Well worth watching.

Seeing this made me pretty giddy. I’m a total nerd. But as a friend pointed out, what does it say about the current state of American politics that I should feel ridiculously excited to see substantive debate happening? In fact, it isn’t even that substantive, it’s not the Prime Minister’s Questions. Why, instead of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, am I not hearing Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Peter Roskam (D-IL) every evening?? Why do Americans need their opinions shaped by TV personalities rather than given the chance to form their own opinions? What a shame that it has come to this.

I watched the discussion and felt so hopeful. I really do hope that the Dems and Reps can come to sane agreements. God I wish that the tone of politics could change.

But after watching the Q&A, I read comments on the Youtube site and on TNC’s blog, watched FOX and MSNBC commentary, and felt disheartened again. Even if they understood the point, they pretended as if they didn’t. The Democrats gloat at how Obama schooled the Republicans, how “Obama Goes to the Lion’s Den–And Mauls The Lion”; I don’t know much about the Republican side, but I hear that their commentators are claiming victory after having ‘forced’ Obama to admit to mistakes. Why don’t they get it?? Why do they continue this stupid, superficial, dumbing-down style of turning everything into a win-lose conflict?? I mean I know why the TV people do it, it’s how they get ratings up, but it is still so damned frustrating.

From Ezra Klein.

The quotable Pelosi will not let healthcare die:

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was asked about health-care reform at a small gathering of writers and columnists. Her reply:

I’ve said to my colleagues, go in the door. The door’s locked? Go to the gate. The gate’s locked? Climb over the fence. It’s too high? Pole vault in. That doesn’t work? Parachute in. We have to get this done for the American people one way or another.

Now, compare that to how the Senate is talking.

Amateur trying to understand healthcare.

NPR, All Things Considered, did a piece that presented opposing views on healthcare reform.

Two speakers: Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton and Gail Wilensky, who was “White House health policy adviser to President George H.W. Bush, ran Medicare and Medicaid and later served as an adviser on health policy to Senator John McCain during his run for the White House.” So she’s a Republican.

Mis-handled by overeager Dems? Quite possibly. A 60-vote supermajority makes people giddy.

SIEGEL: Let’s say the Republicans say, you know what’s always near the top of our list when it comes to health care. It’s tort reform. It’s reforming the system of malpractice insurance in the country, which President Obama only went so far as to say, okay, maybe some pilot projects to look at alternative ways of dispute resolution.

Are the Democrats capable, or would it be worth it, even if it’s for a small share of the health care dollars, to meet the Republicans halfway on that question?

Prof. REINHARDT: I think they should have. I think at the very least it was discourteous not to have done it. But I believe the recent CBO report on malpractice shows it would actually yield savings if we had major reform. There are some great ideas out on this. They’ve been out, actually, for 20 or more years. It’s called alternative dispute resolution that takes this roulette wheel of jury rooms out of the proceedings and separates whether a patient got hurt and needs help from whether a physician was negligent.

All of these ideas are out there. And for a comprehensive health insurance bill not to have embraced that facet of it is actually rather inexcusable.

Something must be done:

SIEGEL: Do you think there are Republican votes for such bills?

Dr. WILENSKY: It will be hard. It will be harder now than it would’ve been a year ago. There’s a lot of jaundiced views. People like Orrin Hatch, who have had a history of being a part of bipartisan bills, walked away very angrily from what was going on in the Senate, one of the great losses that Senator Kennedy was not actively involved in the health care reform debate. It’s possible. It will be hard. It’s worth the effort.

SIEGEL: If the alternative to all of this – if one possible alternative is status quo, how bad is that?

Dr. WILENSKY: It’s very bad. We have challenges we must take on. Fifteen percent of the population, almost 50 million, about 45 million right now without health insurance coverage is a serious problem to the individuals and the communities where they live. And it’s wrong.

But we also have, for all of us that have coverage, unsustainable growth in health care spending, already at 17 percent of our GDP and growing. And we have a lot of quality problems. We don’t get what we need at the right time with patient safety measures. We really have to take these issues on, and they’re hard. They won’t be easy to fix.

