Had I not been driving in a torrential rain, I might have called in, but since rain turns people into idiots on the road, decided that might not be the wisest thing to do...

In any event, a segment of the progressive base has gotten past one checkpoint; we have to remember that there is a contingent that calls itself progressive that was willing to throw in with Obama and scheme the latest dimension of chess, even in the face of his clear resistance to the Reid proposal.  Will that group choose loyalty over the right policy?  We'll see.

Good post.  Sort of reminds me of the line from the Billy Jack song:

I had to literally tear myself away to get into the shower.

The Village will not go down quietly.

(In terms of getting through this problem in the Village, it seems like an obvious step unless Obama has totally lost the Village love he accumulated.  And it needs to start now, not in the final hour.  Hell you could say it needs to start today or tomorrow, and not in a "few days" or whenever the Admin said Obama was going to make remarks about health reform).

If you really believe that the Village is not in an uproar and need MY links to Hiatt, Dana Milbank et al on this issue, well you are not my intended readership.

General familiarity with the state of play is necessary. For specific refutations of arguments made, I do of course link back to the argument addressed.

I will give you an example, when Booman writes criticvisms of "some bloggers" for being critical of Obama, I do not take him on for failing to name who he means - I know exactly who he means - FDL, Aravosis, mcjoan and to the extent he thinks about what I write, me. I take on his argument, not his failure to say who he means.

It is indeed my preference to identify specifically who I am criticizing, but I no longer am closely attuned to specific persons in the Village and the Media (withthe notable exception of Ezra Klein, whose status made him someon I felt it necessary to identify and rebut), thus my criticism of that group is generalized for the most part.

I will not start devoting time to writing about specific pieces by Hiatt, Milbank Brooks and others. They are not a big part of my thinking anymore.

In reality this proposed bill is a bare bones minumum of anything that was seriously discussed during the election cycle. By adding the opt out clause, every Senator is given cover. They can pass the the hot potato back to the states.

The administration told Reid, "You're the vote counter. But don't come crying to us when you need that last vote," according to NBC News' Chuck Todd.

Axelrod earns major coin protecting the interests of his corporate clients. The proportion of corporate donations to individual donors was something like 2/1 and with elections coming on the horizon the only thing the Dem leadership needs to do is secure the next round of corporate funding (tax-payer provided).

A key component of keeping the corporate donors happy is snowing the rubes.

I have a question or two, however.

I have read that the "public option" will not be available to people who already have health insurance, but would want to switch to a less expensive government-run plan.

I read that this "public option" would only be available to people who have no insurance.

If the above is true, the public option as included in the bill would only help about 10% of the American people.

This is not nothing, but it is far from what we need - universal affordable healthcare.

And people who cannot buy into the public option, will continue to be at the mercy of the insurance companies.

I hope that this description of what this public option actually accomplishes is not accurate. But I am not finding much specific information being offered.