He could be holding off on the intense arm-twisting until the final stage. It may be wasted before then.

But, yes, his support for a public option should be plain to these Senators. It is to everyone else. They want to vote against it or derail it then have someone, namely the President, to blame. Cowards.

He's doing what he always does, which is wait everyone tips their hand. There is no single bill to argue about yet - why show your cards before then? Because some Senator is whining? When are they not whining?

The frequency with which this comes up suggests it's a widespread sentiment among pro-reform Democrats, both on the Hill and off. That said, I'm not at all sure it's right.

As leader of the free world, Obama should be more direct and forceful, and actually be leading on this issue.

And while Obama himself may be somewhat consistent in his desire for a public option, every day a new quote from one of his assistants gets reported that suggests he may be willing to waffle. This is not a powerful message. People who generally support him should not be guessing where he truly stands about this.

In other words:

"Aides on the hill say that the president must be the face of the public option because most senators and house members are spineless pussies who don't want to put their political careers on the line for this legislation in case it does not work out in their favor."

Regular readers may be surprised to know that I don't believe this Obama-is-Hitler stuff.

Fortunately for Republicans, he's not Hitler. He's Neville Chamberlaine.

I agree with what Cazart said, makes perfect sense.

I wonder if some of this is coming from the "red state" senators who actually want to kill reform. Because the only way for the President to push any harder is to put out a veto threat. Which would rally Republicans and the media against it as some kind of insane overreach because no other president ever has offered a veto threat over part of a bill . It would be just the kind of thing that could scuttle HCR altogether. Which would suit them just fine.

folks in general in Congress were looking to the president to clearly define his feeling on the issue

Good Lord. I suppose he could tatoo it on his chest, but these dillholes still wouldn't vote for it.

In 1993, when a reform package came all wrapped up and tidy from the White House, Congress bitched. Clinton showed leadership, and was punished for not exercising proper deference to Congress. So Obama--who has stated often, and publicly, and forcefully that he prefers a public option--has shown that deference, and now they're whining that the White House isn't showing leadership?

Cazart's right. They're always whining.

Actually, I do have a lingering doubt, because Obama has repeatedly qualified his support for a public option with language suggesting that he doesn't care that much and that it isn't particularly important, certainly not compared to the value of winning Sen. Snowe's vote.

Obama could get on the phone to the dissidents and say that they are free to vote their consciences, but should they support the Republicans in filibustering his #1 priority they will pay the consequences, and the consequences need to be severe.

I don't think that his support is that apparent. He spent the spring doing nothing, in the summer he said that he wanted to public option while reportedly sending Rahm to the Hill to say that it was negotiable, he sent Axelrod and Jarret to the Sunday talk shows last weekend to tamp down expectations --- you don't have to be a waverer to wonder what the President is up to and whether he's trying to build his own popularity while letting Nancy P. and the other public option stalwarts take the heat. YES WE CAN seems to be NO HE WON'T these days.

Well, growing a pair is not a required feature for anyone who want to get a seat in the Senate. In a lot of ways it slows down your political career.

So what do you expect?

I think the congresspeople are hesitating because they are afraid to cut off their source of financial bribery too soon. As long as they pretend to be looking to the president for guidance, the illusion is that they have not decided to accept a public option, and the money continues to flow. As long as the majority of Americans think that a public option is possible, they may not unleash their anger at their reps until it is too late.

I love to see how Obama plays the fools,
The ones who look to him for clues.
They think they know his mind,
But really show they're blind.
When finally the truth is known,
They'll have betrayed their own.

We will have a public option. And the insurance companies will wonder how they could have been played so blatantly. Greed is a force that blinds.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

um, shouldn't these Senators be looking to their majority leader for leadership on this?

Oh, right, never mind.

All those members of the public who want a public option just want something for nothing. As far as I am concerned the public be damned. I don't care what President Obama thinks.

"Fortunately for Republicans, he's not Hitler. He's Neville Chamberlaine."

It follows then that the GOP will need to find a Hitler for Obama to appease.

The GOP's got a good track record of pumping up two-bit dictators to look like Hitler. I wonder who it'll be this election cycle.

Myself, I think we have a leader who recognizes the difference between a Hitler and a Hussein, which, when the stakes are nuclear, isn't such a bad thing.

If the GOP thinks the old "imminent threat-bear in the woods" strategy will work again, they should have at it.

I just think there's a little more Macchiavelli in this Chamberlaine than conventional wisdom assumes.

