Editor: Mark Schone
Updated: Today
Topic:

Barack Obama

White House asks for privacy for first daughters

Urges journalists not to photograph or film Sasha or Malia

The White House is asking journalists covering President Barack Obama's vacation in Hawaii to respect the privacy of his 8- and 11-year-old daughters.

White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton and Michelle Obama's press secretary Katie McCormick Lelyveld issued a joint statement on Saturday urging journalists not to photograph or film Sasha or Malia Obama when they are on excursions without their parents.

The White House made a similar request when journalists traveled with the Obamas for a summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard. Then, the White House invited journalists to cover the first daughters only when they went for snacks, souvenirs and bike rides with their parents.

The daughters regularly join their parents at public events.

Obama briefed on terrorist attack

President Barack Obama had his vacation interrupted by a briefing on a failed terrorist attack on a Northwest flight as it was landing in Detroit.

He discussed it with security officials on Christmas Day and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel.

Later in the day, he visited military members and their families at a Marine Corps base near his vacation home in Hawaii.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama made an unannounced stop at Marine Corps Base Hawaii as military members at their holiday meal. He walked through the dining hall and thanked men and women in uniform for their service.

Obama is spending his holiday at a rented home nearby in Kailua.

Obama hails Senate passage of health bill

"These are not small reforms; these are big reforms," the president says
AP/Charles Dharapak
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009, after the Senate passed the health care reform bill.

In brief remarks Thursday morning, President Obama praised the Senate for passing its version of healthcare reform legislation.

"With passage of reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health-insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said.

In a comment that appeared intended for critics of the bill on the left, the president also said, "these are not small reforms; these are big reforms," adding, "If passed, this will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s."

Finally, in a nod to the fact that a final bill -- which still has to be worked out by the House and Senate, and then passed again -- will not, as he and his fellow Democrats had hoped, be hitting his desk before the end of this year, Obama said, "For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and our future, let's make 2010 the year we finally reform health care in the United States of America."

Obama's full statement:

In a historic vote that took place this morning, members of the Senate joined their colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass a landmark health-insurance reform package; legislation that brings us toward the end of a nearly century-long struggle to reform America's health-care system.

Every since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912, seven presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have taken up the cause of reform. Time and time again, such efforts have been blocked by special-interest lobbyists who perpetuated a status quo that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.

But with passage of reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health-insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people.

The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. They will no long be able to drop your coverage when you get sick.

No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need. And you'll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party.

If this legislation becomes law, workers won't have to worry about losing coverage if they lose or change jobs. Families will save on their premiums. Businesses that would see their costs rise if we do not act will save money now and they will save money in the future.

This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. It will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who do not have it -- 30 million Americans.

And because it is paid for and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the coming decades, making it the largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade.

As I've said before, these are not small reforms; these are big reforms. If passed, this will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s.

What makes it so important is not just its cost savings or its deficit reductions. It's the impact reform will have on Americans who no longer have to go without a checkup or prescriptions that they need because they can't afford them, on families who no longer have to worry that a single illness will send them into financial ruin, and on businesses that will no longer face exorbitant insurance rates that hamper their competitiveness. It's the difference reform will make in the lives of the American people.

I want to commend Senator Harry Reid, extraordinary work that he did, Speaker Pelosi, for her extraordinary leadership and dedication. Having passed reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we now have to take up the last and most important step and reach an agreement on a final reform bill that I can sign into law.

And I look forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers over the coming weeks to do exactly that. With today's vote, we are now incredibly close to making health insurance reform a reality in this country. Our challenge then is to finish the job.

We can't doom another generation of Americans to soaring costs and eroding coverage and exploding deficits. Instead, we need to do what we were sent here to do and improve the lives of the people we serve.

For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and our future, let's make 2010 the year we finally reform health care in the United States of America.

