One of the few good signs from the Obama Administration in the last year was the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Republicans, with the help of Obama's favorite Dems - Ben Nelson et al - blocked Johnsen's nomination. In order for Johnsen to become head of OLC, Obama will have to renominate her. bmaz does not believe he will:

The nomination of Dawn Johnsen to be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ, a critical post, is now truly dead. If Ms. Johnsen is to serve, she will have to be renominated by Barack Obama and start over. She never got the up or down vote promised as soon as the Senate had done healthcare, she never got an ounce of support from the Administration that nominated her, and a year of her life was taken in what certainly appears to be a cowardly and demeaning political ploy.

If Obama wants to score some point with a disgruntled base, he may want to resubmit AND fight for Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head OLC.

Speaking for me only

As predictable as the sun rising, the Chicago/Third Way/DLC type that support the Obama Third Way are laying blame for the coming Dem loss in 2010. As one would expect, Chiacgo pol and DLC stalwart William Daley blames the DFHs:

The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.

The battle of the 2000s in the Democratic Party was between those seeking Fighting Dems and folks like Daley and Rahme Emanuel who were for accomodating conservatives and Republicans. Because George Bush was the worst President in history, the decision on that battle was inconclusive. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party was handed back without a fight to the DLC wing by the fantasy that Barack Obama was not a Third Way politician.

Perhaps the wake up call has arrived and progressives will realize that pols are not their best friends. They are pols, and they do what they do. Fight for the policy, not the pols. See also Cenk Ugyur.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum writes:

I think the thing that surprises me is that anyone ever thought [Obama would bring transformational change. . . .] His nickname was "No Drama Obama," and his temperament was plainly cautious, sober, and businesslike. This was all pretty obvious during the campaign [. . .] Personally, I wish Obama would articulate the liberal agenda more full-throatedly, and I wish he'd take a few more risks and push his own caucus a little harder. I've thought that ever since the 2008 campaign. But the fact that he hasn't hardly comes as a surprise. He's as liberal a president as we've had in 40 years, but he's no starry-eyed idealist. Why would anyone ever have thought differently?

The reason anyone would have thought so is by looking at history. Was FDR some "starry-eyed idealist?" Or did he see huge problems that required innovative and transformational change? When Obama entered office, the opportunity and the IMPERATIVE for big EFFECTIVE change was there. I thought him a better politician and statesman than he has turned out to be. He is run of the mill, a President who has taken the biggest Congressional majorities and electoral mandate in 40 years to do what a 43% President would be able to achieve. Is Obama a bad President? Of course not. But his Presidency so far has been a squandered opportunity. What is surprising is that any self professed progressive Democrat would not express disappointment about this missed historic opportunity.

Speaking for me only

I've been thinking about this formulation that has been applied to the health bill, most recently by Matt Yglesias, and I think it deserves some unpacking. When the phrase is used, it implicitly is limited to domestic programs. But I think it still seems very premature for such declarations.

Consider this - since LBJ (I assume the reference to "40 years" is to LBJ's series of legislative accomplishments in the mid-1960s (BTW, now that the President is irrelevant or impotent, what does that say about LBJ's accomplishments? Is he among the greatest in history?)), there have been 3 Democratic Presidents - Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, whose tenures covered 13 of the last 41 years. As a baseline, there is not much accomplishment to exceed. More . . .

A health bill is gonna pass. It is going to look like the Senate bill. The question now is who is going to vote for it. Bart Stupak says he can't be bought off:

“There cannot be, in any way, public funding for abortion,” says Stupak. “What the Nelson compromise does is recognize abortion for the first time as a benefit in a federal health plan. It mandates that at least one plan has abortion coverage. Those are drastic changes to the current law.”

He sounds like a No. How many will join him? In any event, the Blue Dogs are coming to the rescue:

Good post from Ezra:

Ben Nelson is getting a lot of blowback for the deal he struck exempting Nebraska from paying for its Medicaid expansion. But though it was his deal, it wasn't his preference. It was Harry Reid's. And Reid made the right decision. [. . .] That's created a few days of bad press, but as Tom Harkin points out, it could eventually lead to good policy. "When you look at it, I thought well, God, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent [federal funding]," Harkin told reporters. "So he might have done all of us a favor."

Harkin is right about this. One of the best things the bill could do would be to federalize Medicaid, and federalizing the Medicaid expansion is a good first step.

(Emphasis supplied.) If this bill serves as a camel's nose under the tent for federalizing Medicaid while expanding it, it would indeed be one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in some time. It would be ironic if Ben Nelson were the catalyst for that.

Speaking for me only

And it has regarding the division between proponents of the Senate bill and Senate bill skeptics. Scott Lemieux writes:

I think Nate Silver's decimation of the reconciliation dodge is definitive. Granted, I roughly share his ideological priorities [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, having established himself as a proponent of the regulatory reform framework, there is little reason to read any more of Lemeiux's post. It ends up being a confession, much like President Obama's yesterday, that he did not really care one way or the other about the public option. Silver's "decimation" is really just an argument for the "regulatory reform framework" over the public insurance reform framework:

Apparently the President is entitled to his own "facts". Unfortunately, as Ezra Klein says, "Thanks to the magic of Google," we know that, according to Ezra:

[I]it's easy enough to revisit the plan (pdf) Obama campaigned on in light of the plan that seems likely to pass. And there are, to be sure, some differences. The public option did not survive the Senate. [. . .

I think even Ezra, poblano and Booman won't be able to swallow this one.

Speaking for me only

No one can accuse the Obama Administration of "governing by poll" at least:

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. [. . .]

While voters oppose the health care plan, they back two options cut from the Senate bill, supporting 56 - 38 percent giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan and backing 64 - 30 percent allowing younger people to buy into Medicare.

Certainly the politics of health care does not look promising for Democrats, but time will tell.

Speaking for me only

Pass the POS. Don't pass the POS. But don't tell me we're all moving forward together through a historic moment. Y'all sound like idiots. -- Charles Pierce

The title of this post is a reference to myself (which is silly of course, while I am angry, I am hardly Left) and people like me. People who agree with the critiques made against the bill, who disagree with the the "regulatory reform" framework that bill elevates, who believe in the public insurance reform framework that would be undermined by the bill - but do not oppose the bill. How can I support passage of the bill? Well, I'm not there yet, but I can tell you why I do not oppose the bill - the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Having the wealthy pay for public insurance for the less well off is an important good. I just can not bring myself to oppose the bill because of that.

The debate between the proponents of the bill and the opponents of the bill is, at this point, an empty exercise. Lines have been drawn. Insults have been hurled. Credibility has been sacrificed. I mean, at this point, is there a credible actor in the discussion? No. For me there is nothing left to say that I have not already said. I leave you with this - Charles Pierce speaks for me:

I feel like I just got a Christmas present. Rudy Giuliani will announce tomorrow he's not going to run for either NY Governor or Senator.

Smart choice, we've had our fill of Rudy, but it's good to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Ezra's on a roll today:

We're not changing our health-care system very much at all, in fact. Nothing happens in 2010. Or in 2011. Or in 2012. In 2014, when the bill really begins, the insurance situations of 18 million people change. A full 16 million of those people are uninsured. Aside from the small sliver of people who will pay a surtax on the final few dollars of uncommonly expensive insurance plans, the country simply will not notice this legislation.

Put THAT on the teleprompter.

Speaking for me only