Jane Rebuts Mrs. Greenspan’s CW with Mr. Bayh’s Conflict

Jane’s appearance on MSNBC today was pitch perfect punditry.

Not only was Jane beautiful, in control of the facts, and poised, but I especially love the way Jane smacked down Andrea Mitchell’s beltway Conventional Wisdom. When Mitchell started suggesting that the co-ops were the middle ground, Jane turned this onto supporters of the co-ops.

Mitchell: Kent Conrad and other more conservative Democrats who have been negotiating these compromises in Senate Finance say that there will be no bill if there’s a public option.

Hamsher: Well, with 76% of the country in favor of it, you’ve got Democrats like Joe Crowley, like Charlie Rangel, like Ed Markey who are going to have trouble going back to their districts that have 22% Democratic advantage and saying "I gave the farm away to the insurance companies."

Mitchell: So you’ve got the House that’s committed to this, that say they won’t do anything if it doesn’t have a public option, and you’ve got the Senate saying they won’t do it if there is a public option. Is there a compromise there that does involve those co-ops, or is it better to have nothing?

Hamsher: Well, the compromise is the public plan–that’s the compromise down from single payer. So that is the middle ground. And frankly I would like to see Democrats like Evan Bayh and like Max Baucus stand on the floor of the Senate and filibuster the Democratic program that 76% of the country …

Mitchell: But Jane that’s not gonna happen. It’s not where they are.

Hamsher: Uh, why not?

Mitchell: Because that’s not where they see their constituency. That’s not where Evan Bayh sees more conservative Democrats in his state of Indiana.

Hamsher: Evan Bayh’s wife is on the Board of Wellpoint. So I think that he’s going to have a problem doing something that tanks the Democratic plan that strongly favors something that he has a financial interest in. There’s a whole lot of insurance money going to these Senators and that’s going to be something that people are going to be looking into if that’s how this winds up.

Mitchell: Civil war?

Hamsher: I think that there’s going to be a problem. I think that the White House did not factor in that members of the House would have a very difficult time in their heavily leaning Democratic districts taking a bad vote and there are enough of them that could keep this thing from passing without Obama stepping in and committing to get the public plan that he campaigned on.

Look at what was happening here. Mitchell was trying to talk down to Jane, to suggest that she was being naive for suggesting that Bayh, and not progressives, should back down and accept the public option. In doing so, Mitchell was committing journalistic fraud–anyone presenting these issues and pretending this is about Bayh’s "conservative Democrats in his state" and not his wife and donors is simply committing journalistic fraud. So Jane turned it on Mitchell, suggesting Mitchell was the stupid one.

Mitchell’s correctly presenting DC Beltway wisdom here. But Jane’s demonstrating the degree to which the CW that Mitchell presents as news hides the underlying truths behind this issue.

190 replies
  1. Sparkatus says:

    Ouch. That’s got to hurt. And yet again, useful news coming from the DFH left.

    I didn’t know Bayh’s wife was on board at Wellpoint.

    And I wonder how often Andrea noted that she was married to Greenspan when she was talking financial news…

    • tejanarusa says:

      i bet Mitchell didn’t know it, either.
      After all, digging up facts that illustrate background of people who support one thing or another, that’s no longer what journalists are about./s

      Although I don’t watch her often, I’ve never heard Andrea Mitchell mention her husband when discussing one of the many issues he’s involved with.

    • CasualObserver says:

      I didn’t know Bayh’s wife was on board at Wellpoint.

      I didn’t either. JH cut Bayh a new one with that. That should be used much more. And it will be just as effective in Indiana as elsewhere.

      Hammer him.

      • Sufilizard2 says:

        The Indianapolis Star (mostly a Republican mouthpiece) actually highlighted that fact recently. If Bayh get’s too out front in trying to undermine health care reform, the chances for a possible primary challenger might start to look up.

    • solerso says:

      she’s on THE board. the board of directors. and thats not the only one either. evan bayh secure a 16 million dollar GRANT …… A FUCKING GRANT. for well point insurance a few years ago.

    • Broadstreetbuddy says:

      OOOOHHhhh, she was married to Greenspan, I did not know that. I just thought you guys were saying that becuase they both look alike in the face similiar to walking skeletons.

  2. Pade says:

    We are so lucky to have Jane on our side. Smart, quick with facts, perfect to put the lie to “conventional wisdom. Thank you Jane for all you do.

  3. skdadl says:

    Jane is so good! so good in that exchange!

    From her opening stumble, Mitchell looked and sounded uncertain and ill-informed and just plain tired. When Jane mentioned that Bayh’s wife was on the Wellpoint board, Mitchell was just this side of a gasp, and you could feel that — she is really not used to interviewing people who can break through to some tough truths.