Imperfection is a start

For all its faults, the current bill establishes universal care, and there's no going back from that
AP/Jacquelyn Martin
At a mock funeral in Rockville, Md., Sept. 22, a casket, foreground with roses, honored uninsured Americans who have died from lack of healthcare, organizers said.

Buyer's remorse seems to be setting in among Democrats, even as the U.S. Senate is poised to vote (as I write this) on the most significant piece of social reform since the 1960s.

No less a figure than Dr. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman, wrote that, were he a senator, "I would not vote for the current healthcare bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over healthcare and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real healthcare reform."

Dean's reservations have been widely echoed on the left. The healthcare bill's big winners, they complain, are the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors. Because it lacks both the "public option" (a government-run insurance company competing with private ones to drive down costs) and the Medicare buy-in that was initially highly touted, then quickly shot down by Holy Joe Lieberman, some Democrats fear that the party is both providing inadequate coverage and setting itself up for a voter backlash.

Once the public realizes that the bill mandates everybody to buy private health insurance — pretty much the way everybody has to carry auto insurance — there's sure to be unhappiness not only on the tea-party right, but also among working people who ordinarily lean Democratic. Politics Daily's David Corn saw it coming. "I feel as if I'm watching a cheesy horror flick and some poor unsuspecting person is about to open the wrong door," he wrote last September, "and you want to scream, 'Hey, don't open that door!'"

To be sure, the bill provides generous subsidies for individuals and small businesses currently unable to afford coverage. And it doesn't kick in for a couple of years, when one hopes the current recession will be a bad memory.

© 2009 by Gene Lyons. Distributed by Newspaper Enterprise Association

Even so, Salon's estimable Glenn Greenwald sees it as a sellout: "The healthcare bill," he writes, "is one of the most flagrant advancements of ... corporatism yet, as it bizarrely forces millions of people to buy extremely inadequate products from the private health insurance industry — regardless of whether they want it or, worse, whether they can afford it," even with some subsidies.

MSNBC's self-dramatizing Keith Olbermann goes further, vowing to become what the Russians used to call a "refusenik." "I hereby pledge," he announced, "that I will not buy this perversion of healthcare reform. Pass this at your peril, senators. And sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a lawbreaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must."

As diverting a spectacle as that might be, for Democrats to heed such overheated rhetoric would be catastrophically foolish. Olbermann and others spent the 2008 primaries charging that Democrats skeptical of Barack Obama had racist motives. Now that he's poised to sign the most far-reaching enhancement of the American social contract since Lyndon Johnson, President Obama has now been rendered impure in their eyes.

Here are a few truths: First, we've been living in a one-dollar, one-vote corporatized democracy for a long time. If this is news to you, then you're probably also shocked to learn that the U.S. Constitution, by awarding two senators to each of what H.L. Mencken called "the cow states" — no insult to the cows in my own barn — was deliberately crafted to make fundamental change difficult. Who made "moderates" like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman of Aetna mini-presidents? Alas, the founding fathers did.

Living in such a polity, anybody who thought entrenched interests like the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries weren't going to find ways to make money off healthcare reform probably wasn't paying attention back at the beginning, when Obama said that despite the abstract appeal of a Canadian-style single-payer system, it was a political non-starter. As Greenwald points out, that told you right there that the White House was going to settle for the best corporate compromise it could get.

Sure, there's a risk of backlash. The problem is no universal or near-universal health-insurance plan — public or private — can be voluntary. Mandates are, well, mandatory to prevent opportunists from gaming the system: Buying insurance only after they get sick. Nobody can insure "previously existing conditions" if clients come and go at will.

Insurers forbidden by law from canceling policies also need a base of healthy rate payers. Public or private, it's a two-way street; costs can't be cut without a bigger risk pool.

Indeed, a gradual counter-backlash seems likelier, as all but the most perfervid tea partiers gradually recognize that their families are more secure, and that none of the GOP scare stories — "death panels," rationing, etc. — have any basis in reality. Retreat now is unthinkable. Imperfections notwithstanding, once universal coverage is established in principle, there'll be no going back.

