Matt Yglesias reports on Speaker Pelosi's conference with some Village bloggers:

[T]he most interesting part of the discussion was when Pelosi waxed a bit expansively about the historic nature of the achievement if reform passes. She observed that with the exception of John Dingell who was around for the Civil Rights Act and Medic[a]re, nobody else serving in the House has been part of anything this important. For most of us, she said, “this is the most important thing we will ever do.”

For the life of me, I do not see it. This bill is thin gruel. Of course it has its points that are applause worthy - the expansion of Medicaid being the clear winner - but there is nothing in the reform part of the bill that I see as particularly important. And in the end, I think evaluations of the health bills really rest on whether you believe the regulatory, state exchanges model adopted by the Obama Administration will lead to meaningful health care reform. Is it a camel's nose under the tent for real health care reform? In my opinion, it isn't. YMMV. Pass it? Sure. But argue it as important, substantively and/or politically? Don't see it.

Speaking for me only

It gets worse. GQ not only has the Rielle Hunter interview that will appear in the magazine I wrote about earlier, it has the video of her photo shoot (in which she doesn't look like she's hating being photographed without her pants or provocatively) and outtakes from the interview. Highlights:

• John Edwards asked her opinion as to whether he should endorse Obama (she didn't give one)

• Edwards lawyers asked her to swear in writing she didn't leak or sell information about them

• She hasn't spoken to her sister in 17 years (the sister that went on TV to talk about her) -- it sounds like she doesn't talk to anyone in her family :

(More...]

In a piece by Jon Chait that is marred through and through by bad analysis, I thought this statement the most questionable:

Republicans are [. . .] alerting the House that Senators will betray any deal they make. [. . .] Clearly, this is mostly a bluff. After all, Senate Democrats would be crazy to make specific promises to the House and then renege on them -- they would never pass another bill again.

First, a bluff is threatening to do something yourself, not predicting what someone else will do (there is a lot of misuse of poker in this piece.) Second, when was the last time anyone paid a price for double-crossing any Dem ever? The Senate has failed to pass 290 passed bills passed by THIS House. This would only be number 291. More . . .

Jan Crawford writes:

For the life of me, I just don't get why the White House continues to try to pick a fight with the Supreme Court. [. . . A]fter Chief Justice John Roberts made some entirely reasonable remarks yesterday -- and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just had to respond [. . .]

Leave aside the misstatements in Crawford's piece (it was not the first time a President has criticized a SCOTUS decision in the SOTU and Roberts DID criticize Obama's choice to criticize the Citizen's United in the SOTU (Obama had criticized it before)), the political calculation for the White House is obvious -- Dems will run against Citizens United in this year's elections. Any chance to talk about it is welcome. CJ Roberts' ill advised remarks provided the White House that chance. More . . .

Why did the progressives fail in the health bill negotiations? Chris Bowers has a theory (finally he acknowledges that progressives were "largely ineffective" in the health care debate.) Jon Walker has a better one. I have my own series on Madman Political Bargaining. MaryB has the best explanation:

I actually think the problem is that the Progressives never thought of themselves as being in a true negotiation with the Democrats as a whole and never acknowledged that the only TRUE negotiations were taking place among themselves - that the Republicans didn't matter.

[MORE . . .]

The Village Dems are engaged in a strange exercise today - insisting on a "Progressive" parade in favor of the health bills. It is strange because all of the progressive votes have already been rounded up - the President patted some heads. At this point, insisting on proclaiming that the health bills are great progressive achievements actually undermines the drive to pass the damn bills - the Blue Dogs will be less inclined to vote for it.

Seizing on Chris Bowers' defensive post (Chris fancies himself a left wing stalwart) extolling the progressive virtues of the bills, such as they are, is counterproductive to passage of the bills. Better to point to the 'dirty f*ckin hippies' discontent, not punch them for it.

The only line of critique that seems logical is the Theda Skopcol attack on feminists - properly endorsed by Village Dems Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum. After all, the progressives still have one more devastating punch in the gut to take - the Stupak Amendment.

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers has a long post arguing that there are progressive wins in the health bills. At this point, there is not much more to say. Either you will believe it is so as Chris does and as the Village Dems will argue. Or you don't. This part made me chuckle though:

Medicaid--Even wash
Progressive proposal (House bill): 150% FPL eligibility with no exceptions; $425 billion in outlays; 15 million people covered

[. . .] How did it happen? By an odd circumlocution, [Ben] Nelson actually did something good for the bill. [. . .] Just about every state gets Ben Nelson's deal for Nebraska, now. The proposed outlays from the White House might exceed those in the House bill.

A big progressive win for Ben Nelson! Of course it wasn't. It was an escape hatch from the Cornhusker Kickback. I have advocated for a similar type of progressive win on the Stupak Problem. Chris has a different take:

If I were in Congress, and the price to pay for passing the health bills was accepting the Stupak Amendment, I think I probably would swallow it. But before I did that, I would search for solutions that would obviate that need. The heart of the problem is the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance through state based exchanges. While it is true that the new bill does not change existing law (the Hyde amendments of course apply to the expansion of Medicaid), Stupak has seized on the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to argue that new restrictions must be placed on insurance policies offered in these state based exchanges. Stupak is not satisfied by the Nelson Amendment, that permits states to prohibit the sale of private insurance policies that offer abortion in their exchanges.

The obvious solution stares us all in the face - shift the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to federal subsidies for the purchase of public insurance (Medicaid, Medicare or a new public insurance option.) More . . .

The strategy to placate Stupak is emerging, and it is an interesting one:

[T]he Catholic bishops want to show a measure of dominance over the US government, and they want their way on this. And they have convinced Stupak to reject the “third bill” strategy, which House leaders offered to him.

What they want to do is to put the changes to the abortion language in a reconciliation sidecar bill, the second bill. This ensures that it will get passed as part of the package, since the President and Senate leaders have already promised that the sidecar will become part of the agreement. [. . .] How could the Stupak amendment language on abortion survive the inevitable point of order on the Byrd rule? Well, the bishops want [. . .] 60 votes from the Senate to waive the point of order.

I think this is an unrealistic approach as it would undermine the Republican strategy of treating reconciliation as some sort of illegal power grab (and they will need a lot of GOP votes for it as too many Dems will vote to NOT waive the point of order.) I still think a separate Stupak bill is the more likely strategy.

Speaking for me only

The Democratic Strategist makes a call to arms to progressives:

This will likely be the pivotal vote in enacting a decent health care bill, and we can imagine the lobbying pressure the insurance industry will be putting on these House members in the weeks ahead. Much depends on them hearing from progressive constituents and organizations in impressive numbers.

(Emphasis supplied.) I'm sure it will happen. After all, President Obama gave them a pat on the head, though nothing else. After the capitulation to Stupak on abortion is complete, I'm sure progressives will be even more enthused. Yes We Can!

Speaking for me only

Via Chris Bowers, the progressives in the House cut their deal with President Obama on the health bill - they got a private pat on the head:

President Obama met with House Progressive leaders today on health reform. Apparently, he thanked them for their advocacy, saying it made the bill better. [. . .] [I]t feels good to hear President Obama acknowledge our efforts in a positive, rather than a derogatory way. And it is appreciated.

Meanwhile, Bart Stupak won't be so easily assuaged. D-Day writes:

Stupak is reportedly negotiating on something with House leaders, which may be the “third bill” strategy, a standalone vote on his amendment attached to the overall bill, which must pass as a condition of his bloc’s support.

I disagree with Stupak on the policy, but I think he provides lessons on political bargaining.

Speaking for me only