Skip to main content

Fourth and Final Update: This is unreal.  A couple of people found literally a couple of places where Obama mentioned this - no, I mean two places as it related to a campaign speech or debate.  Two.  Out of hundreds of speeches and something in the order of a total of 15 debates.  Two.  Count'em.  One.  Two.  That evidently makes someone "campaign on" it, or worse yet, promise it?  Let's get real.  The larger point in this diary remains completely and absolutely valid: Obama did not campaign on this, even though he was on the record supporting it.

Facts are stubborn things.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to his or her own facts.  There has been a firestorm over whether or not then-Senator Barack Obama "campaigned on" the public option.  So let me first lay out what I understand "campaigning on" to mean:

It means that the things that a candidate for office goes to the voters and talks about often.  The things they repeat and repeat.  The things they talk about in rallies, the things they assert in their debates with their opponents, etc.  Having something in one's campaign platform does not make one "campaign on" those things, even though it puts them on the record in favor of those things.  Filling out a questionnaire is not campaigning on something.  Campaigning on something is the ideas they repeat to voters, the ideas on which they want to define themselves for voters.

By that definition, it is crystal clear that candidate Barack Obama did not campaign on the public option.  I'm a supporter of the public option.  I want it.  But to say that Obama campaigned on it is simply not true.

To be sure, President Obama campaigned for the public option during the summer, after he became president.  But he did not campaign on it as a candidate.

How am I so sure?  Because, conveniently, I happen to have the transcripts of every Obama campaign speech all the way up to the speech of the President-Elect on election night.  And I also happen to have the transcripts of all three Obama-McCain debates.

Obama speech index, searchable.  This index includes some major speeches after he became president, too, but not really the campaign style speeches he gave on health care this past summer.  This index has 225 speeches of Barack Obama, going back to 2002, and keeping track of pretty much all campaign speeches.

Transcript of the first presidential debate

Transcript of the second presidential debate

Transcript of the third and final presidential debate

I searched through every one of his speeches, and every one of the debate transcripts.  Here are the results.

Debates: Nothing about the public option or anything about a government run insurance option is mentioned in any of the three debates.

For the search term "public option," the above mentioned speech database finds 10 hits, and not one of them actually addresses anything close to a public option.  These speeches merely used the words 'public' and 'option', though not relating to each other.  In one of those speeches, for example, candidate Obama said,

If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered. If you change jobs, your insurance will go with you. If you need to see a doctor, you will not have to wait in long lines for one. If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans that have similar benefits and standards for quality and efficiency.

He explicitly mentioned private plans as options, but not the public option.

For the search term "federal health care insurance option" (which would include anything such as "insurance option run by the federal government, etc.), I got 6 results.  Again, nothing even resembling having the terms next to each other.  And definitely no mention of the public option.

It's not like candidate Obama did not talk in detail about his health care policy, however.  He said over, and over and over again:

If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.

He also repeated the following:

When it comes to health care, we don't have to choose between a government-run health care system and the unaffordable one we have now. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums. If you don't have health insurance you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves. And as someone who watched his own mother spend the final months of her life arguing with insurance companies because they claimed her cancer was a pre-existing condition and didn't want to pay for treatment, I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care most. That's the change we need. That's why I'm running for President of the United States.

But in his speeches and in the debates, I could not find a single reference to a "public option" or something similar.

Not one.

None.

Not even in his health care policy speech during the campaign.

Folks, Presidential candidate Barack Obama did NOT campaign on the public option.  He was for it, but he did not campaign on it.  I'm sorry, but those are the facts.

Please realize that this diary isn't about supporting the president, or even supporting the senate bill (although I do).  It is solely about examining whether candidate Obama campaigned on this issue of the public option.  He did not.  Not by any stretch.  If you have speeches other than the database I showed, please bring them forth and show your work if you want to claim otherwise.

Just the facts, ladies and gentlemen.

Update: Thanks for putting this on the rec-list, guys.  I am asking everyone who has a contrary view to please review the fact that I laid out what I understand "campaigned on" to be atop this diary, and proceeded to provide you with all the resources I used to do my research.  You are invited to prove me wrong, but not by claiming that putting something on a website means you "campaigned on" it.  I don't buy it.

Update 2: A lot of people are appalled at the idea that something on someone's campaign website can be something they didn't campaign on.  I have said that it can.  What I would like to know from my critics is how can you possibly say a candidate "campaigned on" an something specific if it isn't really mentioned in his campaign speeches or debates?

Update 3:  Hat-tip to slinkerwink. Slink found a video of Obama referring to a public plan.  Thanks!  It's a rather vague reference in 2007 when the campaign wasn't in full swing but Here is the video:

http://www.dailykos.com/...

However, the basic facts remain that one mention of a public "plan" without referring to anything about a federal government insurance plan - it may well be satisfied by a plan that is publicly accessible but not publicly administered.  This can hardly be equated to what is known today as the public option.  Either way, one mention in a 2 year campaign.  In 2007.  I don't think that makes it a "campaigned on" issue.

Originally posted to deaniac83 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:01 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (155+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grytpype, Alma, Terri, fcvaguy, Stevie, SeanF, askew, Turtle Bay, LynChi, bethcf4p, jrcjr, mll, concernedamerican, Davidsfr, parker parrot, jiffykeen, SlowNomad, TLS66, fumie, Cedwyn, wader, sviscusi, Texknight, hhex65, Chicago Lulu, leevank, Nina, lizah, Catte Nappe, chillindame, Pirate Smile, KayCeSF, tomjones, cartwrightdale, Julie Gulden, rapala, vcmvo2, Luetta, citizenx, Dr Squid, eastvan, LABobsterofAnaheim, Inland, optimusprime, Balachan, JanL, edwardssl, Fighting Bill, seefleur, thurst, agent, revgerry, christomento, GoldnI, tegrat, Mithridates, dmh44, lordcopper, psychodrew, DWG, joedemocrat, second gen, vbdietz, PixieThis, Moderation, NorthlandLiberal, Dem in the heart of Texas, bkamr, First Amendment, KingGeorgetheTurd, ShadowSD, dotster, mnguy66, Hawkjt, luckylizard, joy sinha, dmhlt 66, papicek, princess k, pileta, seanwright, Donkey Hotey, Methinks They Lie, velvet blasphemy, jodygirl, bevomav, Mro, sillycilla, Carakav, beijingbetty, geebeebee, oxfdblue, Deoliver47, PoliticalJunkessa, sherijr, Sleepwalkr, mahakali overdrive, Livvy5, carmenjones, AkaEnragedGoddess, ETF, lompe, Norbrook, marabout40, KroneckerD, drache, eXtina, publicv, estreya, breathe67, gramofsam1, Rustbelt Dem, mollyk, CS in AZ, citizen31, LA Person, JoanMar, noclue, aggie98, nickrud, mark louis, renior, bosshogg, jl4851, quixoto, anaxiamander, Sinto, indubitably, muppetx, gobears2000, CornSyrupAwareness, jtown, kirbybruno, vc2, Eclectablog, coachjdc, soothsayer99, theone718, BarackStarObama, tier1express, durrati, AgnesBee, zapus, randomfacts, lincoln deschain, skeptiq, Edward Spurlock, moonpal, Huginn and Muninn, Nashville fan, Gravis, azguyrn, TX Dem 50, Nena20409, Romo2Austin
    •  he campaigned against taxing HC benefits (33+ / 0-)

      But he did campaign against taxing health care benefits.

      In fact, he called it the....

      LARGEST MIDDLE-CLASS TAX HIKE, EVER...


          http://transcripts.cnn.com/...
            BLITZER: Hold on, wait a second. I have a new ad that Obama's putting out on this specific point, going after John McCain's health care program, and I'll play a clip.

            PFOTENHAUER: OK.

            (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

            UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McCain would impose a new tax on health benefits, taxing your health care for the first time ever. It's a multi-trillion-dollar tax hike, the largest middle-class tax increase in history. You won't find one word about it on his Web site, but the McCain tax could cost your family thousands.

            (END VIDEO CLIP)

            BLITZER: That scares a lot of people when they see that.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

      by PatriciaVa on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:13:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He did indeed, and he didn't propose such taxes (29+ / 0-)

        There's a difference between lying and accepting political reality, although it's a distinction that seems to be lost on many members of this community.  You need 60 votes in the Senate, and there weren't 60 votes for the method of financing that he preferred.

        •  Will U also accept a 20% Natl Sales Tax? (9+ / 0-)

          Quick question.

          If the Congressional Deficit Commission comes back with a recommendation for a 20% National Sales Tax, and President Obama says he must "reluctantly" accept it, for the sake of national economic security, will you also claim that he is "accepting political reality"?

          Just asking.

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

          by PatriciaVa on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:21:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Apples and oranges (6+ / 0-)

            The taxes on health care were added as part of the overall HCR package as a way of paying for it. Obama may not have liked it, but he had to accept it because it had been integrally woven into the overall package that he did want.

            Your hypothetical national sales tax stands on its own and exists in its own political reality, not tied to something else.

            Not a fair comparison.

            Republicans can't accept that they've lost. Democrats can't accept that they've won.

            by DanK Is Back on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:35:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Please list what we will get in exchange (4+ / 0-)

            for the 20% sales tax...

            Then I can give you an answer..

            What would you fund?

            "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

            by joedemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:49:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Does Intellectual Honesty Work Both Ways? (25+ / 0-)
              I am asking everyone who has a contrary view to please review the fact that I laid out what I understand "campaigned on" to be atop this diary, and proceeded to provide you with all the resources I used to do my research.

              I am asking everyone who has a contrary view to please review the fact that the President campaigned on no mandates.

              No mandates and no public option is a choice that, while not being my personal preference, at least makes sense given how the President campaigned on healthcare.

              But mandates with no public option goes directly against how the President campaigned on healthcare.

              Had the President campaigned on the massive healthcare privatization he is now working to make law, he never would have been elected President.

              •  I don't understand how this relates to my comment (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                leevank, Deoliver47

                Is this for someone else?

                True, one different between Obama and Hillary on health care was the mandate. I disagree that if Obama had favored a mandate back then he wouldn't have won the election.

                Also, why is it so hard to understand that no President in history could have passed a health care bill EXACTLY like the one they campaigned on. The issue is simply too complex, too involved, & needs 60 Senate votes...Period..

                Why is that so hard to understand???

                I don't think its relevant what mandate Obama said he favored in the campaign, what form of public option, and so on. He wanted to pass health care for as many people as possible. That's what he wound up doing.

                "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

                by joedemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:02:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  He campaigned on no mandates (8+ / 0-)

                as a primary line of reasoning because he argued that it would be possible to create incentives that would effectively provide for maximum coverage without mandating it. But it was a hair's breadth of difference between him and Hillary on health care.

                And I still think the way Obama has handled this was the right way to get it done. I'm amazed that the single issue that weakened the Democratic Party for a decade was tackled by him in the first year. YEAR ONE! And it looks like it is getting done.

                The fact that much is left that needs doing is a reflection of this country, and the hugeness of the challenges we face. Obama is part of the solution, but only a part. Let's not forget that as we keep those sleeves rolled up, and keep workin'...

                The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

                by beijingbetty on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:06:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think the issue has created a split at DKOS.. (5+ / 0-)

                  But I think its helped the Democratic Party. The last I read, Obama's approval rating had gone up ten points among Democrats now that health care is done..

                  The WH is now free to move on to jobs..That's the next big thing he needs to tackle..

                  Yes, we need to keep working on health care. I'm not satisfied. The subsidies need to be better and we'll be back for more.

                  "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

                  by joedemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:16:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, he did (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DFH, thethinveil

                  He didn't come to accept mandates until after he was elected. Why? I'm not sure.  I don't think he paid much attention to his position on health care reform issues as a candidate.  It always seemed to be an topic he was uncomfortable discussing, particuarly in the debates.  His knowledge wasn't very strong in that area and he pretty much delegated it to others.

                  Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

                  by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:09:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think one reason may be that the health ... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    beijingbetty, Betty Pinson, modwen

                    care economists convinced him that mandates were the only way to get enough people to get insurance to make it affordable for anybody.  There is a very real problem with adverse risk selection, and if the exchange is forced to take everybody and it's primarily the sickest who opt to buy the exchange policies, that could force prices up (even if there WAS a public option) to the point that more and more people, other than the very sickest, would drop out.

                    It's a real problem.  I thought during the campaign that enough relatively healthy people would opt in that this wouldn't be an insurmountable problem, and I would personally have preferred to see a plan with no initial mandates, but a trigger mechanism that would impose mandates if sufficient people didn't opt in.  But I haven't seen the economic analyses, and one reason I supported Obama was that I thought he was the kind of candidate who would consider things thoughtfully, and not be afraid to change his mind if he was convinced he was wrong on something.

                    I personally consider it a virtue that a politician, or any other leader, is willing to change his mind when somebody convinces him he's wrong.  Most here seem to consider it to be virtually treason, and think it makes a politician who does it the scum of the earth.  I guess the difference is that I've changed my mind on many things in my 60+ years on this earth, but I gather that many here have never changed their mind on anything (other than Barack Obama).

                    •  I do not regret nor apologize for (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Triscula

                      my support for this President. :-) Not changing my mind on this one.

                      Most of my dissatisfaction with results can be redirected towards lessons learned on how people and progressives need to better engage, organize and message.

                      I will not always agree with him, but he has his job to do, and we have ours.

                      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

                      by beijingbetty on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:44:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's about good policy (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        thethinveil

                        and being willing to work for it.  That isn't the responsibility of the grassroots.  Are you saying its up to us to do Obama's job for him?  

                        Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

                        by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:47:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Nope. Just being a realist. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          leevank

                          As president, he represents more than just the grassroots.

                          The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

                          by beijingbetty on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:50:13 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  He represents the entire country (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thethinveil

                            that doesn't mean he should constantly side with only the most powerful and wealthy.

                            Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

                            by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:52:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Certainly. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            leevank

                            I don't think he does "constantly side with only the most powerful and wealthy."

                            Do you?

                            The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

                            by beijingbetty on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:56:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He does too much (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thethinveil

                            against the interests of average people who are the ones paying taxes, living and dying and making this country work.  He takes middle class people for granted and at times shows a surprising detachment from and lack of respect for them.  

                            He really does take their support for granted.

                            Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

                            by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:26:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There are a lot of people who would (0+ / 0-)

                            disagree. And by that I mean people with money and power, who think he is a hard leftist. I disagree with that too, of course.

                            But I also disagree that he disrespects the middle class.

                            I do not personally feel the need to be comforted by his speaking to my class when I feel that he and his administration and we as a nation face such overwhelming challenges with respect to just about every issue coming down the pike. But maybe that's just me.

                            I just think our issues are so much bigger than lens of domestic politics and class can reveal. We cannot fix what is wrong at home without taking into account what is going on in the world, and America has been too provincial in how we think about the rest of the world for too long.

                            That is about us, not Obama, and not the world.

                            The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

                            by beijingbetty on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 09:17:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He DOESN'T constantly side with the most ... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Triscula, beijingbetty

                            powerful and wealthy.  He signed an extension and expansion of S-CHIP.  That doesn't help the most powerful and wealthy.

                            He's signed extensions of unemployment benefits.  That doesn't side with the powerful and wealthy.

                            The Senate bill, as imperfect as it is (and if I had my druthers, I'd like a Canadian-style single payer system), makes it possible for EVERY American to get health insurance, pays for part of the cost for those who can't afford it, assures that nobody loses their insurance because they get sick, greatly shrinks the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug benefits, vastly expands community health centers, reduces or eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventive services of proven effectiveness, expands Medicaid, and in numerous other ways helps the people who most need health care.  That doesn't side with the powerful and wealthy

                            There are numerous other examples.  They're there if you'd but look, but you don't want to do that.  You'd rather complain, and through your complaints, make it more likely that the Republicans take total control of the government.  I guess you'll be happy then, because you'll REALLY have something to complain about.

                        •  Part of that involves outreach to voters (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          beijingbetty

                          And that is the grassroots' job.  If we want to create lasting policy change we have to sell it to ordinary people, not politicians.  Politicians respond to what their constituents want (ideally).  The grassroots and other entities can work on changing what voters want.  There's really nothing to be gained from insisting that politicians do this job.  They won't.  They don't need to do it.  They just need to be responsive to their voters.

                          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                          by Triscula on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 08:05:55 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  What the 20% Sales tax provides... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BigOkie, Betty Pinson

              A bailout for the Petroleum Industry...in exchange they'll provide discount petroleum jelly for all taxpayers making under %250,000/year

            •  I don't like sales taxes because... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PatriciaVa

              they hurt the middle class more than anybody - especially the middle class who still have children at home because they buy and consume most of the goods.

              The wealthy on the other hand hoard their money or send it to offshore accounts where it can't be taxed.

              No - a sales tax would be the ultimate kick in the nuts to the middle class.

          •  If I think it represents the best economic policy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            beijingbetty, shenderson

            at the time, I will support it.  Context is everything.

            "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

            by lordcopper on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:50:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, greeseyparrot

            They have a right to report on facts related to the federal deficit, but any fool knows that history has long shown sales taxes are regressive and harmful to our economy.  Should they make that recommendation and should Obama support it, I would have serious reservations about their intellect and ethics.

            Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:07:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Health care was going to be hard (15+ / 0-)

          There was NO way any President could pass EXCATLY the bill they campaigned on. The bill is just too complex, too involved, and it must get through the congress...

