Harold Meyerson:

The reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era are many and much discussed. [. . .] But if there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement.

[. . .] In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe. No such movements were around during Carter and Clinton's presidencies. For his part, Obama won election with something new under the political sun: a list of 13 million people who had supported his campaign. But he has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills. [. . .] [I]n the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to move Obama's agenda.

(Emphasis supplied.) Harold Meyerson is, like Katrina Van den Heuvel, a sort of Beltway Leftie. Consider my highlighted excerpts. Meyerson talks of "Obama's activists" to move "Obama's agenda." This is absurd. Obama's agenda is not particularly progressive. It is centrist, if not center-right. As a Centrist myself (Afghan War supporter, free trader, opponent of the reenactment of Glass-Steagall, defender of a Constitutional preventive detention regime), this is not so very troubling. But for Meyerson and Van den Heuvel, people well to the left of me, they should realize that Obama is not their champion. More . . .

It is not really important anymore, as the Senate bill will be the final product, but Ezra Klein touts this comparison of the House and Senate health bills.

The House bill is superior in almost every way. Of course that means that the Senate bill will be the final product.

I'll make this an open thread to allow discussion of more relevant issues.

(Also read Jeralyn for a view different than mine) Glenn Greenwald notes the rather hypocritical Obama cheerleading from some on the issue of criminal trials for terrors suspects:

The reality is that the Bush administration used a discretionary multi-tiered justice system for terrorism suspects: they gave civilian trials to some, put others before military commissions, and held the rest indefinitely without charges. That's exactly what the Obama administration's policy is. Back then, virtually no progressives claimed that the Bush administration was "upholding the rule of law" by granting civilian trials to some terrorism suspects and denying them to the rest. How can it possibly be the case that the Obama administration is upholding "the rule of law" when, to use Benen's words, it is according rights to terrorism suspects "the same exact way the Bush administration did" (albeit with some improvements to the military commissions and some new discretionary guidelines to use for who gets a civilian trial and who does not)?

[MORE . . .]

Entering the college bowl season, there were 5 unbeaten teams left in college football. Two of them meet in the national championship game - Alabama and Texas. 1 of them, Cincinnati, met Florida in the Sugar Bowl. Cincy got pasted by 27 points in a game that was not that close. So much for the idea that the Bearcats were the best team. The last two - TCU and Boise State, meet tonight in the Fiesta Bowl. Both teams have a chance to make their case tonight that they are the best teams.

TCU is a 7 point favorite. Sagarin has TCU as 4 points better. The teams met a year ago in the Poinsetta Bowl, with TCU eking out a 1 point win. Boise has a signature win over Pac 10 champion Oregon (not so valuable now that the Pac 10 has been exposed in the bowls.) TCU won the Mountain West, which has shined in the bowl games.

I think TCU is the better team. I think they win and cover. I like the Horned Frogs (-7).

Via Greg Sargent:

In a statement, Rep Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, criticized the scheme and complained he hadn’t even been consulted yet:

I am disappointed that there will be no formal conference process by which various constituencies can impact the discussion. I have not been approached about my concerns with the Senate bill, and I will be raising those at the Democratic Caucus meeting on Thursday. I and other progressives saw a conference as a means to improve the bill and have a real debate, and now with this behind-the-scenes approach, we’re concerned even more.”

John Emerson wrote this, in a comment to this d-day post:

Political insiders, media people, political pros, etc. take this as Rule One. If you don’t realize that your candidate is going to cheat you, it’s your fault for being a sucker. The pros and insiders are proud to be on the cheating side and not on the cheated side. Go to a centrist blog and you’ll see people talking that way in the comments. “Who were those suckers who believed in hope that you can believe in? How could anyone believe in that?”

If you’re on the cheater side of the consent/governance divide, you’re cool. If you’re on the cheated side, you’re an idiot. And if you get mad about being cheated, you’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and the conspirators laugh at you.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think I have the distinction of both having been a cynical person who did not believe in the whole "change you can believe in" nonsense (remember "not a dime's worth of difference?") who also feels cheated (making me a sucker). I thought that with the mandate he won in November 2008 - Obama would actually make a bigger difference. I was wrong. So I am a new species of citizen - the cynical sucker.

