I would hope that no one is actually surprised that when you poll health care mandates in isolation, they're unpopular. Nor, as I'm hearing some suggest, is this fact exonerating evidence for Obama's position. Quite the opposite, in fact.Any health reform plan worth the paper it's printed on will have some unpopular provisions. You hope the whole is more popular than the part is unpopular, and you move forward, fighting for the plan that you think strikes the best equilibrium between politically possible and substantively sound. Indeed, I remember when Obama was mocking those who spent too much time worrying about survey data, saying things like, "triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do it.” In this case, of course, he is doing it. His campaign is running radio ads in New Hampshire trying to press this superficial, opportunistic advantage. The ad apparently features a man and a woman worrying to each other -- the same set-up, readers will remember, used by the Harry and Louise ads that helped sink health reform in 1994 -- that health mandates "force those who cannot afford health care insurance to buy it, punishing those who don’t fall in line.”This, of course comes from the guy who has a health care mandate for children, and swears that he'll pass one for adults if the need proves acute. But in the short-term, he's trying to squeeze a couple points out of attacking universal health care (remember, this same argument could be made on single-payer: "it forces you to pay the government for your health care, no matter if you can afford it, and punishes those who don't fall in line."). Obama's position on the narrow issue of mandates may indeed poll better than that of his competitors. But it's a worse position. What any president needs to do is prove able to sell smart, comprehensive policies in their totality, using the overarching virtues of the legislation to overwhelm attacks on their vulnerabilities. And, for a time, it looked like Barack Obama would be the candidate with the rhetorical talents to do exactly that. BARACK AGAINST BARACK.
I would hope that no one is actually surprised that when you poll health care mandates in isolation, they're unpopular. Nor, as I'm hearing some suggest, is this fact exonerating evidence for Obama's position. Quite the opposite, in fact.Any health reform plan worth the paper it's printed on will have some unpopular provisions. You hope the whole is more popular than the part is unpopular, and you move forward, fighting for the plan that you think strikes the best equilibrium between politically possible and substantively sound. Indeed, I remember when Obama was mocking those who spent too much time worrying about survey data, saying things like, "triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do it.” In this case, of course, he is doing it. His campaign is running radio ads in New Hampshire trying to press this superficial, opportunistic advantage. The ad apparently features a man and a woman worrying to each other -- the same set-up, readers will remember, used by the Harry and Louise ads that helped sink health reform in 1994 -- that health mandates "force those who cannot afford health care insurance to buy it, punishing those who don’t fall in line.”This, of course comes from the guy who has a health care mandate for children, and swears that he'll pass one for adults if the need proves acute. But in the short-term, he's trying to squeeze a couple points out of attacking universal health care (remember, this same argument could be made on single-payer: "it forces you to pay the government for your health care, no matter if you can afford it, and punishes those who don't fall in line."). Obama's position on the narrow issue of mandates may indeed poll better than that of his competitors. But it's a worse position. What any president needs to do is prove able to sell smart, comprehensive policies in their totality, using the overarching virtues of the legislation to overwhelm attacks on their vulnerabilities. And, for a time, it looked like Barack Obama would be the candidate with the rhetorical talents to do exactly that. 
