Bandwagon Voters and the Dysfunction on the Left

is nearly turning ME off and I actually want to support healthcare reform and other things the Poutrage Club claim to be working for. I can only imagine how it appears to people who don't know a lot about the issues, maybe, and aren't sure what they think.

It is amusing how, rather than actually analyzing what happened in MA or what opinion polls can tell us about public sentiment, people just repeat what they always said. If they think Obama is not liberal enough, that is their "proposal" for what to do. If they think he is too liberal, that is their "proposal". And of course, their pet project is the one they think will magically solve everything.

Thankfully, Obama himself keeps a cool head, as always.

I agree with your characterization of the people on the left, like Hamsher, screetching about killing the bill -- essentially sounding a lot like tea baggers. At the same time, one cannot fault rank and file activists who have done so much work to get better candidates into office for feeling outraged that so many Congressional Democrats (and, yes, the President too) are such pussies.

We lose one freaking seat and still command a huge majoriry, and yet all of a sudden people are running for the exits. What cowards. People like you and me didn't put so much blood and sweat (not to mention money) into these campaigns to watch our candidates cut and run at the first sign on trouble.

Republicans are a bunch of psychos; completely anti-social monsters. It's worth voting D just to keep them clear of the levers of power. But, man, I expected Obama to use to bully pulpet every now and then. Instead, his first words are "Of course we wouldn't do anything until the new Senator is seated." Why not? Why is he so afraid to make his case?

Roy - There would be a huge blowback if they tried to push Health Care Reform through the Senate before Brown is seated (in only 10 or 15 days), and it would come for two reasons.

First, it would be perceived as heavy handed and insulting to the will of the voters of Massachusetts. But that's not the biggest problem.

Second - and this is why Obama made the smart move - the way the Democrats in Congress are behaving, there is no guarantee that he is going to get agreement between the House and Senate in two weeks or less! If he tried to "use the bully pulpit" to push something through conference committee and then through the Senate on that fast timeline, we can virtually guarantee that the Congressional Democrats and their constituent and interest groups will screw it up royally and probably not come to any agreement, or to a really bad one under haste and pressure. Who would that benefit?

(I have to head out for a couple of hours, but will check in later on to chat more.)

Ah Al...as usual, an excellent analogy!

Thank you.

Leading is not just marching off in some direction beating your drum, you have to make sure that people are actually following you! Right now, Congressional Democrats probably could not be led to the cafeteria for lunch, let alone to vote for healthcare reform. Pelosi gave a press statement today that she does not have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill. They are still working on a compromise solution where the House passes the Senate bill in return for an amendment bill run through the reconciliation process to get it through the Senate (something that emerged over the weekend as the most likely way forward). But there is no guarantee on that either. Not only are the Blue Dogs scurrying for cover but the Progressive Caucus is refusing to vote for the Senate bill as well.

People seem to imagine that Obama has some magical power over Congress that he doesn't use and all he has to do is activate it, or that he should take over Pelosi and Reid's job and order Congressional Dems around like robots. The first is a fantasy and the second isn't something we should want even if it were possible.

Imagine if you were worried about doing something. What would persuade you to do it? Somebody yelling at you? Reading you a lecture? Or sitting down with you in a quiet room to talk? And maybe to listen first to your fears and let you know they understand. Members of Congress are people too (really!) and need to be treated the same way we would expect to be treated.

The backseat driving on this issue is making me crazy.

I've been working the phones all day calling different the D.C. offices of as many Dem Reps. as I can. I'm urging them to pass the Senate version of the bill, as frustrated as I am with many of the progressive concessisons we won't be getting. It's because when I'm knocking on doors this fall, I'll be able to sell the Senate version of the bill on its virtues. I can't sell failure.

I'm troubled by what I'm hearing from staffers. They are not getting a lot of calls like mine. I tell them they know they're screwed when their voters are so angry, frustrated, and disappointed that they won't even bother to call to yell and scream.

Al, from where I sit it seems like the most realistic path to getting HCR done is letting Brown get seated, having the House pass the current version of the Senate bill, then possibly using reconciliation to clean the bill up a bit before it goes to the WH.  The current version of the Senate bill seems to be the ceiling on what it can pass, given the switch in the MA seat, so going back to the drawing board there and hoping to get Snowe or Brown on board seems to be a fool's errand.

Does that seem on the mark in your eyes?  Any other tactical advice you'd care to offer those of us who want to push our congressfolk in the right direction instead of engaging in hysteria?

So true, Al, and they just can't stop.  Even the more rational blogs like Balloon Juice are in meltdown.  Congress people are clearly not rational at this point - why didn't they prepare themselves for the obvious fact that Brown was going to win?  Anyway, once again, Barack Obama seems to be the only adult in the room - well, Obama and Al - it's nice to be able to come to an oasis of sanity now and then.

I don't know about you all, but this psychotic "debate" about whether to pass healthcare feels healthy to me on some level. Democratic dysfunction is on full display for all to see and most folks, but particularly Democrats, are disgusted. I say particularly Dems because maybe this painful moment of growth - as the party experiences a moment of real terror - is necessary for Democrats to grow the balls to stick together and realize they CAN actually accomplish something in the face of adversity.

There are even signs of shame among the leadership about how the party has reacted: witness Barney Frank's walk back of his initial doom-filled comments. Maybe Dems have to feel some shame about their consistent pattern of fearfulness and unwillingness over the past few decades to seriously commit to real, tangible social progress, before they can break that pattern and move on. Personally, I reacted with a great deal of anxiety to the Brown win, and am only now coming to grips with the importance of staying both strong AND rational (ahem, Rep. Grijalva, et al.) in the face of a scary political moment.

All of which is to say: pass the fucking bill!

al, it seems like you're hereby endorsing the "swing voter" alias soccer-mom theory, so beloved of mark penn. maybe it's true in this case and i'm no statistian, but the pccc's post-coakley poll (there were no exit polls) seems more consistent with dems sitting it out because of substantive and high-information policy unenthusiasm. same conclusion from the globe's geographic analysis of the uninspired base: "Of the 25 lightest-voting communities, 18 were cities...". sure you can blame that on "buzzkill" but where's the evidence that suburban swingers tipped the balance in our fair commonwealth, as opposed to a real protest from the "left" (applying your caveats to this term)? PS, i know that party-unaffiliated registration is relatively high in mass., but that in itself doesn't demonstrate a copycat effect.

