- BIG NEWS:
- Nancy Pelosi
- |
- Iraq
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- 2010 Elections
- |
 |
||
Pardon me if I chuckle as libs such as Ed Schultz, who once maligned the Clintons with abandon, now gripe about Obama on health care and approvingly quote Bill (as he did tonight on his MSNBC show). Wasn't it obvious during the Democratic nomination race? Obama proffered the least ambitious health reform plan of the top three party candidates. In debates he was inarticulate, at best, on the subject. And his campaign even blasted Hillary Clinton's blueprint at one point, accusing her of planning to garnish wages because she proposed mandatory insurance (part of today's GOP attack against his plan) -- and yet somehow Obama got away with calling her the undependable centrist. Of course, going slow on health reform proposals as a candidate helped Obama raise tons of cash in the early days from industry donors worried about Hillary and John Edwards. It seems that it's all coming home to roost, but folks like Schultz are just now figuring it out. Hey Ed, you got who you asked for.
Craig blogs daily on CQ Politics.
Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What was wrong with her campaign in Pennsylvania and South Carolina? What was wrong with speaking to white working people and getting them to listen? What is wrong with getting some of the Reagan Democrats back in the party? They are gone now for sure.They don't really appreciated being dissed by the likes of Maddow and Olberman our "career liberals" on cable. The press and Obama's team played the race card on WJC not the other way around.I really tired of that whole sham.
I followed your blog during the Primary Craig,really appreciated that you tried to set the record straight.
MoMule -- I agree with you and Craig. As a life-long Progessive Dem, I just couldn't understand why people like Ed Schulz played such dirty politics, not unlike what Obama is facing now, against the Clintons. I was stunned, and outraged, because, as Craig said, Hillary's HC proposal was WAYYYYYYY more Progessive than Obama's was, and yet, she got racked for it. Initially, I supported BO, but as time went on, I looked carefully @ HRC's health care agenda vis-a-vis Obama, and it was a no-brainer. HRC's health care proposal was for UNIVERSAL, SINGLE-PAYER health care. And, for that she got diss'd, gutted, skewed not only as a so-called racist, after working her entire long career of 30+ yrs. for civil rights reforms, but she was so maliciously mocked in every sexist, misogynistic way imagineable. Yet, she graciously moved forward and was INSTRUMENTAL in helping Obama during the general election.
I just hope that other Progressives who supported BO, will learn from this & NEVER disparage/assault another fellow-Dem. in that way ever again. We lost several die-hard Dems b/c of that and they are never going to return to the Party. There is too much divisiveness not only in our country, but in our Dem. Party. I voted for Obama in the general, and support him now. So, let's just learn to get along and stop the unnecessary attacks.
Yes, let's mandate that people get insurance they can't afford. How progressive.
Yes Craig, I think even more than just health care, Obama has been frustratingly unliberal from the get go. He seems like he would be very liberal, but on everything from health care to FISA to even his evolving position on the Iraq War, including it's funding, Obama has proven to not really be of the liberal wing of the party. I didn't vote for HRC or Obama in the primary, even though they were the only two left by the time they got to mine, I really couldn't decide. She seemed more populist, he seemed less of a war hawk, but neither really did it for me policywise. I like the guy, I just never had any delusions he was going to be anywhere near as transformational as people thought.
Obama has faced an inherited economic depression, two wars, and cowardly Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress, and you give him eight months to be a "transformational" leader. Talk about short-term thinking. He pledged to be President of the whole United States.
Boy you sure do make alot of excuses dont you? FDR had alot on his plate too. Same with Clinton but they both got it done.
It's all very interesting isn't it? Been thinking a lot about those bad ole days when those of us who thought Hillary should be treated fairly were deemed to be her lap dogs. Such perversity. If you weren't bashing her and sucking up to Obama, you were called a racist. And yet now many of those who cast stones are pining for the Clintons to save the day because Obama is not what they imagined him to be. Just makes me laugh.
II couldn't agree with you more Craig, anyone who took a look at Hillary’s bio would have known better than to judge her by her husband's presidency. I thought she was by far the more progressive of the two. The vitriol we're now getting from the right wing nuts almost seems like pay back for the liberals who were so certain they’d found their man!
i wrote something similar on huffpo yesterday.
clinton used depleted uranium. his wife supported the war. these are not actions of peaceful people.
to make matters worse, she CHANGED her iraq position, and in the worst way, with a non-apology apology.
plus my diplomat friends have consistently reported negative things about both clintons and their dealings.
and i am a righty!! (a REAL one tho, not a neocon...p
forgot:
for obama to have feinted to the peaceniks to get elected while being wolf in sheep clothing, then i would have voted for ron paul or nader.
the hope for obama was that he would have the gravitas or political capital to be an agent for change inside the 'republocrat' party.
it was a fuitle hope, but most are, right?
so back to plan A.... we all need to vote for the smallest party on the ballot: in new york city it is the "RENT IS TOO HIGH" party.
I had a hard time with Hillary since she voted for the war--I know you felt put upon -- but understand there are many of us who knew Obama was no where near as liberal as the media claimed. But I couldn't in conscience vote for someone who voted for the war in Iraq.
I have a friend who is a Republican Rep and when I told her Obama was not Liberal she thought I was crazy.
Rahm Emanuel pushed the Democratic party toward the center--although it can be said that Bill Clinton definitely sent us in that direction also...
