Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ...

[Rilgin]

117. You try to too hard.

Obama fought for insurance reform. He did not fight for the public option although as I have said he ran on a plan and early in the legislative process he said he wanted one. I can believe that if he had total control, he would want a public option in his health insurance plan. That is different than fighting for one.

Here is a link that describes it best. A CNN article from Sept 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/senate.public.option

It includes the following quote "The White House responded to Tuesday's actions with spokesman Reid Cherlin repeating both President Barack Obama's support for a public option -- and also his willingness to consider other proposals."

I believe you may be a lawyer. If you go into a negotiation and say I want X amount but "have a willingness to consider other proposals" it means absolutely that you will not fight for X but will accept some lesser amount.

Here is another from the article.

Obama "has said he is open to other constructive ideas of increasing choice and competition," Cherlin said. "He will work with Congress to ensure that under health insurance reform, Americans who cannot find affordable coverage will always have a choice."

However, once again, you want to look at him through your prism rather than take him at his word. His early speeches said that he would like a public option but it was "just a sliver" or not an essential part of his reform. He denied that he had campaigned on a public option. This is exactly what one does when you want to make public your position to appease a group of supporters but also want to signal that you are sacrificing a position and not going to fight for it.

As to more direct actions. As I said, Pelosi passed an ACA with a public option through the house which Obama did not trumpet to the press and public building pressure. He also did not actually have the administration draft the bill to present to congress as what he wanted.

The great thing about speculation is that there is no way to prove what is right. However, we do know that it is fact that republicans are now in charge of every branch of government all the way down to the local level and are close in states to being able to change the constitution if they wanted to and voted in lock step at the state house. We further know that the ACA has mixed public opinions. The left and right do not like it and the middle tolerates it as a lukewarm compromise.

So my speculation that the Democratic party would be in better shape if they just fought for a bill that energized the base totally and really restructured the way we deliver health care might be a fact since it is somewhat impossible for it to be worse than losing every race and then losing the bill that one sets up as a step towards something good. Would other tactics be better, its purely speculative but when the Republicans get rid of Obamacare we will know that it was impossible for another strategy to do worse.