What President Obama Didn't Say (Esquire, Kucinich)

The gentleman from Ohio — the last man standing on health care, as he put it in this conversation with Esquire.com just before Sunday's vote — reveals the personal moments behind his decision, and how the fate of a nation, if not a presidency, could have turned out a lot differently had he said "no"

The meeting that took place on Air Force One was the fourth in a series of meetings that I had attended with the president in the last few months. There was a meeting on March 4 where the president called nine members to the Roosevelt Room at the White House, and eight of the members had voted for the bill when it passed the House last fall. I was the only one who voted against the bill. I thanked the president for inviting me even though I was a "no" vote. And in the more than hour-long meeting, the president covered a lot of territory about what he thought was important to consider. I sat quietly and listened carefully and took some notes. And at the end of the meeting, you know, we thanked each other, and I left.

When I arrived home that evening — March 4 — I still had this deep sense of compassion for the president for what he was struggling with in trying to pass the bill. And it was very clear to me that there was a lot on the line here — that he didn't say. I was just thinking about the scope of American history, and here's a president who's trying to do something, even if I don't agree with him. I told my wife, "You know I kinda feel bad about the situation he's in here. This is really a tough situation — his presidency is on the line." And I had a sense of sadness about what I saw him grappling with. I still maintained my position, still went forward in debates, arguing in meetings, arguing against the bill because it didn't have a public option, didn't have an opening for the states to pursue single-payer in a free manner. But at the same time I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation.

Now keep something in mind about my relationship with President Obama: He and I campaigned together. A meeting with the president is always important — he and I have met dozens of times, during the campaign and since he became president — but we've met on many occasions. Four or five times about health care. So the relationship I have with him is a little bit different than other members who weren't on the campaign trail with him and who hadn't developed a relationship with him apart from the relationship that members of Congress ordinarily have with the president.



Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210#ixzz0j0eNJmuR

"Elizabeth asked how the day went. And I told her. I said, "You know I'm giving this a lot of thought." I asked, "What would you think if I decided to support this?" And she said, "Look, I'll support — whatever decision you make, I'll stand behind you." And it was important for me to talk to her because, you know, spouses live with the decisions that members of Congress make. I mean, I have had occasion to ask Elizabeth's opinion, and if she feels very strongly about something, I'm open to being persuaded. That's just what happens when you have a partnership. So I asked what she thought, and then I got up in the morning and headed right over to the Capitol just to meditate on all the discussions that I'd had — with the president, with Speaker Pelosi, with my wife, and with my constituents."

It's great to hear that he respects his wife's opinion so much, because he's right: the spouses do have to live with the decisions that are made.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210#ixzz0j0fJhnB2

he shared their disdain for our President very unhappy.

(...)

When it comes to analyzing the law we've just passed, it's hard to use terms like good or bad. Because ultimately what was decisive for me was not the bill, but rather the potential to create an opening for a more comprehensive approach toward health care reform. If the bill were to go down, this whole discussion about anything we might hope to do in health care in the future is not going to happen in this generation. We had to wait sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan to come to this moment. And the angst that members are feeling about this bill — the temperature that's been raised in the body politic over this bill, the characterizations of the bill in a debate that's been quite distorted — all of those things argue against bringing up another health care bill in the near future if this bill were to go down.

Well I had to consider that. Because I have to take responsibility for that.



Those claims are just part of an effort to destroy the Obama presidency. And, of course, to produce gridlock — so that nothing can happen. Because if this bill goes down, which figured into my calculus — the bill goes down, we'll be gridlocked. We will be unlikely to pass any meaningful legislation about anything. The presidency will be weakened, the Congress will be in a place where the leadership will be undermined.

But let's go deeper than that. We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country. The Democrats will be emboldened to pass an economic agenda, which has been waiting for this bill to pass. Wrong or right, as far as a strategy, the White House invested so much in this health care bill that everything else was waiting. Now, I think there's a chance that the party will regain some momentum. And if it does, then the American people will finally have a chance to see something done about creating jobs, about keeping people in their homes, about helping small businesses get access to credit, which is a huge problem right now.

And so I think that the pivot here could be toward a very exciting time where the Obama presidency gets a chance to hit the reset button. This is my hope, at least.

(...)

for days on end, with repeat postings calling him every name in the book. A few said they'd prefer the Republican win his seat, one said he was going to campaign against Kucinich this summer. All because he tried to get us a better bill, and gave actual thought to the results of his actions. For that, he was slandered.
A number of Democrats voted no in the end. Those few DUers, they have not made their names endlessly known, they have not posted multiple rantings against them, oh no. That was just for Kucinich. Because Kucinich was and is still correct about this bill, and the private insurance predation that will still do great harm to Americans.

Let it never be forgotten that Kucinich was targeted every time he spoke up against the bill, while his attackers remain silent to this day about the Dems who ended up voting no.

That's because Dennis's criticisms were coming from the left, and very well reasoned. He represented something far more powerful than just one vote, to be the subject of attacks the way he was.

:thumbsup:

Calling for him to be primaried was ridiculous and I spoke out against that even if I disagree with some of his votes and wanted him to vote for the bill this time.
He clearly made a decision he can live with. Also, he seems to be able to have deep empathy for others and was able to connect to President Obama's feelings on getting the bill passed.
One more thing, the 24 blue Dogs and the other Dems that voted against the bill make me sick. I will be speaking out against them for a long time. Lipinksi is a diabetic like me and yet he voted against this bill. He is lucky and can be covered. What about the rest of the diabetics out there who are denied coverage year after year? By 2014, they will no longer be denied for pre-existing conditions.

And, you're wrong on some points. Many of us agree with Kucinich that the bill did not go far enough. But, we also saw the need to vote on it.

It's possible to agree on one thing and also disagree on another.

:kick:

Thanks for posting. :hi:

Dennis Kucinich had the chance to make a real difference for all of us,
and he decided to do just that.

That was the right decision, and I'm glad he made it,
and I for one, shall not forget it!

proves it. If this bill went down, there wouldn't be another president to take this up for quite some time. Now lets continue to improve it.