Many of you are the very epitome of left wing intractability Obama spoke of.

[PretzelWarrior]

Many posts here are positive. Many are insightful. I know mine is not counted in that number even by me. But it is always slightly depressing watching a great speech like I just did and then seeing it cast through the ugly filter of partisanship even here on DU.

Sorry, but quite a number of you ranters don't know the first fucking thing about doing anything to really make a positive difference for this country. In fact, some of you are sounding no better than a Democratic version of Free Republic lunatics.

I stand with my president tonight against the fucking asshole racists and corporatists who want everything he says and does to be attacked and for him to fail.

I know what he's trying to accomplish, and if you don't stand with someone with the courage of leadership, then you have shown your character.

[BlooInBloo]

1. You can borrow my flamesuit. You'll need 2.

[Cha]

38. Lol

Oh boy. oy vey.

[cliffordu]

53. I thought yours got fried last week.

back to shopping at Wallmart??

[murdoch]

2. No plan would be better than a plan without a public option

What I want is a National Health Service like England has - a country not too different than the US in many ways, they're one of the few countries fighting with the US in Iraq, even under a Labor government. But they say an NHS is too left wing.

So then we hear single payer, Medicare for all is what we have to shoot for. But the Democratic leadership tried to scuttle that right away and said we could only have a public option.

So all of the above is done away with and - now they want to kill the public option.

So we are left with what, a bill which requires individuals to sign up for private health insurance? Exactly the bill the useless HMOs want? That would be worse than no bill.

We already gave in when they said a national health service was not possible (it wasn't even brought up, except on the "far left", you know, people who think we should have health care like far left Bolshevik England), and then they said we would have to settle for the public option as opposed to single payer. So people conceded that and now they say they want to ax that.

What has Obama brought so far but more killing of civilians in Afghanistan, the first military coup in Latin America in decades, bailouts for the corporations etc.? Now the public option is ready to go overboard? Obama has done absolutely NOTHING so far for the people who voted him in. A tepid, puny little thing like a public option which EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has is too much to ask?

The Greens are gearing up for races this year, and for even more races next year. It is a time commitment and I have to decide how much to spend, and how much money to donate. A bill without a public option would certainly push me 100% in that direction. Obama 2008 was the first non-Nader, non-Green vote I've cast for president in many years, and it might be my last one for years.

These are not moderate times - the economy is in shambles, unemployment has been over 9% for however long and people are ticked off. I tell people what Karl Marx said about capitalist economies and recessions in Capital and ordinary people are saying to me, "that sounds absolutely right". The majority of people polled in the country support the public option. I guess choosing the majority of Americans over HMO owner billionaires is left-wing radicalism.

[ima_sinnic]

3. +2 you said it all right here

[PretzelWarrior]

4. quite an interesting argument. Britain fought with the U.S. in Iraq therefore....

we should imitate their health care system? There are a number of "troubling" aspects to your post. Your motive isn't one. Your heart seems truly in the right place. But A)Obama supports a public option, B)It seems the forces arrayed against it are quite strong and he's focused on OUTCOMES rather than labels. If a bill doesn't do enough right things to give an affodable option to low income Americans who can't get health insurance, then I have a feeling he won't sign it.

But you and others on the "public option" and "single payer" hobby horses aren't dealing in reality. Did you watch the speech as he ran down the list of things THAT ARE COVERED IN THE PLAN?! Serious, meaningful reform of insurance practices and outcomes for how that affects you, me, businesses, and Medicare. Not sure how you can avoid all that and just be mad because he didn't sign a promise in blood that health care reform would for sure have a public option.

[ShortnFiery]

10. AMEN! No half-stepping. Full reform or bust! eom

[treestar]

12. How can you "give in" when something is not possible?

Do the majority support a national health service? If so, there is no reason to "give in." If not, there is nothing to "give in."

I would rather have a national health service (though I have some reservations that it could work in a country this large, other countries that have it have much smaller populations, but maybe on a state by state basis). But my fellow voters are just too complacent with their employer provided health insurance, and too easily scared off by the prospect of risking a change.

