CNN.com recognizes some similarities between the doomed HilaryCare of 1994 and the troubled ObamaCare of 2009. I recognize a few more. In 1994, Hillary unleashed a monstrous 1,100 page plan. Fifteen years later, Obama's congressional allies put forth a byzantine bill of 1,018 pages. One of the most effective pieces of ammunition against Hillarycare sixteen years ago was a chart, often seen upon an easel next to Senator Phil Gramm, entitled "a bureaucratic mess." That, too, has been resurrected to great effect. The political hit that President Clinton took over socialized medicine--losing 54 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate, 12 governorships, and almost 500 state legislatives seats--seems to have struck, albeit on a scale largely unmeasurable thus far, in Obama's downward poll numbers. In 1994, just one congressional Republican--James Jeffords of Vermont, who would later switch parties--voted for HillaryCare. In 2009, there doesn't seem to be an effort to reach out to the minority party. Today, as was the case fifteen years ago, Democrats were the majority party. The inability of Clinton to keep his congressional ranks in check doomed his plan. The same scenario seems to be repeating itself. It's not just that Clinton and Obama so catered to party purists that they alienated just about every Republican; they aliented a substantial number of Democrats, too. And it is this inability to learn from the past that seems the albatross dragging down all Democrat efforts at health-care reform. Whether the would be reformer's name was Truman, Clinton, or Obama, the public's response has been the same: "no" to government-run health care.

I've wondered whether 2010 will be a repeat of 1994. Things appear to be headed that way. Who will the next Newt Gingrich be?

Nicely written. You make some good points.