Is Obama Just Another Politician?

Valerie Jarrett was at the Netroots Nation convention today. I went to go hear her speak and I left completely unconvinced. She is one of the top advisers to President Obama. She is a very good politico, for better and for worse. She is smart, composed and faux engaging and engaged. She seems to care but never really gives a straight answer. In a lot of ways, she's a lot like her boss.

I am not a doctrinaire. I understand the value of compromise, diplomacy, bipartisanship, etc. But if you compromise on everything, then what do you have left? It's a balancing act, of course. You have to know when to compromise and when to stand firm. So, that gets us to the question of the day? The central question of the Obama presidency.

Is Obama a Linconesque compromiser or is he just another politician who will sell out any principle just to get re-elected?

These days Abraham Lincoln is known for being the resolute leader that got us through the Civil War and freed the slaves. But you have to remember that he didn't free the slaves on day one (nor had he promised to), he didn't stand on principle on every issue and he was not some sort of mythical statue of a man that never budged. He slowly built to a place where he thought he had the political backing to free the slaves. So, I get that. And Obama might be doing just that on the issues we face today.

Or ... he's not building to a damn thing. If the New York Times is right about a story they ran on Thursday, then Obama is mainly dealing with the Finance Committee in the Senate and they have already agreed there will be no public option in the healthcare plan. That is a fundamental compromise that shows that you have no intention of actually challenging or changing the system. And that you are a run of the mill politician.

Why? Why is the public option so important? On the actual substance of the healthcare issue, the public option is critical in changing the insurance system we have now. If we don't use this to keep prices down through real competition, then the system will essentially be the same. Except with near universal coverage, taxes will of course go up (and private insurance companies will make even more money because we will subsidize more people to get insurance through them). And when the American people find out that taxes went up and their premiums did not go down, they'll be pissed.

And who do you think they'll be pissed at? The insurance industry and the Republican Party who killed the public option? Of course, not. They'll be mad at the people who did "healthcare reform." Then the industry and their wholly owned subsidiary, the Republican Party, will tell them that the reform pushed through by the Democrats led to higher taxes and higher premiums -- and real change will be made even harder, and maybe even impossible.

But that's still not the main reason why the public option is so important. It's because it is a standard bearer. It is a road sign. It tells you what Obama is all about. Is he willing to compromise something he knows is essential to get a deal done so that he can brag in the next election that he got "healthcare reform" passed? Or does he actually give a damn about policy and getting it right? That is the central question.

I don't know which way it's going to go, but right now the signs are not good. The New York Times story is very troubling because Obama is not going to spend all this time negotiating with the Senate Finance Committee and the industry players and then throw out the deal they worked on. And the industry and the Republican Party have been very clear -- if there is a public option, they're out. Obama is not go negotiate with them all this time if he did not already agree to that premise. That is very, very troubling.

And that brings us to Valerie Jarrett this morning. I was fine with all of her answers on other domestic and foreign policy issues and even on the issues I wholeheartedly disagreed with her on (and the issues she got heckled on). You're not going to get everything you want and you're certainly not going to get all of it instantly (meaning the first year of his term). But there is a bottom line. And as I have explained above, that bottom line is the public option.

So, here was her answer on that:

"Let me be very clear and I talked to the president yesterday about this, knowing I was coming here. The president wants the public option, he has made that clear everywhere he has gone."

That sounds clear, right? Wrong. No, she just said the president "wants" it. Big whoop dee doo. That doesn't mean a thing. It is political-speak for saying later, " We really wanted it, we fought hard for it but we just couldn't get it. But it is important to know that we got a great bill that is bipartisan, that everyone can live with and that will bring real change to America." And then you'll know that Obama was full of it.

There is all the difference in the world between "wanting" the public option and "insisting" on the public option. For example, the Republicans don't stutter. They say unequivocally that they will insist that there is no public option. Why must we always cave in to their demands? Especially when they are a statistically irrelevant minority (that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them, but it does mean we should stop following their orders and dictates on the most important issues). Why can't we insist on something for a change? Why can't we insist on the most important part of the plan?

Well, if we don't, it is obviously because we did not have the political will to do so. And that is 100% on Obama. If he caves on this, then he is your typical gasbag politician who promises one thing and does another. On the flip side, if he gets real healthcare reform passed with a public option, then I will be impressed and energized. I will dare to believe again.

I still think it's an open question. And it's one only Obama can answer. What's it going to be Mr. President? Do you really believe in change? Do you really believe in what you said during the campaign? That campaign that got us all excited thinking that maybe, just maybe, if we supported the right guy he really could change the system.

Or are you going be just another politician?