          Why is that so hard to understand?

          "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

          by joedemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:48:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They kicked the can down the road on HCR (4+ / 0-)

            when it comes to jobs and the economy, Obama is going to have to produce results or he will lose in 2012. Guaranteed.

            People have been living in a brutal recession for nearly 2 years now. Their patience is wearing thin and they want jobs.

            Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:14:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's complex because he let it become so. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TeddySanFran, thethinveil

            He opened the door to the industry bagmen, and he took a dive once he got into the ring.  Took a dive.  Laid down.  Didn't put up a fight.  At all.  Not even a token punch.  Pathetic.  In the extreme.  

            I stood in one spot for 8 hours in Grant Park on November 4, 2008.  If I knew this is what I was going to get I would have saved the money on the train tickets, the hotel accommodations and the donations of time and money to Obama's campaign.

            He is exactly what he defamed during his campaign, a master bamboozler.  We've been bamboozled.

            •  You seriously think health care reform ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Triscula

              wouldn't be complex if Barack Obama hadn't "let it become so?"  Then why did it fail to even get a vote in either chamber of Congress during the Clinton administration, when the Clintons came up with a plan, delivered it to Congress on a silver platter, and unquestionably became VERY involved in trying to get it passed?  I repeat, IT DIDN'T EVEN COME TO A VOTE IN THE HOUSE!  And at the time, Democrats had a one vote bigger margin in the House, and there were still some moderate Republicans in the House.

              •  He took a dive. He flopped. He will always be (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TeddySanFran

                Old Canvasback.  Hit the deck.  For the money boys.  And fuck the suckers that put their bets on him.

                •  I put my bets on him, and I'm not complaining (0+ / 0-)

                  He's GETTING THINGS DONE.  If you think the Senate bill is worse than doing NOTHING for the next decade or so, then I guess I can understand your feeling.  But THOSE are the alternatives; not some mythical world where a President can get everything he wants just by insisting on it and refusing to compromise.  If that approach had worked, we would have achieved health care reform during the Clinton administration.

                  •  He sure is getting things done. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TeddySanFran

                    The bankers are making money hand over fist with record bonuses.  Big Pharma and Big Insurance are off the hook.  Their stock prices are skyrocketing.  And the people's homes are being foreclosed on, their 401k's are evaporating and now we get a fine, collected by the IRS no less, for failing to buy Big Insurance's "health" policies.  Yes We Can make things really really nice for the already comfortable.  Those nice clothes Obama wears don't just fall off the rack.  He's gotta pay for them, and you know who butters his bread.  It ain't the people.  It's the fatcats.  And they sure have been rewarded at the expense of the little guy.  Just like Obama promised in his campaign.

            •  not only did Obama NOT put up a fight... (5+ / 0-)

              ...he actively worked to make it palatable to his campaign donors healthcare "stakeholders".

              Rep. Kucinich, one of the only true progressives in the House:

              We couldn’t really make this bill single payer; that was taken off the table. But we did something else: We were able to get a bill in the committee passed that would protect the right of states to be able to have—to pursue a not-for-profit healthcare plan at a state level to shield it from legal attack. And that was taken out of the legislation after it had passed. It was taken out by the administration, which has whittled down the public option to the point of not having it truly compete with insurance companies.

              P.S. Glennzilla has another great article out today about this administration's duplicity surrounding the health care "reform" process.

              "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

              by DFH on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:45:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  question (0+ / 0-)

                How can the administration take something out of a bill that has passed in the House but hasn't gone to conference yet?  

                "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                by Triscula on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 08:10:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  example telephone conversation: (0+ / 0-)

                  Pelosi: Hi Rahm, nice of you to call. How's Amy & the kids?
                  Emmanuel: Who gives a f••k, Nancy. The president has made promises to AHIP... and I intend to make sure those promises are kept. He needs that godd•mn Kucinich Amendment GONE. If there's so much as a TRACE of it in your manager's amendment, you'll be lucky if soon-to-be Speaker Hoyer gives your motherf••king district enough federal money for a traffic light. Am I making myself clear?
                  Pelosi: Of course, sir. Perfectly clear, sir. Thank you, sir.
                  Emmanuel: (click)

                  "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                  by DFH on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 09:53:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Is that what happened? (0+ / 0-)

                    Is there any evidence that the White House instructed Pelosi to remove this amendment (other than Kucinich's asertion)?

                    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                    by Triscula on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 04:13:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Kucinich is in a position to know (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm sure that the House Democratic leadership told him, when he inquired as to why his very popular amendment (which passed his Education and Labor Committee in a bi-partisan vote) was unceremoniously dumped.

                      Congressman Kucinich says that the White House was behind it. That's all the evidence you need. The guy has more integrity than just about anyone else in the US Congress; plus, he has no reason to lie about this. Further proof: the administration never disputed his claim.

                      "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                      by DFH on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 04:38:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, and the premise of your question is erroneous (0+ / 0-)

                  take something out of a bill that has passed in the House

                  The Kucinich amendment was stripped out before the bill passed the house.
                  Of course it could be added back in during conference, but given that the administration is hostile to it (and to any other initiative favored by progressives) that just won't happen: I'd bet a month's pay on it.

                  "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                  by DFH on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 09:57:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, I misunderstood your comment above (0+ / 0-)

                    My fault.  I wasn't attempting to make a false assertion.  I misunderstood Kucinich's quote.

                    And that was taken out of the legislation after it had passed.

                    That's the bit that mixed me up.

                    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                    by Triscula on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 04:15:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  There's a difference (12+ / 0-)

          There's a difference between lying and accepting political reality

          Really? So if you don't do what you said you'd do, and not even try to do what you said you'd do, you're not lying you're just "accepting political reality?"

          Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

          by William Domingo on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:01:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  He knew about the 60 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi9, WeatherDem, greeseyparrot

          votes when he was campaigning.  And exactly what did he do to sway public opinion this summer?  To put pressure on senators?

      •  Correct, Ma'am (19+ / 0-)

        But this diary isn't about the taxing of health care benefits.  It's about the public option and whether Obama campaigne don that.

        •  Maybe our paper of record misunderstood him (23+ / 0-)

          The NYT article covering the speech unveiling his health care plan states as follows:

          Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program.

          His answer to a WaPo questionnaire was as follows:

          Do you have a plan to make health care more accessible to Americans? If so, how would you do it?
          Every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage. My plan will ensure that all Americans have health care coverage through their employers, private health plans, the federal government, or the states. My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage. Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program

          Perhaps a "public plan" and "a public insurance program" are not the same as the public option that Prez Obama clearly supported on several occasions this year.  That distinction, however, involves a fairly Clintonesque parsing of language.  It also raises the question as to what "public insurance program" he was campaigning on, how it differed from the PO that he supported this year, and why he chose to publicly support the PO this year if it differed from what he campaigned on last year.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:15:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

              •  Ah...I've studied it and I'm beginning (7+ / 0-)

                to realize that there are very subtle, very nuanced differences between saying "a public insurance option is part of my campaign" and "a public insurance option is part of my campaign".

                It's very subtle, but if you read 'em very carefully, you'll realize that the second statement - the one the president really said - actually means that President Obama didn't campaign on a public option after all.

                I feel much better now.

                •  that's it! (3+ / 0-)

                  you've finally got the hang of deaniac's bs!

                  If he/she had bothered to search for say "public plan" instead of public options perhaps his her results would have been different.'

                  What a crock of shit... just like last night's bs about premium caps when in fact Hamsher had been talking about people being able to opt out of the mandate if premiums exceed 8% of their income!

                  And I love how the diary starts... talking about facts!

                  Read TomP's EXCELLENT diary now on the rec list for a complete listing and expose of how OBAMA CAMPAIGNED FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION!!  Jesus christ... he's who we got the idea from for God's sake.

                  It must be wonderful living in deaniac's lala land...

                  Molly Ivins: "Raise hell and have some fun..." DK kwickick/Matthew rip 2/1/09: "Fight until we win. Fight until there are jobs and healthcare and peace."

                  by cc in nm on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:27:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  This the most absurd diary I've seen (15+ / 0-)

            to hit the rec list in at least, well, a day.

            Does the diarist think collective amnesia has hit this place? We're were all paying attention. We remember that all of the leading candidate's plans were similar. If Obama hadn't had a public plan, that difference would've been a major source of debate, as the difference on mandates was. In fact, it would've been one of the few non-trivial policy differences between Hillary and Obama.

            •  It is a little bit Animal Farm isn't it? (6+ / 0-)

              "About this time there occurred a strange incident which hardly anyone was able to understand ... At the foot of the end wall of the barn, where the Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces. Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beide it, and near at hand there lay a lantern, a paint-brush and a tin of white paint..."

              "But a few days later, Muriel, reading over the Seven Commandments to herself, noticed yet another of them that the animals had remembered wrong. They had thought the Fifth Commandment was 'No animal shall drink alcohol', but there were two words that they had forgotten. Actually the Commandment read: 'No animal shall drink alcohol to excess' "

              "I, for one, would like to welcome our new Belgian overlords..."

              by Morus on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:56:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  it was a hot topic during the early primary (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RFK Lives, cc in nm, newpioneer

              Obama campaigned on a Public Plan (see Blueprint for Changege) ... similar to federal employees where private insurance plans are mandated/regulated by the federal govt.  Obama didn't want mandates, where every other primary challenger did want mandates.

              It appears that Teddy Kennedy convinced President Obama that mandates for all was a necessary step as Teddy wrote

              All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies.

               See page 3.

              •  False! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TeddySanFran, thethinveil

                While I can't open the book on the website you provide, here is a quote:

                OBAMA’S PLAN
                National Health Insurance Exchange:
                The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participat-ing insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
                Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 6-9 Feb 2, 2008

                See http://www.ontheissues.org/...

                The money quote is:

                The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency.

                You are arguing that the "Exchange" is actually the "new public plan."  However, they are not the same.  

                The Exchange is what Federal Employees have: a group of different private plans to pick a provider from.  They do not have a "Public Plan" and never did.  The Federal government never offered its employees something called the public plan.  No such thing ever existed.  

                Furthermore, Obama makes that distinction clear when he says the private plans offered in the Exchange must be as good as the public plan.  He used different words because they have different meanings.  If the public plan was the same as the exchanges, then his campaign is saying that the public plan must be as good as the public plan.  That would be nonsense.              

                •  shorter diarist: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TeddySanFran

                  I'm going to talk about ponies. Ponies, according to me, are purple, have 3 legs and are named Fred. Anything else is not a pony.

                  "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                  by catnip on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 08:10:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  there is a difference - (0+ / 0-)

                  see this link

                   Coverage for All

                  1. Make available a new national health plan which would give individuals the option to buy health coverage similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).  

                  This program would be available to uninsured individuals, self-employed individuals, and small businesses.  The plan would include the following features:
                  • Guaranteed eligibility: no one would be denied coverage because of illness or pre-existing conditions;
                  • Benefits similar to the FEHBP, including preventive, maternity, and mental health care, as well as disease management, self management training, and care coordination;
                  • Low premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for preventive services;
                  • Subsidies for low-income individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);
                  • Simplify paperwork for providers;
                  • Simplify enrollment for individuals;
                  • Ensure portability when moving jobs; and
                  • Collection and reporting of data to ensure that standards for quality, health IT, and administration are met.

                  1. Create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals and businesses purchase private insurance plans.  All Americans would be able to enroll through the Exchange in an approved private plan or the new public plan. Income-based sliding scale subsidies would be available.  All plans would require that their benefits be at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same quality and efficiency standards
          •  Sam Stein is all (8+ / 0-)

            over it.

            By December 2007, however, Obama clearly had endorsed a government-run option. In a speech at the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum, the then-Senator declared that if he "were designing a system from scratch" he would "probably move more in the direction of a single-payer plan,"

            "But what we have to do right now," Obama added, "is I want to move to make sure that everybody has got coverage as quickly as possible. And I believe that what that means is we expand SCHIP. It means that we extend eligibility for some of the government programs that we have. We set up a government program, as I've described, that everybody can buy into and you can't be excluded because of a pre-existing condition."

            In January 2008, meanwhile, Obama submitted an issue form to Ebony Magazine, in which, as the third principle of his health care reform agenda, he promised to "require all employers to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan."

            By that point, the press, commentariat and widely respected health care observers all were reporting the government-run plan as a component of the Obama agenda.

            On May 31, 2007, Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a New Yorker staff writer, wrote in The New York Times that both Obama and then-candidate John Edwards, were offering "a choice of competing private plans, and... a Medicare-like public option, too."

            On September 20, 2007, Ezra Klein -- then a staff writer at The American Prospect and now with The Washington Post -- wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times in which he said that "all of the Democrats" in the primary field had offered the option of "a government-run insurance program modeled on, but distinct from, Medicare."

            On February 12, 2008, Jonathan Oberlander of the University of North Carolina, told NPR's Fresh Air that Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton both "would create a new public plan similar to Medicare."

            "And do we have any sense of what those public plans would look like?" the host asked.

            "They have been fairly vague about that, as candidates often are in this election season, other than to say it would be like Medicare," said Oberlander.

            On February 26, 2008, meanwhile, Jacob Hacker, the so-called "godfather" of the public option, offered much the same synopsis. In an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the Yale University professor noted that both Clinton and Obama would require employers to "provide coverage to their workers or enroll them in a new, publicly overseen insurance pool." People in this pool, he added, "could choose either a public plan modeled after Medicare or from regulated private plans."

            On July 30, 2008, The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn wrote that Obama was gravitating closer and closer to making the public plan a prominent feature of his health care platform. "[He] not only included an optional public plan in his eventual blueprint for universal coverage; more recently, he also tapped Hacker to be on his campaign's health care advisory committee," Cohn wrote.

            On August 18, 2008, Cohn followed up on his story, writing that Heather Higginbottom, the Obama campaign's policy director and now White House adviser, considered the public plan "an elemental pillar" of the proposal. The President, Cohn added (channeling Higginbottom) "is prepared to defend this fall even if, as expected, Republicans attack it (falsely) as a "government takeover" of medicine."

            The general press, naturally, followed suit.

            Fortune Magazine, on July 7, 2008, wrote that "At the center of Obama's plan to help ease the middle-class crunch would be a requirement that nearly all businesses provide health insurance or contribute to a government-backed "purchasing pool" that includes private plans and one public plan like Medicare."

            The Chicago Tribune, on August 21, 2008, wrote that Obama, "would require employers to offer health benefits to workers or contribute to the cost of a new public plan"

            The National Journal on August 23, 2008, reported that Obama's health care plan "would require insurance companies to compete in publicly structured exchanges not only with each other but also with a government-run insurance plan. 'Wherever possible," Obama said in an interview last year, he wants to harness "market mechanisms to bring about change.'"

            There are countless other examples as well; but remarkably few other times in which Obama himself was quoted supporting an additional program of government run insurance. His campaign never pushed back on the report. If anything, it seems they clearly constructed a health care strategy that embraced the public option as one of several principles of reform.

            It also, however, seems clear that the philosophical attachment of the candidate to the issue was limited. Obama would discuss the public option more frequently once he took office. But on the trail he almost always highlighted other elements of his health care agenda first. As one progressive activist who has worked on health care reform for the past year put it:

            "What I think [Obama's] point was [in making his statement to the Washington Post], is true. The public option was not his number one talking point on the trail. Hell, it wasn't even number 12. The public option didn't become the central part of health care reform until after [he entered the White House]."

            So there you have it: he campaign on it--of course he did--but he didn't emphasize it as much as other parts of his health care plan.

          •  Busted (4+ / 0-)

            You nailed him.

            Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:18:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Wasn't McCain talking about (21+ / 0-)

        taxing ALL employer-based health insurance plans?

        That's a bit different than taxing cadillac plans.

        Just saying...

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by NLinStPaul on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:22:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you are (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NLinStPaul, newpioneer, second gen

          correct.  So Obama's "largest middle class tax increase" was about a tax that affected the middle class to a much greater degree than the current "Cadillac tax."  

        •  Yes John McCain did.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nina, NLinStPaul, JanL

          And John McCain gave people a very inadequate offsettng tax credit on top of it...Furthermore, the McCain plan deregulated health insurance in such a way it would have been a race to the bottom.

          I actually think a good case can be made for taxing employer provided benefits, if you provide people with a progressive health insurance tax subsidy..It is a good way to raise revenue to pay for health care..

          And it would work to delink employment with health benefits..

          But it has to be done right..

          "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

          by joedemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:52:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He was against MIDDLE CLASS HC Tax. (6+ / 0-)

        The limit is now something like $23,000.  Do you or anyone you know in the middle class have Health Insurance that costs $23,000?

        50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

        by second gen on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:50:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  An Interesting Note (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joedemocrat

        that in Plouffe's book, he states Obama chewed out his staff over this ad and thought the ''largest increase...'' was hyperbole.

      •  you keep bringing this up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sullivanst

        the McCain Plan taxes all benefits, not just those over a set minimum, which is higher than about 80% of all plans, and its just in the Senate bill.  I am sure Obama won't insist it be taken out, but its hardly the same thing as McCain's plan or McCain's level of tax.

      •  Yes. And Obama's proposal of raising revenue by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zapus

        reducing the cap on charitable giving tax deductions for the rich were declared DOA by Congress.  So the Congress, having rejected the WH's revenue raiser, had to come up with their own.  The House has the surtax on the rich and the Senate has the tax on "cadillac" plans.

