling off public assets, anymore. They don't get to profit from perpetual, dynastic control of corporations anymore. They don't get to profit by avoiding taxes anymore. They don't get to profit from holding multiple seats of corporate governance anymore. They don't get to profit from suppressing the Fairness Doctrine in the media, anymore. They don't get to profit from elections anymore.

    They can stick to selling movies, hamburgers, tennis shoes, toothpaste, chocolate bars, soda pop and televisions and all kinds of things. They don't need to be controlling society with totalitarian zeal and aristocratic arrogance. And let's think about reviving boutique captalism, too. It's so much homier than faceless corporate entities with big fascist fences around every conceivable property; real, intellectual or other.

    •  I forgot war (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, Archangel M

      They don't get to profit from wars anymore either.

      Not proxy wars, star wars, clandestine wars, hot wars, cold wars, wars with wings, wars with poison gasses, or even wars with cheap, lead-tainted lipstick.

      No wars with mercenaries, child soldiers, "theater nukes," variations of smallpox, or heroin trafficking.

      Can we stop all these things? Sure.

      War is over, if you want it.--Yoko Ono.

      But, just in case we do actually need to defend ourselves from other countries that AREN'T arming themselves to the teeth with nearly a trillion dollars worth or "defense" every year, we still don't have to allow it to be profitable.

    •  AMEN TO THAT (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, joustchr

      n.t

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:39:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why don't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike

    you let Obama answer for himself?

    Some of you may have been lucky enough to see this in person, I was not.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

  •  The Real Issue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dazy, Predictor, Ellinorianne

    The issue isn't race, experience, or money.  The issue is will our President lead us back into democracy through social-strengthening programs, or will we finish the long march to the cellar of fascism?

    Edwards knows the fight is against big money special interests.

    Obama and Clinton are just picking up that meme from Edwards.  They wouldn't be talking about disempowerment and disenfranchisement if Edwards were not there, driving the debate.

    It is better to meet a mother bear robbed of her cubs than to meet a fool busy with a stupid project. -- Pr. 17:12

    by november3rd on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM PST

    •  You are aware that (3+ / 0-)

      Obama was a community organizer long before he was a big muckety-muck on the national stage, right?  The man was face to fang with the same forces that Edwards rails against for years before he threw his hat into the political ring.  

      He's been there, he knows what's going on.

      Edwards may be pushing this "2 Americas" thing, but Obama lived it.

      Being that I'm registered in PA, I'm trying to stay aloof from all the candidate bashing and make an informed decision with all the time I've got before the primary.  With comments like this one, though, I can't help but feel a little more negative towards whichever candidate you (or whoever posts these) may be pushing. Is it too much to ask to let me maintain a little bit of hope and enthusiasm in this election?

      Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. Time to pony up and do the right thing.

      by Capt America on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:24:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hey, that's my money! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, ratador, Ellinorianne

    His money is MY f'ing money!
    All $150 or it, with more to come.

    Thanks for the inspiration.

  •  Very true. Powerful diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sgary, NCDem Amy, Ellinorianne

    As much as I like Obama... this makes me think very hard about his candidacy.

    The world is my country, science is my religion.

    by ReadyForChange on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:50:47 PM PST

  •  YAY!!! You pushed IBS's POS off the REC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sgary

    list!

  •  What's the point? (4+ / 0-)

    He said:

    while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair

    So how is that saying anyone gets to buy anything?

    Thank you Senator Dodd!

    by jrooth on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM PST

  •  The Table (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, cybrestrike

    I'm certain Obama's "place at the table" reserved for the HMO's is merely a place for them to take their orders.  The medical insurance company will need to be dissolved, and it would be a good idea to have the heads of that industry at the table while it happens, so that tens of thousands of newly-unemployed insurance industry employees can be absorbed into the state agencies.

    In other words, the seat is there for the companies to be talked to", not with*.  Don't forget that Obama's brand of bipartisanship is just his way of strongarming his opponents into complying with his liberal ideals.

    Save a spotted owl: eat a logger

    by Tlacolotl on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM PST

  •  To answer your question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Foodle, cybrestrike

    Yeah, you're being picky.

    We don't need more Democrats as much as we need different Democrats.

    by RudiB on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:00:15 PM PST

  •  I do think it's nitpicky. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, highacidity

    If we're going into full-on parsing, he also said just before that line that they can have "a" seat at the table (not "the", which was established before as a no-no, and actually would be in this case).  I don't know about you guys, but to me "a seat" is one seat.

    Maybe it depends on what your definition of "a" is.

    By saying they won't be able to buy all the seats, what he's saying is that they won't have all the leverage just because they are the more moneyed interest in the debate.