Well said.  I've often thought much the same: In my experience, not at all disimilar to your description, most "independent" voters thoroughly despise the Right/Republicans (Flanders) but, nevertheless, readily believe each and every nasty thing they have to say about the Left/Democrats.  In this way, they think they are above the fray when in fact, they are much of the reason for it.

thanks for posting, al.  i just couldn't bring myself to read any news at all until i could get your view on this.  i knew it would be the post that gave me hope.  (oh and p.s., the plural of 'flanders' is 'flanderses'.)

ever since the '08 election where we were kept hanging by a thread waiting for the 'independents' to decide between obama and mccain - i mean seriously, one way or the other, that wasn't a tough decision to make - i knew that they were largely lemmings, not leaders.  the independents get courted like some thoughtful weigher of complex policy when in fact they really don't care much at all and they just like the attention.  that said, if we can't wave the shiny object that gets their attention on election day, well, meet scott brown.

i know part of me still wants the hollywood screenplay version of the obama presidency - kicking ass and taking names, bringing on a golden era of progressive change, pantsing the republican leadership on the steps of congress for good measure.  and i know i sometimes yell at obama on TV wishing he would utter the soundbite heard 'round the world for the right wing narcissists in this country to shove it, all the way in to that empty space where their ethics should be.

but that isn't him.  and i guess we get the government that we work for.  and we need to do more work.  we need to dismantle the cosy networks that coakleyed the MA vote.  we need to hassle our representatives into showing some backbone in the face of this fearsome republican 41-59 majority.  we need some candidates that can joe sixpack with the best of them, and not because it's some fad, but because that's who they actually are and it's not a bad thing to be.

fact is, the volume of the screeching right was already at eleven, so how much louder can they be?  the left needs to stop clutching each other's pearls for a couple months and sell some progressive policy.  do what we can, move the ball down the field.  there are people out there that these incremental changes actually mean something to, so we need to stop wincing at the shame of still being in the majority and get to work.

To me it seems like congressional Dems are begging Obama for leadership. But Gibbs today says Obama wants to let Congress sort itself out.

I don't think you can quibble with the disastrous RESPONSE to the Coakley loss. Obama is supposed to be the leader of the Democratic Party isn't he? Why was nothing done to coordinate the response after losing? Instead we got treated to a cavalcade of Dems panicking on tv. Maybe that's marginal, but it does nothing to give anyone any confidence in the elected representatives.

Yes they should know not to act stupid themselves. But the president needs to take charge in moments of party difficulty like that. Even a wall of "no comment" would have been better than the confused open fear.

I know the dust will settle eventually. I have faith that the Democrats will calm down and get back to work on passing health care reform (or health insurance reform) if for no other reason than that they have no choice now. They're stuck with it. I know all the people running around with their heads cut off will stop it in a few days.

But man, the wait until that time is going to be agonizing.

The Congressional Democrats are the biggest chicken littles ever. Look at them all run for the exits. We go from a 20 seat majority in the Senate, which has already passed HCR, to an 18 seat majority (still far larger than the Republicans had under Bush or when they impeached Clinton) and all the Democrats can do is duck and cover. The highest priority isn't getting HCR done but rather protecting one's own behind.

I don't think that's what Obama's about. I agree with your assessment, Al, that he was being measured because he doesn't have the votes. But it's a lousy way to frame the issue. Obama goes on and on, time and again, projecting himself as a good guy, one who would never be (heaven forbid!) partisan. How many times has he taken to the airwaves to make his case to the people?

That's what Reagan did. Over and over on issues where he was seen as far right of the nation at the time. And look what happened. The nation listened and our whole political dialogue shifted right and then more right and then right again.

Just as when an 18th Century army suffered a defeat, it was really important not to cut and run in all directions -- guaranteeing slaughter, but to make a good tactical retreat, Democrats must stick together and use their heads. It would be smart to speak out loudly and clearly about Republican obstructionism. Obama should use the bully pulpit for that purpose. To expain to the people why HCR is too important to languish and too important to die. Why can't he explain, with charts and graphs, all that people stand to gain? Reagan would do that and then people would call their senators and congressmen and get them to back him up. Instead, Obama and the Democrats play into the Republican narrative again and again. "Oh gosh, we would never be disrespectful to Republicans; that wouldn't be nice. It's not like anything really important is at stake. It's not like people are dying for lack of health care coverage every day. And surely those nice Republicans are all about helping to make things better for everyone." I find this failure to make the Democratic case very frustrating.

That Village Voice headline really captured the wimpishness of our party: "Scott Brown wins Mass. race, giving GOP 41-69 majority."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/01/scott_brown_...

This makes a lot of sense to me, as I never thought of it this way.  Seriously, I've been feeling a bit despondent and frustrated over the latest political happenings, and have been thinking of going back to the old ways (2008), where I completely avoided Politics (and Religion).  *This* close to unsubscribing from all political feeds.  While I'm still not sure if any of the grief is worth it (hell, I'm only going to live 70 years or so), maybe I can come at it from a different direction that doesn't cause so much heartache.

This dynamic – more than any public policy explanation – describes what happened in Massachusetts this week and why it happened.

I can think of another. How about an incompetent candidate who committed one gaffe after another? You know like running a TV ad that mispells the name of the state you are trying to get elected to. Of course if that doesn't work you can also continuously insult the sports franchise that is hallowed to many of the state citizens.

Then again if all else fails just let voters know how your really feel about having to go out and shake hands with them.

But Al you nailed this part:

And this is why we see so many preemptive screeds by the same “progressive” bloggers that have been doing the screaming out in the street all year long.

Thank you for addressing this bit of insanity. I saw it three weeks after Obama was sworn in. From April 2009 until now I've heard nothing but gloom and doom about the 2010 midterms. You know those elections which are still roughly ten months away?

Something unhealthy is in the air.

Al has commented before that many progressives seem to want a Daddy figure and I'm really seeing that in a lot of the responses to the current situation. Some is purely childish ("Waa, everything is broken, Daddy Obama better come fix it now for me!") but even some of the more reasoned responses seem to want Obama to fulfill an emotional need for them or to act like an authoritarian figure who simply "lays down the law" and apparently everybody will listen and behave. It is true that Congressional Democrats seem to be acting like young children (ahem, Raul Grijalva) but nobody seems to realize how dysfunctional this is. We are all adults with the capacity to act. The Balloon Juice blog is organizing readers to call their Representatives and is compiling a roll call to determine where they stand. This is a simple practical thing that helps us find out the lay of the land and what the realistic courses of action are, and is about 100 times more useful that what most on blogs and Twitter are doing right now.

I will also repeat what I said before, you are not a leader if you just march off on your own with no one following you. For Obama to make a big show of laying down the law when nobody knows yet what can realistically be accomplished, would be foolish and counter-productive. The only reason to ask for him to do it now, in my opinion, is because it makes us feel better in some vague way.

The House and Senate leadership are the ones who need to work with their members to calm them down and to determine what can be done. Then they and Obama can work cooperatively towards achieving that.

That is what adults do to resolve their problems.

Obama has the State of the Union coming up in less than a week.  He will define the situation at that point and the road ahead.  He does not predict events; he sums up events and makes clear what we have all seen.

I received a phone call from OFA 3 days before the MA election asking me to call my Speaker Pelosi and urging her to bring the Senate Bill to the House floor for a vote.  No repeat on that call despite getting 15-20 calls for Coakley in the next three days.

I beleive that they will be bring the community organizing methods to bear on the situation.  And let me say, that the OFA efforts here in Eastern Massachusetts were very vigorous and effective.  It had its own bandwagon effect going.  A lot of people were involved and I think are now ready to go to work again.