        This is common knowledge, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

      •  He campaigned on both sides of many issues (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, greeseyparrot, newpioneer

        It used to be rather humorous watching his campaign web site change as he campaigned in different parts of the country.

        Do I trust him?  I won't say, I'm a loyal Dem and that's the most you'll get out of me.

        Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

        by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:03:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He didn't campaign on the Public Option..... (15+ / 0-)

      And I really wonder about those that think he did. What campaign were they watching? Simple fact --- Obama had the better campaign than HRC, and deserved to win. But she had the better HCR plan.

      Whether or not it would have been able to garner the 6o votes required is a point we can debate 'till the cows come home to roost in the coop.......

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:28:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really wonder (12+ / 0-)
        why all the liberals who keep telling everyone that Obama didn't really run as a liberal went ahead and voted for him anyhow so we could get 4 more years of wars, torture,drone attacks,spying, bank bailouts, health care "reform" that sends insurance stocks to record highs, and a continued willingness to capitulate on "change" every time a right winger says boo while continuing to completely ignore his liberal base.

        And the apologists say "Thank you sir may I have another".

        With "friends" like these...

        •  He didn't run as a 'liberal'..... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WeatherDem, edwardssl, glower

          Others chose to do that for him. He's always been a centrist, albiegh one with a much more concilatory approach.

          But that doesn't change the fact that he did not campaign on the public option and did campaign on upping troop levels in the Sandbox.....

          There were no surprises......

          it tastes like burning...

          by eastvan on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:13:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are missing the point (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi9, greeseyparrot, TimmyB

            You can try to label people any way you want but who gives a damn really.  IIRC Obama did come out in favor of real single payer universal healthcare at one point.  Is that a centrist position?  

            Do you consider yourself a liberal?  I'm assuming you do. If so why do you continue to support a president who you admit you knew wasn't running as a liberal and who you admit has a "conciliatory" approach.  I guess he's conciliatory with everyone but actual liberals judging by his track record. He'll bend over backwards for Holy Joe Lieberman and then tell the actual lefties to get in line and support whatever Joe wants. Another way to describe what's been happening is capitulation to right wing interests and only right wing interests.

            If you really are a liberal, why not support and vote for actual liberals and not someone you already know isn't going to do jack for you?  Seems more than a little self defeating to me.

            Now about that list I made in the first comment. I noticed you avoided mentioning much of that.  Has Obama endorsed all those policies or has he not?  Pretty clear that he has.  Tough to admit I know. But if neverending war and showering taxpayer dollars on the rich is your idea of "centrism" then we really need to get some new definitions.

            Those who continue to apologize for Obama even as he continues many of Bush's most egregious policies are no better than those who constantly apologized for Bush.  Did I mention how Obama has gone out of his way to make sure no one from the Bush administration would ever be held accountable for anything?

            Stop making excuses when a politician gives you the shaft and stand up for yourself for crying out loud.

            •  Really quite simple.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glower

              why do you continue to support a president who you admit you knew wasn't running as a liberal and who you admit has a "conciliatory" approach

              Because all the principles and 'purity' in the world don't mean shit if you can't get elected.
              Losing, with 'oh so pure' ideoligy is still losing.
              And nothing gets done.

              So it comes down to winning, and getting something done. Or losing, and getting nothing done --- but feeling good about it. Untill the price is paid.

              I will take the former, reality based option, over the grim reality of the latter.

              it tastes like burning...

              by eastvan on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:00:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The grim reality (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WeatherDem, greeseyparrot
                of that type of pragmatism is that we wind up without any substantial changes in policy no matter who is in charge.  If a republican had advocated for all of the policies I listed above those on the left would probably be against them and they wouldn't have been told they were too 'pure' because of it.
          •  Many of the issues he ran on (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi9, greeseyparrot, blueoasis, glower

            were those dear to liberals.  Who cares about the label.  We've got close to nothing to show for our support, other than we don't have McCain.  Not minimal, but can we lower ourselves any more?

          •  defending torture and continuing related policies (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TimmyB

            e.g. no habeas corpus--that was a surprise, but that's a debate for a different diary.

      •  Yup. And then there's this ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eastvan, edwardssl

        People assume if Hillary had gotten the nomination she'd be president. And yes, her HCR plan was much better. But, not so fast. That's not necessarily the only other outcome.

        We easily could have a President McCain right now and a Senate that's about 55-45. We wouldn't be talking about HCR because there wouldn't be any. As much as the wingnuts hate Obama, they hate the Clintons. And she didn't have the kind of machine to turn out votes.

        Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it. - Harry S Truman

        by parker parrot on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:11:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can I be the first to say (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catnip, greeseyparrot, TeddySanFran

        he didn't really campaign on combatting global warming or repealing DADT? Might as well get started now.

        Remember to kick it over.

        by sprogga on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:03:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  fail (45+ / 0-)

      You know, you don't get to declare victory just because you have your own special definition for the word "campaigned." We all spent a lot of time here during primary season arguing over the virtues of the health care reform proposals offered by the three frontrunners. It sounds to me like your argument is that Obama was playing his supporters here for suckers, because he didn't really mean any of it.

    •  So your argument is as follows... (25+ / 0-)

      The President's  "Campaign" website does not represent the President's "Campaign"?

      Uh...ok.

      Good luck with that.  Really, I hope the Republicans buy that and decide this isn't worth campaigning on.

      On the other hand, it may be a good idea to walk this statement back instead of parsing words like a former President did.

      I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

      by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:45:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Try doing your search using the term (18+ / 0-)

      "public plan" in substitute of public option and you do come up with hits in the Obama campaign literature, and in speeches.

      Which certainly qualify as campaign materials, part of the campaign, thus a concept candidate Obama was campaigning upon ...

      But, I agree the phrase "public option" never appeared, just it conceptual equivalent, a public plan.

      no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

      by ItsSimpleSimon on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:48:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  public plan is what federal employees have (0+ / 0-)

        which is private insurance regulated by federal govt.

        public option is govt supplied

        Senator Obama campaigned on public PLAN

        see Blueprint for Change, 2/08

        •  Not Really (3+ / 0-)

          Federal employees get to chose from a varity of private plans.  None of these private plans are regulated by the federal government.  

          Nor are they public plans.  You get a choice, and that's it.  Its no different than your employer giving you a choice, or if your employer does not provide coverage, buying a plan yourself after looking over a bunch of plans.  

          In no way can it be describes as a public plan.  It has never been public.  

                   

          •  yes, they are (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            newpioneer

            in order to be included in the Plan, an insurance company has to accept the "rules" outlined by the federal govt

            In the FEHBP, the Federal Government sets standards that, if met by an insurance company, allows them to participate in the program.

            a link for more info:  OPM's Insurance Programs

            •  Conflating Private Insurance with "Public Plan" (3+ / 0-)

              The private plans offerd by the federal governemt to its employees is not a "public plan."  Being given a choice from a set of private plans does not change those plans into a public plan, the same way that picking a puppy from a litter of dogs does not change the litter into cats.    

              See http://www.dailykos.com/...

              It is true that insurance must meet some minimal requirements for the federal government to offer it as a choice to a federal employee, but in no way does that mean the insurance is regulated by the Federal government.  I was a federal employee, so don't tell me bull shit.    

              •  that was what Obama proposed (0+ / 0-)

                a Public Plan ~ The Exchange - where private companies have to compete and meet the rules set forth by the federal govt to be included in said such Public Plan.

                As a federal employee - then you should realize the perks of said choices in the plans made available, and with the option of continuing said insurance even after you left the fed.  Quite different than what is available to those of us with private insurance ... there is no "carry" and  with very limited choices.  The proposed Bills both offer new rules such as mandatory prescription drug coverage, mandatory ER coverage, mandatory inclusion of pre-existing conditions, etc.  That is rgulation set forth by the federal govt

                •  Nope---You are Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  The Public Plan is NOT the Exchange.  The Public Plan wat to offered as part of the Exchange, along with many private plans.  The Public Plan later was called the public option.  It was to one of many options offered on the Exchange.  

    •  He campaigned on a public option. (45+ / 0-)

      Period.

      I am mildly offended at your "selective" definition of the word "campaigned".

      I refer you to the link to Senator Obama's Campaign website, that was conveniently placed for our reference in itsbenj's recent diary:

      Obama HCR Public Plan

      I have campaigned for local office myself. I have used a website as a big part of that campaign

      President Obama campaigned for national office - the presidency - when he was Senator Obama. He used a website too. In fact, lots of people here made a very big deal about how good the Obama Campaign was with Teh Tubes.

      When a candidate places such a specific statement on a campaign website, in such a prominent page of that website...that, then, is "campaigning on that statement".

      Whether or not you, personally, dear diarist, think it was all that important, you just can't say - at least wit a straight face - that it didn't constitute campaigning.

      I'll tell you one thing: if I spelled out a plan on my website, in such specific language, I'd damn well expect voters to hold me to it.

    •  You're right, deaniac, I hadn't thought of it (8+ / 0-)

      that way.

      Nonetheless, however, even if Obama is technically correct on this point, considering that a public option was in his campaign materials and he campaigned for it as President, this is a heck of a hollow technicality to hang his hat on. In fact, I think it's about the worst way possible to defend the Senate bill, and I'm surprised at the ineptness of the political tactic because I think Obama has generally shown himself to be excellent when it comes to that stuff.

      However, opening this can of worms is just waving a red flag at people, even if the quote is technically correct.

      Obama should just come out and say that he believes that if he had pushed harder, it wouldn't have made a difference, because the Senate is what it is, and if anything it would have backfired like 1993.  That would have been plausible; some here would still roll their eyes and doubt him, as they'd doubt whatever he says, but it would be a plausible defense because history backs it up.  "I didn't campaign on it technically as a candidate if you look at the fine print" is an atrocious way to get progressive citizens to support this Senate bill, however; it can only have the opposite effect.

      77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

      by ShadowSD on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:50:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even the Messiah can step in it on occasion (3+ / 0-)

        Odd, though. We've had months of yelling back and forth here about Obama's frustrating unwillingness to Support The Public Option. Suddenly, all at once, it comes out what a dedicated supporter he's been all along!

        I love this place.

        If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -SC/MT . -9.4, -7.0

        by Amayi on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:00:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oops. To clarify, I am a registered Obamabot (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ShadowSD

          and mean nothing derogatory by the Messiah appellation. :P

          If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -SC/MT . -9.4, -7.0

          by Amayi on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:01:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's great so many people new to the English (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          racerx, greeseyparrot, newpioneer

          language have been coming by lately and have made attempts, however faltering and confused, to employ it.

          Nobody said he was a "dedicated supporter." Nobody. Not One. Nowhere. Nope. Wait!....

          No.

          What they did do was list many many times, including in written words (which don't shapeshift) on his very own campaign website, that he thought we needed a public plan.

          True, people are so stupid, they thought his saying that meant he intended to do something about it. Their bad.

          It's like the diarist here saying "you can't find 'public option.'" But "public plan" and other synonyms and equivalences were used all throughout.

          (Hope the links help on the journey to Better English Comprehension.)

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:53:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again with the snark there. (0+ / 0-)

            Overstatement. Thanks for trying.

            If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -SC/MT . -9.4, -7.0

            by Amayi on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:20:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But your representation was false. (0+ / 0-)

              Snark or no snark on my part.

              And forgive me the snark, but I've seen a whole bunch of people who pretend they don't understand ordinary words in the last few days.

              Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

              by Jim P on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 10:41:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I guess it depends on what the definition of (0+ / 0-)

        "campaign" is.

        President Obama seems to be positioning himself more in the tradition of Bill Clinton, a centrist triangulator, or accomadator.

        Some may have hoped he would be more like Martin Luther King, leaning more to an activist, progressive approach.

        But, however, one parses the words, or feels about the history, actions do speak louder than words, and it's much clearer now, what our Presidents style, agenda, and modus operandi is now.

        Same can be said for a Senate and House.

        And, he does have some relationship repair work to do with the progressive, or most liberal wing of our party.

        Let's hope we can focus on ways forward that deliver as much progress to the American people as possible and keep the Democrats in control of the House, Senate, and White house long enough that we can do some serious good.

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:09:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll say he does... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot, HoundDog

          And, he does have some relationship repair work to do with the progressive, or most liberal wing of our party.

          Unfortunately, I'd say that starting that "repair work" by telling us "hey, you know, I was just blowing smoke up your asses when I campaigned on a public option...I didn't really mean it...

          "To be honest, I counted on a few people among you annoying leftie-liberal-types making excuses for my lies so that my, you know, image doesn't suffer...and they're delivering already!

          "Just a little more spin, now, and I'll have the lefties eating out of my hand again. They'll even forget that I flat-out lied...

          "They'll believe almost anything, you know."

          Ummmmm...no, somehow I don't thank that that's a particularly winning strategy to repair his relationship with the liberal base.

      •  I wasn't that hard on him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ShadowSD

        I think Obama probably had a definition closer in mind to the diarist when he said that he didn't "campaign on" the public option. Otherwise, why say something so blatantly and provably untrue?

        It probably was a mistake to say anything about the public option, and if he had expanded on it, his explanation would likely have been pretty close to what you said in your comment. Of course, I don't know that for sure - that's just the impression I get after two years of listening to the man explain things.

        "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

        by CaptUnderpants on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:40:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you! I like facts. IMHO it's ok to keep (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StevenW, Nina, newpioneer, elwior, blackjackal

      working toward more and better and cheaper health care.  But, we don't need to look for enemies from within.  We have enough REAL ones spending over 300 million to lobby against us.  

      Enough already trying to tear at one of our strongest players on the board.  Say, "Great!"  And, "Now, let push for more!" together.

      Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. Are we there yet?

      by bkamr on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:51:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is really stretching things. (7+ / 0-)

      I'm not happy with this bill, don't hate me for that or call me a tea partier. I'm not unhappy with Obama, but I'm also not an apologizer like you and others that have popped up recently. I'm bummed about some things of this past year, but I'm not here to bash Obama as seems to be the case with some here as well.

      Get a grip. You see, it's possible to have an opinion of your own. It's possible to recognize that you've been shafted while at the same time seeing that some good may come from the insurance reform legislation. It's possible to want reform while opposing this bill as it's written. It's possible to respect the president while wishing that he hadn't made such a regrettable statement. Things can be complicated, and are not always black and white.

      This is probably one of the nuttier diaries that I've read here. Congratulations. I mean, this is Orly crazy if you wanted some reference. I'm not calling you crazy, just your diary. Please don't take it personally.

      Happy Holidays.

    •  pp. 45-46 of "Change for America" (13+ / 0-)

      Discusses the "public plan" which would be available to all who don't like their current insurance. I also handed out campaign flyers on health care that discussed thevoluntary "public plan."

      It was partially rebranded as "public option" at some point, but it was part of his health care plan. Now his supporters are backing him as he rewrites history. I'd expect this level of intellectual dishonesty from the Palinites, but really... this is sad :(

    •  Great parody! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dhfsfc, TeddySanFran, elwior, wabird

      At first I thought deniac was being serious.

    •  Maybe we are misreading this (4+ / 0-)

      Maybe Deaniac is right.  Maybe this is a freudian slip, and he never really was for the public option.  Maybe he was just trying to hoodwink liberals/progressives just to get elected.

      Oh wait...is that what deaniac is trying to imply?

      Oh what a tangled web we weave...

      I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

      by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:17:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did anyone see what I posted in two other spots (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gobears2000

      I just made several related posts. I will repost them, but this is already 500 posts thick here.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I do not remember campaigning for a public option (until RECENTLY when I found out about in the Daily Kos), and I also made thousands of calls for the Obama campaign, most before Super Tuesday, some through the end (as a volunteer).  

      I've had this challenged a lot here and finally looked it up on archive.org from Jan 10, 2008 (in the link). I am secure in my memory now.

      There was another script, as well, for phone bankers once you were on that screen.

      A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

      by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:18:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jan 10, 2008 Obama Plan (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TeddySanFran

        From archive.org (link in the above link)

           The Problem

           Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.

           Health care costs are skyrocketing: : Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.

           Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
           Barack Obama's Plan
           Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

              * Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
                   1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
                   2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
                   3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
                   4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
                   5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
                   6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
                   7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
                   8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

              * National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
              * Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
              * Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
              * Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
              * Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

           Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

              * Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
              * Helping Patients:
                   1. Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
                   2. Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
                   3. Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
              * Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
                   1. Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
                   2. Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
                   3. Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
                   4. Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
                   5. Reform medical malpractice. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
              * Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
              * Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
                   1. Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
                   2. Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

           Fight for New Initiatives

              * Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
              * Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
              * Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

                Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
              * Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
              * Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
              * Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
              * Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

                More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.

           Barack Obama's Record

              * Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
              * Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

        A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

        by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:27:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did I miss the public option in there? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gobears2000

          I'm earnestly very confused and interested, because I've been debated on this for months and months here, and if I'm wrong, I understand, and my understanding of the Obama Campaign Health Care Plan (during the Primary) was then incorrect or limited.

          But I contend I don't see a public option, or rather what we now call "the public option" in that plan.

          If I am incorrect, please let me know.

          A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

          by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:29:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            Obama campaigned for President on the Public Plan - private insurance regulated by the federal govt - similar to what the federal employees have

            NEVER on the Public Option - govt supplied insurance.

            Obama did say that (paraphrased) "if we were starting from scratch, sure I'd support the public option, but we're not"

          •  Oh my goodness. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greeseyparrot, TeddySanFran

            You're right, the national health plan is in no way shape or form a public option. It is a public plan, and it is an option for those who don't wish to buy private insurance, but no sir, it is no public option.

