Barney Frank calls out Obama

I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

In some cases, Senator Obama does not seem to remember what some of the fights of the nineties were. I agree that it would be a good thing to have the 2008 election be in part "about whether to...pass universal health care" but that in fact is one of the central fights we had in the nineties. The effort of many of us to pass a universal health care plan is precisely one of the battles of the nineties, and it seems to me one that we very much want to keep fighting. Again, the only alternative to fighting it is losing it by concession.

Another major fight of the nineties which seems to me essential -- not simply relevant -- to the current election is tax policy. Few fights that we had in the period when Senator Obama is denigrating our battles was more important than the successful effort to pass President Clinton's tax plan in 1993. That battle was so hotly fought that it contributed, sadly, to the Republican takeover the next year, because a number of the Democrats who had voted for a progressive tax plan which made the tax code less unfair and provided important revenues for important programs lost their seats because of it. I make no apologies for having fought that fight, and in fact I hope that whoever is the President of the United States in 2009 will take up the battle against excessive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, both as a matter of fairness and as a matter of being able to afford fundamental programs essential to the quality of our lives.......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/refight-the-nineties_b_80751.html

Finally, I do take pretty strong exception to Senator Obama's evenhanded denunciation of "the same bitter partisanship" of the nineties. It is true that American politics became much more partisan in the nineties, but that was primarily the result of the successful right wing takeover of the Republican Party, embodied at the time--he has since become a little more moderate for some tactical purpose--by Newt Gingrich. Again I do not think those of us who fought back against Gingrich's poisoning of the atmosphere should apologize for that. If anything, the apologies should come from those who were too slow to respond.

I posted this before.

This is one the things that I can't stand about Obama.

somebody should call out Obama.

nt

:nuke:

I don't always agree with Rep. Frank, but nine times out of 10 he makes me proud that he's a part of the House of Representatives.

but whenever Teddy or Kerry decide to retire, he will undoubtedly be Senator Frank.

Sen. Obama's response to Rep. Frank, since Frank is dead on right in every point he makes. For those of us old enough to remember the 90's.

He is being propped up by the media.

;)

As far as "team player-types" IMO, Edwards, the person, would work well with Obama.

However, methinks there's absolutely no love lost between the Edwards and HRC camps.

If both personalities could humble themselves, an Obama/Edwards ticket would blow the DLC's candidate out of the running AND IMO, win us the Presidency. :shrug:

Edwards is, Obama isn't.

you come with something true?

He can't be for "change" and then say anything nice about the 1990s because that would validate HRC as well as BC. So I am glad Barney Frank said this; it needed to be said and it is true.

Are you "sure" as "I am very confident that Rep. Frank will address the important issues that he has addressed." or are you "sure" as in "Like I even need to respond to him?"
Inquiring minds want to know.

BO is quick to ignore inconvenient facts and imagine easy solutions.
You'd think maybe he studied the Bush methods.

He's sooo perfect!

Boy they are thinking mighty hard over in Hillaryworld.

and not under Clinton's command

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank Endorses Clinton
Rep. Frank Will Serve As Economic Adviser
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4182

:eyes:

everyone here claims Clinton is practically a neocon.
Barney likes to feast on financial institutions including some of Clinton's largest donors.

You really need to look at more than the headlines.

Do some more research and stop spreading the lies.

Like Carrie Meeks' son . . . ???

I didn't see most of what went on with the legislation however ---

that was still in the GOP Congress . . . right?

He voted no on the Bankruptcy Bill. Too late to edit my post.

To Self: :spank:

Frank has championed many things that I strongly disafreed with and so followed them closely: I cannot recall a single time the Frank ever failed the 'Intergrity' test. He has his beliefs and he holds to them, right or wrong! heh

1. The "Hillarycare" efforts FAILED. Get that? FAILED!

The second reason why?

2. Because the attempts were to make universal healthcare insurance MANDATED, it... ahem....

FAILED!!!

So you want to try it again. The definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing that doesn't work over and over again.

