Glenn Greenwald, in a post about the state of the health care debate among Democrats, sums up the Obama adminstration:
...I've honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of "new" political approach or governing method when ... what he practices -- politically and substantively -- is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more updated marketing. At its core, it seeks to use government power not to regulate, but to benefit and even merge with, large corporate interests, both for political power (those corporate interests, in return, then fund the Party and its campaigns) and for policy ends.
I would add that the Obama organization studied the involvement of what became the netroots starting with Howard Dean's presidential primary campaign and was careful to duplicate the functionality without bringing in the key figures. By design, the progressive netroots activists aren't closely connected to Obama and however much money his online operation may raise, he isn't dependent on them. The wallets that interest Obama — and Rahm Emanuel — belong to big money donors. Legislation by lobbyist has long been a fundamental problem in American politics and it remains.
So, Obama is identical to Clinton? Except that Obama is actually passing a health bill, whereas Clinton failed.
Paul Krugman has written that this Bill, which transfers almost $200 Billion from the wealthier to the needier segments of US society, ANNUALLY, is the most progressive actual reform since Medicare.
"And we’re talking about big stuff: between Medicaid expansion and further support for families above the poverty line, we’re looking at around $200 billion a year a decade from now. Yes, a fraction of that will go to insurance industry profits. But the great bulk will go to making health care affordable. "
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/simulating-single-payer/
Greenwald is a theologian in the sense that he can articulate what pie looks like, he just can't bring it down from the sky. So he criticizes those who can.
Readers may also wish to read what Theda Skocpol, Hardard University specialist in social policy, author of "Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn" has to say:
" There is a huge amount of good in even the compromised Senate bill. It marks the accomplishment of a century-long struggle to say that all Americans deserve public help to ensure affordable health care coverage; and there are billions in subsidies to help many lower and middle-income people afford health care."
Skocpol has a twenty-year history of advocacy for real and progressive reforms, both in health and other policy areas. All her remarks on this issue--not just those I quote--are valuable.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/19/defend_and_demand_the_progressive_way_forward/
Except that Obama is actually passing a health bill, whereas Clinton failed.
If Clinton had made side deals with the pharmaceutical companies and drafted legislation that's so good for private health insurance companies that their stocks have all gone up recently, I'm sure he would have been able to pass a health bill, too.
You haven't really addressed the quote from Greenwald or my comments except to point out that the health insurance reform that's likely to pass isn't a complete pile of crap. You're damning with faint praise. Meanwhile I'm seeing comments from individual Americans who figure this bill will make their lives worse because they'll be forced to buy insurance with deductibles and co-pays that are so high they won't be able to afford the actual health care.
Meanwhile Obama is now denying that he campaigned on a public option, which is now out of reach, and against an individual mandate, which is the part of the legislation that the insurance companies love because without a public option to bring competition into the mix they're on the gravy train.
Yes, Obama is very much like Clinton. Far more intelligent and competent than George Bush but still too often governing for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful interests first and eveyone else second.
Krugman has a column and a graph today which make clear the large shift in wealth that the programme involves.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/
He then asks: "How is this not a major progressive victory?"
That's my question, too.
And then a second question for Glen Greenwald: "What similar progressive victory did his identical twin Clinton have?"
He then asks: "How is this not a major progressive victory?"
That's easy. It isn't any kind of victory yet because it isn't law yet.
There is still a reconciliation process to go through to combine the House bill (remember that?) and the Senate bill. Progressives believe the Senate bill could be a lot better and want to keep on pushing. I don't see anything wrong with that and neither you nor Krugman nor Obama nor Rahm Emanuel have provided compelling reasons why progressives should just shut up and take what the Senate wants to give them instead of continuing to fight for a better bill.
a second question for Glen Greenwald
I trust you know that Glenn Greenwald's site accepts comments.