Accolades Start Streaming In for Obama and Pelosi

The health care vote may not be until tomorrow, but the accolades for President Obama, who says health care will be his legacy, Nancy Pelosi and even Harry Reid are already beginning. From The New York Times:

That Mr. Obama has come this far — within a whisper of passing historic social legislation — is remarkable in itself. But the story of how he did it is not his alone. It is the story of how a struggling president partnered with a pair of experienced legislators — Ms. Pelosi and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Reid — to reach for a goal that Mr. Obama has often said had eluded his predecessors going back to Theodore Roosevelt.

Their journey over the last two months, interviews with White House aides, lawmakers, outside advisers, lobbyists and political strategists show, involved tensions, resolve, political spadework — and a little bit of luck.

The accolades are less for the content of the bill and more for the arduous task of herding the cats. (I wonder if that's how the phrase "Congress critters" came about.)Do most Americans even know what's in the bill? [More...]

Seems doubtful. Between how many times its changed and the arcane phraseology of Congressional rules, you really have to be some kind of policy wonk to figure it all out. Not to mention, the media took to using shorthand and code-words early on, as if the public would have a clue of what they were talking about.

Still, whether you like or don't like what's in or not in the bill, if it passes tomorrow, and I'd say it's a 99.5% sure thing at this point, it's a big deal for Obama, Pelosi and the Dems. I'm already thinking of song choices for tomorrow night. Any ideas?

< Dionne: Why Democrats Are Fighting For A GOP Health Plan | Dems Say Health Care Vote is Secure >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama picked Kansas (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:09:09 PM EST
    to win the NCAA tourney.

    He's not all that.

    I was wondering what all the shouting (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    was about at the pizza place earlier.

    BTD, don't bite your tounge (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    when it is so far into your cheek.

    he didn't pick the coaches (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    and has no control over the team players. And sports are games with a big element of luck. I know you are being somewhat funny but I don't think it's a great analogy. (No offense meant.)

    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:19:20 PM EST
    I was just sneaking in a March Madness update.

    That was some game... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:47:35 PM EST
    brackets for many are busted all to hell...

    My niece is elated Northern Illinois (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:30:55 AM EST
    won.  Couldn't figure out why.  Missouri.

    There were a lot of elated people (none / 0) (#96)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:50:22 AM EST
    in Missouri today. The border rivalry is stronger than ever.

    Is that an analogy to Congress? (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    More proof (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:59:45 PM EST
    that he's not all that.

    The One would surely know who was going to win.


    And would he need another one? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    Reports that the White House called on Bill Clinton to call lots of Dems in Congress tonight.  Reports see that as a sign that the votes are not secure.

    Nah, maybe he just wanted to offer premature congratulations, too.


    Obama asked Bill to sub for him (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:32:13 AM EST
    at Gridiron Club. Must not be worried anymore about him going off the reservation.

    No one (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    who votes is really going to care about the process only the results and the bill is an awfully poor one.

    Song suggestion (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    "Back in the USSR" (for the crazy Republicans)

    Song (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by reslez on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    Genesis - That's All

    It's always the same
    It's just a shame, that's all.

    Aerosmith - Dream On

    Progressives will keep the dream alive for true HCR. And if the DNC wants a donation from me this year? DREAM ON!!


    I love it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:27:30 PM EST
    And this line (none / 0) (#42)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:42:44 PM EST
    is for us lefties:

    All the way the paper bag was on my knee

    For progressives, I might have suggested "Won't Get Fooled Again," but that song contradicts the reality of today's progressives except for these lines:

    Meet the old boss
    Same as the new boss

    How about Johnny Cash singing (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:28:59 PM EST

    Samuel Barber's Adagio For Strings... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    an exquisitely beautiful composition that speaks of great pain, sadness and loss; if you're not familiar, it played a prominent role in the movie "Platoon."

    Here's the youtube of Leonard Slatkin conducting it just days after 9/11.


    Please, no. Between that piece (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:35:41 AM EST
    and Eric Satie's "Gymnopdia," I am too easily distracted during movies as it is.

    That video makes me cry whenever I see it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    I want to be a little bit happier

    Would you consider "I'll Walk (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:34:08 AM EST
    the Line"?