I dont think the louisiana example makes much sense. arm-twisting isn't just campaigning (tho i know the entire god damn government is nothing but a big political campaign now that everything is just a fight for holding on to power).

That is, Landrieu et al can be made to play in other ways.

LBJ wan't a big hero in a lot of places in the country -- but there is a picture of ol' Lyndon at the lexical entry for "arm twisting."

It's not like Obama can promise to campaign for Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana next year -- the president is extremely unpopular there.

:)

They want political cover, simple as that.

They know that a Public Option of some kind will have to be in the final Bill, it's what the polls say a growing majority wants out of Congress, and the "Bipartisan or nothing" brigade have had their balls shot off by polls saying people want it regardless of how the Republicans vote.

So their only hope now is for Obama to cover their asses by demanding a'la Bush that a Public Option be a part of any Bill reaching his desk.

At that point they can get busy stripping the legislation of as many progressive clauses as they can get away with, confident the MSM will have their backs when they whine about "unwarranted and unconstitutional White House interference in the role of Congress" whenever Obama replies to the ensuing barrage of questions about what kind of Public Option he wants to see.

Will they get what they want? Probably not. The White House seems to be playing this one better than the Bluedog faction. Obama isn't likely to make a statement detailing what kind of Public Option he'd like to see until there's a few decent plans being floated out of Congress that he can point to and encourage.

The likes of Nelson and Lieberman will just have to decide whether or not they want to sabotage the Democratic Party's prospects in 2010 by helping the Republicans stop Congress from voting.

Actually, I do have a lingering doubt, because Obama has repeatedly qualified his support for a public option with language suggesting that he doesn't care that much and that it isn't particularly important, certainly not compared to the value of winning Sen. Snowe's vote.

I wouldn't say that he's said he "doesn't care that much," but he's certainly been very clear about the optionality of the public option. The constant repetition of the flatly untrue statement that "there are lots of ways to ensure private insurers have competition" is not reassuring. In fact, it actively promotes the erroneous belief that the public option, coops and exchanges accomplish the goal equally well.

I'll speak to the ditherers. NO public option? NO VOTE for Democratic candidate and NO VOTE for the Democratic party. All ditherers should understand that except Lyin' Lieberman who will vote with the party of NO

"I think folks in general in Congress were looking to the president to clearly define his feeling on the issue,"

He'll sign anything that they give him.

If they want a decision and a commitment from Obama on health care, they might have to wait for his next decision and commitment on AfPak.

To think that such morons are reluctantly steering the boat on this, one of the most important issues of our time. Somebody shoot me.

Steve Benen: "Indeed, wavering lawmakers are now well aware of some key truths: 1) the White House wants a public option; 2) the majority of Americans want a public option; and 3) the vast majority of congressional Democrats want a public option. It's now up to Obama to "weigh in" and tell these dithering members, who are unmoved by these obvious and important details, exactly what to do?"

Yes. The solution is quite simple.

First, give wavering Dems two options--either allow the Senate to pass a version of the H.E.L.P. committee plan (no opt-out) by voting yes on a cloture vote or a reconciliation vote will be held providing, essentially, Medicare for all.

Second, let Dems know that any who vote against cloture will lose leadership assignments (note that holding a cloture vote does not prevent Dems from following up with a reconciliation vote, should cloture be voted down).

Rahm Emmanuel (and/or associates) is down on the hill daily working with Reid, Baucus, Dodd and others to get the bugs out of this legislation. I don't believe for a second that Obama can't make a robust public option happen in the Senate. He can, and he should.

They want political cover, simple as that.

Harry Reid wants political cover, seems to be the driver of the meme this time-- a lot of these statements have come right from his office. Harry Reid doesn't know how to or doesn't want to use the concrete powers of his position as Senate Majority Leader to influence Senators, so he wants Obama to go do it for him, somehow. Or rather, he wants to get this idea out there so that if he eventually fails at doing his job, people blame Obama and not him.

Conservatives decided to push the story that HCR would result in death panels and socialized medicine based on how they perceived the evidence. Liberals looked at the same evidence and decided to push the story that Dems are weak, ineffective, and wavering and that the base is going to take their ball and go home.

And yet we still might get an ok bill out of this.

um, shouldn't these Senators be looking to their majority leader for leadership on this?

Oh, right, never mind.

/stands, applauds...

