Repubs. already said not only would they not vote for a trigger for a public option, but co-ops are

out, too, since they're a "trojan horse to government health-care." We know the "Gang of 6" is meeting to see if they'll at least agree to Baucus's plan which includes co-ops, no public option. Once Grassley and Enzi reject that, we'll be back to talk of the public option.

we might as well go all out and push for single payer. Medicare for all would also go a long way to helping the economic recovery. Employers might start hiring again if they didn't have to factor the cost of insurance into everything they do.

Pity Obama is more concerned with playing well with the Republicans than in any real reform.

:dem:

-Laelth

"Obama is more concerned with playing well with the Republicans than in any real reform." Come on-if he were, he wouldn't even be MENTIONING a public option tomorrow night since NO Repubs. want one.

Remember, when he was a state senator he claimed to like single payer, now he's against it. When he was a presidential candidate he opposed mandated health insurance, now he's all for it. He admits the insurance companies are dishonest, yet he wants their profits protected.

The further up the food chain he goes the further to the right he moves.

.

he (and others like him) MIGHT just go left.

His "co-op" plan WAS the sop to the "left" (as he mistakenly wants to identify us). Now he has a free shot at bending over and giving his corporate masters everything they want.

so they are acting as effectively a reserve force for conservative Democrats. Regardless of party ID conservatives are at least at parity. Without the lockstep obstructionist it would be much more possible to really bring some pressure from the left but as things are now the 10-15 DINOS have as much backing as group.

Because we replaced them with Blue Dog Democratic congress members. Just keep that in mind when you curse the BD's, and remember what the alternative is.

.

They are just trying to when over 60 votes in the Senate, not the the majority of the Republican party.

that frees up the conservadems to go slightly left IMO.

if all the democrats are on board for the bill. I think that is what the trigger option is trying to accomplish.

I do agree that the gang of 6 negotiations are going nowhere and it is pointless to really go for a bipartisan bill. We still have the problem with conservative democrats however.

I didn't know our president was so pig-headed. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Mr. President, PLEASE!! These Republicans are showing you who they are. Stop trying to lick their asses. If you think you can get Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, fine, get them. But don't waste your time on the Republicans. They hate you and they want you to fail! They only want to be back in control of Congress in 2010. That's all they care about: POWER!!!

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!

You must really be naive. He's dealing with his OWN party which is not giving him enough votes to pass a public option in the Senate. He TALKS bi-partisanship so that when they reject everything offered to them, he has a reason to "go it alone." Don't you get it?

Of course I get it. And I'm listening to the Blue Dogs and the DLCers who are blocking progress. But that hasn't stopped the president from preaching this 'bipartisanship' meme. I understand that you probably think that this is a 'rope-a-dope' scheme that the president's got going on, but I am not convinced. I'm sorry. The president continues to marginalize his liberal/progressive base to his detriment. I think it is HE who is naive if he believes that we will continue to roll over and allow ourselves to get fucked with no vaseline. No thank you. I'm not stupid and I am definitely not naive.

tipped his hand to everyone yet, has he?

So what's left is the speculation up the Ying Yang.

Why would he with so many forces against what he wants for this country?

You just proved it again. I guess you didn't follow Obama's journey to the presidency, huh?!

the benefit of the doubt, but I want to see action and leadership from him. You can attack me and project all you want. The bottom line stands: we need a leader for a president. Compromise does not mean capitulation. I'll see what he has to say tomorrow, but me being naive. You have absolutely no idea. I think the president continuing to extend the olive branch to those who want to see him fail is naive. VERY NAIVE!!!

to those who said the things Grassley and Enzi said. He hasn't gotten where he is today by being naive. I think you underestimate him.

to give him the benefit of the doubt. But even members of his own White House staff are reportedly frustrated with the lack of leadership. I didn't support the Clintons and don't care too much for their policies, but one thing that Hillary predicted seems to be coming to pass: President Obama is too accommodating and believes that everyone shares his vision of coming together and working for the common good. It's a mistake and it is absolutely naive. Of course I understand that he is limited politically by the influence of the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans, but come on now. He seems to have believed that all he needed was a super-majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate and that Congress would do the heavy lifting and share his "kumbaya" vision for the country. He doesn't seem to realize that these folks are only out for themselves and their political livelihoods, and he still naively believes that we all can come together for the common good. It's baffling because they are showing him who they are and he's still going down that road when he should be standing up as a leader and being more forceful and confident about what he wants to see get done. Rightfully it is the Congress that passes laws but he never really gave the Congress a true vision of the *specifics* that he wanted in a health care reform plan.

I support the president wholeheartedly, but I'm not going to refrain from criticism just because members of DU call me names. I'm going to continue to speak out for what I believe is right. And I'm going to praise the president when I think he deserves it and criticize him when I think he deserves it.

We shouldn't start acting like the authoritarian wingnuts who don't tolerate dissent, criticism or difference of opinion. Let's not be like them.

Edit to add: Now, even Obama admits that he made mistakes:

On the morning of a major address to Congress on health care, President Obama admitted that he had made some mistakes in the reform debate.

"I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed then opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense," Obama told ABC's Robin Roberts on "Good Morning America."

Referencing rumors about health care for illegal immigrants, "death panels" or a "government takeover," he added, "Moving things through Congress is always a messy process. We've got five committees with jurisdiction. That means there are five different bills. I think the public wasn't clear exactly what was what."

Pressed on his remarks, Obama said that the speech would give "a lot of clarity" but would not offer any details: "I want everybody to tune in."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-i-probably-left-too_n_280284.html?view=print

really think if he was the way you (and Hillary) described, he would've been able to beat the Clinton machine?? I think YOU'RE the naive one. You called him "Dear Leader" in an earlier post yet talk about how you support him "wholeheartedly." You sound like more of a detractor than a supporter to me. I never said I "don't tolerate dissent, criticism, or difference of opinion." But the words you use in your posts is something different-worse-than that.

And she is NOT the only one who has made this claim. Bash me all you want. There are many people--left, center and right--who have made the same claim and their arguments are valid. Bill Moyers recently had an excellent editorial on this very subject of Obama being a little naive. And I don't really care how much you go after me for this. It's your prerogative! I maintain my opinion on this issue, so have at it. But from this point, I won't be responding to your insulting posts.

from someone who agreed with you and Hillary a year ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8634220

He's the only one who is still trying to get Republican support. If the White House had any real hold over Baucus, he would have moved on months ago. All this delay is almost entirely his fault.

fine. What bothers me is that I hope that he doesn't compromise his values for the sake of a few Republicans and a few Blue Dogs. We'll see tonight if he *truly* 'knows the deal'!