    Yes, we do need someone who can be a fighter. Someone who believes what they are saying. (And by "they" I mean that individual, not Them.)  But to me, Barack Obama is such an individual.  I don't think much of his support (here or elsewhere) comes from people who are thinking, "Yeah, here's a guy who's going to roll over at every opportunity."

    Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

    by someone else on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:00:20 PM PST

  •  Well, this is peachy.... (6+ / 0-)

    here we have a diary on semantics reaching the Recommended Diary list. (and/or a thinly veiled hit piece depending if you read it before or after editing).

    In the meantime, Blackwater is exposed as having gassed US Troops, the Straits of Hormuz "incident" is childishly faked, and a dear sweet woman who I consider a friend has lost her son to suicide.

    And this one deserves a place among those?  Amazing to me. Simply amazing.

    This is an "item of interest" for those who wish to discuss semantics.  But as a real issue, I can't see why it's on the Rec List.

    •  I can't understand why Obama, Clinton, and Edward (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MJ via Chicago

      don't contribute to this glorious flagship of democracy! With diaries like this representing the best of what this site has to offer, you'd think the candidates would be tripping over themselves to embrace    us!

      One conversation in the real world beats one thousand diaries on the rec list.

      by haruki on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:05:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Semantic parsing (8+ / 0-)

    This seems to be the trend today. Perhaps Obama simply meant that big pharma was not going to be able to buy every seat at the table like they are doing right now under Bush.

    You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

    by dianem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:03:05 PM PST

  •  I teach writing (14+ / 0-)

    and you're simply misreading this.

    Here are the two sentences you're on about:

    We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

    Obama's political strategy is quite consistent with such financial backers. One of his big applause lines is "The insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table...they just can't buy all the chairs."

    In neither sentence does he say that they should be able to buy chairs at the table in the future. If they don't get to buy all the chairs, or every chair, that does NOT imply they get to buy some chairs.

    Consider these sentences:

    In the future the Neo-Cons will not get to bomb any country they wish.

    One day, corporations will not be able to buy up all the local radio stations.

    I am not implying that the Neo-Cons will be allowed to bomb some countries and corporations buy some radio stations.

    Why is this on the recommended list!?

    We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. - HAL 9000

    by MarkC on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:03:29 PM PST

    •  Fair enough (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, joustchr

      I still dont' think anyone should have ever had to buy a seat.  You also leave out the fact that he used the term "all".  So they can buy some?  Sorry.  I guess I'm an idiot.

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, you're not an idiot. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, cybrestrike

        You're just (consciously or subconsciously) looking for wholes to poke in what has become a fairly standard for this election (thank god) populist rhetoric.

        Maybe we should start deconstructing the speeches of Clinton and Edwards.  I'm sure we could find some great stuff in there, without even resorting to the ridiculous level of scrutiny you've pointed at the word "all."

        Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. Time to pony up and do the right thing.

        by Capt America on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But I did! (5+ / 0-)

        Obama is describing the status quo when he says they can buy all the seats at the table now. That's indisputable.

        As for "all" I did address it, and even gave an "all" example:

        One day, corporations will not be able to buy up all the local radio stations.

        The speaker of such a sentence clearly disapproves of the practice, and there is no reason to assume the speaker would approve of selling any stations.

        I don't think you're an idiot and didn't imply that. Today does seem to be anti-Obama day, though, and there were a bunch of recommended diaries that trashed him.

        Actually, what I'm worried about is that with 2/3 of the people here supporting "not X" where X is Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, we'll devolve into a site that is all negative about the Dem candidates, and then after the primaries the Republicans can just mine it all: "Even according to the liberal site DailyKos, John Edwards wants to eat all the puppies. . ."

        We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. - HAL 9000

        by MarkC on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:41:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't do that - don't ever do (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, Predictor, Ellinorianne

        that - the diary is getting comments.  Don't say you're an idiot.  Also, other themes and ideas come out.  It engenders conversation - it's worthwhile.  

        What's the plan? The plan is I go in and start hitting people in the face hard. (Angel, from the Series)

        by xanthe on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  By "all" Obama was referring to the fact (3+ / 0-)

        that the insurance companies up till now have indeed been buying all the seats.

      •  take action (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, Foodle

        it's not Obama's fault that seats are bought today.  he and Edwards would both put a stop to it.

        you can do us all a favor and delete this diary.

        now that you understand how you accidentally twisted Obama's words into a misleading hit piece, you can do something about it.  admit your error and delete the diary.

        at the very least you should update it and ask people to UnRecommend it.  

      •  tit-for-tat retaliation will be next (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC

        and it will be ugly...

        there are a lot of clever people that will be able to twist John Edward's (or any politician) words to create a different meaning.

        i'm sure these tit-for-tat diaries will be posted very soon.  hopefully the Rec list isn't cluttered with them within the hour.

