In an interview today on Good Morning America, President Obama previewed his speech to Congress tonight, promising to lay out a detailed plan for health care reform and admitting he has "probably left too much ambiguity out there."
"I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed, then, opponents of reform to come in and fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense," he said, naming "death panels" and government insurance for illegal immigrants as example of the nonsense.
He said he'd define which principles must be in the bill for him to sign it, but wouldn't answer whether that includes a public option.
"The intent of the speech," Obama said, "is to make sure the American people are clear on exactly what we're proposing ... and to dispel some of the myths and, frankly, silliness."
The president accused some Republicans of wanting to defeat health care reform, hoping it would let them retake control of Congress.
"I think there are some in the Republican Party who made a strategic decision that we can duplicate what happened in 1993, '94," he said. "I think that folks are dusting off that old playbook."
But he also lamented political partisanship and said he's "frustrated" that certain Republican voices have been lost in the debate.
"On the Republican side there are wonderful people that operate on the basis of pragmatism and common sense and getting things done. Those voices have been shouted down," he said. "I hope that the Republican party can rediscover that voice. I think they'll find they have a partner in the White House on all sorts of issues."
Obama also called the commotion surrounding his school speech ironic because his basic message was a conservative one.
"I guess it was puzzling," he said. "As you know, for a long time I've been talking about the importance of education -- not just in terms of government programs, but also parental responsibility, turning off the TV set, putting away the video games -- ironically a very conservative message."
"It's a message of self help and personal responsibility," he went on. "I thought it would be a good day to kick off the first day of school."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

hewhohasnoname
September 9, 2009 10:07 AM
Democrats helped Republicans kill healthcare reform in 1994. At this juncture, Democrats need to make sure that they don't help the Republicans dust off that old playbook.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
September 9, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Here, here!
Now get fired up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 9, 2009 10:15 AM
Oh please. Republicans are IRRELEVANT, you have 60 votes in the senate, overwhelming majority in the house.
The only one killing real reform is you and the finance committee.
The blame republican strategy might have worked for awhile but People arent stupid
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
September 9, 2009 10:41 AM in reply to 3star2nr
No they don't. Kennedy has passed and his seat is unfilled and Sen. Byrd can't make the votes. Lieberman and Sanders are independents. Furthermore there is about 10 senators who do not support the Public Option, and are not rubber stamps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 9, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
His point is still valid. If we can't get insurance reform and a public option passed with the numbers the voters have given the dems over the last two cycles, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
The republicans don't control a damn thing. Except for their individual votes; few as they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 9, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to willia451
yeah the Republicans are 100% irrelevant.
We need 50 votes and the vice president. THATS IT.
If Obama came out strong for the public option, the house dems and the progressixves who out number the blue dogs 2:1 come down strong for the public option. Do you really think 10 democrats wont cave in?
Come on man we are being played. They knew from DAY 1 there would be no republican votes. The focus and the pressure SHOULD have been on the bluedogs from day 1.
Instead the bluedogs were treated as the untouchables.And Obama has been coming out strong AGAINST the progressives.
We are being scammed. And we need to make sure that they KNOW we're pissed about it.
The finance Bill is a 100% failure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
September 9, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to 3star2nr
Okay! Check! Now get fired up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
714Day
September 9, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to willia451
you say:
I'd disagree in one regard. The Republicans control the message to the part of the populace that would never travel to a political blog or anything close to it. They are, of course, enabled by their mouthpieces in the MSM and are bankrolled by their pals in Big Insurance. So far, that would appear to be the situation, however.
That always turns Blue Dogs into wienies...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 9, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to 714Day
Again, I say the republicans DONT CONTROL A THING.
The message part was negative because the Whitehouse and the dems ALLOWED it to go negative.
Whentownhalls started being shouted down. why is it that the response from the dempocrat side wast to turn up at REPUBLICAN townhalls and shout THOSE down?
Why didnt the White house allow the progressives to attack the Blue dogs. Why werent the blue dogs given funding?
Firedoglake with only 20,000.00 was able to get 17 senators to pledge to veto a bill without a public option. You really mean to tell me the White house couldnt find money to counteract the ads?
Why didnt the white house spend alot more money in attack ads against the republicans?