Fellow friends and neighbors on the left, we've just been saved and the Scott Brown story is yesterday's news:  The Supreme Court has thrown out a hundred-year old law prohibiting corporate contributions to political campaigns, so that the biggest banks and corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to congressional, senatorial and presidential candidates -- and Obama has immediately denounced the decision:  "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics...It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

It's extremely rare for a sitting president to issue such a stinging criticism of a Supreme Court decision, much less within hours of its announcement.  This gave Obama an instantaneous opportunity to pivot away from the perception that he's in the pocket of Wall Street and the banks, and get on the high ground of championing the supremacy of the people's influence on their politics, rather than the influence of special interests.  It also gives Obama's own organization a perfect rallying cry to raise the kind of money he raised last year for his own campaign, to build a war chest for Democratic candidates in the fall elections.  "Don't let the Republicans use corporate money to steal the Congress," they'll be saying.

Obama may have bailed out Wall Street and the banks to avoid a depression, but he is sure as hell not going to let them buy the Congress and bury his re-election under an avalanche of negative advertising.

If the Democrats fast-track legislation to restore the corporate prohibition (in whatever legal form threads the needle of the Supreme Court decision's language), they can use it to collapse the phony Republican attempt to look populist -- for how can Republicans be populists, if they're voting to protect the right of corporations to give hundreds of millions of dollars to them?

It's not unreasonable to want one's leaders to lead. I'm not talking about "laying down the law." Yes, to do that would be counterproductive. I'm talking about using the power of one's office and one's significant oratory skills to try to convince people of the wisdom of your agenda.

We've seen little of that from Obama. He seems congenitally predisposed to "bipartisianship," which might make sense if this were 1965. But in 2010, in an environment where the opposition has made clear its intention to oppose anything and everything, one cannot let them frame the debate.

Yet that's what we've done. With an occasonal word about obstructionism here and there, we've pretty much gone along with their narratives.

Jon Stewart said it well. It's not Republicans playing chess while Democrats play checkers. It's Republicans playing chess while Democrats are in the nurses office because they've superglued their balls to their thigh again.

Whose going to make the effort to go out and campaign for a bunch of guys who won't stand up for their supposed agenda? I didn't give so much of myself to ensure their full employment. It was to get things done. To come this close on health care reform and turn away at the last moment because some bozo in Mass upset a party hack would be too pathetic for words.

More than Obama, I'm speaking of Democrats as a whole. To come this close on Heath Care reform and give up would be beyond pathetic. So much so I can hardly believe they will allow it to happen. But looking out there, it seems Pelosi really can't get the votes and the Senate isn't inclined to pass a supplemental bill through reconciliation. And today Obama appears to have walked away from the issue, saying it's up to the Senate and the House now.

Yes, I'm glad Obama is taking on the banks. That's smart politics. Make Republicans defend the indefensible. Offer up Immigration Reform too; if done skillfully Obama can exploit enormous differences in the Republican coalition. But health care reform was the center of our agenda. Meaningful reform has the potential to change the political landscape going foreward, which is why the Republicans are so firmly opposed.

I've long thought Obama has the potential to be a great president. His proposals today indicate he's capable of learning. But he needs to step up and make a serious effort to keep HCR on track. Even if he fails, he's got to show significant fight on this seminal issue. But in reality, there's no way HCR should be allowed to be scuttled. Progressives in the House in particular need to step up. Raul Grijalva is my rep. I've called his office and given them an earful. It's time for those on the far side of the left to take a politically difficult vote. If they can get reconciliation through the Senate too, great. But if not, they cannot waste this opportunity to pass the Senate bill; then we can get to work on improving it over the next generation or so.

Rep. Grijalva and members of the progressive caucus have really disappointed me, refusing to even consider passing the Senate bill is ridiculous. Pass the bill that the Senate already passed and fix what you need to through budget reconciliation, don't screw over the Party and the American people by being a bunch of babies!

Seriously, these guys have to wonder why liberalism has been so weak in the last 30 years...

Al's analogy is apt and I appreciate his attempt to use it to help us keep our heads. And I also appreciate everyone's attempts to be and write as adults about a painful, difficult situation. However, the disappointment--not that Brown won, but President Obama's apparent deferring to this most junior senator--is great. Maybe the President doesn't have many options right now, but he's so very bright and skilled, that to hear him say, well, we'll just wait on Brown, stunned me.

I have hung in with him while he deferred to congress to work out hrc, waited the whole year. Voters don't understand why it's taken so long. Now, once again, he's done that. Of course they do have to work it out. But somehow, folks, for those of us out here in the hinterlands looking at the other huge issues that also need to pass--energy, climate change, etc, etc-- well, I have no hope for them either--not to mention mountaintop removal or support for endangered species which the President has shown zero interest in(but that was okay, I knew he had a full plate).

Now it's not okay. Not okay at all to see the first President I could call my President since JFK, the Democratic party, and national needs being destroyed by Republican delay and still he defers and asks for bipartisanship. What is going on? I don't mind being schooled. Please tell me, wtf is going on?

Al (and anyone here who would take the bother of helping a non-American understand),

What repeatedly intrigues me is what appears to be the extreme volatility of the US electorate. I mean, this is insane! In most consolidated democracies, someone who is 30% ahead in polls within weeks/months from an election is 100% sure to win, short of some apocalyptic event. In Western Europe normally when you are 5% ahead in the polls in an elections year you just need to avoid catastrophic mistakes to have it in the pocket. People are not so easily influenced to change their mind.

But throughout the 2008 primaries, and now again, I have been puzzled by the wild fluctuations in Americans' vote preferences. I understand this is a country that has been through some traumatic events in recent history, that people are a bit confused, but still... Unless polling there is for some reason much less reliable than in any other civilized country, one cannot help thinking that maybe the Americans just need some psychological therapy, en masse.

Or else what could be the explanation for such pattern of extreme volatility? I am really curious and intrigued to hear possible explanations.

Anticipated thanks!

Elizabeth, Obama didn't say in so many words, "we'll just wait on Brown", as if he were deferring to the voters of Massaschusetts and their judgment about health care reform.  What he declined to do was to endorse the "jamming" of the health care bill through the Congress before Brown could be seated, because he knew that would be denounced effectively as manipulative politics.

It's obvious that Obama places a high value on acting in a fair-minded, rational way.  To the extent that he gives up the higher ground of a fair process in order to get something which is perceived as selfishly political, he loses the essence of who he is as a public figure, and that's a lot worse than losing a Senate seat or even one piece of legislation, however critical it may be now.  I generally agree with Andrew Sullivan, who said this today on his blog:

"My sense is that Obama understands that his core responsibility as president is not being a partisan figure. That's what he ran against in many ways. And I think he sees all this in terms of eight years. He is gambling on democracy working over time, on the president setting the general direction but allowing the Congress and the public to decide how fast and how specific they want to get. He always said he wanted to be the president of the red states and the blue states. His major problems right now are a) an apoplectic and incoherent opposition that feels it is doing something by randomly harnessing populist frustration in a recession and playing the Rovian politics which is all they know and b) a useless bunch of disorganized morons and cowards who make up the Congressional Democrats.

"But he's still by far the best thing we have going for us. And this struggle has just begun. Politics is not magic; it's not a one-off event. It's a process of grueling argument, tussling and debate. And the deeper truth is: many Independents who are ornery right now like Obama. His decency and civility and reason are plain to see. And so this is his moment as well. To be the anchor in a turbulent time and to keep making the arguments for necessary reform."

Far better to have this kind of figure presiding over a coalition for change, however bumpy the road, than a fractious, rude, divisive figure who throws away his public respect by stiff-arming everyone who disagrees with him (and if that sounds to you like a very recent unpopular predecessor of his, you're right).

How would Democrats feel if a Republican Congress and President tried to ram through legislation before a duly-elected Democrat was seated?  We'd be pissed, and rightfully so.  For better or worse, MA voters selected Brown (yuck!).  To try to hurry up healthcare and/or dawdle in seating Brown is not the right thing to do.  Dems should have considered this problem during the summer when it was obvious Teddy was so sick and not taken the seat for granted.  I'll certainly fault them for that but not for doing the right thing and listening to the voters in MA.  Elections have consequences, even if we don't like them.

The President also feels stung by congressional Democrats' lack of conviction this entire period. Their dilly dallying and blowing his August 2009 deadline is the reason we are in this mess today. He knew time was not on our side yet they took their sweet time on this bill fighting and squabbling among themselves over parochial details. Remember that at the beginnig of President Obama's term we had theoretically only 58 votes (including Sanders & Lieberman).  Remember even Teddy Kennedy was not showing up to vote much of the time along with Robert Byrd. Then came Arlen Specters' switch in April. This reality about actual vote #s amidst the earliest signs of GOP obstructionism was the reason he courted Snowe and Collins. But progressives screamed at him for talking to these moderate Republicans, screaming which only intensified as the healthcare debate got underway.

Then Al Franken finally came along in June. At this point, I thought Teddy Kennedy should have himself resigned while he was still alive so that his seat could be filled properly ASAP. But he didn't and then Baucus blew the August deadline, Kennedy died, the Mass Governor had to do a sleight of hand to allow Kirk to come in. That change of Mass election rules to allow Kirk to serve did offend many people, but they said nothing. (We on the other hand were happy because we got what we wanted). Now those pissed off voters fueled by the teabagger drumbeat have exacted their revenge.

The point here is that it is likely President feels in no mood to coddle congressional Democrats who have done nothing to defend him from attacks, including racist teabagger attacks. They have not amplified his message anywhere in the media, have defied his deadlines, and have generally shown him no respect. Instead they have wallowed in their parochial interests gobbling up lobbyist money left and right, weakening his legislative initiatives, which collectively have made Democrats look indecisive and unruly. Why should he come to their rescue? Sure he is the party leader, but I suspect he thinks he has done a thankless job so far, and perhaps has given up on their ability to do anything useful.

It seems he will now focus on those things that he can accomplish from the executive branch alone and leave congressional Democrats to their fate as they themselves already head for the exits. It's cold but what will coddling them do to change their incorrigible behavior. Interestingly he wrote about this tendency of Democrats in his book, _Audacity of Hope_. Yeah, how ironic...

All this makes me wonder what the Democratic congresscritters were thinking their own role would be when they recruited him to run for President? What did Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer et al say to assure him that they would do their part and have his back if he won. Or did they expect him to simply provide excitement to galvanize voters  but not actually win the primaries?

Sure he has made his own mistakes but I thought the party was supposed to be a team. These congresscritters got him to run around this country in 2006 to raise huge funds for them as the so-called "star" of the party. They rode on his coattails to power in 2008 such that people who had no business winning elections, won. And how do they reward him? Crickets....

But the hue and cry over this one seat upset is being made to sound like the world has come to an end. This is more votes than we had before Arlen Specter switched sides. But right now it is just hurt, and the President too is human. We all just have to dust off this one and move on...

"I have hung in with him while he deferred to congress to work out hrc, waited the whole year."

You may have noticed that Obamas strategy got him farther with the health care bill that Clinton managed to achieve - who very much pushed his/her bill on congress.

If Obama pushes bipartisanship it is because he thinks his agenda is easier to manage this way (and btw pushing bipartisanship is not exactly the same as being bipartisan and that is not the same as compromising with the Republicans)

The most demanding, painful thing to do on oneself is to channel emotional energy in a time of stress. In life, in Politics, you forsake this primal call upon yourself at your own peril.

The left cannot keep it simple. They feel independent, above and beyond. That is their default position before and after either Victory or Defeat. The deeply rooted presumption of innocence bears eternal grudges toward the inevitable party crashers.

Victory is cleansing when it should be fulfilling, Defeat is nihilism when it should be realism. Cause without effect.

The right cannot but keep it simple. They feel righteous, out of their wits and within their wrights. That is their default position before and after either Victory or Defeat. They believe and so they believe. Victory is fulfilling when it should be cleansing, Defeat is realism when it should be nihilism. Effect without cause.

Groundswell for Groundswell, neither Victory nor Defeat shall ever lead me astray. Cause and Effect.

what do people think about moveon's response?

looks like the they will running adds that push for the use of reconciliation, and push for the public option. they site polls showing the house in the middle folks were by in large down with the public option. they want to leverage this loss to push for stronger health care. i support this endevour. seems like sound strategic action.

If i am reading the post right, i think al would disagree. would be curious to know if i'm reading it right. Thoughts on this?

Obviously a lot of people are really upset about that (though you might want to read the full context) - but, um folks, we can't do anything right now even if Brown was already seated. The House Democratic caucus appears to be in meltdown, the Senate Democratic caucus is frozen, I suppose. I actually agree with Al about the really bad politics that forcing it through would be - but that is not on the table right now even if we wanted to do it! There is no harm in saying that (Brown will be sworn in within a week or two) when there is nothing else we can do anyway.

The reason we cannot move forward right now is CONGRESS. Not Obama. Until Congressional Democrats get their acts together, we are stuck. Instead of constantly yelling at the guy who has a thousand other things to be doing, why not yell at the people whose job this is and who are not doing it.

The left has a real fetish on executive power sometimes, to the point of not blaming Congress when it deserves the blame.

Agreed, yelling and screaming from the Poutrage Club is enough to put anyone off their feed. But do Bandwagon voters even know who Hamsher, Sirota, Greenwald, etc. are? Not if they get their news from network TV, or the five-minute doses at the top of the hour on AM radio. The dysfunction such voters will most have witnessed these many months will have been that of the Senate, with the endless delays coming from the Democrats or those who caucus with them (a Nelson there, a Lincoln or Landrieu there, a Lieberman everywhere). As for the House, I'll bet that the antics of a Bart Stupak (who even sounds like a character from The Simpsons) registered more than those of the aforementioned poutragers and ragerettes. In short, had the legislation been wrapped up in August, as Obama had hoped, more Bandwagon voters might have found the house on the left more fun to visit.

Lucidamente - True, that Mr. and Mrs. Independent don't know any of the B-listers. But when Howard Dean wrote his Washington Post "kill the bill" op ed column, when Paul Krugman did a half year worth of concern trolling NY Times columns on economic matters, when Keith Olbermann went on rant after rant on MSNBC... etcetera... you can bet it emanated much farther outward.

