In my last post I postulated about what it might be like if up to three Republicans would jump on board with Teddy Kennedy’s health care bill which emerged from the Health committee he chaired prior to his brain cancer making it impossible for him to continue working. The bill was “ushered” through by Kennedy’s close friend Christopher Dodd and it includes the so-called “public option” which myself along with, I’m certain, most Americans can only surmise what “public option” means. Personally, I picture it as a medicare for all type option that would allow me the opportunity to get the same coverage I’m getting through Blue Cross with less of my premium dollars going to corporate overhead -which includes both the exhorbitant salaries executives seem to feel entitled to these days and the branch of Blue Cross which is dedicated to denying benefits to customers. I was suggesting in my post that, not only would that ensure Kennedy’s dream of health care as “a right not a privilege” would be the final piece of his legacy, but also that it could lead to the end of gridlock in the Senate (and, maybe as important, the revival of the Republican party as something other than corporate panderers).

Kennedy’s passing is obviously of interest to millions of Americans and his influence in Congress is and will continue to be legendary. Yesterday I listened to an interview of Nancy Reagan as she spoke highly of Kennedy as a good friend and someone who constantly was in touch with her and her husband as he was succumbing to Alzheimers. Despite the fact Kennedy and President Reagan were almost polar opposites politically, he, according to Mrs. Reagan, was always respectful and since the Reagans left the White House Kennedy had never forgotten even a birthday without flowers or well-wishes. Tonight I heard Orrin Hatch speak at Kennedy’s memorial service further demonstrating Kennedy’s history of working with those “accross the isle.” We are seeing our new President trying to emulate that approach – which is where my thought is tonight – but with much different results than Kennedy’s. I’m going to see where my thoughts lead me on that topic tonight.

Barack Obama owes his Presidency to Teddy Kennedy. I don’t think there are too many people who follow politics that don’t understand the significance of Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama during the primaries of 2008. At the time the Clinton “camp” reacted quite bitterly to the endorsement, presumably knowing the impact it would have. If you don’t remember the primaries of 2008 roughly one third of the delegates to the Democratic convention were called “super delegates.” That means the voters in the primaries do not determine, ultimately, the party’s nominee. This was the Democrats response to the nomination of George McGovern back in the early 70’s which led to a Republican landslide. The idea of the super delegates, presumably, is to prevent the voters from “making a mistake.” That is to say that if the “big-wigs” of the Democratic party determine the candidate who won most of the delegates from the actual voters can’t win the national election they can “choose” someone else. In fact, right up until the end of the campaign, Hillary Clinton made a huge push to convince the super delegates that she was the most electable candidate and that Obama couldn’t win. I believe Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama guaranteed that strategy to failure.

And, right from the start of Obama’s Presidency, I’ve been writing about how I believe his overt strategy of bipartisanship is doomed to failure. I don’t know if he’s trying to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps as someone who can work “across the isle,” but even if he is – he’s going about it in entirely the wrong way. Kennedy was not overt in his workings with Republicans. He was called the “Lion of the Senate” for a good reason. He would routinely take Republicans “to the woodshed” publicly, and then in private carry on his civil and caring relationships, presumably during those times working out the compromises which has made him legendary. President Obama entered office at maybe the most challenging time for any President in our history. The economy was close to ruined, the government beauracracies were decimated (purposefully) by Bush cronies, the military was/is stretched razor thin by overcommitment to two “endless” occupations, our international image was in ruin, and trust in our legal system was on the verge of collapse. I will give President Obama an A for his ambitious agenda, despite the fact it’s scaring many people because it is encompassing a lot of MAJOR legislation in a relatively short period of time, but his grade for carrying out his agenda is not so good.

President Obama has been “right up front” with his attempt at bipartisanship. This is in the face of a Republican party that, for one thing, WANTS HIM TO FAIL. It has been clear to me, right from the start, that any Republican votes Obama can snag on his legislation are not worth the “compromise” it takes to get them. Additionally, most of Kennedy’s bipartisan workings were “behind closed doors” – at least that’s how it appeared to me. I had no idea he had such close relationships with so many Republicans. Kennedy did not mince words when he was on the Senate floor and attacking, and when he sensed he had the upper hand on an important issue he went for the “jugular.” Obama, on the other hand, has been right out in the open with his “courting” of Republicans – even while they are “stabbing him in the back.” Example: on the health care debate on one day Obama praises Charles Grassley for working in a bipartisan manner and the next day Grassley says the bill has “death squads” (he used the term “the government will pull the plug on grandma”) and adds that he won’t vote for any health care bill (including the one he’s helping to draft). Obama is constantly being undercut by his own STUBBORN determination to have bipartisanship.