Why is it that we saw EVERY republicans on every TV chanell bashing health reform. And up until recently, we didnt see a single dem fighting for reform but Obama.
The fact i s blatantly obvious. The democrats allowed this thing to fail, and some one in the whitehouse is actively undermining the presidents agenda, to help private insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
September 9, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Get fired up, Jonze!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rpasley
September 9, 2009 10:16 AM
I wish Obama and the WH would stop using terms like "nonsense" and (especially) "silliness". It makes them look like they consider lies and obfuscation mere child's play, and not the serious breach of public trust that it really is. Obama is just being "silly" in not calling out the Republicans for their deceit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NuttyProf
September 9, 2009 10:35 AM in reply to rpasley
Yes, more "politics is a bloodsport" not "child's play"...I thought he knew this, tough Chicago pol that they say he is...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
September 9, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to NuttyProf
He does, he does. Now get fired up! He needs you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
September 9, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to rpasley
Good comment! Now get fired up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
garp
September 9, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to rpasley
I may be naive here, but I'm pretty sure Obama is no stranger to the kind of ball busting politics you're referring to here. It seems to me that every time he stays above it and sounds reasonable in the face of the tactics the other side employs, he shows them as what they are, silly, shrill, and ridiculous. I believe he's busting balls with smile on his face.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BossDrop
September 9, 2009 10:17 AM
There will be no public option. Obama wants to be the 2012 Democratic nominee. It makes no sense making moderates angry to the point of war. And that is what he will get with this reconciliation talk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
September 9, 2009 10:44 AM in reply to BossDrop
so if obama doesn't veto health care reform if the bill passed by congress includes a public option, moderate dems will not only primary obama but their candidate will win the party's nomination over obama?
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Virginia
September 9, 2009 10:54 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Care to bet any money on that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
September 9, 2009 8:32 PM in reply to Virginia
if obama gets a bill passed by a MAJORITY of democrats, who are the moderates that are going to organize against him if he doesn't VETO it??? and who are the democratic voters in the electorate that will vote against obama for going along with the majority of democrats in congress??
absurd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
September 9, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to BossDrop
Good luck with that. Taking liberals for granted at this point is very dangerous. No public plan and they lose my vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
September 9, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to DA in LA
You sound like the GOPers screaming RINO. Attempts to enforce idealogical purity lead to marginalization. Besides, what you gona do, vote for Cheney?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bearpaw
September 9, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to Larry Geater
Since when has pushing for real reform that most people want been "enforcing ideological purity"?
The only "marginalization" we risk is corporate lobbying money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
September 9, 2009 11:45 AM in reply to Bearpaw
Pushing for a public option is not enforcing ideological purity. Saying that it is a make or break issue that will determine your future support regardless of other factors is. All those threatening to take their ball and go home over the public option are trying to enforce idealogical purity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 9, 2009 11:16 AM in reply to Larry Geater
Im a liberal and Im pissed as hell. No public option IM OUT TOO.
The reason why democrats cave so much is because they TAKE US FOR GRANTED.
Until they learn that we just WONT lie down and take it NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
Why do you think republicans are always appeasing to their base, because they are terrified of them. The democrats dont give a damn about their base, thats why they dont care about what they want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
September 9, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to 3star2nr
And playing to their base has served the right well?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 9, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to Larry Geater
Blatantly ignoring the Left base is working for dems?
They take us for granted and we are the ones who put them there.
So far they have been able to get away with this because we the base have just taken it.
Not anymore though. We can attack, and teach the party a lesson.
How? start raisig money for 2010, and run progressive candidates against incumbents who voted against the public option, and also by running a presidential candidate in 2012.
We dont even have to get him all the way to the end, just the threat of splitting the party in two, will be enough of a shocker to teach them a lesson.
Or we can simply organise and mobilise and protest the bill.
The finance committee bill if that becomes the final bill will be catastropic, make no mistake about that.
Rahm's calculation is pass any bill, it will look like a win. It wont come into effect till 2013, AFTER the election. after that if it sucks ass and americans are screwed it doesnt matter because he got Obama reelected, and hopefully some lobbying money against the rrepublicans.
