Ok the anti-Obama stuff is getting a bit over the top

[usregimechange]

I am not at all happy about what the Senate did to HCR. I have been speaking out against the individual mandate since this started. In fact it was a major reason why I supported Obama half way through the primaries.

The fact is we lacked the votes to get progressive reform done. Why? Senate filibuster requires 60 votes to overcome. That requires Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Landrieu, and Lincoln. Chuck Schumer can't vote 5 times.

Reconciliation you say? The bill would have been diced and sunseted to death under reconciliation rules.

If Obama would have shown strong leadership on the public option, what, Ben Nelson would have been wooed and leading the charge for Medicare for all? Lieberman would have been the hero of DU?

The real reason why a number of DUers are upset: unrealistic expectations.

[rucky]

1. Mismanaged expectations.

I agree with your analysis of the bill and who's responsible, but Obama did send mixed messages and it's insulting for him and his defenders to suggest that it's all in our heads.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Best wishes, and happy holidays.

DU is about to carve you up. I hope you get credit anyway for the courage to post here on the New DU.

[HuckleB]

3. It's way over the top.

Pure emotion run aground and still the temper tantrum continues.

[countingbluecars]

4. I agree with you. n/t

[usregimechange]

5. Damn, my 2 recs went away quick!

[LWolf]

6. Whether or not it's "over the top" is subjective.

I'd suggest, though, that when people are angry, telling them that they are "over the top" is throwing fuel on the fire.

If Obama had backed strong health CARE reform, and it went down to defeat, those angry now wouldn't be blaming him. They'd be blaming Congress alone.

Instead, he's backed an insurance "reform" package that takes us backwards...so we're angry, and he's part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.

He AND the Democratic Congress are accountable for this mess.

[Neecy]

7. Do you guys pick a daily theme?

I swear, every week we get deluged in GD with almost identical posts with almost identical themes that come at us like they were shot out of a cannon: boom, boom, boom. One after another, minutes apart.

Why isn't this in GD/P? Is it because hardly any of us read it any longer, so you crash GD?

[usregimechange]

8. Yes, the "apologists" coordinate every post, we are plotting against you

:eyes:

[silverweb]

10. ...

:spray:

If only it were true. :D

[Individualist]

13. It's quite obvious, isn't it!

[IndianaGreen]

9. There is more to this than just health insurance 'reform' which is what we are getting

There is a lot of anger and disappointment regarding civil liberties, the wars (including the dirty wars we are fighting across the world that don't make the news in the US). Wall Street, the bankers, and financiers got top priority from this Administration while we saw the banks raise the rates on our insurance cards, foreclosures continuing unabated, and very tight credit for the small business owner.

It is a long laundry list to which I add Obama having DOJ defend DOMA and protect the likes of John Yoo.

Have a nice holiday season!

[silverweb]

11. Agreed.

Way over the top.

K&R.

[lunatica]

12. If you would let people express their initial anger you'd find

that they aren't 'anti-Obama'. They're disappointed because what they wanted isn't all that fucking hard to get. This whole health care reform isn't brand new first of it's kind stuff. We're actually lagging very far behind the rest of the industrialized countries who've proven that universal health care is not only possible but preferable.

Are you happy with corporatocracy? Because it's the useless, for profit health insurance companies who have won the jackpot here. Even if they have to make some concessions they still make out like bandits because they will have so many more millions who are paying for insurance.

It would be better if you understood the insanity of that setup. Look at other countries and their success with 'government run health care', or look at the success of Medicare (also government run) and see that the people who are disappointed, or as you like to phrase it have 'unrealistic expectations' have a fucking point. We're not inventing the wheel here.

It's a good thing we're not inventing fire because thankfully it doesn't have to be re-invented by Americans because it's a sure thing it wouldn't pass the filibuster or the Christian Right or the Republican party and would be an excuse to trash progressives.

[rug]

14. Overcoming the filibuster requires time, not 60 votes.

We'll be stuck with this dog a lot longer than it would take for the filibuster to break.

[Pirate Smile]

15. I agree. I think Lieberman's saying no to the PO was actually cover for four or so of the Dems who

wouldn't vote for it.

I just don't think we had the votes for it. I don't think that was going to change by anything the President did. We have a huge friggin tent and that makes things hard sometimes but I think we are a hell of a lot more likely to get the Conservadems to vote with us then to get ANY Republicans - even so-called moderate ones like Snowe and Collins - so I think our big tent is very much preferable to the alternative.

[Shagbark Hickory]

16. We really didn't need a bill. Just change the policies regarding who can sign up for medicare/aid.

Piece o'cake.

[walldude]

17. I agree about some of the Obama stuff... just some

Because you are wrong about unrealistic expectations. A Medicare buy-in for all could be put in a budget reconciliation, since it is an existing program it would only require 51 votes to get passed. With people paying in premiums it could be a low premium, deficit neutral alternative to a mandate. It would allow the baggers to keep their crappy for profit insurance and pave the way for single payer when those idiots realize they are getting screwed.

There is a simple solution to this, and we don't need a single Repug or Blue Dog to do it. Thom Hartmann has been espousing this for months apparently to deaf ears. His site has more info if you care to check it out.

[FLAprogressive]

18. maybe some people are upset about being lied to.

[Barack_America]

19. Yeah. Was it too much to ask him to keep his freaking word?

And actually advocate for the public option he swore he supported?

[FLAprogressive]

20. Apparently some people are OK with being lied to as long as he gets a win.

[MissDeeds]

21. +1 n/t

[donheld]

22. +2

[Divine Discontent]

23. This should have been posted in GD:P

[bigwillq]

24. That's your opinion.

And I am sure some agree. And I am sure some don't. I guess "hide thread" is an option.

[HuckleB]

25. Indeed.

Something I've noticed is that many of the old-time DUers, including people like William Pitt, spent much of the early years of DU pining for Clinton, and defending the Clinton presidency. Well, in the face of Bush, that's easy to do. Now that we have Obama, who is certainly not more conservative than Clinton, and has not broken any more promises than Clinton or any other former president in all likelihood, the mode is to continue to attack the current President, with very little context added. It appears as if many have not adjusted to being in the majority, to having constructive disagreements, but with an aim of moving things forward. It's puzzling, and I know that there will be plenty of knee-jerk excuses, but I'm tired of those, and don't care to respond to any of them.

The grass is NEVER as green as we dream it will be. Duh.

[leftstreet]

26. Look, there's an entire forum devoted to Obama

During Bush it was GD:Politics, now it's GD:Presidency (aka ObamaILuvzU) (aka GD:STFU)

We don't go piss in your pool, so...

LEAVE GD ALONE!!!!1111

[HuckleB]

27. That's not piss.

That was my margarita! Watch the elbow, man!

:smoke: