Susie Madrak echoes Ben Smith and call this from Hillary Clinton "Shermanesque:"

NBC’s ANN CURRY[:]“Will you ever run for president again? Yes or no.”

CLINTON, laughing merrily: “No.” [. . .] “No. No. I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24-7 job. And I’m looking forward to retirement at some point."

Strictly speaking, Sherman said "If nominated, I will not run, if elected I will not serve." But more practically, do you want me to find all the politicians who said they would not run for President and then did? Starting with our current President, Barack Obama? In 2009, it is silly to ask Hillary Clinton if she will run for President in 2016. Can you imagine if she had hedged on it? all the CDS it would inspire? She's Secretary of State. That's what is on her mind. Running for President is not even something to think about right now. For the record, come 2012, I think the answer will start to be "maybe." And in 2014, it will be "yes." You can call me out in 5 years if I am wrong.

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers writes:

Many of these progressives were eager to support the opt-out because they believed it would ease passage of the bill, create political problems for Republicans, and that few states would opt-out. However, there were always two major problems with the opt-out, problems that have not been alleviated during the five days since the start of the craze: 1. No one knows what sort of public option states would be opting out of. [. . .] If we don't even know what type of public option is in the opt-out compromise, there is no justification for claiming it is a better compromise than Senator Schumer's "level playing field" compromise. For all we know, it might be worse.

This is misguided, at least as directed at me. I am for a robust (Medicare +5) Federalist Public Option. The reason I am for it is precisely because it is better than the level playing field option. If it is not robust, and is just a level playing field option, then obviously I will not be in favor of it over the national level playing field option.

As for whether it gains us votes, those of us who think it will gain votes (either for cloture or for final passage) are applying logical reasoning to the situation. To wit, some Dem Senators have talked about the effect of a public option in their states. Senators like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Addressing their parochial concerns with an opt out provision seems the best compromise for getting their votes (at least for cloture.) Chris' basic argument is "we don't know." No kidding. Nobody knows for sure. But that is hardly a response to the arguments presented. Here's a question for Chris, what if the only way to get a robust public option was through adding an opt out? Would he oppose that and still favor the level playing field option? Hey, I get to ask questions too.

Speaking for me only

Steve Benen:

I just haven't seen the evidence that the White House considers the netroots and progressive activists in general as some kind of annoying sideshow to be ignored. On the contrary, I've seen the opposite.

Heh. I would take the time to refute this, but Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher and John Aravosis prebutted Benen's silliness. I do not think Benen is a shill, in that he is not intentionally in the tank for the White House, but rather he WANTS to not see what is obvious to reasonable people. In essence, he is part of the Dem Village. There is a lot of that going around.

Speaking for me only

Misled Edition.

Netroots to Obama - 'we were misled!'

Obama Administration to Health Care Industry - 'we were misled.'

Kool and the Gang - "Tell me, what's the price if I go with you? My heart? My soul? My love? Is that the goal? It's a thrill then I will Be misled, be for real "

Sometimes it's good to be cynical.

This is an Open Thread.

The irony is rich:

A report commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans alleging that the Senate Finance Committee legislation would cause health care costs to go up faster than under the current system. [. . .] It's interesting that the report comes from AHIP, which has spoken publicly in favor of overhauling the health care system, but has worked behind-the-scenes to kill aspects of the president's plan, including attempts to create a government competitor to private plans, Insurance companies have also balked at the watered-down individual mandate in the Finance bill.

[. . .] UPDATE: An administration official called. The White House isn't happy. AHIP chief Karen Ignagni met with White House and Senate Finance officials last week, and she said they were "a ways away from doing an analysis," the official said. "There is a feeling among White House officials that they were misled." This might be the first rift unfolding in public between an industry player and the White House and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Governing is hard work. Especially when you play footsie with the folks trying to destroy your supposed agenda.

Speaking for me only

The only thing remarkable about the comments [. . .] is that anyone would be surprised by them. - Glenn Greenwald

The Progressive blogs scorned AGAIN by the Obama Administration:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base? [. . .] [I]n general when you look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “internet left fringe” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Outrage ensues. At this point, it is rather ridiculous. Obama signalled his disdain for progressive blogs and activists who did not toe his line long ago. A new articulation of this long held view does not seem to me an appropriate moment for shock and outrage. After all, pols are pols, and do what they do:

Do we have a new Mr. October and is his name Alex Rodriguez? The Yankees WIN!!!

Madmen (encore) coming up now.

This is an Open Thread.

NYTimes:

Impatient and discouraged by what they see as a certain detachment by President Obama on their issues, gay rights supporters took to the streets of the capital on Sunday in the largest demonstration for gay rights here in nearly a decade.

[. . . ] The rally on Sunday and a black tie gala on Saturday here hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights advocacy group, made for a glaring dichotomy. President Obama, who spoke at the dinner, had the crowd on its feet as he reiterated his pledge to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and declared that his commitment to gay rights was “unwavering.” But at the rally, demonstrators gave the president’s speech low marks for lacking any new substance and failing to acknowledge several major issues confronting the gay movement. In the words of Billie Myers, a musician who spoke to an eager crowd of tens of thousands that gathered on the West Lawn of the Capitol Sunday, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t like your speech.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Not everyone is ready to give aspirational awards to President Obama it seems.

Speaking for me only

And now for something completely different, a Family Guy Crop Circle.

This also is an Open Thread.

So the Red Sox' season is in the hands of Clay Buchholz? So it seems. But the reality is the Sox hitting is what has them in trouble now. More likely their season is in Angels' pitcher Scott Kazmir's hands.

The Yankees go for the series win tonight in the Metrodome. Andy Pettitte is a steady hand. Carl Pavano was a disaster as a Yankee but has pitched well for the Twins. Go Yankees!

The most intriguing matchup will be in Denver tonight - Major League Baseball and TV vs the elements. It's going to be freezing tonight. the game should have been scheduled for the daytime.

This also is an Open Thread.

Terrible slate of games in the NFL New England at Denver should be good though. Despite being 4-0 and playing at home, Denver is a 3 -point underdog in this game. I like the PATS (-3).

In the NFL double digit lines are the exception not the rule. Not this week. The Giants are 16 point favorites over the Raiders, the Eagles are 16 point favorites over the Bucs, the Vikings are 11 point favorites over the Rams and the Steelers are 11 point favorites over the Lions. Just for the hell of it, I'll take the underdogs - Lions (+11), Raiders (+16), Rams (+11) and Bucs (+16).

I am picking two extra this week. The Bengals have played well this year but they are 9 point underdogs to the Ravens. Makes no sense to me. Should be 4 or 5. Therefore I will pick the Ravens (-9) using reverse psychology. The Niners are playing great and should be 4-0. They are playing home against the Falcons. They should be 5 point favorites. They are 2.5 point favorites. Again using the trap theory, I am betting the Falcons (+2.5).

More . . .

It's so cold here, I'm really looking forward to leaving it behind tomorrow, and spending a week at my favorite health spa in California. I'm just about done packing.

This likely will be my last post until I return. While I'm bringing my laptop, I'm hoping not to turn it on much. (I'll probably check the comments from time to time, but leave it at that.) They keep us pretty busy from 6 am to 10 pm, there are no TV's, only a morning paper -- which on past trips, I never had time to read.

As I haven't gone a week without blogging since 2002, I'm not sure whether I'll miss it or feel liberated. Thanks to BTD who will be posting when he's available and has something to say, and (I hope) putting up some open threads when he's not.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.