Josh Marshall:

If Scott Brown wins on Tuesday [. . .] Health Care Reform will be dead [. . .] [H]ow incredibly stupid is the dawdling over the last few weeks going to look? The work of a year, arguably the work of a few generations, let go needlessly over a single special election? It's really almost beyond comprehension.

Some points - 1 - why would a health bill be dead? Why not reconciliation? This bill may be great in Marshall's mind, but it is not to a lot of us. 2 - Dawdling over the last few weeks? Is he talking about attempts to make the bill more progressive? Really? The dawdling he should be complaining about occurred last summer - when Max Baucus was allowed to hijack the process for 3 months. 3 - What is beyond comprehension is the political malpractice of Democrats for the last year on most every issue. They are staring at a debacle in Massachusetts on Tuesday and one in November because Rahmbo and Axelrod have blown it.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Populist Message Against Wall Street | Yemen Claims AQAP's Qassim al Raymi Among Those Killed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    Regardless of the outcome Tuesday, Team Obama is going to have to assume the leadership role he was elected to play.

    The mythical 60 majority blew up in his face. The bipartisan dance has been a complete failure. He has no other option. He can't continue to hide from the issue and play the role of a man for everyone.

    Why (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    can't he continue to play that role? The GOP was rolling him when we had 60 so why won't he get rolled with 59? The problem really is a character flaw in Obama and it can't be fixed. he's not going to step up and lead no matter what happens.

    Isn't that turning the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    vore in MA into a referendum on the HCR Bill? The timing of it means that the voters of MA can kill the bill if they want to, even if they might otherwise have voted for Coakley.  

    Not that I am suggesting they do that or anything...

    HCR bill died last summer (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by NealB on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    MA voters are taking care of funeral arrangements.

    One more thing, Josh (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    This bill was the work of generations?  C'mon. Those were some pretty effed up generations if that is true. No one struggled for generations for this bill. Maybe different groups for bits and pieces of it, but no one in good conscience is going to stand up and say that this is what the people who have wanted health care reform for years had in mind. Just not true.

    A Coakley loss, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    in my opinion, will not result in the end of health care/insurance legislation. Too much is at stake.  By hook or crook, we will wind up with something--- with its worst elements in tact,  and, perhaps, a few new odious additions/subtractions to smooth the way to passage.   We would also wind up with another Brown in the senate, but one not likely to be confused with Sherrod. A new senator with instant national status--a winger not from Alabama where troglodytes such as Jeff Sessions are commonplace, but  from a reliably blue state and the seat held so long by Ted Kennedy. An election that many angry Democrats may come to regret.  And, a Palin/Brown ticket would not be one to be underestimated.

    "Rahmbo and Axelrod have blown it" (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:03:12 PM EST

    Who hired them?

    The person (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    who ran "The Greatest Campaign Evah"?

    The GOP (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    smells a lame duck and his name is Obama. He is going to get rolled so many times it's not going to be funny. He should step down so someone else can do the job that he's either not capable of doing or unwilling to do.

    I don't think you are (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:41:27 AM EST
    even close to being right about him being a lame duck. As to suggesting he should step down, that just sounds like wishful thinking and sour grapes on the part of someone who never wanted him to be Pres. in the first place.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:42:25 AM EST
    There is not GOP candidate out there that can beat Obama.

    That said, he is more vulnerable than I thought he would be. I expected a better political performance at least.


    Well (3.50 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    don't bet on it. If Brown wins in MA, everyone is going to look at him like he's political roadkill. This is the nightmare I dreaded 2 years ago with Obama: Carter II.

    Obama is a good pol (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    Carter is not.

    At the least, Obama will reinvent himself and bounce back like Clinton did in 1996.


    That remains (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Emma on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    to be seen.  Right now, it sounds like wishful thinking from somebody who wants to be right about supporting him for President.

    Also, the "bad advisors" fall squarely in his bailiwick.  One, he picked 'em and two, he's shown no initiative to get rid of 'em, go around 'em, or get different viewpoints.


    His poll numbers are there to be seen (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Emma on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    But I don't see how his poll numbers predict a "reinvention" and/or show that he's a great pol or will continue to hold those numbers.

    First, he's not talking like there's a reinvention in the offing.

    Second, Obama became the repository for a lot of things people wanted to see in him.  That will take time to wear off.  That speaks to his skill as a campaigner, but not, thus far, to his skill as a politician who passes legislation that helps himself and the party and other members of the party.  His skill as a campaigner may help him to hang on to personal popularity.  But so what?  Being a pol is much more than that.  Or it should be, anyway.