This is strategy at our expense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
September 9, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to 3star2nr
It is not that any bill looks like a win. Any bill is a win. We have been trying to get something passed for decades and continualy letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we pass something now we can come back in a couple of years and amend it. If we pass nothing we are back where we started. This year's debate is not the end of the healthcare debate however it goes. It is just one more round in the long bout over this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
September 9, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to DA in LA
I'm not sure of the "do or die" thought which progressives are expressing these days. Sure, a public option is important to lowering the cost of health care reform. But what if Obama can't get the necessary number of votes in the Senate to do it? Can you really vote for the R's in 2012, or not vote at all? I remember when progressives voted for Reagan in 1980 because they were sick of Carter. How'd that work out?
If the best Obama can get -- and he's not putting his cards on the table yet -- is a public option "trigger", isn't that worth it? He and the Dems walk away with "we got health care reform" and the R's get zip. What's wrong with that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
September 9, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to George C
You should always consider traitors on your side to be the worst of your enemies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
September 9, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to CharlesBrown
But you should define traitor as narrowly as posible. A person who agrees with you on 90% of health care reform but disagrees about the importance of a public option is not a traitor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 9, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to George C
Absolutely not. Ideological purity is much more important than actually making progress. If we can't have everything we want we'd rather have nothing. Four years from now when President Romney (or worse) is in the WH, at least we'll have our precious principles.
It's all Harry Reid's fault.
Let's get rid of the Blue Dogs. We'd rather have Republicans in those seats.
Did I miss anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bearpaw
September 9, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
I love the fatuous arguments against "ideological purity". If it's "ideological purity" to not want to give away the public option -- which is (a) already a compromise, (b) supported by most likely voters, and (c) the only way that anyone has proposed to make a mandate at all palatable -- well then, sign me up, comrade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
September 9, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to Bearpaw
I don't think a position that is "ideologically pure" is a problem. I think walking away from a compromise that gets you 80% of what you want because the remaining 20% is a compromise is a problem, because you end up with nothing. Obviously, there's a spectrum, and there's a point at which the deal just isn't worth it anymore. But is the public option trigger that point? It would be a big mistake to give this to the R's with no pain, in my humble opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
September 9, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to George C
Especially if we can get a more robust public option through the trigger as the Speaker said would be the case.
If your options are
1. Weaken the public option.
2. Delay the public option.
Which is better?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 9, 2009 11:41 AM in reply to Bearpaw
You're not giving away anything. The public option does not have the votes. It just doesn't. I wish it did, but wishing won't make it so. It's time to face reality.
Maybe he can twist some Blue Dog arms, but I doubt he can corral enough votes to pass it in its present form. What you have to understand is that in many of those states/districts, standing up to Obama makes them MORE POPULAR. The Blue Dogs have a classic prisoner's dilemma: if HC reform fails, it's bad for them, but voting for it is also bad for them. Their best possible outcome is if they can vote against it but it passes anyway. Putting too much overt pressure just makes them less likely to budge. To get their vote it needs to be crafted in such a way as to make it sellable to the folks back home. That probably means one of two things: either significantly weakening the public option or putting it on a trigger. Given a choice between those two, I'll take the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
September 9, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to George C
Good! He's gonna be fine and we're gonna be fine. Now time to get fired up! Ready to go?! Are you fired up?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bearpaw
September 9, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to BossDrop
Why would moderates -- who polls show tend to favor a public option -- be angry if there is one? Or are the majority of Americans who favor a public option radical lefties by definition?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
September 9, 2009 10:20 AM
What a weird coincidence that Obama mentions the old '94 playbook. It appears that the Democrats are also playing from that old playbook. Listen to Lawrence O'Donnell from yesterday's CountDown:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/32746840#32746840
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
September 9, 2009 10:31 AM
Lots of drivel here this morning!! Yuck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
September 9, 2009 11:13 AM
This is not good. I mean, Democrats are dusting off the same playbook too. They're essentially expecting the more committed players to cave on health care reform.
Anything that's short of universal coverage will be a letdown. I don't necessarily think we need to get there with a public option. We can get there through heavily regulated private insurers, assuming that everyone has to purchase insurance and those who are purchasing insurance outside of the employer channel receive subsidies and rates that would reflect the price employees at large employers pay.
