House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has two pieces of advice that don’t sit well with the most progressive members of her party. However, she is right on both counts.

First, Pelosi is rightly worried about the plunge into the socialist abyss. She doled out some tough love in a New York Times interview last week:

"Own the center left, own the mainstream,” Ms. Pelosi, 79, said.

“Our passions were for health care, bigger paychecks, cleaner government — a simple message,” Ms. Pelosi said of the 40-seat Democratic pickup last year that resulted in her second ascent to the speakership. “We did not engage in some of the other exuberances that exist in our party” — a reference to some of the most ambitious plans advocated by the left wing of her party and some 2020 candidates, including “Medicare for all” and the Green New Deal, which she has declined to support.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/06/pelosis-right-about-couple-things/?utm_term=.98492ca65333

stuff. or the new green deal. Talk to the farmers about this. That's a kitchen table issue.
Thanks for the post.

And I'm finding advocates for it completely tone deaf as to what a political disaster it is. This problem is evident even on DU. M4A is a big FU to 180 million people who already have healthcare and don't feel like messing with it right now.

leaders. the biggest political push back will come from pharma and insurance industries. Here's a short article
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/medicare-for-all-is-not-a-fantasy-baker/index.html

the biggest opposition will come from people like me, who have good insurance right now and just don't want to mess with it.

I'm perfectly willing to pay more so other people can gwt some kind of coverage. I'm not willing to gamble with my own healthcare in the process.

But some politicians want to quash that discussion, and push back against any analysis that doesn't promote their legislation.

Here's an article:

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/response-criticisms-our-analysis-sanders-health-care-reform-plan

And there are several other universal health care bills up besides MFA. With all the focus on simply plugging holes in the ACA, do you really think that this is the time to focus on all these other pieces of legislation that won't have a chance of passing until after 2020?

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/

propagandists who have poisoned the minds of so many Americans.

We can't do anything new because I already have it and if we extend it to others, then it isn't fair...

(Even though I'll still have it)

(Even though millions of others would not reap those same benefits)

To me, that argument just doesn't hold water. We need to raise taxes enough so that a) everyone has Medicare, and b) increase coverage to 100% rather than 80%, and c) allow private companies to continue to sell supplemental policies...but everybody has the basic good package.

And, we need a green new deal. My grandkids need that NOW.

is gold-plated, not basic. It covers things that make no economic sense and nobody else in the world covers. At the same time, it will not cover some things that I actually need it to cover. And it either have to raise taxes in excess of current premiums, cause a sharp drop in quality or drive doctors and hospitals out of business.

This is not based on any propaganda. This is based on actual personal direct experience with both Medicare and a decent employer-provided insurance program and having immediate family members with serious, complex and expensive health care needs.

So stop patronizing people and start telling the truth. It's not like I don't know how the health care system actually works, or doesn't work.

The state sets the price of medical procedures and services for all customers, no matter the insurance or lack of it.

Normally if a procedure such as an appendectomy costs a hospital, say $5000, a large pool might negotiate a discount down to $3000. To make up for that the hospital would then charge a smaller pool with less bargaining power $7000 to make up for it, and they might charge someone who is uninsured $10,000.

By setting the price for an appendectomy for all patients, the cost of negotiating for discounts is eliminated, as well as the higher costs for smaller pool participants and uninsured individuals. That was the goal anyway.

I haven't researched the latest analysis on it how it's affected prices. Do you know?

And as far as I can see from insurance EOBs, there is no consistent pricing.

I was mistaken - in 2014 MD did not expand cost controls beyond hospitals, and different prices were set a different hospitals in different regions. Primary care physicians and specialists are still setting and negotiating their own pricing. However the costs controls in place have made a difference.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-sun-investigates-health-costs-20180215-story.html

And thank God most Democrats cockblocked him by voting "present," on that vote.

To equate anyone that tells you something you don't want to hear with "playing into the hands of corporat propaganda who have poisoned your mind" is also not based in reality.... see also: Trump supporters.