    It is all about the economy (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    At 10%` unemployment, to be at 50% is a good sign.

    If the employment numbers turn around by 2012--and everyone thinks they will by then--Obama will be fine.


    Employment numbers are going to have to (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    start reversing long before 2012 if Obama is going to be "fine;" Obama's performance is going to be Topic A in every Republican's Election Handbook starting any minute now for the 2010 mid-terms.  And, if that election deals Democrats a blow, as many believe it will, it's going to get worse as we head into presidential campaign territory.  

    At some point the momentum against Obama may not be able to be slowed even if there are better economic numbers, especially if the Obama agenda moving forward is not to the liking of the electorate.


    The numbers should turn around this year (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:15:44 PM EST
    Reagan endured a horrible defeat in 1982 because of the economy.....

    We actually still had a manufacturing base (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    during the recovery under Reagan - people were actually able to get jobs.  Experts are now saying this could be a "jobless" recovery, which doesn't help most of the people in this country who do the buying and spending and paying taxes.  Nope.  Those people will be, instead of paying taxes, will be taking out of the government in the form of unemployment, welfare, Medicaid, etc. which is not really helpful to them or the economy at large.

    See, Obama's problem only starts with the economy.  But there's still two wars going on, and by 2012, his pretty words and zero experience won't be enough to bamboozle college kids to let him skate on through again.  He's not going to be able to turn the conversation away from "What are your specific plans?" to "Look how great a speaker I am!".

    And, he won't have a friendly media to give him cover with Hillary-bashing instead of focusing on his words and actions.


    Everyone who? (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Emma on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:48:06 PM EST
    I don't see anybody who thinks employment numbers will turn around by next year.  And what does "turn around" mean?  Unemployment just slows down?  Or we regain all the jobs lost to date?  I'll bet it's not the latter, so for millions there will be no turnaround.

    Most forecasts predict (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    lower levels of unemployment next year--some of them believe that will occur only towards the end of the year, however.

    not next year, but later this year (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:15:58 PM EST
    Link? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 09:11:40 PM EST
    To "most forecasts"?

    Yeah - below 50 and falling (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    So were Reagan's and Bill's (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    It is because of the unemployment figures.  Those should improve, I hope, and if so, Obama would be fine....

    You are counting your anti-Obama chickens three years too early.


    What will that improvement be based in? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    We have spent 30 years building this low employment/low wage economy. It is, in fact, exactly the economy the financial interests supporting both the Democrats and Republicans wanted. And exactly the economy the American middle class, by assuming their interests were more aligned with the wealthy than with the working class and poor, have been voting for.

    I remember reading an article, I believe it was in the Atlantic, at least 25 years ago, in which the author started out by declaring that the American working class had to give us its sense of "entitlement." Well, that's pretty much been accomplished.

    This economy is not going to improve for average Americans until average Americans get back that sense of "entitlement" and start looking after their OWN economic interests in the political arena.

    Buying into the notion that one can just lazily wait for one's "betters" to magically serve your economic interest, rather than just their own, is what has gotten middle class and working Americans into this mess.

    They won't get out of it until they recognize that the hard work of doing so is up to them -- and the political decisions they make.

    Obama is not responsible for the economy's failures -- but he is too entrenched in current economic and political conventional wisdom, and beholden to established interests. If, as seems likely, things don't improve significantly, we could be entering a very volitile, dangerous time of harsh political reaction. Nothing so far has convinced me that Obama can rise to the occasion as a representative of those American's most hurt and angered by this economy.


    that should read "had to give up" their (none / 0) (#66)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    sense of entitlement.

    Right now, they are actually rising, in (none / 0) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    response to the Haiti situation I assume.

    You mean his decision to put GWB in charge? (4.25 / 4) (#40)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    That response to Haiti? :)

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:54:09 PM EST
    He asked Bush to raise money....

    Bush isn't in charge of anything....

    The anti-Obama bile extends to his efforts to help Haiti?


    Is W "In charge" ? (none / 0) (#42)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    Hardly...his job is to raise money, not be in charge of the operation

    Did you see the three of (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    them making their announcement this morning?

    yes...saw it but only heard Big Dog speaking (none / 0) (#45)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    I'm sorry (4.25 / 4) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    but Obama is not a good pol. If he was the party wouldn't be looking to get smacked in the next two elections.

    Obama doesn't have the political skills that Clinton had. Obama is terrible at policy much like Carter and in the end that's what matters. Obama can't seem to produce good policy and that means to me that he's not a very good pol.