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[moleif]

The public option will not work, it merely allows the insurers to continue to offload money losing policies to the public. Talk about suckers!

[mama4justice]

Cenk, thanks for articulating what I know my US household believes. So wadda we have to do to convince the President that we want the public option? OK kids, then organize us. We're awake. Summer vacation is freakin' is over. Are the citizen's of the United States LESS IMPORTANT than the Insurance/­Pharma/GOP lobby? Really?!!! Mr. President don't lose this for us. Come on - remember the "relax everybody, I got this covered" moment from the election? Is that what we're in the midst of now - 'cause our generation hasn't seen a victory over the conservative corporatis­ts...beyon­d your election?

S.O.S on this. We want a public option - the rest of the industrialized western world proves it works.

Organize us, somebody? We're waiting for the call.

[allonfla]

"I still think it's an open question." No you don't. You spent 3/4th's of your blog saying that he is just like other politicians. You've answered it for yourself already and even if he passes the public option, you will still ask the same question when it comes to other issues or legislation.

[ihavenobias]

Good. We don't to be like the right wing under Bush, i.e. ass kissing and water carrying just because "our guy" is president.

[Alexander2791]

Clearly you have not read the blog carefully. What is quite disappointing is the blind faith that some people place in their elected leaders once the vote is counted. The gay community, the Jewish lobby, the insurance companies through their lobby make sure their voice is heard. Why do some people think that it is incorrect for progressive democrats and independents to make sure that campaign promises are kept?

[Alexander2791]

"On the flip side, if he gets real healthcare reform passed with a public option, then I will be impressed and energized. I will dare to believe again." This quote from the article shows that you are wrongly accusing the author of being a defeatist!

[timm0]

Obama went after reform in the wrong sequence. He needed to push for re-implementation of some of the Fairness Doctrine policies so that there could be a difference between "news" (boring facts) and "infotainment" (basically all the mainstream media). There would at least be a venue to present facts and have them broadcast.

The other bigger issue would be to shove into the mix an amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to set strict spending guidelines for campaigns. It would take years for this to float through (possibly), but it could help give weak-kneed Congress members the writing on the wall. They will soon have to get elected on issues instead of on the financial rewards from insurance and pharma companies.

These are the two venues on which reform is being attacked and gutted.

[allonfla]

Don't quit your day job. You are suggesting that Obama push an extremely controversial legislation in order to push an extremely controversial legislation. Government run media to push government run health care: that's how the GOP would attack it.

not smart. not smart at all.

[cam]

I agree with timmo - the reigh wing propaganda machine is something that has to be countered.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone has a right to express that opinion, but no society can afford to harbor a propaganda machine dedicated to outright lies and misinformation. The Bush regime was carried that machine - the Obama regime will be destroyed by it if it underestimates it.

[BMBTHC]

Appeasement. If he gives up on the public option just because a bunch of dead enders yelled and screamed, what will he do at the next confrontation with the lunatic fringe. Giving into them will only embolden them. They are intellectual and political terrorists. They sow doubt and fear in order to cow the population into seeing them as the only way out of the situation that they themselves were largely responsible for. Giving into them is playing right into their hands. Fox be damned.

[Bonobo]

Barack Obama is strong willed, and will stand up for his convictions and core beliefs.

The problem lies with what those core beliefs are. They are not health care, global warming, or military reform. They are compromise, consensus, and incrementalism. He truly wants change, but thinks both that these are the only ways to achieve it, and that these methods are themselves change. He, and other centrists, confuse the process for the product, and will defend that process to the bitter end.

[RobHughey]

It looks as though insisting on the public option will result in the entire process being derailed and ultimately failing. I get where you're coming from Cenk, and (as usual) I am fully in your corner. I agree that the public option must not be negotiable. It's the central important part of this entire reform process, as it is truly what will benefit the most Americans (whatever the Republican spin-doctors say).

The reason we can never be the ones to "insist" on anything is that our side is almost never the one to turn to the cruelest and grossest political methodology. We don't enjoy using fear tactics, and we find it distasteful to have to resort to saying when political options are somehow "more moral."

But the public option IS the moral option. It is immoral for millions and millions of Americans to be unable to afford health care, and it is immoral for over a million Americans each year to have to declare Bankruptcy every year because of health-related expenses. Why can't we finally have the courage to stand up and say that?

It's time for us to play hardball. I feel that the time for reaching our hands across the aisle, only to have it smacked away, is over.

[Aldyth]

You make an excellent point. Without the public option, there will be people who can't find coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Others who will be dropped for any excuse when they develop an expensive medical condition. And too many people who have insurance and can't afford to use it because deductables, copays, and their percentage of the bill is too high.