:crazy:

of a highly co-ordinated effort between big insurance and the GOP.

voted on. Long before anyone knew of any of the particulars, the UHC plan that she was trying to develop was beaten into the ground...specifically by people who had healthcare...taxpayer paid healthcare I might add.

Insurance companies stand to lose hundreds of billions if UHC goes through, and they are trying everything in their power to ensure that some get treatment, and others die, when they could have been treated.

I frankly think that by putting an individual mandate on what essentially is just enforced healthcare insurance (while meekly trusting that Big Pharma and Big Insurance will just lower prices out of the goodness of their ever-lovin' heart), Hillary knows it's doomed to failure.

It's like blowing up a balloon and sticking a pin in it before you give it to a kid.

She is treading carefully. We cannot get national healthcare all at once.
It will take time. Hillary is bringing us in the right direction. The ball must start rolling and we must keep it rolling.

jobs her husband OUTSOURCED? Just askin'...

I think Bill Clinton was trying to remove it and at the same time create a strong economy that made work pay. The old way seemed simpler but was unacceptable to so much of the electorate that it stultified the debate over the real problems in our economy.

The best way is to have a progressive in the WH and both houses of Congress. We need a strong economy and a strong safety net and a willingness to have economic justice for all. I think as the poor economy pulls more and more people down towards poverty we'll be able to send some wake up calls.

The welfare system is the whole system ---
they were all interconnected and were to include a universal health care program ---
and many other aspects of this under the New Deal would have brought us closer to
economic democracy ---

No one needs it, perhaps, in a Clinton economy -- but that's not what you plan for.
And look where we are now !!!

All you are saying is that right-wing propaganda re "Welfare Queens" worked --
but I'm not sure given the tide of election fraud that voters were against it ---
I think they understood the New Deal --- and the reasons these programs existed!!

We also have to understand that the changes Reagan made led to thousands of disabled people killing themselves ---
and the changes Clinton made also effected thousands of disabled ---
though there has been little in the press about it ---
and now Bush has clogged the system further making it even harder for the disabled to
get help!!

When we get rid of safety nets we're only helping those who want to exploit the poor ---

to provide for a safety net for those in poverty who couldn't get out through work or just didn't have the help to get work that paid.

That said, I stand by my statement about welfare being the albatross. Welfare, in the eyes of middle class Americans, was nothing like Social Security. They saw SS benefits as something you "earned." Welfare as they saw it was a "handout," that did nothing but promote dependency. In the sense that the old welfare system mailed out checks but did not much else to help people get jobs and really go forward, they were right. It was just cheaper to mail out checks and do nothing else.

This was what Clinton saw was the albatross. We liberals kept defending welfare when what we should have been doing is looking at solutions systemically and there is nothing wrong with doing that. Clinton saw that if we had a strong economy welfare reform could solve our "political problem" while at the same time helping people get good jobs. There are people at the bottom of the old welfare system and that will tend to grow as the economy worsens, which is what we're seeing today.

The animus against the poor is still with us. Just the other day in my local paper I saw a column by a middle class woman who complained that she could no long afford both her monthly fuel and heat bills, her gasoline, her health care cost and her daughter's college tuition, but her daughter's friend was poor and her family had all of these "free" things that the middle class didn't have: Section 8 housing, food stamps, full college scholarships, fuel assistance, even free diapers from our local diaper bank. Why the author of the column couldn't see that the problem was more with Bush's handouts to the rich instead of her focusing on a poor woman with kids was beyond my comprehension. But that is what we are dealing with!

Obviously, we are both liberals and we agree on some basic issues such as universal health care and a just tax system. We have to deal with this through making our economy, thus our credibility, better with other middle class voters so they will stop seeing Democrats as only friends of the poor, but rather as friends of all people, not just the privileged rich.

The Hillary Clinton campaign refuses to tell us just how the public will be forced to get healthcare coverage that doesn't even realistically address the real issue of lack of affordability.

The only thing I've read from the Hillary camp on individual mandates is that they will hire a panel to look at how to do it after she gets in the White House. That's pretty bogus in my view.

is not a step in the right direction.