    Definitely not (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down"

    How about a rewrite (none / 0) (#52)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    of "Indian Love Call"? Proposed first line:

    I am calling BS

    Song (none / 0) (#134)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    "Ain't No Stopping Us Now" which is what we all danced to in ATL when the election was called at 10pm 11-4-08

    Well, great (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:36:47 PM EST
    Isn't that precious?  I'm not happy about this bill and I'm not impressed with Obama and company at this point.  I just wish he had shown so much passion, and so much willingness to pressure our representatives about including a strong public option way, way back last year.  Or at least a Medicare buy-in.  Or, preferably, Medicare For All.  The fact that he didn't expend much political capital on this a year ago tells me that he didn't really want any kind of strong public option.  If this passes, I won't be terribly impressed.  I'll be pleased by the Americans who can now get health insurance who could not get it before, but this is not the way.  Mandates but no public options?  People forced to give money to for-profit health insurance companies on pain of being fined?  Not good.  :'-(

    He bargained it away early (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:44:20 AM EST
    That news is now out and pretty well confirmed.  Obama promised the ins. cos. from the get-go that he'd prevent a public option if they promised to hold their fire on the rest of the stuff.

    This was, mind you, while he was proclaiming his support of the PO publicly.


    And now he's done the exact same (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    things to gays and DADT.  He had everyone on their feet clapping at the SOTU to his soulful declarations of finally getting rid of DADT.  If I were gay I'd be furious.  I'd have been used to grandstand with the same way that Dubya did his mission accomplished display when he landed in a fighter on an aircraft carrier.  Since the SOTU Obama has indicated he is not committed to getting rid of DADT and since this has become common gay soldier knowledge, soldiers are still being booted from service.  WHAT AN EFFING SHAMELESS USER!

    Yes, and everyone in the Democratic (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:02:51 AM EST
     party should be furious.  After all, that is what coalitions are about.    Moreover, the outrageous comments of no less than a former NATO Supreme Commander, that gay Dutch soldiers contributed to the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, has gone unchallenged by the American military. True, General John Sheehan is retired and not subject to official admonishment, at least a clarifying comment from someone, anyone, in a position of authority seems necessary--for Americans, the Dutch and all of NATO.

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    It will be addressed.  There is an underlying P.O.ed attitude within the NATO forces and alliance about the Dutch, they are not an aggressive force and often are not even permitted to show force.  It is cultural though and has nothing to do with gayness.  The Brits have had openly gay soldiers for like forever and outside of us there isn't a bigger military a-hole force out there :)

    They (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:15:08 AM EST
    somehow always seem to ignore the Isreali Army on that account too.

    Yes, gay and still huge jerks :) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    Secretary Robert Gates (none / 0) (#139)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    made an outsized remark on Feb 25, that gave a broad brush- stroke to the European culture.  He lamented the fact that the EU nations had become anti-war.  In a way, General Sheehan's injurious remark was a tag onto Gates unfortunate remarks  of European nations going soft on war--what with the gays and all.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#141)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:56:08 PM EST
    DADT looks like it'll go down this year, I mean he got the Mullins and the Secretary of Defense to come out against it and Lieberman's introduced a bill to repeal it, I can't see it surviving.

    A process victory would certainly (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:55:47 PM EST
    be sweet if the content was worthy of the machinations, but I don't think the content of this legislation will ever live up to the process.  Guess we're "winning" legislative contests via the blueprint for the Presidential election 2008, or at least it seems that way to me.

    I'm sad, really sad, about this, and will take an all-too-familiar position: that of hoping I am wrong about what this will mean for us, but fearing I am right.

    I knew what it meant (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:05:02 PM EST
    for us when it started costing $ 400 mil to run for President.

    Perceptions of who "cares" and who dosnt and who's "a fighter" and who isnt, aside.


    It's historically historic! (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:05:06 PM EST
    So, this time will I get a pony?

    Song suggestions (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    You Can't Always Get What You Want
    19th Nervous Breakdown

    For some reason I think it calls for the Stones

    I would be prepared for (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:11:30 PM EST
    Something Happened on the way to Heaven.

    I'm trying to adopt (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:14:58 PM EST
     the Kucinich point of view and see it as a very very small first step. The glass is 1% full instead of 99% empty.