Attacking a strawman doesn't help one's credibility. No one here is saying that and you know it.



Well, apparently anything that you don't want to hear "doesn't hold water."

There are several proposals on the table for reforming health care, and what you describe doesn't accurately reference any of them. You're oversimplifying and misrepresenting MFA, so that's one problem you have right there - lack of information.

I could give you links to several articles that go into detail, but as you've stated, you will dismiss anything, no matter how expert or evidence based, that you don't want to hear as being the product of a "corporate propaganda poisoned mind," which is sad, because we need people behind what will actually get the most health care to the most people the soonest - and right now, that's plugging the holes in the ACA.

And no, that's not a "slippery slope," it's acknowledging the reality of not being able to upend the health care system in this country all at once with out disruption to the health care system, the economic impacts of doing so on those who work in that system which is 17% of our GDP.

In the real world, any huge project has this caveat: Affordable, Fast, or Good - pick two.

There is no magic wand hidden away in some corporate board room, as you seem to think, that would enable all that you envision to happen within 10 years. Anyone who tells you that is either selling something or running for office.

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/

Did with Clinton care.

may not be part of what we end up with. but I've yet to hear her talk about single payer and can't find any articles on it either.

Last edited Thu May 9, 2019, 09:04 AM - Edit history (2)

Repairing and expanding the ACA is the priority that Pelosi has set, so that is the primary topic of her health care reform statements.

The ACA is the path that was started to Universal Health Care, and is the farthest along the road that we have gotten to UHC. Incremental expansion of the ACA is the most politically possible path to UHC, according to independent, non-partisan, self-funded health policy think tanks.

Incremental expansions such as:

Allowing people 55 and up to buy into Medicare, at more than if they waited, but at less than what they would pay on the market.

Expanding medicaid coverage to all children up through 18 who don't have coverage. Elementary and secondary schools might be looped in, in terms of providing vaccinations, hearing exams, eye exams, dental cleanings and basic clinical care.

A public option for people who are self employed or unemployed.

After a few years to let the systems adjust, the economy surrounding that health care to adjust, make needed tweaks and changes, then expand universal children's coverage up to 21, and let 50 and over buy into Medicare.

There are many articles discussing Medicare for All (which is specific legislation) and single payer (which differs somewhat from MFA) many places online.

There are actually nine Univeral Health Care proposals currently, and this is a good side by side of them:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/

...and let voters decide on that? This kind of background attempt at manipulating the candidates is bullshit and makes us look bad.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

Who does she think she is suggesting things to candidates?

And not letting "voters decide!"

Pelosi so totally "ending Democracy" now that someone said something that she said at a dinner... What power she has!

You don't even know the whole quote and you're accusing her of not letting voters decide?

...in no way did I suggest voters are not deciding, but that candidates should not be anything but themselves. You seem to have missed the “on that” in my statement. I’m sure it was an honest mistake.

I think you may have missed the part of your post that litterally says that Pelosi is not "letting voters decide" on what the candidates are are or aren't - by suggesting "How about" she do that. I'm sure your missing that was an honest mistake.



Here you literally say that she is "manipulating the candidates" as if the candidates had no choice or self determination.

I'm sure that was an honest mistake.

...”attempt” suggests effort and not a fully carried out successful series of events. So no, I didn’t say anyone’s agency was taken away, only that Pelosi, by throwing this suggestion out there, is encouraging andidates to be something other than themselves.

That's a status quo response of an establishment politician to a fact check that called them out using their own words.

What you actually said:

On three words. In a particular. Sentence.

I wouldn’t know. But I can. Imagine.

I haven’t left. My original point. At all.

Have a nice. Day.

Remember, she was instrumental in orchestrating the "Blue Wave" last year, accomplished mostly by moderate Democrats who flipped red districts by not going "too far to the left". It's a key to winning more seats and hopefully the presidency.

in the nation's history. And you know she is the current LEADER of the house Democratic caucus.

