Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ...

[Rilgin]

106. Exactly

That is your argument. He sacrificed the Public Option supported by a great majority of democrats to pass what became known as Obama Care, not that he fought for a public option. He chose to enact something in 2009 rather than fight for something else. You favor winning immediate battles and assume that is the path to long term good. I do not agree with you but it is a valid position. My belief is that if you pass something that puts insurance companies as essential in the middle of the system and give them tons of money, you can never further reform it. I think the ACA was a very Pyhirric Victory. However, mine like yours is just an opinion.

As to Baucus and Lieberman, past presidents and politicians going all the way back to the founders dealt with seemingly intractable political opposition. It is a mircacle they got the Declaration of Independence adopted because there were people like Lieberman and Baucus around then.. Obama took the path of making sure some bill passed. Other paths to passage of a robust bill were not taken, including calling for millions of the people who swarmed his path to the presidency to come out to the mall to pressure politicians, using hard ball political pressures on pet congressional projects and promising to campaign or raise huge amounts of money against people who didn't vote for a public option (including republicans).

It is your opinion that Lieberman and Baucus wanted nothing and could not be influenced. To me they are both incredibly corrupt, Lieberman in particular. Past presidents used honey and sticks to get what they wanted. Public shame or private jobs usually work on the corrupt. Neither you nor I know what real presidential action would have accomplished. However, Obama was not prepared to actually oppose those standing in the way of a public option which is why its spin to say he fought for it. He fought for heritage care and was willing to not fight for a public option to get heritage care through. However, that was not your claim. You claim he fought for the public option. He didnt. He fought for a health insurance bill.

Fighting has one benefit in the long term that sacrificing essential elments for a weak bill does not. Fighting actually addresses the issue and sets it before the Public. If as polls show, the American people supported a more robust system, it would have given the Democratic Party a lot of leverage against the Republicans in the next election cycle. I live in California and know this can work since after deadlock of many years and seeing Republican opposition, California kicked the Republican party to the curb and we have a much stronger state. It took many years and we had set backs like Arnold and a budget crisis. However our victory over the Republicans was actually a victory.