About Me

My photo
Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Yes, he's still that cool


ukejackson said...

I'll save my kudos until I see what the White House plan looks like on Monday. If there's a public option, he's cool. If not, he's just another smooth-talking Chicago machine hack pol.

Freeman said...

Can't say I see it so simplistically, Uke. I want a public option too, but I'm sure the only reason one would be missing is because it can't pass. At this point, it's about getting a largely good bill passed, instead of getting nothing.

ukejackson said...

Matt, If it forces people to buy health insurance, without a public option, it is a corporate giveaway. The Senate bill was touted as "largely good" and it's not -- it forces people to buy insurance from corporations, and leaves tens of millions uninsured.

Believe me, my feelings about Obama are based on more than the health care bill's final outcome. However, that will be the litmus test. I'll forgive him the appointments of party hacks from inside the beltway to every important position. I'll even forgive him lying about not appointing lobbyists to his white House staff, and then making an exception for a Goldman Sachs stooge.

But if he pushes thru a lousy bill just so he can say he did it, and bet on the people believing him again because they won't know what the bill actually does until too late, then I'll fight hard for a third party candidate next time around.

Freeman said...


I don't see it that way. I see that there are lots of complex factors in the bill and the unpopular ones balance out the ones that will be popular. For example, you can't reduce premiums for everyone unless there's more buy-in to the system overall. Read any serious article about the bill, and you'll see that what's in it, with or without the public option, is huge improvement on our current system. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing...absolutely.

So far, I think he's been doing an exceptional job considering the disaster Bush left him and the fact that the filibuster rules are being abused by the Republican party. I'm curious what, exactly, you'd like to see from him that he's not doing - that is ALSO within his power to do? He can't pass a bill on his own. That's the legislative process.

ukejackson said...

I'd like to see him (and his band of corporate toadies like Emanuel and Summers and Geithner) put out a bill regulating the banking industry -- one for congress to consider. I wish he'd done the same thing with the health care bill, quite frankly, instead of letting the health care lobbyists write it.

Please don't assume that I'm unread on the subject, Matt. I've read quite a few articles -- admittedly from leftist sources, rather than corporate Democrats.

I'd like to see him pull out of Afghanistan, rather than stay there for his entire presidency as now appears to be the case. I'd like to see him pull all the troops from Iraq as he promised, rather than leave 50,000 there indefinitely as he's now proposing.

Sure, he inherited Bush's mess. Instead of disinheriting it, though, he's embraced it.

I'd like to see him lead more and bullshit less. But then, he is a Harvard lawyer and a politician.

Freeman said...

I don't assume you're unread. I just don't agree.

As far as I can tell, they are currently trying to put forth legislation on banking, they put together health insurance reform legislation that has a chance of passing with a super-majority.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, I think we should get the hell out of there as well. But I also know that getting into it (never should have) and dealing with it actively are different. I think Obama's ambivalence (see: the UN speech) is well noted and his ideas about this are well-considered. I think that's hardly "embracing" Bush's wars. It's more like handling them like a statesman.

As for the leading more and bullshit less line: I honestly don't see what you mean. BUSH was a bullshitter. Obama, if anything, gives people too much credit for being reasonable. He laid out the case for healthcare reform and the stimulus in clear, uncertain, sober terms over and over again. If it gets reduced to soundbites...that's our fault. Not his.