Tell me. How Would Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards Be Any Better?

[Yavin4]

They would all still have to deal with Blue Dog Dems, a coporate media, idiot pundits, DC lobbyists, and hostile conservatives. None of them would be able to get a single payer health insurance system passed into law, and they'd have just as difficult of a time getting the public option program passed.

America has been indoctrinated with 30+ years of pure greed, corporate propaganda, and a dumbed down educational system. No one president can change all of that in 6 months. Your beef is not with Obama. Your beef is with your idiot neighbor who watches Glen Beck and listens to Rush Limbaugh.

When I look at Obama, I see a man who is trying to do the best that he can with what he has to work with. Yes, he's had to make compromises, and guess what, more compromises are on the way. And, you want to know something else? Your candidate -- Hillary, Edwards, Dennis, Nader, et al--would have to make the same compromises as well.

If you give Michael Jordan a center like Dave Corzine, don't expect championships right away.

[IndianaGreen]

1. You are confusing compromising with selling out

When the man starts off by putting Single Payer off the table, he is selling out, not compromising.

[Raine1967]

57. SP was NEVER on the table.

You can't sell something out that was never part of the bargain.

[polichick]

67. That's a big part of the problem - it SHOULD have been there...

...if only for purposes of negotiation ~ not smart to show your cards before you have to.

[Eric J in MN]

2. With a President Kucinich, Single Payer would have been the opening position...

...and a public option which pays Medicare rates would have been the compromise.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. You forgot to point out that there's no way in hell Kucinich could ever be...

elected President, in this country, or any other. I mean, hell, he could barely manage 1% of Dem voters, and at that time, it was the big bad media's fault. Did the media suddenly get more Dem friendly?

[Yavin4]

7. It Would Not Have Mattered

In fact, starting with single payer would have immediately lost a good portion of the Dems. It's an empty tactic which would have been transparent from the start.

The Republicans know full well that a large percentage of the Dem caucus would never support a single payer option, and you would have lost precious time and resources on a failed tactic.

[debbierlus]

50. That is a load of bull. The American people WANT government guranteed health insurance

If Obama had put this out as Medicare for all, people would have loved it.

Look at the elderly out there championing how wonderful this program is - and the Republicans defending Medicare as not to be messed with to gain political points.

Expanding Medicare for all...if he stood up and said that the government would just be getting rid of third party leeches that provide no actual care and really fought for it, he could have led a revolution.

People HATE the insurance companies. They despise them. If he pitted this as a battle against corporate thieves against citizens health, he would have stood one hell of a chance.

[hileeopnyn8d]

59. I think your rant

would be more accurate if you inserted "you" or "I" for "people".

As much as you, or even I want Medicare for all, I doubt very much that the 60 million people who voted for McCain/Palin want it. Add in the fiscal conservative independents that voted for Obama because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Palin and the number gets even larger.

Do you have a source for your "American people want government guaranteed healthcare" claim?

[stray cat]

23. and we still would not have 50 votes because Dennis can't do mind control

[BzaDem]

60. You are assuming that the President wouldn't just be laughed out of the room.

Just like you can't magically will legislation into law, you also can't magically will what the two sides of the real negotiating table would like. I am very happy that we don't have a President Kucinich, because he would have gotten laughed out of the room and no one would take him seriously enough to even start debating healthcare reform.

[valerief]

3. "Hawhyee is not part of Amercia!"--an angry American. nt

[NNadir]

4. I'll just cover Ralph Nader...

Ralph Nader would be better at obsessing over NBA officiating while everyone else in the room was worried about a war.

He would be great at tracking down every tube of fluoridated toothpaste to prevent it from getting on children's teeth.

He would also be great at confusing far right wing Republican Presidents with the guys who actually win elections.

Also, Ralph would be better at pretending to be an ascetic while living a god like life off of wide eyed college kids before they were embittered by being used.

