Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:52 AM ET, 12/ 9/2010

Obama has always triangulated

By Adam Serwer

I think the conversation about Barack Obama "triangulating" is largely coming up now because it fits a familiar narrative -- an embattled Democratic president facing a confident Republican majority and a disappointed base.

The thing is, Obama has always triangulated. Even during the 2008 campaign, notwithstanding his being on record supporting a single-payer system, he was running ads like this:

<:OBJECT width="380" height="285">

The script reads, in part:

"On the one end, government run health care, higher taxes. On the other, insurance companies, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong."

What in the past the administration has referred to as "pragmatism" is merely triangulating by another name. The process is familiar: Obama presents himself as the moderate position between two "extremes." The problem is that, like your standard beltway "centrism," all Republicans have to do to shift the discourse is step to the right, forcing whomever wants to portray themselves as residing in the center to recalibrate.

The difference between Bill Clinton era triangulating and Obama era "pragmatism" isn't substantive, but rhetorical. As Greg pointed out yesterday, for the most part, Obama makes it clear that he agrees with liberals on substance, before arguing that the political situation necessitates some kind of compromise. Often this is overstated, and the White House is making excuses to take a safer political path. It also doesn't help that the White House tends to make substantive preemptive concessions before even calling Republicans to the negotiating table.

So I'd disagree with Greg about whether this constitutes "triangulating." It does. It's just Obama triangulating, not Clinton triangulating. It's actually less hostile to the left than its 90s counterpart. But it's not new. This was how Obama got elected, so it's no surprise the White House is wedded to the narrative of the president as "the adult in chief." It's also no surprise that those on the left are getting tired of being treated like "children," and their substantive objections to the potential long-term consequences of White House compromises dismissed as mere unrealistic demands for ideological purity.

By Adam Serwer  | December 9, 2010; 10:52 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Is DADT repeal in trouble again?

Comments

omfg who gives a crap.

This whole rant is dumb. Who cares what it's called. In the end, it doesn't f'in matter if its called triangulation or just being pragmatic.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 9, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama thinks he is Senate Whip and that his job is to count votes. The Left thinks Obama should move votes, or at least try. The chronic and ulcerating problem is that the Left (and the rest of the country for that matter) expects a leader in the White House. Obama, however, is inert and assumes he cannot change anyone's mind or vote no matter what so there is no point even trying. Now tell me whose idea of presidential leadership is correct.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If this evidence doesn't convince the howlers on the left that Obama did NOT run for POTUS as a left-wing liberal, I don't know what will.

Obama is, was, and always will be a center-left moderate pragmatist in practice, and a liberal ideologically. All one needs to do is read the man's history at Harvard and the IL Senate to figure this out. Really, it's not that hard.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 9, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I think this is right, and he is looking at the coming political reality more clearly than many of his critics.

But the problem is, not everything can be compromised, and sometimes the GOP position really runs over into lunacy. Take global warming. If we compromise on 500 ppm of CO2 instead of trying to get to 350 ppm, then we will not only see a rise of over 3 degrees F in the 2020s, we have condemned the next generations to temperature increases of 7 degrees plus F by 2060 and rising, sea level rises of 2 meters this century and for the next several centuries, plus the death of much of ocean life and serious impacts on land-based food supplies. Then "compromise" becomes triage and abandonment of m illions of people and significant parts of the globe.

I'm ok with the tax deal as a bow to political reality but would really like to see people focus on something more imminent and perilous than social security solvency in 2037.

Posted by: Mimikatz | December 9, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Insider semantics. I agree with mikefromA. There are so many other things to discuss. We barely even mention the DREAM Act here anymore, among other issues.