    •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

      I hear this illogical argument peddled a lot; I'm a teacher! I'm a lawyer! I teach writing! Give me a break. I certainly hope not. Stick to the issue, which you just evaded.

      con·text     /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-tekst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
      –noun

      1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
      1. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

      Ellinorainne's interpretation is valid, because she pays attention to stuff like this:

      There are four times as many health care lobbyists as there are members of Congress.

         * According to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), in 2005 there were 2,084 health care lobbyists registered with the federal government. With 535 members of Congress, that's 3.895 lobbyists per member.

      So allowing them to buy a seat at the table has nuanced specific consequences that relate to the point in question. Let's look at the sentences you put forth:

      We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

      Look at the second definition of context in bold. Obama's statement completely disregards that there were the same concessions during the Clinton administration to get UHC passed in "93" but it failed anyway. It also implies that somehow he can convince them to give back what they paid for. The point is that this statement from Obama is completely naive, because this has been tried before, and he is following a failed tactic. Will they give up their stranglehold on Congress through "unity" and "hope?" If you believe that after looking at the figures I just put forth, then you're the one who is naive.

      I'm also going to tear down your example of sycophantic rhetoric:

      In the future the Neo-Cons will not get to bomb any country they wish.

         One day, corporations will not be able to buy up all the local radio stations.

      I am not implying that the Neo-Cons will be allowed to bomb some countries and corporations buy some radio stations.

      If you were to make such statements in question and you want to compare these examples to Obama's quotes, your statements would be naive, because in ignoring that instead of 3.895 lobbyists per member of Congress, which is why we don't have UHC, you would be ignoring the fact that 3.895 cluster bombs are being dropped on every country and that there are 3.895 corporations buying every radio station while you were making the said statement in your hypothetical scenario.

      Now my grammar may not be perfect, but knowing what to say is more important than how you say it. That's why writers have editors.

      I only wonder why your comment was recommended. The rest is not going to help you or Obama. Sorry.

      John Edwards is the most electable candidate. It's official.

      by priceman on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is ad hominem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MJ via Chicago, Foodle

        Yes, I teach a communications course required at my university, and do teach students to pay attention to context. I rarely condescend to define the term "context" for them. I do pay attention to things like "sticking to the issue. "

        So what is the issue? If you go back to the original diary, the points you make are not ones the diarist made. The diarist asks:

        And I want to know, how much does my daughter have to pay to get a seat at the table?

        That and other statements extrapolate from a basic misunderstanding of Obama's language. Now, if you want to change the issue to saying that the drug and insurance industry should not get a seat at the table along with the other parties that participate in the health care delivery system, then you're making a different point. And one that you might want to take up with your candidate:

        "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation, you want to make the system work for everybody."

        Finally, what do you mean by "sycophantic rhetoric"? The influence of the Neo-Cons and corporations on foreign policy and the media are comparable in every sense to that of drug and insurance industry on health policy.

        Look, I won't call you a sycophant, I won't say you are naive, and I won't say you don't know what to say. I'll leave that to you. I will say that I haven't voted yet, and I do lean Obama and I've never felt less like voting for Edwards than now.

        We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. - HAL 9000

        by MarkC on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:55:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do I have to define "ad hominem" for you? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, joustchr, Ellinorianne

          My rebuttal was full of substance, and I took offense at your childish attempt to belittle someone who is concerned about the disparity with our children getting a seat at the table and the massive lobby that own Congress and makes the decisions for them as I have just shown you. What you did by implying that because you, "teach a communications course required at your university," somehow that makes your opinion more valid than hers. It's behavior like that that would make you seem like a:

          syc·o·phant      /ˈsɪkəfənt, -ˌfænt, ˈsaɪkə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sik-uh-fuhnt, fant, sahykuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
          –noun
          a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

          Because after all, you never personally attacked the diarist, right?

          Why are people 'Reccing' this diary?!!

          ad ho·mi·nem     /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
          –adjective

          1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
          1. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

          Now that that is settled, let's move on to other mis-characterizations by you:

          And I want to know, how much does my daughter have to pay to get a seat at the table?

          This is a valid point, but you say:

          That and other statements extrapolate from a basic misunderstanding of Obama's language.

          So the Sarkisyans had a say when their daughter was denied a liver transplant? No, and she died because of it, because drug companies and insurance companies are not being stood up to. There is no reason to think that Obama is going to push through refomrs that would cause disasters like this no to happen in his psuedo-UHC plan. He has also supported their legal agenda for years against consumers. They are allowed to write the laws that denied Natalie's treatment, again, because of the info I just showed you, but you think semantic arguments are somehow going to convince me that Obama knows the full extent of the damage here, when the language clearly shows he doesn't.

          By the information I just gave you, allowing them to buy any chair, allows legislation to be written by them, like the Medicare Prescription Drug D Plan. Edwards is the only candidate to mention, BTW.

          let's move on to your inaccurate characterization of Edwards position.