If you want to tell Speaker Pelosi you think her LEADING is bullshit and that SHE makes us look bad, I suggest you write her office and let some clerk know. You have the right. Maybe you'd like to write the other 234 Democrats and threaten to dislike them if they respect and listen to her. But you're on your own.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/nancy-pelosi-times-interview-moderate-coup.html

Last edited Thu May 9, 2019, 09:12 AM - Edit history (3)

https://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/slate-journalists-doesn-t-understand-journalistic-ethics-6bff527d-8009-40a9-9f5c-6a56efc8bc23

He has a history of hating on Democrats, to the point of violating journalistic ethics to do so.

PURE BOLLOCKS

totally a RW meme

To Rubin, anything that even makes even the slightest attempt to reverse any part of corporate and banker systemic control and stop or even slow down the never-ending ascendancy of the profit motive that is injected into most all facets of American life (ESPECIALLY healthcare and tertiary education) is plunging into 'the socialist abyss'.

Any other questions?

These are not revolutionary foodstuffs. But donuts are too vulgar.

The thought of that makes me want to throw up, but not as much as the thought of real sushi with fruit.

Now, a good pan seared porkchop with fresh melon. Ouiii, doggy.

Makes me want to puke. The white wine would have pushed me over the edge.

There were separate platters. They weren't combined.

"clutches pearls"

The only way forward for the greatest number of votes to defeat drumpf.

by accommodating when we should have stood our ground. Harry might not agree with some of my choices but he knew a thing or 2 about standing up to the GOP.

I appreciate that not all of America is ready for some of the challenges which lay before us. However, we cannot rely on "getting along" or "the good old Democratic days" as philosophies which will lead us through the truly difficult times we are heading into. Something Harry understood that we seem to have forgotten is that you MUST stand up for what is right. If you you do not then you betray those who cannot stand for themselves, and those not yet standing, and all of those who need to see what it means to Stand Up.

I agree that it will not help our candidates to tear the party into factions. Someone might want to make that point to the DCCC, too.

Health care and environmental issues? Yes. There's no evidence that MFA and GND are politically appealing strategies.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-2020-medicare-all-bill-plan-proposal-cost-1413310

"To pursue their goal of thwarting Medicare for All, which not only enjoys broad popular support but also shares 122 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and Senate, the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future has lobbied members of Congress and engaged in an ad-buying blitz, including thousands of anti-Medicare for All Facebook and Twitter ads, typically hyper-targeted at Democratic co-sponsors of Medicare for All legislation.

Members of the partnership spent a combined $143 million in 2018, including $23 million in lobbying money from insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield and nearly $28 million from pharmaceutical industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

There are also many powerful groups lobbying against the Green New Deal.

"https://public-accountability.org/report/the-anti-green-new-deal-coalition/
"The fossil fuel industry is not a mere member of the anti-Green New Deal coalition – it is the coalition’s driving force, whose influence and interests structure the rest of the coalition’s opposition to the Green New Deal.

The fossil fuel industry possesses immense resources and power that it will use to try to destroy the Green New Deal. The top 25 oil and gas companies alone generated $2.2 trillion in sales and $73 billion in profit in 2017.1 Fossil fuel-tied industries spent nearly $2 billion lobbying in the US from 2000 to 2016 – and that was just around climate legislation. 2 Since 2012, it has thrown at least $333.5 million into federal elections alone.3"

MFA has very real issues (cost, timeline, disruption of health care delivery), and any discussion of them is considered "shilling for big pharma." Until discussion is even allowed on those issues, it will not be a viable bill. Until even discussion of why Green Mountain Care could not get off the ground or get political will behind it in the state that sent Bernie Sanders to the Senate is frankly discussed and dissected for lessons learned, MFA will be a tribal sacred cow, rather than a legislative reality.

California has not been able to move forward on their single payer - in large part because they were going to have to use Medicare and Medicaid funds, and that brought huge objections from those enrolled in those programs.

