Barack Obama attacked by Democrat rebel over US healthcare reforms

[discocrisco01]

There is good article on Howard Dean in the Guardian. The Guardian reports that Howard Dean's rebellion is due to the lack of the public option in the healthcare legislation. Howard Dean is concerned that Obama's policies are leaning too centrist or rightward. They state a lot of progressives are not happy because a lack of change that they have not seen from Obama.

Obama had made very lofty speeches about the concept of "change". His defination of "change" is that he would be different than Bush. Obama wanted to be different than the cowboy attitude of Bush. Bush was one of the types of people who embraced the policy of "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later"

Rather, Obama adopted a cool and collective style. He wanted to be real delibrative and incrementalist in adopting new policy. In his heart, Obama might want a strong public option but he values conseus and incrementalism as being more important than radical policy shifts than might alienate his support with centrists. He also wants to work with the centrists who embrace corporate power to solve problems like climate change and health care reform. Therefore, he wanted to use private insurance system to provide universial health insurance coverage instead of massive change like adopting a competive public option that everybody can buy into. (Note: I do not support single-payer but a competitive public option which everybody can buy into)

I think when Obama meant "change", he meant an incremental and conseus method of leadership rather than George Bush partianship. I think he did not disclose this during the campign in greater detail because it would have alienated progressives. Therefore, he stated that he was for "change" and he really meant change from Bush partisanship and a return to conseus and incrementalism. This was his plan all along. During the campaign, it appeared that he stood for progressive principles but in reality, he believed in incremental reform with the involvement of private sector. A good Google Blogsearch will< was disclosed during the campaign in the early primaries before there was discussion of a public option. If my memory serves me right, there was no discussion of public option during the primary (maybe, I was wrong)[br /[br />For healthcare, you cannot adopt an incrementalist approach to the problem. You have to blow up the current system and start with something new. Obama was fearful of this and he was afraid of the centrists and moderate conservatives would not support him. ]b]Obama relies too much on conseus and is afraid of making massive change at one time . He believes that his personal security would be threaten if he did not have the conseus and therefore, will not move to major changes because he is too fearful of pulling the switch. He is too cautious and timid and not willing the lay down the law on the centrist and conservative dems.

This will be his downfall and could cost his election. He also scared at Wall Street because it provide major funding to the campaign and therefore, he will not smash the banks because he is afraid of losing donations on the street.

Obama is unwilling to deal with his fears and I am afraid that will be his downfall.

[emilyg]

1. k/r

[msongs]

2. everybody knows dems and repubs are equivalent and share the same values nt

[TransitJohn]

3. 'Democrat' rebel?

Miss the 'ic' there on purpose or what?

[Captain Hilts]

4. The Guardian, despite being progressive, rarely uses the 'ic'. I've e-mailed, tried to call, to

complain.