There is a kind of symbiotic parasitical relationship between the B-listers and their Sacred Cow media pundit heroes who, not having much original to say themselves, can get a quick jump in attention to them by pandering to the Poutrage Club. They swim in the same cesspool.

Arianna Huffington and Ed Schultz and the rest of the rent-a-talking-heads for cable news programs.

Both politically and on the merits, it seems beyond debate to me that the House should just pass the Senate bill as is, and then seek to improve it by another bill through reconciliation.  I suppose we might get to the same place by passing individual pieces of legislation, one by one, but the essential point is the same:

Pass what you can, and what you can better include at least what was in the senate bill.

The suggestions by people in the House that they might actually do less is infuriating and so absurd that I literally cannot believe it will occur.

Thank goodness we can always count on Al for some common sense. It's funny the 'progressives' shouting Obama is a failure or Democrats are weak or useless do not see the irony. It's only them that panic and throw up their arms in defeat every time they see a headline they don't like.

I'm not advocating either way, but I want to point out that waiting for Brown to arrive and pushing the bill with a public option through reconciliation are not mutually exclusive.

Laura, you're right about the culpability of Democrats in Congress for the present plight of health care reform legislation, although one wonders about the role of Rahm Emmanuel in all of this.  He was supposed to be Barack's Enforcer and Harmonizer of all things House-related at least, while Obama's former Senate office chief of staff (well-liked in the Senate) was to keep the Senate humming.  That hasn't exactly worked out.

The White House strategy on health care reform seemed to be to coddle members of Congress individually and endlessly, letting them take months to make up their minds about various provisions and revise their demands, and cut new deals with them to get this in or that out, as if they were all volatile teenagers whose acquiescence to household momentum had to be continually renegotiated.  The essentials of health care reform were in place in the early fall, long before Scott Brown was more than a slight contrail on the horizon.  But my sense is that the White House people who are supposed to manage the Congress were entirely too complacent or even hands-off -- just as the White House political people (Axelrod and company) allowed the Republicans to dominate the public debate with lies and distortions.  When did the polls peak for health care reform?  Early September, just after Obama had been on the road for a good deal of August, pushing it hard.  Then Obama turned to other things.  Why?  Perhaps because he wasn't told that it was a bad idea to acquiesce to congressional Democrats' way of doing business, when it came to wrapping up the legislation.

I certainly hope that one of the lessons the White House learns is that they do need to enforce the president's agenda without taking their foot off the accelerator, and keep the public in the game.  When you lose control of public perceptions, and you defer to congressional business-as-usual, you get the result we've gotten:  standing on the brink of failure, with health care reform.

Though I agree that progressives overrate the ability of a president to control the game clock, the sustained animation of a president on behalf of what he believes in passionately is read by the public as admirable conviction, and that's a big reason why such presidents get things done.  As much as I admire Barack Obama and still think the odds are that his presidency will be successful, I sometimes wonder if he's too ready to take at face value others' representations that everything is going fine.  We forget he's still a rookie at the inside game.  But he's smart enough to recognize now, I hope, that the end game on health care reform should never have been coat-checked with Reid and Pelosi.

I had to escape the sky is falling this is all Obama's fault crowd.  Trying to reason with people who feel that screaming and outrage are good tactics in achieving their objectives can get tiring to say the least.

Months and months of hearing how terrible the HCR bills are can begin to grate on even those of us who believe that they are a definite improvement on the status quo.   Days and days of lecturing about what hasn't been done yet take their toll, and the minute to minute polling has begun to turn my head grey.  I expected this from the right but when this comes from the left it is demoralizing.

Mr. Brown rode the perfect storm into Washington and he was aided and abetted to some degree by the relentless hue and cry from some of the people I thought were my allies.  Oh and don't forget this, although it doesn't account for most of the votes he received, Brown has the earnest demeanor and good looks of the boy next door, there is still a segment of the population that can be convinced to vote for the packaging.

Question: I haven't seen it, but maybe it exists .... is there any poll of how the unemployed voted, and at what percentage they voted?

Given we're at nearly 10 percent admitted unemployed nationally [higher in relative pockets geographically], and even higher when you count those not being counted, and even higher among minorities, it seems it would be worth polling those folks.

If they aren't voting, and I have this suspicion they're not, or at least the drop-off in voting in that group is high relative to when they were employed ... then someone needs to organize them.

If they are voting in higher numbers than prior to their displacement, then someone still needs to organize them.

I just think that's the 2 ton elephant in the room here, and it was let in the room before Obama ever got in office.

The other group hooking up with the Flanders family, the bandwagon folks, I suspect are the still employed who are just fricken scared, and likely don't out number the actual unemployed ... and are now flocking to the Flanders because their fire-and-brimstone politics is so much more comforting in times of uncertainty, especially when the alternative is liberal self-doubt.

I have no science to prove these suppostions, just street-level conversations.

ThisI something that only recently Democrats have begun to address-and apparently not enough. The Republicans have a full-time messaging machine that creates a message that  Republican legislators can run on. We Democrats expect our full-time legislators to do that while somehow governing as well, and are complaining loudly that they don't do that very well. Instead, why don't we strengthen Media Matters into a full-time support system, and get some liberal clergy out, and buy a few radio stations, and at least have an internet radio station?

The DNC should at least have it's messaging group with an Internet radio presence. NORML at least broadcasts on internet radio and reaches the rest of the world with its message, why can't the DNC have its own radio station? It's own message machine?

Another elephant in the room is that the state level Democrats have yet to really be reformed in states that have pretty much a one-party Democratic majority. The hackery can be profound sometimes-a candidate who runs or is run simply because they happen to be "their turn", or the please the powers that be-who may not be in touch with the voting public.

About running Prosecutors-I read that Coakley actively opposed and tried to subvert Massachusetts's law that effectively dropped marijuana penalties down to a $100 fine and also opposed medical marijuana. To me that speaks of an imperious attitude insensitive to the needs and wants of voters, especially younger voters whose first contact with the police is the "war on drugs" or more importantly the "war on weed smoking citizens".  The War on Drugs and the self-righteousness it engenders due to mandatory minimums and such make for a group of people who simply aren't held to account even in the court of law, much less public opinion.

So Coakley felt there was nothing amiss in taking a two week vacation in the midst of a crucial Senate Campaign. BTW, this seems to me to be a New England trait: I remember Dukakis taking two weeks off right after being nominated, and Lamont taking off for a week-long vacation right after being nominated. What is it that they tell their candidates about that? Yes, people need a rest, but folks try to at least keep it down to a weekend at best or 48 hours of sleep in a hotel room somewhere instead.

I mean really shouldn't there be more bandwagon possibilites. Of course there should. So rezoning is needed. Wait there are other houses on the block but the zoining rules don't allow them to have parties. Poor bandwagon voters, only two choices to choose from at party time.

But that's the reality and if you want to have any fun thems your choices.

Somehow this song seems appropriate for the moment — for those in the poutrage class needing a dose of common sense along with a bit of insight into the beat of the common folk:

"Don't sink the boat you built to keep afloat." — Flogging Molliesy

Thanks

But he's 100% right in his latest oped, which needs to be read by every democrat in congress and their staff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22krugman.html

Not to belabor the point: BooMan makes an argument similar to mine at

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/1/22/02812/2869

Of course, the screaming mimis you cite have a huge share of the blame.