    Shouldn’t Mitchell be thinking about retirement? I remember her from the days I used to watch television, and that’s a long long time ago.

    • dick c says:

      “From her opening stumble, Mitchell looked and sounded uncertain and ill-informed …”

      Mitchell also looked like she was arguing a weak-ass position. They have to keep “focus” on things like “Obama wants to kill grandma” and people carrying guns.

      • perris says:

        the fact that mitchell had jane on means they want a legitimate counter point, this is more then I can hope for on corporate media so I am quite happy with this developement

    • MonkeyBoy says:

      From her opening stumble, Mitchell looked and sounded uncertain

      That wasn’t a stumble, it was intentional – Mitchell apologized something about having problems reading. Really this was Villager speak saying “I am a really important person and you are so unimportant that I have never heard of you or FireDogLake and didn’t bother to prepare for this interview”.

      I’ve seen this ‘mispronunciation putdown’ often. Maybe we should keep a record.

      • sadlyyes says:

        Really this was Villager speak saying “I am a really important person and you are so unimportant that I have never heard of you or FireDogLake and didn’t bother to prepare for this interview”.
        spot on
        Atrios used to call them the HEATHERS….apropos

    • pmorlan says:

      That’s it in a nutshell. People like Mitchell aren’t used to talking with people who have a command of the facts. The only thing Mitchell has a command of is the beltway narrative. She knows nothing about the facts. Weiner did the same thing as Jane when he was on CNBC. He was well versed in the facts and the Republican spin that the CNBC people were trying to use went down in flames when Weiner was able to argue FACTS.

      Great job, Jane! Woo Hoo!

  4. Bluetoe2 says:

    Does anyone have the feeling that hidden somewhere in the dark recesses of Andrea Greenspan’s attic their is a portrait of her that is becoming more grotesque with each passing day?

  5. amilius says:

    Mrs. Greenspan is apparently unaccustomed to dealing with an informed counterpoint to the Beltway Villager CW. Great job, Jane.

  6. JimWhite says:

    That was just tremendous. Someone in an earlier thread said that if a bill is passed including a public option that it should be called the Jane Hamsher Health Reform Act. I second the recommendation.

  7. SaltinWound says:

    Yes, great job by Jane, but you’re quoting the one part that I found confusing. It starts when Andrea says, “that’s not gonna happen. It’s not where they are.” What’s not going to happen? A filibuster? It’s what Jane was just talking about, but, in context, I think Andrea is referring to a public plan. Still the net effect is that I have no idea which plan Jane’s talking about by the time she says, “I think that he’s going to have a problem doing something that tanks the Democratic plan that strongly favors something that he has a financial interest in.”

    Hilarious how Andrea stumbled out of the box with “freedoglake.” Jane really made her look like a relic. When Andrea came up with the bit about conservatives in Illinois, it was clear she was completely vamping.

  8. tejanarusa says:

    No, for a moment I thought Mitchell was referring to a filibuster not happening, but she finished saying “that’s not where Evan Bayh sees his his constituents”, so she clearly meant, what’s not happening is their voting for a public option.
    And that is how Jane understood it, that’s clearly what she’s responding to in her answer. So yes, she ’s talking about Bayh “tanking” a public plan.

    This is so great. The financial conflicts of interest in Congress just never get talked about on tv unless there’s already an investigation by some law enforcement agency. With law enforcement, crickets.

    Of course, I worry that after that smackdown Jane will never be invited on regular MSNBC (non Rachel, Keith, Ed, or Shuster-who knows her from the Libby trial) again.

    • Petrocelli says:

      I think the conflict in Congress really needs to be spotlighted. KO did this to some degree but more of this is required.

  9. dakine01 says:

    I loved Jane’s look after Mrs Greenspan’s “Civil War?” comment. It looked to like “So? What’s your point?” and Mrs Greenspan had no point.

    • tejanarusa says:

      infotainment, again. Look for the conflict, never mind the good of the couuntry, let alone its citizens.

      • puravida says:

        ‘Zactly. Ratings bonanza. Get Carville and Tucker shouting at each other, bring in a Blue Dog and some supposed liberal like, oh, I dunno, Harry Reid, and and a Repub nutjob like Peter King and have an “honest debate.”

        Until someone says, “Blowjob.”

    • Teddy Partridge says:

      Mitchell was looking for a “dems in disarray” headline out of her interview with Jane. Instead, she got a “dems compromised by dollars” headline.