What Chris and Cazart said. Obama can't got to Lincoln, Bayh, Landrieu, etc. and threaten them but Harry Reid sure as hell can and should! No committee chairs, no seats on important committees, no senate parking spot, whatever. Reid needs a spine. If he can't keep his caucus together on a procedural vote, he should resign and let Durbin, shumer, or someone with a pair run the senate.

Legislators thinking of voting against cloture need to understand that come next election, there will be an aggressive, well funded primary opponent campaigning primarily on the incumbent's obstructing HCR legislation.

Seems simple to me. The only leverage is that they don't get destroyed in the next election if they allow a majority vote on the bill.

"I wish it were that easy, but let's not forget, the president doesn't exactly have a lot of leverage over center-right Democrats from solidly "red" states. It's not like Obama can promise to campaign for Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana next year -- the president is extremely unpopular there"

I think you know that the first sentence quoted above is not true. What the president *can* do is threaten to deny Mary Landrieu campaign funding should she vote against cloture on a health care bill that contains a public option. Obama wouldn't need superpowers to level such a threat. In fact, he already *has* leveled such a threat... at progressive Democrats who were considering a vote against the supplemental war spending bill (link: http://tinyurl.com/nsp5lc ).

Sadly, the only uncooperative Democratic legislators whom President Obama ever targets for such pressure are progressive Democrats. When it's an uncooperative *conservative* Democrat, the president shrugs, claims to be powerless, and Steve Benen pretends to agree.

This is really the best we can do?

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Obama is acting as the health insurance reform anti-Clinton. He is wise to avoid the triangulation trap that the centrist Dems would likely pull.

The centrist Dems are likely to stick their finger in the wind, consult their fundraisers and determine that health insurance reform is not quite good enough for their votes. They'll say it's because Obama included BLAH BLAH BLAH in the bill. They really want to vote for health insurance reform, you see, but they can't do it this time due to meddling White House.(BLAH BLAH BLAH can be the public option or some other progressive feature--it really doesn't matter to them.)

Obama's forcing the Congress to step up to the plate and own the issue. The Senators don't want to own the issue. Hence the whining.

I would like to see Obama and progressive legislators aggressively advocate for Ron Wyden's Free Choice Act. This proposal would be very popular with the American people in general, and can be presented quite creditably as a compromise between single-payer and market based reforms. It even has one Republican sponsor.

As it stands right now, the public option will only be available to about 10% of Americans, and relatively few more than that will have access to the exchanges that are being talked about.
There is also the very real problem of caps on out of pocket expenses, and what minimal coverage insurance companies will be expected to provide. If we are going to have an individual mandate, it is absolutely necessary that we don't force people to purchase insurance plans that simply aren't worth having.

Without being cynical, I think you could say that we all might yet look back on these past few months as an elaborate political theater, in which the democrats bravely fought against the republicans for "insurance reform" and a "public option" that amounted to nothing more than a massive subsidy of private insurance and the continuation of the status quo.

Obama's "support" of the public option has always--always--been weak. And his HHS secretary and chief of staff have consistently floated the idea that the public option, while "nice", is expendable. The administration has signaled consistently that the PO was on the block.

If Obama truly wanted the PO, he has had ample time and opportunity to get it.

I think you are onto something. Especially this line:

"My sense is the White House has laid out its priorities, and now expects legislators to legislate."

I think that what many overlook in this story is that Congress has forgotten how to do their job. Throughout the Bush years Congress slavishly followed orders from Bush and in the Clinton Years the Republican controlled Congress took their orders from Gingrich, DeLay and the gang. It has be some 15 to 20 years since both Houses of Congress acted as Legislative bodies. Committees, Chairmen, caucuses, individual members had very little power and just struck postures for the cameras as they followed the orders of a Republican President and/or Republican Leadership. As an institution Congress became dysfunctional. Now they are being forced to change and some hate it.

Sure the White House has influence, but if President Obama told them exactly what to do the Congress would comply and then continue as a weakened dysfunctional Branch of Government.

It is interesting to watch so many kick and whine about Congress being forced by this President to do its job.

I don't take that as a sign of Obama's weakness. I take it as a sign of that he has ambitions bigger than just HCR.

Cheers

So what it boils down to is that these people, members of Congress who, supposedly, are capable of deciding questions of vital importance to the country; who boast about their contributions to to this country's welfare in their campaigns and who defer to noone in their dedication and sense of responsiblity to their contituents; these people want "cover" for their vote on HCR?
Dang, another illusion gone!

The constant repetition of the flatly untrue statement that "there are lots of ways to ensure private insurers have competition" is not reassuring. In fact, it actively promotes the erroneous belief that the public option, coops and exchanges accomplish the goal equally well.

