« Links With Your Coffee | Main | Other Takes on the MLK »

Mass Backwards

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis



hate to say i told you so, but i told you so. healthcare reform is going down in flames and so is Obamaphilia (finally). Obama may have been a good choice for democrats but HRC was always a better choice for the country.

Oh, yeah. You totally win. Hillary would be totally doing better than this.

I mean she probably wouldn't have won, and if she did she would have been demonized. But if there is anything she knows its how to pass healthcare and the Clintons were always great and winning control of congress.

that's funny. i guess i give HRC the benefit of the doubt that she would have learned from her mistakes in 1992 (, but obviously Obama did not learn from hers.

newsflash, Obama ALREADY HAS congress and the senate (sorry, had) and can't seem to get this done. so there.

"59" is more than bush ever had the senate as Jon points out.

Bill had the congress and I believe the Senate in 1992

Republicans turned out better in the off year election. The rest is history.

ok, i concede.

i take that back.

a little more factchecking:

Clinton did not have the Senate in 1992. (57 seats). so Obama, now with both congress and the senate AND the popular support for healthcare reform of 72% 6 months ago ( is flailing.

it is especially telling that since Obama took on the healthcare challenge, public support has been falling steadily now to about 40%. (

could HRC have done better? who knows, but for one thing, i doubt she would have wasted any time 'reaching across the aisle' (in fact, from the way she's been demonized by the Republicans, it would probably not have been an option) and, well, i'm no oracle as some have rightly pointed out, but, it's not hard to see how passing the bill earlier would have avoided this mess.

I am not about to tell you that Obama hasn't failed on a number of fronts, but his errors are hardly worse than Clinton's were in the 90's.

"having the Senate" does not require 60 seats. Simply more than 50. As mentioned in the video I just posted, it used to take 67 votes to override a filibuster.

But as I also imply with the title of the video I just posted. it's really the Senate that is the falling down failure in our government. Obama was often powerles in teh face of the shitty small state senators in positions of power.

Red7 now i'm really ignorant here, but say the house agrees to the senate version of the bill. can Obama add some line items to the bill to assuage the concerns of the house, and risk alienating some of these small (minded) state senators who were no help anyway? maybe slip in a public option. after all, i think he is past the point of no return (since most perceive a failed healthcare bill as a failed presidency) and why not go all out and get back his base (borrowing a strategy from the Republicans).

My understanding is that if the house votes for the exact same bill as the senate the bill passes and there is no need for any new votes in the seanate, thus avoiding filibuster brown.

Changes to the bill would require reconciliation votes and we are back in trouble.

The senate may be able to expand Medicare without passing a bill that can be filibustered.

To zdzp:

I don't know who you are, and I don't remember you telling me so, but I have some letters for you: stfu.

Hilary couldn't have changed the spinless nature of American Democrats or the fact that people will vote against a candidate for the U.S. Senate based on their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of baseball players or because a guy drives a pick-up.

P.S. Every time I see even the shortest clip of that horrible fucking blond hag from Fox News I throw up a little bit.

i like to start off a discussion with people i don't know with kind words also. but clearly, the kool-aid hasn't worn off for some.

seems like poking obama supporters once in a while to start a discussion may be a bad idea.

anyway, if i'm wrong i don't care; at least i'll admit it if you can convince me. it's just that i thought a better choice of words would have been more convincing.

for everyone else but leftbanker-

the point i was driving at is this - why did Obama feel it was necessary to get the Republicans involved in healthcare reform at all? Was he so enamoured by Lincoln that his idealism, while admirable, led to attempts at failed bipartisanship and a perception by Republicans and his own party that this was a sign of weakness? Why was he not more 'ruthless' in his approach in getting things done? and the advisors he picked - why did they not foresee Coakley's inadequacy as a campaigner and not alert Obama sooner? not that Obama didn't have a hundred other things on his mind (and many unkept promises- yep, that's his 'idealism' coming back to bite him), but a little singlemindedness doesn't hurt.

A few observations:

(1) There is no evidence to suggest that HRC would have been any more successful in passing than Obama. Maybe she would have been - maybe not.

(2) As disgusting as it is that Americans care whether their senator knows who Curt Schilling is, that's the way they are and if you don't respond to the way people are, you're a lousy candidate. (BTW, Schilling is appears to be a right-wing blowhard. He's not exactly "Mr. Red Sox" he played for them for 4 years and had two very good seasons.)

(3) Barack Obama needs to be given a biography of Lyndon Johnson and needs to study his ass off before he is toast. He should kick Harry Reid's ass all over the oval office and do all he can to force Reid to put the most prominent blue dog's heads (e.g., Nelson and Lieberman) on spikes on the White House lawn. It should be made clear to these guys that either they play ball or - if they take Obama down - he'll destroy them at the same time. There is absolutely no reason that Lieberman should still have his committee chairmanships. Can you imagine Lyndon Johnson letting a prick like Lieberman strut around the way he does? When Bush was in the White House, Olympia Snow could have been a name for rainforest cocaine as far as the GOP was concerned. zdzp is right about that, why the hell do Democrats listen to a word she says now? If she wants one thin dime out of Congress, she should be kissing the Dems ass, not the other way around.

It is evident that the more pissed off I get, the more egregious are my errors in typing, word omission, etc. It's embarassing to read my own post!

You had enough things right.

Jon's got it right on camera 3. The Dems did this to themselves. At almost every fork in the road to health care reform (as opposed to re-form), they seemed to have taken the wrong route. Tim, your #3 is right there with Jon's #3.

Since Clinton, there's been this notion that the Dems need to be more moderate to win. Win what? No matter how much they cow-tow, the GOP paints them as too liberal and the rest of us watch as they lose their effectiveness. If the Democrats are going to be accused of being liberal, I'd like them to live up to such a description. Stupak and Nelson can go bye bye; we need more Sanders and Kuciniches.

When has Jon EVER been wrong on camera 3?

To Alphabet Soup:

If you don’t want to be insulted I suggest not starting off a discussion with childish statements like “I told you so” because this means two things.

1) That you indeed had told us so, in which case you should post a link to this prophecy.

2) That you can somehow see into a hypothetical future in which HRC is the president and not Obama and that this world worked out better for those seeking health care reform.

I would also like to point out that not everyone who voted for Obama “drank the kool-aid.” I simply picked a candidate who I felt could win in November—at least I got that right. I’m also not trying to convince anyone of anything. It seems to me that your kind of thinking is what has made the Democrats limper than Bob Dole’s wienie (Sorry, is he still alive? If he isn’t then my analogy is even more apt.).

wow, tim turns from science to realpolitik, i love it!

and i agree with andyo, camera three is the closest we'll see to truth outside mathmatics as far as mass media goes.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives