Special Classifieds Feature

Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more

RECENT POSTS
READER PICKS
Let us know what you are reading. We'll post Reader Picks throughout the day.
RELATED LINKS
The Rundown

8 a.m. ET: Before this year's health-care debate began, President Obama made an important decision about what he didn't want -- Hillarycare, The Sequel.

Aside from pursuing a fundamentally different reform plan than the one Hillary Clinton unveiled during her husband's first term, Obama also wanted a different strategy. Rather than dictate to Congress exactly what he desired, the president instead decided to sketch the broad outlines of his plan and let the House and Senate work out the details. And so we were treated to stories about how this administration, unlike Clinton's, really knew how to handle Congress, how its upper echelons were packed with Capitol Hill veterans and Rahm Emanuel practically kept a toothbrush and change of clothes in Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's offices.

Then a funny thing happened -- the strategy didn't work. Or rather, it hasn't worked yet. And as polls showed public support dropping for Obama's proposals (the ones he hasn't really made) and members of Congress got pummeled at town hall meetings over August recess, critics began calling for Obama to do something a bit more like what Clinton did: Tell Congress exactly what he wanted. Now, we learn from multiple reports -- all of them notably thin on details -- Obama is considering doing just that. The Associated Press writes that Obama "is weighing a shift in strategy that would offer more details of his goals for overhauling the nation's health care system." Politico reports that administration aides "are putting the final touches on a new strategy" that may involve a major speech on health care "as soon as next week."

It's normal for any White House to sell the idea of what Bloomberg calls "a new offensive" when the political chips are down. But aside from being more clear about whether he does or doesn't want a public insurance option included in reform, how much more detailed should Obama be? And given the broad differences between the plans currently waiting on the runway in the House and the one being haggled over in the Senate Finance Committee, how much difference would more specific requests from Obama make now, rather than later during conference negotiations? Would they bring Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi definitively into the "aye" column? If not, what's the point?

The administration does appear to be taking a tougher line with Grassley and Enzi. The Wall Street Journal says David Axelrod "doubts" the two Republicans "are negotiating seriously." As for conservative Democrats, the New York Times reports, after surveying Blue Dogs, that "many of the lawmakers still believe approval of some form of health care plan is achievable and far preferable to not acting at all." The latest CBS News poll, meanwhile, has more bad news for Obama: His "approval rating on health care has dropped six points since July to 40 percent, and now more Americans, 47 percent, disapprove of his handling of health care."

On Afghanistan, The Washington Post reports that the Taliban has become "a much more potent adversary" than U.S. forces expected, making Obama's task harder as he "faces crucial decisions on his war strategy and declining public support at home." Adding a new phrase to this blogger's lexicon, the Los Angeles Times writes, "U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with 'trigger-pullers.'" Perhaps instead of "trigger-pullers," we should have sent election monitors. The New York Times details more allegations of ballot-box stuffing by Hamid Karzai, whose campaign operation "faces a deluge of fraud complaints from around the country."

In Massachusetts, Martha Coakley took out nomination papers to run in the January special election to succeed Ted Kennedy. Though Coakley says she will run no matter what, the rest of the field appears frozen until Joseph Kennedy II decides whether he will run. The Boston Globe writes of Kennedy: "Some associates say he is sounding like a candidate; others say he is expressing some reservations." On the Republican side, Jane Swift has considered the race "but is now leaning against it," the Globe says.

Elsewhere on the special election front, meet the likely new congressman from California's 10th district -- John Garamendi. The current Lt. Gov. was one of 14 candidates on the ballot Tuesday in the special election contest to succeed Ellen Tauscher, who took a job in the State Department. Garamendi took 26 percent of the vote in the Bay Area seat, besting a pair of Democratic state Legislators and an Iraq War veteran, among others. Because no one received 50 percent of the vote, Garamendi will advance to a Nov. 3 contest against the top vote-getters from each party, including Republican Dave Harmer. But because of the district's partisan tilt Garamendi will be a heavy favorite to win the seat.

By Ben Pershing  |  September 2, 2009; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »

COMMENTS

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I really fell if you take the greed and lobbiest out of the health care debate, you can come up with a decent public plan for all at a decent cost.

Universal health care if for all. Obama health care plan divide the US into two camps. The ones having to abide by the health care bill, and the one that do not -- unions, illegals, congress and government. Ones that are taxed and fined to pay for the 45 million without, and the ones not...Segregation at it finest.