          Now, if you want to change the issue to saying that the drug and insurance industry should not get a seat at the table along with the other parties that participate in the health care delivery system, then you're making a different point. And one that you might want to take up with your candidate:

          No, I'm not making a different point, because of the platform Edwards has been trying to push through Congress since 2001 called the Patient's Bill Of Rights that removes their say away from the equation. (Patients and their doctors making the decisions)You might want to check up in your info, before posting that quote, but I'll get to that:

          "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation, you want to make the system work for everybody."

          This contextually, does not prove your point at all. Weren't you just giving a lecture on this? Sure we want the system to work. Sure, we try to bring all parties to the table, but that doesn't meant we capitulate to them, when they use pre-existing conditions to deny patients life-saving procedures and that is what Edwards means by not bringing the same people that Obama wants to bring to the table. Obama didn't say they won't have a hand in any medical decision; that's what letting them buy a chair, means; just not all of them, apparently. People who read the facts I stated for you, can read between the lines to see what that actually means, as the definition of context I laid out earlier alludes to.

          By showing a little backbone and demanding that they adhere to the reforms in Edwards true UHC plan, he is not giving them an option to buy a seat at the table, because they would have to adhere to stringent reforms in his plan.

          By letting them buy a chair at the table, without specifically using the bully pulpit and threatening Congress's health benefits to pass legislation that takes away their power to use pre-existing conditions against patients, you are not standing up to them. Edwards has made it very clear that he will not negotiate with insurance companies and drug companies when it comes to demanding that they treat patients fairly, and he has been consistent with that in his senate career as well as 20 years in his law career, standing up for patients who were wronged by this system that doesn't work, as he states over and over again.

          Finally, what do you mean by "sycophantic rhetoric"? The influence of the Neo-Cons and corporations on foreign policy and the media are comparable in every sense to that of drug and insurance industry on health policy.

          I covered that earlier, but I took apart your hypothetical example and showed that indeed it does relate, however, your defense of Obama's language with that example did not hold up, due to Obama being naive, which is what I implied. I said "if" you think that the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby does not own Congress and dictate how they operate, "then" you would be naive. You apparently do, and I'm glad, but I was merely stating that your example and comparison does not hold up and I laid out specifically why.

          Look, I won't call you a sycophant, I won't say you are naive, and I won't say you don't know what to say. I'll leave that to you. I will say that I haven't voted yet, and I do lean Obama and I've never felt less like voting for Edwards than no

          Now that a aptly presented why your behavior fits my descriptions, I'll point to this last refuge of someone that was hoping to belittle a fellow diarist I like and respect: "I'm not voting for your candidate, now. I was thinking about it.

          If you were a better person, I might care, but I don't.

          Have a nice day, teach.

          John Edwards is the most electable candidate. It's official.

          by priceman on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:57:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I too have taught English and I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ellinorianne

      Here.

      Live by oratory, perish by parsing...

      [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

      by lambertstrether on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:39:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think your reading comprehension... (6+ / 0-)

    needs a little work

  •  Meh, as a Clinton supporter who has (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority

    seen her words be SO twisted on this site, I have to say that I would need some kind of policy proposal that would actually call for lobbyists buying seats before jumping to judgement.  That said, I'm not an Obama supporter because I also haven't seen any policies that propose this huge "change" of his.  If i were REALLY looking for change, I would support Edwards, not Obama. But again, this seems like a stretch...

  •  parsing with prejudice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, Foodle, cybrestrike

    When a strong supporter of candidate E listens to candidate O, the tendency is to filter everything through that prejudice for the other candidate.  So you end up with perverse parsings like this, wherein what Obama meant to convey with those words (that corporations are no longer going to get to use their financial might to gain a monopoly on influencing policy) is twisted into something negative.  While I presume that the OP did not do mangle the meaning intentionally, it says a lot about the current state of mind of a sizable percentage of dKos readers, that this made it to the rec list.  

  •  Microparsing at its finest...... (6+ / 0-)

    Tomorrow I will post a diary of how Obama uses the word "seat".

    I mean, why should we even use "seats" in the face of corporate interests.

    Is Obama just going to stay in his "seat" and take it?

    "Seat" implies passivity. "seat" implies "ass". "Seat" implies "crack"--hey didn't Obama sell crack?

    Only John Edwards will have the courage to "stand".

    There--I'm halfway done already.

    You're not lost until you stop and ask for directions....

    by Azdak on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM PST

  •  The 475.00 a month I pay gets me squat. (5+ / 0-)

    A high deductable health care ? plan with limited coverage and crappy doctors.

    but...

    Worst of all no seat at the table...

    I could let it go but then I would be, gasp, UNINSURABLE due to pre-existing conditions.