I don't know the answer, Craig--I like Obama but don't feel he is passionate enough, I actually think Hillary is where she belongs...
All I know is that I am afraid of the front runners in the Republican Party
I do like Chuck Hegel
but I still hope Obama can pull out "the Change We Can Believe In!'
Well, i think we've learned these past months that Bill was right, as I thought when he said it, Obama's supposed opposition to the war was a "fairy tale."
True. I laugh at the American political left at least as often as I cringe at the American political right.
Thanks for the laugh, Craig. Not with you but at you. Eight months into the Obama adminiistration and the Hillary crowd is trashing him from every direction say "I told you so." The one thing Obama is trying to avoid is the "my way or no way" Clinton approach to healthcare reform that got us NOTHING and helped launch the nation into the gridlock of partisan warfare. I just hope the Clintons can check their egos and stay out of the healthcare debate long enough for some reasonable compromise to be reached. Nothing would please you and them more than to see Obama fail. His success would further erode the myth of a Clinton legacy.
The only reason we had gridlock during the Clinton years is because the repubs cant stand losing as with now. Also the Obama admin is designing thier own health care reform bill so whos going "my way or no way" aproach to health care? Im busting a gut laughing at you, not with you.
The Clinton approach wasn't "my way or no way", it was taking a leadership role in the process. Yes, they paid a heavy price for actually trying to lead on this issue, but then again, ...
... I'd rather have a leader willing to take on the insurance and pharma companies than someone who points at Congress and says, 'The buck stops with them."
Some folks may well have been called racist, or of making a race-based attack* on Obama unfairly, but it is also the case that such accusations were absolutely well-founded.
*These aren't the same thing. You don't have to personally be a racist to make a calculated political appeal to the racism of others; all you need to be unscrupulus. The Clinton campaign is guilty of doing exactly this.
So, soooooo true.
Good blog, Craig. I supported Hillary during the Primary but strongly supported Obama in the General, and I still support him. However it has been no surprise to me that he is a centerist. That was apparent, despite the slobbering Chris Matthews, David Schuster , et al. who scorned the Clintons and felt shivers over Barak. They are now scrambling a little. Not enough. However I have been surprised at how much Obama will give up in the name of bipartisanship. It's as if bipartisanship was THE MAJOR PLANK in his campaign platform rather than just a way to get to his goals. I think he has confused means and ends.
Mr. Obama was no centrist during the campaign and he is no centrist now. He is, as Frank Rich suggested he might be, a corporatist.
Anyone who read The Audacity of Hope would have known that Barack Obama is a centrist. He is way to the right of my position on many things. But he is an educated, intelligent, caring, articulate statesman and I still believe he will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents - and the man for this time in our nation's history...
Your not in Kansas anymore Dorothy!
No doubt on health care, Obama was the least progressive major Democratic candidate. So now, on health care, we aren't getting much from the administration. That is true on other issues as well, like finance. The funny thing is, Obama didn't attempt to hide his centrism, yet somehow progressives anointed him as the progressive candidate. I think what did it for him was his stance against the Iraq disaster--made when he didn't actually have to vote on it.
Hello Craig,
I'm reminded of what Jim Hightower had to say about the center.
"There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos"
I couldn't agree more, Craig; Hillary was always the more progressive candidate. We'll know by the end of the year if Obama is going to try to out-triangulate Bill.
The irony is the socialist/
I totally agree Craig. Hillary was certainly the more populist candidate no question. Obama is and was more elitist. I frankly don't think he so called progressives we witness on NBC and KOS etc went for a candidate truly because they thought they were more progressive, they just hated Hillary, the hatred was palpable, and I really don't get it. Most of these folks were for anybody but Hillary, with no logical explanation. Given no logical explanation when you ask them, you do have to conclude that is was partially the female thing, sad to say. I lost a lot of respect for these pseudo progressives. Now Kos and others are whining on Olbermann feeling very let down. But all the evidence was there. Obama didn't know diddly about healthcare, the only candidate in the race with the knowledge on this was Hillary, and the others just stole her ideas and then criticized her for them. I really was hoping I was wrong about Obama, but unfortunately I am seeing that he's even worse than I thought he'd be.
Here you have proof that it wasn't just the neoconservatives who were drinking all that cool aid. Obviously some liberals got some of it too. Now we have to pressure Obama to be less bipartisan and become more of a Democrat. FDR started out in the middle of the road as well and look at how he turned out. Pressure, my friend, Pressure we can begin building ourselves a liberal.
No logical explanation for opposition to Hillary? Interesting.
What about lack of qualififcations (primarily Mrs. Bill Clinton) lack of integrity (bullets in Bosnia was just an example), lack of good judgment (iraq war vote), lack of capacity to lead a campaign (staff warfare, message fog, deep debt, Rove-style tactics), the Bill factor (did we really want that Soap Opera marriage back in the WH and headlines), incapacity to govern (Hillary had no chance of uniting the nation, she is intensely divisive)? h
Hillary the most progressive candidate? Do you remember her campaign in Pennsylvania and South Carolina?
Maybe you're right. I guess the key is to CAMPAIGN as a progressive ....
.... then quickly break all your campaign promises after being elected.
Worked for your guy.
That is laughable. Everything you say above is a mockery of reality. Hillary the Progressive? LMAO. ROFLMAO! Please, the only difference with Hillary would be even more compromise and more centrism.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
