I'm obsessing on this, but it bothers me so much, I can't stop writing about it. Matt Yglesias writes:

[Chris] Bowers likes to make the point that the administration does more to lean on progressives than it does to lean on moderates. This, however, ignores the basic reality that the administration has more leverage over progressives than it does over moderates. It also ignores the basic reality that progressives are actually the good guys. If you decide to adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference toward the gargantuan looming catastrophe of climate change, this gives you a lot of bargaining power in a legislative negotiation But progressives can’t adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference merely in order to strengthen our bargaining position, because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be progressive.

(Emphasis supplied.) According to Yglesias, being a progressive means sucking at political bargaining. More than that, trying be be a good political bargainer means you have "sociopathic indifference" to issues. Of course it should mean the exact opposite on both points. A good progressive is the one who can bargain most effectively for important progressive issues. The milquetoast "progressive" Yglesias in fact represents is really the worst type of progressive in that he does not think there are any issues worth some hard bargaining. This impulse is truly one of the most dangerous in the Democratic constellation. It is a new version of The Third Way really. One last point - Yglesias is right in criticizing Bowers about this being an issue of "trust." Only a fool trusts a pol.

Speaking for me only

I written for weeks now about the irrationality of certain "progressive bloggers" regarding political bargaining. Matt Yglesias' latest gives a clue why:

It’s worth noting, after all, that even the versions of health reform in congress that do include a public option would be better for the insurance industry than no bill at all. It seems to me you ought to be able to look an insurer executive or lobbyist in the eye and tell him, “I’m casting a vote that will help you get even richer” even while voting “yes” on the House version. To hold out for Baucuscare or nothing requires a sort of disturbed mindset that I’ve puzzled over before. And it’s striking that the people holding this position not only haven’t given any sort of actual reason for their view, but they’ve barely been asked to give a reason.

The reason why no one asks them is because people like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias (and Jon alter and Joe Klein) provide Obama and the Media cover to tell progressives to give up on the public option (indeed, the insurance industry now cites to Klein.) Forget about the merits of Klein and Yglesias' views on the substance (and I find their views quite weak), their complete obtuseness on the subject of political bargaining has been a wonder to behold. They truly appear to be clueless about it. The Steny Hoyers of the "progressive" blogs. "Serious" people. More . . .

Reading through some other reviews of Obama's speech last night, I was struck by the reactions of Nate Silver and Tom Schaller at 538:

Nate Silver: [. . .] Obama needed to appeal to liberals -- both the 60 or so members of the House who have threatened to vote against a watered-down bill, and the much broader, activist community who has grown wary of what they perceive as a Clintonian president who is too willing to compromise. . . .

Tom Schaller: This was classic Obama, both from a policy conceit and rhetorical framing. Anyone who read The Audacity of Hope knows how Obama works through issues—he sets up how one side conceives it and how the other side does and then, after admitting he is inclined toward progressive/Democratic side of the ledger, he humbly suggests the best solution is probably somewhere in between.

(Emphasis supplied.) Schaller cites Obama's set up with single payer advocates as one extreme and free marketers as the other. I noted that as well and thought it was a good set up for a vigorous defense of the public option. And that is where Obama failed imo - he dd not provide a vigorous defense of a public option. But what really gets me is that what Schaller calls "classic Obama," and it was, did not strike anyone else as "classic Bill Clinton." What is pejoratively called "triangulation." More . . .

Ezra Klein is on the teevee (MSNBC) saying that the public option is not important to health care reform. Good to see him finally admit he does not care about the public option.

Additional classic moment - insurance industry hack cites Ezra Klein's defense of insurance industry on show with Ezra on it. Perfect!

This is an Open Thread.

Brian Beutler:

"I appreciate that President Obama shared many of the details of his vision for health reform at this pivotal and historic moment, and signaled a willingness to work across party lines," Snowe said. "At the same time, as I continue to oppose the inclusion of a public option in any package, I would have preferred that the issue were taken off the table as I have urged the President - given that any bill with a public option will not pass the Senate and this divisive subject is unnecessarily delaying our ability to reach common ground."

Translation - President Snowe wants what she wants and that's that. Senator Schumer needs to remind the guy who was elected in November that there is this process called reconciliation. He also needs to remind Obama that he is the President, not Olympia Snowe.

Speaking for me only

You may have noticed that Talk Left did not even mention South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson's rude outburst in which he called the President a liar during Obama's speech. Speaking for me, it is because I could not care less that Wilson did that. There is too much fetishization of the President and faux civility anyway. But this, from Michelle Malkin, of all people, is hilarious:

The Left is in high dudgeon — never letting a moment of manufactured outrage go to waste.

The Queen of Manufactured Outrage knows it when she sees it.

Speaking for me only

Well, did we get anywhere spending the entire summer blogging about health care? Or was it wasted time? Should we have stuck to the crime reform issues that have made even less progress since Obama took office?

Your thoughts? I'll be in court early in the morning so I'm posting this now. It's an open thread, all topics welcome.

This is very smart tactics:

On a conference call with reporters just now, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said "[Obama] wants to always be open to ideas...but he sets his standard. [. . . ] The other options don't even come close to doing it." Brown's statement amounts to a belief that Obama has implied a demand for a public option. "I think he laid it out in a way that only a public option will get us where we want to go[,]" [Brown said.]

Good thinking. In fact, take the pledge Senator Brown - "I promise the President that I will never let him down by letting a bill pass that does not have the public option."

Speaking for me only

Here. The Progressive Block must do what President Obama did not, advocate for the public option in THE PRESIDENT's OWN PLAN, not belittle it as he did:

[The Obama Plan] [o]ffers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.

The Progressive Block must fight for the President's own plan for a public option -- because he won't. In fact, he will fight to have it taken out (See Obama's "advocacy" for HIS public option plan on the flip.) UPDATE - I want to be clear on something - I hope and believe the Progressive Block should go out there and THANK the President for his ringing endorsement and unwavering commitment to the public option and promise the President they will never let him down by letting a bill pass that does not have the public option.

Speaking for me only

Here's my congressperson, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), agreeing with President Obama that doing nothing is not an option, but:

I agree with the President that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. The best way to achieve this is by offering a strong public option that will not only bring down rising costs, but will also ensure competition and transparency among private companies within the insurance Exchange. No one will be forced into the public option, but they will have that choice as an affordable alternative.”

(Received by e-mail, no link yet.)How is your Congressperson responding?

What did you think of President Obama's speech (text here)?

First, let me say, he was charismatic, forceful and presidential. The speech had some great lines and he delivered them perfectly.

• Mandates, everyone will have to buy insurance.

  That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

• No more promises your current health insurance plan will still be available or offered.

• A public option only for those currently without insurance, expected to apply to less than 5% of Americans: [More...]

I will be live blogging the speech of the President of the United States before a joint session of Congress. The speech is scheduled to begin at 8 pm EST.

Pre-Speech Sports Update: Melanie Oudin trails 0-3 to Wozniacki in the first in the US Open Womens Quarters. Serena and Clijsters are through to the semis, where they will meet. USA national soccer team locked in 0-0 draw in a World Cup qualifier at Trinidad late in the first half.

Madame Speaker, the President of the United States!! [Live blog on the flip . . .]