2016 Postmortem

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

105. If you can explain to me how he was going to change Lieberman and Baucus's minds, please go ahead.

Wed Jan 4, 2017, 08:09 PM

Jan 2017

Baucus, like you said, was very conservative and also in the pocket of the healthcare industry. He basically had to be bribed to even support the bill without the public option. And Lieberman was as close to a Republican as a Dem can be. He supported McCain in the election, and was officially not even a Democrat anymore. Those two guys were going nowhere progressive.

I agree that Obama did eventually give up on the public option, but he didn't do so immediately, only after months of pushing for it. And at that point, the chances of a public option weren't 50%, they were basically 0%. Lieberman wasn't going to bite, and no Republicans were going to bite. Olympia Snowe didn't even vote for the bill without the public option.

As to the larger question, I think it's good to pass bills like ACA that make huge improvements to people's lives rather than wait, likely forever, to pass the perfect bill. I don't see how it could possibly have been good politically to try for single payer and then lose 85-15 in the Senate. At least now the GOP actually has to repeal ACA, which means kicking tens of millions of people off of insurance. It's a trench war, and gaining no ground at all doesn't help to win it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

141 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ... [View all] rainy Jan 2017 OP

Seems to me Tavarious Jackson Jan 2017 #1

Great article. tecelote Jan 2017 #2

One more blind person describing the elephant... TreasonousBastard Jan 2017 #3

You wonder why Bill Clinton's truebluegreen Jan 2017 #11

Riiiight. And the partisan Republican Congress had nada to do with those bills, right? BlueCaliDem Jan 2017 #83

This is a complete misunderstanding of Clinton and the role of the President. OrwellwasRight Jan 2017 #135

No. It's a clear understanding of the role of the president - and his power, which is limited. BlueCaliDem Jan 2017 #136

Wow. OrwellwasRight Jan 2017 #137

OMG. A political novice. Now you sound (not saying you are) like a Republican. First you BlueCaliDem Jan 2017 #138

Faux News and Breitbart? OrwellwasRight Jan 2017 #139

Basically, it is POLICY that counts, not messaging nikto Jan 2017 #4

you got it! rainy Jan 2017 #6

It's simple, really nikto Jan 2017 #13

People like that are in the Democratic Party for a couple of reasons -- Nay Jan 2017 #32

That's a very intelligent answer nikto Jan 2017 #47

I think it's because African Americans and others... Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2017 #45

One of FDR's biggest battles was getting the southern Democrats ... nikto Jan 2017 #53

Yep. Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2017 #57

You mean like free college for everyone when many graduate HS without bettyellen Jan 2017 #132

+ a brazillion truebluegreen Jan 2017 #12

This is so obvious to US, why isn't it obvious to everybody on this BBS? nikto Jan 2017 #15

I don't know. truebluegreen Jan 2017 #21

Wrong. It is about messaging. And about racism/sexism. And about Comey and Russia. DanTex Jan 2017 #23

You use the word, "Progressive" too loosely nikto Jan 2017 #49

No that person uses it just fine. You use it as if you own the term. You don't. nt stevenleser Jan 2017 #50

Unclear answer---Please explain nikto Jan 2017 #56

No reply. No content. No substance. nikto Jan 2017 #122

Very well started nikto. lastone Jan 2017 #65

Checkout my Progressive blog, you might like it ... nikto Jan 2017 #112

First of all "corporatist" doesn't mean what you think it means. DanTex Jan 2017 #79

+1000000 JHan Jan 2017 #80

Thank you, DanTex! Thank you for the eye-opening facts that too many on the left refuse to BlueCaliDem Jan 2017 #84

It's not purism --- that's just lazy thinking nikto Jan 2017 #109

Purists believe that their values are everyone's values. Purists believe that anything short of BlueCaliDem Jan 2017 #116

