It is pretty funny that the "Left of the Left" public option is more popular than everyone of its critics. In fact, it is easily the most popular feature of the entire health care reform discussion. Jed Lewison explains:

The most recent Daily Kos poll released today shows the public option is supported by a 58-34 margin, including 57-33 among independents and 81-12 among Democrats. Here's the key thing about about that 58-34 margin, though: with President Obama's favorability rating at 52-43, the public option is now more popular than the president.

It's more popular than President Snowe? No way.

Speaking for me only

Never send Matt Yglesias to negotiate for you, though he is a pretty good apologist. Watch him quaver at Ben Nelson's tactical extremism:

I know a lot of the readers of this blog think that Barack Obama could cause any bill to pass the Senate that he wants if only he were sufficiently spiney, and that any effort to point out the existence of objective impediments to passing legislation is just “shilling” for the White House, but it’s still the case that objective impediments exist. To pass a bill through a non-reconciliation process, you not only need the support of guys like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, you also need the support of even-less-progressive Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. And then there’s Ben Nelson, the most conservative Democrat of all. [. . .] Maybe you can get a public option put in place via reconciliation, in which case you don’t need Nelson, but absent reconciliation you do need Nelson and he’s intransigent.

In terms of bargaining, the response to Ben Nelson FROM Obama should be obvious - "Look Ben, I'd love to do it your way, but the House ain't going to budge. So unless you can work with a public option, I just do not think we can do business. We'll have to do it by reconciliation. Sorry." It doesn't take a genius to know this.

Speaking for me only

Teamsters head James Hoffa capitulates on the public option:

Teamsters President James Hoffa said dropping the so-called public option wouldn’t be a “deal killer” for health-care legislation, signaling a split among leaders of unions that are a core constituency of President Barack Obama. “We’ve got to find out what’s doable,” Hoffa, head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” which airs today. “I think it’s important to get something done this time and declare a victory.”

(Emphasis supplied.) The funny thing is that Hoffa declares card check (EFCA), which is absolutely dead, a deal breaker. The AFL-CIO, through its future head Richard Trumka, has declared a robust public option a must, and its absence a deal breaker with the AFL-CIO and Democrats. The Teamsters are part of the union coalition Change To Win. Hoffa's statement puts pressure on the other unions in the coalition, especially SEIU's Andy Stern (who claims to be a leader in the health care reform fight, see EmptyWheel on Stern's muddled message so far), to make their position on the public option clear.

Speaking for me only

Apparently, Robert Reich is not a part of Ezra Klein's JournOList:

What Obama Must Demand from Congress on Health Care

. . . In order to get anything meaningful through this session of Congress, then, the President will have to give congressional Democrats far more leadership and more cover. . . . [H]e'll need to be specific about what he wants -- especially about three things. I hope says the following next Wednesday, and makes clear to individual members that he means business.

1. I will not stand for a bill that leaves millions of Americans without health care. . . .

2. The only way to cover all Americans without causing deficits to rise is to require that the wealthiest Americans pay a bit extra. . . .

3. Finally, I want a true public insurance option -- not a "cooperative," and not something that's triggered if certain goals aren't met. . . .

Obviously, Robert Reich is delusional.

Speaking for me only

Greg Sargent reports on this letter from Progressive Block leaders Representatives Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey:

Dear President Obama:

Thank you for continuing to work with Members of Congress to draft a health reform bill that will provide the real health care reform this country needs.

We look forward to meeting with you regarding retaining a robust public option in any final health reform bill and request that that meeting take place as soon as possible.

[MORE . . .]

Via Brian Beutler, the Chairman of the Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said:

I truly expect the President to live up to the promises he has made to America about real change and that he truly stands for uninsured Americans and working families that need and are demanding a choice of a competitive public option when he addresses Wednesday's joint session of Congress.

Without a public option, this bill is not real reform. Real reform would lower and contain health care costs, precisely what inclusion of a public option would achieve. Without a robust public option, reform will enrich pharmaceutical and insurance companies because it will lack any significant competition and incentives to drive down health care costs for consumers.

I wonder if Beltway Dems are paying attention. Grijalva is saying that President Snowe's health care reform is not worth capitulating for. No bill without a robust public option.

