Although Obama had initially introduced the legislation, Inhofe had the decisive say on whether it would move forward. Two other Democratic senators on the committee, Barbara Boxer (CA), and Richard Durbin (IL), said that Obama had little choice except to go along with Inhofe, in order to keep his legislation alive. Both scoffed at Clinton's claims of a "backroom deal" between Obama and Exelon.

"The choice came down to no bill or a weaker bill," said Boxer, who said she is "neutral" in the presidential campaign. "Barack tried desperately to get it through, but got the best thing he could."

The Washington Post concludes Hillary's accusations don't pass the Pinocchio Test:

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has failed to provide evidence to support the New York senator's claim of a secret deal between Obama and the nuclear power plant operator "to protect them from full disclosure." Exelon lobbied Obama over the nuclear notification bill, but it expressed the same concerns to other senators. Had Obama not agreed to the drafting changes, the bill would almost certainly have been blocked by the Republican majority on the Environment Committee.

And, Hillary signed on the Exelon bill as a co-sponsor:

When the revised bill was introduced on September 13, it met with unanimous consent. Senator Clinton issued a press release hailing "this important legislation," saying that it would ensure that the public received "prompt notification" of future leaks at nuclear reactors. On September 25, she signed on as a co-sponsor of the revised bill.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to several e-mail messages and telephone calls. The campaign website cites a Feb. 3, 2008 New York Times article as the source for the senator's claims about a backroom deal between Obama and Exelon. No other member of the committee has come forward to support the Clinton version of events.

It would have happened already if Congress could override Bush's veto.

The "present" votes have been discussed at length--it is just a scare tactic used by Hillary supporters....

Not that I know any A-List bloggers.  But, most of the people I know who support Obama are doing it because of their distaste for Clinton's advisors.  

And I want the people to get the same big discount as the insurance companies get rather than being charged full rate for lack of insurance.

Is that a typo?  Did you mean to say something else.  When I worked for CIGNA, we got absolutely no discount on our insurance.  When we asked about it one time at a sort of "town hall meeting"  with an executive flunky, he said:

"You expect us to give you a discount?"

But, more crucially, my fear about Obama extends beyond the question asked in the headline above.

My fear is that governing, in the traditional sense of setting goals, and designing strategies and creating tactics to achieve those goals--of understanding that when the cheering stops, the ugly, backbreaking trench work starts--doesn't interest him.  

My fear is that Obama believes the bully pulpit is what matters most, and that he is so charismatic and so persuasive that what he proposes will become reality simply because he talks about it.  

My fear is that he believes the speechifying and schmoozing that worked for him in the Illinois Senate--a body dominated by his own party--will work for him with a fractious Congress.  And, more alarming, that it will work for him with a population savagely disunited over core questions--overseas wars, religion, race, privacy, immigration, language, outsourcing--the list goes on, add your own items.

He's traveling a hard road here trying to appease the right and the middle.

On the other hand, I think the country wants to see a politician stand for something and mean it.  Being mealy-mouthed on our side doesn't do it.

So the final insurance plan is not going to be exactly as stated in campaign issue discussion.  We still want to know what the candidate is going to fight for.

Now, I hear you say, it didn't do Edwards any good.  First, the press simply didn't cover Edwards.  Two, after seven  years of Bush crap, people feel burned. And although people liked what Edwards had to say, he was never a complete frontrunner.  It will take someone with obvious strength and clout for people to believe that change can happen*. Then consider the 2006 election and the behavior of the crowd we fought so hard to elect.  Can you blame people for being cynical and apathetic?  So many people I know told me they couldn't vote for Edwards because he wouldn't win.  I responded with Kucinich's remark:  "I can win if you vote for me," but the apprehension of failure was just too high for many of them.

Although the MSM is more friendly to the Republican Party, neither Clinton nor Obama will be ignored by the press as Edwards was. We have to come out fighting and stay fighting.  The question, in addition to policy positions, is Who will Fight?  Clinton or Obama