    But I could not even maintain that POV for the time it took to write that.

    That fact remains it was political malpractice for it to be this hard to get this small of a step.

    And there is the concept (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    of opportunity cost to be considered, although I rarely see it discussed.

    That is, what opportunities were lost in more than a year that this took?  What bills were not passed?  What fights not fought -- and now may be fought too late?


    (And that jobs bill this week was a joke; it did not create jobs.  Like the stimulus bill, it passed that responsibility to businesses to create jobs.  But so many are so whacked now that there is a lot of worry that it is too late to put the onus on them.)


    I actually wish i thought there had been (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:10:10 PM EST
    some opportunities lost. For there to be opportunities you have to have a Congress and POTUS willing and able to do something real.  Stimulus? Weak. Jobs bill? Weak. Financial reform? Ongoing but probably gonna be weak.

    I don't see that the time would have been spent any better with this bunch.


    My GOP Rep. says keeping (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:38:03 AM EST
    the estate tax from kicking in will create jobs.  Hmmm.  

    You can be sure they are being discussed (none / 0) (#133)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    That is, what opportunities were lost in more than a year that this took?  What bills were not passed?  What fights not fought -- and now may be fought too late?

    Just not often in the blogs.

    The unemployed and the foreclosed upon are most likely asking that question constantly. Even the monthly announcements on jobs lost got less and less attention as the months went by.

    I wouldn't be surprised if members of congress have spent the past several months looking at their investments, income opportunities, and personal situations trying to figure out if they could survive after casting a vote contrary to what the polls say about the people's opinion of the bill.

    I wonder, too, how many "yes" votes today will be cast because they are sick to death of the topic and from what I can see, they have spent more time trying to get support than they have trying to improve the bill.

    The only opportunity cost the congressional body considers is their own job. And, a trip to Indonesia and Australia over the kid's school break.


    There are multiple reports (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    Knowing who the teabaggers generally are, I believe it.

    Tomorrow will likely be worse too (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    Where's that guy from Texas with the sign? (none / 0) (#57)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    Isn't he like the president of the tea-party.

    Can't win on merit, let's bring out the tar and feathers. Free beer and two-by-fours for all.



    Who's Zoomin' Who (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by themomcat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    By Aretha Franklin would be my pick for a song.


    I'm so proud (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    that Pelosi and Reid have been able to herd the cats.

    I would have preferred it if they had herded the cats on behalf of a piece of progressive legislation, but what the heck.

    The Obama presidency has been saved.

    I look forward to many more years of empty phrases and reactionary governance.

    OK, I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:48:37 PM EST
    I'm sure none of these things ever happened, and teabaggers are perfectly nice people. Carry on.

    I'm not the one... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Tony on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:40:17 PM EST
    claiming that these stories, TPM's included, are unsubstantiated.  The only way I see that anyone can reach that conclusion is if you assume John Lewis is lying to score political points.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    Well said.  The guy is as close to an actual saint as it gets in politics.

    Now, now. I hope that we can agree (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:04:29 AM EST
    that there are fools on all sides -- and that they do their political parties no good.

    Those who called me a racist in the campaign -- and that included even some family members -- only helped to drive me away from the Democratic Party.

    May the fools today do the same for the Republican Party.  I know many wonderful people of that political persuasion who must be appalled, too.

    I know that not every Obama supporter would have called me a racist, and I think that the fools did not represent the majority of Obama supporters.  What I do not forgive is how many within their ranks did not stand up to the fools.

    Let's wait and see what the better people in the Republican Party do.  Will they do the right thing -- and show the fools among the Democrats how it's done?

    Probably not.  It is an ugly time in this country again, many signs reminding me of ugly times in past.  May all of these fools not have to live through such times again.  May they all STFU before they further poison the public discourse.  The damage can be incalculable, and for decades, as some of us can recall.

    Kidney Stones is out for tonight (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:17:59 AM EST
    violating site policy with accusations. And blog-clogging. Several comments have been deleted.

    Not a fan, necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by denise k on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:48:39 AM EST
    of Pelosi, but if I was Obama, there is no one I'd rather have at my back. She knows what she is doing and she gets the job done.  Nobody can herd the cats better than she can.  

