So, let's say Pelosi gets replaced by (insert name here). Do you think that will stop the . . . .

[ehrnst]

303. I also worried that his relative lack of experience with DC hardball

which was touted as an asset, because there wasn't as much of a history to use against him, would limit his ability or stomach to reach under the table to twist a few when need be - which I think would not have been a problem for Hillary. He was a professor, a community organizer going into a cage match. And he could not even APPEAR to be angry, because he would be working against the "angry aggressive black man" trope from day one. He was going to be the measure by which future candidate of color would be judged, and he knew it. Like Jackie Robinson, he could never express anger at what he experienced, because so much was on the line. History had its eyes on him.

I think that's why he had Rahmbo working closeby, to do the strong arming. But that didn't really work out.

Yes, in 2008 Hillary had a comprehensive health reform plan that included a public option. She had been in that crucible before. The Kaiser Family Foundation had a forum where they invited the candidates in 2008 to present their health care reform plans, then answer questions from a panel of experts over the course of an hour. Obama didn't have one to present. Part of McCain's was to tax employer subsidies for premiums as taxable income. (shudder)

One of the things that HRC said she learned from 1993 was that they kept saying, "We're going to cover the uninsured, we're going to cover the uninsured" without addressing adequately the fears of those (the majority of voters) who had coverage and were afraid of what impact reform would have on them. She also stated that they used policy analyst language, because it's a very complicated system in this country, and they should have come up with a set of simplified bulleted talking points.

I think that is what led Obama to the gaffe, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." When the correct, but much longer more complicated reply was, "In the system we have now, no one is guaranteed to keep their doctor. Your employer might switch your plan to one where your doctor isn't in your plan network. Your doctor might decide to drop out of your plan network. Your plan may be one of the low premium, very high deductible, catastrophic plans that will not be allowed any more. But your employer will still continue to be the likely place that you will get your insurance. Small (> 50) employers may be able to determine that you will be able to get better plans on the marketplace that each state will have." His simple, reassuring answer backfired when people couldn't keep their doctor, for whatever reason, and they were able to accuse him of "lying."

The problem is, health care reform is way too complicated for a simple solution, let alone a simple answer. Analysts pretty much all say that an incremental approach is the only realistic way, politically, financially, and in terms of mitigating disruption to health care delivery, to achieve universal health care coverage. The ACA is the furthest that we've come, even with the setbacks. Obama knew that they had only two years to get people to get on it and want to keep it, because the party that takes the WH generally takes a hit in the next mid-term. His complexion was being used to convince scared white people that he was a "socialist" who wanted to take everything from white people and give it to "his people." He knew he wasn't going to have any GOP support whatsoever.

But history is history. He got the nomination, and I supported him enthusiastically. I did the same with Hillary in 2016.