You know ..... it didn't have to be this way. It didn't have to be this hard.

[Stinky The Clown]

If there was strong, clear leadership on healthcare, with a strong, clearly stated plan that started out by asking for the absolute, clean-sheet-of-paper, best system possible, we'd be pretty much there already and we'd all be smiling.

Instead, it looks bleaker and bleaker and the opposition minority is having increasing success in effecting their plan - stall it until it dies.

It did not have to be this way. All we needed was a leader on this issue.

[Bonobo]

1. The world according to Stinky.

So why didn't the Clintons get it done either then? Or anyone else?

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Do you think there has been effective leadership, Oh Great Bonobo?

That is not a rhetorical question.

[Bonobo]

8. Nope, not really, Stinky.

But that doesn't make your OP true.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Yeah ... okay ..... whatever, Oh Great Bonobo.

I was thinkin' you could do better than that.

Guess not.

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I can't let that go .......

The Democrats, including Obama, came to power with one of the strongest pluralities in decades. They had political capital out the kazoo. They had blank checks and no balances.

Clinton, on the other hand, won as the result of a split vote and with far less than a majority. And then he put his wife out there, making her (at that time) appear to be much important that she deserved to be. Coupled with all the other shit and the VRWC and they were doomed before they started. Then her presentation, her "selling", was horrible. No wonder they lost.

None of that obtained this go-round. We had everything we needed to do it right.

We no longer have that.

Yeah, we'll something. And there will be backslapping and high fives from here to Bonoboville.

But the bill will be weak and shitty.

It didn't have to be this way.

[Bonobo]

11. Hey man, I'm not totally disagreeing with you. But there is one big thing you forget.

It only SEEMS that Obama had everything he needed.

In reality, the game is played more like this:

When you are in a minority, as the Dems were doing most of Clinton's Presidency, it is easy to SAY that you are ideologically pure as you're getting your ass kicked by the Repukes in power. Why? Because you have cover. It's the same reason that you will see collusion among party members for particular votes. The freshman are always the vulnerable ones, so they will always vote the way that's popular in their districts and seeking political cover to do so.

However, once we got in power, the political cover provided by the above was gone. Suddenly, all the Blue Dogs (of whom Bill was quite comfy with) have their asses hanging out in the draft and they don't feel quite so brave as they did about spouting Progressive ideas. It's all about cover and covering your ass.

So, no matter what happens, no matter who has a majority, there will always be enough completely unscrupulous politicians who will abandon ship once their cover is blown.

[Toucano]

23. Washington doesn't want Universal Single Payer.

The majority of Americans still want it, despite the right wing and corporate scare tactics.

Washington doesn't want it.

Until we get true campaign finance reform (publicly financed elections) nothing is going to change.

[roguevalley]

15. I agree with Stinky. It shouldn't have been. But then I remember how

LBJ and Sam Rayburn and the others used to kick ass and get things done together.

[Cant trust em]

3. The "absolute, clean-sheet-of-paper, best system possible" is all relative. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Relatively speaking .... do you think we're going to get it?

We deserve it. But we ain't gettin' it.

[Cant trust em]

7. Oh we're going to get it alright.

Depending on what the meaning of "it" is.

[ThomCat]

13. Relative to what?

:shrug:

By what possible standards could you consider the shit that is coming done the political pipeline the best system possible? :(

It could have been so much better if we had real leadership coming from the whitehouse, and real leadership in the house and senate. Instead we have politicians demanding that lobbyists and industry reps be included and satisfied at every step. Instead we have secret meetings negotiating what will be given away to the insurance industry and to big pharma. But we aren't represented in those meetings and nobody is demanding that we be satisfied.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. I'm pretty sure that our leaders MADE it hard so that it wouldn't achieve anything

Because the people they actually work for are raking in fortunes and don't want to see anything that remotely resembles reform.

[glitch]

16. That is certainly the way it looks right now.

And no, not a believer in 3d chessmaster meme. Don't really expect to be pleasantly surprised either. Still waiting for the final product to judge though, I have no idea why.

[Skittles]

5. it's fucking embarrassing

a true fucking circus

[jgraz]

12. Think this was bad? Wait until the debate on financial "reform"

You'll pine for the simple, transparent leadership of the healthcare debate.

[scentopine]

14. We have unprincipaled leaders who work exclusively for corporations -nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. +1 nt

[kath]

24. +10!

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Have to agree.....

x(

We sure do miss you...

[dysfunctional press]

19. BINGO. we were under the false impression that we were electing one last year.

live and learn. :shrug:

[Orangepeel]

20. Yep. Since Truman, all we needed was a leader.

It is arguable, probably even true, that Obama's leadership has been poor (although 1) it isn't done yet and 2) we don't know exactly what has happened in private). It is also arguable, although probably not true, that Obama did the best he could have done.

But to say that all it would have taken is a strong plan and a strong leader? Not seriously arguable. In fact, ridiculous. After we finish universal healthcare, let's end hunger and poverty, effect world peace and stop all crime. Human nature is complicated and big changes are damned hard, no matter how much sense they make.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. To accept your characterization of healthcare as "ridiculous", you would *then* have to accept .....

.... that every other civilized country is the land of the ridiculous.

A Democratic "leader" (there's no way a repubican will do this) has not so much political capital as did Obama when he was elected and sworn in.

That capital, however, had an expiration date far sooner than anticipated by many of us (me included, to be fair).

He simply didn't move fast or strong enough. Neither did he ask for the right stuff (in my view).

[Orangepeel]

25. my characterization of *healthcare* as ridiculous?

:eyes:

[Subdivisions]

22. Because we were never going to get anything to begin with. n/t