If you want to snag some insider dirt, Plum Line authors, how about getting some more reactions to the WaPo article on "anti-establishment" Republican Tea Partiers recently elected to Congress who have turned around and hired corporate lobbyists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120806221.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 9, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Oh and speaking of the DREAM Act, here is a takedown of right-wing scare tactics on the bill:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/08/fact-checking-attacks-dream-act/

Spread it around the web if you do that kind of thing.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 9, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

And my answer to those who think that the White House is correct to attack the Left because the Left attacks Obama is an analogy:

Sports fans can criticize players until the cows come home but the players (and the team) do not respond in kind. Why? Because the team depends on the support of its fans. That is even moreso in politics. If you are in the position of power you never attack your supporters UNLESS you have a d*mn good reason. ANd petulance isn;t a good reason. After all, just who is expected to be calm and rational: president Obama or his frustrated supporters. Obama appears to be a spoiled child, angry that his supporters don't applaud everything he does, even when he betrays those supporters over and over. Democrats need Liberals because the Democratic Party needs Liberals' money and votes. Liberals don't need Democrats. Liberalism is a political philosophy that associates itself with Democrats BECAUSE Democrats promise to further Liberal positions. When the Democrats cease enacting Liberal policies, Liberals have no reason to support Democrats. I hope you can see that this, like many things, is uni-directional. That is why Obama is behaving so stupidly by antagonizing his supporters.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Let's take a step back for a moment. Can you see Bush brokering a deal like this? Isn't that what people disliked about him? He played to his base only - and wound up with a 35% approval rating.

I think there's a little Jedi mind trick in this too. Once the Republicans become engaged in a problem, it legitimizes the problem. Once people recognize a problem as being legitimate, there's hardly no one out there better than Obama at explaining the issue and proposing a good solution to it. The HCR debate got lost because the Republicans successfully AVOIDED talking about any real issues. The whole debate take on a cartoonish aspect. The real turning point was the summit. Once you saw Republicans sitting and calmly talking about HCR, you realized this was a real problem that required real answers. And Obama had them.

Engaging the Republicans strengthens, not weakens Obama's hand going forward.

Posted by: willows1 | December 9, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"political reality"

And THAT is the key. Obama thinks political reality is fixed and that he can't influence it and therefore he shouldn't bother to try. The rest of the nation disagrees and recognizes that Obama simply does not understand what being president means.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"there's a little Jedi mind trick in this too"

Yeah, but where's the pony?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

It's also no surprise that those on the left are getting tired of being treated like "children,"

~~~~~~

Well how about they stop acting like children then?

Posted by: HansSolo | December 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

All, don't ask don't tell may be in trouble again:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/is_dadt_repeal_in_trouble_agai.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 9, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

But who says that Obama is particularly attacking garden variety supporters? Are people who subscribe to that line of thinking suggesting that the employees of 30 Rock and liberal editorial writers speak for democratic voters as a whole? That is just silly. So the President can never defend himself against popular liberal voices if he thinks the criticism is unfair? The same way the President of the United States shouldn't be above reproach, neither should his critics - regardless of the political philosophy.

Posted by: latenightwhatnot | December 9, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

It is a Win Win for the Republicans. They get to reward their anonymous fat cat backers, and then start waging a fiscal restraint war, to cut spending, in order to get the expanding deficits under control.

There are only a few times during the course of a Presidency, that the person will truly be tested. Anyone can make the easy stances. It is those who can stand their ground, when a tough challenge emerges, that are truly presidential.

Like Harry Truman said; If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

As soon as the Republicans turned up the heat, just a little, President Obama wilted like a parched petunia, and it looks like The congressional Democrats are about to do the same thing.

The word of the day is: PUSILLANIMOUS.

This President can not win reelection, after he has revealed himself to be such a pushover. The problem is that no primary challenger could win the general election either, because too many African American voters would not vote for such a candidate.
Therefore; for the sake of the future of the Democratic Party; President Obama should not run for reelection, and allow us time to select a new torch bearer.


Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne - But look, everyone is talking about Obama now. He completely stole the narrative on this. No one is even discussing what a grenade this is to the Republican caucus. This is potentially another Medicare Part D moment for them, but it doesn't even break through the noise. No one gives hoot about McConnell's perma-scowl.

Posted by: willows1 | December 9, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Often this is overstated, and the White House is making excuses to take a safer political path."

Ah, but it isn't. The safer political path would have been to understand the reason he was elected, the reason he was allowed to usurp The Clintons.

Near as I can tell, he thought it was because everybody wanted the Clintons, but were tired of their baggage. He thought people elected him because of his speaking skills (which he, so scary...no I can't go Godwin, but if anyone asks I'll give you a reference), not because of his message. Maybe that was his original mistake.

He beat The Clintons, then tried to become them. But times had changed and he isn't and you can never go back, something the Reagan cult might wish to consider.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

It's also no surprise that those on the left are getting tired of being treated like "children,"

~~~~~~

Well how about they stop acting like children then?

