1. Presented the Congress with a clear plan of what he wanted to come out of a bill; and

2. He should have been willing to twist arms and expend his highest political capital on getting his ideas through.

of course he thinks he is doing great!

A.B.C. Anything But Clinton

we see how well that worked for progressives, their leadership in the Village claims victory

Pyrrhic that, since the taxes start immediately and the benefits, such as they are, begin in 4 years

and of course they are filibustering themselves to avoid a pharma reimport vote since GOP will help pass it and they dont want that to happen

Baucus was Obama's representative in the Senate, the timetable slipped because he had to persuade his liberal committee members to vote for a plan without a public option. Not because he was trying to add one.

Klein was a supporter of a strong public aspect to reform, he was originally an Edwards guy. But he recognized that Obama's public option was never more than a gesture, so he was accurately reporting that it was not central to what Obama was pushing.

I'm starting to think that Lieberman, Obama's mentor in the Senate, is his stalking horse on HCR. How Obama treats Lieberman next year should provide an indication.

He should have lead. What he did was follow.

Either: "What Should Obama Have Done?" or "What Obama Should Have Done."

Maybe the real question is not what Obama should have done, but what it was that Obama wanted to do, and I'm not sure we've identified even that much of the equation.  He said he wanted a uniquely American employer-based plan that wasn't too disruptive, and promised that anyone who liked their current insurance could keep it.

Does any of that form even the basis of a plan, or a direction?  I don't think so.  Something that is "uniquely American" could be something from the free market side, as well as from the Medicare/government side.  "Not too disruptive" depends on what it is you don't want to disrupt - the insurance industry stranglehold seems like the only thing that would suffer from disruption, doesn't it?  As for people being able to keep the plans they like, he failed to mention that an employer-based plan is subject to the whims of the employer, not to mention, hinges on one staying employed; has Obama noticed that a lot more people are NOT working now than were working when this process started?

Whatever it is that Obama should have done, he's not alone; it's hard to imagine that the Democratic caucus had to start as if from square one, given that reform of the health system has been on our wish list since the Clinton years - the caucus should have gone to Obama and said, "this is what we're planning, and we need you to lead the way," even before Obama held his meaningless summit, and long before Obama started making his own deals with the industry.

The problem with all the woulda-shoulda-coulda talk is that we're all assuming that Obama ever wanted real reform, and I am just not convinced that he did.  I think he wanted what he always seems to want: the easiest way to claim victory without ever having to break a sweat.

I'm truly just fed up with the lot of them, and expect the next three years to be more of the same; what an unspeakable waste of opportunity that could have effected positive change in the lives of millions for generations.  Instead, we get Obama claiming that no one but him would be able to tackle this Herculean task - so we'd better do it now.