            Wow.

            "Sure she sucked my wang, but we never had sex" makes more sense than this argument. Creationism and climate change denial makes more sense than this.

            Just wow.

            •  I don't think those pushing for the public option (0+ / 0-)

              like I have been, alongside groups like FDL (as excoriated as they have been by some today, I've still followed their basic pro-public option guidelines and all of their diaries here since September)... I don't think that we miss the distinction. It was a source of great consternation and defeat when the "public option" was recently overturned in favor of the FEHB plan.

              There was rampant dissent and frustration from many in the HCR sectors. Including myself.

              I think a public option would be superior to the original Obama plan. But then I thought expanding Medicare infrastructure was also better than either. At heart, I'm still pro-single payer.

              A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

              by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:07:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  He changed it later in the primary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            When Clinton and Edward began campaigning heavily on their versions of HCR.

            Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:34:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what I suspected, thank you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Betty Pinson

              I sort of stopped the bulk of my phone banking around around Super Tuesday. Did some more after, but using the printout scripts more often since I was heavy into the semester and so much was done on a lawn during my lunch break. I did phone bank until close to the end however. And kept tabs on the site daily. It was interesting and new to me, since it was the first campaign I helped (I say that so that it's clear I'm not insane: I will vigorously campaign again in the future, I'm sure, and am eager to... but that was my first non-local campaign volunteerism).

              The debate ongoing is pretty unclear because it depends on which part of the campaign someone is most familiar with, and also, some people think "the public option" is any old public plan, which obviously any HCR Progressive has taken to task for some time now.

              Thanks Betty!

              A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

              by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:12:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, brother (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greeseyparrot, Dagoril, TeddySanFran

      Admit he misspoke and move on.

      The forthcoming clarification from the White House (explaining that he meant to say that he'd never cited the PO as essential) will make this diary look even more ridiculous, if that's possible.

    •  wish I could rec more than once (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you!

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

      by TX Dem 50 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:22:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  phew. Obama's 'new public plan' (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, TeddySanFran, newpioneer, elwior

      Obama-Biden Plan

      The Obama-Biden plan both builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans
      continue to rely upon, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Under the Obama-Biden
      plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see
      the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new
      affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a
      National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3)
      providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new
      Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for
      their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5)
      expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform
      plans.
      (1) GUARANTEED ELIGIBILITY. Obama and Biden will require insurance companies to cover pre-existing
      conditions so all Americans, regardless of their health status or history, can get comprehensive benefits at fair
      and stable premiums.
      (2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a
      National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are
      uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to
      enroll in the new public plan
      or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be
      provided for people and families who need it.
      ...
      Quality and efficiency. Participating hospitals and providers that participate in the new public plan will
      be required to collect and report data to ensure that standards for health care quality, health information
      technology and administration are being met.

      One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:23:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As far back as May 30, 2007, Obama was (5+ / 0-)

        promising a "new public plan." See this diary by DemocraticLuntz here from that day (where you will find my comments in Obama's defense), and the archive.org snapshot of Obama's campaign site as of 5/30/2007, which gives this pdf file (embedded under the "Plan Details" blob to the right of the page), which says "new public plan" 12 times, including this:

        (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for
        their employees or towards the cost of the public plan
        ...
        (1) OBAMA’S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new
        national health plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health
        coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees. The new public plan
        will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or
        current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and
        small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

        One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:40:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your diary is FALSE (4+ / 0-)

       Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.

      FROM HIS CAMPAIGN PLATFORM

      "Offers a public health insurance option "
      "Offers a public health insurance option "
      "Offers a public health insurance option "
      "Offers a public health insurance option "

      Seriously, I should HR your tip jar for spreading blatantly false rumors.

      I thought you were s serious poster. Apparently not.

      Member, The Angry Left

      by nosleep4u on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:51:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for this diary! (0+ / 0-)

      I can't believe how much people are losing their minds over this.

      I'm gay, I'm pissed, I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not shutting up, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:58:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Part of the reason the search term returns little (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeddySanFran

      is that "public option" as a phrase entered our common parlance after the election. Before then it didn't have a handy two word moniker.

      I'm not worried about government bureaucrats between me and my doctor; I'm worried about insurance bureaucrats between me and my Senator.

      by PsychicToaster on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:03:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is a straight-out liar (3+ / 0-)

      or a traitor, you choose which.

      If he didn't lie about a public option (which he did, you just want to finesse it), he lied about much else, including the tax on health benefits:

      So when you read the fine print, it's clear that John McCain is pulling an old Washington bait and switch. It's a shell game. He gives you a tax credit with one hand - but raises your taxes with the other. And recently, after some forceful questioning on TV, he finally admitted that for some Americans - those with the very best plans - his tax increase will be higher than his tax credit, and they'll come out behind.

      John McCain calls these plans "Cadillac plans." In some cases, it may be that a corporate CEO is getting too good a deal. But what if you're a line worker making a good American car like Cadillac who's given up wage increases in exchange for better health care? Well, Senator McCain believes you should pay higher taxes too. The bottom line: the better your health care plan - the harder you've fought for good benefits - the higher the taxes you'll pay under John McCain's plan.

      It's Obama who pulled the bait and switch this time, and many, many Americans are going to pay for it, while the insurance magnates laugh all the way to the bank.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:22:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Take this diary down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeddySanFran

      it's a lie.

  •  It doesn't matter (48+ / 0-)

    This whole notion of "he didn't campaign on it, so we can't hold him to it" is itself flawed - we should expect our presidents to do the right thing regardless of what they said on the campaign trail - but it's even less justifiable given the fact that Obama not only mentioned the public option in his big speech, but it was on his website, and more significantly, was clearly a core demand of not just progressive activists, but progressive members of Congress. For Obama to get people's hopes up about this in a high-profile way and then show that he never really planned to fight for it is extremely damaging to him, and there's no credible way to explain it away.

    The worst thing that could happen to the White House is to develop a credibility gap with its base. Unfortunately, that is starting to happen, as this shows. Most casual voters aren't going to take seriously an explanation that says "since he didn't campaign on it, it's OK that he promised it in later speeches but did nothing to fight for it." It smacks of weaseling out of a promise, something that the public is already attuned to expect from politicians, and they rightly judge such politicians harshly when they do that.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:05:23 PM PST

  •  2008 Democratic Platform (page 10) (22+ / 0-)

    Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices
    of Affordable Health Insurance Options.

    Families and  individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

    Of course the Obama Campaign had NO ROLE in drafting the platform. It was written by the Gravel delegates.





    Resisting Dumb wars since 1968

    by ben masel on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:05:50 PM PST

  •  Try "I didn't campaign on escalating the War (9+ / 0-)

    in Afghanistan" and i'll give him a pass.





    Resisting Dumb wars since 1968

    by ben masel on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:07:28 PM PST

  •  that's it! (8+ / 0-)

    i'm unregistering as a D and joining the local tea party!

    not.

  •  He didn't. (19+ / 0-)

    he mentioned pubic health insurance plans but his preferred model was exchanges. Also, you can't ignore the fact that senate health bill includes 400 billion dollar expansion of medicaid which will enroll upto 19 million people( CBO estimate 15 million) in a public plan.

  •  *2008* questionnaire response (16+ / 0-)

    My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage.

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...

    (via)

    B-b-but he didn't say the word "option"! So that doesn't count! So Obama isn't a liar!

  •  Now we get to see how the Bush supporters... (31+ / 0-)

    would twist reality to support their man.  Just the opposite side of the coin.  There is no core principles when the positions twist in the wind, solely designed to protect a person.

    •  hahahaha (6+ / 0-)

      Don't believe lyin' eyese...

      Twisting themselves into knots...

      Yes, the NSA can hear you.

      by Muggsy on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:12:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  this splitting hairs debate becomes (0+ / 0-)

        less helpful. But in all honesty, the "public option" only became a catch phrase and an issue in 2009. The only thing talked about in the campaign was mandates, universal coverage, and offering coverage like members of congress had. I had the feeling that lots of different options were on the table. And the public option took in in early 2009. That's what Obama meant when he said he didn't campaign on it. Poor choice of words but why all this Sturm und Drang?

        Jake McIntyre says I might as well have voted to invade Iraq. Jake McIntyre sucks.

        by SeanF on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:34:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  how do you know what he meant? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skid

          I do not know what he meant when he said he was against mandates.
          I do not know what he meant when his website specifically stated he supported a public option.
          And , as you say, in 2009 I do not know what he meant by offering people a choice of heath insurance coverage.

          I understood what he said...not even trying to go figure out what he meant.

          Yes, the NSA can hear you.

          by Muggsy on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:39:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well believe I know what he meant (0+ / 0-)

            when he said he didn't campaign for it. Cuz it matches my recollection of events.

            As to mandates: yup it changed in the legislative process. Suck it up.

            But maybe it helps some to have a great big evil "liar" in office so that it blocks all their own personal failings. Or something. Is that what you meant?

            Jake McIntyre says I might as well have voted to invade Iraq. Jake McIntyre sucks.

            by SeanF on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:44:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Both sides (7+ / 0-)

      of this debate are twisting previously held positions.

      Upthread slinkerwink - who's been saying for months that Obama didn't support the PO - is now claiming that he campaigned on it.

      We could all learn something from this if we were interested in doing so. And the learning would be a bit of awareness about how our previously developed beliefs drive what "facts" we choose to pay attention to at the moment.

      Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by NLinStPaul on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:34:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree because this is an eggregious... (8+ / 0-)

        example of spin by Obama and now his supporters.

        Remember how they used to refer people to the website when it was claimed his positions were vague?  Now the website means nothing.

        This is a pattern now.  Obama's announcement speech is filled with empty words.

        There is a dearth of principle, and when people object they are demonized.

        As i said, it is eerily similar to the way Bush supporters acted.  Sad, but accurate.

        •  All I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deoliver47

          is that both sides have now switched their argument about this.

          And I think its just another example of over-parsing words to make our point.

          I'm more interested in the fact that we're about to pass the biggest reform to healthcare in my lifetime. But hey, just like in the MSM...controversy sells.

          Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by NLinStPaul on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:50:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have not switched my argument a bit (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            catnip, Uberbah, Seamus D, BlueHead

            And to call this "reform" is arguable.

            Next we will hear that Obama never spoke out about civil liberties.  And did he just last week talk about fat cat bankers?

            Interestingly, here is what Robert Kuttner said about that last week to Bill Moyers:

            BILL MOYERS: I was thinking about both of you Sunday night when President Obama was on 60 MINUTES and he said...

            PRESIDENT OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.

            BILL MOYERS: Then on Monday afternoon, he had this photo opportunity in which he scolded the bankers and then they took it politely and graciously, which they could've done because the Hill at that very moment was swarming with banking lobbyists making sure that what the President wants doesn't happen. I mean, what did you think as you watched him on 60 MINUTES or watched that press conference?

            [. . .]

            ROBERT KUTTNER: I was appalled. I was just appalled because think of the timing. On Thursday and Friday of last week, the same week when the president finally gives this tough talk on "60 Minutes," a very feeble bill is working its way through the House of Representatives and crucial decisions are being made. And where is the President? I mean, there was an amendment to put some teeth back in the provision on credit default swaps and other kinds of derivatives. And that went down by a handful of votes. And to the extent that the Treasury and the White House was working that bill, at all, they were working the wrong side. There was a there was a provision to exempt foreign exchange derivatives from the teeth in the bill. That--

            [. . .]

            ROBERT KUTTNER: Yeah. And, Treasury was lobbying in favor of that. There was a provision in the bill to exempt small corporations, not so small, I believe at $75 million and under, from a lot of the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring honest accounting. Rahm Emanuel personally was lobbying in favor of that.

            BILL MOYERS: So you had the Treasury and the White House chief of staff arguing on behalf of the banking industry?

            ROBERT KUTTNER: Right. Right. And so here's the president two days later giving a tough speech. Why wasn't he working the phones to toughen up that bill and, you know, walk the talk?

            If it's not one thing, it's another.  At some point, the supporters start to have the same tone as the Bush supporters.  Like here, pretending that campaign means something that is absurd.

        •  His site doesn't mean nothing. (0+ / 0-)

          But the simple fact is that the public plan was not the focus of his campaign.

          To campaign on something means to make that something a focus of your campaign. Did Obama make a public plan a focus of his campaign?

          So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

          by skeptiq on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:55:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's spelled egregious (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jackmac

          and if what you are trying to say that Obama is some sort of a compulsive liar and uses empty words, or that he has delusional supporters, I suppose you would know about compulsive lying, empty words and delusional supporters from John Edwards.

          •  Best you can do? (0+ / 0-)

            Correct my spelling?  I did not call him a liar.  He is too smart for that.  But, yes, he did mislead people.  He has done it twice this past week.  He's just the politician many of us claimed he was, and his supporters seem more like the Bush ones all the time.  

            Yep, Edwards was a failure personally.  But he is not the president, is he?  He's not the one who assumed office and went back on his lofty words.  Edwards did not have that chance.  Obama has had it and proved he was Mr. Establishment all along, from war to civil liberties to doing not much of anything as his cronies line their pockets.  But he was not elected to help the fat cat bankers.  Right!    

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          I was getting told almost daily to go read his website when I asked people to explain ambiguous, contradictory or vague things I heard him say.

          "There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --GWB

          by denise b on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:44:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Erm (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        Campaigning on and supporting are two different things.

        I can propose any number of ideas, and not really support them as others debate them.

        Now I think slink loses a bit of nuance on the fact that the President repeatedly mentioned 'a public option or some other agency that would fulfill the same functions' or some paraphrase thereof.

        You could consider that support, but after the election it was always delivered in a rather offhand way, and he certainly never 'supported' it enough to draw a line in the sand for it, as he did with budget neutrality.

        He also campaigned on the idea that mandates were a really bad idea, but we've got the exact opposite on both of those two mentioned ideas.  With mandates, without a PO.

        It's your call whether you support 'A' if every time you mention it, you say you want ''A' or something else'.

        Me, if I want 'A', I'll support it by saying 'I want 'A'.' without the equivocation.

        Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:45:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My bottom line... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nina

          I supported the public option. But its dead in this bill.

          I hold alot of people accountable for that - mostly the conservadems for whom lines in the sand would have been just what they needed to kill any reform at all.

          Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by NLinStPaul on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:53:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eh, I swing the other way (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah

            and blame the progressives for not being nearly as willing to be dicks as the conservadems.

            This was always going to be a battle of who could be the bigger ass, and the progressives allowed the conservadems to win that battle.

            Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

            by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:03:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They were not negotiating (0+ / 0-)

              on an even playing field.

              Progressives know that we need to pass a bill that accomplishes as much as possible.

              Conservadems would have been fine with killing any reform. Lines in the sand would be like trying to scare off a suicide bomber who has already embraced dying by pointing a loaded gun in their face...won't work.

              Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

              by NLinStPaul on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:24:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  you do realize there's zero contradiction there? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catnip, chuckvw, The Liberty of Meat

        Upthread slinkerwink - who's been saying for months that Obama didn't support the PO - is now claiming that he campaigned on it.

        It's perfectly possible to campaign on something and then not support it one iota.  See: Bush and "compassionate conservatism".  See: Obama and transparency.

        Duh.

         Both sides of this debate are twisting previously held positions.

        You're half right.  Those arguing policy have stayed consistent to the policy.  Those arguing personality have stayed consistent to the personality.

  •  He was sent by the Corpocracy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, denise b, Skid, Uberbah

    To fuck over the left. Everything he did say in the campaign was so carefully phrased and in in his own style so vague as to have been meaningless. Obamas sentences had the nasty habit of contradicting the proceeding sentence until any normal interpretation of language was rendered meaningless.

    the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

    by Salo on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:11:15 PM PST

  •  A link from Political also backs this up. (9+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    There's another diary on the wreck list disputing the President's claim that everything "criteria" he put forward for HCR is in the senate bill.

    Please see politifact again for some perspective on that: Promises about Health Care on the Obameter

    Of course, I think we can all see through the motive for the two "Obama: You Lie!" diaries.

  •  Sadly, President Obama did lead us to believe (10+ / 0-)

    that he could deliver a public plan... public option... hell call it a public restroom if you want to... We were excited about the prospect of having government-run health care for all. It was supposed to bring DOWN the cost of health care.

    I hate that our leaders won't deliver on this promise, but I don't solely blame the president.

    •  Here: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stella 4 Obama

      Single Payer

      If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. The New Yorker wrote, "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'" [New Yorker, 5/7/07]

      If the demand is fulfill ideals to the letter now or stop having them, we divide the limits of reality & vision for tomorrow. Then politics becomes cynicism

      by pvlb on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:50:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It might be the case that the bill the Senate (7+ / 0-)

    is going to pass this Thursday is the very best bill that all 58 Democrats + two Independents could unanimously agree to vote for.  There's lots of blame to go around for the watering-down of the bill's provisions; is it Obama's fault that Lieberman is a scumbag (yes, Barack could have campaigned harder for Lamont to win).  If Obama had started out demanding single-payer, would Lieberman have insisted that it be replaced by a public option, then voted for it?  This is unknown and unknowable.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:12:53 PM PST

  •  The NY Times would dispute your argument (19+ / 0-)

    the Obama did not campaign on a public plan. They assert he did campaign on a govt-run insurance plan, and that once in office, he made deals with Insurance, Hospital, and Pharma lobbyists to kill it. He also worked actively behind the scene on the Baucus bill, the most conservative bill coming out of committee and the one w/o a public option, according to the NY Times. I opt for believing the NY Times interpretation of Obama's position over yours; also, I distinctly remember him campaigning on a public option as it was the main reason I voted for him.