Liberal group goes after Obama in new ad

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee says the Senate health bill isn't "change we can believe in" Video

With liberals getting progressively more upset with President Obama, it was only a matter of time before someone started running ads about it. One group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is doing just that, hitting him for earlier statements he'd made about healthcare reform: Specifically, promising a public option and opposing a mandate that would force people to buy insurance. 

The ad's going to be running in Washington, D.C., as well as in Wisconsin -- the latter is an attempt to change liberal Sen. Russ Feingold's vote, Sam Stein reports. Notably, it goes right at the heart of Obama's appeal during the presidential campaign, saying at the end, "A bill without a public option is not change we can believe in."

Why Democrats must pass healthcare reform

I side with kill-the-bill progressives for the long term, but I say pass the bill in the short term. Let me explain
AP/Susan Walsh
President Obama makes a statement at the White House Tuesday, as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (left) looks on.

As we were editing Salon's Bogus Stories of 2009, I couldn't help thinking about the current impasse, among liberals, over the healthcare reform bill. It wasn't just that Sarah Palin's death panels were a bogus story -- yet one that hijacked the healthcare debate for weeks. Right now a fledgling bogus story can be seen on cable news every hour or so: The Democratic Party is about to self-destruct over healthcare reform.

Unfortunately, this could be one of those bogus stories that the media help turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You can't watch cable news lately without some mainstream commentator hyping the infighting among progressives, usually in superficial and inflammatory terms. Chris Matthews described netroots opponents of the healthcare compromise as folks who "get their giggles from sitting in the backseat and bitching." CNBC's John Harwood told them to stop taking "hallucinogenic drugs," and Time's Joe Klein exhorted them (once again) to "grow up." From the other side, MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan blasted liberal reform-bill backer Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz so hard he had to apologize to her, and Keith Olbermann promised to go to jail rather than buy insurance as the bill would mandate.

Even as progressives engage in an important and fascinating debate over strategy and policy regarding the healthcare reform compromise likely to pass the Senate, it's being covered as a clash of personalities: the "netroots/nutroots" vs. the pragmatists; the wonks vs. the activists, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake vs. the Washington Post's Ezra Klein.

Of course, a few people on the netroots left have pushed their own specious story lines, comparing the sides in this debate to 2002's liberal split over the Iraq war. As someone who passionately opposed the war (to MSM ridicule) and thinks the coming healthcare reform compromise, while disappointing, is a deal worth making, I reject simplistic lefty schematics.

If you can only read one thing about this debate, read Glenn Greenwald's breakdown of the real fissures the bill is exposing within the party (where he finds merit in Jake McIntyre's 2002 Iraq vs. 2009 HCR positions). There is a genuine and justified concern among progressives that this bill enshrines an alarming corporatist Democrat view of "reform": Make nominally liberal social-service expansions safe for the private sector. That is absolutely what is going on.

But that's as far as the Democrats and the progressive movement have taken us to date. We have a lot more work to do. In my opinion, left and center Democrats need to compromise now, make good on their campaign promise to pass the bill and insure millions more people. And then progressives need to challenge the corporatist pillars of the party in rhetoric, legislation, and in elections, in 2010 and 2012, and beyond.

That's why when it comes to the current healthcare reform bill, I'm with the bill's opponents in the long term, and its liberal supporters in the short term. In the long term, I think the work progressives have done pushing for the public option has already made the bill a better bill. They will likely get more good policy provisions in conference committee. But their opposition is also crucial as a long-term organizing, party-development strategy. It's profoundly frustrating that there's no one on the left who has the clout of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Aetna, or Ben Nelson, D-Mutual of Omaha. Without being willing to walk away from the table, it's hard to convince the other side you mean business. I understand why some progressives are still demanding that congressional liberals leave the table if the Senate compromise is the only play possible.