There will be too much of the same ole nonsense and the insurance companies will get rich.

[RobHughey]

Ultimately, I think you have hit the crux of the whole problem right on the head. And even the Conservatives will agree that the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies are getting entirely too rich off the middle- and lower-classes. The system is unbalanced and broken, and it needs to be overhauled.

Personally, I'm a firm believer that Health Care should be as socialized as the police and fire departments. But the current reform doesn't even socialize medicine, regardless of the cries from the more-aggressive Right.

Something has to be accomplished, and giving up on the Public Option is the same thing as saying "oh well, let's just call the whole thing off." Isn't it?

[ChinaC]

Is Obama just another politican? yes.

[MaryKathO]

I continue to read these defeatist diatribes on a daily basis and my question is...WHY ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SO IMPATIENT AND WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GROW UP AND START GETTING THINGS DONE ON OUR OWN? The President told us, in his Inaugural Address, to put aside childish things, grow up and take responsibility for our lives. We cling to this childish notion that a President must "lead us" to make the right decisions. We KNOW what the right decisions are, yet we are too often unwilling to act. We expect others to do the heavy lifting for us. Obama is challenging ALL of us to act, on our nation's behalf, and do what is required if we want healthcare reform, new energy policies, restoration of our Constitution, education reform, gay rights, etc. We don't yet KNOW where these issues will end up as there has been precious little time to do ANYTHING about most of them. It is NOT Obama who is letting us down. It is ourselves. We expected that all the work would be done once the election was over. The work is NEVER done. It is OUR responsibility, and not just President Obama's. Cenk, instead of criticizing every minute the president hasn't accomplished everything in his first 6 months in office, use that "public microphone" you have to demand your listeners and the readers of your blog WORK for change. After all, WE are the one's we have been waiting for.

[Bonobo]

Grassroots is a cute phrase, and it's really good for suckering political neophytes into walking the precinct, but it is terrible operational management. Actually getting stuff done needs a plan, an organized staff, and a manager with clear responsibility. Otherwise, it's just a mob running around shouting stuff (which is a good way NOT to get things done, hence the health reform opposition's townhall strategy). Leaders count. It's why we were created as a republic, not a pure democracy. If Obama expects the mob to produce his health care for him, he deserves what he gets. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't.

[Alexander2791]

To Mary Kath and Bonobo....extending on your comments, it is naive to believe that in the real world things work as if we live in an idealistic world. We are learning slowly today that Obama's leadership is obfuscated by his command of the language. He has been talking about public options as the only way to keep "the insurance industry honest", but he never took a clear stand about it. Instead, through Rahm, Gibbs, Axelrod and V Jarret and (today) his secretary of health we are getting conflicting and vague messages that are continuously re-calibrated. As Bonobo says "leaders count". Well the questions being raised by Cenk and many other progressive pundits are valid; "is Obama punking us?" We are exerting our critical sense and duty as responsible citizens by keeping our elected leaders' feet to the fire. This is our way to make sure that the promised changes occur.

[timm0]

If the issue of health care reform was a national referendum vote, then your demands make sense.

But it's not a referendum.

Worse, there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on lobbying, advertising, and re-election "donations" to stop reform. Maybe you have an idle billion or two to balance that all out, but most of us who are apparently letting you down have at this point only one thing - the people who we helped elect to implement sensible reform using logic, facts, and reason, ignoring the limbaugh-ites.

So whatever "work" entails, it's pretty vague. What work do we do? Sign petitions? Bring a gun to a town hall meeting? Scream and rant in public like complete l00ns? Is that what it takes?

[morganraider]

Cenk Uygur is dead on with this blog. There is absolutely NO REASON to cave on the public option. The Democrats were elected on a mandate and seem to insist on giving up the farm to be "bipartisan".

I keep waiting for the Dems to grow a set and say if your with us great and if not too bad.

Palin (an unemployed facebook blogging dimwit) screams "death panel!" and the first thing the Dems do is pull the end of life counseling in the house bill.

Republicans have no problem with my way or the highway (remember the "nuclear option"?)

It's no surprise so few people vote! If the Dems can't vote for what their constituency wants after they gave them a mandate what the hell is the point in bothering to vote for them at all?

[vanmungo]

Mr. Uygur champions a "public option," but he does not specify exactly what he means by that term.

Many commentators assume that the pub-op would be something like Medicare. But the currently trafficked, alarmingly shriveled version of the public option--as specified in HR3200 and destined for even further shriveling in House-Senate conference committee--is nothing like Medicare.