Speaking for me only

I thought I was done with the subject but it is getting discussion in the Beltway. Ed Kilgore, who I respect, writes:

[Ezra] Klein goes on to address the frustration of party progressives about the unfairness of this disequalibrium of power within the party . . . I'd put it in a slightly different way: if, say, the Progressive Caucus in the House wants a final, definitive test of strength against the Blue Dogs, it might make sense to choose one in which the failure to act is entirely acceptable according to their own principles and priorities. At the same time, Blue Dogs need to be frequently reminded that they will be the very first Democrats to suffer electoral disaster if the President's legislative agenda comes to grief.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ed actually gets it right but does not understand that THIS, the public option and health care reform, is that issue. This is the "final definitive test." And the downside is simply not there for the Progressive Block for holding the line. President Olympia Snowe's health care bill is not worth compromising for in this fight. The Progressive Block will gain political strength in this battle, whether they get concessions from President Snowe or not. No bill at all would be a political win for the Progressive Block IF they hold the line. A bill with a public option is a win for them as well, since it will have happened because they held the line. This is the right fight, the right line, at the right time, for the Progressive Block. At this point, capitulation by the Progressive Block would be the end of them. They really can not back down now. Time for Beltway Dems like Kilgore and people like President Snowe to get that.

Speaking for me only

I think what you’ll see is that while the movement on behalf of the public option certainly wants a public option and believes the public option is important, the larger goal is to “to try and make the federal government more responsive to progressives in the long-term” by engaging in a form of inside-outside organizing and legislative brinksmanship that’s aimed at enhancing the level of clout small-p progressives in general and the big-p Progressive Caucus in particular enjoy on Capitol Hill.

That requires, arguably, some tactical extremism. If you become known as the guys who are always willing to be reasonable and fold while the Blue Dogs are the guys who are happy to let the world burn unless someone kisses your ring, then in the short-term your reasonableness will let some things get done but over the long-term you’ll get squeezed out. And it also requires you to pick winnable fights, which may mean blowing the specific stakes in the fight a bit out of proportion in the service of the larger goal.

(Emphasis supplied.) I am quite unconvinced that Beltway Progressives like Yglesias and Ezra Klein have it right on the policy of health care reform. The health care reform likely to emerge from President Olympia Snowe will mean next to nothing imo. But at least Yglesias is finally absorbing the lesson on political bargaining.

Speaking for me only

Levi Johnston rips Sarah Palin in a new article he's written for Vanity Fair.

For “Me and Mrs. Palin,” Johnston tells Vanity Fair his story about life with the Palin family—with whom he lived for two months after the election—over the course of his two-and-a-half-year relationship with Bristol. He turns a number of commonly held beliefs about the former governor—the purportedly loving mother, devoted wife, and prolific hunter—upside down.

Levi starts out mild, but then heats up, particularly as to her post-election loss conduct: [More...]

The store is in the process of being given away by a particularly inept White House. We can hope I suppose for a miracle, but the handwriting is on the wall. Ezra Klein will tell you whatever comes out will be great, no really, it is. But you know better. My series on the Madman Theory of Political Bargaining has been presented with a classic counterexample - a President we were thinking could be an FDR is quickly becoming a Jimmy Carter. Steve Benen's retelling of the Van Jones kerfuffle explains it all:

In the exchange, Jones was asked why a Republican president working with a Republican Congress can pass more of its agenda than a Democratic president working with a Democratic [Congress]. "Well, the answer to that is, they're a**holes," Jones said. He added, "Barack Obama is not an a**hole. Now, I will say this: I can be an a**hole, and some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama, are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity."

(Emphasis supplied.) That tells the tale. Our last hope is that the Progressive Block gets uppity. Obama won't do the political bargaining for us.

Speaking for me only

There is always a tension for Democrats regarding how to treat Democratic politicians. Republicans are always so much worse, thus the impulse is to defend or go easy on Dem pols. The thing is, we really want to support them in the most vociferous way. But most of the time they make it hard. Commenting on the story I wrote about here, Digby writes:

This [beat up the progressive base strategy] makes perfect sense because [Obama's] problem is that he's been kow-towing to the left so much that he's lost the country, what with all the war crimes investigations, the tax hikes for the rich, the crackdown on the banks, the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" and the thumbing of his nose at the Republicans every chance he gets. Not to mention the plans for full withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan by 2012 and his full blown assault on the health care industry and insistence on a Canadian style health care system. You'd think Obama would have been far, far more cautious so as not to give the Republican freakshow any possible path to demonize them as "far left." It's not like they could just make stuff up and a lot of people in America would believe it, right?

[MORE . . ]

This Politico article is consistent with a message we have heard for about a month - that Obama will jettison a public option and lean on the Progressive Block to give way. Politico quotes an anonymous administration official:

On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done. We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,” an aide said. “There are lots of different ways to get there.”

(Emphasis supplied.) If true, President Obama will be insuring a dispirited Democratic base in 2010. The Village will love him. Dems? Not so much. If it happens, the Democrats could very well lose the House in 2010. The Progressive Block will have to save Obama from himself.

Speaking for me only