ouroborous's Comments (865)

“There's a very large gap between agreeing that Obama is better than McCain -- which I still agree with -- and thinking Obama is the best we can do, which I heartily disagree with.

Perhaps a real primary challenge in 2012 might not succeed in electing a progressive President, but it might just scare a reelected Obama into keeping more of his promises.

"Walk softly and carry a big stick." The equation stops working if you leave the stick out.”

“You've hit the nail that we progressives face on the head: we're willing to set the world on fire in blogs and email, but when it comes to actually ACTING, we tend to fade into the background.

Until we take back the spirit of activism of the 60's, we'll be on the fringes of political power, no matter how large of a percentage of the public agrees with our policies.”

“Let's see.

No PO.
No Medicare expansion.
No reimportation.
Lifetime caps.
No cost controls.

And, of course, the biggy: MANDATES.

So how, exactly, is the Senate bill an improvement? Folks, you can't just take a big rubber stamp that says "reform" to a P.O.S. bill and suddenly make it magically reform-alicious. It has to be actual, you know, reform.

This is NOT a case of "the perfect being the enemy of the good." This is a case of "the absolutely horrendous horrowshow of a bill being the enemy of ALL of us."”

“Then thank Reid and Obama -- and Lieberman (who gets to play "bad cop" in this kabuki show).”

“"Imperfect" is one thing. "Utterly abysmal" bill that fails to improve any metrics while being a GIANT handout to insurance is another.

The former, I would vote for. The latter..”

“Your mistake is in assuming that those are the only choices -- Republican lunacy or Democratic sell-outs. There is a third way.

By making our voices heard, and NOT just being railroaded into what our overly corporate-friendly Democrat "leaers" want, we have a chance -- a slim chance, admittedly -- of taking back our party from the Money-Panderers.”

“Yeah, let's force those 30mil to buy useless, outrageously-expensive insurance.

You're right! That would be so much more humane!”

“Thank you, Dr. Dean.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The Democratic "leadership" has been so hell-bent on achieving a political "win" (all the while insuring that our lobbyist friends in Big Insurance and Big Pharma aren't too pissed off) that the "reform" bill has become an utter travesty. A complete sell-out.

Thank you, Dr. Dean, for having the courage to say what we "fringe progressives" have been starting to shout for a long time now. It takes a big man (or woman) to admit that you've failed -- for now -- and start over. You've just proved that you'd be a worthier President, in my opinion, than the current Big Business lackey we have in the Oval Office.”

“Shorter Obama: "It's reform because I SAY it's reform! Now vote for it, dammit (and keep those small-dollar contributions rolling in)!"”

“Shorter version: "we're desperate to have something -- ANYTHING -- we can chalk up as a 'win', so we're desperately hoping that liberals and progressives don't actually, you know, stand up for what they believe in."

I hope he's wrong.”

“In just slightly less than one year in office, Obama -- who I voted for in both primary and general elections -- has managed to:

1) Essentially drive the Democratic party into civil war, with "centrist" and corporatist types on one side (along with the DLC leadership types), and liberals/progressives on the other. This wouldn't normally be a problem for a political party, except that liberals aren't the FRINGE of the Democratic party. We're basically the dynamo; the only reason people VOTE Democrat -- aside from "we're not Republicans" -- is that they care about social justice issues. Once you throw those issues overboard, you (at the very least) take the wind out of the sails of the party.

2) Pretty much betray every campaign promise he's made, aside from the stimulus (which was pretty much bungled in how it was spent, despite being about the biggest blank check ever handed to a President, IMO).

3) Take a political party that marched into DC with a massive, historic mandate for change, and turn that into the "must-lose" party of 2010 and 2012.

You can blame Congress or the Republicans, but ultimately a failure of leadership must be laid at the leader's feet. Otherwise, what's the point of leadership?

Heckuva job, Mr. President!”

“Um. You might be amazed at the number of people (like me) who voted for Obama and now have a *serious* case of "voter's remorse."

You see, we BELIEVED that he would be all about "hope" and "change"; instead, all we're getting is more of the same, with a giant helping of taxpayer handouts for Big Business.

NOT what I/we voted for.

So, please. Go on believing/insinuating that anyone who opposes Obama must be a troll who voted against him. If it will make you sleep better to believe that, go ahead. It's not reality, but don't let that slow you down...”

“FiredogLake is calling the Senate bill "LieberCare" and Jane Hamsher now recommends KILLING the Senate BILL.

So sorry, Mr. Gibbs, but you're learning to lie as glibly as Scott McClellan did before his big "coming to Jesus" moment. Further re-emphasizing the point; there is no difference anymore between Republicans and Democrats (with a few noble outlying exceptions); they're all just the party of Money.

KILL THE BILL!”

“This only works if the 55-65 Medicare block is *open to all*. Otherwise, it becomes a "risk hazard" with the net effect of dumping the sickest of the sick onto the taxpayer rolls, and dragging all of Medicare down.

Medicare, to really compete as SP, cannot just be where "old people go to die."”

“Good for you, Burris. I didn't much like how you got into office, but I've liked what you've done with the place...”