Coloradocare was voted down by a large margin in 2016.

Those are issues that must be addressed with more than a wave of the hand and "LOBBYISTS!"

The Green New Deal has its own issues - it's more of a proposal than an actual bill, which is why it needs to be put through the process of markup. Democrats were wise to vote 'present' on it as is, and refuse to play McConnell's game.

Going up against organized labor isn't going to be easy for Democrats in 2020.

You think that the United Mine Workers is going to support any legislation that reduces the market for coal?

You think that the UAW is going to support any legislation that promotes mass transit?

Last edited Wed May 8, 2019, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

very, very, very much will not 'average out' when combined with a larger number that isn't on board, despite what many people apparently think.

'MFA or bust' has become the "end abortion by taking down Planned Parenthood" for the left. Both have become tribal dogma about "the only moral response" rather than discussions of the issue involving facts and health policy realities.

I find a similar response when I discuss either of those issues with those who will not tolerate any dissent from the party line on either issue.

Those who adhere to both have stopped listening to anyone with any expertise on health policy that doesn't simply say, "Yes, that's absolutely the only way to do this."

I understand the need to avoid jargon and stereotypes. You may argue that this is not the time to confront people with unpleasant truths. How do you avoid talking plainly about where we are, and where we need to go. I don't mean to shove ideas in people's faces, but we are watching the planet burn as we speak, along with the wholesale demolition of the institutions and laws which make our lives possible. Exactly how quiet did you imagine we should be about that?

If you want people to vote for the future we all need then you have to talk about how we are going to get there. You have to speak about genuine issues in real terms.

So what do I do? Vote for "right" because people tell me to? Because Harry Truman thought it was right in 1948?

policies and ideas were worthy.

I disagree with what a number of so-called mainstream party leaders think we ought to do. I also disagree with the way some of them advocate for compromise and accommodation with a rogue president, his entire party, and their Patrons who have paid Dark Money by the ton to make sure they win.

Truman understood the threat of the GOP very well. I think we need more of his willingness to take on problems in plain language. The responsibility is ours to sort things out since the Republicans have abandoned the rule of US and international law. The GOP is willing to allow people to suffer and die who by our laws and our own traditions are entitled to the same Life, Liberty, and Justice as the GOP is willing to sell to the highest bidder. I don't know if you have seen that first hand. I have, and I am next on the list along with many who do not personally own a congressman, or senator, or Federal judge.

We are not trying to defeat just one man (and his crime family). There is a war going on to remove many of us from the planet as conveniently and cruelly as possible to make sure that those few with most of the money and power will have air and water left enough to reach the next GOP approved rapture. They intend to strip mine the planet to pile up the wealth. Anyone who is in the way will not fare well.

I doubt this has escaped your notice. I don't think you are comfortable enough with how things are for you that you feel we can go just a bit slower or speak a little softer. MLK did not believe in silence as a tactic and neither do I. I haven't found it useful or effective.

But she is also not looking at this through the lens of US History. She is looking at it based on other countries' experience with right wing authoritarian populist movements. Such movements can be defeated by a coalition of left and center. If we divide this coalition by pushing too far left, we will lose.

M4A bad for me. I would gladly pay higher taxes to see that uninsured are covered.
I am retired, have Medicare plus. Without that plus, would have been out of pocket many thousands.
A younger friend with intractable, chronic, very complicated illness has received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of quality healthcare—top hospitals, top specialists, and in-home care—through Medicaid.
I am not convinced M4A will give the same care quality in all aspects as currently people’s private and employer provided plans and Medicaid does.
More important, I am afraid this push for M4A will be the sticking point that turns off millions of voters.
For now, why not tweak ACA, expand Medicaid, allow a public buy-in, and let those of us who like our plans keep them?
I see nothing in M4A discussion that addresses hospitals, problems staying afloat, particularly rural hospitals.

those were leftist days. I think Truman would have gotten his national health insurance if it weren't for the postwar anti-communist sentiment.

was conservative southern Democrats not wanting to share hospitals with colored people.