I think it should be campaigned for by state, try to get each state to do it. More liberal states can do it and show that it works.

[kath]

19. +10 - a non-reform "reform" bill is worse than no bill at all.

It will set the cause of REAL reform back by decades.

NOW is the time for REAL reform.

[high density]

26. Set the cause for real reform back by decades? What does that mean?

The President has the torch right now for "real reform" and he laid out his plan last night. You can either get on the bus or not. Dreaming about some undefined fairytale "real reform" isn't helpful here. You are providing an example of exactly what the OP is talking about.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. There are no words for how wrong and idiotic that statement really is.

If you want to go back to the Green Party and shout at walls, be my guest. I'd like to remain among those who try to get SOMETHING positive done.

[Techn0Girl]

35. No plan would be better ....

Really?
No plan?
No plan at all?

What about legislation that eliminated the ability of insurance companies to deny based on pre-existing conditions?
What about legislation that put controls on the upper limit on how much you pay out -of pocket?
What about legislation that mandated a truly affordable rate to everyone - employed or not?

Any of that we should just throw out.
Because it doesn't have what YOU want (and I for that mater) in it?

Really?

Forgive me but if I were an evil major corp with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend one of the thinks that I would do (because I'm an evil corp) is inundate progressive groups with people saying that we should just throw everything out if it doesn't have everything that we want.

Because , as an evil corp, I don't want any of it .

Now I'm not saying or implying that you are a shill.
I'm just saying that what you are proposing is exactly in the best interests of rotten evil corps and shill or not, you are acting in their best interests.

I WANT a public option.
I DEMAND A PUBLIC OPTION.
I will be politically active in lobbying for such an option.

But if necessary I'll darn well settle for something darn well better than we have now.
Because what we have now truly sucks.

[HamdenRice]

5. That's why I call them the "Limbaugh left" -- not that they are actually "left" which is pragmatic

Marx himself always emphasized critical analysis of facts as they exist. So they are only fake leftists. There is a faction here that simply isn't in the real world. Evidence of this is that they cite WorldSocialistWebSite, a group of pathological liars that live in a Trotskyite fantasy world.

Limbaugh doesn't deal in real facts and circumstances and neither does the Limbaugh left.

[Onlooker]

6. Standing with your president is a right wing phrase

It's fine to support Obama, but using a phrase like, "I stand with my President," comes out of the 1950s and makes it sound like those who don't stand with him are unAmerican or somehow disloyal to our nation. It's a variant of the "My country right or wrong" mentality that enables presidents to make bad decisions.

And when you write, "I know what he's trying to accomplish," you're merely projecting your own values and hopes for Obama, because you don't know what he stands for. We can only judge that by the passion with which he fights for what is right. And, so far, we've seen he's been more obsessed with with ego-gratifying vision of "post partisanship," than with showing the strength and courage of Roosevelt, Kennedy/LBJ, and Lincoln to fight hard for to help those who are victims of poverty, discrimination, and abuse.

I do not stand with the president, but I stand with what I believe, and to the extent Obama is willing to fight for what is right and good, I support him. He has yet to show real courage. The fact that he's only helped a small percent of those who faced foreclosure; has put little effort into dropping don't ask/don't tell; has gotten us more engaged in an intractable war in Afghanistan; has given hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street and failed to prosecute those who brought about our current recession; has failed to go after anyone but the low level employees of the CIA, and is prepared to turn health care reform into a gift of 30,000,000 new customers to private insurance companies and their investors, leaves me disappointed in him.

[PretzelWarrior]

7. your post is an epic fail.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. And lockstep loyalty like yours is a reason that the Dems are never

motivated to improve.

[treestar]

14. And that's why the right wing has gotten so much of what it wants

While the left flounders around, complaining.

Pressure the Blue Dogs! Do something constructive.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Your delivery is sometimes like boiling acid.....

..... but you're ALWAYS right. ;)

I appreciate your passaion and am glad we're on the same side! lol

[ShortnFiery]

9. Yes, he's OUR President. He works for US, not for K Street.

All I can add: Lambs to the slaughter. :(

[babylonsister]

11. RECOMMEND. nt

[treestar]

13. Recommend

I have never once seen a right winger go against a Republican president!