    Published: August 12, 2009

    WASHINGTON — In pursuing his proposed overhaul of the health care system, President Obama has consistently presented himself as aloof from the legislative fray, merely offering broad principles. Prominent among them is the creation of a strong, government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers and press for lower costs.


    Some Democrats and industry lobbyists now argue that, in negotiating deals through Mr. Baucus’s committee with powerful health care interests, the White House was tacitly signaling as early as last spring that it might end up accepting something more modest than the government insurer the president has said he prefers.

    ...
    Mr. Obama and his top aides have immersed themselves in the Senate Finance Committee process. The president talks to Mr. Baucus several times a week, people briefed on their conversations say. Mr. Obama has also held a few calls with the panel’s ranking Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa.

    In addition, Mr. Obama invited both senators to a private lunch at the White House early in the summer and met with six panel members for another White House session last week. White House advisers have held long evening and weekend meetings with Finance Committee staff members, even poring over copies of the Tax Code together.

    Nancy-Ann DeParle, charged with leading the White House health effort, has a standing biweekly meeting with Mr. Baucus, while Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director, has spent so much time in the senator’s office that he helps himself to the Coke Zeros tucked away in Mr. Baucus’s personal refrigerator.

    Lobbyists for both the drug and hospital industries say that, as early as June, White House officials directed them to work out cost-saving deals with Mr. Baucus’s committee.

    Drug industry lobbyists said they negotiated a deal to contribute $80 billion over 10 years toward the cost of an overhaul with Mr. Baucus, under White House supervision, before taking it to the president for final approval. House lawmakers have said they were caught by surprise when it was announced.

    Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said.

    Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

    "We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference," one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter.

    ...

    Still, industry lobbyists say they are not worried. "We trust the White House," Mr. Kahn said. "We are confident that the Senate Finance Committee will produce a bill we fully can endorse."

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

    by virtual0 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:13:23 PM PST

  •  I had never heard of "the public option" (12+ / 0-)

    but it was on Obama's website, as itsbenj pointed out.

    As progressives spend another day gleefully trashing elected Democrats, they need to be reminded-- for consistency's sake-- that their previous criticisms indicate they believe Obama only campaigned on two things: "Hope" and "Change You Can Believe In."  Oh, and ending the war in Afghanistan immediately.

  •  Umm... (17+ / 0-)

    Check again:

    Under the Obama plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage if they choose to, and will see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down.  The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers,

    ...(1) OBAMA'S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health care plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees.  The new public plan will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

    Blue Hampshire. Defeating Republicans since 2006.

    by Dean Barker on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:17:29 PM PST

  •  Nobody will win this argument (29+ / 0-)

    But the teabaggers must be eating popcorn as tear this president down and fight among ourselves.

    The PO will not magically appear even after calling Obama a liar and a sellout.

    "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected". -Barack Obama

    by indepenocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:18:31 PM PST

  •  Independent of whether he "campaigned" on the (13+ / 0-)

    Public Option (or not), it's obvious there weren't 60 votes for it in the Senate.  Why continue to argue a point that is moot?

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:24:41 PM PST

    •  He was surely able to twist the progressives' (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, elwior, Jyrinx, BlueHead

      arms to get them in line; you don't think he was capable of twisting a few ConservaDem arms if he wanted? He is only the most powerful person in the US.

      Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

      by virtual0 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:26:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If that's true, it because the progressives at (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stevie, sviscusi, Nina

        least had "skin in the game".  The ConservaDems and the GOP didn't really want anything to pass, so how do you negotiate with that?

        "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

        by lordcopper on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:29:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh yeah, I guess you don't do anything then (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, elwior, Seamus D, BlueHead

          and cut secret deals with insurance and Pharma instead.

          Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

          by virtual0 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:34:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cutting the deal with Pharma made the deal "more" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nina, aggie98, moonpal

            likely to pass.  You seem to be more interested in "being right" than extending healthcare to more people.   Remember, we barely got the 60th vote (by bribery).

            "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

            by lordcopper on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:39:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, actually I am for the system that 75% (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah, elwior, Seamus D

              of Americans wanted and nearly all Democrats wanted; a public option. Actually I would have preferred Medicare for all, but Obama killed that at the offset. But I would have been happy if Obama had just done his job and worked for the American people and his constituency, instead of for his campaign coffers. He never even made the case for the public option to the American people or the ConservaDems - Lieberman just confirmed that the other day.

              With most Americans strongly wanting it and only a handful of ConservaDems against it, clearly he could have gotten the public option passed if he had so much as lifted a little finger for it. Tragically, he did not, and opted to work for his own political ends instead. Surely you must know that he did nothing whatsoever to fight for the public option, and in fact, (see NY Times above for example) that at every step of the way he worked behind the scenes to kill it. A couple of ConservaDems could not have prevented the passage of a public option if Obama had wanted it and fought for it. I think you know this and are being disingenuous.

              Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

              by virtual0 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:53:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, now I see the problem. You think the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nina, aggie98

                U.S. is a democracy.  Well we're actually a democratic republic, meaning we elect representatives to fashion policy.  If you don't like it you have to elect another representative.  In this day and age, there is no way to "frighten" a representative into supporeting a position that threatens their incumbency.  If you know of a way to change Leiberman, Landrieu, or Nelson's vote, I challenge you to present it.

                "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

                by lordcopper on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:06:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Progressives, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nina

        or at least elected ones, are actually able to comprehend political realities.  If there were 60 votes in the Senate, then we'd have a bill with a Public Option.  There weren't, so progressives were smart enough to know that you getting the best possible deal, even if it's only a mediocre one, is better than the worst possible outcome which in this case is doing nothing.

      •  How do you know he didn't do that? (0+ / 0-)

        How do you know that he didn't push as hard as possible for the best bill possible?

        I'm gay, I'm pissed, I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not shutting up, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

        by psychodrew on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:02:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is part (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina, lordcopper, RinaX, aggie98, moonpal, SaintC

      of the leftwingnut Obama=Bush meme. Find something that proves Obama lied and equate him with Bush because Bush lied about Iraq.

    •  The issue is *lying.* (8+ / 0-)

      If he wanted the PO but it couldn't happen, he can just tell us that. We're adults. Pretending he never campaigned for it is just bullshit.

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

      by Jyrinx on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:29:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  IT doesn't matter (12+ / 0-)

    The issue really isn't about whether or not he campaigned on it. This is agenda-driven politics.

    I read TomP's diary, or at least the first part of it. I stopped reading after this part:

    During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges "needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market." [6/15/09]

    – While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that "any plan" he signs "must include...a public option." [7/17/09]

    – During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues "to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go." [7/20/09]

    – Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option "should be a part of this [health care bill]," while rebuking claims that the plan was "dead." [9/20/09]

    Notice the dates on these quotes. I thought the campaign ended in November 2008????

    So, I mentally gave the diary a FAIL and moved on.

    •  Not all of them were from 2009. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0wn

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

      by Jyrinx on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:30:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  most were (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy, Nina, aggie98, moonpal

        Jake McIntyre says I might as well have voted to invade Iraq. Jake McIntyre sucks.

        by SeanF on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:36:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Right (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chicago Lulu, Nina, RinaX, aggie98, moonpal

        The first one was from 2008 during the campaign and mentions a "public plan". The Senate bill has a public plan. It allows people to buy into an insurance exchange run by OPM.

        And, in the debate with McCain at Hofstra, what Obama described was exactly whats in the current Senate bill:

        "

        Here's what my plan does: [...] If you don't have health insurance, then what we're gonna do is to provide you the option of buying into the same Federal pool which both Senator McCain and I enjoy as Federal employees, which will give you a high quality of care, choice of doctors, at lower cost because  so many people are part of this insured group."

        http://www.youtube.com/...

        And now, go to Politifact:

        Here at PolitiFact, we covered the Democratic primaries and examined the candidates' plans for health care reform in great detail. The most contentious issue during the primary was support for what is known as the individual mandate -- the requirement that everyone have health insurance or face a tax penalty. We don't recall any significant discussion of a public option, nor did we do any Truth-O-Meter items on it during the campaign.

        To make sure we weren't missing anything, we conducted a database search of campaign coverage by all news outlets. We found very few news reports during the campaign that mentioned the public option or a public plan as part of Obama's health proposals, with the notable exception of a New York Times story published on May 30, 2007, headlined, "Obama calls for wider and less costly health care coverage."

        http://www.politifact.com/...

    •  so if I find it in a speech before 2008, after he (0+ / 0-)

      announced...will that mean anything to you?

      I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

      by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:58:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's plan for a healty america (16+ / 0-)

    can be found here.  This document is dated 2008.

    what goes around comes around, buckwheat. -- AndyS in Colorado

    by bubbanomics on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:28:42 PM PST

    •  To add to your comment -- from your link: (11+ / 0-)

      Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan ; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allow flexibility for state health reform plans.

    •  That's the FEHB expansion, not a public option. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina

      The benefit package will be similar to that offered
      through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the program
      through which Members of Congress get their own health care.

      The FEHBP program is purchasing through private companies, not a publically owned insurance company.

      You've confused what a "public plan" is.

      Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

      by Inland on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:45:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, i'd have to say the language is misleading (0+ / 0-)

        Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees;

        I guess that's the point of these things... be vague and contradictory so that no one can pin you down.

        what goes around comes around, buckwheat. -- AndyS in Colorado

        by bubbanomics on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:03:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only post hoc. (0+ / 0-)

          It's only confusing  POST HOC after six months of "public" being followed by "option".  

          And if someone reads it, there's nothing about a publically owned company.  But there is an express reference to the FEHBP program.

          Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

          by Inland on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:40:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Speeches (11+ / 0-)

    I could not find a single reference to a "public option" or something similar.

    Obama Calls for Wider and Less Costly Health Care Coverage

    Mr. Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    Cutting Costs and Covering America: A 21st Century Health Care System
    University of Iowa | May 29, 2007

    Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one that every federal employee - from a postal worker in Iowa to a Congressman in Washington - currently has for themselves. It will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity, disease management, and mental health care. And it will also include high standards for quality and efficiency. If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered. If you change jobs, your insurance will go with you. If you need to see a doctor, you will not have to wait in long lines for one. If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans that have similar benefits and standards for quality and efficiency

    Almost nothing in that speech is in the bill.

  •  This is the most delusional diary (16+ / 0-)

    I have read at Dailykos since 2004.

    "Everybody lies... except POLITICIANS? House, I do believe you are a romantic."

    by indiemcemopants on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:33:45 PM PST

    •  I don't understand (9+ / 0-)

      this at all.  What is the point of lying to yourself?  It gives me a headache.  I can understand lying when necessary like the check is in the mail.  But Obama lying for no reason and then a diary explaining why it wasn't a lie?  

      Color me surprised that capitulation to the Republicans and moneyed interests isn't quite working out for us... by banjolele

      by allie123 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:37:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you think Obama is a compulsive liar? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allie123, RinaX

        Like you said, this was entirely unnecessary, and it's not like his staff is trying to erase campaign literature to cover its tracks.

        Isn't it a lot easier to believe that he spoke in sincerity? Maybe he was careless about opening himself up for "gotchas", but I can totally see how he was simply frustrated by the fact that the public option -- which I believe was always his preferred strategy to achieve certain reform goals, but never something central to his HC platform -- became so central when he never made it so. If anything, he always focused much more on the results he ultimately intended to achieve (eg, extending coverage, increasing risk pools, giving people the opportunity to buy into something like what congressmembers have etc)

        PS: Try not to patronize those of us who are simply not seeing the reason for outrage as somehow lying to ourselves because the real Truth would be so devastating. I mean... really!

        •  I actually think you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sleepwalkr

          have a reasonable point.  Saying that maybe he mis spoke or had some reason to say he did not support the PO is not the same as saying that it was not part of his HCR plan during the campaign.  That is all I am saying.  
          I understand having different opinions on his motives.  I actually hope you are right.  If you are I think things can get better.  I am just skeptical now.  Maybe I will change my mind.

          Color me surprised that capitulation to the Republicans and moneyed interests isn't quite working out for us... by banjolele

          by allie123 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:59:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You must not come here very often. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrcjr, catnip, oscarsmom

      Like, ever.

    •  At least in the top 50 (n/t) (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catnip, indiemcemopants, Skid, allie123
  •  Oh dear God ... (16+ / 0-)

    This reminds me of when Bush and Cheney tried to argue with a straight face they never conflated Iraq and 911.

  •  A rose by any other name. n/t. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Materially false (10+ / 0-)

    Take this delusional screed down. Numerous diaries have documented the contrary of your claim.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:36:26 PM PST

  •  So you go from 'people can't have their own (11+ / 0-)

    facts' immediately into 'this is what I understand'.

    What's the meaning of 'is' again, Mr Clinton?

    Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:36:49 PM PST

  •  Come on, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, oscarsmom

    you know facts can ruin a narrative guided by truthiness.  The narrative belief from the purities being: "Oh noez Obama lied, people are going to die!!!"

    I stand with President Obama.

    by Rustbelt Dem on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:37:00 PM PST

  •  Thank you for your research! (7+ / 0-)

    It's seems sometimes like the battle for the public option has been going on FOREVER though.

    "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" --- President Barack Obama, 1-20-2009.

    by tier1express on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:38:06 PM PST

  •  I'm tired of this parsing (5+ / 0-)

    of statements.  It's not just with Obama's statement about "not campaigning" on the public option.

    We had the battle over what Dean meant when he said "kill the bill".

    We had the battle over what Rahm meant when he said "we don't need liberals".

    We had the battle over whether Jane Hamsher really called for a teabagger-netroots alliance.

    I understand how tempting it is to fall into this game.  I sure did in TomP's diary, and I immediately regretted wading into this meaningless debate.

    But enough already.  Can't we just go back to debating sexy stuff like caps on out-of-pocket costs and the pros and cons of mandates?  At least those had to do with issues of substance.

  •  I know that Obama didn't campaign on it (14+ / 0-)

    because I watched Obama constantly during the campaign and I just don't remember the public option being anything major in either the primary nor the general election.

    I remember in the primary Obama campaigned in terms of health care reform against mandates (funny that they are not part of the plan now).  In the general election in terms of health care Obama campaigned against taxing health plans (also funny that that is too in the health care plan of 2009).

    I think Obama thinks that the public option is a great idea but unlike many progressives he doesn't think that it is essential to reform.  For Obama what is essential is probably the Patient's bill of rights.

    That is why reconciliation was NEVER really on the table because the Patient's bill of rights would not have survived reconciliation which Obama considered essential as oppose the public option that Obama just thinks is a good idea.

    I think for the media the whole debate was about the public option.  But if not the public option then the media would have fixated on something else ie mandates.

    Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:39:58 PM PST

    •  At almost every stop it was all about exchanges.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina

      "just like the plan your congress(person) has..."

      in other words, the exchanges in the Senate bill.

      Seriously, this comment will be walked back tomorrow. Not spending a moment more in these diaries today.

    •  Point is, we shouldn't have to read his mind (4+ / 0-)

      We should be able to read his own proposals in writing on his own website so we can make our own decisions on who to vote for.  Period.

      Save the parrots: Drink shade-grown coffee!

      by oscarsmom on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:51:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  good point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina, RinaX

      I think also that a number of progressives fixated on the public option as a line in the sand, and all of a sudden the public option became central to the netroots conception of the plan.  There was a good diary yesterday talking about it.

      To be honest, I disagree with much of the rationale, mainly in that I don't think that the public option really was a foot in the door to single payer.  However, the merits aside, I think that it wasn't just the media that put the public option front and center.  It was the netroots as well.

    •  so in other words (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Seamus D

      Obama's health care plan on his campaign website were ...to coin a phrase...."just words".

      Is that really the path you want to go down?  Is that really the path the political team in the WH is trying to sell?

      Good luck.

      I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

      by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:00:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not "just words". But (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nina, Drdemocrat

        when he wrote that he didn't campaign on it, he wrote the truth.

        So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

        by skeptiq on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:02:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the campaign website is not part (0+ / 0-)

          of his campaign?

          How Orwellian...

          Good luck with that argument.

          This isn't a winner...drop it.  I promise you it is in the Presidents' best interest.

          I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

          by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:07:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps for Obama "campaigning" on something (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nina, Seamus D

            probably means what Deaniac83 is defining it as.  

            Obama is definitely for the public option but Obama has NEVER drawn a line in the sand on it including in 2009.

            The only thing that Obama has drawn the line in the sand over was that it was going to be deficit neutral.

            Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

            by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:27:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't disagree that he didn't draw a line in (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seamus D, The Liberty of Meat

              the sand...but that isn't what the discussion is about.

              And if "campaigning" no longer includes a "campaign" site...that was touted as the next generation strategy for "campaigning", I guess we have just gone through the looking glass.

              There isn't much more I can add at this point. Everyone has the right to read into these things as they wish.  I am just recommending thinking long and hard about which side to come down on.  In the end, everyone has to look inwards as to whether they believe their positions.