A final point: it also seems to me that Bandwagon voters are attracted to the other house because it is "safe" as well as fun. Republicans have long played the fear card like virtuosi--vote for us or die in a terror attack because the Democrats are too soft (e.g., they arrested the underwear bomber instead of sending him to Gitmo, a talking point that Senator-Elect Brown used against Coakley).

Here.

Al, I don't disagree with your assertions, but the primary focus at this moment shouldn't be on the bleating of Hamsher et al but rather on the gutlessness of Democrats. It's hard to fathom that, having come this far, they're going to let HCR die just short of the finish line.

If they enact the Senate bill and say "That's as good as we can do for now," fine. If they take on more through reconciliation, great. But if these cowards think they can hide behind the loss of a single seat and the drop of a 20 vote cushion to an 18 vote cushion, they're dreaming. Unless they get something meaningful enacted, they're toast.

I speak as one who did a lot of campaigning on behalf of Grijalva (a real lefty), Giffords (a blue dog) and Obama. If they throw in the towel, they get no more of my time and not one more dime of my money -- as they are truly hopeless, spineless and all but worthless.

They need to pass the senate HCR bill in the house.

The thing I don't get is why Obama is sending mushy signals, like he doesn't even want to be bothered by dealing with health care.  That just makes weak dems in the house even more panicked.  There are times for a conciliatory president, but this isn't one of them.  It's one of the few moments where Obama could lay down the law with the house and get them to pass the senate's HCR bill.

As someone who's been an unflinching supporter of Obama, through thick and thin, even when it was raining chicken littles, it seems he has seriously lost his way.  The fact that there is such disarray in the party and his own spokespeople can't keep their story straight tells me something's wrong.  This isn't Obama playing chess - it's him walking away from the table when he's one move from checkmating the other side.

I actually couldn't sleep last night thinking about the diary I'm drafting for DKos.   I hope you don't mind me referencing this article.   I have some ideas on how to widen our coalition.  My guiding motivation is weakening the conservation movement and keeping Republicans out of office.   I know we're up against the corporations, media and fear mongering.  It's almost overwhelming but it's time to talk to our neighbors to help them understand why trickle-down policies don't work.  Booman had a good article up the other day about the failure of the Obama Administration to convey just how destructive the Bush policies were in plain terms so citizens truly understand.   No Democrat should be in front of a microphone without saying "Bush Depression".

Al, great diary on the Massachusetts election.

We lost this race in Massachusetts because something beats nothing every day. Martha Coakley, however great a public servant she has been, did not offer anything to voters.  The race was about her and for her.  Brown, for all his faults, made the race about the voters.  He went out of his way to appeal to locals. That works, as it has always worked in volatile times. Something beats nothing; it's not rocket science here.

My relatives who voted for Obama all voted for Brown this time out.  They did so because they didn't basically believe their vote meant anything.  (It is possible to have a change election that is based on the perception that change itself is not possible.  It is fundamentally cynical, but it is also what happened.)  The Democrats have not fundamentally been any different from the Republicans. Change, even in the incremental amounts people wanted, has not happened.  The focus has not returned to The People.  So, the people said, in essence, wtf, and voted to screw over the established order. It was a fundamentally negative vote. (A plague on both your houses.)

The netroots can be a force that focuses attention on real people and real issues.  We should be doing this reflexively, telling the stories about what is going on in the goold ole USA. We have a unique power to relate what we see and hear and promote a vision that will both reflect what is going on and point to a better way of doing things.  Or we can be stuck in our own bubble of self-involvement, afraid to take a step outside because it's not what the kool kidz are doing enough.

We have to stop disrespecting our own base, the real base, that needs Democrats to step up and help them.  All the purity tests in the world, all the arguments about how smart we are and how dumb they are, mean nothing. We need to get the people of Lawrence, Lowell and parts of Boston out to vote.  Making the election about them, telling those voters they matter and talking with them and not at them would help.

What do we stand for? When the chips are down, do people think we have their backs? MA on Tuesday said they didn't know what we stood for and that we couldn't organize a two-car funeral, never mind have someone's back in a fight.  Until we fix that, we are stuck.

Al, you are the consistent voice of reason and political experience! Thank you for your explanation of why Obama seemed to be pulling back on HCR.

I thought he was abandoning me (I'm 59, a 24/7 unpaid, so obviously uninsured, family caregiver). But I'll wait.

And, just watching Obama's speech at his Ohio town hall meeting gets me back to that "hope" place! Now I'm glad I left DKos yesterday. That site has become a cesspool. Even Dengre left yesterday.

Al, ya gotta expand this site!

I'm listening to his speech right now. He's returned to campaign mode, which is exactly what's needed. He's so good at taking his case to the people. He's talking about why we need health care reform, why we need it now, and why it needs to be comprehensive.

If he keeps this up, losing that seat in Mass. might be the best thing that could have happened. Messaging is what everything's about at this point. No one does it better than Obama.

Alright, now he's talking about the importance of taking on big things. He's saying we can't just duck and cover. I hope the Dems in Congress are listening.

That was pretty much pitch perfect. Now if Obama can keep up this sort of message when being interviewed, I think we'll have a good chance of righting the ship on HCR and getting his entire agenda on track. There isn't a Republican who can stand toe to toe with this guy when it comes to messaging (or, Lord knows, on substance!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y&feature=player_embedded

I don't know if this applies to Massachusetts politics or not, but my attention was sparked by Al's dedication of the DailyKos crosspost of this article to the user Dengre there.  Dengre is a big researcher on Abramoff and other scandal-mongers and scandals in congress.

Now there's an elephant!  Corruption in congress and media.  It drives a gigantic message machine.  It's the whole reason many against HCR have a lot of strange ideas.  It's everywhere.

@RoyMartin 12:28pm and @Elizabeth Duvert 3:37 pm

Actually, I think part of it is if President Obama had said it was okay to push through healthcare before Brown was seated, the media would have spun it as him being afraid of Brown which could have potentially served to empower the teawhatevers even more.

It would have been all "See? The President doesn't want to wait to hear from me because he knows Brown will shake things up..." and more blah blah bullshit.

So I think Obama did the right if not convenient and easy thing by making the statement that they should wait for Brown to be seated.

Can someone name me/link me to three major progressive blogs and/or media vehicles where the achievements of this administration are chronicled, championed and talked about regularly? How about two?

It seems like all attention and the money has gone to liberals willing to tear the administration and the party apart, hopefully that will end soon.

Thank you Al for the analysis and work you do here. It is greatly greatly needed and appreciated.

He was really fired up

You can always check out www.weeseeyou.com

It's a blog that is supportive of the President and his policies. They keep a link to Politi-fact up to tally all of Obama's promises. Also there's nothing but constructive criticism. Nothing demeaning.

Bobcesca.com and Balloon-Juice is pretty good as well.

Check them out!