I made this point throughout the summer, when liberals like Newsweek's Jon Alter, along with Matthews, were arguing that the left should surrender the public option immediately to ensure the passage of other healthcare reforms. As I said at the time, I don't know who taught those guys to play poker. If you give up on your ideals six months before the final vote, you can't expect to get much from last-minute negotiations.

I'm aware I'm violating my own rules by starting to publicly cast my lot with the backers of compromise. But I'm doing so to ensure there isn't a self-destructive rush to declare the bill wholly evil on the left. I have said it before: I'm disturbed by the stampede to abandon President Obama, and the Democratic Party, by people who sold Obama as the only progressive choice in 2008 -- people like my friends Tom Hayden and Arianna Huffington. Occasionally, I'm tempted, like the self-congratulatory folks who want to superimpose the divisions over the Iraq war, to do the same thing with the 2008 primary -- except Jane Hamsher and I were on the same side back then: on the side of staying neutral and not anointing one candidate the only progressive choice. And Taylor Marsh, who backed Clinton, opposes the likely compromise bill. So there are no simple, let alone simplistic, ways to think about this compromise.

I do believe that the lefties who bought or sold the idea that Obama was the only true progressive in '08 bear a special burden for the current disillusionment among Democrats. Obama mostly campaigned as a centrist Democrat; it was exciting (and a valid reason to prefer him) to have our first African-American nominee, but it wasn't the coming of social democracy in the U.S. I think people who sold Obama that way will be helping to dig progressives out of a ditch for years to come. It would have been great if both leading Democrats had to fight for progressive votes, but a lot of leading progressives bullied Clinton supporters and bowed to Obama prematurely.  

But one person bears a much bigger burden for this confusion than Obama propagandists, and that's Obama himself. He's breaking two campaign promises by backing this bill: He (wrongly, in my opinion) opposed the individual mandate in 2008, while correctly backing the public option. Now he's selling out on both. The latest insult is the president telling the Washington Post on Tuesday: "I didn't campaign on the public option," when in fact it was a staple of  his policy papers and Web platform.  It's an astonishing statement. His supporters are right to chastise Obama. But I don't think defeating the likely compromise is a smart way to do it.

Obama's disappointing failure to push the public option aside, I think Democrats should back the bill. For one thing, the party has to start delivering on its promises.  I agree with Tom Harkin: The likely bill (there is still no actual bill) establishes healthcare as a right, not a privilege. It expands Medicaid to at least 17 million currently uninsured Americans, and grants subsidies to many millions, perhaps 10 million, more. It makes insurance companies pay out 80-85 percent of premium dollars on care. State exchanges may also be able to accomplish something close to a public option (although that is still not clear). And while the individual mandate (and accompanying fines) is of concern without a public option, Jonathan Cohn lays out how much families from 100 to 300 percent of the poverty line will be helped by the bill, and it's extraordinary. Finally, there is no universal healthcare without a universal, individual mandate. So the progressives who are trying to sell that as the lefty "compromise" are wrong.

So, yes, I expect I will support the compromise that emerges from the House-Senate conference committee. I hope House progressives get more concessions -- more and higher subsidies for working- and middle-class Americans, more incentives for insurance companies to compete and lower costs. But in the end, I'm with Harkin and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders: This bill helps tens of millions of people. It moves us down the road to a genuine and legitimate public health infrastructure. It can also convince people on the fence that Democrats deliver on their promises.

But I won't participate in demonizing the bill's progressive opponents. We will need one another later on. I think the would-be so-called bill-killers are wrong -- but they're not evil, juvenile, self-destructive, solipsistic or any of the other epithets thrown around mainly by lifetime centrist Democratic apologists. They are the people who are trying to stake out a left-wing frontier to balance the likes of Lieberman, Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, and all the Blue Dog Democrats in the House. The MSM -- and some offices in the White House -- still chuckle at the insurgent left, especially the netroots, as immature and impotent. That's a great way to encourage compromise, by the way. To the extent anyone who wants this bill to pass is still peddling this pernicious point of view, they might want to stop it.