Yes, an advocate of universal insurance, his plan was for 'managed competition'. If this is anything we can expect from HRC or Obama it would be better if Edwards pointed this out NOW rather than later.

Read about the HRC plans from the '90s in Jacob Hacker's book The Great Risk Shift pages 149-158.

Enthoven,

http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/people/alaincenthoven/

and his beloved free market, which got us to the place we're at right now, wants even MORE free market influence on health care.

HC was ahead of her time (back in the 90's) and few were as worried about the prospects of obtaining health care in the future as they are now.

During the 90's and the beginning of economic prosperity (and the fact that many/most still 'retired' from jobs with healthcare benefits) it never occurred to the American public that they would be in such dire straights today.

Times have changed and so has the American public's perception of the necessity of universal healthcare.

Jeeze listen to me.... someone like me telling an Obama supporter to CHANGE with the times. How ironic.

"jeeze listen to me.... someone like me telling an Obama supporter to CHANGE with the times. How ironic.
"

:rofl:

The Clintons had their chance in the 1990's. We got NAFTA. We got DOMA. We got Don't Ask Don't Tell. We got the Telecommunications Act. We got China free trade agreements. We got scandals. We lost many seats in Congress and the Senate. We got Newt Gingrich and the GOP agenda handed to Clinton and repackaged slightly and handed back to keep the GOP agenda intact.

We didn't get healthcare reform. That utterly failed and it was with Hillary at the helm when that ship sank.

But somehow, we're supposed to see this duo back in the White House as "change" with the times. I can think of nothing more nonsensical than that notion.

:thumbsup:

that is the Military's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy was implemented during those happy ole' BOOM time for the economy (the 1990s) ... media and corporate America were undergoing exponential consolidation under Bill Clinton's watch. That's NOT Progressive!

"The minority status of the Democratic Party was disguised by its lingering control of Congress (until 1994) and the fluke election (thanks to Ross Perot) of Bill Clinton. Social activists and progressives of various sorts remained the party's base, even as party leaders, embodied in the Democratic Leadership Council, sensing the limited electoral appeal of the progressive agenda, steadily drifted to the right. Their failure to rearticulate a compelling vision of social justice and democracy sealed the party's fate. Conservative attacks on 'big government,' and their promotion of 'deregulation' not only of much of the economy but of campaign financing, solidified the corruption of the political process. As early as the Carter years, conservatives captured the leadership of the Democratic as well as the Republican parties, and created the two-party, right-wing duopoly which now confronts us."

snip/

"The coming darkness is the eclipse of American political freedom and the unchecked reign of a venal, arrogant, and ignorant ruling class."

Pretty much a benefit no there anymore to do the job it was intendedto do --- !!!

Bill Clinton decided that it was better to cozy up to the healthcare and pharma industry than to try to come up with Plan B.

Change with the times indeed. The Clinton HAD their chance and blew it, no pun intended.

Oh, man, what happened? So many of my basic costs have just skyrocketed. Especially those I had not paid that much attention to: electric bill, oil heat, food costs, gasoline. Back in the day those costs were not factored in as we busily planned our investments and we were so proud of our putting every dime allowed in our 401ks. Hello 2008! My electric bill has doubled. My oil heating bill has doubled. Keeping up with that has been my major concern.

Most people have been socked in the face with these realities. Even if you don't carry any credit card debt, or have a low mortgage rate, or keep the thermostat down, it is a problem. I am now turning off lights and unplugging small appliances in the hopes of saving a few dollars here and there. This is ridiculous, but it is reality!

Even though the majority of people will not really be effected by a mandated insurance plan, since they already have insurance through their employers, this will KILL us in the general. It's a sure election loser.

Get it?

We. Will. Lose. The. Election. Over. This.

It simply cannot be said often, or strongly, enough.

It must be done through the tax code. Today, this very day, millions of Americans have SS and Medicare taxes taken out of their paychecks MANDITORIALLY. There is no revolt against that. And people understand that they cannot change that. They cannot go to their employer and say they want to "opt out" of that portion of their payroll taxes! And it starts at dollar one!

The only way to do this is through taxes. And done right it will cost each taxpayer less than the way we do it now. Guaranteed. It works. It works in other countries and it will work here.

