More Than Mandates?

The RNC thinks they have a plan of attack for Barack Obama, but it's pretty thin (They'll be focusing on "undisciplined messaging?" This is the Republican Party?). They should probably just read particular liberal blogs for a couple weeks to get some good opportunities. I've seen some very effective smears there (thanks liberal blogosphere!).

One that actually is effective, and worrisome to me as well, is the appearance of Jim Cooper as a surrogate on health care. Cooper, a Representative from Tennessee, offered an alternative health care plan in 1994 that was more business-friendly, and some claim it led to the torpedoing of the Clinton plan.

I was part of the Clinton White House team on the health care reform issue in 1993/94, and no Democrat did more to destroy our chances in that fight than Jim Cooper. We had laid down a marker very early that we thought universal coverage was the most essential element to getting a good package, saying we were to happy to negotiate over the details but that universality was our bottom line.

Cooper, a leader of conservative Dems on the health care issue, instead of working with us, came out early and said universality was unimportant, and came out with a bill that did almost nothing in terms of covering the uninsured. He quickly became the leading spokesman on the Dem side for the insurance industry position, and undercut us at every possible opportunity, basically ending any hopes we had for a unified Democratic Party position. I was never so delighted to see a Democrat lose as when he went down in the 1994 GOP tide.

This is not a universal view. Brad DeLong offers this:

What Mike Lux, "veteran of the Clinton health care wars," knows--but is very careful not to tell you--is that in 1993-1994 health care reform needed 60 votes in the Senate in order to defeat a Dole-led filibuster, and that Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) was vote 55. "undermin[ing] Clinton's health care plan by... [working] with former Senator and current lobbyist John Breaux" translates as "working on bills that might actually pass the senate."

Mike Lux knows this. He just hopes that his readers don't.

The story of the 1994 debacle has a lot to do with Republican intransigence, a lot to do with Democratic variance of opinion, and a lot to do with Hillary Clinton's bad management style. I don't think you can pinpoint any one individual and shoulder all the blame on them.

I do think that health care is going to have to be forced into the conversation in an Obama Administration. However, labor and progressive groups are showing a great willingness to do so, and legislation like that is certain to come up from the Congress, where we should have a nice advantage, and Obama has actually promised health care reform in his first term. So there are many pressure points here, which is how something like this will get done. On foreign policy, which is somewhat more immune to such pressures, I favor Obama's approach. That's really been it for me all along.

Just So You Kmow I'm Alive

Walked about 4 miles around San Francisco yesterday, with another 4 or so planned for today. The links on the side of the page offer an excellent opportunity for analysis. Here are some quick and unformed thoughts:

• Hillary Clinton needs to just hang in there over the next couple weeks. She is down big in Maryland and in Virginia, and today's primaries and caucuses in Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana don't look promising. Maine is tomorrow and that's probably her best shot. I think ads starring oily lobbyists like John Breaux aren't really the place to start.

• It could be worse: you could be John McCain, endorsed by George Allen and Mitch McConnell and John Bolton and George W. Bush:

On Fox News today, Time’s Mark Halperin said, “The President behind the scenes has told people for months that he thought McCain would be the nominee. Even during some of those dark periods he still thought he could win. And also that McCain would be the best to carry forth his agenda.”

Ouch. I think that'll be replayed.

Trent Lott Inc., Open For Business

I'm watching the New Hampshire state dinner, and I saw Howard Dean note that the Democratic ethics reform law chased Denny Hastert and Trent Lott out of the Congress so they could cash in with lobbying shops before the hammer came down. Turns out that Lott and his good buddy John Breaux have teamed up to service corporate America.

Putting weeks of speculation to rest, former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.) confirmed Friday they plan to file paperwork next week to form a powerful lobbying partnership called The Breaux Lott Leadership Group....

“This is not a well kept secret to say the least,” Lott said. “We’ve worked together for many years in the House and Senate and in the leadership together in the Senate. We thought it was a good opportunity and a fun opportunity to work together.

It's so sad. Lott clearly left to cash in because he just couldn't wait to get rich from all those corporate dollars. He tried to lie about it for a while, but it was obvious. I'm sure Dean Broder will get visions of sugar plums from this bipartisan circle jerk (and really, John Breaux is no Democrat), but these two ought to be banished from lobbying their colleagues until every one of them is out of the Congress. That'd be a legitimate ethics law. Our government shouldn't be for sale. And it's a good thing for Howard Dean to bring up. This is a fundamental fault line between the two parties.

Meanwhile, while Lott's replacement Roger Wicker has been installed, Mississippi's Attorney General is suing Haley Barbour to force him to follow the law.

Republican Congressman Roger Wicker (R-MS) was named as the appointee to Trent Lott's Senate seat only two days ago, but the legal wrangling has already begun. State Attorney General Jim Hood (D) has made good on his promise to sue Gov. Haley Barbour (R) over when the special election for the rest of the term ought to be held.

Hood says that the election must take place within the next 90 days under state law, while Barbour maintains that Wicker can serve until the November election. A spring election might give a relatively conservative Democrat a decent shot, while a November race would be much more in favor of the Republican incumbent, running alongside the presidential election.

Good. Keep the pressure on. Barbour is writing his own rules here.