The only way we could have gotten single payer passed IMO:

[Bonn1997]

I may be too idealistic but this is what I would have recommended.
A) Use the president's GIFTED communication and persuasion skills to relentlessly describe the benefits of a single-payer government run system.
B) Discuss the World Health Organization's ratings (which are based on objective statistics) of the effectiveness of every nation's health care so that people can see how effective single payer is. The public should be hearing the term "World Health Organization" almost as often as they hear the word "the"! The idea that single-payer is more effective should be ingrained in people's heads just as deeply by now as the idea that 2+2 = 4 is.
C) Be 100% truthful about everything! Just admit the reason this is gonna be hard is that lobbyists for the insurance industry have so much power and many Congressmen, including many in our own party (just admit this), are influenced by these contributions. This is truthful and portrays non-partisanship by directing criticism to our own party. Why would hiding from the ugly truth be more effective than exposing it?
D) Discuss as often as possible how much money each Blue Dog Dem is taking from insurance lobbyists so that it is quite obvious to the public that their vote is being bought. The exact figure for how much Leiberman is taking, for example, should come to people's minds as quickly as their date of birth comes to their minds.
E) Promise (and keep the promise) to campaign in the primaries against any Democrat who sides against the public on this issue. Explain lack of health care is killing as many people *per month* as 9/11 killed. This is the biggest issue of our time and you're not fit for office if you'd rather take lobbyists' money while your constituents die. Having a "(D)" next to your name makes you no more fit.

This forces each Dem to have to decide which decision will hurt their chances of re-election more: (a) having insurance lobbyists side with their opponent or (b) having to fight against a gifted, popular President and against the will of the people in a primary (b). I could be naive but I truly believe this would put enough pressure on the Dems so that 50 Senators would vote for a bill in reconciliation and maybe even far more. I always felt that whenever I'm conflicted over something or there are big obstacles in front of an important goal, the best policy is just to be *brutally honest* with everyone involved.

Maybe I'd fail. Maybe I'd be a one-term President. Maybe it wouldn't work and the Dems would lose a lot of Congressional seats. If fear of failure drives everything you do, though, you won't accomplish anything worthwhile. In this case, I still have a wonderful family and all the money I could ever need. I'll be fine and I can know I did my best.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. !

:applause:

[sandnsea]

2. And how many people die

that you could have saved if you had chosen a pragmatic approach.

You want those people's deaths on your hands?

[joeycola]

3. Give the fear attachs a break. Good grief!

[Bonn1997]

6. That's obviously the risk but...

I really don't see how Dem Senators could decide fighting a popular, eloquent President with a then 70% approval rating and fighting the will of the public is the smarter option--that would be political suicide. There would be virtually a 100% chance they'd lose re-election.

[sandnsea]

8. We're having a hard time with the public option

Which is actually what the public has always supported and what the polls reflected. Do you support the government guaranteeing everyone has insurance... why yes. How that got interpreted as being for single payer is beyond me.

There would be virtually 100% chance they'd lose if they supported single payer and did nothing else.

Are you doing anything to make sure the House bill is the one we get? That's all that matters right now.

[Bonn1997]

10. You can't use what's happened now as a measuring stick. All it's shown is that in the absence of

Presidential leadership, Congressmen will side with lobbyists, which is hardly stunning! Me? I've been pestering my Congressman, Bobby Bright, nonstop to support the public option. The threat of Obama campaigning against him would have been a lot more effective than the threat of losing Bonn1997's vote though.

[sandnsea]

16. I don't think so

You think Bobby Bright's voters care all that much about Barack Obama?? Do you know that white voters in the south were more likely to vote for John Kerry than Barack Obama?

It's going to take a whole lot more work than Obama can do on his own to get people to stop listening to their bigoted bullshit.

[Bonn1997]

18. All it would take is for Bright to lose one tenth of his supporters and his hopes of re-election

would be shot. Roughly 50% of Montgomery is Black also, BTW. (Obviously Montgomery is not his entire district but it's a huge portion he can't afford to lose)

[Mojambo]

4. Your plan relies too heavily on ideas being communicated through the corporate media.

In a perfect world, with a diverse media climate it would have absolutely worked.

[Bonn1997]

7. There's only so much the corporate media can do against a gifted, popular speaker. How else did

Barack Obama even get elected? I'll certainly acknowledge that what you're saying is a legit possibility and I wouldn't describe this as a risk-free strategy by any means.

[Mojambo]

9. I certainly believe we would have gotten a better bill had Obama been willing to use his gifts more.

I think the real cock up would come when trying to explain the influence of lobbyists. The corporate media just isn't going to play that game because THEY rely on lobbyists on their end.

[Bonn1997]

11. Maybe but it's a very simple notion. You're taking 1.3 mil, for example, and siding with those

paying you. Unless the media never airs his speeches, once the public starts hearing that they're bound to get angry with their representatives.

[Bonn1997]

17. Or you could argue he needed to focus on reinstating the fairness doctrine before addressing health

care reform.

[Cleita]

5. Apparently the President didn't want to use his gifted communication

and persuasion skills for this and I believe that it would have changed the whole debate. However, there might be a slim hope that he still may do so and is only holding back until the whole drama plays out and is dumped in his lap. However, I am skeptical because of the Emmanuel brothers who are influencing him and they have been very clear about what kind of health care plan they want.

[Bonn1997]

13. My only hope is that he's planning to do something like this in the future. Either that or a Dem

President with balls one day will.

[kath]

19. yep - he never even tried.

[Bonn1997]

24. The part I find frustrating is that he never *defends* government. He emphasizes the public option

would be just an option (leaving open the idea that this "horrible thing" is just an option). He never talks about how much more effective government-provided than for-profit corporate health care is.

[treestar]

12. The President may be gifted at speaking, but that doesn't make him

an all powerful miracle worker. They'd just say he's just speaking, and that's nothing.

If we support him, we're accused of idolizing him, but yet it seems those who are disappointed are the ones who did that.

[Bonn1997]

14. They'll say he's "just speaking"? Obama's overcome harsher attacks than that before!

[treestar]

15. If the referendum turned out the same anyway

Besides, when he speaks about health care, DU goes on about how it's just words.

[eridani]

20. The original version of the public option could have developed into single payer

The current useless crap will not.

[mdmc]

21. thanks for the post

[blindpig]

As a friend of mine said,

"Obama needed to be an FDR but instead he's Silent Cal with a LBJ foreign policy."

[Bonn1997]

23. Agreed but I'd add this:

Obama needed *and had the ability* to be an FDR

[blindpig]

22. As a friend of mine said,

"Obama needed to be an FDR but instead he's Silent Cal with a LBJ foreign policy."