That was the problem.
Drop the word "insurance" and we'll talk

"grow up" meant not say things quite as well as I'd like them to say but that's what it feels like ..."grow up" or "move on".

He feels they were legitimate, but we ultimately lost that debate at the voting booth and as a result Republicans took over all 3 branches of the government. Now we are at this low point.

I don't even want to listen to this man. I want to win.

don't care about history
don't care about facts
they just want to emote themselves into a win

One or two more repeats, by a guy who sings "bomb bomb Iran", might kill as many as we killed in Iraq. Or more.

Sometimes winning is most important. I'm sure the dead children of Iraq would consider winning to keep that lunatic out of office very rational.

I don't think Hillary wants to raise that issue. Kind of like her war vote, etc...

Just point to the other guy Hillary.....that way you don't have to discuss your own record. LOL!

Frank is a sharp cookie, and doesn't pull to many punches when he gets 'fired' up. Obama definitely crossed old Barneys' line.

Or rather, to be president NOW.

Yes. Yes, I do. :D

I really should use italics.

:yoiks:

Barney is right...we don't want to go there.

the democrats got half a loaf and now we have to get the other.

one admits their mistakes, learns from them, and moves on. my problem is those people who made them never admit they did.

i`m sure barrack has read what barney has to say

First paragraph of OP:
--------
By historical standards -- or any other -- the Democrats have an excellent set of presidential candidates from which to choose this season, and I look forward to campaigning enthusiastically and without reservation for our nominee. But this does not mean that we should be suppressing the discussion of differences, and it is in this framework that I think it is important to express my discomfort with a major theme of Senator Obama's campaign.
--------

Frank's tone, seems to be, is not quite as "destroy Obama" as some here are seem to be making it out.

Give me a freaking break! If he was only trying to be helpful he'd pick up the phone, however, he is fully "on message" with HRC's people led by Mark Penn. :eyes:

anti-Obama as some on this board, and as I suspect some will say he is. Your claim that he is "'on message' with HRC's people" is less persuasive to me than the article itself, which is, to my judgment, mildly, but not viciously, in disagreement with, or at least questioning, some of Obama's points.

of a president Obama.

Though I was hoping that he would call Obama out for pandering to homophobes via Donnie McClurkin. Obama is quick to dismiss events of the past...and is too naive to realize that repugs will not go quietly into the night. Everything is hard fought in Washington. It's not all Honeylulu and Maui-Wowie...

what else? And what do you think of Donnie McClurkin?

I won't be voting for Hillary in the primaries

and much of the problems we are having today, which include the media and corporate monopolies, the telecom reform act of the 90's, the reduction of wellfare through the Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, The Defense of Marriage Act which he signed in 1996, the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, and lest we forget, Clinton made it one of his goals to pass trade legislation that lowered the barriers to trade with other nations, and provided the foundation for NAFTA that was signed by bush, but supported 100% by Bill Clinton

Maybe Barney Frank doesn't always remember what Democrats used to stand for under FDR either

The Good Economy was why we all felt "happy" during the 1990s. Clinton's DLC *triangulation* was a great disappointment to me and I regret that I permitted my husband to convince me to vote for him a second time in 1996.

But like a faithful but "clueless" Democratic Party member, I voted for the DLC's anointed ones twice since. I'm waking up to the fact that the DLC is not going to "bring back the 1990s."

I hope Barney Frank and many others "old guard" representative types retire and make room for NEW DEMOCRATIC BLOOD. It's way past time to clean HOUSE.

some of our best in the back for this b grade jackass from Illinois.
Clinton, RFK jr, Krugman, Frank, who next?

<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK> Let's "mutually agree" to end this Junior High absurdity?

:crazy:

When someone votes for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment which states we will have a permanent presence in Iraq as long as Iran is perceived to be a threat, where do you think that person stands in regard to our presence in Iraq

Yes, I know Obama wouldn't even vote on it at all, but how does that justify Clinton's vote on it?

Remember the wonderful trip to Iraq she took with mccain, and saying how swimming well things were going?