Post removed Post removed Jan 2017 #119

You are a good advocate ..... However Rilgin Jan 2017 #99

He didn't "quickly" abandon the public option. DanTex Jan 2017 #100

Own what his decision was Rilgin Jan 2017 #101

I will, happily. DanTex Jan 2017 #102

Yes he said he wanted it. That is different than fighting for it. Rilgin Jan 2017 #103

If you can explain to me how he was going to change Lieberman and Baucus's minds, please go ahead. DanTex Jan 2017 #105

Exactly Rilgin Jan 2017 #106

It wasn't a "sacrifice" because the public option was already dead. DanTex Jan 2017 #107

You try to too hard. Rilgin Jan 2017 #117

I guess it depends what one means by "fight". DanTex Jan 2017 #118

Excellent answer nikto Jan 2017 #124

Good, patient answer nikto Jan 2017 #121

Folks on this board have been hyper-sensitive about certain words for a while now nikto Jan 2017 #114

Yes, some of us prefer words to be used correctly and accurately. DanTex Jan 2017 #115

Post removed Post removed Jan 2017 #120

Name-calling instead of logical arguments. DanTex Jan 2017 #131

Centrists on DU sometimes call themselves Progressive. OrwellwasRight Jan 2017 #140

"If you went to HRC's website..." Docreed2003 Jan 2017 #63

I agree with you, messaging needs to be much better. DanTex Jan 2017 #72

These policies were on her website she kept referring to---That did a lot of good, didn't it? nikto Jan 2017 #110

Old-time Democrats like me will never accept today's more economically Conservative-leaning Party nikto Jan 2017 #113

Oh that Clinton "machine"- one would think Hillary had been president for the last 24 years delisen Jan 2017 #5

She's right, the left keeps moving to the right to get those donor dollars and now we have an rainy Jan 2017 #8

agreed... ewagner Jan 2017 #10

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nikto Jan 2017 #16

That simply is not true. Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #77

There is no proof they can not win, either. Exilednight Jan 2017 #89

Yeah ...Bernie lost the primary. Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #91

Bernie lost due to strategy, not because of his message. Exilednight Jan 2017 #104

He lost because the press didn't let the people hear his message. rainy Jan 2017 #134

+1! eom BlueMTexpat Jan 2017 #48

true quaker bill Jan 2017 #7

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nikto Jan 2017 #17

the problem is conservatism, not liberalism Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #27

Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy Fiendish Thingy Jan 2017 #54

Just because you don't like the word, doesn't mean the meaning is wrong; dionysus Jan 2017 #67

that's a fine definition... but it doesn't fit Hillary Clinton, as she often was called a neoliberal Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #70

I have no part in that debate. Nt dionysus Jan 2017 #71

They don't like it because IT APPLIES TO THEM nikto Jan 2017 #123

I love Naomi but this is a cheap argument. Neoliberalism is just a trendy term for the status quo Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #9

Ok. But "conservatism" has infiltrated the Democratic Party, truebluegreen Jan 2017 #14

Yup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nikto Jan 2017 #19

the New Deal died with Reagan... and liberal Democrats have a bad track record of getting elected Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #26

Yes there is a reason. truebluegreen Jan 2017 #28

am I right in assuming you think Sanders could have beat Trump? Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #29

I think almost anyone else would have beaten Trump. truebluegreen Jan 2017 #30

IMHO, NO Dem or Independent ... LenaBaby61 Jan 2017 #66

Agreed. Looking back on the Clinton administration, we can see that many Nay Jan 2017 #34

You really want to find the Democratic equivalent of Trump? ismnotwasm Jan 2017 #40

No, I want a democrat with some conviction and the ability to project it and convince others Nay Jan 2017 #68

The GOP spent years and billions convincing people... Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #76

Maybe I should have phrased it as "Dems SHOULD HAVE blah, blah, Nay Jan 2017 #81

Yes we do...and the states are most important now... Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #82

Intelligent answer nikto Jan 2017 #125

I agree on your feeling about the differing terms used nikto Jan 2017 #18

yes, a much better term! Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #25

You beat me to it re: the use of that word as Klein used it. stevenleser Jan 2017 #52