[quiller4]

45. Oh thank you, thank you, thank you--you really have Nader's number.

[NNadir]

64. My pleasure.

[Becky72]

5. If Kucinich had won, it would have meant that centrism was dead in America

Therefore, the Blue Dogs would have little or no influence in our discourse. You ignore this in your analysis.

[stray cat]

24. Either that or every state had withdrawn from the United States

and Dennis was in charge of the remaining congressional district.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. It would mean shiny pantsuits instead of grey suits on my evening news

:crazy:

[Better Believe It]

9. What does that have too do with Obama's deals with the health care industry?

It's obvious the public option was dead from the beginning due to the opposition of the insurance industry and drug cartel and President Obama's back door deals with them.

That's why Obama has only given lip service to the public option over the past few weeks.

President Obama didn't even mention the "public option" in the Op-Ed piece he wrote for todays edition of the New York Times!



Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: August 15, 2009
New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html

[Yavin4]

11. Because EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE WOULD BE DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR

The man is trying to do the best that he can with what he has.

[benny05]

19. Nope that is not true

Dennis would have started with promoting HR 676, then tried for the public option.

Edwards (if he hadn't wrecked his personal life, and I presume we are operating under that assumption, so those of you who try to bring this up, just try to imagine if he had won), would have had Elizabeth out there rallying the troops. Moreover more of the Blue Dogs initially supported JRE and the need for expanded health care in the rural areas.

Moreover, Edwards may have chosen a stronger DNC chairman who would have threatened to pull support from those who didn't favor a public option, and he would have never<\b> negotiated with any <\i> lobbyist as Obama did with Pharma. Neither would have Dennis.

Hillary--no different from Obama.

Obama sold out, once again.

[stray cat]

25. Dennis would propose like usual and not pass anything

[MasonJar]

48. Why do you say Hillary would be no different? I disagree. She had

a much stronger proposal in the 1990s and that was a different time and world.

[benny05]

63. Because the new proposal for co-ops

is identical to the 1993 version. That's why.

Mind one, I am happy that she is Secretary of State, and out of it in general. But she always said she was willing to take lobbyist monies. I was at Daily Kos 2007 when she said it in a forum.

[Mass]

10. May be they would be more directive with the Senate Democrats? Not sure whether

Obama actually said that, but the idea that the White House is pushing for a bipartisan bill (with people like Grassley), is somewhat worrisome, if true. A bill that pleases Grassley is not going to be very helpful.

[Yavin4]

12. You Show Me The Candidate That Can Get Kent Conrad To Support Single Payer

And, I will vote for him/her.

[Mass]

14. Single payer has been out of reach for a long time. But putting it on the table at the beginning

was a way to have some bargaining space. Starting with a public option was making sure that we were going to have to give the public option as a bargaining chip to get other reforms. Nobody can get Conrad to support single payer. Somebody could have told him "let's drop the single payer and try a public option". They did not even try.

I love Obama, btw, but here, I think they did what they do so well: stop the fight before they started it. T

[ruggerson]

13. Obama's approach to the Presidency is to co-opt part of the other party's agenda

He is by nature and political conviction a conciliator who lauds the art of the compromise.

FDR and an LBJ (and Reagan, to the country's detriment) were a different kind of President: transformative partisans.

We don't know if any of the people you mentioned would have turned out to be transformative partisans, had they been elected, but all of them ran more "partisan" campaigns than Obama did.

Co-opting Presidents, such as Obama, work diligently and produce incremental change instead of sweeping reform. And they usually are reelected handily.

[PBS Poll-435]

15. Whoa

This is the most brilliant post I have seen in the last year on DU.

Make it an OP.



:thumbsup:

[ruggerson]

18. I have. A few times.

the truth is not necessarily a popular opinion around here.

[IndianaGreen]

16. We voted for a transformational change agent

not for a Black Bill Clinton.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Then you weren't paying attention. nt

[democrat2thecore]

37. I Saw It All

CHANGE we can believe in! No lobbyists in the administration! New faces!

