Comments on: Healthcare Reform and the Cableized Blogosphere http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/09/healthcare-reform-and-the-cableized-blogosphere/ Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:16:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Vancouver Olympics online video: The cableization of the Web? | Cheap tv hdmi l Hdtv hdmi l Hdmi cables http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/09/healthcare-reform-and-the-cableized-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-4658 Vancouver Olympics online video: The cableization of the Web? | Cheap tv hdmi l Hdtv hdmi l Hdmi cables Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:54:52 +0000 http://www.below-the-fold.com/?p=3164#comment-4658 [...] healthcare reform and the cableized blogosphere [...] [...] healthcare reform and the cableized blogosphere [...]

]]> By: The White House Strategy | Below The Fold http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/09/healthcare-reform-and-the-cableized-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-1892 The White House Strategy | Below The Fold Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:59:16 +0000 http://www.below-the-fold.com/?p=3164#comment-1892 [...] to a previous post, commenter J made some very good points. I’ve been pretty busy recently between work and [...] [...] to a previous post, commenter J made some very good points. I’ve been pretty busy recently between work and [...]

]]> By: Brien http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/09/healthcare-reform-and-the-cableized-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-1678 Brien Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:58:28 +0000 http://www.below-the-fold.com/?p=3164#comment-1678 I'm pretty swamped today, and maybe even tonight and tomorrow, but I have a response to this, part of which I'll post here and another part which I'd like to use as a springboard to a post of its own. I’m pretty swamped today, and maybe even tonight and tomorrow, but I have a response to this, part of which I’ll post here and another part which I’d like to use as a springboard to a post of its own.

]]> By: J http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/09/healthcare-reform-and-the-cableized-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-1669 J Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:08:31 +0000 http://www.below-the-fold.com/?p=3164#comment-1669 Two questions: if the rhetoric thus far has been of little importance, would there have been a big price to pay if the President had made his message "the public option is a really important piece of reform" rather than "the public option would be kinda nice" (which is at least how the White House position is being perceived)? I can't imagine those messages would be that different if the desired end result is to "exhaust" the bipartisan process. Second, don't you think that less "faulty messaging" on behalf of the White House could increase the pressure on some right-wing democratic senators, making them more likely to support a public option? Overall, I don't have much problem with your (or Booman's) post, and arguing that health insurance reform is just like any other political issue (if you'll allow the crude characterization) provides a healthy recalibration for many of us. However, this perspective tends to de-emphasize two important aspects of the debate. First, many believe that this is one of several critical areas in which our political system is failing to even discuss the steps needed to avoid future disaster. Second, the intra-party debate on insurance reform is part of a major effort to try to drag Obama away from his DLC/corporatist roots toward a more liberal/progressive/"Democratic wing" position. I'm on board with both of those propositions, which is why I'm wary of arguments that we should just let the professionals do their thing here. Which, of course, isn't what you argue, but I think it's a fair interpretation of others' messages, including Ezra's. Two questions: if the rhetoric thus far has been of little importance, would there have been a big price to pay if the President had made his message “the public option is a really important piece of reform” rather than “the public option would be kinda nice” (which is at least how the White House position is being perceived)? I can’t imagine those messages would be that different if the desired end result is to “exhaust” the bipartisan process.

Second, don’t you think that less “faulty messaging” on behalf of the White House could increase the pressure on some right-wing democratic senators, making them more likely to support a public option?

Overall, I don’t have much problem with your (or Booman’s) post, and arguing that health insurance reform is just like any other political issue (if you’ll allow the crude characterization) provides a healthy recalibration for many of us. However, this perspective tends to de-emphasize two important aspects of the debate. First, many believe that this is one of several critical areas in which our political system is failing to even discuss the steps needed to avoid future disaster. Second, the intra-party debate on insurance reform is part of a major effort to try to drag Obama away from his DLC/corporatist roots toward a more liberal/progressive/”Democratic wing” position. I’m on board with both of those propositions, which is why I’m wary of arguments that we should just let the professionals do their thing here. Which, of course, isn’t what you argue, but I think it’s a fair interpretation of others’ messages, including Ezra’s.

]]>