I think Ezra seems committed to writing whatever he has to that allows Obama to slip-slide away from being held accountable for where things are on health care.

As for Ezra caring about the public option - which option are we talking about?  I've gotten to the point where, when someone mentions it, I just come out and ask them to define this thing they are calling the public option.  A lot of people have trouble with that, looking at me as if I am supposed to understand the meaning of "public option" in much the same way I was supposed to understand "hope" and "change."  

I can't even tell from day to day if Obama understands what he is talking about when he uses the term - or if he gets yet that ideas alone will not reform anything, and that the details absolutely do matter.

If that's true, then fine.  But if that IS true, then DON'T make an argument that Obama is a Miracle Man for trying to press full, amazing, revolutionary healthcare reform, which not even LBJ tried to do, blah blah blah.  Ezra argues here that Obama is not trying to push through comprehensive health reform.  This was last month.  Now he implies (with the LBJ reference) that Obama is the first person to ever try full, real reform.  That's just a joke.

What I tried to point out yesterday is that protecting your hero from failure at the cost of allowing your hero to be perceived as impotent is really dumb.

Obama could use better advocates.

"Tried and failed" is better than "it's beyond my control".  I know that Bill or Hillary Clinton would rather be perceived as people who tried and failed instead of otherwise.

And just to point out, for Obama it's not even known for sure that he would be trying and failing.  He could try .... and SUCCEED!!!

The House Republican Conference digs in today to a fact reported recently by Bloomberg's Tim Burger: That the pharmaceutical lobby, PhRMA, has hired the firm David Axelrod founded, AKPD Media -- a fact that raises eyebrows because Axelrod sold the firm under an agreement that left it owing him $2 million, a lot of money for a political media company.

It's hard to imagine a situation in which, say, Karl Rove was still getting checks from a firm that was, in turn, employed by the drug lobby not drawing fire from the left, and Axelrod's arrangement is, a bit belatedly, getting that attention.

And the firt blurb in that link is how Gibbs could not really answer that question when posed to him:

QUESTION: So, speaking of David, have you seen this charge from the Republicans on the Hill that they're asking, "Is he profiting" from a payment he's getting from his firm, his firm involved in the pharma advertising deal?

GIBBS: That's ridiculous. David -- David has left his firm to join public service.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) a $2 million (ph) payout?

GIBBS: An agreement, I think, that was made because David started and owned the firm. He left the firm, and if I'm not mistaken, is being paid for the fact that he created it and sold it, which, I think, is somewhat based on the free market.

I remember when I was a small child and didn't understand the saying "I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused".

Well today, I'm having an amused day. I know it's a defense mechanism, and I'm certain there's a place for me in the Psych-DSM.  But still, it's enjoyable.

If you look at what Dean proposed in 2004, or what he's arguing now, the constant thread is not the public plan, but the path toward single-payer. But as Schmitt says, the public plan being considered isn't a particularly good vehicle for that transition: The relatively liberal version in the House bill can't bargain with Medicare rates and is limited to the few Americans eligible for the exchange. Even so, it's still the part of health-care reform that single-payer supporters identify with their cause, and so it has a unique resonance, even though at this point, the Medicaid expansion and the insurance exchanges and the subsidies are arguably more important.

His writing is so poor and opaque (even for a blogger) it may be hard to see. But that's Ezra's version of coming clean.  He's against the public option.

Why is Klein, apparently, so influential? I read him, among many others, and see nothing that puts him at the top of the class.

Why are these Congress/Senate Reps. so afraid of the drug/insurance/hmo extortionists? Wait a minute, wait a minute; I understand, campaign money, but.....
I see the figures: $1500, $2500, etc. I mean, it's not millions.( I'm talking "each") Wouldn't the benefit of being able to stand up and say, "I didn't take a dime from XYZ industry" be politically more powerful?

Who is really calling the shots in this White House? You'll probably say Obama, but consider this: If you were on a plane with 25 experienced, licensed pilots as passengers, but the guy sitting up front/left, never took a lesson. Isn't it incumbent on one, or more, of the experienced ones to get together and force an "intervention" with the suicidal flyboy up there?