Quick SOTU thoughts.

State of the Union:

Initial response, loved the speech. People talk about how he’s all about rhetoric and lofty phrases. The Inaugural Address* last year, for instance, and the speech about race.

But no, yesterday’s State of the Union showed that Obama can make his point equally well without just floating lofty rhetoric. He addressed both those sitting in the audience and those watching on TV/online. He showed that he won’t give up simply because there’s some opposition.

On not quitting:

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us.We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment – to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

One thing that especially appeals to me about this president is that his ideas and rhetoric are founded on a solid awareness of his role as president, and an awareness of the current state of politics including that compromises must, at times, be made. Sometimes it sounds as if he’s stating the obvious, but in today’s politics, the obvious is often forgotten or deliberately ignored.

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

And earlier in the speech:

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another.

I like the realistic, rational view of politics that he takes. He lays bare the fundamental points that are obscured by the political wrangling. And when it comes to responsibility for the current state of things, everyone, including himself (for not explaining things clearly), shares a piece of it:

The media:

The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

Both parties in Congress:

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.

So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

Even the SCOTUS, after Citizens United v. FEC:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

And again, though I’ve mentioned it before, the health care portion was such a powerful call to action. This is why I campaigned and voted for him.

Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

*Inaugural Address:

Love this response from TNC.

TNC response to Chris Matthews forgetting that Obama was black:

One way to think about this is to flip the frame. Around these parts, we’ve been known, from time to time, to chat about the NFL. We’ve also been known to chat about the intricacies of beer. If you hang around you’ll notice that there are no shortage of women in these discussions. Having read a particularly smart take on Brett Favre, or having received a good recommendations on a particular IPA, it would not be a compliment for me to say, “Wow, I forgot you were a woman.”  Indeed, it would be pretty offensive.

The problems is three-fold. First, it takes my necessarily limited, and necessarily blinkered, experience with the fairer sex and builds it into a shibboleth of invented truth. Then it takes that invented truth as a fair standard by which I can measure one’s “woman-ness.” So if football and beer don’t fit into my standard, I stop seeing the person as a woman. Finally instead of admitting that my invented truth is the problem, I put the onus on the woman. Hence the claim “I forgot you were a woman,” as opposed to “I just realized my invented truth was wrong.”

Ditto for Chris Matthews. The “I forgot Obama was black” sentiment allows the speaker the comfort of accepting, even lauding, a black person without interrogating their invented truth. It allows the speaker a luxurious ignorance–you get to name people (this is what black is) even when you don’t know people. In fact, Chris Matthews didn’t forget Barack Obama was black. Chris Matthews forgot that Chris Matthews was white.

I thoroughly enjoy being shown a new way of looking at things.

more SOTU.

From SOTU liveblogging at the Atlantic:

JAN 27 10, 11:04 PM by Marc Ambinder

CBS Sample Shows Obama Gains Support

CBS News and Knowledge Networks assembled a diverse panel of Americans and asked them to participate in a pre-and-post speech survey about Obama’s speech. Before the speech, about 57% of those present said they believed that the President has the same concerns about policies as they did. After the speech, it was up to 74%. After the speech, 83% of those in the sample said they supported the proposals he outlined. Before the speech, only 40% of those in the sample though the administration had a clear jobs plan. After: 59% did.

The numbers look great, a 17% jump, all from a speech! 83% support! But it’s also really disheartening to see that so many people have no idea what their own opinions are, have no real stance on the issues. These fickle voters can be manipulated, swayed by whomever articulates his/her position best. In this case, it works for the Dems, but it could just as well go the other way. This is how MA lost Ted Kennedy’s seat to the Republicans. People weren’t voting for issues, they were voting for the guy who had his act more together, and against perceived lack of direction, lack of progress. But goddamn it, they might have killed health care.

SOTU clips.

Loved the healthcare segment.

Transcript: Here’s what I ask Congress, though: Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

Don’t run for the hills, Dems

POTUS calling out SCOTUS:

Transcript: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

And I always love it when he refers to Michelle.