    • JimWhite says:

      Yes, I can see that she was fair. I just can’t see how she can hold an anchor’s seat and remain so dreadfully unaware of what forces are really in play. Thanks again for pointing them out so clearly.

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, I do think she was being fair (that’s what I meant when I said she was presenting CW accurately). But that’s what counts as news–CW, with no questioning of why or wherefore.

      At some point, people have to look at what it means when Baucus and Bayh start issuing threats.

      • tejanarusa says:

        CW, with no questioning of why or wherefore.

        Ding, ding! Can you imagine 1974 with today’s media –
        “What about what the Democrats say about your connection with that burglary over in the WAtergate building, Mr. Nixon?”

        “Oh, we had nothing to do with that. Just some rogue underlings who went too far. We’ve fired them, and there’ll be no more of that zealotry. You can stop worrying.”

        And that would have been that.

        • dakine01 says:

          Except if you remember, it pretty nearly was like that, if not for a couple of reporters on the Metro desk. I believe it was Joe Alsop who presented the common wisdom of the day amongst the national press corp that H2Ogate was nothing more than a third-rate burglary so what was the fuss?

          • tejanarusa says:

            Ummmm, true dat. Still, I think there were more real reporters than (as opposed to the j-school grads who expect to earn big bucks and therefore hob-nob with the folks they cover), but you’re absolutely right. I’d forgotten where that “third-rate burglary” quote came from.

      • gundersonrogers says:

        Key here is Jane’s articulation that Public Option IS the compromise; Single Payer is what We, the People want. Anything short of these is not reform. Period.

    • Arbusto says:

      Weiner held his own, so to speak ;-. We need more intelligent reps such as he in Congress. Very impressive responses given the three to one, though I was glad the anchors had a good discussion instead of a shouting match.

      Kudos again to you.

  10. SaltinWound says:

    Well, Andrea opened with the teaser about civil war. So she already knew, as they got to the end of the interview, that she was going to say, “Civil war?” It’s the one thing she was totally prepared for.

    • pdaly says:

      That “civil war” meme appeared as well on NPR today when discussing the health care reform.
      The term ‘civil war’ probably tested well in public opinion polls.
      Wonder how ‘French Revolution’ tested…

  11. MichaelDG says:

    Andrea Mitchell tries again at the end – signs off with “Jane Hamsher from fryer-a-dog lake, thank you so much.”

  12. posaune says:

    Jane, just awesome! Awesome!
    A Force I tell You! A Force!

    No wonder Valerie Jarrett remembered to say hi to Jane!

  13. solerso says:

    thanks Jane. I dont know if mitchell was suprised that bayh’s wife is the board of directors for a huge insurance conglomerate, or that jane pointed that out on the MSM. [mitchel]-”"gasp”" “am i fired”????

    • tejanarusa says:

      Honestly, I didn’t hear a gasp. Listened for it having read the comments; I think I heard Jane take a breath, but nothing from A.M.
      Jane? Your take?

      • DeanOR says:

        This is hilarious. Jane is trying so hard to not say “Evan Bayh is getting blowjobs from the insurance industry”. Andrea is trying to not say (until later) “Get this crazy bitch out of here”.

  14. zgveritas says:

    Thanks Jane for saying what needs to be said over and over again:

    “The Public Option IS the compromise. Single payer is preferable.”

    MSM and Repubs have been effectively controlling the dialogue here. Supporters of meaningful reform are losing. Although a single interview with Mitchell is no Waterloo at least Jane frames the issue properly.

  15. Gnome de Plume says:

    Jane’s beautiful explanation of Even Bayh’s “problem” is where this so-called debate needs to be centered. It was masterfully placed. Rachel did a few tricks like this on Dick Armey yesterday. No wonder DFH’s don’t get invited to the table much.

    • tejanarusa says:

      Hey, gnome!
      yeah, heaven forbid someone be invited to appear who will point out what’s really important, instead of, oh say, how Hllary’s hair looks in heat of Africa.

  16. Jkat says:

    sic ‘em jane and stay on ‘em … and if you need a few bucks for travel expenses .. let me know gal .. i’m with ya 1000% … keep pluggin’ and sluggin’ hon .. you’re doing a wonderful job

    Jane Hamsher for health care czar !!!

    • Bobster33 says:

      mitchell’s “having toruble with the eyes today”..maybe she needs better coverage.

      I think that Jane did a great job but could have made a snide comment about Andrea’s health insurance. Also, I think every Leftie making a media appearance should ask the Rethuglicans if they have health insurance and if they like the coverage and say, so you are not one of the 50 million people who is without health insurance.

  17. posaune says:

    I don’t know which is more gratifying:
    outing Bayh on wellpoint or the mitchell smackdown!