This is about as well put as I can imagine. I can't tell you how disappointed I and many of my friends who voted for BHO are. I know, I know, just think about the last 8 years.

But there is something really deeply disturbing about this equivocation of his. It is TOTALLY inconsistent with the "fierce urgency of now."

I'm not happy or proud to say it, but I really, really don't trust the guy anymore. If we get a public option, it will be in spite of him, not because of him.

"At this point, there really shouldn't be any lingering doubts surrounding President Obama's support for a public option -- he's endorsed, promoted, and defended the idea repeatedly for months. "

Except every single time he has equivocated in the very next breath. Anyone who is sure of Obama's support for a strong public option hasn't been listening to him.

He thinks its a good idea but not necessary.

If he really thinks its essential, he should let it be known. Instead, his waffling has made it easier for Blue Dogs to hold up the process.

Leadership?

He thinks its a good idea but not necessary.

Agree, but there is more to it than that. He and Rahm clearly thought their fix was in, and saw the public option as an obstacle to getting some bill -- any bill -- passed.

Here's a guy who was against a mandate, but is now for one, with absolutely NO guarantee that subsidies would be sufficient for those who could qualify for them, or that insurance would be affordable for those who did not. And NO guarantee that insurance companies wouldn't continue to rip off Americans.

This debate has a really dirty underbelly to it. The bloggers who defend Obama on this -- who claim a public option is dispensable -- know that there is NOTHING that guarantees that cash strapped families who would be forced to buy insurance from these worthless assholes would have affordable options. NOTHING.

There is a point at which political expediency becomes immorality. BHO and his ass-kissing supporters -- all of whom have health insurance -- are dangerously close to crossing that line. That includes those bloggers who continue to insist that he's FOR a public option and has done all he should have to secure one.

When it is quite OBVIOUS to anyone with a 90 IQ that he would have signed a bill WITH mandates, NO public option, and insufficient subsidies.

All you folks who seem to think that the majority of people want the government to take over their healthcare by some kind of unworkable so-called "public option" are apparently totally unaware of what the public wants. The guys and gals in congress know that most of them will likely not get to return if they carry on through on this power play, and that's all it is. It's not about improving health care for any body and you know it. It's just a raw power play. It's not the repubs that are in the way, it's the American people. Force it through and you won't have a demo president or control of congress for another 20 years.

First off, it's insurance reform, not health care reform. Second, I think some Congressmen (and many in the public/media) have gotten too comfortable with the idea of an imperial presidency. President Obama is allowing Congress to function and everyone is being reminded that sausage making is an ugly process.

All you folks who seem to think that the majority of people want the government to take over their healthcare by some kind of unworkable so-called "public option" are apparently totally unaware of what the public wants.

From Reuters, yesterday:

Fifty-seven percent of all Americans now favor a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers while 40 percent are opposed, according to the poll.

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/10/19/poll-finds-a-majority-for-public-option/

Huh. Weird how you can be so wrong about that.

Wanna know how many physicians support health care reform with a public option? Over 70%. Some of them even support single payer. By the way, they're "Americans" too.

Nurses? No one's done the math, but since every major nursing organization supports the House Bill and nurses are typically more pro-patient's rights than even doctors, the number is probably around 80%.

It's not about improving health care for any body and you know it.

Oh fuck you. That's EXACTLY what it's about. I know people with shitty health care and no health care because they can't afford it and people with unbelievably expensive shitty health care because they need to cover their kids and that's all their company offers.

Tens of thousands die each year due to lack of access to health care. Let me guess, Fred, if terrorists had killed the 40,000 that die because they don't have health care you'd have no problem throwing a couple trillion at it like Iraq.

It's not the repubs that are in the way, it's the American people.

It's not the American people that are in the way, it's the Republicans, paid-for Democrats, and their sponsor, the incredibly wealthy and powerful health care lobby that admitted activating over 50,000 lobbyists to fight any reform.

Dude, if the FDL crowd is taking the harshest possible view of Obama's commitment-to/engagement-with the public option struggle, you've taken the other extreme. You say "there really shouldn't be any lingering doubts surrounding President Obama's support for a public option," but there are among some equally intelligent and informed people.

I'm a bit of a cynic, so I'm closer to the FDL view than not - but I recognize that the totality of the signals coming from the White House over the past months are at best mixed. Certainly not as clear cut as you make them sound.

Still, I hope your faith is well-placed.