Obama's options, in a post-Massachusetts nation

[dnf777]

It is not just one thing.

But, the back room deals were right there front and center. In my view, that was a significant part of the swing. That goes well beyond business as usual and treads to an area of arrogance in democrat politicians and a distain for the electorate not seen in my lifetime and I was alive when Nixon was president.

I would agree with that. There is NO WAY to reconcile these closed room meetings with his previous campaign talk of transparency. None.

I criticized Dick Cheney to no end about his energy policy meetings that were closed door, not even subject to congressional subpoena or review, and now it appears that Obama seems to think its "ok" for him to do it. I will hold Obama to his word, and now criticize him for underhanded politics, and sorry, but I call it lying. How's that for "fair and balanced"?

One last question:
Q: What do Dick Cheney's energy policy meetings and Obama's health care meetings have in common, besides being secretive?

A: Big businesses profited, and we the people got screwed!

[YardleyLabs]

...
even a public option would not solve the problem of the cost of the "exemptions".

I would also agree with Jeff that after a "holier than thou" approach at the beginning, if they cut more back-room deals the electorate would be incensed.

It would also be a fracture of the Ds, since Obama, himself, recommended that they wait for the seating of Brown.

I agree that any deal needs to drop the exemptions in the Senate bill and that the final Senate vote on the amendments needs to wait until Massachusetts has its new Senator. However, his vote will make no difference for a bill passed as part of budget reconciliation.

[TCFarmer]

It will be difficult to put together the 218 votes -- harder than getting the 51 needed to pass in the Senate (actually only 50).

Given Obama's recent statements I think they will need 51. I doubt Biden is going to go against the Pres.