  18. Twain says:

    Mrs. Greenspan has been spending some quality time with her plastic surgeon – she’s 63 and past the sell-by

  19. allan says:

    Evan Bayh’s top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
    Contributor Total Indivs PACs

    Goldman Sachs $55,150 $55,150 $0
    Orrick, Herrington $50,816 $45,816 $5,000
    & Sutcliffe
    ActBlue $45,468 $45,468 $0
    Latham & Watkins $41,850 $41,850 $0
    Winston & Strawn $35,750 $33,750 $2,000

    Act Blue?!^#$&**#!
    Please shoot me.

    • Jkat says:

      Act Blue?!^#$&**#!
      Please shoot me.

      yeah .. save a bullet for me too ..

      i’m sorry …but now being aware of that.. Act Blue is going to have to do much better than this .. just wait ’til the next time they solicit funds from me .. they’re going to have a case of “hot ear”…

      • Teddy Partridge says:

        Act Blue is a portal; anyone can set up an Act Blue page. Probably, Evan Bayh has an Act Blue page (or two) for people to donate to him online. The fault lies in the aggregated reporting; no one from Act Blue actually donated to Bayh, just lots of people donating through Act Blue.

      • Peterr says:

        I think you may be confusing a couple of different things here.

        ActBlue is a basic online fundraising engine, that just about anyone can use to set up an online vehicle for any democratic candidate. There’s no vetting beyond a basic “is this person a Democrat?”

        Blue America, on the other hand, is designed to support strong progressive candidates, with the vetting headed up by Howie Klein. Howie often brings these candidates to FDL for chats.

        Blue America uses the ActBlue platform, but they are two very, very different things.

  20. Winski says:

    Good !! Thanks Jane…Mitchell has turned into such a hack over the last couple of years but it has really begun to show in 2009…It seems like she has intentionally gotten more Beck-Like in her reasoning and has lost sight of what we are trying to accomplish..Almost like she wishes for the days of Chimpy and Darth….yyyyuuuucccckkkk…..OR she’s really auditioning for a time slot of her own at Cluster-Fox !

  21. oldtree says:

    That was excellent Jane, reason first. Facts. Poor Andrea just doesn’t seem to want to say the name of the site correctly.
    it’s called, FIRE DOG LAKE DOT COM DEAR ANDREA. (sorry for the gratuitous use of capitals but twice mistaking the identity of your guest is tipsy)

  22. AZ Matt says:

    DKos recommend diaries this moment are very heavy duty public option including Jane Hamsher: Sorry Obama, you can’t pass a bill without it.

  23. puravida says:

    “Not only was Jane beautiful, in control of the facts, and poised…”

    What I find fantastic is that the MSM brings on people like Jane (and Marcy!) and instead of being firebreathing liberal she devils they are, um, well, beautiful, in control of the facts, and poised. I believe that’s called a win win.

  24. Raven says:

    How come we get all pissy when the media talks about how women look and what they wear and then go on and on with this shit about Mitchell?

        • tejanarusa says:

          Thanks, Raven. As you see slightly above, some of us do get pissy….
          I held off for the first few, but I think it’s gone on more than long enough. (If we all didn’t talk about the looks of women in public so much, they wouldn’t feel the necessity to get plastic surgery.
          I’m still wondering why [?] the best reporter in local tv here was suddenly gone shortly afte her 49th birthday…contract not renewed. While her co-anchor, male is around my age, pushing 60 and starting to show it, but no hint of his leaving.
          Just saying.

    • yellowsnapdragon says:

      Don’t see anything wrong with levity as long as we give equal weight to the unattractiveness of a male anchor like say, Lou Dobbs. He could use a few meals from Jenny Craig. Not to mention a tan.

    • MrWhy says:

      I agree. The implication is that either a woman has to be young or she has to have cosmetic surgery if she expects to be a Talking Head. Let them age gracefully, like Diane Keaton.

  25. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Hamsher: Evan Bayh’s wife is on the Board of Wellpoint. So I think that he’s going to have a problem doing something that tanks the Democratic plan that strongly favors something that he has a financial interest in. There’s a whole lot of insurance money going to these Senators and that’s going to be something that people are going to be looking into if that’s how this winds up.

    My God, this statement was a thing of rare and extraordinary beauty.

  26. klynn says:

    Hamsher: I think that there’s going to be a problem. I think that the White House did not factor in that members of the House would have a very difficult time in their heavily leaning Democratic districts taking a bad vote and there are enough of them that could keep this thing from passing without Obama stepping in and committing to get the public plan that he campaigned on.

    Jane, well stated.