Posted by: HansSolo | December 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"
A surefire winner.

How's that Democratic Party recruitment effort going?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"The word of the day is: PUSILLANIMOUS"

And we all know what colloquial insult is derived from that word.

Liam, I respect that you have modified your position based on new information. It may be a first in the history of the internet. The big question is now what?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"everyone is talking about Obama now"

Contrary to myth, not all publicity is good. People are talking about how weak Obama is. You may think that's a good thing for a president I don't. Just wait until next time he has to wrangle with the GOP. He will get nothing. In fact, Obama will get nothing for the next 2 years that isn't on the GOP wish-list. And now that the debt will be even higher expect ever deeper attacks on the Welfare State which, most unfortunately, I think Obama intends to join. You may think that "moving on" will solve the problem but it won't. Obama's problem is weakness and that problem will surely get worse and worse for the next 2 years. Jedi Mind Tricks or not.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne - How is your new "I Can't Count to Sixty Party" coming along?

It is too bad you didn't pay attention during the campaign; if you had you would realize Obama is doing pretty much what he said he would do. Of course, if you had been paying attention, you couldn't claim you were a victim, and it is obvious to all that being a victim is the most important thing in the world to you. You know who else is like that? The Tea Partiers. Since you are advocating a course of action (primarying Obama) that will help ONLY the Tea Party, maybe you should just get Sarah Palin's face tattooed on your chest and call it a day.

Posted by: HansSolo | December 9, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Today's dose of Serwer double speak just about pins the needle on the newly installed, patent pending, irony meter.

This quote is just too insightful:
================
It's also no surprise that those on the left are getting tired of being treated like "children," ...
======================
While that may be true (the poor wee bairns) those on the left never seem to tire of treating every member of the human species like children all the time.

The left's behavior clearly indicates that they have absolutely no faith in people at all. According to them, we need to be told, like children, how to lead our lives and of course it is the lefties who are more than happy to issue the instructions.

Mr Serwer I sincerely hope that this particularly ironic passage you wrote comes to mind the next time you screw in one of those stupid light bulbs, or have to flush the john in your oh so green digs three times to get the job done or you fill you fuel tank and realize that the EPA mileage estimate on the car you bought would be classified by thoughtful librarians under the category "current American Fiction"

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 9, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Is Obama's Jedi mind trick just a new name for his rope-a-dope skills (that he used to get the health care industrial complex stimulus bill passed), just without the "soft racism" the brush Democratic critics of President Obama were tarred with last week, before we became babies this week?

Uh-ooooh, tar and baby in the same sentence. I better call HR, I need to go back to Inclusion Training, formerly known as Diversity Training.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"it is obvious to all that being a victim is the most important thing in the world to you"

Nope. If so, I would be happy Whipped Dog Democrat cheering for my inert president.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"Now tell me whose idea of presidential leadership is correct..."

Pick me! pick me! My answer is, Obama should move votes, or at least try. He should lead. Leaders are elected to lead, not look for the safest political space to hide.

Is that right? Since I am a child, do I get little star on my forehead?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - I'm part of the liberal base that everyone says is ditching Obama over this and I think he did something very politically savvy. Playing Republicans to a stalemate in the Senate for the umpteenth time doesn't make anyone look smart or strong. It damages both parties. But Republicans have shown a knack for winning elections while being deeply disliked. Plus, it's doubtful that Obama had unanimity among Senate Dems.

I could very easily see Nelson, Lieberman, and Landrieu voting against tax cut extensions for just the middle class. If the Dems waited until next year to do it, that meant they would probably be playing off of a House bill that already contained high-end tax cuts and would have had to do it through reconciliation and maybe using Joe Biden to cast the deciding vote. All that gets them is a split delegation in conference committee negotiating with Boehner. Seems like a losing outcome to me.

Posted by: willows1 | December 9, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

President Helium. Who knew?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Shrink in 2012!

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

willows1 - There is no point in arguing with wbgonne when wbgonne goes into "petulant child mode" and throws a temper tantrum.

