Is Obama Getting Unnecessary Heat from the Left?

I think so.

While I will be the first one to admit that Obama has promised an amazing number of things to a vast majority of Americans, I will not concede to the point that he has done nothing -- or even less than other administrations -- in his first ten months in office. I think that he has done a substantial amount -- especially given with what he walked into office having to deal with. I feel that many things that he has done so far, he certainly did not want to do, but he did what he had to, since this country was on the brink of an economic collapse. Here's a few things that he's signed into law so far:

• Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization  Act
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
• Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
• Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
• Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

And that's just legislation. Do you know what he did in his first week in office? He froze salaries for top White House staff, set a deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay (we'll see how this one plays out), fast-tracked the process to apply new fuel standards to 2011 model cars, signed a detailed executive order to ban torture, started planning for the military draw-down of Iraq, banned gifts from corporate lobbyists, lifted a ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information, and gave the first presidential interview to a middle eastern television station (Al-Arabiya). I say: not bad. Also, you can click here for PolitiFact's listing of campaign promises that President Obama has already followed through with -- that list is now up to 47 action items completed with 123 currently in the works. Here is also a White House listing of 10 pages of executive orders and Presidential memorandums that the President has signed since January.

Speaking of "in the works," people -- I think -- are most upset with his push for health care reform. And I completely agree from a progressive standpoint that Obama should have been out there from the beginning screaming about how a public option is a deal-breaker and that he would veto any bill that did not include it to contain costs when it hits his desk. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, that would be detrimental and straight-up stupid, politically. As much as you may want to, you cannot force people to vote the way you want them to. You certainly have sway with members of your caucus, but if they are adamantly opposed to a government-run health insurance option, what are you supposed to do? Do you really think that you would be able to get them to vote for it if they think it is against their interests and/or their constituents' interests? Remember that you can't threaten violence to their family or hit them. My big problem with peoples' argument against Obama's health reform strategy is when they talk about him like he's a dictator, simply because he has a majority in the house and senate. I agree that it is a freaking big majority and I am equally pissed at conservative Democrats in the house and senate, but at the same time, Obama is President -- not a tyrant (despite when Glenn Beck tells you).



Back to health care. Imagine if Obama had said that he would not sign a bill without a public option, but congress approved a good health reform bill that did not include one. Then what? Obama would have to veto his arguably #1 campaign promise to effectively reform the health insurance industry? Talk about a political suicide. Obviously, legislation that is void of a robust public option will not do enough to control costs, but you can guaran-fucking-tee that as long as it's on the right track, Obama will sign it -- as he should. This is not even to mention that a lot of times, when the president (or congress) does not get exactly what they want, but they pass a bill and then propose an amendment in the next session of congress that very well may pass, either because of new legislators or simply because this time around, the proposal is all by itself, so they can win a debate on one issue -- not 500.

Still, from a personal and political standpoint, I do disagree with some of Obama's rhetoric in the past with regards to when he said things like:

"Look, the public option, whether we have it -- or we don't have it -- is not the entirety of health care reform."

That is not the way he should be speaking. He should be forceful about the necessity of a public plan to control costs, but not draw any lines in the sand. And I still think that a strong public option is entirely possible (see cloture). As we all know from working in or watching campaigns, political momentum is very short-lived. Obama needs to choose his time to be extremely forceful to garner support for his plan when it is the most crucial. This is the main point that I think people overlook with regards to the health care debate. People stop paying attention very quickly. I am currently giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on this, because I do think it is smart political strategy to save his forcefulness right before the house and senate go to conference to create the final bill. If Obama comes out for a strong public option directly before the merging process of the house and the senate bill -- especially if the senate bill does not include a public option -- it will mean far more than if prematurely he made his big push even before the bills got out of their respective committees.

If there's anybody to be angry with for non-effective leadership, it's Harry Reid and Max Baucus on health reform. There's no reason why cloture should not give us exactly what we need with regards to efficiently reforming the health insurance industry.

However, finally, I do agree that Obama has fucked up with not signing an executive order to end Don't Ask Don't Tell until the legislation to officially end it passes in the house (which it will). What the hell is with that?