“Birdman said 70% plus support a PO, which is correct (AFAIK from the last poll).

Your quote of a lower figure of support for the bill is also, paradoxically correct. Which means that either (a) the majority of polls aren't worth the paper they're written on (very likely), or (b) a meaningful public option isn't IN the current bill (also very likely).

TLDR: Your number doesn't contradict his number.”

“Yes, but if a couple billion in savings is compared to a hundred billion in covering a sick population from 55-65...

As I said, the devil is in the details. If this expansion of Medicare is *open to all*, then I'll hail it as a Very Good Thing, and possibly even worth dumping the Public Option over.

But right now, I'm very VERY skeptical that it will be "open to all."”

“Some things are worse than nothing; be careful what you wish for, when wishing for getting "SOMETHING DONE ALREADY."”

“The Medicare expansion is ONLY good if it is open to ALL citizens from 55-65, not just the sickest.

Otherwise it will quickly become a dumping ground for the insurance companies to get rid of their unhealthiest (read: costliest) customers. We (taxpayers) will foot the bill, prices will go up for everyone.

And to boot, since this will skyrocket the costs for Medicare, in '10 or '12 or whenever the Republicans regain control of Congress (after the public realizes what an utter clusterf*ck health care "reform" under Obama/the Democrats has been), they will be able to say "see how broken Medicare is, we have to 'privatize' [read: dismantle] it!" -- something they've been trying to do for half a century.

So, as always, the devil is in the details. If this Medicare expansion is open to ALL citizens from 55-65, with no exclusions, then it could be a Very Good Thing. But if, as most of us progressives suspect, it will simply be open to the sickest of the sick, it will produce a net negative. A BIG net negative.

So folks, quit trumpeting this "compromise" until we know ALL the details. Getting health care reform RIGHT is far more important than giving Obama a "win" by the State of the Union address.”

“So, here's the TLDR version of what Obama/Rahm/Reid/et al are saying:

We removed all REAL reform from the bill, and kept the mandates in as a "thank you" to our friends in the insurance industry.

Also, we really, really want to lose in 2010 and 2012, but we don't know it yet!

Thanks, bye!”

“There is another option, you know. It's not just "status quo" or this pile of manure. Many of us progressives were trying to get REAL reform all summer and fall.

This, my friends, is NOT real reform. This is a step backwards, and will almost certainly lead to a monumental defeat for Democrats in 2010 and quite possibly lead to Obama being a one-term wonder.

Just because you CALL something reform doesn't MAKE it reform, despite what Mr. Dean may claim and what Obama/Rahm may fervently want you to believe.

Wait and see.”

“I'm sorry, as long as the public option was in the bill, I was still willing to support it.

But now that the PO is ruled out, the Medicaid expansion is out, the Medicare expansion is apparently so riddled with exclusions as to be almost useless, and mandates are STILL THERE, this bill is actually worse than nothing.

Let me repeat: the Senate bill, which Mr. Dean is praising, is actually *worse than the status quo*. It will not help people, and indeed may harm poor and working-class families by forcing them to buy crap insurance that they can't afford, with no meaningful cost controls to keep premiums from skyrocketing out of control.

Coupled with the BS political move to block the House from meaningful debate in conference -- essentially shutting out the only true liberal and progressive voices in Congress entirely -- and you have a giant, strutting middle finger of a bill -- and a handjob for the insurance industry.

I'm sorry, this is the last straw. I'm sure that some will, predictably, label me a troll for this, but I'm going to do everything I can to primary corporatist Democrat incumbents in 2010, and to put up a challenger against Obama in 2012.

We need REAL change we can ACTUALLY believe in, not just more empty words backed up by a shiv.”

“QUOTE: Grijalva told HuffPost that the strategy would require progressives to back down so that the president could get a symbolic win. "Progressives will be jammed into a corner and once again asked, 'You've got to do this for the president so he can give a State of the Union address,'" he said.

Obama is going to be very, very surprised in 2012, methinks, and 2010 may well be a rather dismal year for Democrats in general. Progressives staying home in droves because their entire party leadership betrayed them would very, very much change the equation.

We're tired of the rest of you playing "punch the hippy." We'll go find someone else to play with and let you pick a new whipping boy.”

“Some of us have been calling for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall for a long time now. It is the simplest, sanest measure we could take to ensure that we don't enter another "speculation bubble" like the most recent one -- which almost destroyed the entire US economy.

So sorry that banks feel like they won't be able to compete as well w/Glass-Steagall. I don't want my country to go bankrupt in order to ensure you can make big, big profits (at taxpayer expense... talk about "entitlement programs!")”

“Um, he was never leaning left. He's been leaning so far to the right -- more wars, deficit hawk while ignoring a crumbling economy, torpedoing or not supporting HCR -- that I'm surprised that he hasn't fallen over yet.

He was never a progressive, but I'd hoped that he'd at least give a VOICE to the liberals and progressives.

You're not blind if someone lies to you and you believe it. Just a little naive. And the appropriate response is to take your lesson from that and *not repeat your mistakes* (hint, hint, 2012).”