    He;s been badly advised (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    Not only is he a good pol, he is a GREAT one, for himself.

    Even now, his approval numbers are holding up while the Dem Party collapses around him.


    They are? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    His approval numbers in many polls are below 50%.  He's plummeted faster than any president in their first year in history - and you think he's keeping his numbers up?

    This is silly (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    His poll number are around 50%. Dems are around 30% and cratering.

    clearly he is doing better than his PArty, and that is a credit to his political skills.

    It does me no good, but for what he cares about, getting reelected, he is good.


    Congress (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    is always lower than the President.  Even when Bush was hanging around 30%, Congress as a whole was at 19% (and Repubs in general) were about that too.

    And again (none / 0) (#96)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    ignorance of history from JD- look at Clinton and Reagan's numbers in 1993 and 1981 respectively both tanked hard.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    the badly advised thing was the same excuse the GOP used for Bush. No, the problem isnt' that he's been "badly advised". It's that he doesn't have the political instincts and judgement to know bad advice from good advice.

    LOL! You're saying that he's good a cult leader but not much else. And the personal poll numbers are pretty worthless when he can't translate them into people showing up to vote.


    Well, when Obama becomes a (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    country unto himself, we can all marvel at how well he looks out for Number 1; until then, if he can't apply his political skills to the betterment of the country and the health of the party, those skills are pretty much worthless.

    In my opinion, of course.


    Badly advised my way too big patootie (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Caro on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 04:03:30 PM EST
    And as to his ratings, maybe you missed the memo.

    Political Wire:

    Obama Approval Rating Takes Hit
    President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 46%, according to a new CBS News poll...

    Key finding: "Domestic issues -- and not his response to terrorist threats -- appear to be driving the president's approval rating downward."

    Greg Sargent:

    Poll: More Think Health Care Reform Isn't Ambitious Enough
    Could Obama's dip to new lows on health care be driven partly by the fact that the reform proposal isn't ambitious enough?

    The internals of the new CBS poll suggest that this could be the case: They show that more people think reform doesn't go far enough in multiple ways than think it goes too far.

    Political Wire:

    Obama Would Lose to Generic Opponent
    A new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll finds 39% of Americans would cast a ballot for President Obama in 2012, while 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone other else.

    Carolyn Kay


    BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 05:38:09 PM EST
    You might want to consider that Obama is a political commodity and has been packaged and marketed (including but not limited to, media adoration - your stated reason to support Obama the candidate) in ways even greater than any before. I'm not talking about some shadow conspiracy figures but rather a collective demand for a commodity and that demand creates the product. Is a "good pol" someone who aggressively pursues being commodified for personal glorification? Does he have a long history of being FOR something?

    When will his top advisors retire to (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    spend more time with family?

    Let's hope Rahmbo (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:01:34 AM EST
    decides to run for Mayor of Chicago.

    Oh, let's do 'cause Obama will replace (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:33:26 PM EST
    him with a good pick next time -- NOT.

    Please No! (none / 0) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    I like Chicago and wouldn't wish him on my worst enemy.

    Na ga happen (none / 0) (#89)
    by Caro on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 05:55:45 AM EST
    Political Wire: "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel praised Chicago Mayor Richard Daley 'and urged him to run for re-election in 2011 in a statement designed to quash gossip that Emanuel is considering a City Hall bid,' the Chicago Sun Times reports."

    Carolyn Kay


    Obama is not a policy wonk (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    Policy is not his thing.  He's good at speeches and adoration.  That's why he leaves policy details for Congress to work out.   He doesn't care about policy.  He cares about he looks, how he appears to the voters.  

    I question if he even cares how he looks (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    He appears to be carefully sheltered from the criticism. How else can you explain his ability to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and bring a whole group of friends to party in Europe with him? Or, give himself a B+ in the midst of the mess he's swimming in? He even intends to up that grade to a solid A if this travesty of a HCR bill passes.

    Nope, I don't think he cares one bit.


    You're right. (none / 0) (#87)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:51:34 PM EST
    How to explain it?  My best guess, narcissistic personality disorder.  

    Are you overcome with ODS (none / 0) (#95)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    or just freaking ignorant- because if you're serious I would have to assume that Clinton's immense political skills were discredited in your eyes by 1994.

    ONLY if (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    the economy improves.  If we are still in a doldrums economically speaking, he's dead meat. If the situation with foreign policy (especially the Middle East) gets worse - he's also dead meat.

    Since you hate polls, here's another poll co-sponsored by the National Journal that shows if the election were held today, only 39% of people would vote to re-elect. Yes, I know your feelings on polls, but this should say to Obama and the Dems that they need to quit dawdling and do something that at least appears to be supportive of the middle and lower class, as opposed to giveaways to big banks and insurance companies.


    re-elect polls are notoriously wrong (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    head to head polls actually measure the choice before the voters....

    I know you are anti-Obama, but I can't tell what progressive policies you are for.


    the bigger problem (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    is the same can be said for Obama.

    More than Obama, apparently (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    And since I'm not running for any office, it really doesn't matter, now does it?

    He could still rebound this year (none / 0) (#63)
    by NealB on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    If he'd find the voice he used during his acceptance speech in Denver a year ago August, not just the words, the voice, he could turn it around. Firing Emanuel and Geithner would send strong signals.

    I guess (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    you aren't tired of him being rolled but I am and that's why I never cared for him in the first place. I'm sick of wimpy whiny "progressives" who want to hold hands with the GOP. Why wouldn't he be a lame duck? After all, he's been wanting hold hands with them and now they will have the perfect opportunity to roll him time and again. This healthcare bill is so bad that passing it will kill the party.

    The party will die if Brown wins (3.50 / 4) (#53)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    Or at least lose a lot of power.

    You're Kathy, right?


    Nope. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 08:16:48 PM EST
    But don't you think that the Dems not being able to hold a seat in MA would cause a mass exodus of support within the party? What would you think if George W. Bush was president and the Texas senate seat was won by a Dem?

    Yes, it would be that bad (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    I hope it doesn't happen....

    By what constitutional mechanism (none / 0) (#56)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    would Obama "step down," as you are constantly calling for him to do?

    Are you talking about him not seeking re-election in 2012?

    If not, what do you mean? Do you imagine that he will wake up one morning and say, "Hey, looks like I fvcked up, big time. Think I'll step down now and spend more time with my family"?

    In my experience, no politician "steps down" unless he or she is forced to. And if progressives' unhappiness with his POS health care (sic) reform (sic) is not enough to kill that crappy bill, then why would progressives' displeasure with Obama's performance oblige him to leave the presidency? The party would have to care about progressives in order for that to be even a remote possibility.


    He could (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    resign just like any other politican could. He would never stop seeking reelection even if poll after poll showed him going down in a landslide. No, I don't think he'll come to that realization unfortunately. He apparently isn't politically bright enough to realize that he has continually screwed up everything.

    I just think that people should look at the damage Obama has wrought in one year. It's not going to get any better because he sees nothing wrong and personally I think someone needs to have a "come to Jesus meeting with him" and explain things.

    The party is going to have to decide if they want a repeat of Carter and resurgence of conservatism and Obama staying in the presidency or maybe they need to either figure out a way for Obama to shape up ( very unlikely imo) or step down.


    Presidents don't resign (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    unless they're about to be impeached (e.g., Nixon). I share your frustration with Obama, and I'm  not one of his fans. But your repeated calls for him to "step down"--to resign the presidency, as you've just said--are quite unrealistic.

    Well (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 06:23:58 AM EST
    i've only said it twice so it's not "repeated" but do you have a solution to the mess Obama has created? He's proven incapable of doing the job so what now?

    It is an absurd idea (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    And you know it.

    If Obama were to resign, then Biden would be President... I suppose you would want him to resign too--but not before nominating Hillary for VP, so she could then become President....Is that the delusion you are suggesting?


    No (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 01:59:50 PM EST
    not at all. We have high unemployment and a whole lot of problems. Obama has shown himself unable to lead. Maybe Biden is up to the task, maybe he isn't. Obama has proven himself not capable of handling the job thus far. What is the solution? Do you want to continue down the failed path of supply side economics that Obama is proposing? Since he doesn't have the good judgement to pick good advisors nor know when to listen to them and when not to what do you? I think we need solutions to the problems that are vexing the country.

    Obama will NEVER step down because (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:22:11 PM EST
    That would mean admitting that he had done something wrong.  That will NEVER happen.  God's do not admit failures.  He's THE ONE.  He can do NO wrong.  

    He'll get the title changed (none / 0) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:38:14 PM EST
    Just like he did for the Harvard Law Review. Editor to President so he wouldn't be expected to actually publish anything.

    He'll change the title and job description to Premier, or King and congress will just be there to keep him company and attend his parties.


    Are you sure about that? (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 02:52:07 AM EST
    He'll get the title changed. Just like he did for the Harvard Law Review. Editor to President so he wouldn't be expected to actually publish anything

    What is your source?

    I thought that the title of president of the Harvard Law Review meant that the individual occupying that office presides over the board of student editors.