Reality? Same people running the show. Who selected the same people? Barack Obama, that fearless agent of CHANGE. Never, in my almost 50 years, have I seen such a disconnect from campaign rhetoric and presidential performance. It's just unbelievable. Style over substance on steroids.

[billh58]

44. Have you considered

that the "change" you are railing against, is exactly what President Obama campaigned about? Change from the good old boys brand of back room politics that has been the norm for our tainted political process for decades? Representing ALL of the people (which was one of our biggest complaints against the neocons) instead of just 50% of the partisans?

I'm willing to be patient and wait for the outcome before calling President Obama a complete failure. I realize also, that my position is in the minority around here.

Peace...;-)

[ruggerson]

21. Yep

I'm not a big Bill Clinton fan myself, and I reiterated during the primaries that I thought Hillary would run a completely different kind of administration than her husband did (as I think her instincts are far more combatitive and partisan than his).

But we have no way of knowing what would have occurred, had she won, she may have ended up running an administration very similar to Obama's.

We will never know. All one can do is listen to what they say as candidates, and Obama told us in no uncertain terms, through both deeds and words, what kind of presidency he would preside over.

And I believe he won because he fit the mood of the country for the times. Bush was a FAILED transformative partisan (transfomers are either wildly successful or wild failures.) The country wanted a respite from a fighting partisan President. And it got what it wanted.

[DutchLiberal]

56. But he did not campaign as such.

Not on the issues. Yes, 'change' was his magic word, but if you had bothered to look at the issues ("you" in a general sense), you wouldn't have seen much change. Remember, after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, even something like "not torturing anymore" was considered 'change'!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

31. Thanks Ruggerson for injecting some reality into the situation.

[kiva]

40. Exactly. And according to many on DU

our efforts shouldn't be wasted on demanding real health reform or getting out of Afghanistan, but instead on making sure Obama is reelected. Hurrah incremental change!

[democrat2thecore]

61. Exactly - politics versus policy. For most of us here - it's about POLICY. -nt

[billh58]

20. For those who believe

that President Obama was elected as our King, with absolute powers and a magic wand, I have some bad news for you.

For those who heard all of the things that Candidate Obama did NOT promise during his campaign, maybe health care reform will help you to get treatment for that selective hearing problem.

I believe the rest of we Liberals understand that it is the combined Congress of the United States which debates, compromises, writes, and enacts the laws of our country. At best, President Obama and his cabinet can be salespersons and mediators. If health care reform comes to a vote (and passes) whatever form the final bill takes will be a step in the correct direction, and just like Social Security and Medicare will be open to further improvement in the years to come.

That is, unless we Democrats manage to allow infighting to weaken us, and to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.

[democrat2thecore]

26. So the president is just a mediator of sorts? Tell that to LBJ!! -nt

[IndianaGreen]

27. There was no DLC then

and LBJ really cared about people.

[billh58]

28. Different time,

different place. LBJ had a lot more political support, and a lot less corporate-sponsored opposition. LBJ was riding on JFK's coattails, and you may want to remember that he did not run for re-election. Also the country was torn apart by the war in Viet Nam, and still recovering from JFK's assassination.

The political reality is, that after almost 30 years of neoconservative influence, our country remains divided almost 50/50. Throw in the Blue Dog DLC-Democrats, and a Democratic majority is nebulous, at best.

[democrat2thecore]

30. About LBJ

LBJ served the remaining term of President Kennedy and won an overwhelming landslide in 1964. He had a solid mandate from the people and USED IT. This "different time, different place," line doesn't apply to the basic principles of political leadership. Either you have it and use it - or you want to please everyone and fail to lead.

[OHdem10]

22. With these three--they would never have given the entire responsibilty

to Congress to come up with a bill. Congress has just
dithered

From day one they would laid out the rules. The Bill has to
have this. The Bill has to have that.
They would have made it known on which there could be compromise.
likewise, no compromise on this.