    She's doing an incredible job (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    navigating the complexities of getting this pig mess passed, really pretty awesome.

    Also note that according to that NYT article linked to above, she completely flipped out on Obama when he gave that mealy-mouthed Rahm-inspired post-Brown interview about how maybe we should go back to just doing a few tiny incremental things on HCR one at a time.


    MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:10:02 AM EST
    Is already getting it wrong -they had a piece this morning telling what's in the bill and what it means to people.  One of their graphics said something about preventive care being free in 6 months.

    Um, no.  That's on new plans - everybody will not get free preventive care.  

    And so it begins.

    Did you see Jane Hamsher's (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:36:10 AM EST
    fact sheet?

    It lays out the cost for middle class families.
    Another point she makes is that a lot of people with insurance in Mass. are not getting medical care because they can't afford it. They have the insurance, but they can't pay for the doctor!
    I think that figure was 21% .


    Very sobering (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:35:13 AM EST
    It amazes me how well off the Village idiots seem determined that we all are.

    Instead of village bloggers, (none / 0) (#118)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    how nice it would be if they had actually middle class parents on TV, showed them the numbers for the HCR bill and then let us watch their eyes bug out as they see how "good" the bill is.

    You're right that (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    it will definitely help a fairly small number of the folks like you who are worst hit by the current system.  No question.

    THe problem is that it does so at the huge, IMHO, expense of entrenching the for-profit private insurance system for a long, long, long time to come, when it ought to have begun the process of getting it to wither away quietly.

    It's worse (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    than that. It actually causes financial hardship on a lot of people by forcing them to purchase something that they cant afford. Jane Hamsher has put out a fact sheet that says that in MA something like 18% of the people still can't afford to go to the doctor even with insurance.

    Yes, with (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by JamesTX on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    my policy (actually a rather good one as employee policies go), there is a big difference between having insurance and having the money for what it doesn't cover on most visits. Those costs used to be reasonable, but they have now routinely moved into the thousands. What the bill does for me now is to make what I have always managed to do (pay the darn premiums) a requirement under the law. I get no poverty break, but I am in poverty after the costs. What it may do for me after I get kicked out of my job for being sick (I've already lost one for that) is pay some of the premium I will be required to pay under the law -- a possible future "benefit". But what I don't understand, or I guess I do understand, is what I will be able to do about those extra thousands in uncovered bills when I don't have the job. I think I heard what most doctors and hospitals are doing is accepting whatever the insurance will pay and still treating those who can't pay the uncovered part of the bill, but there is a "medical creditworthiness" industry arising which will sort us out and put us at the back of the triage line (we die first).

    The song? "I fought the law, and the law won".


    Check comment 106 (none / 0) (#125)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    I put a link to Hamsher's fact sheet.

    My family could use many of the bill's... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by nrglaw on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:23:50 AM EST
    provisions to kick in sooner than they do. We are paying (as of next month) $25,000+ per year for insurance for a family of three. We have pre-existings galore, so we are stuck with our current carrier, BC/BS of Mi, until 2014. Ouch. But at least someone is now saying to us that a 4-year clock has begun to tick, that there will be some end to the fix my family, and millions of others, find ourselves in.

    The president said, "this is what change looks like." He is right. At this time and in this  toxic political climate, this is what it looks like. It's neither comprehensive nor incremental. Its not single payer and lacks a public option, at least for now. But it is a major start that I did not think I would see in my lifetime. And it will get better year by year.

    Kudos to the Democrats and to Nancy Pelosi most of all. They actually won a big one. The Senate will not screw this up. Biden will overrule the Parliamentarian if necessary--outside of Washington, who knows that there even is a Senate Parliamentarian?

    For the Republicans, this is a major disaster. Waterloo indeed.

    Where's the first place you're going to drive (3.00 / 2) (#37)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    your new car?

    There should be no doubt no about what the NYT and the current incarnation of the Democratic party hopes to accomplish while in power.


    Whether we're talking about closing Gitmo or removing all 16 combat divisions from Iraq one a month starting in January (Sounds good!), this president and his supporter continue to claim credit for work not yet done. And get it!