I haven't even decided who I will vote for in the primaries, but it won't be Clinton because of her IWR, and Kyle/Lieberman vote

Harvard.

Thanks.

Barack Obama received his bachelor of arts degree in political science from Columbia in 1983, and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1991. While at Harvard, he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.



http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama

I believe that Harvard at that time gave the "magna cum laude" designation to well over half of the members of its graduating classes.

In 2002, standards were tightened so that only the top 20% could be designated as magna or summa.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.23/03-grades.html

is really taking a low road, don't you think?

Each candidate is better than the "little roves" running around thrying to "support" their heroes by going the lowest route possible.
Back and forth.
Pitiful.

If you really care, take a look at that.
PLease think about emulating the grace and fairness of your candidate, and represent them as best you can.

Sorry for sounding like a nanny, but you seem to need one.

and you are so right, we need to bring in new blood with NEW ideas, and those who won't vote for the IWR or the Kyle/Lieberman amendment

I am so messed up right now because the Supreme Court is at stake, and even though I cannot necessarily trust the Democrats, but I know for certain where the repugs stand, and I don't want that

My watershed moment will probably be after the 2008 elections, though in all honesty I haven't made my mind up yet who to vote for in the primaries. California doesn't have their primary until Feburary 5, so I have some time, but there is no way I can vote for Clinton based on her war votes

Not franks but the health care debate.

He also addressed why it is that he thinks clinton lost that fight in the first place.

I don't have a transcript of it but he gave a speech at google where he explains it. You can watch it here if you like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo

Basically what his plan is to get his health care passed is to invite all the players to the table and then to make the discussion public for everyone to see and give input to. He will make the meetings public and request data from all sides and also make that data public, so that there will be no chance for the insurance companies or any other special interest to run roughshod over the legislation with a campaign of fear or lies.

He believes the biggest problem that hillary had ,and he makes a compelling case., is that she went into a room with her people somewhere and devised her plan hidden away from the american public while the insurance companies and big pharmacy mounted a campaign to scare americans away from whatever came out of that room so that by the time it actually came out it was already dead.

This is actually a cornerstone of a lot of what he plans to do. His Idea is that the american people when presented with FACTS instead of spin have the ability to look at it objectively and make a decent decision. His administration, should he get it, will rely heavily on putting the governments decision process out there for the everyone to easily access so that they cant be hoodwinked into believing fairy tales thrown out there as bogeymen.

I happen to agree with him and think the idea of opening our government back up to the people may be the single most healing thing that could happen for our democracy.

Wow, guess we are more forgiving of those whom we trust, aye? But personally, I wouldn't TRUST the Clintons to babysit my children for a mere hour, much less run the country again. :scared:

and the Clinton who is running is Hillary, not Bill. But I guess you haven't noticed that.

Filled with divisive politics and never-ending scandal.

One big Clintonian Soap Opera continuing on ... and on ... :(

that's what your Hopin' N Wishin' for. Now, we see...the "hope" you and your candidate talk about is for you but not for others. Same-o same-o. Nothing new there...Barack is no more than a snake~oil peddler...and he's the snake.

well unless you have aspiration to apply for a position in "The Gestapo" because, sure as shit, if our government is allowed to merge fully with media/corporate consolidation we will fully realize the horrific fall-out of FASCISM and totalitarian rule.

Yes, I will vote for Obama because it won't be the SAME OLD CLINTONIAN INSIDERS staffing The Executive Branch. Yes, that's one small shred of hope for change and I'm running with it.

reductio ad Hitlerum. You lose.

Of course the mouth breathing Hillbots eat it up.

just posted a lame internet picture.

How informative of you and yes exactly like he did in illinois. Heres a couple of cute internet pics for you.

"This is actually a cornerstone of a lot of what he plans to do. His Idea is that the american people when presented with FACTS instead of spin have the ability to look at it objectively and make a decent decision. His administration, should he get it, will rely heavily on putting the governments decision process out there for the everyone to easily access so that they cant be hoodwinked into believing fairy tales thrown out there as bogeymen."

And we'll all live happily forever after in the Peaceable Kingdom.