Ultimately, I believe liberals aren't convincing when they threaten to pull a Lieberman and kill this bill, because everyone knows they care about people too much. It's a classic Solomonic choice: Put Medicare expansion or the public option in the bill, and Lieberman will kill it, because he killed his conscience long ago. Give Bernie Sanders $25 million in community healthcare clinics, as well as Medicaid or subsidies to get 20-plus million Americans healthcare -- even without a public option -- and Sanders is going to see the real human beings really helped by real healthcare. He's not going to hold out for ideological principle, and everybody knows that.

And, sure, it's hard to for liberal Democrats to negotiate with those who are making this all about ideology. But it's easier to sleep at night. This bill, if it passes, is not the end, but a beginning. I want it to pass, but I respect those who come down on the other side.

Page 1 of 392 in Barack Obama Earliest ⇒

Barack Obama in the news

Loading...

Recommended Reads

BOOKS

Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
Obama's first book, a memoir focused on personal issues of race, identity, and community.
By Barack Obama

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Obama's second book, in which he shares his personal views on faith and values and offers a vision of the future that involves restoring a government that has fallen out of touch with the people.
By Barack Obama

10 reasons there's a bright future for journalism
An optimistic take on what's coming, both for news outlets and news consumers.
By Mark Glaser, Salon

Obama: From Promise to Power
In this compelling book, a Chicago Tribune reporter draws on interviews with Obama, his family, friends, and rivals, as well as his own extensive coverage since Obama's days in the Illinois Senate, to offer a nuanced look at a man of idealism and ambition intent on making history.
By David Mendell

SPEECHES

July 28, 2004: Obama's first national prime-time speech
In this speech, Barack Obama urges America to remember its unity, pledging that "out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come."

August 28, 2008: Obama's acceptance of the Democratic Party's presidential nomination
In this speech, Obama lays into John McCain, describing him as "anything but independent."

November 5th, 2008: Obama's victory speech
In this speech, Obama tells his ecstatic supporters, and the entire nation, that "change has come to America."

January 20, 2009: Obama's inaugural address
The new president calls upon the nation to face its challenges head on, with determination, strength and a commitment to ensuring the delivery of freedom to future generations.

SALON STORIES

How would Barack Obama handle foreign policy?
The presidential contender on dealing with Iran, fighting AIDS in Africa and restoring America's standing in the world.
By Walter Shapiro, Salon

Chicago is Barack Obama's kind of town
The city has a unique history of launching the careers of powerful black politicians -- which is part of the reason Obama moved there.
By Edward McClelland, Salon

American revolutionary
In his acceptance speech, Barack Obama stood up for Democratic values, took the fight to McCain -- and proved that the United States is still capable of reinventing itself.
By Walter Shapiro, Salon

Barack Obama's epic win
The culmination of a brilliant campaign, Obama's unequivocal defeat of John McCain marks a political and generational transformation.
By Walter Shapiro, Salon

Barack Obama, honeymoon killer?
The Clintonites in his Cabinet, forgiveness for Lieberman, the creeping signs of centrism -- progressives aren't ready to panic, yet.
By Mike Madden, Salon

"A new era of responsibility"
Mixing straight talk about dire times with lofty rhetoric about hope and determination, Obama repudiates Bush and vows to get to work.
By Mike Madden, Salon

OTHER STORIES

The Conciliator
Where is Barack Obama coming from?
By Larissa MacFarquhar, The New Yorker

Time's "Person of the Year" coverage of Obama
A strangely fascinating database of Obama-formation, including everything from "6 Degrees of Obama" to a collection of Obama-themed art from Flickr.
Time

The presidency of Barack Obama
This New York Times megapage is the last word on Barack Obama, including everything from his personal biography to his current political stance on detainees and Africa.
The New York Times

Currently in Salon

Other News