    EW, Jane walks out the point I was trying to make on the Rahm thread. With torture, I do not think the WH is factoring in the difficult time members are going to have back in their districts on torture when moderates favor investigations too.

    The health care issue illustrates this point perfectly.

  27. jhwoodyatt says:

    Nicely done, Jane. I could watch the interval from 2:47 to 3:13 over and over again for the rest of the day it wouldn’t get old. Set them up and knock them down. That was a thing of beauty.

  28. perris says:

    “the public option IS the compromise from single payer”


    IF obama is serious about the public option he will “co-opt” that right there, that is excellant

  29. Sufilizard2 says:

    I’m starting to get a bit of a crush on Jane (don’t worry, not in a creepy way). That was a fantastic appearance.

    And as one of those “conservative” Democrats in Indiana I can say that we’re scrambling to find a good primary opponent for that corrupt POS.

    • tejanarusa says:

      You know, having grown up in Indiana long enough ago to recall when his father, Birch Bayh, was a young fresh face (like myself!), and was considered way liberal, I think Evan is another excellent illustration of my prejudice against voting for anyone who’s part of a recent-office-holding family.
      Birch grew up in Indiana, afaik (don’t know what his economic state was); but by virtue of his several senate terms, Evan probably spent his formative years in D.C. Good chance he went to private school, maybe even for good reasons.
      That means, sadly, his values and his peer group are different from those of his father, and he is all about the corporate money. (I can’t say for sure Birch wasn’t, we didn’t have this kind of access to info in his day. But I don’t recall him voting so crassly in an anti-Democratic way, which Evan does. While blaming his constituents.)
      This is part of why I didn’t want Hillary to be the nominee, and I think some of Al Gore’s communication-with-the-average-voter problems stem from a similar background.

  30. allan says:

    Top recipients of campaign funds from Wellpoint’s PAC.
    Some of the Democratic names will shock you. I’m sure.
    But, since both Schumer and Gillibrand are on the list, I guess people in glass states shouldn’t throw …

    • Kathryn in MA says:

      i’m always amazed at how little the donations can be for the congresspeeps to sell their soul.

  31. Justinajustice says:

    Jane, superb execution! In fact, you just about executed Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad and Max Baucus, all in one short, concise shot. Even Andrea Mitchell got a bit wounded in the fray. Great job!

  32. JimWhite says:

    Hmmm, the market tanked today (Dow down 2%, NASDAQ down 2.75%), and yet from Reuters:

    The insurance industry also was pleased. Shares of health-insurance companies rose.

    The S&P Managed Health Care index of large U.S. health insurers increased 4.2 percent. UnitedHealth Group Inc shares rose 4.4 percent, WellPoint Inc jumped 3.8 percent, Aetna Inc increased 4.7 percent, and Coventry Health Care rose 6.8 percent.

    Talk of abandoning the public option makes health insurance stocks go up on down day. And look who’s there, going, up: WellPoint.

    • Sufilizard2 says:

      Good, now maybe all these corrupt politicians can sell their stock at a profit now and get back to working for the good of everyone. (I say get back, as if there was some point in time they were actually doing this).

    • zgveritas says:

      I think the more likely reason for the Health Stocks going up today was that Berkshire Hathaway announced that they took a very large stake in a medical device maker. If the Oracle of Omaha is buying that sector maybe there are some compelling values there and the recent noise has beaten them down too far.

      Anyone investing/trading big money is not going to take Fox’s reporting on statements taken out of context and treat that as actionable information.

      • Jkat says:

        meh .. medical device mfg.. vs health care insurers… apples and oranges .. imo ..

        and @ peterr in 102 .. yeah you’re correct .. i HAD conflated ActBlue and Blue America .. thanks for the correction ..

  33. ThingsComeUndone says:

    Jane was great Best appearance Ever! You were informed prepared and Standing Tall everything the experts on TV normally are not if the networks are smart you should get on tv a lot more:)

  34. masaccio says:

    From Wellpoint’s proxy statement:

    Susan B. Bayh, age 49, has been a director of the Company since 2001 and a director of Anthem Insurance from 1998 to May 2003. Ms. Bayh was a Distinguished Visiting Professor in the College of Business Administration at Butler University from 1994 until 2004. She was a member of the International Joint Commission between the United States and Canada from 1994 to 2001. Ms. Bayh is a director of Dendreon Corporation (biotechnology), Curis, Inc. (biomedical), Emmis Communications Corporation (media), and Dyax Corporation (biopharmaceutical company).

    She owns 14,724 shares of stock, which closed today at $53.86, giving a total value of $790,678.80.

