I am not worried. FDR did not run on a platform of legal recognition of collective bargaining rights, but he signed the Wagner Act. JFK did not run on a civil rights platform, but he signed the civil rights act.

And Ronald Reagan certainly did not run on a platform of sanctions against apartheid South Africa, yet he signed the sanctions legislation.

After the pie fight dies down, other coversations will pick up. This is very winnable.

single-payer.

It's not even a question anymore--he won't fight for it.

And his history shows he loves corp welfare--esp Nuke and Ethanol subsidies.

IT would be nice to have a Pres who would fight for this, but we can pass this without that. If it gets thru the House of Reb, it will be very hard to stop. Kennendy is on board, and he chairs the health committee in the Senate.

if this passes there is no way Obama can not sign it.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/3/14544...
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/0...

Goolsbee has slammed Sicko for advocating single payer
http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/
and Cutler thinks we shd be grateful for rising health care costs. Coupled with the Cassidy review of Obama's economic principles in the NYRB, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491
mentioned over at Anglachel,
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/l...
it's pretty clear he has no intention of taking on the insurance industry, single payer included.

Obama's libertarianism means he's a Republican who doesn't hate blacks and gays.

...were in the streets --- movements that actively disrespected authority, that disobeyed the law on a regular basis, and had gained mass traction. Quite a contrast to today's polite activists, many of whom are absolutely limited to electoral activism, lobbying and of course blogging.

That's the big difference between now and the thirties, between now and the sixties, even between now and the eighties. Obama has no reason to be scared of any disrespectful and civilly disobedient mass movement, and if you can't scare him you will be the next under that bus.

Past and future pushes to the left were and are only --- repeat ONLY successful when there is a movement in the street, one which is
(A) actively disrespectful of the figures and process of authority and authoritarianism, and political parties;
(B) prepared to disobey the law, occasionally on a mass basis.

Absent those conditions, look for no change.

Coronation parades do not lead to single payer, to curtailing or ending the warfare state, to equitably addressing climate change, sexism, racism, or the housing crisis or controlling the financial markets in the interest of the people. They just lead to coronations. And after-parties.

Everybody knows I am not part of the OFB, so those of you are can take this any way you please. But those of you who ARE need to put some fear into your guy that maybe you will NOT have his back in November if he doesn't make you some promises NOW. Put the screws to him NOW. Demand single payer, no residual troops in Iraq, an end to the fruitless war in Afghanistan NOW, more money for mass transit and effective re-regulation of the hedge fund wise guys NOW. Demand SOMETHING difficult from him now, or concede this is all a fairy tale.

Just my two dollars.

Of course you could just lay low till he gets elected and show up in DC inauguration day with signs saying "withdraw from Iraq in 60 days" or "single payer NOW' or whatever. The media will just avoid taking your pictures. Impolite signage will be banned along the parade route (they did that before, remember), some traffic coming into DC will be diverted, etc. The media will only carry images of the beginning of 21st century New Camelot, with some pretty brown faces at the top.

And all the young and not so young who were inspired to join the so-called "Obama movement" --- well, only the campaign organizers will have all their phone numbers, so the possibilities of independent action will not have significantly been increased.

Oh, well.

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

That’s the big difference between now and the thirties, between now and the sixties, even between now and the eighties. Obama has no reason to be scared of any disrespectful and civilly disobedient mass movement, and if you can’t scare him you will be the next under that bus.

we'll see about that

i'd like to see more of this happening, because i'm with bruce, we've frequently had to resort to threats, rabble-rousing, and taking it to the streets to get stuff taken care of in this world.

but you're right, bruce, this stuff mostly doesn't actually happen until the people, in large numbers, employ righteous anger, marches, mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, and the like.

which I laid like an egg to stuuunned silence over at the big cheatopia, so copy/pasted from
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/...

"He needs to say,

you know, my competitor for this job had some darn good policy proposals.
17 million Democrats simply liked those concrete plans better.

Well, I'm going to reach out to those policy voters, those smarter voters, the fine-print crowd. The ones we called low info, racists? We were just campaigning, folks. This aint beanbag. These are the real FDR Democrats, and to win them, all 17 million, I am now gunna havta risk alienating some of you Republicans. So tough titty. You better stay with me though, because you followers know whos boss. OK? Thats what real leaders do. We lead you to the right thing to do.

These 17 million are the finest Democrats you'll find anywhere.

So I say to you Hillary Democrats, you prefer
her better healthcare policy? Not my YOYO plan?
You got it. I will adopt her plan.
You want her better climate policy? Not my feeble plan?
You got it. I will adopt her plan.
You prefer $10,000 for college funding? Not my $4000?
You got it.

....etc, etc.

If he does this we will win. Otherwise, it looks pretty bad.

The fine print voter has picked the other candidate.

There's a list on the web site linked by DCblogger - thanks!

I'm also with Bruce and DCBlogger, going for the more radical but actually more realistic single payer plan is only going to come from the grassroots. I would point out that Hillary isn't proposing single payer, either, although she is committed to universal coverage.

I find it encouraging that Obama has stated that starting on health care will be one of his first priorities. Whatever plan he floats, he is going to have to get it through congress, and there is no better way to influence the course of legislation than immediate pressure on your congress critter, especially in the form of wide-spread vocal insistence that what matters is universal coverage. Interestingly, some recent polls, I think by Pew, have indicated that more and more voters are beginning to view their own access to health care as a function of their being universal coverage. That is a good basis upon which to start organizing people locally.

germany, switzerland, some others i'm too lazy to look up, have mandatory private health insurance, similar to clinton's proposed plan, but with even more regulation of the insurance companies. it's more expensive than the other models, such as single payer or national health, but still way cheaper than what we've got.

i like france's system [doctors make house calls!]. it's a mixture of social insurance [as i understand it, they don't separate out paying for health care from paying for other welfare services] with some co-pay, the size of the co-pay being graduated with income. you can buy supplemental private insurance to cover the co-pay, or to cover the non-covered elective stuff.

americans have coveted canada's single-payer system since at least 1991. it actually goes back earlier than that, iirc, but that's another thing i don't feel like spending time to hunt down.

interestingly enough, i've been talking up single-payer among my freinds, family, and colleagues for more than ayear now, and even the small-governement conservatives among them like the idea of single-payer.

speaking of which, grassroots, i got em, have done that, expect to keep doing it, but golly gee whiz, i'm doing this stuff for free from my dining room table, in between holding down one day job [with no benefits] and doing freelance stuff at night and on weekends [no benefits] and i'm seriously looking at having to move to another country just to get health care [which i need a bunch of]. and since i live in florida, it's not like i'd be able to just bebop across the border to see my friends and family in between doctor visits.

i've had it. i'm paying these people with my tax dollars [and they get health care!]. i'll keep agitating to the extent that i can, but i expect my congresscritters and presidential candidates to get up off their duffs and earn their keep working for me.

i cannot for the life of me come up with a plausible reason for obama to essentially run as a liberaltarian, especially on this, unless he really is a libertarian in a democrat suit.

is the way to go--marching doesn't do it anymore, and the media does not cover it--see Iraq.

Corporations--and/or their shareholders--need to decide to either hand it all off to govt, or to simply stop providing health insurance, forcing govt to step in.