    I.have.no.attitude.at.all.

  •  I'm a strong Edwards supporter (7+ / 0-)

    and I read it this way:

    "The drug and insurance industry has, in the past, through their vast expenditures on lobbying, effectively bought up all the seats at the so-called 'negotiating' table, meaning there was no real negotiation at all.  Under my presidency, the drug and insurance industry would have a seat at the negotiating table, but they would not be able to bribe-and-Beltway their way into a monopoly on either the seats or the conversation, as they have in the past."

    I took it as an open slap on the drug and insurance industry, myself, and the concept of purchasing favourable legislation in general.  

    But maybe that's because I'm not trying to start a fight with Obama supporters.

    •  I'm not trying to fight (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      America08, Predictor, joustchr, priceman

      and I'm being respectful.  I hate that debate and discussion has been brought down to "fighting" when people just don't disagree.

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:30:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think anyone was trying to start a fight (4+ / 0-)

      I think Elli was pointing out that even in his language Obama starts with the premise that they do have a seat that they have purchased.  It is subtle but it is really the opposite of what Edwards says.  Why should the industry have a seat at the table?  They can present to a committee but this actually jarred me when I was listening to his speech.  

      And anytime any criticism is given about Obama it starts a fight.  You did a better job of reframing than most Obama supporters.  I don't quite agree with your point but I do think he is trying to signal they will have less influence.  My point is that in trying to mollify the industry in Illinois he weakened the health care plan that they had the votes for.  So I think this points out his tendencies.

      Nonetheless it is with an Edwards supporter that I am having a debate with.  Cheers.

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:37:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're going to have to negotiate (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, Foodle, Predictor, joustchr

        with drug companies even under Single Payer.  That's all "seat at the table" means to me.  Somewhere for them to sit while we beat them down, because we're polite like that.

        And yes, I hear you about the fights starting when even very reasonable criticisms are aired.  I just thought there was a bit of a "tone" to the diary, which provides the opportunity for people to respond to the "tone" rather than to the question.

      •  Another distortion (0+ / 0-)

        even in his language Obama starts with the premise that they do have a seat that they have purchased.

        Accurately describing that the insurance and pharma companies do currently purchase all the seats at the negotiating table is not in any way an endorsement of that current reality, nor is it a presumption that those companies will be able to buy seats in the future.

  •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Foodle

    Site getting worse and worse.

  •  I think following the money is reasonable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity

    But it seems like you're taking Mr Obama's comment a little to literally.

  •  uh huh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Foodle, cybrestrike

    so you expect that the government is going to completely reform a system without at least talking to the industry involved?

    Have you really thought that one through?

    •  Here's how you do it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      planetclaire4, Ellinorianne

      You put the fear of losing Big Time into the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries before inviting them to the table, if they don't show a willingness to offer concessions beforehand.  Here's how it works.  When a corporation puts out a harmful product that kills thousands of people -- say, for example, paint companies that for a century or more put lead into their product knowing full well how toxic it is -- where is its incentive to do something to make restitution?  Lawsuits are a good first step in getting them to the table to work out a compromise.

      As was pointed out in another entry on this site, look at it from this perspective.  A sliding scale of 100 to 0, with 100 being the most left-leaning and 0 representing the most batshit insane far right policy proposals.  In a normal compromise situation, each side comes to the table with a policy that is closest to its respective scale.  The progressive side comes in with something closer to 100, the conservative with something closer to 0.  In a normal situation, the two sides work things out until you end up with something that is more or less at 50 -- preferably on the higher side of that scale number.  But what Democrats have been doing for decades now is come to the table already at 50 or lower, hoping to appease the far right -- which really sees no need to compromise when it knows they can get everything it wants by simply bullying the progressive side into capitulation.  So what we actually end up with is something far less than 50 on the scale of what we want.  That's not compromise, that's surrender without ever having tried to fight.

      Saying to Big Business that it is already free to buy its way to prominence at the discussion table is coming to the whole mess already having surrendered on health care.  Look at Obama's record in the Illinois state senate, where he helped gut progressive health care legislation so it was amenable to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  And then look at his U.S. senate record to see what -- if anything -- he's done on the side of health care reform since then.  When you look past the rhetoric at Obama's record, the diarist's point is spot on.

  •  Your bullshit comment makes absolutely no sense. (5+ / 0-)

    All you are doing is trying to twist and distort what was said:

    Example:

    You quote Mr. Obama:

    We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.  

    You then ask the totally clueless question:

    So how many seats can they buy Senator Obama?  Am I being picky?  I mean, why does he chose the word buy rather than give?  The American people should not have to "buy" a seat at the table, should they?

    What he said, and meant quite clearly, is that the drug and insurance companies get A seat at the table, but they can't BUY ADDITIONAL OR DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION WITH $$$.

    There is not the slightest intimation of the public having to buy seats.  You should just fucking learn to read English.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM PST

    •  Why the hostility (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      America08, Predictor, joustchr, priceman

      why are people being hostile?  I don't think I was, I've been respectful to the dissent in my diary.  You could have made your point without being insulting.  Thanks.

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:50:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't think saying: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, arielle

        So how many seats can they buy Senator Obama? is kind of confrontational? You don't think that the question implies/infers that Obama is prepared to sell out the public weal to corporate interests??

        If you don't understand that your question is kind of offensive, then I'm sorry for over-reacting.

        "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by bobdevo on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:17:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, "confrontational" is wrong? (0+ / 0-)

          Good to know.

          Thanks for confirming the whole kumbaya thing.

          [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

          by lambertstrether on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:33:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Confrontation doesn't mean RUDE (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, joustchr

          You should just fucking learn to read English.

          I'm sorry, I can handle confrontation, but I'm sure if Edwards told insurance companies should "You should just fucking learn to read English." it would be seen as something else.

          http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

          by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:32:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Edwards has told insurance companies (0+ / 0-)

            a whole lot worse than learn to fucking read, I guarantee it.  On numerous occasions he has no doubt told them to take their $5 million dollar offer and shove it up their ass.

            "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

            by bobdevo on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  how would you feel? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobdevo, Foodle

        how would you feel if i posted a fraudulent, language-twisting diary about Edwards?

        this diary is dishonest and deserves hostility, until it is deleted or updated properly with a call to UnRecommend.

    •  "they don't get to buy every chair" implies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lambertstrether, Ellinorianne

      that they do get to buy at least one chair and maybe more. Why does Obama think it's okay to buy even one chair. For that matter - why do they get even one chair in a discussion of national health?

      •  Say what? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, arielle, Foodle

        "they don't get to buy every chair" does NOT mean that they get to buy MORE than one chair.

        The context wsa celar Obama was saying every stake holder should get a chair and a chance to advance their views, but he would prevent big money from buying unequal representation.

        "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by bobdevo on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellinorianne

        [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

        by lambertstrether on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:31:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Idiotic! (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, cville townie
    Hidden by:
    planetclaire4

    What a ridiculous post - get a job.  Parsing words - Buy a seat , give a seat - I think you ought stop writing and think about whether what you are going to say really contributes to the dialog.

    •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, planetclaire4, joustchr

      That was helpful to the dialog.  

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:49:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Elli, you can speak for me anytime. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellinorianne

        I think it was a brilliant catch, and makes me all the more nervous that Obama, by using such a careless word, especially when lawyers are trained to be verbally precise, really doesn't understand what he's up against.  He's got all the buzzwords (that don't mean anything w/o definition) and he's even appropriated Edwards' points that get cheers, but he doesn't seem to understand how it all ties together.  Maybe you have to be inside the system longer to Get It; but on the other hand, Obama was there in the Illinois senate learning how intractable the stakeholders are, so I can't give him "innocence."  Maybe he just doesn't care as long as he gets elected.  I don't know. But I do know Edwards Gets It.  (Kucinich, too, for that matter, but there's a snowball in hell.)

        Please, God, don't let the Democratic party make me vote for some pinhead who believes in the GWOT.

        by planetclaire4 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Millions of people... (0+ / 0-)

    ...work in the insurance or healthcare biz  in our current system. Millions of others have mutual or pension funds they're counting on for retirement that are invested in insurance, pharma or healthcare providers. If you want to send them screaming into the arms of any Republican keep talking about how you're going to leave them behind. For every fatcat CEO who would lose one of his ski chalets or shore mansions under Edwards there are a million office workers who'll be looking for work first.  

    I have an old friend, divorced raising three sons on her own, who works all day navigating the maze of insurance and medicare forms for the doctor she works for so that his patients can get their  medical bills paid. She is, by necessity, going to lose that job, her career such as it is, if we're going to get to singlepayer healthcare, a plan I wholeheartedly endorse. Millions of others like her will too. Unless we address their concerns, as Obama does and all the other Dem candidates don't what choice do you think she and those other millions will make come November?

    There are a whole lot of considerations that go into winning the fight that needs to be won and one of the biggest is how
    to get the biggest groundswell of support  for our policies. Obama is doing that. Edwards doesn't take into account the collateral damage and Hillary's too beholden to their bosses to try.

     

    •  Edwards has been clear (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, planetclaire4, joustchr

      that we would not allow people to be out of work and he's not advocating single payer right away.  He also believes we should give money to help retrain people when it comes to environmentally friendly industries and money to change directions for the current industries that are not sustainable.  The Government can help us move in the right direction more quickly without the massive loss of jobs.