Unlike Medicare, it will be self-sustaining, not publicly funded; unlike Medicare, it will charge premiums and impose deductibles, making it unaffordable for the tens of millions most in need of help; unlike Medicare, it will have to negotiate provider fees on the same footing as HMOs--so no cost saving there, no the cost savings of the single risk pool of single payer--according to the CBO, no cost savings period. And no significant expansion of coverage, because it will be open only to those not already covered by employers, and even for them not until 2013!

This is a joke, a gift to the HMO lobby, pure consumer fraud-- apublic option that is neither really public nor an option for most people!

Even Dr. David Scheiner — Obama’s personal physician for 22 years — said, “It’s a bad bill. No bill is better than this bill."

For a fuller analysis please see this article from Physicians for a National Health Plan:

"Bait and Switch: How the Public Option Was Sold"

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/

[morganraider]

The article to which you have linked is excellent. The way I look at it is a "public option" weakened or not is a start. It begins to allow for SOME competition and is at least an entry for improvement.

Totally leaving everything to private insurance, HMO's and co-ops totally sells out to the insurance industry and virtually eliminates any chance of national health care for years.

I suggest opening the door to any government option - even a little - is much better than caving 100% into the private insurance industry. At least it provides a framework for improvement moving forward

[vanmungo]

If you read the Sullivan article carefully, you'll see that the reality is that this latest version of the public option is cynically crafted to be a dead end that cannot lead forward.

In fact, it is so likely to be a miserable failure that it will probably discredit the idea of publicly financed health care for another generation. So it will be a step backward.

That's why Obama's former physician said that no bill would be better than this bill. It doesn't change anything essential in the current system--leaves it firmly in the grip of the HMO profiteers--and dooms the enfeebled public option that it peddles--a public option that is neither truly public (self-sustaining rather than government-funded) nor an option for most people: only those who don't have employer insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare are even eligible, and then not until 2013, and even at that point most will not be able to afford the premiums and deductibles.

How do you spell J-O-K-E?

It's a waste of time to support this farce. We should be putting all our energy behind single payer.

[babina]

I have faith President Obama will do the right thing for just that reason, it is the right thing to do. The compromise was a single payer system, which would ensure fairness in medical treatment and paying for it. for every American. The republicans don't back down from their demands even though they are completely irrelevent, neither should the democrats.

Pass health care insuracne reform with a public option using reconcliation if it turns out to be the only way to pass it and get it signed into law. The repulcians would not hesitiate to do the same.

[vanmungo]

What do you mean by public option? By public option with reconciliation? Do you have any clue what the actual provisions of these proposals are? You say the "compromise" was a single payer system--but a single payer system is quite different from a public option. Your "faith" in Obama seems so blind that you evidently feel that you are exempt from actually informing yourself about what these terms mean.

In case you want to learn what they mean, I suggest that you read the FAQ at Physicians for a National Health Plan:

www.pnhp.org

[sdskelton03]

Cenk

It is quite obvious that he not only is just another politician, but not a very good one either.

I have no idea why he thought it would be wise to re-work 1/6th of our economy in three weeks and then demand support for a plan that hasn't yet been written in the senate and is still in 5 different parts in the house.

[listeningpost]

Because the media is framing it as a horse race or contest. With their 24/7 exposure the politicians and political process get sucked into playing their game.
Reagan and other repub regimes controlled the media by being inaccessible. Always being available and reacting to every news impulse is not the same as transparency. The Rovians were pernicious scoundrels but they tended to get their way.

[sdskelton03]

Blame the media for his administration's poor decision making?

[vanmungo]

The problem with the mainstream Democratic proposals that Obama is pushing is that they DON"T rework 1/6 of the American economy. They don't amount to any real reform at all--they're a complete sellout to the HMOs and Big Pharma.

Read the sad details of policy analysis here:

"Bait and Switch: How the Public Option Was Sold"

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/

[CollegeConservative86]

I had a friend ask me if Obama fails, will we ever elect a black president again? I asked, if he fails, isn't it true equality? All he is doing is proving a black politician is equally as useless as a white politician.

[chicagurl]

I think we all owe it to ourselves to wait and see. Rome wasn't built in a day and Obama is not going to be able to give us everything we want in a few short months and certainly can't by working alone. As long as Republicans remain the Party of No and think that it's more important to stifle any meaningful conversation and obstruct any real changes, it's an upward battle to get anything done.

If, after a year or so, we're all still waiting, well, then, I guess you can write this article with a little more credibility.

[CollegeConservative86]

Rome didn't collapse in a day either. I guess the Roman's were correct in waiting for that, too.

[vanmungo]

You're only of college age, and you're already a conservative, a champion of callousness and greed?