Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Congress Matters
The President has the bully pulpit, and that's all. He or she can veto, but that can be overridden. So whether Hillary or Obama has the best plan is less important than 1) whether they can win the election, and 2) whether they bring in a usable majority.
Neither candidate's health plan would succeed in today's Congress, although Obama's probably would get closer to success. But if either achieves a real sweep in the Senate, especially, then Congress may add features neither candidate has asked for. I think Obama is more likely to generate the excitement that would have those long coattails, and I have less confidence that Hillary would provide any momentum for reform candidates for House or Senate.
The experience argument naturally implies Hillary would work with those she knows. But if Congress is all new people, or even a significant fraction of new reps, friction might be the result of Hillary hoping to run the show.
Obama is far from ignorant about Washington, but likely has fewer markers to honor, fewer old alliances to maintain.
When an executive wants action from Congress, the best way is the pulpit, to mobilize the public to write and call their reps and senators. Obama would be better at that than Hillary, unless she sends Bill out to bully the pulpit. And would that work? Or would Bill acting as presidential spokesman just turn people off?
Comments (7)
Ok. I'm following you all over the web.... cheering you on, Tom. Because you are hammering the right nail today. You have it exactly right!
Hear! Hear! (♬! ♬!)
February 4, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether it's Hillary or Obama the Republicans will try to destroy any Democrat occupying the Oval Office. We can bet the ranch on that.
The best hope for overcoming such a campaign, and the inevitable Senate filibuster attempt of UHC as well as no holds barred opposition on many other issues, is to have a broadly and deeply popular president who can rally the public in support of his or her priorities.
The only candidate left who might be able to pull that off is Obama. Hillary isn't a visionary--it just isn't a strong suit of hers.
This is one of the reasons why I've decided to support Obama strongly now that Edwards is out.
I also believe Obama stands a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary.
The person who best survives the coming attack ad onslaught is the person who is more broadly likable. Such political successes as Reagan had were partly attributable to the fact that he was liked by a lot of people who didn't necessarily agree with him on the issues. He also had a lot of built-up institutional support that would strike hard against those who criticized him.
It was mostly events such as the recession early on, and the self-destructiveness that was Iran-contra in his second term, that lowered Reagan's approval ratings.
I say again that Hillary is not the devil and I will support her if she wins the nomination. But she energizes Republican turnout if she wins the nomination and depresses Democratic turnout, if not on an absolute level, then certainly relative to Obama.
So another reason I am now committed to Obama is that I believe he has a significantly better shot at winning against McCain. I think Hillary could beat McCain but it would be tough. It would be very tough for Obama as well, but he has the better shot I believe.
February 4, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this great op-ed in today's WaPo. I agree with the writer. It's possible to have change without the kind of divisiveness the clintons would attract.
Can't post a link, so will give the url:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302526.html?hpid=
If for some reason the url doesn't post, the look for:
Obama vs. the Phobocracy
♪♪♪
February 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The subject is now being talked elswhere, too. Randi is starting to ask which will bring in a larger majority. Seems to me today is the first time she has put it quite that way, i.e. we need both a Dem president and a Dem Congress to undo the damage and make any progress. We definitely do not want to accept having to work with anything like the current makeup of Congress.
And I feel Obama could generate a wave, more than Hillary.
February 4, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President has the bully pulpit
Yep, as does the candidate in the general election.
Which is why the Democratic standard bearer should be out there advocating for a more ambitious plan like Clinton/Edwards -- it's the right combination of vision and pragmatism that has the best chance of getting the US where we need to be, IMO.
And the moment is right. On some issues, a presidential candidate has to sort of hunker down and not get too ambitious, because the nation as a whole isn't ready. But the nation is ready for more than what Obama is proposing, and health care is the kind of issue where a Dem presidential candidate can advance the national conversation right now.
Obama definitely has his pluses, but it's a major downfall of his candidacy that he's not pushing this, for me. (I wonder if it would be possible for his position on health care to "evolve" if he won the nomination? It seems to have evolved a bit in the last couple of months, actually...)
February 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been having those thoughts of late, too.
Were you a fan of The West Wing? I was. Remember when, during the presidential debate in the series' final season, the health care question comes up and Santos says something totally spontaneous, along the lines of "You know, I really don't like my health care plan much, either..." And then he comes out for single payer.
I really hope Obama sets the stage first and finds a way to do something like that, if he is elected. It's harder for me to see Hillary doing that, it would seem more out of character for her.
Hillary's plan is better than Obama's, but both have huge drawbacks that a single-payer proposal, which has different large drawbacks (it would require an increase in taxes; it would mobilize the insurance lobby for all-out war against it), would not have.
For awhile, if he were elected, Obama might be able to get away with changing his mind now and then. Heck, if lots of people will be giving him a chance if and when he gets in, and have voted for him without a lot of attachment to specific policy commitments they heard from him during the campaign, they may be open to a well-made case for single payer.
I have no idea how he would square going for single-payer with his national unification message. He should not start with single-payer fresh out of the box, but get some smaller scale wins under his belt first.
February 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big fan of the West Wing, although I didn't get to see it as often as I would have liked. There was something comforting about that show, at a point when I was first coming to terms with the W. administration's flagrant craziness.
Maybe the Dems should draft Martin Sheen?
I don't actually think people are ready to commit to single payer, myself. I think they're ready to try transitioning to it, though, with the strictures in place needed to level the playing field in a competition between public and private coverage -- which is what I think the Clinton/Edwards plan amounts to.
February 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment