Do officeholders have an obligation to advance proposals they made as candidates and got elected on?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

That is my beef in a nutshell.

President Obama had a detailed and specific plan for healthcare reform that was laid out on his website and discussed in Town Halls, debates, etc. It involved a National Health Exchange, it involved drug price negotiation, it had a public option. Hillary's mandates were discussed and rejected by most. McCain had tax breaks and that's about it.

After the election, the President pretty much jettisoned the detailed program he ran on and basically said - "Oh, we'll just let Congress figure it all out".

So, why bother as a candidate to formulate anything specific regarding legislation if you're just going to flush it down the toilet at the first opportunity? Is it really just a pretense or game to get into office? Are people who read and evaluated different reform plans and voted accordingly just pathetically, hopelessly naive in their expectation that those same views would be pushed when a candidate is actually in office?

I am now more cynical than I ever thought possible in regards to candidates and campaign stances.

[DesertFlower]

1. sigh. i know. i like obama,

but i'm a little disappointed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. You touch on the campaign promise so obvious it needn't even be stated

The implicit promise to actually seek enactment of ones' ideas.

It is assumed that any candidate is implicitly saying he would seek passage of HIS plan... this one... the one I'm talking to you about.

(Nobody votes for a promise to merely hold some abstract attitude or opinion.)

[DevonRex]

3. All I know is that it's weird, the people who are trashing Obama today because

of the Senate Finance Committee's vote. They seem a *little* too eager to find any reason to bash him. Seems to me that Baucus and his fellow dems who voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS might be the ones to be mad at.

But no. You chose Obama. :shrug: