Politico is reporting this morning that Speaker Pelosi does not have the votes in the House for a 'robust' public option, and that the most likely outcome is a public option with a trigger. Of course, this is Politico, so you can take the report for what you think it is worth.

...but Landrieu and other Democratic opponents will be able to tell their constituents and insurance-company allies, "Look, I voted specifically against the idea."

And since their consistuents favor the public option, I'm sure they'll love to hear it.

"-where, pray tell, has this momentum for the public option come from? "

From the pointy end of a pitchfork, wielded by VOTERS. . .

"but Landrieu and other Democratic opponents will be able to tell their constituents and insurance-company allies, "Look, I voted specifically against the idea.""

If, in the end, it passes with an opt out clause for states, she better stay true to her beliefs and work to opt LA out of it. Let her stab her people in the back and twist the knife. Oh, no, what she'll do is pose for a disgraceful photo op with uninsured people from her state when the bill is passed with a big self-congratulatory smile on here face.

People need to take names and rem,ember who tried to block this and remember them on voting day.

Oh, no, what she'll do is pose for a disgraceful photo op with uninsured people from her state when the bill is passed with a big self-congratulatory smile on here face.

Half of me is Ennui-Laden Cynical Girl who shrugs and says, "This is how legislation gets made." Half of me hates these people with the intensity of a thousand suns.

Make that one-third and two-thirds.

Half of me is Ennui-Laden Cynical Girl who shrugs and says, "This is how legislation gets made." Half of me hates these people with the intensity of a thousand suns.

Co-sign.

This debate has clarified one thing: no one can pretend anymore that Congress is full of public servants. They're for hire and most of them are corrupt, so enough with the euphemisms already.

But a number of heroic figures have emerged - Alan Grayson, Anthony Weiner, Jay Rockefeller, Ron Wyden - who weren't on the radar until this fight. And of course Speaker Pelosi.

If we do get a real public option, without a trigger, my faith in Obama will be somewhat renewed (though I will continue to think he came perilously close to blowing it, because he's so d@mn cautious). But Congress itself - corrupt, heartless, depraved indifference to the troubles of ordinary Americans. And Wall Street - even worse.

People need to take names and remember who tried to block this and remember them on voting day

Absolutely! We need to primary all these obstructionists. If they won't stand with Dems on healthcare, the (D) beside their names doesn't matter.

If they won't stand with Dems on healthcare, the (D) beside their names doesn't matter. -nyc

If they won't stand with the Dems on healthcare, the (D) beside their names should go away. The party is not obligated to have them as members and it is especially not obligated to pay for their reelection.

If they aren't at least somewhat beholden to the party platform, then allowing them as members of the party cheapens what it stands for and creates the illusion of being unable and unwilling to fight for what was campaigned on.

Having a state opt-out provision for the public option is the worst of all worlds. There would be a clear red state/blue state division on health care. We've already seen how the leaders of red states are more than willing to abandon their voters in favor of ideology. How, in gods name, is this reform?

"Having a state opt-out provision for the public option is the worst of all worlds. There would be a clear red state/blue state division on health care. We've already seen how the leaders of red states are more than willing to abandon their voters in favor of ideology. How, in gods name, is this reform?"

If the USA waits for the Slave and Mormon States on every issue, we'll never get anything progressive done in this country. Abe Lincoln and Blanche Lincoln were/are both stinkin'. This country needs a divorce.

Sadly, my favorite blogger, Steve Benen, continues to treat a public option proposal which includes a state opt-out compromise as a near equivalent to a robust public option. That Steve is quite comfortable with an opt-out compromise is clear--he's even referring to such a compromise simply as "a bill with the public option".

I'm really disappointed that Steve hasn't even bothered to acknowledge arguments against an opt-out compromise that are being made in the comments section of his blog and throughout the blogosphere. It's as if opponents of the opt-out approach don't exist. I sort of feel like I did during the lead up to the Iraq war—invisible.

And Drew @10:35 makes my case for me. The opt-out compromise is a big "fuck you" to red state progressives who contributed money, wrote letters, made telephone calls, canvassed, caucused, and voted to elect a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. The 50 state strategy is dead.

Glad we could help you out Drew. If an opt-out compromise passes, don't look for it in the future.

NOTE TO ALL DEM SENS. Many of us worked pretty damned hard to get D's elected last year, and some of you owe your sorry asses to that, and to someone, hmm... what is his name -- hmm - oh, right. Obama. SO, quite dicking around. NO VOTES for filibuster, and get to 51 for health care. And, get all the damned appropriations bills to the vote and to the president's signature [every damn one of the bills were voted out of committee by 30-0 or 29-1!!!], AND get to a real climate bill. THen, leave town happy. Until such time, I will continue to hang up on any call from the DSCC, etc.....

The red state progressives are fools if they think electing a Democrat is the same as electing a progressive. We've seen in issue after issue that Slave State Democrats and Mormon State Democrats are Blue Dogs...unreliable votes for the progressive agenda.

First, there's nothing progressive about a public option with a an opt-out compromise. It's a swing state compromise for the benefit of conserva-Dems and, they hoped, some Republicans.

Second, anybody who thinks that the assistance of red state Democratic voters only came by way of electing Blue Dog Dems from their districts didn't pay much attention in the last election. For many, if not most, red state progressive activists, myself included, the financial contributions made, letters written, telephone calls made, neighborhoods canvassed were for the benefit of out-of-state candidates and the presidential campaign (yes, we got in our cars, and drove to other states). Not to mention the fact that our votes, although we couldn't deliver the electoral colleges in our states, helped give Obama the mandate he needed to help get the job done.

Drew continues to prove my point. The opt-out compromise is the return of the HRC/Mark Penn/Terry McCullough swing state strategy (notice the lack of enthusiasm among Virginia Dems when Deeds indicated that he'd probably opt-out if given the option).

> opt out

Are there many 'red states' where you'd actually expect a successful "opt out" to be done and sustained? I'd imagine this is more like an invitation to political suicide for politicians in those states.

They take the insurance company money, they opt out, they lose the next election, they retire to some tropical island, the insurance companies have to buy new politicians every four years in those states --- eventually, the cost of doing business by buying politicians will exceed the cost of doing business with a public option.

No?

Political suicide? Every 2010 Republican Gubernatorial candidate in Georgia is literally running on the notion that Georgians have the right to opt-out of the union (again). Red state Republicans will have no problem opting-out of the public option...with impunity. Anybody who believes otherwise is either ignorant of red state politics or deluding themselves. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, such a compromise will not turn red states into blue states.

When gambling, one should never risk more than he or she can afford to lose. With an opt-out compromise, that's exactly what Dems would be doing.

Are there many 'red states' where you'd actually expect a successful "opt out" to be done and sustained? I'd imagine this is more like an invitation to political suicide for politicians in those states.

Never confuse national conservative leaders with conservative state legislatures. Even in battleground states, conservative state legislatures won't have any qualms about opting out of the public option if given a chance. Arizona legislators have already been making this argument before an "opt out" provision was even being discussed. In addition, it doesn't cost much money for the insurance lobby to buy out a state legislature. It's far, far cheaper than a national campaign.