    For those who don't know the technical term for the NYT chicanery, it's called the 'assumption close'. The sales person encourages the rube to 'take mental ownership' of a shiny new box on four wheels and to ignore the fact that both the vehicle and the financing come with a heft price tag buried in the zero percent financing option eye candy.

    Actual mileage may vary caveats are swept aside by sales-people promising much and delivering only the 'product' and demand for regular monthly payments, backed-up by threats of re-possession and stiff financial penalties.

    The bill might be a good bill, I don't believe for a second it is, and Dems may voter for it. The NYT is trying to influence votes and why not?

    But the 'assumption close' is only employed to subvert the actual decision making process. People who are informed and who have decided to purchase a product on merit find this sort of tactic offensive and condescending. It can backfire badly.

    I don't think the bill will pass. I do think there's a strong undercurrent of hostility towards this cocky under-achiever, his bad grades and his big-money financial friends.

    I look forward to announcing my plans to run for a second term at the opening of the Chicago Olympics. Trying to take the decision out of the hands of the IOC didn't work out so well. Course that 'done deal' Copenhagen stunt and associated speeches have gone straight down the  memory-hole.

    We're not selling vacuum-cleaners, here. We're selling freedom. And about that leg...

    Now, now, now, now (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kidneystones on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    Tea-party members call themselves...members of the tea-party. You might find a few, like that nut with the sign in Texas, too ignorant to make the distinction.

    But we're not talking about the ignorant. We're talking about folks like you, who were demonized on discussion boards, in the national media, and in the workplace by Marshall and his pals as 'racists' for daring to question the experience and judgment of an individual who, to my mind, had neither.

    You'd have thought being on the receiving end of that kind of character assassination might have tempered you a bit, and made you just a little bit cautious about taking on board un-substantiated accusations of 'nig$$er' chants.

    Keith O explicitly accused Brown of 'supporting violence against women', in addition to racism and homopbobia. Didn't matter if it was accurate.

    Doesn't matter to you, either, evidently.

    Forget Josh Marshall... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Tony on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:25:15 PM EST
    is your contention that John Lewis is lying about this?

    I don't take anything Keith Olbermann says (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:27:11 PM EST

    If you can't tell the different between the group of people who supported Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and the group of people who showed up this weekend in Washington to protest against healthcare reform, then you are the one who needs to be "now now[ed.]"

    I do believe, as I always have, that the Republican base (aka "tea party activists") is quite bigoted and racist. I didn't need the Politico to tell me so.


    I'm deeply uncomfortable with this (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:05:13 PM EST
    We're still on eggshells until the Democrats find a way to avoid this problem. Be ware the motion to recommit.

    The NY Times is a part of the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:22:00 PM EST

    I vote for Jumping Jack Flash :) (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    what are you uncomfortable with? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:10:07 PM EST
    My prediction or the Times article? It's not like an election where millions of voters haven't gone to the polls yet and media coverage might change their mind.  

    The sentiment that this is a done deal (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:12:51 PM EST
    If Stupak-Pitts is put into the reconciliation bill through the MTR, one of two things will happen: final passage of the reconciliation package will fail (and with it the Senate bill), or the Senate bill wend the reconciliation package back to the House (as Kagro explains).

    I think it's more likely than not that Pelosi and crew will find a way to pass this, but this situation is more fluid than Yes/No, even now.


    Obama will issue exec Order to placate antiabortio (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:31:46 PM EST
    n block according to FDL.  Pro-choice progressives have approved it. No need for clever games with legislative rules.

    You think Pitts won't still (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    offer the amendment as a MTR? If he does, how in the world are the Dems going to find the votes to kill it?

    I'd be shocked if (none / 0) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    Pelosi et al didn't long ago have this scenario in mind as a likelihood and have been extracting commitments not just to vote for the bill itself but not to go along with the MTR dodge.

    My strong sense from Stupak himself, having heard him interviewed a number of times in the last week or so, is that he's increasingly desperate to find a way out of the corner he's painted himself into. He really, really, really wants not to be the guy who sinks "health care reform" and will grab at any credible fig leaf, like an Obama executive order maybe.

    The good thing about the lightning fast MTR process is that there's no time for second thoughts and lobbying and tea bag or Catholic bishops lobbying.  The ducks have to be lined up and ready to go before the MTR is submitted in this kind of situation.

