Bill Moyers Journal: Robert Kuttner and Matt Taibbi

[DontTreadOnMe]

Great discussion and a must watch.

In the end, both Kuttner and Taibbi agree that the way Obama handled HCR, it's a no win for the Democrats.
If it passes, the Republicans will have their talking points, and if it fails -- same thing.

"All this leaves many progressives wondering who to blame. Robert Kuttner argues that the Senate bill is the result of President Obama's approach to reform:

There are two ways, if you're the president of the United States sizing up a situation like this, that you can try and create reform. One is to say, well, the interest groups are so powerful that the only thing I can do is I can work with them and move the ball a few yards, get some incremental reform, hope it turns into something better.

The other way you can do it is to try to rally the people against the special interests and play on the fact that the insurance industry, the drug industry are not going to win any popularity contests with the American people. And you, as the president be the champion of the people against the special interests. That's the course that Obama's chosen not to pursue.

The bill, as it now stands, has divided Democrats (Republicans had signaled earlier that they wouldn't be supporting any version), with some urging to kill the bill and try again later, and some arguing that it is better than nothing, and Democrats might not have another opportunity for 20 years."

Then the topic turned to Financial Reform:

Taibbi--"Most people that I've talked to have taken one of two positions on this. One is that Obama was naïve, that he doesn't know a whole lot about the financial services industry, and he felt the need to rely upon people who'd been there before, people who've had these jobs before, and you know, who have this expertise.

And there's another school of thought that look, he took more money from Wall Street than any other presidential candidate in history. Goldman Sachs was his number one private campaign contributor. And if you just look at the evidence, it's just really business as usual. This is what the Democratic Party has done since the mid-'80s. They've relied heavily on the financial services industry to fund their campaigns. And it's the quid pro quo. They gave a lot of money to help these guys run, and in return, they get the big jobs, you know, in the White House."


Kuttner is more optimistic, but read between the lines-- "I think there is a chance — I don't think I would bet my life on it — but I think there's a possibility that by the fall of 2010, looking down the barrel of a real election blowout, you could see him change course, if only for reasons of expediency, but hopefully for reasons of principle as well, if he feels that the public doesn't have confidence that he is delivering the kind of recovery that the public needs. This is a guy who is a very smart, complicated man. And I think don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin. I don't want to totally give up."

[EndElectoral]

1. I just don't trust Obama anymore. He's lost me. Will vote for a different Dem in primary.

[DailyGrind51]

2. Does the White House even watch Moyers?

If not, why not?

[invictus]

3. K&R

[BlueMTexpat]

4. I watched this last night.

Bill Moyers is a National Treasure.

One important thing that you didn't include in your summary (and thanks for the link) is that while Taibbi does not believe that the bill should pass, Kuttner believes that it should, that, bad as it is, it is still an improvement over the status quo, and that the outcome for the Dems, if they don't pass it, will be worse.
I come down on the Kuttner side.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. Just realized that you had NOT included the link.

Here it is.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/profile.html