:kick:

Barney is a very smart man.

:bounce:

Don't forget, nothing was signed into law in the 90's without a Clinton signature.

Now it's gettin good.

Why on earth would you try to work together with people who would slit your throat at the very first chance?

They are liars, they are criminals, they are unethical.

There is no bi-partisanship possible with people who have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in governing people, only stealing from them & turning them into indentured servants.

Barack thinks this is a message of hope. There is no hope of moving this country forward with this type of mentality. I can believe people are buying this b.s.

at the rate of what percent including the "blue dogs" --

and the new blue dogs they are soliciting to run against liberals and progressives?

Very sensible and very well-put. The current generation seems to forget that fighting in the trenches is sometimes necessary, and that holding hands and holding out for hope doesn't get things done in the end.

Barney Frank rocks!

:headbang:

-Laelth

100% right


kick

will do - fight the corporate interests of Banking, Big Pharma, Insurance, and Oil! Hilary is stealing Edwards lines word for word - "it's personal for me..." Bill Clinton was a master of taking the republican positions of the 1990 and making them his own - remember welfare reform! Hilary wants to force everyone to pay for medical insurance to keep the corporatist between us and our doctors. We do not need medical insurance. We must have medical care, as do most civilized, industrial, western nations and the members of Congress and the Senate.

Barney Frank's sister is Ann Lewis, who you see on the cable shows always defending Hilary! They are members of the same corporate funded club! They simply cannot fight for the interest of the rest of us, because they are paid to make sure that the corporations can continue to make immoral profits at our expense.

strategies to bring back the ERA: the 3 state strategy which is to round out the needed 3/4 states ratification or the start over strategy. Some liberal women I know have even said that the fight is "dead" and we have all the tools we need to win (such as the 14th amendment)so why go to the trouble of re-fighting?

I think it's worth a look. Surely, there has got to be a lot of women in feminist law projects to do the research and come up with their best findings...

that she wouldn't see the ERA as a top issue. Neither do I. I am very impressed that just today she has laid out a plan to resuscitate the economy. I don't see Obama doing that, nor my candidate Edwards. I am involved each and every day in this. I want and hope for our candidates to do the winning thing. Right now, that looks to me like HIllary Clinton and I hate to say this. She's coming across as having the "smarts" to do something...

As a feminist, I'd say she's an odd one!

I'm not aware of Hillary's new economic plan ---
can she find the surplus????

I'll try to check in on it tomorrow ---
or will you post something here at DU about it ---
we should know what it's all about!

Edwards/Kucinich are my candidates ---
I feel unlikely that I would vote for Hillary ---
I stand against the DLC and any DLC candidate.

here's a link describing the 2 processes http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

The 3 state strategy will take LOTS of political energy in those states which haven't already ratified. While it would certainly energize some women in those states, I doubt whether HRC, if president, would want them diverted from her other domestic policies. However, we will see what we will see...

Please let me know if that is what you were asking about...

why not?

I've never heard her mention it --- have you?

and unless there starts to be some movement towards ratification in the states that have been targeted, and they're tough ones as you can imagine, I wouldn't expect a comment from HRC. If it comes up, however, I WOULD expect her to come out in strong support, as I would expect John Edwards and Barack Obama to do also. My great hope is that it comes up during a Democratic administration and one in which the statehouses of targeted states have become sufficiently progressive to have it an issue again.

Not to worry, he doesn't need a spine, he doesn't need to convince America about issues, he needs to go to an Obama revival meeting and meet up with all the independents and a few republicans too. Hold hands and get LOUD! Thats what Barney needs.

Partisanship in our government has been driven by religious right radicals. He seems to blame it all on Hillary. So tacky and disingenuous of him. Certainly not a radical statement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't know why. I'm hoping it's just to score votes.

flakking for his Goldwater gal.

Well said Barney Frank!

I have a good memory and what he says is absolutely true.

If you hate this present administration, please go to this link on Youtube and hear a song I wrote called "Bridge to Nowhere". This explains our country's frustrations with this present administration. Don't miss it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw44-sFLuEw

Randy