    I'm more worried about inventive new maneuvers the GOPers have cooked up that the Dems haven't been able to anticipate and work into their planning.


    Stupak is not in any corner (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:05:59 AM EST
    Hyde is still law of the land. Stupak stood his ground and his constituents are very pleased with his stance.  He will easily get re-elected.

    His primary challenge has already been defeated.


    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    Then why, pray tell, is he about to cave for the fig leaf of an Obama executive order affirming (yet again) Hyde, which is the law anyway?

    He's getting exactly what he wants (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    He gets to be the one who was strong and held out until he absolutely had to.  He gets the language he wants, even if it's in the form of an EO. His constituents see him fighting and standing up for what he believes in and his primary challenger is basically DOA.

    Plus now, he gets whatever benefits there are to this bill.

    Win-win for Stupak.

    THAT is 11 dimensional chess.


    Is this (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:39:14 PM EST
    progressives get rolled version 3.0?

    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:06:15 PM EST
    It's progressives get rolled version 1,000,000.0

    One does wonder.... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    If Obama is so comfortable issuing an executive order about making the Hyde Amendment permanent, why didn't he issue an executive order to force the military to ignore Don't Ask, Don't Tell?  

    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:03:22 PM EST
    don't you know? The dadt people don't have anywhere else to go and conservatives are always worth raising a white flag for when they start coming your way.

    Bingo!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:03:27 PM EST
    Or to at least suspend (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:04:38 PM EST
    soldiers being booted at this time.

    That's the biggie (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    There is at least some justification for doing his slow-mo study commissions, etc., but not suspending the dismissals while the final decision is being made is just awful.

    Thanks; that link is fascinating (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:53:27 PM EST
    and I also appreciated his clarifying comments and yours as well, even if it did mean wading through a lot of useless ones. :-)

    Guess how much CNN I watched today? (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:07:54 PM EST
    Better yet, I'll tell you: none.

    I spent some time watching the rules committee meeting, but that's about it. Far better to see who intends to vote for what.


    Top Story on CNN at the moment (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    Snorkeling couple (I mean real snorkeling, not the Massa kind)  in Aruba think they found a skeleton on the ocean floor. Nancy Grace is hyperventilating - could it be...Natalee Holloway?  By' found a skeleton'....they mean they have a photo taken by a disposable camera that shows a formation on t e floor of the ocean that sort of looks like it could be a skeleton. All their friends that saw the picture thought so too! No one actually went down there and checked.

    I kid you not - that is the most watched story. I hate myself for clicking - I didn't know it was a Nancy Grace video.

    I went there looking for news on the big tea party event. The partiers will be sorry to see that missing white girl from 5 years ago trumped their event.


    You know, at least that's better (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    than spreading shoddy information about healthcare.

    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:34:39 PM EST
    Maybe if I saw Bart Stupak in my toast tomorrow I could get on CNN too!

    Make sure you can see the tears! (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:40:03 PM EST
    Hold on... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:35:08 AM EST
    Somebody saw what might be a skeleton snorkeling in Aruba...f*ck healthcare, call in the Navy SEALS, it might really be Natalee!

    Then we need to get the NSA on the case of finding all of Tiger's sext messages in the archives (enquiring minds wanna know!), wrap up the case against Corey Haim's dealer (think of the children!)...then, if we have time, resume the healthcare legislation.

    I mean come one, priorities people.  Thanks ruffian for alerting us to CNN's red alert:)


    I think it is far sight better (none / 0) (#39)
    by domer5000 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:25:16 PM EST
    than the HCR Bill C got enacted

    Yes, surely. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    So Bill C couldn't get democratic health care reform passed during an era of republican majorities.

    Obama gets a republican non-reform bill passed during an era of democratic majorities and a huge mandate while capitulating to his corporate overlords and President Stupak.

    We are all jumping for joy. And I am sure Bill C is writhing in jealousy.


    As long as those with (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    the deepest pockets continue to be able to wield the inordinate degree of influence over policy that they do now, and the overriding priority of those with the deepest pockets is increasing market share - over and above what used to be quaintly refered to as "the common good" - then what we're going to continue to have representing us is a group of moderate and radical Republicans masquerading as Democratic or Republican majorities.