    In a totally unrelated matter, the Dow Jones headline for the market results today is

    MARKET SNAPSHOT: U.S. Stock Investors Slam Everyone But Insurers

  35. torgo2009 says:

    Evan Bayh is one of my senators. Prior to that he was a hugely popular governor in a state that usually goes Republican in presidential elections. I’ve always liked him but it was a heart breaker to see how much his wife was getting serving on various boards (almost a mil per year).
    I guess in the end most anyone can be purchased.

    • boogiecheck says:

      Evan Bayh is one of my senators. Prior to that he was a hugely popular governor in a state that usually goes Republican in presidential elections.

      Fellow Hoosier here.

      A few things:

      1. He wasn’t popular with state employees, as he froze state employee wages for three years while governor.

      2. His father, Senator Birch Bayh, was honest enough to speak out on what really happened at Kent State on May 4, 1970.

      In 1970, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover responded to questions from then-Congressman John Ashbrook by denying that Norman had ever worked for the FBI, a statement Norman himself disputed.[34] On 13 August 1973, Indiana Senator Birch Bayh sent a memo to then-governor of Ohio, John J. Gilligan, suggesting that Norman may have fired the first shot, based on testimony he received from Guardsmen who claimed that a gunshot fired from the vicinity of the protesters instigated the Guard to open fire on the students.[35] Link

      Evan has fallen waaay far away from the proverbial tree.

  36. tanbark says:

    GRRREAT job, Jane. Big hat-tip. Footrub…dishwash…whatever. :o)

    “Senator Bayh’s wife is on the board at Wellpoint…”

    Ouch! That’s gonna leave a bruise. :o)

  37. i4u2bi says:

    Do Americans …make that most Progressives even know how much Jane’s Whip Campaign has given a ‘public plan’ at least a snowballs chance. Wake up America, Jane is turing the tide of Dem policy by exposing all the conflicts of interest and political hypocracy. God love’er!

  38. tanbark says:

    Funny how, with Hamsher, Andrea gets into the “but so-and-so says…” contraire stuff VERY readily, but when it’s a one of the people opposing real change, the questions are made of cotton candy and angel food cake.

  39. Disgusted says:

    I find it quite odd..That Bayh would be so strongly against any such measure(s) assuring health care for all..Considering Evan Bayh is a legacy politician, and has spent the majority of his adult life on the taxpayer dime…Hell,he was raised on “socialized” health care.

  40. arion says:

    Watching Mitchell is like the Portrait of Dorian Gray. You slowly see the evil rising to the surface. Jane for President!

  41. MtnFrost says:

    I thought Jane was masterful. Clear, to the point. She should be on MORE news channels MORE often. We need people out in front on this like her. Well done!

  42. DickB says:

    I got a call this weekend from the DNC asking me to contribute to encourage a “grassroots effort” to back a public option. I asked if she could guarantee me that the DNC would not give any money to any Dem who didn’t support a public option, she of course could not, so I said, “So, why would I be stupid enough to give you my money?” End of conversation.

  43. Leen says:

    Jane has come a long way since she was first on the MSM some years ago. Total pro now. Total pro on her toes and on target. Go Jane

    You so ripped up Andrea’s argument. You were so on top of it.

    Public option is the compromise

  44. TarheelDem says:

    APPLAUSE CHEERS Give ‘em hell Jane, well no, just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.

    Seems MSNBC relegated this to their slowest server. Or there are a lot of hits.

  45. masaccio says:

    Also from the proxy statement:

    During 2008, each non-employee director received 4,656 phantom shares of our common stock for the annual retainer grant of shares of our common stock on the date of our annual meeting of shareholders (May 21, 2008)

    She was paid an additional $77,019 in cash for total compensation in 2008 of $325,000.

  46. nahant says:

    Late to the thread!
    Jane you explained our position with such detail and eloquence, as always you have all your ducks in a ROW!!
    Thanks Jane for leading this fight against Big moneyed Insurance companies who are raping the public of their right to good affordable health care!!

    You Rock!!

  47. SoFlaJet says:

    I love the new doo Jane. Damn, that woman does something to me…and I’m a brunettes guy. Oh yea great job on the facts.

  48. nahant says:

    Here is little study on how well the VA works against mainstream health Care:
    Obama Addresses Veterans — A Constituency That Benefits

    The VA “outpaces other systems in delivering patient care,” consistently delivering higher quality health care more efficiently. A recent study by the RAND corporation found that “VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care” and “received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow up”:

    As I have said many times before I have experienced the VA health system and it always has gotten me the care and Doctors I have needed and I have needed them. They have no rationing at all! Yes sometimes you have to make a stink but you can always get to the specialty that is needed!! Just saying! Base Single Payer on the VA for scale of operation and the ability to negotiate with the Drug companies for better prices, they are the only Government entity that does!!

  49. tejanarusa says:

    OMG – not really OT –
    Robert Siegel on ATC asking Kent Conrad why a co-op would be better than govt-run plan – his answer, first — it would get bi-partisan support.
    Next, it wouldn’t be government run.
    At least Siegel is asking the right questions.
    Too late probably.

  50. sadlyyes says:

    yes,im trying to remember the heinous things AM said during Boosh/Cheney,and the election,that made me abhor her….tick tick…ill have to think on it

  51. yellowsnapdragon says:

    Oh, Good God! No one can dish out the petty, shallow jabs at public figures like they do here at the lake. Don’t make me go through withdrawals! Damn, catty snark is about 1/3 of the reason I hang out here!

  52. BeBop says:

    Bayh is one of my senators and he runs on his fathers coat-tails.
    As far as I’m concerned he is a Knumbskull and should be challenged from the Left. Problem is Indiana can barely elect Him…So anything further Left is pretty much undoable. His only concern is his own re-election.
    Can’t count on his vote.

  53. bgrothus says:

    I was out today and talked to a number of people who are just crazed over the “co-op-ted” talking point. I am wondering if it is possible that catapulting this crap is done to make sure we keep hitting back, to stir us up?

    Whether yes or no, I happened to chat with a woman who is working here (one of 4 or 5 young people I saw today) for OFA. I asked her if the health care outcome is really critical to her generation. She said emphatically, “Yes.” She then talked with me in some depth about it. They were all agitated about this talk of co-ops.

    I then ran into a friend who is retired and a little older than I am. She too was really upset about the co-op idea.

    People are really paying attention. I hope the reason we are hearing about the co-ops is to keep us working on this issue, “the public option IS the compromise,” GO Jane.

  54. maryo2 says:

    I am in agreement with those who had rather not harsh on a woman’s appearance. It is a step backward for all of us who do the face-to-face work for our jobs. Looking good ain’t cheap, and kids still need braces and new shoes, and … Where does a woman cut back? On herself, 9 times out of 10. Self confidence gets shot to hell, but bills don’t wait.

    Yes, I know Mrs. Greenspan is not cutting back on her hair appointments, but do we move the bar depending on the target?

  55. fatster says:

    Pelosi To White House: We’re Standing Firm Behind Public Option

    “Nancy Pelosi just blasted out this statement signaling that House Dems are standing firm behind the public option, despite the White House’s apparent softening of support for it over the weekend:”


  56. tanbark says:

    MonkeyBoy @ 154:

    “…and didn’t bother to prepare for this interview…”

    Which is why she got whupped so bad she’s going to need an ass transplant.

    Mitchell, to her staff:

    “Who sicced this woman on to me? Find out and fire them.”

  57. CarolynU says:

    Made me sit right up in my chair. Jane, outa the park. Articulate, informed, totally collected. And Andrea Mitchell pretending she doesn’t know the name of your blog.

  58. WarOnError says:


    It’s a new word. It’s spot on.

    Politicians watch our backs.

    New Bumper Sticker:

    Watch OUR Backs, or You’re Fired

    The new WOB Party, 2010!

  59. doublewide says:

    This clip is a perfect illustration of how incredibly uninformed the mainstream “left-leaning” media really is, from “Freedoglake” at the beginning to “Fryerdoglake” at the end. We have to educate them first, and Jane did a great teaching job with Andrea Mitchell. Jane scored enough excellent points to – maybe!! – prod Andrea Mitchell into checking out a site no self-respecting journalist should admit not knowing about.

    New slogan for Obama: No Public Option? Keep the Change.

    • MonkeyBoy says:

      as mentioned above the mispronunciations of FireDogLake was an intentional passive-aggressive put down to convey to the listeners that she was speaking to an unknown nobody – a person and blog not worth the attention of a very important Heather in the Village.

      • doublewide says:

        Yes, I see that several people are reading more into the mispronunciation than I am. However, if I am correct, that this is an indicator of general ignorance of the progressive blogs, we need to address that. And Jane just did so.

  60. tanbark says:

    WarOnError! That’s a great idea! The new WOBblies. :o)

    As for “reform”: If it doesn’t have a meaningful option for, at the least, competing with the greedballs at Wellpoint, etc., then, my 2c, we should smother it in it’s legislative cradle.

    On a larger scale, we need to wreck the repub shitspeak about “big government threatening the people”. We’ve had 8 years of THAT, and the sooner we shrink the military-industrial complex and get the damn CIA on a short leash(are you there, Leon?), the better we’ll be.

  61. tanbark says:

    The hell of it is, and at this point it’s as evident as a pulsating neon sign 30 feet tall, is that the repubs don’t give a shit about any compromise; they just view that as a sign of weakness, and an adrenaline rush to grind out more bullshit and fearmongering, as they try to use anything to bring down Obama’s numbers.

    If he came out in favor of a nationwide cockroach eradication program, they’d discover their inner zen-cucaracha selves.

    • bmaz says:

      The hell of it is that Obama is losing serious ground through all this; it is bad policy as well as bad politics. Granted it is early and consider the sources, but Charlie Cook and Par Buchanan are both on MSNBC agreeing, along with Matthews, that as of right now the Democrats stand to lose 20-25 seats in the House. I think that is too much, but I do think they may be losing seats at this point, and that alone is astonishing. Bleech.

      • gundersonrogers says:

        Dems losing seats?
        –if they don’t start representing We, the People, they’re liable to lose the entire Party.
        Didn’t we send a strong enough, clear enough message in 08?
        It’s Capitalism vs. Democracy, and unless We, the People start recapturing some representation in DC, we’ll look elsewhere.

        Perhaps FDL might begin a special bulletin board, posting Dem members of Congress who screw their constituents. Then, we need a major grassroots action to toss ‘em in favor of actual “representative” who won’t cave to lobbyists.

        • CTMET says:

          How about a spot on that board for Joe Lieberman, and his wifes work representing the insurance industry.

          How about some ads in CT. Tell Joe Lieberman to start representing you instead of his wife’s employer.

  62. tanbark says:

    I think you’re probably right, Bmaz. The asshats are making political capital out of the “debate”, particularly since their end of it is looking like a successful Munich beerhall putsch, as so much of the MSM continues to portray their mouthfrothing volk-gibberish as honest indignation at Obama’s attempt to have some kind of government KGB take over health care in the country.

    But if we’re going to talk about losing seats in 2010, I fear that the real hammer is going to be that we can’t leave Iraq (nor, clearly, Afghanistan) without what’s left being anything BUT user-friendly to amurka. We can work out something on health care…probably something that’s cosmetic relative to real change, but the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is steadily moving out of our hands. Either Obama is going to have to eat the reality of removing a lot of our military in Iraq, or he’s going to have to eat his campaign promise to get our “combat troops” out…whatever that may mean.

    Either way, the best-case result will be a Shiite-dominated state that is hand-in-glove with Iran (which will freak out both the Saudis and the Israelis, just to span the spectrum) with festering and persistent violence, or, if we leave, the factionalism will take off like a rocket, and it could really get ugly.

    All that Obama has done is to more or less continue Bush’s policies in Iraq, in hopes that things will improve of their own impetus. I hope I’m wrong, but I am skeptical.

    • CTMET says:

      Well the surge worked. The purpose of the surge was to pass the problem on to the next administration.

      Back on topic – Jane totally rocks. I’d love to see Jane and EW doubleteam some of these folks.

  63. PJEvans says:

    The captive-audience screens in the elevators where I work keep having ads from Anthem talking about how much they care about us.

    Yeah, right. Pull the other one, maybe you’ll get music.

  64. tanbark says:

    [email protected]; perzackly. George Bush’s legacy is that what used to be Iraq is going to be a problem for a long, long, time, and there is going to be the question of who gets blamed if it implodes or even partitions (with THAT set of problems) during Obama’s term or terms.

    As you say, back on topic: Hamsher is righteously kicking ass. :o)

  65. hackworth1 says:

    Jane, Andrea Greenspan called and asked if you could remove your metaphorical boot from her “conventional wisdom of Evan Bayh” ass.

  66. letsgetitdone says:

    Great job, Jane, and also great summary Marcy. What never ceases to amaze me is the gall of Senators and representatives who serve their donors so visibly while insisting that their judgment has not been effected by enormous campaign contributions.

    Will Evan Bayh really hesitate to vote against the Democratic position, just because everyone in Indiana will think that he is doing so because he has been bought and paid for by the insurance companies? I hope so; but I really wonder.

    Also, since the Public Option is the compromise; and the President is repudiating the compromise, does that mean we can now repudiate it and go back to advocating for Medicare for All?

  67. oldoilfieldhand says:

    Jane! You rock! Thank you for using the time on national MSM to represent the views of the people of this country. It’s too bad the people we elect to do what you are doing don’t.

  68. Aluluei says:

    Am I the only person who didn’t know, and is stunned to learn, that Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan? Is this common knowledge? How many other insider relationships are there? Is there a database where I can look up all the family ties between media, industry and government figures?

Comments are closed.