Maybe it is time to provide a new format so I feel like I'm starting new, or maybe not.
This is something, part of the FDL coverage of the Health Care Reform (Insurance Give-Away) I've been thinking about for some time. Aimai has been going slightly crazy about FDL at No More Mister Nice Blog (for some strange reason you can't link to a specific post, so scroll down to Splinter Group) and I commented on that post of hers yesterday, but to be truthful I didn't say what I really thought, which is that she has become hysterical concerning serious criticism of the bill. Very disappointing, because for the most part I like her style and ability to string words together and politics, but right now she appears to have even lost that.
Criticism of the people who want to kill HRC (IGA) seems to be focused on a couple of points: first, Obama never claimed to be that liberal/progressive so what do you expect, stop being so unreasonable and support what you can get (he wants to give you); second, he couldn't really do anything else because of the mean senate so get behind him and realize that we will improve it some time in the future, no really we will. When I guess the senate isn't all that mean anymore. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the second really does kind of excuse Obama or the first doesn't really blame him, but rather blames me for being so naive and for demanding perfection I guess.
Both positions give Obama a pass either because that is who he is or that is all he can accomplish.
Both suggest that we have to take what is offered and then try to build on that. Although to be honest, what makes anybody think that we will be able to build on a very bad bill that was enacted with overwhelming majorities of democrats in power is beyond me. Particularly when we look at what will probably be happening next year when people simply won't bother to work or vote after being screwed like we have been.
Both positions try to dampen the real, and I feel totally justified, rage people feel about Obama. He ran as something and he lied about what he was. I should I think feel kind of abashed that at my age I believed in his lies, but still they were his lies, not mine.
He twisted arms and makes threats to get his more conservative positions passed (wire tapping, bank bailouts with no oversight, more war) but when it comes to helping the people who actually went out and worked for him, screw us all.
Up next filibuster: What it meant in 1963 and what it means now.