    The (based in wishful thinking) illusion that many have here is that anyone connected with the Democratic Party is automatically a person who places the public good over their personal ambitions and those of their more powerful constituents.

    As the song says, It aint necessarily so.    


    Do most Americans know what's in the bill? (none / 0) (#43)
    by RAM on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:46:23 PM EST
    Hell, most Americans don't even know what's in the damned Constitution and it's been around for 210 years. If ignorance was bliss, Americans would be the happiest folks in the world. As it is, a lot of them seem to be stupid and angry, not to mention greedy bigoted morons.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that . . . (none / 0) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:49:13 PM EST
    They'll know what Republican ads say... (none / 0) (#101)
    by NealB on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:53:40 AM EST
    ...next fall when they're deciding who to vote for.

    Yeah, I have not noticed (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:52:19 PM EST
    the criteria of 'Americans knowing what is in the bill' being a high priority up to now.  

    A rather large % of people polled thought the stimulus bill raised their taxes last year.  And I think I might know why - some guys at work were talking, and they think their taxes got raised because their refund was not as big this year as it was last year.  Well, part of the stimulus bill was that withholding got decreased, so people got more in their paychecks all year, so now they think that a smaller refund means they are paying more taxes.

    I don't know how to fight the stupid anymore.


    Wow (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:47:26 AM EST
    That's incredible.  And I bet there are a lot of people in the same ignorance boat.

    The weekly difference in paychecks was hardly enough to notice, but the total on the refund would be.


    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#58)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11:25 PM EST
    has only lost one vote on a major issue.

    She isn't going to lose two.

    Accolades for her in spades.

    She'll be lucky if she loses this one (none / 0) (#102)
    by NealB on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:56:24 AM EST
    Three hundred Democratic candidates will thank her in the fall.

    Please read the WP article (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:21:51 PM EST
    nice (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:26:53 PM EST
    They carried signs saying "Remember in November"; one carried a broomstick with cardboard pasted onto it with the label "Here's Your Ride," for Pelosi.

    By all means let's listen to these people as serious patriots, just wanting a voice in their democracy.


    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:31:41 PM EST
    You don't understand.  It's not that it's on Yahoo, WP, McClatchy etc.  It's that it's on TPM.

    Disgusting. However, I would bet (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:32:01 PM EST
    that the name-callers only strengthened the resolve of the likes of the great John Lewis, Cleaver, and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as Barney Frank, bless him.

    That is what I would say to the fools in the crowd, were I a teevee pundit tonight:  Keep it up.  Make 'em madder, and see where that gets you.  Bring it on!

    As for what Barney Frank would say, well, it would be sanitized.  I wish I had been a fly on the wall to hear what he had to say at the time.  And the crowd must have a stereotypical image of gays and doesn't know Barney Frank and his wit.  I would not mess with the man.  Nor with any of them.  No way.


    Frank's response: (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by Tony on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:23:31 PM EST

    "The only problem I have with this... They all said 'You should quit. You should quit. We're going to defeat you. At some point... I'd like to retire. As long as I think it might make some of those people happy, I can never retire. I may have to work forever as long as they're out there."

    Thank you. Exactly as expected (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    the idjits who castigate the Franks and Lewises and others are only strengthening their resolve.

    And thanks even more to the marvelous Mr. Frank, who goes to Washington year after year, despite the fools.  May he not have to do so forever; may he get to retire soon -- so that he can do even more interesting things and keep me cheering for years.


    My song suggestion (none / 0) (#62)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:22:11 PM EST
    The Black Keys - "Just Got to Be"

    A few more possibilities (none / 0) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    Michael Bolton - Said I Loved You But I Lied

    Dear Mr. President - Pink


    "Not Ready To Make Nice" (none / 0) (#89)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:30:30 AM EST
    Dixie Chicks:

    Forgive, sounds good
    Forget, I'm not sure I could
    They say time heals everything
    But I'm still waiting

    I'm through with doubt
    There's nothing left for me to figure out
    I've paid a price
    And I'll keep paying

    I'm not ready to make nice
    I'm not ready to back down
    I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time
    To go round and round and round

    It's too late to make it right
    I probably wouldn't if I could
    Cause I'm mad as hell, can't bring myself
    To do what it is you think I should