Besides, wbgonne can't count to sixty and doesn't understand Senate rules. You may be 100% correct, but all that matters to wbegonne is that he is a victim, logic and facts roll right off him.

Posted by: HansSolo | December 9, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama to his critics, "Look, I am trying to hide in plain sight here, if you aren't going to pretend you can't see me, then you caused my problem."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 - What's that old saying? Before you fight to the death, make sure it is a hill worth dying on. The tax cut debate wasn't that. What would it take to move Scott Brown or Susan Collins on this issue? Or for that matter, Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman? This could have very easily turned into a protracted fight lasting well into next spring while the economy sputtered along and taxes increased for everyone. Time was on the Republicans' side on this one.

Posted by: willows1 | December 9, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The Whipped Dog Democrats hate people who fight and love President Helium. How's that working out for ya?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 - What's that old saying? Before you fight to the death, make sure it is a hill worth dying on. The tax cut debate wasn't that. What would it take to move Scott Brown or Susan Collins on this issue? Or for that matter, Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman? This could have very easily turned into a protracted fight lasting well into next spring while the economy sputtered along and taxes increased for everyone. Time was on the Republicans' side on this one.

Posted by: willows1 | December 9, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

That comment perfectly encapsulates the defeatism and losing mentality that permeate the Obama Presidency. Why fight when we'll only lose anyway. Good grief. Have you never heard of leadership? Why can't Obama treat the American People like adults and explain a problem and his proposed solution BEFORE capitulating on political grounds?

Democrats are weaklings and cowards who bully the Left and faint before everyone else.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Once the great health industry Xmas tree bill passed, as far as the White House was concerned, we were no longer allowed to "relitigate" its content or the process of its creation.

We had to call it a great victory, you know, like the outcome of that war, the name we forgot but where The Surge Worked. Well Iraq was and still is a disaster and losses have political consequences. If the health industry bill were a victory, November's result would have been different.

But I am not here to relitigate Obama's failures, I am here to bury him. In the real world, anything that matters is a protracted fight. Mr. Obama is trying to make people who need to fight stop fighting. They are ignoring him. Income disparity is growing. Income disparity is a malignancy.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The guy I backed, from the day he said he was running for the nomination, up until he became Mitch McConnell's lap dog, campaigned on the promise that he was going to change how things were done in Washington, and he was going to put a stop to the super rich getting pampered, while the working class, became poorer, and poorer.

He now has done exactly what he campaigned against. That is why I will no longer put any faith in any promises he makes, from now on.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"What's that old saying? Before you fight to the death, make sure it is a hill worth dying on."

So we are going on to military tropes...

In the Patton movie George C. Scott said, "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

The real General Patton? "Some [expletive deleted] fool once said that flanks have got to be secure. Since then [another expletive deleted] all over the globe have been guarding their flanks. I don't agree with that. My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the [again, a WaPo prohibited expletive deleted]'s throat."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"17 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Democrats voted Thursday to reject President Barack Obama's tax deal with Republicans in its current form, but it was unclear how significantly the package might need to be changed.

By voice vote in a closed caucus meeting, Democrats passed a resolution saying the tax package should not come to the House floor for consideration as written, even though no formal House bill has been drafted. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced the resolution.

Said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas: "If it's take it or leave it, we'll leave it."

......................

Call your congress and Senate reps, and urge them to not extend the unpaid for Bush rewards for the richest among us.

What ever happened to that guy who took so much grief from the likes of Joe The Plumber, for promising to not extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, in order to spread the wealth around?

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Call your congress and Senate reps, and urge them to not extend the unpaid for Bush rewards for the richest among us."

I have. But Bernie Sanders is correct. Until the Left gets out in the streets like the Tea Partiers no one will give a hoot what we say. The White House will just wait until the anger blows over and then go on with business as usual: transferring money from the Working Class to the Rich.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I sympathize, wbgonne, but "political reality" also means "The Dems lost 60 House seats and 6 Senate seats. They will no longer have a majority in the House and will be doormats there again and the real majority in the Senate is the GOP and 6 conservadems."

And a further reality is that money rules in politics and the rich not only have the money, they used to to win those aforesaid majorities.