Well in defense of some of us at any rate. I hear what you're saying Al but there are some Independants who really do vote on issues. I voted for Coakley but not because I felt like she was the best person for the job (my pick didn't make it past the primary ;)). I am not a member of the Democratic Party because I feel like the party as an entity is just as corrupt as the Republican party as an entity and I think the two-party system is strangling our country at this point. Well with corporations/lobbyists I guess it is a three party system but we don't get to vote for that third party. I hope that the Democratic Party cleans up its act and does a better job of supporting the President and the people of the United States. If I saw that, I could see joining the party. But right now while I vote with them in all national elections I can't bring myself to call it my party; hence unenrolled (as we are called here in Mass). It may not be in the best interest of the country but I've truly come to believe that efforts focused locally - politics, food, community development - are where it is easiest to have a real impact and effect real change. I am at a loss as to how to work effectively with either party.

I know about Balloon Juice but hadn't heard of the others. The problem is, those blogs aren't major. And all but one of the three have decided to pick up on the easy, more profitable
"Democrats are weak" meme. As if that's going to get us any more votes or help improve things in the future.

The people that run the major blogs, the ones that are frequented the most and that the MSM and the opposition Party pays attention too, have done absolutly nothing this past year to consistently spread any kind of positive news about this President, the administration or Democrats.

It's a damn shame too because we've accomplished a ton of really really good things this year, things that if it had been accomplished by Bush or McCain or Palin would have been talked about and praised ad naseum everywhere.

By only focusing on  negatives and cyncism, we automotically cede the fight to Repulicans because they THRIVE in that enviroment.

Republicans cannot and will not win when we champion, talk about and run on our successes (major or minor) and appeal to the best in people (which is what most people want).

That's why they were so afraid of President Obama when he was running, because it seemed his campaign reawakened people who had previously been apathetic, to hope and activism,etc. (I think it surprised the heck out of Bush and Cheney & Co. cause I think they thought they had succeeded in destroying or minimizing that side of the American people.)

We will never beat the Republicans at their own game. NEVER. NE-VER. Which is why it is so important that we change the game and the rules, act like grown ups (even when the other side is acting like brats) and refocus energy on long term goals, and positive steps (however small or however big). 

This doesn't mean don't cricize, but it does means we need to be careful in our criticsm. Use constructive criticsm.

And for God's sake rember to have some balance.

Constant critism from the base in an enviroment where our
base is already surrounded by powerful and hostile corporations, a powerful and hostile media, and a hostile and effective opposition Party is crazy and shortsighted and will only hurt us in the end.

The MSM is still the bigger player in the game compared to blogs. Unfortunately, because of this, most of the "liberal" blog heads seems to have decided to go along with MSM media narratives in order to ensure their own personal income and influence. Sadly and reluctantly, I can no longer say that I believe with even 50% certainty that the good of the party is their primary concern.

Sorry for the spelling mistakes (i.e. meant to type "criticize" and "criticism") in the post above. I should have hit preview before posting.

I think that the Republican meme needs to be changed, across all media, including blogs!  The meme is, in general terms, that Democrats can't get anything done and when they do get something done it is bad, dangerous, too expensive, doesn't help 'real' Americans etc.

This simply MUST change!  I don't hear or see anyone talking about the accomplishments of the Obama Administration in their first year when there are actually numerous positive accomplishments!

Every time any Democrat gets in front of a microphone, several of these very positive accomplishments need to be talked about, with enthusiasm!  With umph! With vigor! With sincerity! With emphasis on how it benefits 'real' Americans!

If you google 'Obama Administration Accomplishments', there are lots of links but you seldom hear the Dems pushing their accomplishments in the media or getting the media (nightly news etc) to talk about the accomplishments. 

Change the meme!  A lot of good has happened in Washington over the last year!

Here are some of the accomplishments in the 1st year!

Good and extensive list:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/30/progressives_and_obama_are_doing_better_than_we_th/index.php

Also:

Why is it that consistently liberal/progressive senators like Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders & Russ Feingold have the sense to vote for the Senate health care bill, as imperfect as it may be... but their liberal/progressive counterparts in the House want to kill it?  They're as muddled in their thinking as the ridiculous progressive bloggers that Al has rightly decried.

Calling in the 2008 Political Team. Plouffe will be working w/ DNC. They will also be gathering their own data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24union.html?hp

Saddle up!

This is wonderful news. Now the House MUST pass the senate healthcare bill. It is ridiculous to retreat from hcr reform after spending a year and expending tremendous political capital to pass it. House progressives need to stop their incessant whining and complaining and get this done. We can then pivot to jobs and enacting much needed regulations for the finance system.

@roy & @laura

Re: the "balls" video...

Wasn't one of the Rules for Radicals related to ridicule? That's the first thing I thought of when I watched that video.

I also regret that Al chose to call his targeted demographic "Mr. and Mrs. Independent".  "Mr. and Mrs. Bandwagon" would have been more accurate.  I trust Al's instinct on his demographic even though I haven't seen in the media any exit poll or other data to back it up.  I understand the under 30 turnout was particularly poor though.    I come to terms with life half the time through a Simpsons episode (the other half are Seinfeld episodes) but I didn't think Al's Simpson analogy worked either.

But I take his point, especially about the screamers and the dysfunctional nature of this behavior.  These folks have an agenda to promote and it isn't about helping the people of this country.

I'm an independent for similar reasons to yours.  And I typically vote Dem if I don't see a serious, more progressive candidate on the ballot.  I still can't believe how the Dems failed as an opposition party in 2002 and become enablers of Bush's Iraq invasion.

But about the Poutrage Club screamers, is it my imagination or are most of the them former supporters of a competing candidate in the Pres. election?  Are the ones moaning loadest now about health care the same former supporters of that candidate that once said she would tackle health care in her second term?

Do I detect a desperate attempt to discredit Obama so that he would have to step aside and let a different candidate run for Dem Prez in 2012?

jump off the bandwagon as fast as they climbed onto it.  Brown may find himself in a tough spot in 2012 if he does not pursue a quite moderate course, and my hope is that he surprises us.

My husband has been unemployed/COBRA for 7 months.  Second outsource in 6 years.  Both of us getting close to 55, and raising our third daughter.

That said...I come to this place so I can 'feed my head' to quote Grace Slick and her White Rabbit.  The reporters provide consistant, reliable, shit-free facts. This blog, edited by Al, our publisher, gives us, the co-publishers and those who comment, this oasis in a desert of corporate pablum via their main stream tecno-cream TVscene.

I have no time for shit.  I can not believe how little time I spend getting every outlet's take on things.  I listen to music a bit more. I come here most every day, several times a day.

Thanks for the cool drink of water while I'm out here in the field...putting my back into my living.

One more thing.  I support Barack Obama.  Barbie and Ken Stepford and the Zombie Corps are not an option for me.  The SC decision flies in the face of the of the XIV Amendment and it's purpose.  The Supreme Court has had "activist justices" before.  Two of the SC decisions in the past 10 years have put us Natural Persons on the chopping block of CorporateZombiePersonhood.  They never die.

