Obama Smacked for Telling the Washington Post: ‘I Didn’t Campaign on the Public Option’

Contrary to the impression left by Obama’s Washington Post interview, a public option was a part of the health care plan that he developed during last year’s presidential campaign.
It did not, however, receive as much emphasis from Obama as other more moderate aspects of his approach.
==========
The “impression” wasn’t left. Obama actively said something that wasn’t true.
And while it didn’t receive as much emphasis as other aspects, one thing candidate Obama *did* emphasize was that he was AGAINST mandates.
He also was very forceful in speeches that people should get what Congress gets.
“If it’s good enough for Congress, it’s good enough for you”, he would say.
So his pointing to his campaign rhetoric is a little rich at this point.

So his pointing to his campaign rhetoric is a little rich at this point.
Posted by: MayBee | Dec 23, 2009 10:45:22 AM
–
Actually, that’s a good point. He would have alleviated the blowback by just not going there.
From what I recall, he did announce in a speech on health insurance reform that he’d changed his mind on mandates, and he’s also been clear that while he supports a public option, he thought it was getting too much emphasis. He repeatedly refused to draw a line in the sand over it.
I think because he thinks a lot like I do on certain matters, I don’t get as bent out of shape as others on some of these things– but for those who can’t relate to him, this gives them more fuel for the fire. I suppose its like that for all presidents– actually, all leaders.
As the post states, “It is unlikely, however, that Feingold or other progressives will have the necessary leverage to get a public option back into the bill.” I agree. It’s been unlikely all along, imho, but I think Reid has played it well by not conceding on it too early in the sausagemaking. At one point, the insurance exchanges were on the chopping block, as well as other reforms which are still in the bill and have been improved.

“Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Oh wait, that was what he said when asked at what point does a baby get human rights?
My bad.

To quote a very famous quote “YOU LIE”. Well Libs., he’s your boy, I don’t know him. PS, get use to being lied to, he’s very good at it. Don’t forget, he started out by lying to a majority of the American voters.

I think because he thinks a lot like I do on certain matters, I don’t get as bent out of shape as others on some of these things– but for those who can’t relate to him, this gives them more fuel for the fire
===============
I’m not bent out of shape on the public option because I don’t want them.
His problem on this issue isn’t with people who can’t “relate” to him, it is with people who supported him because they believed him when he said he wanted a public option.
He might not have meant it, but he managed to convince *them* he did.
He had his campaign arm, OFA, continue to ask his supporters to push hard for it. They did, and apparently they thought they were doing it on his behalf.

Whatever, mama. You see stating opinions; I see “lecturing.” What remains is if the 30 million uninsured are so important why don’t they get covered sooner by the Congress and the President? And if they are not, why do the creators/supporters of this legislation act like such noble people?
Q: Why rip the system apart just to satisfy the remaining 15%?
A: Human decency.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 22, 2009 11:21:12 AM
Can you apply the same type of determined preconceived analogizing to the cost of doing nothing? Because therein lies the actual problem, which is being ignored by the Right.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 22, 2009 10:41:13 AM
Fortunately, there are some who want to wrestle with the actual problem– not some version of it that suits politically.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 22, 2009 10:29:48 AM
I’m glad that at least one big tent party in the legislature has returned to the notion of passing important bills that seriously attempt to address big problems, not allowing the perfect to get in the way of the good, the dream to get in the way in doing what we can under the circumstances.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 22, 2009 12:23:28 AM
Moreover, working toward universal coverage is the decent, moral, humane and compassionate thing to do.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 22, 2009 3:48:18 PM

I’m not bent out of shape on the public option because I don’t want them. His problem on this issue isn’t with people who can’t “relate” to him, it is with people who supported him because they believed him when he said he wanted a public option. He might not have meant it, but he managed to convince *them* he did. He had his campaign arm, OFA, continue to ask his supporters to push hard for it. They did, and apparently they thought they were doing it on his behalf.
___
Didn’t mean to imply you were bent out of shape, and on “relating” I should have used a different word. I meant I think there are some who ARE bent out of shape and many who read the tea leaves much, much differently than I did. So what I mean is that how I read the tea leaves all along (same on Afghanistan) led me to the conclusion that (a)it was nearly impossible to get a worthwhile robust public option through the Senate — but smart from a negotiating stand point to keep it in there as long as possible, and give the netroots an opportunity to pressure the Senate to see if there would be any shift and (b) that sometime around Thanksgiving Obama would announce he was sending a significant number of troops. In my shorthand, I guess, I consider having seen that, and it turning out that way, as me being able to “relate” and maybe see the chessboard in similar way. Maybe not, but I’m not a kool aid drinker– I believe when someone tells you what’s going on you should believe them and not just see what you want to see.
Personally, I didn’t see a government public option as a big piece of his platform. Ever. But I’m not saying people shouldn’t fact check and speak out if they’re upset. I’m just not. I get where the President is coming from.

