Here's why the public option had no chance.

[chieftain]

Democrats, both Liberals and Moderates, have wanted to enact universal coverage for decades. Republicans and jerks like Lieberman just don't give a rats ass whether folks are covered or not. When Joe and Nelson indicated that they would vote against the health care bill if their demands weren't met, the threats were credible. When Sanders and our guys made the same threats if there were no public option they were not believed.In the end the political take was that the Liberals might talk tough but when the roll was called they would go along with anything reasonable that could get 60 votes.
That's where we are now. That's where it was easily predictable we would be.

[Mojambo]

1. Very good point. n/t

[rwheeler31]

2. Good analysis

[xchrom]

3. There's not enough logic, not enough political reality,

Not enough anti-woman sentiment not enough of blowing smoke
up peoples asses to excuse this bloated monstrosity
we will -- and circle over and give a righteous bukkake
to.

There just isn't. -- but that's the way it will be.

[silverweb]

4. That sounds just about right.

Sadly. I believe we're still making progress, bit by bit -- but it's going to be a fight to acquire and hold onto every inch we gain.

The opposition have entirely too much to lose, namely power sealed by wealth.

[sandnsea]

5. I think there was a way to do it

I think it would have taken a near Presidential style campaign, with door to door grassroots mobilization. But it would have had to focus on the public option with no reference to single payer and that's where we'd run into problems. I really think the left has got to start dealing with the reality that they don't know how to win.

[chieftain]

7. Maybe.

The conservatives and moderates held the high cards. No Republican could retain their status in the party if they support4ed reform of any kind. Moderates within the Democratic Party needed to be convinced that a vote for reform would not kill their reelection hopes. This was played out against a backdrop the voters becoming more and more frightened by the growing deficits.
And in addition to the Nelsons and Landrieus, there was Lieberman. This guy was ready to extract as much revenge as he could against the liberal wing of the Party whatever the cost to the uninsured. Frankly, he still may join his best buddies across the aisles and in the insurance towers of Hartford and torpedo even the watered down bill.
It was a given that Democrats would behave in a rational political manner and take what they could get while the forces of moderation and revenge would work to minimize the scope of the final product. We can be upset with the political calculus but we ought not be surprised by it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Given our (as in "we the people's") non-response to the town hall shoutdowns...

there's no way that kind of effort was going to ever happen. We, collectively, handed the ball off after election day and were content with doing so.

[sandnsea]

22. Not true at all

The Obama campaign and HCAN attempted to organize people exactly like they had during the campaign. But when half to 3/4 of the Democratic activisits insisted on single payer only, there weren't enough people left to pick up the ball. In my town, there was only me and I'm sure I can't be the only one who met that kind of resistance to focusing on the bill at hand and the public option.

[Goldstein1984]

6. Liberals do tend to be push-overs.

It must be the way we're in touch with our feminine side.

(My wife would beat me senseless if she read that.)

G1984

[chieftain]

8. Could be.

We are less dogmatic than the RW and respond positively to rational appeals.

[Goldstein1984]

9. I've read posts from exceptions to that general rule

on DU quite recently.

[chieftain]

10. LOL and maybe cry a littlew, too. n/t

[Goldstein1984]

11. Don't know. Maybe

When the posts get off topic and become insulting I just move on to another thread that's worth my time, unless they become interesting for other reasons.

My very first post, which I admit I intended to draw fire and get the lay of the land, received a lot of angry responses from the dogmatic faction within DU. (I'm still getting the lay of the land, but I'm guessing the angry ones were from the group everyone here refers to as "DLCers") A long-time DUer contacted me directly with a list of DUers she recommended I just put on my ignore list from day one. Part of my reasons for being on here is sociological. From a linguistic perspective, it's interesting to see the way arguments evolve. I'm not going to participate in the unproductive banter, but it's still interesting. So, I didn't create the ignore list, I just go into observer mode when things become dogmatic and unproductive.

[treestar]

20. That's it

and don't like to feel we are being unreasonable. Republicans are perfectly comfortable with that.

[freddie mertz]

12. Then why did Obama promise it?

Was he stupid, ill informed, or just lying?

[iceman66]

15. He genuinely thought that

with such large Democratic majorities in both houses, and such strong public approval, that he would be able to get it done.

When he realized that Congress was not going to cooperate, he started backing away from the PO, and received a lot of criticism as a result.

[freddie mertz]

16. Then he was ill-informed and/or stupid.

OR he could have put up a fight (which all reports say he did not)...

If he didn't, then he broke his promises.

[iceman66]

17. If he hadn't put up a fight,

we wouldn't have a health care bill at all.

He underestimated the amount of resistance he would receive from his own party. I think it is a little unfair to call that 'stupid' since many of the same 'Democrats' in Congress responsible for watering down health care reform had in the past publically advocated some of the very same measures that they are now fighting against.

The politically safer strategy for Obama would have been to use the failing economy as an excuse not to move forward on health care.

[freddie mertz]

18. They all failed us, really. Which is why we probably need a new party. nt.

[treestar]

19. More or less like us

That's a reason for some of the disappointment. We just thought having a majority would be good enough. A lot of people don't understand the cloture rule.

[Jennicut]

24. He was a Senator for a very short time and naive.

Pretty simple explanation. Or bought off (cynical explanation).
And Lieberman might be a rethug come next election. He won't rule it out here in CT.

[iceman66]

13. Exactly.

Which is why anyone blaming Obama for the lack of a public option is dead wrong.

Lieberman and Nelson were not going to let it go through no matter what.

[phleshdef]

21. It had no chance because we don't have 60 progressives in the Senate.

Thats what it all comes down to.

[SpartanDem]

23. That pretty much sums it up

in hindsight we were overly optmitic about people like Nelson, Lincoln etc changing their stripes. The truth is Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu weren't willing to take any political risk by supporting a public option and it didn't matter to them if HCR failed. Of course, Lieberman was just out the screw over liberals any way he could. For the rest of the party it was just too hard to turn down prospect of doing some good even it wasn't all that they wanted.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.