The whole point of the Bush years was to increase the country's debt enough so that there never would be the possibility of universal healthcare or other progressive policies.
We do pay-go and they do borrow-spend.

They think Obama is going to be the nominee, and health care is obviously not a priority for him. But this is just another reason why we need a President who cares about this.

FDR did not run on a platform of collective bargaining, JFK did not run on a platform of Civil Rights, and Ronald Reagan most certainly did not run on a platform of sanctions against South Africa. They were made to care.

He's already backed away from it. The idea that when the package gets to Congress it will get better or broader or cover more people is ridiculous. The only way a UHC proposal gets through is with a President who insists on it, twists arms and offers incentives. It has to be a top priority and even then it will be an effort. It isn't about getting everyone in a room on CSPAN and hashing out differences, it's about breaking balls.

Without that strong leadership, you get something like this.

Why the DSCC doesn't get a dime from me until Schumer is gone. If you can't get it done Sen Schumer, perhaps it's time to retire.

More Barbara Boxers. Less Chuck Schumers.

biggest obstacle to everything--and most have lifetime jobs (they think)--they all need to be challenged by real liberals.

you could send an email to info [at] dscc [dot] org and tell them that Barbara Boxer would make a better DSCC chair. It will be seen by some lowly intern, but that sort of thing does have an effect. It always good to let them know that people are watching.

--this is interesting-- about Congressional Supers--
http://www.slate.com/id/2189635/#dlssupe... --

"... Take Joe Biden as an example. When Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, Joe was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Two years later, after HRC's hare-brained health care zeppelin crashed to earth and Bill had earned the enmity of roughly everyone, Joe Biden was in the minority. ...[snip]

What Joe sees is a repeat of 1994 if Hillary is the nominee and wins the election in 2008. He gets to be treated like dirt by the Clinton Administration for 2 years and then he gets to be in the minority for God knows how long. So the truth about the super Ds is that they would rather lose with Barack than win with HRC, because they KNOW that if they lose with Barack, their pal John McCain is president and they get the royal treatment for two years..AND they pick up yet more seats in 2010, thus insuring they remain Chairman of whatever committee it is that they chair. ..."

Joe Biden's innermost secret thoughts via Mickey Kaus repeating the delusions of Commentor "K"?

Rule of thumb: Ignore everything written by anyone whose screen name is a character from a science-fiction spoof.

Joe Biden, and every Democratic congressperson, will be vastly better off in terms of power and job satisfaction with a Dem president than with any R. Any suggestion otherwise is badly written sci-fi.

I didn't read the article; did any of the sources have names? Do Democrats talk to Slate?

and to take a different spin from the conventional wisdom...they're not bad tho, overall.

Kaus is weird, but he talks about things that many columnists don't--and he publishes and credits emailers and others who have interesting takes.

it's the Kinsley legacy--the contrarianism.

One of the stupider myths among progressives (one embraced both by the MSM and Obama fans) is that it was the Clinton's fault the Congress went Republican in 2004.

The reality was exactly the reverse: Congressional Dems decided that they didn't need to support Bill on health care, and that he and not they would suffer the consequences from that failure to deliver. It was the Congressional Dems who betrayed the party, allowed the GOP to take over, and forced Clinton to move right simply in order to survive. (The treated Carter in similar fashion, and suffered almost the same result, proving that it isn't only Goppers who don't learn from their mistakes.)

Obviously I meant 1994, not 2004. (It's late.)

the Congressional Dems had a few ethics problems as well.

Not to mention the GOP had money, organization, and the media.

------------------------------------------------
"Where's the beef? - Clara Peller

Yes, it's amazing how none of the Congressional Democrats ever seem to remember the federal corruption investigations that swamped the Democrats that year, including the incredibly visible chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. Or that there were reports that Tom Foley, then Speaker for you young 'uns, had known about the problems in the House Post Office for quite awhile because he'd received a report on them.

No, I'm sure that had nothing to do with Tom Foley losing his seat after 30 years. Nope, it wasn't because his constituents were upset with him. It was because they were upset with Bill Clinton who had been President less than two years.

I humbly submit that if you've been representing your district for 30 years and are Speaker of the House, you should be able to survive two years of almost any presidency.

IT was a clear case of projection, Gingrich distracted attention from MARK Foley by making allegations against Tom Foley.