I do not know about this, but I hope they would have told
Congress from day one that they were to get out and sell
the plan. GO ON TV. GO TO THEIR Homestates and Sell.

It should have been a unified plan from the beginning.

They would not have put a deadline when there were 4 plans
in play. Most of them have fought Republicans and I believe
would have been better prepared to take them on.

[billh58]

29. Uh...

I hate to tell you this, but that pesky old Constitution gives the Congress the "entire responsibility" to come up with a bill. The president can cajole, twist arms, make promises, and stick his tongue out, but he can't legislate.

[ruggerson]

32. Presidents write legislation all the time

and bring it down to the Hill. It's up to Congress to pass it, but this notion that the executive branch is some kind of passive observer in all this is a bit disingenuous.

[democrat2thecore]

33. That's just complete balderdash.

Did FDR wait for congress? Did Truman? Kennedy? LBJ? Even (for better or worse) Reagan? The strong leaders of our time have LED damnit! You want to make it sound like the president is just a traffic cop or Rotary Club speaker.

[billh58]

34. Balderdash, or not

Not one single president was ever allowed to vote, or pass, legislation on the floor of the House or the Senate. A few VPs have, but not one single president. They are allowed to introduce legislation, but they still need Congressional sponsors to actually get it to committee. Do we really want an "imperial" Unitary Executive Branch as envisioned by the neoconservatives?

You may have a point, if you are referring to political arm-twisting, political alliances, and political favors. But the reality is that President Obama campaigned on a platform of "reaching out," and attempting to heal the divides in this country. Also, I don't believe that he is a "political animal" in the same sense of the "smoky backroom" good old boys.

We can continue to blame President Obama for all of the failings of a Congress which has sadly neglected its oversight duties for decades, or we can work with him in order to restore this nation to its moderate (in the true meaning of the word, and not to be confused with "centrist") Liberal roots.

[OHdem10]

36. Regan and Bush came in with Agendas and while I was unhappy

with their agenda, They Accomplished their agenda.


Bush worked closely with Delay and the Senate Leaders.
Believe you me--they knew what he would not accept.

Delay and Crist knew how to whip their votes and pass
their president's agenda.

I am not say the legislation was good. I am saying
they knew how to lead and get what they wanted.

Today, the Conservatives are still running the show.
The Dems have lain down and rolled over.

[billh58]

38. And they also

had "rubber stamp" Congresses for much of their terms. Makes a big difference when you're playing with a stacked deck.

[ipaint]

35. You can add Tommy Douglas from canada

to that list next to Kucinich and Nader. Had he been a polititian in the US today he would have been in with the likes of Kucinich, Nader and the late Wellstone. Then Canada wouldn't have health care either.

[Balbus]

39. At least we know they couldn't have done worse...

[jefferson_dem]

41. Well...2/4 are political cartoon characters and 1/4 is a sleazy, womanizing fraud.

So things would be no better with those three for sure.

[ruggerson]

53. I agree

all I can say is when America is ready for a partisan President again (and we will be at some point), let's hope the stars are aligned for a Democratic contender, not a Republican.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. It WOULD be awfully fun to see the looks on Insurance Execs faces when having to deal with Edwards

Ah, well...

[Yes We Did]

43. Shoulda... Coulda... Woulda...

If he hadn't cheated on his wife first.

[GodlyDemocrat]

46. Not to rehash old primary wounds, but the plan on the table right now is Clinton's plan

Go figure ...

[GreenArrow]

55. which is essentially Edwards' plan...

Go figure indeed.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Exactly ! n/t

[MasonJar]

47. A real leader would not be compromising; he would be inspiring and

getting votes. Obama is getting what he wants...time to admit it. He wants corporate cash next go around. What I do not understand is how the public option is bad for corporations...except of course the health insurance industry itself. Single payer would be great for all the others, big and small. No one even mentions that.