He was right to kick them out of the convention. Of course those are the roots of today's GOP. They have a very long memory.

let's be a party that never thinks outside of the box and keeps veering to the right.

looks like far left to some🙄

Is Joe Lieberman still alive? Maybe we could get him to run?

I’m not getting aboard that train.

it alienates the millennials and younger voters. It was their turnout in 2018 that gave us a blue tsunami.

I can't believe she said that.

I mean you sure would think that based on what a lot of people say on here and elsewhere.

And I mean those salt of the earth, white working class, moderate voters are definitely going to be stuffing envelopes, making calls, going door to door, raising money and getting out the vote for Democrats in 2020 right?

non-corporate controlled candidate to excite the base. Let the left BASE be inspired by a real progressive and they will show up, stuff envelopes, make calls, go door to door, raise money and get out the vote. I loved Hillary but she was not setting the left on fire and now it the time to ignite the left.

I'm the epitome of an older, straight white male and the Biden Boosters acting like we need an old straight white moderate to come along and save the day is outright offensive to me. And it's even worse when they try to pretend it's not based on that by saying "Oh, I think Biden/Harris or Biden Warren would be great!" Oh gee, how fucking noble of you dear White Knight. Fucking spare me

We have plenty of new, fresh, exciting candidates. We don't need our version of McCain or Romney a safe choice who failed to excite primary voters any number of previous times they ran for the nomination.

Shit, even if we accept that we need a moderate white candidate I'd rather see it be someone younger like Beto. Not that I like him all that much either but shit the idea of going backwards just pisses me off.

Isn't it the job of the candidate to inspire enough voters to vote for them?

It would seem to me that any candidate who got the vast majority of Democratic votes was indeed the most inspiring and progressive, by virtue that they won by millions.

Is she threatening to cut off support or something? Or is this just friendly advice?

Divisive??

I guess that was too much.

you were asking for clarification about "how is this not divisive?"

Nice try.

I asked for clarification on what that meant from the OP and I rec'd snark in response. Christ, even that is divisive. A measured, clear response would be great, but you wouldn't really be able to have that good dose of self-righteousness you seem to need. Good luck with that.

Asking for 'clarification' by asking "if it was a threat.' A single sentence that someone said that she said at a reception...

Are you familiar with push polling?

Perhaps you could be less vague?

I guess that was too much.

I thought you might have been able to help.

I have an opportunity for a lunch meeting with Booker,, but I’ll have to check my schedule.

To see the full context.

I'm sooooo happy to see we've learned nothing from 2016.

I don't know how anyone could possibly think that Obama's 2008 campaign was anything less than one of the more liberal in modern memory, or that Hillary's in 2016 was one of the more safe, moderate, centrist campaigns in modern memory.

And no that's got nothing to do with their policies or actual governing records or any of it but the types of campaigns they ran and the types of things that they emphasized. Obama was running against the status quo and in favor of major change, and Hillary was running on a "Things are going great, so let's keep on this path." campaign.

And yes, Russia yadda yadda, more popular votes by 3 million blah blah.......The fact is we lost where it counted, in the electoral college, in many of the same places that Obama won.

So if our leaders are taking from all of that, that we were "too far left" in 2016 then we are truly well fucked.

Hillary ran on the most progressive platform of a presidential candidate in history.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/06/hillary-clinton-strikingly-progressive-campaign/puJGrd0DEK7ktpvi1Yf0SN/story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive-democratic-platform-ever/2016/07/12/82525ab0-479b-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html

Not exactly a lot of facts and data to back them up.

...platform than Trump.

As the poster knows quite well and has chosen to ignore.

Try reading for context. Most progressive platform *in history*.

Your vague denials and protestations don't make it any less true.

....then are you saying we need to be "less" progressive this time around? Is that the strategy?

POTUS, by definition has to lead from more of a center position because they are representing and leading a much larger and more diverse population than that of one state or one district.