Posted by: billisnice | September 2, 2009 8:26 AM

We have forgotten that our government has three branches. Congress passes laws, the chief executive (president) enforces the law and the Supreme Cout interprets the law. The president is not king. Obama's approach is the right one. He can suggest that congress passes bills that he would liket to see made into law and then decide whether to sign or not sign them. Thus the president should not be judged on whether certain measures are passed; congress should.

Posted by: browneri | September 2, 2009 8:40 AM

Here's a strategy--get some balls and tell these paid off Republicans and Blue dogs where to go!! If you are going to be Presient, ACT like a President and throw your weight around. Stop all of this Mr. Nice Guy crap or go home.

Posted by: PepperDr | September 2, 2009 10:09 AM

WHAT GOOD IS HEALTH CARE REFORM WHEN A FEDERAL 'MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM' IS DESTROYS THE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS OF UNJUSTLY TARGETED AMERICANS...

BY MEANS OF A GPS-ACTIVATED CIVILIAN VIGILANTE 'COMMUNITY STALKING' HARASSMENT ARMY;

CO-OPTED LOCAL POLICE;

FINANCIAL SABOTAGE;

AND THE DEPLOYMENT OF SILENT, INJURY- AND ILLNESS-INDUCING MICROWAVE/LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS' ...

...THE COVERT TORTURE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY THEIR GOVERNMENT.

President Obama must dismantle the Bush-Cheney- spawned, nationwide extrajudicial targeting and punishment "torture matrix" and remove from power the secretive security officials who continue to oversee it.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 2, 2009 10:53 AM

Much of the recent stream of comments attributed to the President seem like a mixture of a news vacume created by the break and those trying to establish their agenda by filling it with leaks that vaguely associate that agenda with the President. Establishing a clearer set of goals could be useful if some reassurance is provided to the American people of a committment to maintain the quality of their health care. It would also be useful to send a clear signal to Nancy Pelosi and the AFL-CIO that they are not going to be able to dictate the terms of a health care bill. But there are two bigger issues. One is establishing a process that can realistically be expected to produce a bill that all of the Democrats in the Senate can support. The other is actually creating a bill that most of the American people understand well enough to have confidence that it is really going to work. The main cause of the growing opposition to health care reform is a growing lack of confidence in the effectiveness in the outcome of the effort. The only way to change that reaction is by actually writing a bill that is worthy of the American people's confidence.

Posted by: dnjake | September 2, 2009 11:14 AM

Most of the opposition that has developed in the last 2 months (polls in June showed 73-83% for a public option) has developed from a vacuum of mixed proposals and ideas, none of which constitutes a bill. This vacuum has been filled with the biggest bunch of lies and most extreme hypothetical fears Republican Neocons could imagine, on every healthcare subject.

Sooner or later Americans are going to get the true facts of solid legislation, and that's when opinions will count.

Posted by: ffcaruso | September 2, 2009 11:59 AM

Palmer,Michael; 'The Society'
New York: Bantam Books c.2004
0553802046

Posted by: edtroyhampton | September 2, 2009 3:16 PM

Unfortunately the three branches of Government do not practice affirmative action themselves, so Comrade Obama is going to have to play with the big dogs without special help. I think he is painfully aware of this and does not want to put out a stupid health care bill that will be sliced and diced into oblivion. Hmmmm - but he does have to do something - VERY INTERESTING???

Posted by: radesrochers | September 2, 2009 6:58 PM

If we disagree with THE ONE, will he bring out the guns and shoot us?

Posted by: PalmSpringsGirl | September 2, 2009 7:46 PM

It's a little difficult to take the Health Care bill seriously when this administration as well as the majority of the liberal democratic legislators have spent on it....How many months have they labored and toiled on this monstrous bill that would affect almost each and every American? Who is involved in creating a Nationalized Health Care Bill? Let's see, mostly liberal democrats(legislator's). I'm sorry I am having a hard time swallowing alot of this political jargon(rhetoric) that this administration as well as the democratic legislatation is throwing around. It's time for this administration as well as the democratic party to actually do their homework....Why don't these legislators actually consult with health care professionals instead of their friends (lobbyists) who actually know about providing direct patient contact and care.....What a novel idea!! Please don't tell Americans that Rahm Emanuel's brother is a physician and this who they are taking their lead from....

Posted by: Rhonda5 | September 3, 2009 1:25 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

© 2010 The Washington Post Company