              I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

              by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:41:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Oh for fucks sakes...... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jtown, zapus

    Do we have to play these fucking gotcha blame games day in day out.  Yesterday it was healthcare stocks are up (even though they are down quite a bit from 3 or even 2 years ago).  What was it day before that.......probably the whole back room deals, sell out nonsense.

    Just admit your disappointed it didn't meet your expectations and move the fuck on!  

    Critics are [like] losers. It takes no effort to be one.

    by thestupiditburns on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:41:02 PM PST

  •  IT WAS THE F---ING OPPORTUNITY! IDIOT! (8+ / 0-)

    Like Dubya on 9/12, who was presented with a once-in-more-than-one-lifetime opportunity to unite the world in a cause for peace.  What did Dubya do? Pissed on it! Pissed on the world!
    Obama was given a once-in-a-probably-many-lifetimes opportunity to secure a powerful CHANGE in America's health care system, with a majority of Americans in support.  But, like Dubya, Obama failed miserably to recognize the opportunity to act. Now he hides behind his campaign rhetoric.  
    CHANGE COMES RARELY!  It takes a very wise person to recognize that opportunity. For all his vaunted intellect, speechifying, et al, Obama is not that wise person.  

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:42:16 PM PST

  •  Very interesting that the public option was NEVER (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chicago Lulu, Nina, optimusprime, aggie98

    even brought up in Obama's major health care policy speech nor was it brought up in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination.

    Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:42:19 PM PST

    •  So this isn't a major policy speech? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, The Liberty of Meat, Muggsy, dmw97

        Cutting Costs and Covering America: A 21st Century Health Care System
         University of Iowa | May 29, 2007

         Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one that every federal employee - from a postal worker in Iowa to a Congressman in Washington - currently has for themselves. It will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity, disease management, and mental health care. And it will also include high standards for quality and efficiency. If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered. If you change jobs, your insurance will go with you. If you need to see a doctor, you will not have to wait in long lines for one. If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans that have similar benefits and standards for quality and efficiency

      I guess your definition of major is different than mine...

      A word of advise...when you hre in a hole...stop digging...

      pass it on the WH if you have access....

      I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

      by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:03:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where in that speech does Obama talk about the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nina

        public option?

        Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

        by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:23:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you happen to read what you actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dmw97

          responded too?


          Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one that every federal employee - from a postal worker in Iowa to a Congressman in Washington - currently has for themselves. It will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity, disease management, and mental health care.

          followed by...

          If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans

          So are you saying he outlined a new unafforable private plan, and then stated you will also have a choice of an affordable private plan?  Because that is the only way to read that quote as not mentioning a public plan.

          But if you doubt it, here is how the NYT contemporaneously reported it...

          IOWA CITY, Iowa, May 29 — Senator Barack Obama proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system today, aimed at covering the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans, reducing premium costs for everyone else, and breaking what he asserted was "the stranglehold" that the biggest drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.

          snip

          Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program.

          Or did they misreport this, and Obama failed to force them to issue a correction.

          Again, why even attempt this?  Would anyone react harshly if he said political realities got in the way?  Be Honest.  Parsing never works in politics. Ever.  You are not serving our President well by attempting to somehow disprove obvious facts.  We are on the same side.  He is on my screen saver high-fiving MLK.  I am honestly telling you this is not a winner.  Stop while you are ahead.

          I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

          by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:36:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I read the speech and Obama doesn't say "public (0+ / 0-)

            plan".  Even what you highlighted doesn't have the words "public plan".

            The new "health insurance plan that is similar to what every federal employee" has is NOT a public plan.

            That federal employee exchange has PRIVATE PLANS in them not the public option.

            Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

            by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:51:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are right...he didn't say the words (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wsexson, The Liberty of Meat

              Public Plan.

              Case closed.  

              I don't know what else to say.  I have no idea if you are really misinterpreting, or if you are being disingenuous.  But I will try one more time.  

              What Obama said....

              Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan

              You said..

              That federal employee exchange has PRIVATE PLANS

              Notice the "s" at the end of what you said, and the lack of the "s" in Obama's statement.

              He then says...

              If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans

              I hope you agree that the word also implies something different, not something the same.

              So to repeat...

              a new health insurance plan...

              If you cannot afford this insurance...

              also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans...

              Are you really going to state that he was proposing a private health insurance plan, to add to the exchange with other private plans?  Really?  

              Are you really saying the New York Times thought he was talking about a public plan, printed it, didn't get a retraction, but they were all wrong?

              Are you really saying the NYT clearly agreed that the new plan, was not the exchange, but they were just plain foolish?  Really?

              Again...

              Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. He would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans that would aim at "reforming" the private insurance market and giving individuals other, more affordable options for coverage.

              So all of the reporters interpretations were wrong.  He was talking about a "private" plan.   They were just out in lala land making stuff up.  And not only did they get that wrong, they also misinterpreted that the plan and exchange were two different things, when he was really talking about the same thing.

              On the record, this is what you want me, and the other members of this community to believe.  You are willing to state for the record, that you do not believe he discussed a public plan in May 2007.  That is what you are saying?

              I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

              by justmy2 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:13:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Gee, this makes me feel better about everything (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, Arcparser, Skid, 0wn

    Well, maybe not.

    There is no planet B

    by Minerva on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:42:37 PM PST

  •  Wow (9+ / 0-)

    How could I have been so wrong to think Obama wanted a Public Option?  Silly me, I'm just an uninformed voter that reads blogs and campaign websites instead of just listening to campaign speeches.

    Save the parrots: Drink shade-grown coffee!

    by oscarsmom on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:43:10 PM PST

  •  Tipped and rec'd great diary! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina

    Current HCR bill is a good first step but it's just that and I think Obama still wants the PO whether he ever campaigned on it or not, he's just a realist. Progress is incremental, and we need to make this a 1st step and keep working to improve and build.

  •  You're just wrong (12+ / 0-)

    and so wrong it's not worth taking the time to prove it.

    And you know, I'm usually a "look shit up and prove it" kind of guy.

    But Obama clearly stated again and again that part of his HCR was to include a public plan, a government run program that would compete with private insurance. He may not have use the words "public option," but I mean seriously. This is a new low in spin for this website.

    And after this weekend, I didn't think we could sink any lower.

    "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." Dorothy Parker

    by dedmonds on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:44:21 PM PST

    •  No, he didn't. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina, aggie98, zapus

      He didn't mention a public company.  He mentioned exchanges and expansion of FEHBP:

      The benefit package will be similar to that offered
      through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the program
      through which Members of Congress get their own health care.

      That's buying insurance through private companies.  Maybe you didn't know that until now, but now you do.

      Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

      by Inland on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:46:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  See my comment below (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brooke In Seattle, lighttheway

        I link to his campaign website wherein he mentions a public plan. You can't tell me calling it "plan" instead of "option" is a substantive change.

        "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." Dorothy Parker

        by dedmonds on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:53:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't care what you call it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nina

          Call it a banana for all I care.

          FEHB buys insurance from private companies, and there's no publically owned company.

          Seriously, if you think that the fact the word "public plan" means that it's a "public option", you should think more about substance and less about six shared letters.

          Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

          by Inland on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:58:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The question is not what he site mentions, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nina

          whether he campaigned on the public plan.

          To campaign on something means to make that something a focus of your campaign. Did Obama make a public plan a focus of his campaign? No.

          So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

          by skeptiq on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:04:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a different plan. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nina

            It's not a public option.  It's a public plan....well, like the Senate bill is a public plan, whereby all the insurance is bought from privae companies.

            Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

            by Inland on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:06:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  No, actually he said "public option" as per (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson

        below from www.barackobama.com

        Quality, Affordable Choices
        If You Don’t Have Insurance, the Obama Plan:
        •Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
        •Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
        •Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
        Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
        •Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk" pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.

        And under the "View President Obama's Campaign Issues"

        Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

        •  It IS a public plan (0+ / 0-)

          to buy from private companies.  That's why they talk about FEHB in the same doc, without mentioning a government run or owned insurance company.

          as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that

          John McCain doesn't have a public option.  Look it up.

          Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

          by Inland on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:50:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Because you can't prove it. nt (0+ / 0-)

      So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

      by skeptiq on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:03:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reid showed us pulbic option wouldn't fly (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina, Sybil Liberty, RinaX, Sinto

    There was a great comment here yesterday suggesting that Reid had put the public option into his original bill in order to show the progressives that there wasn't enough support for it in the Senate to make the sale.

    My additional thought to that comment is that Reid really thought he had gotten a deal with Lieberman to support medicare @ 55 as a replacement for the p/o, and was dumsquazzled when Lieberman double-crossed him.

    Whether Obama did or did not campaign for a public option is only relevant to the extent of saying whether he lied to us about that action. The Democratic leadership of the Senate did clearly try to get a public option in, and were not able to get past the political hurdles. And how much help Obama could have been, given the size of Lieberman's ego and his awareness that no one can punish him right now, is far from clear.

    Republicans can't accept that they've lost. Democrats can't accept that they've won.

    by DanK Is Back on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:44:44 PM PST

  •  Please tell Dean and Hamster this!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Let's get off our high horses and see what the house does with the conference and then pass the damn bill. It is a start for god's sake. Don't hand the republicans a victory....they were really moaning awfully on the Senate floor Tuesday at 1am.

  •  You are delusional.... (14+ / 0-)

    the spin here is making me dizzy.

    Oh wait, I guess you are telling us that it all depends on how you define "campaign".

    How sad.

    And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make. Lennon/McCartney

    by landrew on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:46:09 PM PST

  •  So, why did we think we would get the PO? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dagoril, oscarsmom

    Where did it come from?

    Where did it start?

    Irregardless, I am deeply disillusioned with the whole process.

    "Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world."      -- Lily Tomlin

    by Canaryinthecoalmine on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:47:32 PM PST

  •  Obama DIDN'T Campaign (6+ / 0-)

    So I guess the flip-side of that must be he didn't campaign AGAINST mandates and send a mailer out attacking Hillary for supporting them.

    Bipartinship means "Yes we can! As long as the Republicans agree to let us."

    by William Domingo on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:48:59 PM PST

  •  Here is CANDIDATE Obama answering Washington post (15+ / 0-)

    questionairre.

    Do you have a plan to make health care more accessible to Americans? If so, how would you do it?

    Every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage. My plan will ensure that all Americans have health care coverage through their employers, private health plans, the federal government, or the states. My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them. My plan includes a mandate that all children have health care coverage and I will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs to help ensure we cover all kids. My plan requires all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan. Under my plan a typical family will save $2,500 each year. We will realize tremendous savings within the health care system from improving efficiency and quality and reducing wasted expenditures system-wide. Specifically, these savings will result from investments in health information technology, improvements in prevention and management of chronic conditions, increased insurance industry competition and reduced industry overhead, the provision of federal reinsurance for catastrophic coverage, and reduced spending on uncompensated care.

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...

    I am sorry, Obama is a liar, and him denying that he ever promised a PO is a further FU to his base.

  •  Depends what the meaning of the word "is" is ... (6+ / 0-)

    don't it? Did Obama campaign "on" the public option? Did he, as TomP's excellent diary proves, campaign on the public option? I say yes. Why he's lying now I don't know, but campaign on it he did. Is means is, just as it always did.

    •  Here is an article from a publication that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, Brooke In Seattle

      tried to explain the campaign platform as they understood it.  To me this public plan sounds like my understanding all along of what the public option was.

      The centerpiece of Obama’s plan is what he calls the National Health Insurance Exchange. The exchange would set standards defining what constitutes "meaningful coverage" and would be the place where people could enroll in the national plan or purchase a vetted private plan offered by health insurance companies. The exchange would make "the differences among the plans, including cost of ser¬vices, transparent," according to the campaign’s published platform. In theory, the private plans would have to be competitive with the public plan in order to attract members.

      This article is how I remember it.

      I also remember that he said he wanted universal health coverage and no mandates.

    •  only one problem with your argument (0+ / 0-)

      and his diary. It's a connect the dots out of context description of events, and not even factual to the time period he describes.

      There is a huge difference between saying he never said it and saying he never campaigned on it.

      Calling him a liar is unprovable, because you do not know his intent, and false because he can prove he didn't.

      So I ask you apologize right now! For an outrageous false claim. Im getting pretty tired of these right wing smear tactics just because once again, he is getting things done his way and not yours.

      The purest form of Capitalism is Organized crime!

      by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:55:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. The diarist explained very clearly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina

      what "campaigning on" means.

      To campaign on something means to make that something a focus of your campaign. Did Obama make a public plan a focus of his campaign? No.

      So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

      by skeptiq on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:07:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bullshit. (14+ / 0-)

    Policy statements on the campaign's official website don't count as "campaigning on it"?

    Any corporation that tried to pull this fraudulent crap  after an ad campaign would end up in court.

  •  Like, "campaigned on" mandates (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina, sephius1, oscarsmom

    like Hillary did. That was the only main difference between Obama's and Hillary's plans and here we are with the exchanges (which ARE a public plan) and mandates. Come to think of it, Edwards' plan wasn't much different.

    Edwards' plan (and from what I understand he was THE Kos candidate) was:

    Require businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their
    health insurance.
     Make insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP,
    reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
     Create regional Health Care Markets purchasing pools to give every American the bargaining
    power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance
    plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
     Once these steps have been taken, require all American residents to get insurance.

    http://johnedwards.com/...

    So I ask again, and will ask as many times as it's relevant, what is Obama doing/not doing that is any different than the other two major Democratic candidates last year? Nada.

    Jennifer

    I am part of the "Obama base"

    by jhw22 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:51:25 PM PST

  •  Ok I lied. I will prove he campaigned on it. (4+ / 0-)

    here's a breakdown of Obama's plan. Detailed analysis.

    Obama’s key components here include:

       * Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.

    Now, is it possible that he never brought up these specifics in a campaign speech? Sure. But it was stated policy.

    Ah, you say, but did Obama say it.

    Yes, he did.

    Yes. Obama’s plan actually will increase the choices available to you. If you like the insurance you have now, nothing will change under the Obama plan, except that you will pay less. If you do not have insurance you can choose to enroll in the new public plan, which will offer benefits similar to what every federal employee and member of Congress gets. Or you can choose private plan options through the national health exchange. But none of the plans will be allowed to drop you just because you get sick.

    That's right from barackobama.com. So please: don't tell me that just because he calls it a public plan instead of a public option, it's different. You'll make my fucking head explode.

    "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." Dorothy Parker

    by dedmonds on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:52:04 PM PST

  •  Your logic is flawed diarist (5+ / 0-)

    "Prove me wrong" is a preposterous approach to the problem.

  •  You ask anyone out there (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dagoril, Seamus D

    even those who didn't folllow the race will tell you one of the things he focused on was that he wanted a public option.  

    Even 20 something friend of mine stated that's why we voited for him.

    This "he didn't campaign on the public option is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

    He campaigned on it.  He is a liar for saying that he didn't.

    This is the same as bush saying he didn't equate Iraq to 9-11.

  •  Heartland Presidential Forum (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catnip, TracieLynn, RaulVB, ZackB, dmw97

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/...

    About 140 minutes in:

    If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably move more in a direction of a single payer plan... we set upA GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AS I'VE DESCRIBED THAT YOU CAN BUY INTO...

  •  lol (7+ / 0-)

    Whole lot of revisionist history going on around here. Whole lot.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:53:15 PM PST

  •  Hey diarist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, RaulVB, claudew, Muggsy

    you want to take a crack at what "is" is?

  •  Intellectually Dishonest (13+ / 0-)

    Stop insulting our intelligence.

    Are we back to "it depends on the meaning of the word is" again?"

    This is why people hate politicians and politics in general. This is so many voters stay home. This is what Obama promised not to be and why many of those voters came out to vote for him. This is why many of them won't be coming out in 2010.

    As much as many of us thought we would never be fooled again after Bill Clinton, we were fooled again.

  •  I've read some delusional diaries but this one is (8+ / 0-)

    just embarrassing.

  •  And of course you're right (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, Nina, sillycilla, skeptiq

    The first 3 out of 4 quotes in TomP's diary aren't even from the campaign. They are from 2009.

    Second, here is what Obama said in his debate with McCain at Hofstra:

    Here's what my plan does: [...] If you don't have health insurance, then what we're gonna do is to provide you the option of buying into the same Federal pool which both Senator McCain and I enjoy as Federal employees, which will give you a high quality of care, choice of doctors, at lower cost because  so many people are part of this insured group."

    And Shazaam!!  The Senate bill has a non-profit insurance exchange run by OPM, the same agency that administers the Federal pool that Obama mentions above.

    And since everybody here thinks everyone else is lying, you can also go to a facthecker like Politifact:

    To make sure we weren't missing anything, we conducted a database search of campaign coverage by all news outlets. We found very few news reports during the campaign that mentioned the public option or a public plan as part of Obama's health proposals, with the notable exception of a New York Times story published on May 30, 2007, headlined, "Obama calls for wider and less costly health care coverage."

    http://www.politifact.com/...

  •  You're right -- but you won't win this argument. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sillycilla, virginwoolf

    I almost challenged it -- myself - but I think I'm finally starting to learn how to avoid starting futile arguments.

    It's about cognitive types and how they interpret information.  It's extremely difficult to get somebody who isn't naturally inclined toward interpreting information in a nuanced way to trust a nuanced interpretation -- unless the alternative better fits everything they already believe.