No she uses the term correctly Fiendish Thingy Jan 2017 #55

No, she doesn't. That's bullshit. It does not apply to Democrats. It MIGHT apply to Libertarians stevenleser Jan 2017 #59

that's my impression exactly Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #73

Bingo Boomer Jan 2017 #20

I'm with you nikto Jan 2017 #111

Yes, 1000 times, yes. This is what tacking to the center as corporatists has brought us. TonyPDX Jan 2017 #22

Right...because we have so much power...if you wanted to do that ...then electing Hillary was the Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #75

Great article! PatsFan87 Jan 2017 #24

So busy attacking the mythical "neoliberalism" - forgot to defend against the real live fascists. baldguy Jan 2017 #31

It's not mythical killbotfactory Jan 2017 #33

Noeliberals are Nazis & fascists? baldguy Jan 2017 #35

Right? ismnotwasm Jan 2017 #39

How the hell did you get that from my post? killbotfactory Jan 2017 #41

From your words. baldguy Jan 2017 #42

Yep, let's just pretend neoliberal economic ideas don't exist killbotfactory Jan 2017 #44

Let's just pretend that neoliberalism is EXACTLY THE SAME as Nazism. baldguy Jan 2017 #46

Take a deep breath, and listen...re-read the posts you are replying to Fiendish Thingy Jan 2017 #58

Nope, that person doesnt need to do anything. They understand the real meaning of the word. nt stevenleser Jan 2017 #60

It's just another variation of the RW "Democrats same as Republicans" bullshit. baldguy Jan 2017 #85

Agreed. And it's tiresome. These folks just need to specify what policies they want that they aren't stevenleser Jan 2017 #86

It is how a narrative works. Rex Jan 2017 #94

Funny the supposed "liberals" attacking mainstream Dems always seem to use RW talking points. baldguy Jan 2017 #108

It's mythical as used by Kline and many here and a poor substitute for actually making an argument stevenleser Jan 2017 #51

Trite and superficial, only to the uninformed Fiendish Thingy Jan 2017 #61

Intelligent response nikto Jan 2017 #126

Well, Wikipedia can be edited Fiendish Thingy Jan 2017 #62

K & R Duppers Jan 2017 #36

K & R! jalan48 Jan 2017 #37

Oh for Fucks sake what disingenuous bullshit ismnotwasm Jan 2017 #38

Racism Sexism and voter suppression are all real, and I think Klein should have framed her argument JCanete Jan 2017 #43

A basic problem in the Democratic party is that neoliberals and traditional call them New Deal PufPuf23 Jan 2017 #64

Some of them will never come around nikto Jan 2017 #128

"A good chunk of Trumps support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda Starry Messenger Jan 2017 #69

Trump does not have much support....he won Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #78

Trump didn't rig the system. The system is rigged in favor of Republicans over Democrats every time. JCanete Jan 2017 #87

Yes he did. He actively worked with Putin Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #92

If they hacked the machines I agree. If they offered up fake news...well that's a fucking drop JCanete Jan 2017 #93

This election was stolen. Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #97

but was it stolen by Russia or the GOP? if by the GOP, well they steal it just about every time JCanete Jan 2017 #98

GOP is who stole it nikto Jan 2017 #127

Catapulting Trumps propaganda..... not surprised we're seeing this again. bettyellen Jan 2017 #133

No naomi, you are to blame...and people like you who refused to support the only Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #74

Why are you digging up this hot take from seven weeks ago? Blue_Tires Jan 2017 #88

There will never be a shortage of people telling me who to blame. LanternWaste Jan 2017 #90

K&R Rex Jan 2017 #95

F'k Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nikto Jan 2017 #129

Klein milestogo Jan 2017 #96

Absolutely correct. Lunabell Jan 2017 #130

As usual, Klein gets it. My first non-Democratic vote ever 1996 for Greens. Clinton Republican-lite. snowy owl Jan 2017 #141