The inside game

Assuming, of course, that Lieberman is being truthful in his statements. Sorta takes a grand leap of faith that I won't make.

Well, the president and his chief of staff were legislators just a year ago. The insiderism and deal making runs in their genes.

Agree donovong, I don't believe a word Lieberman says.
I am of the mind that I don't really care if Obama doesn't get elected for a second term if he can get some major things changed in his only term. If I was counseling him as a friend, I'd say, "who needs that crap, let Jane Hamsher and Taylor Marsh do it". I, for one, count the blessings that have come our way since he became president. Every time he meets with a world leader I imagine him whispering to them "that last guy, Bush, he was nuts, the sane people are back in charge now". And he's made countless other major and minor changes that I won't list here but can be found by googling "President Obama's accomplishments", it pulls up quite an impressive list of things that have gone unnoticed by the MSM, they aren't as sexy as covering the in-fighting in the democratic party.

"They feel, instead, like the president cut them and their hopes loose."

I would change "feel" to believe and add that this believe will only grow stronger as more details of what finally comes out of committee are understood.

Add to this betrayal the ongoing deference to the needs of Wall Street over the needs of the more than 20 percent of workers without work and 2010 is shaping up to be disaster of a midterm election.

I can only hope that this reality sinks in during the reconciliation process and the Senate bill isn't too much of a sow's ear to turn into a silk purse.

Team Obama didn't "lose" to Joe Lieberman. They used him to protect their "win." They cut backroom deals with Big Pharma and other lobbyists, and then fought to protect those deals throughout the legislative process. Lieberman was a useful tool in that regard.

At this point there is nothing which will convince folks who are upset for the loss of PO. I do not believe it was worthwhile for White House to spend any political capital on that.

However, what I would expect from President Obama is to make it clear the way 'politics' has been running about HCR; that is not good for this country and it needs to change.

I do believe, that is his responsibility to make it clear to Congress, and in public, that how things got done there; that is not acceptable going forward.

I think that folks are way too used to a dysfunctional Congress and seem to wish that President Obama treated the branch of government with the same contempt that Bush, Gingrich, DeLay and the gang had for it over the last twenty years.

In that time Congress got very comfortable being a rubber stamp for whomever claimed the power to tell Congress what to do and how to do it. This is how most people think Congress is suppose to work and they seem frustrated that President Obama did not follow this easy strategy.

I know that most members of Congress have never been forced to make hard choices and to legislate. I understand that they all wish that President Obama would have protected them from the hard work of doing their jobs. He didn't and that is one of the most positive things that has come out of the HCR debate (IMHO).

Yes, it has been messy, but it is good to see Congress acting like a co-equal branch of the Government and a President who embraces that idea.

This is change I can believe in.

Cheers

I don't entirely understand the argument that Obama should run around complaining about Lieberman and Nelson and everyone else whose views had to be accommodated to make this work. Unless you think that his term ends tomorrow. Lieberman is obviously a vindictive guy, and it's been reported that Nelson's favorable personal relationship with Obama played a role in his desire to strike a deal. Alienating these guys might help him shore up his progressive flank, but he needs to continue to get stuff done.

Obama has spent the better part of the last year searching for someone who will trade him something for the public option. That isn't support.

And while he may not have had much leverage over Lieberman, he has a hell of a lot more to offer than does Mitch McConnell. At the end of the day, Lieberman only has power and attention so long as he is attached to the majority.

Memo to Obama and Senate Democrats: I want to see Joe lose the chairmanship. It's either him or you.

Ezra sez: "The Obama administration has played a seriously inside game here, acting more as an accessory of the legislative branch than as the great figure of health-care reform that many of its supporters had expected. That is, in my view, the right way to understand the president's role in the system,"

This may be the role for POTUS that Washington and Adams belived, but probably not Jefferson. It is an eighteenth century version of a nation without a king and with a dominent lawmaking body.

But it certainly isn't a 20th or 21st century version of presidential leadership. Would Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ. Nixon, Carter, Reagan of Bush I see things this way. Heck no. (I won't drag in the corpse of Bush II, since he's no model of anything positive.

Where do you get these ideas, Ezra? Have you been enrolled as the new member of the Broder gang? Shame on you.

But Happy Solstice!

After health care is finally passed in its final form, Liebermans hide should be nailed to the wall and he should be made to suffer every indignation possible while at the same time thanking him for his "help".