May I recommend a book that you can read on line?  Chapters 9 and 10 discuss the original case, the reason for this mess.

http://www.gangsofamerica.com/read.html

It's a pity that exactly one year into a great event, things have come to such a pathetic pass with the pitiful self fulfilling prophecies from the pseudo left.

amk

My theory on Obama is that, growing up African-American, he had to go out of his way to avoid being seen as scary or dangerous. It's now such a deeply ingrained pattern, it's difficult for him to even conceive of not "playing nice." The problem is people like their leaders strong. And in the face of the Republicans obvious obstructionism, which eveyone can see, playing nice looks weak.

Fortunately, Obama is also very smart. He is capable of learning from his mistakes. I'm guessing he will now go into campaign mode. In other words, while going out of his way to sound reasonable and non-threatening at all times, he will begin speaking out on behalf of his initiaitives -- something that has been painfully lacking.

As for the rest of the Democrats, particularly those in the Senate, they truly are gutless. We cannot wish that away. To avoid imploding, they have to begin acting like they not only have good ideas but really believe in them and are willing to go to the wall. I'm not holding my breath, but I hope they're not so brain dead that they can't figure out their own best interests. Hopefully, they trust Plouffe because he well explain the basics and try to help them understand.

As for the ridicule of the "Balls Beer" spoof, I hope it sends a clear message that they're going to be subject to a lot of jokes about their lack of gravitas if they don't get serious about HCR (and other planks of the platform) pronto!

Awhile ago I wrote about organizing the Senate. I think that reading this comment may give people a better idea where I am coming from. If this last week has proved anything, it is that Congress as an institution is broken. I think that part of Obama's "reticence" over the past year is that he is trying to get Congress to grow up and be able to take care of its own business. He wants it to be a co-equal branch of government. And we all need it to be a co-equal branch of goverment, so that it can function and get things done even when there is a Republican president.

The problem we are facing as a country is systemic. It will not be changed by the President changing his personality, his style, or his messaging. It will be changed by rebuilding the system. We need to identify what is wrong with Congress, what the causes are, and how we can fix them. In my opinion if your proposed solution is for Obama to change something he does or is, you are looking in the wrong place. The problem is not the president. It is that the president by himself cannot fix a broken system.

Too much of the left, again, has a fetish with executive power (which I think we have absorbed from the right) and we are now seeing the limits of this approach.

Organize Congress!

I went to a "town hall" today with Representatives Clarke and Weiner.  This was in one of the most liberal neighborhoods in the country.

First the bad news: These people have no clue!  None!  Both Representatives spent almost the whole hour blaming other people for the health care mess.  They blamed the Senate. They blamed Obama.  They blamed the media.  They blamed the Republicans.   They even blamed "the base" for getting out worked by the tea party crowd!  They both said that they would not vote for the Senate bill because "it is bad for New York."  Apparently they think that it will saddle NY state with huge Medicaid costs.  Weiner also complained the the Senate bill forced people to buy coverage, doesn't have enough subsidies and so on.  But they never displayed any hint of responsibility for making sure that we have health care reform!  Even though they could pass a bill Tuesday that Obama could sign on Wednesday.  A completely disgraceful performance.

The Good News: Most people who asked questions and had any view pointedly told the Representatives to pass the Senate bill pronto.  Or fix what they can fix through reconciliation and then pass it.  Weiner seemed genuinely surprised that people didn't just eat up his red meat speech for the left wing and cheer him on.  By the end of the session some people were clearly getting angry that the Representatives refused to take responsibility for the state of health care reform and the 30 million people who would be covered under the Senate bill.

The Bottom Line: This is a real fight.  But it isn't hopeless.   Democratic representatives, even though in safe districts, need to hear from their constituents that (a) not passing health care reform is not an option, (b) sending the bill back to the Senate is not an option since we don't have the votes there anymore, (c) the House must pass the Senate bill with or without amendments passed through reconciliation, (d) if the House fails in this, the Democrats will lose the House because the base will not show up to work in November and swing voters are not going to vote for a party that proves that it cannot govern and does not really believe it its own political program.

Now is the time that phone call will really make a difference.  Let's make history.

I co-sign everything you wrote, and was starting to write something similar this weekend, but never got around to it.  All of the attention on President Obama is missing the point.  Congress is dysfunctional, it was under President "W" Bush, and still is.  The same people who voted for tax cuts for the rich that weren't paid for, voted for 2 unfunded wars, are now barely able to support health insurance reform that is paid for and will not add to the deficit - and in fact cut the deficit.  Something isn't adding up with Congress.

If I want something to change about the president's handling of things so far, I would want him to do some truth telling about Congress and shine the light on the corruption going on in Capitol Hill.

I made the mistake this evening of stopping by the television to briefly hear Chris Matthews interview Congressman Pascrell (sp?). Boy did I run out of there in a flash! With Democrats like these who needs Repug opponents? How will their Democratic and Independent constituents have any faith in their ability to govern if all they hear them spew is how much of a mistake it was to tackle healthcare and do it at this size? Throughout the conversation all he and Matthews could push were tort reform, and preventing dropped coverage for "pre-existing" conditions. Nothing was said about the uninsured, NOTHING!!!

It has been clear that the extension of subsidized coverage to mostly the poor and racial/ethnic minorities is what doomed the bill for those rich white liberals who have insurance and could care less about those who don't have it. For these congresscritters, there is no political upside to helping the poor and the sick who cannot get health insurance. NONE. This is the Democratic party. And they think these same voters they spit on today will march to the polls in November to vote them back in? They think people will buy any excuses for their fecklessness?

If I were congresscritters, I would be extremely worried about the polls (Research 2000 poll) showing 55% of African Americans and 51% of Latinos NOT likely to vote this Nov. Only 26% of the former and 38% of the latter definitely plan to vote. Those are sobering realities that these fatted lawmakers need to heed. And it will  practically weaken the Democratic coalition over the long haul, if these cast-aside constituencies decide that their support for Democrats all these years have earned them nothing when push came to shove, especially when they see how much Democratic lawmakers fail to defend/support and even sometimes themselves malign this President's initiatives. From the grapevine, Black folks say they are watching congress intently. That says a LOT.

Sure, the President and the White House have botched the PR for this piece of legislation, allowing the wingnuts to demonize it unchallenged. But I cannot for the life of me understand how Democrats having come this far can walk away from what is a signature plank of the democratic agenda (or so they claim) as House Democrats are threatening to do, because a stealth teabagger won a senate election that numerically takes us back to where we were last April when Arlen Specter jumped ship, and before we knew Al Franken would be seated.

Yeah it was a psychological blow, but what do Democrats think voters will conclude seeing them disintegrate so rapidly just because of one electoral setback?

This is just a correction, African-Americans and Latinos don't normally vote in mid-term elections. They just don't.

These groups only come out for major elections like Presidential, Local, and state(Mayoral and Gubernatorial). Mid-term elections always have low turnout.

I hope these line of thinking(low AA and Latino turnout) does not become the new meme of the manic left. This is the fourth time that I have read this same line.

so glad at least 3 families, on the same street, still have homes

Tammy

FYI:  A comment from recent thread:  http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ericasagrans/gGGxJP/commentary

Re: I am on Dkos now stop bothering me!  |  Report to Admin