Here’s my main point. President Obama owes his Presidency to Kennedy’s endorsement (in my view). It’s time for him to start acting with the clarity and courage that was the hallmark of Kennedy’s tenure in the Senate and I’m sure what Kennedy expected to see from him. Kennedy was not afraid to do the “right thing.” He voted against the Iraq invasion and he led the battle for many civil rights issues and health care reform was his ultimate objective. As an advisor to Obama I can’t imagine Kennedy endorsing some of Obama’s decisions since he took office. I know presume that Kennedy was working behind the scenes on the health care bill – for example, I’m sure that the bill that came out of Kennedy’s health committee had his stamp of approval on it – but I’m not sure how happy he would be with President Obama overall. Take for example the two wars (occupations) mentioned above. For some reason Obama seems to be getting “sucked in” by the “military industrial complex” as it was so aptly named by President Eisenhower. The sixteen month “promise” from Obama’s campaign is no longer even remotely realistic as far as exiting Iraq. In fact, the question now is are we actually going to exit Iraq? The American troops have pulled out of the cities, but they’re still there – all 131,000 of them – which is the “pre-surge” number – THAT’S THE SAME NUMBER OF TROOPS WE HAD IN IRAQ AT THE TIME OF THE 2006 ELECTION – violence is increasing in Iraq, the al-Maliki government is suspect, Moktada al Sadr is returning within the next year, and I’m CERTAIN OUR MILITARY IS LOBBYING FOR AN EXTENDED STAY – BEYOND THE NEGOTIATED “END-DATE.” It is really discouraging to me that President Obama is following the Bush negotiated exit strategy – I don’t see any sign of courage in the decisions coming down on Iraq. I have no doubt that Kennedy, if in Obama’s shoes, would have half the troops home by now.

Then there’s Afganistan. Obama is escalating our involvement in Afganistan and NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHY. I’m not hearing anything about why we’re there (other than to continue fighting the Taliban – this could go on for years upon years) or what “success” would be. Nothing about when we’re getting out, and nothing about the strain this is putting on our troops AND OUR ECONOMY! I mean we’ve got all these Republicans fighting against health care, complaining about the budget deficit, but seemingly OK with two EXPENSIVE miltary occupations (the bill for Iraq and Afganistan would easily cover the cost of health care for our own citizens – how ridiculous is that!?) As of my writing this post we have close to eighty thousand troops in Afganistan PLUS AT LEAST AS MANY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS – INCLUDING BLACKWATER. I really do often think that I WANT MY MONEY BACK from Obama. These two occupations look like, to me, more evidence of Obama’s strong desire to please Republicans. I mean, at least half of our troops SHOULD BE HOME FROM IRAQ BY NOW and by what authority is Obama escalating the occupation in Afganistan? Can you imagine being one of the troops who’s being deployed for the 4th or 5th time? THESE TWO OCCUPATIONS DON’T MAKE ONE OUNCE OF SENSE.

On the domestic “front” I don’t see a lot of courage coming from Obama either. Well, it took some guts to put out such significant legislation, but Obama had to know what a fight he would have in getting the health care bill passed. Coddling Republicans, which is what appears to be Obama’s strategy, is not, has not, and WON’T WORK! Publically, we shouldn’t see any of this “coddling.” If he want’s to give Republcans an opportunity to influence the bill it should have all been done privately. Sure, Republicans should be able to join in the discussion, but Obama should have guarantees as to what they “bring to the table” before he gives them a “platform” from which to speak. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THEIR OBSTRUCTIONIST BEHAVIOR, THEY’RE ON THEIR OWN! He really does give the impression of being weak the way he’s going about this. And, because he’s made this the “centerpiece” of his agenda means he should be emulating Kennedy’s “lion” approach all the more. Obama shouldn’t be acting “wishy-washy” at these town hall meetings. For example, it would be nice for him to state that no bill will be signed without a “robust” public option – AND THE PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS! He can’t do that because even President Obama doesn’t know what “public option” means, because he’s leaving it up to the Congress to come up with the bill. OBAMA SHOULD HAVE SET DOWN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT’S ACCEPTABLE RIGHT FROM THE START! The Senate, left to their own “devices,” likely will come up with something that is a boon to insurance companies. If President Obama wants to gamble his second term I would prefer that he chose the “high road.” That is, use the majorities in Congress which “we the people” gave him, pass true progressive legislation (no Republican votes is OK), and let the success or failure determine the consequences. STOP WATERING EVERYTHING DOWN SO WE CAN HAVE BLAMING MATCHES WHEN IT ULTIMATELY FAILS! For once, make a stand, and give your supporters what they understood you to promise during the campaign. Health care reform without a government run option will be little or no reform at all.

I hope that Kennedy’s passing inspires President Obama to emulate him (politically, I included that for all you Kennedy haters who would bring up Kennedy’s personal failures) and get tough on the Democrats that we voted in to allow him the support for “the change we can believe in.” There is nothing Obama can do that won’t be met with skepticism and ridicule by Republicans, that is a given. So, just focus on what’s “right” from the progressive standpoint and take the “lion” approach to getting it passed. President Obama should be able to get at least 50 votes in the Senate to pass the legislation that the people want and not the insurance companies. He should refuse to sign anything less, and if there aren’t 50 Democrats willing to support this, then it’s up to “we the people” to take care of that. Every Democrat who sides with the insurance companies should be publicly exposed so that they can be removed from office come 2012. When 72% of the American people agree on something, it shouldn’t be this hard. Senators who value campaign contributions over their constituents should be removed from office!

Oh yes, there’s one more thing I believe President Obama MUST do if he’s to be the President many progressives thought they were voting for, and that is to BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME! That is just more pandering to the right wing. The troops should have never been in Iraq and the sooner they’re home the better, and the reason for going to Afganistan was 9/11 – not an endless occupation with no purpose. When President Bush redirected our troups to Iraq and allowed Al Qaeda to escape Afganistan he BLEW IT! Osama bin Laden would like nothing better than for the United States to bogged down in these wars until we’ve totally bankrupted ourselves. It’s time to GET OUT OF BOTH OCCUPATIONS! (I have no doubt Senator Kennedy would agree with that last statement)