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a great diary, Ellinoraine (7+ / 0-)

    And I'm disappointed in people who haven't learned the lessons of "93."

    They attack you, because they don't recognize who killed UHC in the 90's. They had a seat at the table back then, as well, because Bill Clinton offered concessions.

    People don't understand that Obama has already given this lobby what they wanted in Illinois and Obama has given them the right to interpret the Constitution how they want to deny you grievances if medical negligence kills you, but he is going to fight them by giving them a sea at the table? Obama doesn't interpret the seventh amendment correctly(which should matter since appointments to the SCOTUS are one of the most important aspects of as President) and he has supported the same attacks against the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004 which were all funded by Insurance companies and drug companies. Deal with it.

    Oh, and this excuse for health professionals I'm hearing, doesn't apply to the pharmaceutical lobby, which is bankrupting Amercians who can't afford their medication. He has now accepted more of their cash than any Republicans like HRC.

    These personal, emotional, non-substantive attacks against Ellinorainne are that next to a child, who's rooting for his favorite superhero.

    If you disagree, say why, but don't try to revision history, because I'm going to call you on it.

    John Edwards is the most electable candidate. It's official.

    by priceman on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM PST

    •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, joustchr, priceman

      I don't mind dissent, there are many respectful comments that say they just don't read it that way or they don't agree, great.  But the name calling is wrong.

      Someone says I should get a job and stop writing here.  

      That's really great.  So one diary negates all the other writing I've done?

      I appreciate the encouragement and the voice of reason.

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:53:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  NP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellinorianne

        I know. I can recognize what is respectful descent and what is not.

        I like your writing.

        No, I will always visit your diaries. Your diaries get more attention than mine, because they are good. We all put opinion in our work; I know I do. Some people will just be affected differently, because there are strong feelings felt all around about everything.

        I spend probably too much time here, and I'm a college graduate without a job. So I kind of fit the mold, but I picked a profession that doesn't pay well starting out with a BFA.

        Your encouragement helps me, though. It helps me write more; I'm starting to enjoy writing, and this place has helped with that, because of encouragement from people like you. So I appreciate it back.

        Anytime.

        John Edwards is the most electable candidate. It's official.

        by priceman on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was an English Major (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman

          and I stopped writing because my adviser said I shouldn't go on to grad school.  I stopped writing after college.  I'm finally back and I'm enjoying it again because I'm writing about what is important to me.

          Just listen to your voice, write about things that are important to you and it flows.  You've done amazingly well written diaries and comments.  I hope you do more and I look forward to them.  They are researched thoughtful and thorough.  

          Thank you for the encouragement, it helps tremendously.  

          http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

          by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  There are several aspects of ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carolinadreamer, highacidity, Foodle

    ...Senator Obama's "platform" that I am unhappy with.  But I think you're stretching a perfectly normal expression of the type that many of us use every day into a gotcha! that just isn't there.

    "Just remember, boys, this is America. Just because you get more votes doesn't mean you win." - Special Agent Fox Mulder

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM PST

    •  Fair enough (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, joustchr

      but you were polite about it.  And I think I went too far as well and should have thought it through more.  I think it can be read both ways personally and since Obama is saying he wants the industry involved in it's own regulation then I have a problem.  The American people have not had seats at the table for so long, I think it's time the industry sit on the sidelines a bit.

      http://www.johnedwards.com/ http://steveyoungforcongress.com/2008/

      by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:55:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't get it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Ellinorianne

    Are you annoyed with his symantics, or do you seriously believe that Obama would allow corruption to persist in the way the government opperates?

    I dunno.  It's a little too picky for me.  I love Edwards and Obama, so I'm not saying your diary and candidate suck.  

    I just don't really see what you're getting at.  

    Obama/Edward in '08...or Edwards/Obama. Whatever. I like the black guy and the one with the nice smile. -Elruin

    by Elruin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM PST

  •  I think it a good post... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    planetclaire4, Ellinorianne

    we have to think about words and how they are used. I remember it wasn't that long ago that Obama was using his influence in Washington to help out a manufacturer of pesticides.

    Maybe "buy" was a fraudian slip. Maybe not. It does no good to try to silence dissent, though. Rather, this is the time to challenge the candidates.

    If your candidate is strong he can withstand the scrutiny.

  •  The Patients Bill Of Rights is certainly friendly (0+ / 0-)

    to trial lawyers.

    Is it not the legal profession that is financing John Edwards?

    Strength through Peace

    by penguinsong on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM PST

  •  This is a pure troll diary now that I have read (0+ / 0-)

    it and the comments.

    After all the times this poster has trolled me why isn't this diarist getting troll rated.

    I do not think the troll rating system on Dailykos works very well.