    I find it amazing that anybody would consider campaign platforms promises when the office being sought doesn't grant the holder the authority he would need to be able to promise to enact every detail of his proposals. All we can reasonally be sure of is getting the personality we see on stage.

  •  I can totally understand what (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, Seamus D

    You are saying. My guess is Obama will probably make this his point as well HOWEVER. He has been on record showing that he is for a Public Option and HE KNOWS the benefits of it. He he fought for the Public Option and lost...I would be fine with it. Evidence showed he didn't even fucking try. That totally pisses me off. For that, I won't be fighting for him in 2012, although he will get my vote.

    "I don't want a line in the Sand lines can be moved. They can be blown away. I want a six foot trench carved into granite."

    by theone718 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:56:44 PM PST

  •  Improvement over the status quo? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seamus D

    That must be why insurance stocks are soaring. Clearly compassionate Wall Street investors are calculating that the balance of power between insurance companies and the public will move in the public's direction, notwithstanding the flaws in the bill.

  •  This diary is crap... (12+ / 0-)

    ..TomP's current recommended diary is stuffed with Obama quotes that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Obama campaigned on the public option.

    Daily Kos reminds me of how the traditional media always wants to "hear the other side of the story" when it comes global warming.  That is to say, TomP's diary is Al Gore & this diary is Inhofe.  

    "I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for an additional moment?" "In my capacity as senator from Minnesota...I object."

    by wyvern on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:57:23 PM PST

  •  Great diary (4+ / 0-)

    You are one of the rational people left here as BWD, boondad etc have been chased away.

    The people who are claiming that Obama lied about this seem to be desperate for anything to go after Obama on (just the like the GOP). They even quoted the Democratic platform.

    Good grief! Seriously, the candidate doesn't campaign on the platform. But whatever, the hate for Obama on this website has reached such levels that nothing surprises me anymore.

  •  Obama is the Enemy of the People now. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, sillycilla

    He's the new Bush.

    Don't go reality-based, you won't be popular here.

  •  As I said in TomP's diary on this (10+ / 0-)

    subject there are plenty of people who will believe anything Obama says - and here one has even written a diary about it and even has the nerve to declare that the diary is factual. Hilarious!

    Obama campaigned on the public option, and on universal care, and on a government plan for those who didn't have coverage... and on and on. He was promising the moon and many folks fell for it. Now that he has reneged they cannot face the cold hard facts.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:59:02 PM PST

  •  This diary is just wrong (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, slinkerwink, Seamus D, thethinveil

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:59:47 PM PST

  •  I tend to think he was supportive of it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dagoril

    I think he did use it as a tool in his campaign.  

    I am not in favor of the current kill the bill mania, but Obama was clearly in favor of it.

    I won't split hairs on what it means to "campaign" on something, because I think that's silly.

    However, let's say a national, non-profit health insurance exchange were part of this bill coming out of the legislature, and going to Obama's desk.  

    Would that still be comparable to a "public plan?"

    Frankly, I think the issue of what he campaigned on is irrelevant.  

    He campaigned on increasing troops in Afghanistan, and I still voted for him.  

    In the Seattle Mayoral race, the eventual winner was someone who had said he would stop the building of a tunnel for our waterfront traffic.

    I really liked the guy, but the only reason I was able to vote for him in the end is that he softened his stance.  He said that he was willing to carry out the process.  That made me vote for him.  

    Purity in ideology and not adjusting for the politics of the moment is a bad way to try to run government.

    Green Balloons! Green Balloons! - I am drawn from Satanic and Foreign Law - (Damn, it's hard to keep up with these idiots.)

    by otto on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 04:59:48 PM PST

  •  As someone that spent many many hours (4+ / 0-)

    working to get this man elected.  I never once heard anything about a public option from him.  We liberals seem to magically forget facts when we don't get what we want.

    Clings to Music and the hope of a .500 Jets season.

    by Mro on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:01:17 PM PST

  •  This is the truth (9+ / 0-)

    "At the same time, one result from that last search, a candidate questionnaire sent out by Newsday, does show again that this really is a question of Obama trying to get cute with semantics.. Asked to keep each of his answers to 50 words or less, Obama's summary of his healthcare plan was:

    "I have pledged to sign a universal health bill into law by the end of my first term in office. My plan will ensure that all Americans have health care coverage through their employers, private health plans, the federal government or the states. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program."

    Link:

    http://www.salon.com/...

    Facts are facts.

  •  Comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83

    One thing that I think "kill billers" could argue is that Candidate Obama campaigned heavily against mandates.  If I remember correctly that was a Clinton and Edwards position.

    Secondarily, your data set is limited in that regard.  There were multiple democratic primary debates.  Any discussion about campaigning about health care has to take into account those transcripts as well.

    That said, Deaniac, I've enjoyed your diaries and I am a supporter of the bill.

  •  I call bullshit (0+ / 0-)

    Obama just officially became a lying sack of shit.

    Face it.

    (Adding, not just me, who is no one; Atrios.)

    We guarantee 40 million more customers to the insurance companies, then claim it's a good thing because the poor get a cup of coffee and a doughnut. - Jane

    by itswhatson on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:02:22 PM PST

  •  Thanks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, Nina, chillindame, sillycilla

    and sorry you're getting all this vitriol.  It's not unlike the Afghanistan situation; if you listened to Obama during the campaign, his decision to increase troop levels could hardly have been a surprise- whatever your opinion might be about it.

    •  The vitriol doesn't bother me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chicago Lulu, Nina

      I'm ok with it.  I do appreciate your support, and that of everyone who put this on the recommended list.  I have faith in our community.

      And really, we are all on the same side.  We're bickering amongst ourselves, but do you want to bet that if tomorrow I am diagnosed with cancer and need to raise money for my treatment, that this community - and probably slinkerwink - will be the first to put together a call to action?  I would do the same for her.  This gets a little personal sometimes, but I am not going to give up on this community.

  •  I'll tell you what though everyone (3+ / 0-)

    When Rahm Emanuel laughs and says that you guys aren't anything to worry about, well if you believe this diary and if you are fighting this diary....this is what he's talking about.  Why should anybody take any of you seriously.  

    "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:02:56 PM PST

  •  No wonder we ended up with Bush.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrcjr

    Follow the Kos leader sheep..Help put another Bush in office..

  •  What did he campaign on? (4+ / 0-)

    The campaign speeches he gave repeatedly had little substance/detail.  (That's not a criticism.)  In that case, what did he campaign on?

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:05:53 PM PST

  •  OK It's Officially "Fail" (9+ / 0-)

    Did you happen to check the phrase "public plan"? Because several diarists today have in fact linked to the President's campaign statements about it, and promises about it.  And I am not going to play lawyer games and pretend that "public plan" isn't the same thing as "public option."  He made these statements, he gave a vision, and it was while he was campaigning.  That he did not use the words "public option" is utterly meaningless; the term itself wasn't being used during the campaign.

    So why would you even write what I think is now the tenth diary about this today?

    Did you really not take a few minutes to even read all the oodles of OTHER diaries today about this very subject before asserting so categorically (writing with capital letters even) that our President "DIDN'T campaing on the Public Option?"

    Or did you just not like the truth which you have gone out of your way to avoid in this diary by pretending that the lack of use of a phrase means that the idea behind the phrase didn't exist?

    If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

    by shanikka on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:07:15 PM PST

    •  Yes I checked "public plan" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina

      and the speech database still doesn't pull up anything that's even remotely related to a government run health insurance option.  The database is linked in my diary.  You are welcome to do your own search(es) and come show your work.  Thanks.

      •  I Don't Need to (6+ / 0-)

        I don't need to write the 11th diary on this subject.  I urge you, however, to stop pretending that other people didn't write diaries citing sources that contradict yours (and your extremely self-serving definition of the phrase "campaigned on" - I'm an attorney and I'm not even that cheap, and I don't believe our President is either, when it comes to sticking and moving) and at least cover why those that preceded you were wrong.

        And why despite those that agreed with you you were compelled to nonetheless write this diary, too.

        If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

        by shanikka on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:14:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Since it's become all about semantics, (5+ / 0-)

    and since we're holding a wake (on another diary) over what most kossacks had determined wasn't worth the paper it was written on anyway (House bill) but has now become  "Obama's Great Betrayal"? In hindsight, I would prefer (if anyone asked me) that we had taken Professor (of Linguistics) George Lakhoff's early suggestion that the (piece of shit) public option had been called "The American Option" from the git-go. Hell, the Republicans might even have voted for it, and it would sure as hell have befuddled the teabaggers (imagine the rally signs).

    Even if it did turn out to be a "piece of shit", that po.

    ...we could really be having some kossack-games over here.

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:07:23 PM PST

  •  Dueling Parse Banjos? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, voodou

    So let me first lay out what I understand "campaigning on" to mean:

    "Let me define how I think I'm right ..."

    The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

    by BentLiberal on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:12:18 PM PST

  •  This is an incredibly funny diary! (4+ / 0-)

    I'm beside myself with laughter!

    Some of the finer points where you accuse others of twisting words in your comments are just...wow!

    1. Campaign != Campaign
    1. whatever you want follows.

    You'll excuse me if I don't accept your initial claim that a campaign is not a campaign.

  •  Deaniac83, I have been a huge supporter (9+ / 0-)

    of the President's from the fall of 2007 until literally the last few weeks.  I supported the stimulus and can forgive him that it was only about 75% of what it should have been.  I have my doubts about Geithner but don't claim to know enough about economics to judge him adequately.  I actually support the escalation in Afghanistan unlike many good people here.  Whether I support the public option (which I do) is irrelevant though to the question at hand.  He did campaign on it.  I made calls for him night after night and it was included on his website.  In the 21st century that means it is part of your campaign regardless of how many times you mention it yourself.

    You are engaging in the worst semantic sophistry and I suggest you delete this diary immediately from DKos as you are risking losing your credibility with this community just as the President is with his supporters.  Best Wishes for the rest of the Holiday Season.      

  •  I think the other diaries facts are stronger (0+ / 0-)

    and more comprehenisvie than this. But I think I will wait and hear how Obama walks this back. I am pretty disgusted right now but not all deception is bad. SOme is neccessary to save life. And that is fine wiht me.. but this who ling.. bothersome.

  •  Next you're going to tell me (3+ / 0-)
    he didn't campaign against the individual mandate.

    Kill the Baucus-Lieberman-Nelson bill.

    by Paleo on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:16:37 PM PST

  •  Um, re-read the diary you're arguing with (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BentLiberal, Seamus D, priceman, voodou

    Tons of examples from Obama's pre-election campaign promising a "public plan."

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:16:40 PM PST

  •  Why do I trust TomP more than you? (0+ / 0-)

    You seem a little too defensive.

  •  He campaigned against mandates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, voodou

    I'm sure it's been said 50 times in the comments, but it needs to be said again.

  •  How Clintonian (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, Seamus D, priceman, thethinveil
    I guess it depends on what your definition of "campaign" is.

    Kill the Baucus-Lieberman-Nelson bill.

    by Paleo on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:19:05 PM PST

  •  Obama's campaign Web site... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dagoril

    You can see what he says about "public plans" in June of last year...

    http://bit.ly/...

  •  It depends on what the meangin of "is" is? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, indiemcemopants, Seamus D, Muggsy

    This is ridiculous, a distinction without a difference.

    Here's a link to a document entitled "BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL"

    (2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a
    National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it.

    Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency.

    Posts like this insult supporters' intelligence, and do nothing to revive the sinking credibility of Rahm's Administration.

    Limit the apologia, end the tortured, definition-dependent "logic", and start treating people like competent adults, if you'd like their support to continue.

  •  Oh boy... (5+ / 0-)

    "To be sure, President Obama campaigned for the public option during the summer, after he became president.  But he did not campaign on it as a candidate."

    That has to be the most intellectually dishonest statement I've ever read from a self-described progressive/democrat/liberal." Ever.

    •  Separating out the timeline (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chillindame

      is dishonest, how?  Did people vote for Obama based on what he said this summer or what he said in the speeches last year?

      •  Again (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilK, Seamus D, voodou

        If he campaigned for it, he campaigned for it. I, just like everyone else, didn't vote for him for any "one" statement he made before the election. What did he say? "Must have the public option." Your attempt to take the meaning out of that statement is dishonest. You know in your heart when you first read that statement this afternoon, you got a knot in your stomach just like everyone else. Then you went looking for a way out.

    •  Revisonist History-It's All The Rage Now (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilK, Seamus D, Muggsy

      For many on Kos.
      It's gotten absolutely Orwellian around here recently, at times.

      •  but where is your proof that he CAMPAINGED on it? (0+ / 0-)

        where are the speeches? Where did he say vote for me because my plan has a Public Option? He didn't.. so the one crying liar and the ones rewritting history. PO did not become an issue until he bacme President, fact. It's not our fault you heard what you wanted. But being a supporter from the BEGINNING, I don't recall him ever mentioning it. Just because it was on his website doesn't mean it meant it was going to be in the final bill....... He's not a dictator.

        "Love the life you live. Live the life you love."- Bob Marley

        by sillycilla on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:53:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this diary.. the fact gets lost in all (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrcjr, deaniac83

    the hyberbole in the other diary.. truth is he did not campaign on it as a candidate, no need to lie.

    "Love the life you live. Live the life you love."- Bob Marley

    by sillycilla on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:20:41 PM PST

  •  This year's "I didn't have sex with that woman." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dagoril

    Sure he didn't if you only consider what he said in speeches. It doesn't count if it was only on his campaign website and in the campaign literature and was called a public plan rather then a public option, just like a blow job doesn't count as sex because you didn't ejaculate into a vagina, and you smoked the cigar.  

    I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is a ridiculous parsing of the situation. And I don't know what I find more insulting, that Obama thinks so little of the people who voted for him that he thinks that will fly or that someone tries to defend it to this community.

    He would have better off lying that he gave it up reluctantly when he realized there was no way to get the sixty votes needed. At least the diary supporting that wouldn't have insulted the intelligence of the Daily Kos community as we wouldn't have it in black and white that it was a lie.  

  •  From the Hollywood debate on 1-31-2008 (8+ / 0-)

    Transcript, courtesy CNN

    OBAMA: Well, I actually think that a couple of the ones that Hillary mentioned are genuine policy differences that are worthy of debate.

    Let's take health care. About 95 percent of our plans are similar. We both set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance.

    I wonder what else the diarist missed.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Feb 17, 1755.

    by Wayward Son on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:24:21 PM PST

    •  Of course, this glosses over the mandate issue.. (4+ / 0-)

      ..with which he demonized Clinton repeatedly, and now has adopted as being 'what he wanted all along'.

      They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Feb 17, 1755.

      by Wayward Son on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:25:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually the mandate issue is something legit (0+ / 0-)

        to argue about the PO isn't.. I don't even get the hoopla on that, it's just the truth.

        "Love the life you live. Live the life you love."- Bob Marley

        by sillycilla on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:55:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What argument about the mandate do we need? (0+ / 0-)

          A comparison of Obama's past and present views.. or the mandate itself, when no affordable option is provided to those being mandated to purchase the insurance?

          The latter argument has been circled around quite thoroughly.

          The former has been hinted at, but all this talk of what Obama campaigned on will certainly put more focus on variances in his statements then and now.

          They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Feb 17, 1755.

          by Wayward Son on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:16:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  well...let me try (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seamus D

      this is a debate...not a campaign.

      And a government plan is not a public plan, nor a public option, nor a choice..

      am I close?

      Yes, the NSA can hear you.

      by Muggsy on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:26:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are correct that Obama's Primary Campaign (0+ / 0-)

    NOT to be confused with the General Election Campaign (which is what many here are referencing, and you can tell because the links go to pdf's with Biden and Obama in them both)...

    The Primary Campaign did NOT focus on the public option, as we've come to talk about it.

    I've made hundreds of calls to congress and followed every HCR diary here, more or less, since September or so.

    I also made thousands of campaign calls for the Obama campaign as an early phone banker, many from my personal home or while on campus on my cell phone (so my script was closely memorized).

    The public option style plan was, when I looked in archive.org for the basic plan I would have been followed, the same recent FEHB plan w/ an exchange that public option option proponents have been less thrilled by.

    The statement is all corroborated in the past ten to fifteen or so comments I've made on this site (including the one earlier here, which links to the original document as well as a transcript, that was available to the public during the Primaries).

    Furthermore, phone bankers had an additional script that was even more focused, that you accessed through a phone bankers tool screen.

    I don't have to reach to remember what I have memorized.

    When I came onto this site in September or so, I was intrigued by the idea of a public option that I'd not heard of previously, and I made calls and emails to Congress over many months pushing for that.

    Personally, I'd still prefer single-payer, but that's OT.

    A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

    by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:24:52 PM PST

    •  Well, I gave you his general election (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      campaign speeches too, and the 3 general election debates.  The stuff isn't there.

      •  Man, I wasn't asleep at the wheel here (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't have the internet during some of the general election, but got it by around the second debate with McCain.

        I don't remember it. But someone called me Joe Lieberman for saying that I didn't. My memory is usually pretty good and I was a very diligent volunteer who dealt with day-to-day grassroots campaigning GOTV issues (I was working for a local campaign as a volunteer too, so that made it easier).

        Why would I have been so surprised about the new public option idea here, on the Daily Kos, this last September.

        I honestly sometimes just think I was one of the more engaged participants in the Obama Campaign, so my memory is a bit different about this stuff. No offense to those who didn't follow the campaign. He was my first pick, that's all.

        I did a month of homework before signing on though, because I'd never put my name behind any President previously. And I'd been aware of him for awhile.

        I don't feel betrayed by this part of the campaign, although I'd still prefer Single Payer.

        A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Gandhi

        by mahakali overdrive on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:35:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  you way tomato (0+ / 0-)

    I say tomaaaato...you say potato, I say potaaato  tomato..tomaaato...

    let's call the whole thing off.

    Yes, the NSA can hear you.

    by Muggsy on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:24:58 PM PST

  •  The speeches weren't his policy. (5+ / 0-)

    Google "Obama health care exchange 2008" and watch all the sites which pop up touting a "public plan" (including the man's own site).

    Did all the other sites hallucinate this? Or do you think maybe his speeches were designed around what sounded good and flowery, while his policy papers contained all the wonky fiddly bits and details?

    Regards,
    Corporate Dog

    -----
    We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

    by Corporate Dog on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:25:11 PM PST

  •  You win! Most ridiculous diary I have read - (6+ / 0-)

    I guess in the past two days?

    "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

    by thethinveil on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:25:19 PM PST

  •  Re your Update (8+ / 0-)

    If this is so:

     I am asking everyone who has a contrary view to please review the fact that I laid out what I understand "campaigned on" to be atop this diary, and proceeded to provide you with all the resources I used to do my research.  You are invited to prove me wrong, but not by claiming that putting something on a website means you "campaigned on" it.  I don't buy it.

    ...then you need to change your title. As you yourself have said, you're simply voicing your opinion of what you understand and making an argument for it.

    That's not a "Fact Check"

    The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

    by BentLiberal on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:25:49 PM PST

  •  still believing that Obama has not been a sellout (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    azguyrn

    and a liar is equivalent to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  Are the screamers here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sillycilla

    even remotely aware that the President does NOT make law?

    He may have some influence, but he is limited in what he can do.

    He casts no vote.  His duty is to either sign what has already been voted on by the legislature, or to veto it.

    If you wanted a king, you should have voted for GWB again.

  •  I can't believe you're lying like this in your (9+ / 0-)

    diary.

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:28:20 PM PST

  •  Lie to me some more baby! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK

    and make me believe it this time!

  •  I concur. Thanks for this diary. A bald (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gobears2000

    face lie has not been told.

    'If we lift our voice as one, there's nothing that can't be done' MJ

    by publicv on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:30:15 PM PST

  •  CAMPAIGN VIDEO OF OBAMA ON PUBLIC PLAN (16+ / 0-)

    Here's the truth. He DID campaign on the public plan which we know as the public option.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    TRANSCRIPT:

    "In my mind, reproductive care is essential care, it is basic care . . it is at the center and the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially . . we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services." (7/17/07)

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:30:27 PM PST

  •  willfully wrong. n/t (3+ / 0-)

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:33:20 PM PST

  •  So what are endorsement questionaires for? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seamus D, voodou

    So when my democratic club receives a questionaire filled out by a candidate asking questions to determine if we will endorse that candidate we should only take the answers that are repeated seriously? How many times would a candidate need to repeat a statement to be taken seriously? Just want to know for future reference. This diary is unbelievably shallow and insulting. What a joke.

    •  Yeah, truth be damned, someone can state they are (0+ / 0-)

      for something but not have it be their campaign pledge or some promise. If one of you people, who are not as shallow as I, could please point one campaign pledge where the public option was included, please do it.

      There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

      by Irixsh on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:52:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama website not to be taken seriously? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrbeen38

        So your point is that if a candidate places a concept or priority on their website when expaining their position, in this case helathcare reform, unless it is clearly labeled "campaign pledge" it should not be taken seriously? Again how many times should a candidate say or repeat a point before we take their word as a pledge? 5 times? 10 times? Or would it need to be specifically labeled as a campaign promise in a speech to be considered true?

        •  Not at all, compaigns have plans for all sorts of (0+ / 0-)

          things. Some plans get enacted, some don't. There is a huge distinction to putting a plan (as has been stated in every quote (the Obama-Biden PLAN, My LAN)) on a website, and having that be the criteria for the final bill you sign. there's no semantics there. This is not a read my lips moment, he had a plan, Congress had a different plan, it happens all the time. There's no deceit involved when plans are altered. If my boss called me a liar every time something didn't go according to my business plan, I'd never get any work done.

          There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

          by Irixsh on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:13:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  As Bill would say: "It all depends on what is is" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, LamontCranston, Seamus D

    In other words, when caught lying like Obama has been regarding the public option and mandates (and Clinton was about sex with that woman) you can try and redefine "public option" and "mandates" but, as you see from this diary's example of the technique, it doesn't work.

    Obama offered an Obama-Biden health care plan during the campaign. It was part of the Obama-Biden platform. It included a very strong public option.

    It did not include mandates.

    Obama should have been honest and said, it doesn't have some things I campaigned on like public option and it has some things I opposed like mandates but it does what I want...

    Instead Obama pointlessly chose to lie about his campaign promise of public options. Most folks know they are campaign promises and can forgive not achieving them, but lying that you even made them when it is going to be printed out and rubbed in your face, that's just stupid and disrespectful of the voter's intelligence.

  •  It depends what the definiton of "is", is. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, voodou

    Semantics and wordcraft.....Say what you mean, and mean what you say:  That's how I was bought up, and it has served me well in my young 55 years of life.

    As for the doublespeak enabling crowd - Have fun, and know that some of us have figured out that you are insincere, and shallow.

    Read my monicker quote in my post below and you will know just how I feel.

    "Try not to become a man of success, but rather to become a man of value." ~ Albert Einstein

    by LamontCranston on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:37:11 PM PST

  •  but the teabaggers (0+ / 0-)

    said he was a socialist!

    Are you trying to tell me that they lied?!?!

    I am so disappointed.

    the means IS the end

    by jrcjr on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:38:49 PM PST

  •  If it's on the campaign website, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seamus D, thethinveil, voodou

    it was part of his platform.

    He campaigned on it.

    The Obama supporters have a lot of tapdancing ahead of them.

    "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" --Patti Smith

    by andrewj54 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:40:14 PM PST

  •  Shorter deaniac: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    owlbear1, Seamus D, thethinveil, voodou

    "It depends on what your definition of the words 'public plan' is."

    From a response to a questionaire by Obama in 2008:

    My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage. Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them.

    From the health care plan listed on the campaign's web site in 2008:

    The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency.

    Also from the campaign web site:

    Yes, Mr. President, you DID campaign on the Public Option

    From a radio interview in 2007:

    Senator Clinton’s plan for healthcare, my plan, John Edward’s plan are all similar in the sense that we set up a government plan alongside the private plans that people have. And people can buy in. And we all subsidize participation in that plan.

    From a NYT article published in May 2007:

    Senator Barack Obama proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system today, aimed at covering the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans, reducing premium costs for everyone else, and breaking what he asserted was "the stranglehold" that the biggest drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.

    [...] Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. He would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans that would aim at "reforming" the private insurance market and giving individuals other, more affordable options for coverage.

    -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

    by Big Tex on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:44:32 PM PST

    •  In all honesty, it's a level of semantics (0+ / 0-)

      that I'm not qualified to answer. But to give it a background, the Massachusetts health connector (which is the exchange for Mass residents for insurance) is considered a public plan with private choices in theory.

      There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

      by Irixsh on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:56:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but Obama isn't parsing his way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thethinveil

        out of this.  What he proposed during the campaign was crystal clear, and there's no way we're letting him disappear his campaign pledges down the memory hole like he never made them.

        -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

        by Big Tex on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:03:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  now his plan is a pledge, really? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glynis

          He pledged it, I need to see this pledge. No, he proposed it, there is a HUGE difference there and to call what you posted a pledge is absurd.

          There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

          by Irixsh on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:10:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Plan, pledge, whatever. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thethinveil

            Either way, it's a bald-faced, shameless LIE for him to say he didn't campaign on the public option.  This bullshit parsing that some of you are resorting to in order to try and obscure this fact is shameful.

            You know, he's lieing to you too, and to deaniac, and to the others who are flacking for him, not just to those of us who are being critical of him.  Doesn't that piss you off even a little?

            -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

            by Big Tex on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:21:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope, I'm used to it to be honest (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glynis

              and I'll go about my life. He will always be 10 times better than the other options I had.  I don't find it shameful, but that's because I'm not worried about the difference between a pledge and a plan. I don't mean this to sound rude (can't think of another way to put it though) but in my reality, plans are proposed all the time and then they are altered as reality sets in. When I was 21, I had planned on being rich (mostly from my first book) and married by 30, neither happened, does that make me a liar to myself and to others who i told the plan too? You play the hand life gave you, If he was lying about an actual event, I might care more.

              There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

              by Irixsh on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:30:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The difference between a pledge and a plan (0+ / 0-)

                isn't relevant to the question of whether he campaigned on the public option.  He did.  And he's trying to pretend he didn't.  And if you're going to give him a free plan for lying this blatantly, then you're giving him a free pass to lie whenever he feels like he needs to, which is a reckless thing to do.

                -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

                by Big Tex on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:14:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  LMAO. Obama morphs into Spinal Tap. (6+ / 0-)

    We say, "Love your brother."
    Well, We don't literally say it.
    No, we don't say it.
    We don't really, literally mean it.
    No, we don't believe it either,
    But the message should be clear.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:46:01 PM PST

  •  That''s funny (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spiny, owlbear1, Seamus D, priceman, voodou

    because I am self-employed, and during the campaign I distinctly remember having intense conversations with my Republican parents about what my insurance status would be out of graduate school.  They were very worried about what would happen if something happened to me when I was uninsured, and the potential impact on them of a prolonged hospitalization.  And I remember pointing out to them that if Obama were elected, I might be able to buy into a PUBLIC OPTION.

    I must have gotten that wacky idea off of his CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, were his CAMPAIGN PLATFORM was presented for everyone to see, the place that I was directed to to learn more about his platform for all the PHONEBANK CAMPAIGNING that I did for him.

    No more.

    No more work for Obama, or any Democratic politician without IRONCLAD PROGRESSIVE BONAFIDES.

    "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" --Patti Smith

    by andrewj54 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:46:15 PM PST

    •  then again (0+ / 0-)

      whether you're getting a PO or not, you will be getting expanded opportunities to purchase insurance and even subsidies to help you pay for it.

      IRONCLAD PROGRESSIVE BONAFIDES.

      And who defines those?  We have a platform that defines the Democratic Party? That's not good enough for you?  Progressive means making progress.  And gee, he fits that definition just fine.

      "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

      by glynis on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 06:31:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is just the first (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seamus D, An Affirming Flame

    stage of grief called denial.

    It's ok, we'll wait patiently for you to catch up with those of us in later stages.

    (h/t military tracy)

  •  But what about Jane Hamsher? nt (0+ / 0-)

    "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" --Patti Smith

    by andrewj54 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:49:45 PM PST

  •  Cognitive Dissonance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seamus D, voodou

    I really wonder how on earth the diarist manages to make the claim he does in the diary's title in the face of all of Obama's statements and campaign literature supporting a public insurance plan.  Many of these are helpfully laid out in TomP's diary.

    The diarist seems to take the view that a candidate hasn't "campaigned on" an issue unless the promise in question meets at least two criteria.  First, it must be something the candidate "goes to the voters" about.  Second, the promise must be "repeated."  Apparently implicit in the first criterion is that the promise be made orally.  The written word is not binding.  Thus, a candidate's position paper or a candidate's campaign web site do not contain things that one a candidate is "campaigning on."

    The second criterion is not precisely defined.  How many times must a policy or promise be repeated orally to the voters before the voters are entitled to understand that the candidate is "campaigning" on it?  Since it seems from some of the other comments here that Obama did, in fact, discuss his public plan orally, is the diarist's claim that it was not discussed frequently enough?

    Honestly, all of this could have been handled in a far simpler and more straightforward fashion.  The diarist could simply have claimed, as many here have, that the public option was politically impossible.  According to this view, Obama campaigned on the public option but was unable to deliver on it because of the recalcitrance of Congress.  Thus, Obama would be guilty of failing to deliver on a promise, but could be excused by extenuating circumstances.  Instead, what we have is an extended exercise in Russian history-writing, all so that the diarist can claim that Obama wasn't fibbing when he said he never campaigned on the public option.

    My advice to the diarist:  It is best not to get too emotionally invested in politician.  Politicians disappoint.  They prevaricate.  They stretch the truth to try to make themselves look good.  Obama is just doing what pretty much all politicians do.  Recognize it and accept it.  You'll feel much better when you're not fighting your cognitive dissonance.

    Really, claiming Obama didn't "campaign on" the public option is a bit like Bush claiming "we don't torture."  It's perverting language to serve a temporary political end.

  •  I clearly understood him numerous times to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glynis, Seamus D

    say that people would have the choice of a Medicare-like option along-side private plans in a competitive insurance exchange.  He didn't embrace that position initially, but as the primary wore on, he did.  I have no idea how frequently he talked about it in the general election, I just know that it was on his web site and written papers and was clearly his position during the campaign.

    I'm sorry, but I am not interested is seeing this president, whom I respect so very much, defended using Clintonesque parsing.  Stop it.  If Obama didn't campaign on a publicly run health insurance option alongside private plans, then words have no meaning any longer.  And that would NOT be change I can believe in.

    It's not that I don't understand your position and how it could be argued that way.  I'm a recovering litigator.  It's that I do not want Obama's presidency to devolve into a simpering battle of terminology as Clinton's did.  And I can't imagine that it will, because he is an entirely different person.  But either way, I am what people mean when the talk about "'bots," and I sure as hell ain't going where you're going.  I have too much respect for Barack Obama to let him get away with that kind of horseshit.

    The saddest thing is that no one even asked him.  He volunteered this piece of donkeypuck.

    "Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it." -- Stolen from homogenius, who in turn stole it from a coffee mug.

    by Mother of Zeus on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:53:11 PM PST

  •  Thanks. Great work. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mll

    I read the article where he is quoted as saying he did not campaign on it, and in context (following the sentence about how the public option has become an ideological issue on both sides), he adds that he did not "campaign on the public option" and I read it exactly as you did here; he meant that he did not make it a central issue in his campaigning.

    My sense was that was correct; I didn't remember him making it a major issue at all, and knew that is what he meant in the quote. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this and confirm my feelings about what I remembered from the campaign.

    There was literature online saying that his plan would include one. Of course, everyone knows that the president doesn't write legislation, which is why I never paid much attention to any 'plan' that any of the candidates put forth, because I knew it was a wish list, not any iron-clad promises that everything on there would necessarily happen.

    It was clear from Obama's speeches that he wanted to stop the insurance company abuses; that is what he campaigned on. Getting rid of the pre-existing condition loophole that lets them get out of paying for medical bills is what I remember him campaigning on, and that's what I expected him to deliver. I think the bill has most of what I wanted. He also did say he opposed mandates, but had to change his mind on that too which I am disappointed about, but again I never expected that he was going to wave a magic wand and make his exact plan into law so I'm not shocked.

    It seems he also knew from early on that a PO was unlikely to pass, which is why he said openly that it was not "essential" and specifically didn't make it a "line in the sand" issue like so many wanted him to do.

    Anyway, I don't think he lied in the interview that Tom P. cites. I think he meant it as you have suggested. And I don't think it's a big deal at all, but I guess all the Jane Hamsher diaries were getting old so time to bring the guns around to Obama again.

    •  I agree with this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CS in AZ, gobears2000

      I stayed out of the Hamsher stuff from earlier for the most part because quite frankly I really didn't give a shit.  Then I come here this evening, and see another series of diaries that make even less sense than that.  

      Me personally, I would say that I recall Candidate Obama campaigning on insurance reform, refocusing on Afghanistan, improving the situation for the middle class, and bipartisanship.  

      The specifics I recall that made a big impression on me as far as insurance was repealing pre-existing limits, making premiums more affordable, and giving people access to the same kind of access that the government had.  

      Personally, I took President Obama's answer to mean that the public option was not the centerpiece of his healthcare plan as a candidate, but an element he would have liked included, and I would agree with him on that as what I just mentioned always stood out to me as the main focus.  Even when he was doing his townhalls this summer he was quite focused on the  exchange and rescinding pre-existing.  And of course we all remember the fury about how he wouldn't come out and say he'd veto a plan without a public option, or wouldn't draw a line in the sand over it.  

      I guess what I'm getting at is...I genuinely don't know what the hell the point of the argument is.  Now that people have crossed over into declaring him a "liar" and such, if he came back tomorrow and stated that while the PO was one of the elements he would have liked, that ultimately it wasn't his main goal, would that be more palatable, or is he just dead to you now?  Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the Hamsher stupidity from earlier is causing this to flare up in response.    

      More than one thing at a time != Doing EVERYTHING at one time.

      by RinaX on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:14:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seems like a complete waste of time... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sun dog

    this incessant bickering over whether he did or didn't campaign on the public option/plan.

    The reality is that the president didn't fight for a progressive HCR bill. The senate didn't want a progressive HCR bill. And, we're not getting a progressive bill.

    That sucks, but until Baucus, Conrad, Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln and Landrieu are replaced with better senators, or Reid is replaced by a leader with some cajones, this is what we'll get.

    It sucks, but I can't feign incessant poutrage over not getting what I, and most of the progressive community, thinks we need...

    Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    by Jahiz on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:55:03 PM PST

  •  Obama copied his UHC plan with a public option (