I do too. The Democrats? Not so much.
—
The Republicans? Much less so. (I’m open-minded, but partisan because of the lack of true choice when it comes to party platforms.)
We need alternate parties– a four or five party system.
Since I’m a realist, to me incrementalism– a step at a time– is better than nada.

If Senators care more about what the Big Insurance lobbysists want than what their constituents want, how can there be real reform?
How can there be real reform when there is no competition from a public option?
Answer to both: there can’t.
But we will still hear about how the Senate bill is better than nothing, that it is a start, yada, yada, yada.
The Senate bill isn’t a start. It is a pit. It gives more power to Big Insurance, entrenches them even more and let’s them think that they can throw their weight around even more than before.

Since I’m a realist, to me incrementalism– a step at a time– is better than nada.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 23, 2009 12:37:20 PM
Yes, I’m sure after the President will get a standing ovation at the State of the Union address for “saving the uninsured” and then the tap dancing and goalpost moving will begin as 3 years goes by and the uninsured continue to be uninsured while the govt gets fat on more taxes. What hypocrites the Democrats are. It’s a grand plan if you can stomach it. I can’t.

What hypocrites the Democrats are. Posted by: Live! From DC! It’s Sat Night! | Dec 23, 2009 1:22:56 PM
And yet only the Democrats are willing to tackle real problems and do the jobs they were elected to do.
We’re taking several important steps toward universal health care coverage and an improved health care system, with pilot programs aimed at working on the cost curve issue.
And the Republicans?
Nothing. Just more nihilism.
What hypocrites the Republicans and their comrades the tea partiers are (and looky, they’ve lined themselves right back up with the GOP after denying they were Republicans for most of the year!)

“…to me incrementalism — a step at a time — “.
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 23, 2009 12:37:20 PM
Sounds like ‘The Boiling Frog Story’:
The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

“And yet only the Democrats are willing to tackle real problems and do the jobs they were elected to do.”
Is that so? Well, America doesn’t see it that way.
Rasmussen: “Just 29% of U.S. voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, the lowest level measured since early February, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Forty-one percent (41%) of voters nationwide now favor the health care bill, but 55% are opposed. This is the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress.
Republican candidates now have an eight-point lead over Democrats, their biggest lead of the year, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.”

@Mary: “Is that so? Well, America doesn’t see it that way.
[..."]Forty-one percent (41%) of voters nationwide now favor the health care bill, but 55% are opposed. This is the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%.”"
Nice spin. Here’s the problem: when the public option was IN the bill, 60% supported it. Support has dropped BECAUSE the Democrats have caved to right-wingers.

Democrats are now becoming right wingers, using the power of government to force us to buy a product from a private company. There will be no incentive for insurance companies to lower prices or to offer decent coverage because they know we can’t cancel our policies.
And I am very disappointed in Obama for lying about he public option. That’s why it’s important to judge a candidate by his voting record, not by his words. Obama’s Senate voting record was more conservative that Hillary’s, but the Obots didn’t want to hear that. Furthermore, Obama voted ‘Present’ over 100 times whe he was the Illinois state legislature. Anybody who votes ‘Present’ that many times in a very shory legislative career, has no core values. If these fools on the left had done their homework, Americans would not be be getting this rotten bill today!

Democrats don’t need “right-wingers” to pass anything. They have supermajorities in both chambers of Congress.
Posted by: Mary | Dec 23, 2009 7:36:13 PM
—
This is entirely false. Thad is correct.
psssst, Mary– the Democrat tent is large and we have some conservaDems (right wingers) in it. Ever hear of Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu? We do need right wingers and centrists to pass anything. We do not have a supermajority of left wing progressives. Period. Full stop.

Even with ” definitive evidence” that Obama’s only consistency is LYING, the true believers will go down in flames with him, ever faithful, just like the true believers in Germany did.

Obama bent his supporters over. He has what he wants, so the people that voted for him won’t get anything unless Obama happens to think it is political advantageous for him. He tricked all his supporters into thinking he was a different sort of politician, and it ends up he is even more twisted than most. Watch out next time some one tells you that they can solve all your problems for you.

@Tierra
If we allow the route that you bring up, in the way that you bring it up, then it becomes way too easy for people to worm out of what they say.
If WaPo got the quote wrong (and what Obama said is there for anyone to see and read at WaPo) then Obama, Gibbs, Axelrod or someone in the administration should have corrected WaPo.
Given that no one has stepped forward to say that WaPo got it wrong after all this time, that tells me that WaPo got it right and quoted him accurately.
Obama was just caught, plain and simple. Think Progress, TPMDC and others caught him red handed.

President Obama: YOU LIE, again.