    Strength through Peace

    by penguinsong on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM PST

  •  Obama is trying to win a landslide. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, Ellinorianne

    He wants to have enough independents and Republicans voting for him in November that he has a real mandate. That way he can tell people what to do. It's harder to do that if you only get 50% of the vote.

    He's not my candidate, but this strategy could work.

    Vote for Hillary, dump Howard Dean, bring back McAuliffe, end people-powered politics and restore triangulation. Because vaginas are Progressive.

    by expatjourno on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM PST

  •  i never heard that comment the way you have (5+ / 0-)

    the first time I heard it I thought:  it makes sense to invite them to the table and have them present at the meeting, since we are making drastic changes to their industry, but they cannot buy their access anymore in the way they did when BushCo allowed them to buy all the seats at the table.

    It never occured to me that anyone would think he was advocating letting them buy one seat.  that seems like a stretch.

    also, if you've ever heard his entire speech, he's inviting them to the table to TELL them what he has decided to do, backed up by the American people and a sufficient number of democrats in Congress to pass whatever bill he proposes.  I believe the relevant portion of the stump speech goes like this:  "when you've got the American people behind you, when you know you've got the votes, you can afford to be magnanimous and polite."

    I understand how you feel about Edwards, and health insurance is a vitally important and personal issue for me too.  But you cannot effectively dismantle an entire industry and not even have them present at the meeting.  That;s just rhetoric.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:31:47 PM PST

  •  He didn't say that any chairs could be bought... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle, faithfull, Bodean, Foodle

    Are we seriously still shoving words into candidate's mouths?  Really?  Really?

    "If you are the big tree, we are the small axe"

    by peaceandprogress on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:33:14 PM PST

  •  I think he meant they buy every chair now. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Foodle

    Think Cheney's energy policy.

  •  Which table, BTW? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor, joustchr

    "The Science of Propaganda" http://www.nypl.org/ and search NYPL website for "Lakoff"

    by LNK on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:59:05 PM PST

  •  Geesh, I don't read these words the same way (0+ / 0-)

    to "buy" all seats at the table to me has the meaning that the people sitting in the one seat, reserved for the for profit healthcare insurance companies, can NOT buy with their money the other people's support, who sit in all other chairs around the table and everything and everyone else besides the healthcare insurance companies. What's wrong with Obama's expression?

    You can't fight someone without inviting him to the ring.

  •  Edwards Agrees, unless he changed his position (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carolinadreamer, Foodle, Predictor

    Edwards, 2/07

    Edwards said (at a health care forum no less) in Feburary of 2007, that passing health care reform required giving a seat "at the table" to the insurance and pharma industries.

    Oh, the hills are groaning with excess, like a table ceaselessly being set.

    by faithfull on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM PST

  •  Did you "buy" this strawman? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Ridiculous (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    cville townie
    Hidden by:
    planetclaire4

    I'm an avid reader but almost never post to this site. The absolute lack of anything substantive to this post is compelling enough to make me type.

    Sounds like you've completed your formal education.  That's good, because taking the SAT would likely have been a tough one for you.  Its simply ludicrous to take Mr. Obama's words to state the conclusion that he is requiring anyone to "buy" a seat.  In fact, he's saying that no one is entitled to do so.  Its not a failure on his part -- its a failure on your part to accurately comprehend his statement.

    There are real reasons to support one candidate over the other -- perhaps even with respect to their various views on healthcare reform or the influence of lobbyists.  This isn't one of them.

  •  I posted this yesterday (5+ / 0-)

    and I'll attempt to edit here so it makes more sense in the context of your diary.

    I see a lot of folks have already pounced on your insinuation that Obama would sell seats so I won't go into that.

    But everyone keeps asking WHY CEO's etc. should get seats at the table at all and I tried to explain it a little here.

    How about they have things to discuss
    like, the - what? - close to 2 million people employed by insurance companies, the data most of these companies keep on things like wellness programs, hospitalization rates of various chronic illnesses, and effects of various health interventions, and management structures of the companies?

    ...He's looking for solutions that will WORK instead of what has been done time and time again.

    It doesn't mean he is not going to fight to end billion dollar compensations and golden parachutes from hell.  It doesn't mean he is going to allow companies to let people suffer and die for their profit margin.

    What he has been screaming about is the need for completely open government with completely open debate.  That means listening to all the principals, engaging them in dialog, and in so doing finding the best way to get everyone on the same page of music with the fewest bad consequences for the American public.

    There is this seemingly intransigent view on the left that any reliance on private health insurers is heresy and from the right that any regulation of the market is blasphemous.

    THAT is why nothing has ever been done to correct it.  THAT is why Hillary's plan in 1993 was tabled.  

    What is needed to get past that impasse is meaningful, constructive dialog in the fresh air and sunshine of transparent government.

    THAT'S why.

    I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

    by arielle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:38:36 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site