As much as I want the public option, any House Dem who votes against reform because it doesn't have this provision should be tarred and feathered. Neither Social Security nor Medicare came into being as we know them today. Those programs were built over time and through revision. The big thing right now is to break the log jam that has had us mired in the status quo for decades. Things need not improve all at once. What's needed is a substantial reform that can be built upon in the future. As someone said, Pass.The.Damned.Bill.

"I can't think of any obvious reasons he'd have to exaggerate what's possible."

I can.

Please don't be a tease, Janah (@18:06); tell us what you think those reasons are.

JoeW,

“Neither Social Security nor Medicare came into being as we know them today. Those programs were built over time and through revision.”

But they both started with very popular basics. The healthcare plan the White House released is full of stuff the American people HATE:

* the mandate with no competition from a Public Option

* a tax on Middle-class plans

* a penalty if you do not purchase or cannot afford to purchase the mandated policies, which is also a higher penalty than either previous plants

While the White House plan leaves out all the WILDLY POPULAR stuff the American people LIKE:

* the Public Option

* the Medicare Buy-in

* the surtax on millionaires

* community ratings for premiums

The Republicans will mow the Democrats down on these issues in November if the Democrats are dumb enough to pass it.

I don't know Janah's reason, but I can think of one too. Politicians frequently speak confidently about a fluid situation, in the hope that their public confidence will itself help bring about the outcome they seek.

On the surface, having lost 3 votes from last year's 2 vote margin looks very bad for House Democrats. However, Nancy Pelosi, and Jim Clyburn and the rest of the House Democratic leadership, have proven to be very good vote counters.

Pelosi frequently produces the 218 votes necessary to pass legislation in the House. That means she has a list of Democrats who don't want to vote for a particular measure---but will if she needs their vote.

So Clyburn may be confident because he has last year's health care whip count, and he knows the names of 5, 10 or 20 Democrats who voted "no" last year, but will vote "yes" for final passage.

Clyburn may be confident because he has last year's health care whip count, and he knows the names of 5, 10 or 20 Democrats who voted "no" last year, but will vote "yes" for final passage. -- massappeal, @19:29

I agree with your assessment. But, all your eplanation tells us is why Clyburn might be confident, it does not state "any obvious reasons he'd have to exaggerate what's possible"... Yeah, confidence is good to project; overconfidence (exaggeration)? Not so much.

I think I understand what Clyburn is really saying (which doesn't mean I have any idea if it is true). I think he means "we have over 219 votes in the caucus." That doesn't really mean "we have more votes than we had last time."

I think it means that they had votes in their pocket, that there were blue dogs who were willing to vote yes if and only if it was necessary who were given a pass last time.

219 Democrats when you need 218 votes (no one counted on Cao) doesn't seem like a likely coincidence.

Representatives are not like voters -- the roll call isn't a secret ballot, the leadership can punish representatives severely by not appointing them to conference committees. The votes they got are fewer, probably many fewer, that the votes they could have obtained if they needed them.

Might Kucinich decide that a step forward is ultimately better than a step backward?

Fat chance. Much easier to get blue dogs/freshmen who were allowed to vote no last time than that self-important hack. Does everybody remember how important it was for "progressive" causes to insure that this egomaniac didn't lose a primary to somebody who would have been a loyal vote for every major Democratic initiative?