    Also, as someone who has worked in publishing for a very long time, I can assure you that the title of "editor" implies no expectation at all that one will be publishing one's own writing. And that's true even at the Harvard Law Review, according to a cousin of mine who was on the board of student editors back in the sixties.


    Man the ODS (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    is strong today huh! Question did you think Bill "one-term" Clinton should have stepped down in 1994?

    For once (none / 0) (#97)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    I agree with you.

    Why didn't Pelosi (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    post the bill yesterday so they could vote Tuesday -- 72 hours -- Brown wouldn't be Senator yet,  even if he wins. MA can take up to ten days to certify an election. And if the House is so fearful, why don't they just vote this week to pass the Senate bill as is? With the time it takes to certify the election, we'd have a health care bill before he was seated? I read that somewhere, don't know if it's right.

    The House (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    hates the Senate Bill too, so they aren't going to pass it just to pass it. Remember - they are ALL up for re-election in November and will have to defend it.

    Once they agree on the bill (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:18 AM EST
    it is going to CBO for score, which will take about 10 days.

    There is no escaping that THIS bill lives or dies on Tuesday and Mass.


    Then (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    it's probably going to die. This bill is so horrid that it deserves to die. It's too bad that Brown winning a seat is what has to happen to stop it.

    what do you think of (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    Jonathan Chait's article with four ways it doesn't have to die if Coakley loses?

    Not much really (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    the obvious option is the one he ignores - pass a NEW bill through reconciliation.

    Not realistic (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    If Brown wins, the political landscape will change.....After a Republican win in Mass on the basis of his vow to oppose any health care bill, the Dems won't go for reconciliation.

    The election of Brown really could be the end of the boomlet for Democrats.....The most liberal state had repudiated the democrats' health  care bill.....

    That will be the narrative......

    And, it's looking increasingly likely that Brown will win--ARG puts him up 3 this morning--so we won't nave to guess what happens to HCR.  It will be dead for a generation.  And the Republicans will pick up a gazillion of seats.....

    If Coakley were to win, HCR could go through, and the economy could recover, before the mid-terms.  

    It all comes down to Coakley winning....


    Dems face disaster in November... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by NealB on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    ...will be the narrative. Loss of Democratic base in most liberal state in the country reflects dissatisfaction of Democratic voters nationwide will be the narrative. Media may try to tell a different tale. They may even succeed for a day or two, but not much longer. Narratives need at least a kernel of truth.

    It's more realistic they won't do anything? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:10:04 PM EST
    Really? Sheesh.

    yup--but I hope we don't have to find out (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:19:50 PM EST

    BTW (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:43:47 AM EST
    the whole certification thing is silly. If Coakley concedes on election night, there is no excuse for not certifying.  

    why would she do that? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    If she cared about health care, she'd claim it's a close race and demand a recount or certification?

    If she gets beat by a clear margin (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    She can't pretend it was not a clear margin.

    If it is geuninely as close as would be necessary then of course she should not concede.

    If she is beat by thousands of votes, there is nothing to say.


    Once again (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:49:13 AM EST
    it's going to come down to turn out.

    Why Coakley wouldn't concede? So (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    steve m can write another diary!

    Heh (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    Is there an automatic recount number/margin (none / 0) (#41)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    in Mass law as in what triggered the Franken Coleman recount in MN?

    Constitutional Problems with letting the House (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    pass the Senate bill.  The HCR bill contains taxes and the constitution requires "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives".  So if the House passes the Senate HCR bill, the Senate is going to have to re-pass the same HCR bill again.

    Naw (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    the Senate bill is a H.R., it originated in the House.

    Yup (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    Yes, I read that MA Dems (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    in the state legislature are planning a Burris sort of delay, if Brown wins, to extend the interim appointee to the Senate for quite some time.

    I think it was reported in the Boston Globe.


    That would create a huge scandal (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:30:09 PM EST
    If Brown wins, or even comes close, it makes it very clear that even people in the bluest state do not want this health care bill.  A delay in certification won't change that.  If Brown wins, other democrats in the House and in the Senate will jump ship.  They will see their political future and won't want to risk losing their job for Obama.   I expect some of the blue dogs to jump off Obama's sinking ship by the end of next week.  

    A coakley loss (none / 0) (#43)
    by robotalk on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    just the kick in the ass Obama needs to clean the reptiles out?  

    Yes, hope springs eternal.

    Is Obama not a reptile? (3.50 / 2) (#46)
    by hookfan on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:02:27 PM EST
    He's certainly changed his colors alot, no?