    I know you said
    Can't you just get over it??
    It turned my whole world around
    And I kinda like it

    I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
    With no regrets and I don't mind sayin'
    It's a sad, sad story when a mother will teach her
    Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger

    And how in the world can the words that I said
    Send somebody so over the edge
    That they'd write me a letter sayin' that I better
    Shut up and sing or my life will be over

    I'm not ready to make nice
    I'm not ready to back down
    I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time
    To go round and round and round

    It's too late to make it right
    I probably wouldn't if I could
    Cause I'm mad as hell, can't bring myself
    To do what it is you think I should

    I'm not ready to make nice
    I'm not ready to back down
    I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time
    To go round and round and round

    It's too late to make it right
    I probably wouldn't if I could
    Cause I'm mad as hell, can't bring myself
    To do what it is you think I should
    What it is you think I should

    Forgive, sounds good
    Forget, I'm not sure I could
    They say time heals everything
    But I'm still waiting

    Insulting (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:39:15 AM EST
    If you are going to insult artists by recontextualizing their music, at least do it with people, like Lotte Lenya, who are no longer around.

    I am sincerely happy that it will work for you (none / 0) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:09:09 AM EST
    I can only hope (pardon the term) it continues to work for you and begins to work for others. And that Medicare is still there for me when I'm eligible in a little under four years, and that in the meantime my individual premiums as a self-employed person don't continue to skyrocket. We'll see. Eating well, swallowing my vitamins, riding my bike, taking my hikes, doing my workouts, breathing and meditating . . . all I can do.

    Do you qualify as a child? (none / 0) (#107)
    by itscookin on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:30:02 AM EST
    No disprespect intended. I know you're a college
    student, and I don't know if insurance companies consider student dependents over 18 "children" or not. Pre-existing conditions for children will be eliminated six months after passage of the bill, but adults will be placed in a high-risk pool until 2014 when the mandates kick in. I couldn't find anything about subsidies until 2014. I have a personal interest in finding the answer myself.

    Songs (none / 0) (#103)
    by blogname on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:02:25 AM EST
    Nobody Does It Better, Carly Simon (since it's all about hyping the political process).

    Song (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:08:28 AM EST
    "Somebody's Going' to Emergency, Somebody's Goin' to Jail" (for not buying insurance or paying the fine)

    The rule is out: (none / 0) (#109)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    here. Note that the Senate bill gets a clean vote without any chance for amendment. That means that even if Stupak-Pitts passes on the motion to recommit the reconciliation package, pro-choice caucus members can vote to kill that package without killing healthcare reform.

    If (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    this goes through it is goign to be by one vote. The whip count now has a solid 37 against and I udnerstand that there can't even be one defection or teh whole package fails.

    She has the votes (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    Count on it.

    Well (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    since the story seems to change by the hour and now the story is the Big Dawg has been called in to round up votes then I'm not so sure. I guess we'll see how many reps want to crucify themselves to try to save a President who couldnt' care less about them or their issues.

    I just read about that (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    Isn't is possible that this is (none / 0) (#124)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:18:19 AM EST
    the best moment to vote---that they can't delay any longer? It makes sense to me that the momentum will fade at some point, and people will simply assume the bill is dead.
    Also, it's pretty clear that she did NOT have the votes when the vote was scheduled. Scheduling the vote had the effect of forcing leaners to decide.

    Not how this works (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    With a difficult bill like this, there are always dozens of members who won't commit one way or the other until the last possible minute.  If you waited until you had 216 explicit public commitments, you'd never be able to schedule the bill for a vote.

    The skill of a Speaker is in knowing the members and their concerns and their coded language well enough to be pretty sure who's going to jump which way at the end.

    And then you have, as I keep pointing out, the "If you really, really need me" votes of some of those publicly undecideds.  When you've got enough of those in your pocket to win, you schedule the vote.  Then you pull out all the stops -- including Obama, Bill Clinton, et al -- to persuade as many more of the undecideds as you can to vote your way so you can let at least some of the "If you really, really need me" members off the hook on the vote.

    That's how a skilled Speaker operates, that's what Nancy's doing, and that's why she's got the votes to pass this.

    If she's doing this right, and she is, it will pass with only one or two votes to spare, just the way the original bill did.