[debbierlus]

51. Excellent, excellent point.

[Arkana]

49. Dennis Kucinich would have GIVEN ME MY PONY.

[Vidar]

52. Neither Kucinich nor Nader would have filled the cabinet with corporate scum

the way Obama has.

[EndElectoral]

54. With Kuccinich, we'd be out of Iraq, NAFTA would be on it's way out and single Payer would be pushed

I am very dissapointed at this point.

[brentspeak]

58. I hate to say it, but even Hillary Clinton would've been Conan compared to Obama's 98 lb. weakling

on this issue.

1) Obama prepared absolutely no effective political strategy to getting public option passed. None. Zero. Blaming the other guy -- just because the other guy plays dirty with crude theater and scare tactics -- for one's ineptitude and unwillingness to barnstorm the issue is a lame excuse. Why didn't Obama launch a barnstorming campaign on the issue -- and do it before the nutjobs could frame the issue?

2) As soon as the staged Town Hall mobs showed up, Obama seemed to go weak-at-the-knees. Now, a couple of weeks later, his administration is stuttering with backpedaling "well, maybe we don't really need public option, of course..." statements.

3) Remember a few months ago, when the excuse for Obama's not doing a thing to get EFCA passed was because he was "using his political capital capital" to "pick his battles wisely" and get public option passed?

Remember that one?

[democrat2thecore]

62. Bingo! The "Change We Can Believe In" is always right around the corner!

Yet, issue after issue, it's change that didn't happen.

- Iraq
- Afghanistan
- Health Care - poor planning, execution. Remember "No back room deals - all negotiations will take place live in C-Span?"
- Giving away to Big Pharma his promise to negotiate drug rates
- Wall Street handouts
- Corporate cabinet, corporate "advisory teams" - this White House is dominated by the same old corporate crowd.
- Economic team from the same crowd that ruined us
- EFCA (!!!!!!!)
- Don't ask don't tell
- Backpedaling on trade issues.

You know, this list really does go on and on.

Disheartened, disappointed, crushed, dashed hopes. That's ME. Call it negative or call it reality. It is what it is, what it is, what it is.

[Beacool]

65. Well...................

I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan by far, but I'll give the man the benefit of the doubt until there's one plan. Right now, there seem to be too many versions.

As for Hillary, as one union head said during the primaries, she has "testicular fortitude". No one rolls over Hillary, not Nancy, not Reid, not the other weasels in Congress. Once she makes up her mind, she'll fight to her last breath. Her health care plan may not have gone through, but to quote (of all people) a FOX pundit: "At least the Clintons HAD a plan".

Most of you have never seen her in action, but once she gets going, sit back and enjoy the show. She can be something to behold. Ask the health care executives who met with her in the early 90s about the verbal whooping they got.

It may be a personality thing, but I don't see that in Obama. His style is more detached, more professorial, sometimes you need passion and guts.

Then again, who knows? Maybe his style is what is needed this time around. Only time will tell........

:shrug:

[karynnj]

70. Can you give one example of any fight that she led as Senator,

where she stood up to the Republicans and leaders in the Democratic party on any issue?

I can only think of one with Obama - and that was on ethics reform, where it was clear he got things in the bill that Chuck Schumer was publicly angry about. One thing does not make him a profile in courage, but with HRC, I can think of nothing - and I was watching.

Now, you say Hillary was something to behold. Now, I never saw her in action for ANY goal, other than her own candidacy.

[ncteechur]

68. Let's review...

Kucinich ..... would have lost.

Edwards...... would have lost.

Nader...... would have lost.


Clinton.....would be at exactly the same point--would have given up single-payer very quickly.

[Sebastian Doyle]

69. Dennis Kucinich wouldn't have put Kathy DLCelius in charge of health care

And she certainly wouldn't have been his backup choice to Tom Dasshole.

Dennis also would have assembled a much better economic team than a bunch of Wall Street whores, Clinton retreads and Keebler elves from the "Federal" Reserve.