At least a successful POTUS does.

That is why all POTUS candidates - the ones that know what they are doing - move towards the center after the primaries.

discussing what's in them.

But here are some other data, if you are interested in reading any:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

..is we need to be "less" progressive this time around?

POTUS, by definition has to lead from more of a center position because they are representing and leading a much larger and more diverse population than that of one state or one district.

At least a successful POTUS does.

That is why all POTUS candidates - the ones that know what they are doing - move towards the center after the primaries.

Vocally and with a strong record of being pro-choice
Vocally and with a strong record of being pro-union
Vocally and with a strong record of being pro strong regulation
Vocally and with a strong record of being pro-healthcare reform (Something more substantial than National Romneycare)
Vocally and with a strong record of pro-LGBT
Vocally and with a strong record of being pro gun control
Vocally and with a strong record of being pro Taxing the Wealthy

I add the "vocally" to that stuff because I just don't think that "Well, it's in the platform and on the website, so of course I support it" is enough. And I say with a strong record of because I don't think saying you support those things when you are looking for votes is enough. I think we need evidence that those things will take a priority once elected.

I don't think any of those issues are "socialist" or "far left" or radical or outside of the mainstream. In fact most enjoy healthy popular support and the only people saying they don't are Republicans and cowardly Democrats. And ultimately I think the more important thing is that we have someone who is going to fight once in office. If someone shows to me that they didn't learn anything from the Obama years and that what we need is more "reaching across the aisle" or more "Congress makes the laws and all the president can do is sign them" BS, especially after what we've seen from the Trump years can be done by a president.

But yes, the ACA is indeed universal health care, and getting it back on track is supporting universal health care.

And no, they all don't get mentioned in every interview or speech. In fact, a politician that wanders off topic to a recitation of this list, no matter how progressive their tangent might be, may be doing so because they don't want to talk about what they were asked about.

If you think that any Democrat that works with any Republican on piece of legislation is 'cowardly' then you aren't prioritizing actual progress, you're looking only for standoffs.

I prefer that progressive legislation actually gets done, however it needs to get done. Do you think that the ACA is worse than continuing as we were? Was it the result of 'weakness?' It was the result of fighting smart on the part of Pelosi. Ask the people who actually got health care as a result if they prefered to go without because "reaching across the aisle is BS!"

I am not privileged enough to think that gridlock is preferable to a working government, and don't consider the ability to work with other legislators that one disagrees with to be a fault.

I think that becoming a 'tea party for the left' will harm this country, and the people in it, more than help. Again, it's privilege that allows one to demand obstruction no matter what rather than actual progress.

you seem to support Warren. She embodies what I'm talking about wanting in a candidate. I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do. Do I think she will work across the aisle if such efforts will be productive? Definitely. Do I think she will value bipartisanship above all else and be overly nice in an effort to get it? ? Not for a minute. Do I think she will vocally fight and push and use her bully pulpit to achieve everything she wants to achieve? Absolutely. I don't for a minute think she would be "needlessly" partisan but I think she will be when she has to be.

Honestly, the only candidate so far who I take any issue with is Biden. Not because I hate him, not because I think he was a bad VP, not because I think he wouldn't be better than Trump. Because he represents a time that has long past and a style of governing that just will not work any more. He's not a fighter. He was perfect for VP because he was a nice guy who could do all the ceremonial, backslapping, handshaking stuff that a VP does. And he has a very bad record of being on the wrong side of history on a number of issues that have been important to not just the country but specifically a lot of core Democratic constituencies. And now as a declared candidate, his lack of policy specifics compared to almost every other candidate is scary to me (especially if he is the frontrunner due to name recognition). I don't want a president who is going to coast on charm and think that will work (I think it was one of Obama's biggest flaws but in him it was minor compared to what I see in Biden).

I think someone like Warren, or Harris, or even to a lesser degree folks like Pete and Booker (who as my Senator from NJ I actually do not care for all that much) will do the fighting that needs to be done.