Insurers are going to fight that all the way. But, there has to be some type of mandate. If we go through all of this and only like 10,000,000 more people have health insurance, it will have been a colossal failure. There are 50,000,000 without insurance right now. We have to solve that problem. The public option is one way; the subsidized/regulated private route is another way. But, without some form of a mandate, this whole exercise will have been a failure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dpabowen
September 9, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to Mateo123
I don't think those 10 million people would consider it a colossal failure. In the Web world we have an expression: Don't let great be the enemy of the good. 8 figures of newly insured citizens is progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Noonan
September 9, 2009 11:16 AM
About time we beat this drum. Let Grassley debate himself. Time to attack.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DickTater
September 9, 2009 11:37 AM
Obama left too much ambiguity on reform?
I want to know who's idea it was, to go into the August Recess, and let AstroTurf Amerikkka have the mic (of course brought to us through the distorted lens of the Corporate Media)? Is that message control? If so, it was the absolute worst example of messaging I have ever seen.
Town-Hall meetings are fine, but nobody needed convincing out there. The People spoke in November.
The November election was ample proof of the American public's desire for healthcare. Every poll out there, for years, has shown roughly 70% approval or drastic reform of healthcare insurance, or single-payer Canadian/UK models. It was topmost in the mind of issue voters.
Bob Reich outlined in his article how fast and decisively you have to move on this kind of reform....Johnson's quote was something like you have to hound congress incessantly, every day.
SO WHY were we throwing this out to TownHall debates? Now I know Obama could not have predicted just how Out-Of-Control the TownHalls would get. But we know there are teabaggers and many astroturf groups. We know that the Corporate Media would, and did, trumpet the hell out of The Crazy and never let a single reasoned voice get on air the whole month. A much more docile and less activist Corporate Media in '94 wrought destruction.
The people who needed convincing, and their spines starched, were the Democratic Legislators. And we have seen a large faction of them break ranks and run.
This whole exercise should have been about getting them to vote FOR their constituents, not against them. And instead, we had the traveling TownHall Three Ring Circus as our prescription for getting the President over the HealthCare Hump?
Pure lunacy.
Again, the people who needed to be convinced, since Inauguration, were the Dem Legislators. We knew the Republicans would follow, or enhance, the 1994 slaying of healthcare blueprint. Only, they have much more Media help and many more tricks (internet) than in 94. And we knew not a single Republican was likely to help healthcare reform.
Convincing the people was an act of foolishness and redundancy. It was the elected Dems who needed shepherding and discipline. Instead, we ended up giving cover to their capitulation and defection with the craziest Month I have ever witnessed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DickTater
September 9, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to DickTater
meant to say 70% approval FOR
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
September 9, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to DickTater
It's absolutely true that August was a disaster, but it's unfair to say that the WH had anything to do with the recess for the purpose of convincing people. I recall he fought like hell to get everything wrapped up before the August recess; and the House did exactly that. Even the Senate HELP committee passed something. The problem -- as everyone knew all along -- was Baucus/Finance. Sure it was painful to watch, and sure he didn't handle it well, but to blame the timing on Obama is a distortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DickTater
September 9, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to George C
I didn't blame the timing on Obama. I didn't blame anything specifically on Obama. He has advisers, you know. He has a House and Senate leadership who are supposed to be on the same team.
I said, basically, who thought TownHalls during August was the way to handle this?
Convincing The People was the LAST thing that needed doing. Asking The People to chime in with a thousand questions and fewer answers was not going to drive legislation, or make the DeathPanel 6 cough up a good bill. They let AstroTurf Amerikkka have the mic for a whole month! Was that smart?
My comments had nothing to do with timing or pinning it all on Obama. Maybe it was Rahm or Axelrod...maybe it was just a lack of planning or timing....dropping the ball. They got to a dead-end and the timing was purely coincidental.
It is the Dems I am blaming, and some of that goes all the way to the top. But no matter how you look at this, the ball got dropped, seriously dropped, and AstroTurf Amerikkka has still got it and is still running the other way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rpasley
September 9, 2009 12:13 PM
When Obama says that Republicans are reverting to tactics from their '93 playbook, why doesn't he complete the thought by saying that it didn't help America then, and it won't help America now? Am I a better political communicator than the WH? God save us...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?