It is hard to believe people on the left could be so stupid and sabotage anything that goes in the direction they allegedly want. It is so odd me that I have to wonder about disruptors.

[Pharlo]

15. "I support my President, right or wrong!"

Is Bush's 33% base. Apparently, Obama's too.

I take it that for some on here, it is acceptable to only agree with Obama simply because he's a democrat. A great speech does not a good leader make. Obama vacillates too much. He needs to make a clear cut stand and solidify it. He didn't do that last night. Had he done that, you would not have such a wide variance of opinions/interpretations of what he said. His speech was vague enough that you could read whatever you wanted to into it. Some read that a 'public option' was included. Others feel it was excluded.

Honestly, if his intent was to keep his stand as vague after his speech as it was before his speech, he accomplished that. This way, no matter what he 'conciliates' away, he can say "That was covered in my speech."

As a thinking person, I am not going to 'interpret' his speech for him. I am going to look at his actions since taking office, compare them to his campaign speeches and decide for myself how I should take the content of this speech.

GLBT, Afghan, handling of the banking crisis. In each instance, Obama has sided with the corporate interests.

Those of us who are becoming cynical of Obama are not doing so in a vacuum. We are basing it upon his own actions to date. We would love to be surprised as hell by his siding with the good of the public just once.

Only, the Obamatistas, like the Bushtistas, disregard any who don't fall in line with the present potentate.

[Vidar]

20. Nicely said.

[Roland99]

48. It's the Britney Spears method.

[info being]

56. That's exactly right

The Obama cheerleaders and not educated on the issues. They are for Obama first and everything else comes second. He is revealing himself to be pro-Corporate all the way and, like Bill Clinton, once in a while he tries to hand the people a bone...so long as it does not somehow negatively impact the profits of corporations.

Ho hum...more of the same.

[msallied]

57. Strawman Alert!

[Becky72]

16. Not all of us are non-bickering moderate pragmatist centrists

It's ok to criticize the President's plan if one thinks it doesn't go far enough or if one thinks that he is not pushing hard enough for the public option, for example.

.

[TheKentuckian]

17. You have to have sense and context

I want a manned mission to the nearest star and firmly believe that the technologies required to meet the goal would be a literal world changer as applications are used right here on Earth. Carl Sagan felt we had the technological ability to create a ship that can go an appreciable percentage of the speed of light in the early 80's, so it is possible.

I know this isn't people's health care but the basic concept is the same, what is possible is not always realistically plausible. People continue to demand shit that there is no will or votes for and they may as well be demanding that trip to Proxima Centauri as far as any real ability to make it happen.

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Lousy analogy

The ability to go to Proxima Centauri doesn't exist yet. Single Payer health care should have been reality in 1947.

[TheKentuckian]

52. For both it is a matter of will both are possible.

The analogy was supposed to be drastic and I clearly alluded to such.

Sagan said we could do it in the 80's if we had the will and I'll take him at his word. I don't have a link to Cosmos (novel) for you but it's there.

We have about equal doses of will for either program.

[firedupdem]

18. Rec'd ! n/t

[Vidar]

21. Standing with the president against the coproatists must be difficult since Obama i

is a corporatist Good luck with your struggle against reality.

[debbierlus]

28. Amen, Vidar.

Amen

[Cha]

40. Yeah right...you just spout negative shit

like you know wtf you're talking about but it's so obvious you don't.

[freddie mertz]

22. I am going to unrec this even though

I very much enjoyed the president's speech, and was glad to see him grad the reigns of leadership after so much recent drift.

I am not sure that I agree with his policy in this case, or with his strategy.

But my argument is not a personal one.

I wish that it was possible to debate the merits of policy here without falling into heated rhetoric.

[valerief]

23. Irony alert!

You can't complain unless you're complaining about complaining.

:rofl:

[kid a]

25. rec... my version of this is usually less eloquent

[debbierlus]

27. You stand with a president against the corporatists who wrote the legislation that Obama sold

Last night....

I see.

What courage? Selling a private corporate wet dream as health reform?

Courage of leadership means standing for the people over corporate profit.

It does not mean capitulating to the private insurance industry, breaking campaign promises (he ran on no mandates and the option for EVERYONE to join the same type of health program available to the US senate). He never even began to fight for that vision.

He makes backroom deals with big pharm so they can continue to charge mafia prices for medications.

He is forbidding the import of cheaper drugs from Canada.

Again & again, I read posts blasting those who call out Obama for the policies he stands for & the people he appoints. And, invariably, the poster never addresses the factual content. Rather, they puff up their chests and tear down the messenger.

When you can't argue your case on the merits, you are reduced to this...

Taking a play out of the Republican playbook and personally attacking the opposition rather then addressing their concerns. Who is acting like those at the Free Republic?

Look in the damn mirror.

The people who are calling out this sell out administration deserve kudos for standing for truth and policy over a politician.

[frylock]

45. well stated

[eridani]

58. +20 n/t

[DevonRex]

29. Amen. K&R. nt

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

30. K&R...

Ideally, I would like to see everyone equally covered and insured in a good plan paid for by contributions directly paid to the U.S. Government (or a governmental entity in charge of health care). I would love to see universal health care in the U.S. But, guess what! that ain't going to happen any time soon.

So, rather than seeing nothing done at all, I'd like to see something - a baby step - done to fix this incredibly unjust and medieval "system" that's currently in place.

The truth of the matter is that the President is not King or dictator; he has to deal with Congress and all its members - Republicans, Democrats, and all sides of left and right within.

At some point he has to compromise. This means having to compromise on the size and scope of HC reform. He will never succeed unless he compromises at some point. Yes, that will mean defeat to some of us, but in the long run whatever baby steps are made will help pave the way to a near future reform.

At least, something positive and forward-thinking can come out of this... simply the elimination of the pre-existing clauses and the dropping of ill individuals from insurance rolls would be a giant leap that, by itself, would give the U.S. some semblance of humanity befitting the first-class nation it purports to be.

It seems to me that, on one side, there are Republicans who are against anything President Obama proposes simply because it's President Obama proposing it. On the other side, there are those who are disappointed because the President is unable to get universal health care in place tomorrow and are pissed off about some Democrats from more conservative districts who are appeasing their constituencies by not joining the bandwagon.

It sucks that there are people so blind to see that a catastrophic illness will automatically send you to bankruptcy court. It sucks that there are people who don't give a rat's patootie about their fellow human beings. But, as hard as it may be, that is the truth we must live with. The President is aware of this. You will never be able to convince the Joe Wilsons of the world to change their minds. Nothing he or I or any of us could say would change their opinions, outside of a catastrophic illness that would clearly make the point (and I certainly do not wish that upon anyone).

Let's be clear - no side will be truly 100% happy with whatever comes out in the next weeks. But something is better than nothing and hopefully sooner or later more people will see fit to elect representatives who are willing to show a spine and overhaul the system.

[OwnedByFerrets]

31. I stand WITH the President against fucking asshole racists

however, I refuse to be a Brittney Spears clone.

SPEARS: "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

Sometimes, we must state OUR opinions, even if they go against the grain. At one time, that was applauded as an American virtue.

[Raffi Ella]

32. I better understand now just how far we've come

toward reform and that it would be a shame not to pass something; at the same time I feel manipulated into believing that "Oh, it's ok if we don't get a broad public option, it's still good".

Single payer was off the table from the beginning; then President Obama said we'd get a broad public option, that he would not pass a bill without it; now we're lucky to get even a semblance of a public option and I'm suppose to be happy with that?

who the fuck won last November? elections are SUPPOSED to have consequences. President Obama needs to do the Right Thing-

50+1 is still an OPTION- right? I am TIRED of capitulating. I am SICK to death of Democrats on the Hill NOT fighting and not fighting HARD for what is right.

If that makes me a bad Democrat so be it.

[Techn0Girl]

37. Elections and consequences

"who the {deleted} won last November? elections are SUPPOSED to have consequences. President Obama needs to do the Right Thing-"

It doesn't work that way and it never did.
Just to be clear - just voting for some guy and putting him into office does not end your responsibility to continue to work for the kind of legislation that you want.

