General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Now that Rahm is in IL and Nancy is out of power. Time for the President [View all]karynnj
(60,982 posts)I don't know how things would have been different if he had it. It would have led to a higher profile pro public option voice being in the administration, but the draw back of being in the administration is that if the President/ his advisers decided that would not fly (as they obviously did), it would likely silence that voice.
I watched the Finance committees hearings and there were a few Democratic Senators who were really negative on having a public option - Lincoln being the most adamant. Out side the committee, Lieberman was against it as well. We needed 60 votes under the regular process - and there were many Senators expressing problems with doing the entire bill under reconciliation. This may have been the reality that pushed Obama and Sebelius to go with what they did. As it is, the system - if not ruled unconstitutional or repealed, sets up the system that could easily add a public option - likely at the state level first. (Having the ability to buy into a public option would not change the legality of the mandate - and single payer would not have come close to passing.)
I doubt that Dean would be even on the long list (much less the short list) for SoS or UN ambassador. His weakness in 2004 was that he had no foreign policy experience. In addition, in both positions, you represent the opinions of the President - not your own positions. Not to mention, if positions were given because of political debts owed, there were people ahead of Dean - including at least two who had far more experience in foreign policy. Obama had other concerns that led to his choices there.
I agree with your first conclusion, that he might be a bad fit in the cabinet.