As for the ACA, my family is one of those that were helped by it so I am not privileged enough either. But it was built on such a tenuous foundation that it has been easily attacked, dismantled and nearly all decimated because Obama started from a position of trying to get Republican votes (which he never did) rather than starting form a position of fighting for the best he could get and then winding up with something less than perfect. Warren is someone whose starting position on healthcare is a strong one and her speeches are focused on what we as a country (all of us) need, and not on saying nice things so that maybe, if we ask nicely enough we will get some Republican support.

You stated that "working across the aisle" was bullshit. Period. And now you're saying that you've backed off of this? OK.

POTUS has to do this - by the definition of the job. LBJ did it to get the most progressive legislation in the 20th century into being. Look at DT, who refuses to, and fails at it miserably. Any effective legislator has to do this at some point. Warren is able to work with other people, effectively, and that doesn't mean caving. The idea that compromise = capitulation is a dualistic mindset that is more common in men, and they get suspicious of working with "the enemy" at all as "sleeping with the enemy."

Articles in Jacobin and the Intercept make it clear that female politicians "get it wrong" when they work with conservatives to get legislation passed, because that "compromises" the "morality" and "progressive cred" of the legislation or policies that result. I don't fucking care who asks who what as long as it gets done. If it's persuasion, fine. If it's arm twisting, fine. If they say please, fine. I'm not going to clutch my pearls that someone was actually comporting civilly with those demons.

Ted Kennedy forever regretted saying "single payer or nothing" to Nixon, and and walking out in 1972 because Democrats told him to, instead of working with Nixon - who actually wound up offering a plan that was to the left of the ACA. Kennedy said that if they had started something then, we might have had something way closer to UHC in European countries by now. Making perfect the enemy of the good cost us 45 years of actual progress towards universal health care. I don't see the morality in that.

Pelosi is especially flayed for working for consensus and using persuasion rather than barking orders at everyone - despite the fact that she is one of the most effective Speakers of the House in modern history. Or maybe because of it...

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/nancy-pelosi-speaker-of-the-house-1.24485907

Obama wasn't even going to fight for the ACA, until Pelosi told him it could be done. And it got done. And the ACA has survived because of how it was implemented. Tell me, if the SCOTUS of 2010 could state that HHS could not enforce a requirement that states expand Medicaid to more people - even if it was financed by the Federal government, what do you think a 2019 SCOTUS would rule on requiring that enforcing states to expand Medicare/Medicaid to all citizens? That would effectivey strike down the entire law, wouldn't it?

I will defer to independent, self-funded, non partisan, apolitical health policy collective wisdom on health care reform. If that's not Warren's position, so be it. I don't agree.

But Warren has the chops and the skills to work with people, and that's what matters most to me. She also has the experience with the CPB, which gives her the experience to work with and head up a large bureau. The only candidates that I take issue with right now are Sanders and Gabbard. Sanders, because of a demonstrated lack of tolerance for any disagreement or questioning of his ideas, which can hinder one's ability to work with teams of colleagues, and a truculent history concerning fact checkers and the press, and Gabbard because of policies and viewpoints she has espoused.

I mean that prioritizing bipartisanship (as I feel Obama did and I feel Biden would do) is bullshit. I meant that being naive about who is actually reachable in any kind of negotiation is bullshit.

I am in full agreement with everything you said, particularly with regard to double standards for female politicians. I think Pelosi is a realist when it comes to bipartisanship and I get the impression that Warren is as well.

Part of what I dislike about the Obama/Biden style of bipartisanship is that to me (an older, straight, white male) is that it has this boys club "Hey, us guys should be able to work this out." condescension to it.

I just don't care how they get the job done, what they say, how often they smile, how they appear, as long as it's legal.

Done is done. I think Ted Kennedy has a valuable lesson in what happened in 1972.

Biden is polling extremely well and Sanders is crashing.

Maybe Pelosi wants to win and increase our majority in the House and get a majority in the Senate.