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers:

Democracy Corps is the only polling outfit currently measuring the specific 2010 Democratic enthusiasm gap. [. . .] What Democracy Corps found is that "drop-off" voters favor Democrats by a whopping 53%-36%. This compares to a narrow, 47%-45% Democratic advantage of likely voters. If drop-off voters were included in the overall sample, Democrats would lead 48%-43%. While this is only one data point, it means that the enthusiasm gap is currently costing Democrats about 3% nationally.

How many seats lost does "only 3%" translate into? 20 in the House? 4 Senate seats? I do not know but find it a curious attitude. Who cares about the drop off is an interesting message to read from Bowers. Hopefully, professional Dems are more worried about it than that.

Speaking for me only

As lilburro points out, the new Dem strategem of ping ponging the health bill makes a mockery of the fear of reconciliation as a "nuclear option" politically (see Nate Silver's argument on that point.) Coming soon from the mouths of Republicans near you, ping pong as the new "nuclear option." Jon Cohn writes:

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. [. . .] Whatever form the final discussions take place, a decision to bypass conference would undoubtedly expedite the debate, clearing the way for final passage (if not signing) by the end of January. And, as long as both chambers still get their say, that's a good thing.

I will wait for a procedural expert (Kagro's explanation seems full of holes to me, though this one is better, but still I have questions) to explain how ping ponging will "expedite" the process (my understanding is that actually conference reports are not subject to amendment and only require one cloture vote - a non conference bill would seem to have MORE, not less, procedural hurdles), but I know one thing for sure, ping pong will be the NEW "nuclear option."

Speaking for me only

As Jeralyn wrote about earlier, the evidence is beginning to point to a serious intelligence failure regarding the latest attempted terror attack. Remember the smoking gun delivered to President Bush in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing?

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Apparently, there was something similar, though never delivered to the President, overlooked by our intelligence agencies:

TPM touts (as does Kevin Drum, more to follow I am sure) this Spencer Ackerman piece as explaining "the potential trade-offs involved if you want the government to (over)react to every potential threat." I am loathe to draw conclusions without really knowing the facts, but even accepting the facts Ackerman assumes as true, his post reads like rather lame excuse making to me. Ackerman writes:

[I]s it really fair to point the finger at the intelligence community here? Abdulmutallab’s father told embassy officials in Abuja that he didn’t know where his son was, but might be in Yemen.

Um, yes it seems fair to me. Is it a usual occurrence that a father comes to the U.S. government reporting that his son has been radicalized and he suspects that his son is now with Al Qaida elements in Yemen? This seems highly UNUSUAL to me and should have raised a red flag regarding Abdulmutallab. More . . .

I largely agree with Glenn Greenwald that President Obama's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest flight 253 was appropriate and intelligent.

I thought that the President's remarks acknowledging a "systemic failure" and promising a full investigation was the right thing to do. It certainly did not merit a "red alert" situation with meetings in the Situation Room. That said, I disagree with Glenn's description of the terror attempt as a "a lame, failed attempt to kill people by a fractured band of criminals." It was a failed attempt surely. But it was a serious threat and Islamic extremists are not just a "fractured band of criminals." The threat of terrorism by Islamic extremists is very serious. The President recognizes this. I disagree with progressives who attempt to diminish the seriousness of that threat.

Speaking for me only

[I]f you don't have a plan for how [to . . .] help lead to better outcomes, you aren't really a Democrat anymore, and your activism can't necessarily be considered progressive even if uses progressive terms and angles. That's fine. No one is compelled to support the Democrats over the Republicans or to support policies they disagree with. But we should call this kind of blogging what it is, which is anti-Obama, and anti-Democratic Party...and anti-government, really. -- Booman, (Booman's reply to my post, see also below the fold Booman's further explication on the Clintons and the DLC)

I've known Booman through the internets for about 5 years. Since I first encountered him, his detestation of Bill and Hillary Clinton was expressed consistently. the Third Way politics Clinton practiced during the 1990s represented all that was evil to Booman. I've always disagreed with that assessment, believing that Clinton, a consummate pol, adapted his politics for the times. Yes, in the 1990s some triangulation was necessary was my view. I did not believe that was true for the Obama Presidency, or for the 2000s for that matter. Like Markos at daily kos, I abhorred the DLC's drive for "values" voters and more triangulation. I fought for a Fighting Democratic Party. I still do. More . .