It doesn't work that way and it never did.

You need to be calling your Congress people and writing them and stating your wants.

You need to be writing letters to the editor of your local newspapers and stating your ideas.

You need to be organizing with other local like minded people and spending an hour or two each week phone banking with them, rallying with them, etc. Here is a good place to find out how to do that, btw :
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/search_simple?source=sidenav

I assure you that Big Business and teabaggers are doing just that.

You need to be willing to do more than just vote some guy into office to get what you want - because it just doesn't work any other way.

And if enough people don't do this than the only health care we'll get is a big Internet Whaaabulance when the legislation does not pass.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. K& Fuckin' R

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for some sanity.

[alteredstate]

36. Great post!

I, too, stand with my President.

[jenmito]

41. K&R. Thank you! n/t

[CakeGrrl]

42. K/R

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. A Democracy is of its People...

While I am not at odds with Obama's speech last night and look to it as the beginning of at least something, it would be a sad world if we all "stood with the president" on everything. Sorry, you've lost me there. I won't be that which I despise. I will think for myself, I will question, and I will possibly find fault. It's the American way.

Take care.

[Spazito]

44. Well said!

It is the same tiny minority, around 20 or so, who, time and time again, regardless of the discussion, work VERY hard to post negative shit. One has 6 (at last count) DIFFERENT OPs on the first page of GDP, all negative.

[xchrom]

46. thanks for that -- i have a better understanding just how much ill will centrists have for the

best interests of the country.

you obviously buy into the right wing notions of what the left is.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. I would argue very, very opposite of you.

Frankly, the sentiment that no bill should be passed without a strong public option is 100% counter to the interest of the nation. How in the world can you possibly argue that no bill is better than one that at least adds regulations to the insurance industry and provides some form of relief for all 300+ million Americans on health care?

Is it because you'd rather take your chances getting the full monty later on? If so, that's exactly what Ted Kennedy said a few decades ago, and it was one of the biggest regrets of his career. Way to go on preserving his legacy by compounding his biggest legislative error, that's absolutely brilliant.

[TomCADem]

47. Well said!

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. POST OF THE DAY! THANK YOU! RECOMMENDED!

I hope I said that loud enough.

[burning rain]

50. Let's be candid.

The sort of bill the president rather vaguely outlined last night included but a puny public option, and is certainly corporatist and moderately conservative. Now, you can argue that it would improve on our current hard-right healthcare situation, and I'd agree, but if you're going to to call it liberal, I'm going to call BS. As a lefty who's a pragmatist and therefore a loyal Democrat, I'll eat the baloney sandwiches moderate conservative Democrats feed me, but I'll be goddamned if I call them filet mignon.

[TheKentuckian]

54. Who said this bill was a liberal one? Its center/center right

I'm a big Obama guy but I said he was about on par with Ike, though a hair or two to the left. I said he was a corporatist, definitely a relative capitalism true believer.
I don't get the reason for any surprise or expectation of him being more than a moderate.

All I expected after studying up on the guy was competence, mental and ideological flexibility, the ability to work the bully pulpit at top level, a more people based corporate view point, decency, hard work, and some brains. That's enough to start to reverse the plague of Reaganisim. I didn't project an environment that would tolerate a true lefty in charge for 8-12 years.
Obama to me was just our lead off guy. The cleanup hitter may not even be on the scene yet. Sestak seems like potentially the logical next step after Obama gets shit turned enough that we can actually start on our remake.

I'm down with Obama but he's only a liberal in the current day US but his talent is top notch, though still developing. He's still very much growing into the job but has a pretty good history of being a serious learner.

[elana i am]

51. i don't agree

here's why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GLjUUwpvLM

[info being]

55. Can I ask you a question?

What's wrong with health care reform without a public option?
What's wrong with requiring every American to have insurance and funneling that money to private insurers?

If you can answer those questions, you will have a lot more credibility. It isn't about the speech, per se, it is about the policy he outlined.

[opihimoimoi]

59. Kick.....count me in....

[woo me with science]

61. Kudos. nt