We can want Obama to be different, but where were the heroic Congressional Dems before the election? Afraid to take a vote on taxes. Until the rich are sufficiently uncomfortable to stop wanting everything and more people come out and vote for progressives, this is just going to happen over and over.

Posted by: Mimikatz | December 9, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"but where were the heroic Congressional Dems before the election"

Mimi: It is BECAUSE the Democrats in Congress are hopelessly inept and BECAUSE the GOP is bent on destroying the country that so much is needed from Obama. This is when strong presidential leadership is critical but instead we get President Helium. We are headed for catastrophe and raising the deficit to give the Rich more money is absurd. And the American People know it and would agree if Obama had the courtesy and sense to ask us.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"The Whipped Dog Democrats hate people who fight and love President Helium. How's that working out for ya?"

OK, childish name calling and stomach-turning echoes of Sarah Palin aside, I think that wbgonne asks a fair question. Here is the answer: Pretty darn good. According to presidential scholars and others who have been paying attention, Obama has thus far successfully enacted more progressive reform and legislation than any other president in a generation.

And while I certainly am not happy that $125 billion will be added to the deficit over the next two years in order to give tax breaks to rich people who don't need them, I am very thankful that Obama navigated an incredibly treacherous political landscape successfully enough to extend unemployment benefits far beyond what anybody a week ago thought possible, extend his progressive stimulus tax cuts, enact a stimulative payroll tax cut, and protect a struggling economy (not to mention millions of working Americans) from getting a big kick to the crotch.

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 9, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"According to presidential scholars and others who have been paying attention, Obama has thus far successfully enacted more progressive reform and legislation than any other president in a generation."

Just who is the competition? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter? Had I known that was how low Obama was aiming I wouldn't have wasted my time and money supporting him. And how is President Helium working out? Well, 2 years after an historic victory the Democratic Party is defeated and demoralized. If that's success I hate to see failure.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Just who is the competition? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?"
Well, according to the presidential scholars I mentioned, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Obama has accomplished more in two years than both of the presidents you mentioned over their entire presidencies combined. So no, that's not "how low Obama was aiming."

And we'll see for how long the Democrats are defeated and demoralized. They just lost big time last November (just like the party of the president always loses during midterms), but I think that they'll be able to pick themselves up like they've done countless times before...

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 9, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton was a Republican and Carter was a disaster. To say that Barack Obama has enacted more progressive legislation than them is indeed setting the bar low. Hardly worthy of the Hope and Change Campaign and anything but the dawning of a new era. In fact, I'd say that Progressivism and Liberalism are more discredited today than ever before which is a remarkable feat considering that Obama has not even governed from the Left. Far be it from me to argue with estimable Goodwin but so far Obama has done far more harm than good to Progressivism and Liberalism. And that is due primarily to Obama's abandoning his many strengths and relying almost entirely upon his dreadful political skills.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

OMG, enough already. Obama DID NOT SUPPORT SINGLE PAYER.

In the New Yorker article you linked to, this is what was said:

"""Take health care, for example. “If you’re starting from scratch,” he says, “then a single-payer system”—a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment—“would probably make sense."""

"""BUT we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.”""

If I hear ONE more Firebagger make this false claim, I am going to scream.

Posted by: Nicole9 | December 9, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne

you are a m 0 r 0 n.

Posted by: Nicole9 | December 9, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

If he has been more successful than any other president in modern times in actually achieving progressive goals, then how exactly to you make the case that his political skills are "dreadful?"

While I think it's fine to try to argue that Obama could more effectively utilize his rhetorical skills to get better outcomes, I also think it's way too easy to exaggerate what is possible in the current climate in DC, and I think that it's irresponsible to downplay the significance of what he's managed to accomplish thus far in spite of an unprecedented level of obstruction.

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 9, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

If he has been more successful than any other president in modern times in actually achieving progressive goals, then how exactly to you make the case that his political skills are "dreadful?"

While I think it's fine to try to argue that Obama could more effectively utilize his rhetorical skills to get better outcomes, I also think it's way too easy to exaggerate what is possible in the current climate in DC, and I think that it's irresponsible to downplay the significance of what he's managed to accomplish thus far in spite of an unprecedented level of obstruction.

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 9, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://ow.ly/3akSX .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!


Posted by: williamdawson | December 10, 2010 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company