Throwing the race card at Dean

Until now, we were thrown generic guilt trips: you don’t want the uninsured to die, do you?

But now, we go back to campaign time propaganda.

For disclosure: I was never a Deaniac and I am not sentimental in the least about what is going on.

I think Dean is right asking to “Kill the Bill” and I was expecting attacks on him from the Obama media.

Like this ingenious sophistry from Ambinder

Does Obama Hate Liberals?

Does President Obama have contempt for liberals? No. The administration is virtually infested with liberals. And they’re not inclined to be self-hating.

which calls Dean irrelevant

Howard Dean has become the talisman for a bundle of anxieties (the bank bailouts, Afghanistan surging, card check, state secrets, gay rights, civil liberties) — this was HIS party before it was Obama’s, remember — but now, figures like Andy Stern, the White House’s most powerful labor ally, are voicing doubts about Obama’s willingness to fight for progressive causes.

But now there are racism insinuations  in this article.

From the second paragraph we are sent back to the 2004 primaries Republican arguments about “elitist democrats”

The 2004 presidential campaign that propelled Dean to national prominence was fueled predominantly by “wine track” Democratic activists-generally college-educated white liberals.

Soon, we find out that

Minorities don’t seem to have much doubt about their investment in this debate.

So, Howard Dean and followers, do you want black people to die? Do ya? Why else would you make trouble for the first black President, huh?

In view of what Dean did in the last elections,

I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry about this. But there’s one word that covers all my contradictory feelings:

PATHETIC!
As for the irony of bringing up Dean’s elitism…..

Ironic too – the “Creative class” that was so far ruling – seems to be now just a bunch of clueless bigots?

Oh, noes! Obama “stung” by liberal revolt?

At least that’s how NY Times puts it in the title

Liberal Revolt on Health Care Stings White House

but then we are given no evidence of the actual sting besides a rhetorical flourish in the first paragraph

In the great health care debate of 2009, President Obama has cast himself as a cold-eyed pragmatist, willing to compromise in exchange for votes. Now ideology — an uprising on the Democratic left — is smacking the pragmatic president in the face.

After listing the instances of revolt – Dean, Sanders etc, NYT ads the funniest ending.

After quoting Sanders losing sleep over so much compromising

“And I have to combine that with the fact that I absolutely know that the insurance companies and the drug companies will be laughing all the way to the bank the day after this is passed.”

we are told

The White House insists that is not the case. Aides to Mr. Obama argue that the bill includes a variety of consumer protections — like ending lifetime coverage caps and the practice of refusing patients with pre-existing conditions — that will make insurers unhappy.

Really, White House? (note how NY Times avoids using the name Obama when the chips are down).

Last I heard – ending the lifetime coverage caps is replaced by annual coverage caps. As for pre-existing conditions - IT’S WHAT INSURERS OFFERED IN THE FIRST PLACE AS PRIZE FOR THE MANDATES. -

Insurers oppose the creation of a Medicare-style public insurance option,

The insurers also do not support an employer mandate.

Insurers would agree to stop denying coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions as long as all individuals were required by law to buy insurance.

It’s THEIR bill – just as they wrote it. Why should that make them unhappy?

I found it interesting that Obama (or the White House) has no other things to brag about their precious reform then the concessions the insurers made from the get go.

“Really! I give them EVERYTHING insurers offered – everything – and they’re still not happy!”

In a very related story of chickens coming home to roost, an analysis of the Wall Street/NBC poll finds that

Less Than One Fourth Of Dems And Liberals Have Very Positive View Of Their Party

Where did all the love go? The practical result of that lack of enthusiasm brings expectations of more Virginia/NJ like results

Actually, there’s no guessing work needed here as the poll asked a specific coat tails question. here’s the graph:

Obama – who in his campaign was floating a flyer about Bill Clinton losing seats for the democrats – is more likely to get people to vote against a candidate whom he endorses (46%) than for him (36%)

Now, that must actually sting!

And all they have as remedy is guilt trips

“Every time you don’t support Obama a puppy dies. or an uninsured.” Missing “and the terrorists win” already!

IMPORTANT UPDATE

The much praised disappearance of pre-existing conditions won’t even go into effect until…2014

though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

….