If the Democratic leadership is not pressured from the left...

they will only address concerns from the Right. It remains that simple. Olympia Snowe's vote can only be considered of decisive importance if it can be won without losing two more progressive votes as a consequence. Seeking 60 votes in the Senate with a watered down approach is only relevant if that approach still keeps enough progressives on board in the House for it to pass there.

There is no more reason to blame lack of flexibility by Progressives if health care reform is thwarted than there is to blame inflexibility by so called moderates. Less in fact. For too long obstructionists have gained undue power by just digging in their heels and saying "No", while progressives are subjected to repeated loyalty tests.

Polls show that the American people want a meaningful Public Option included now in any health care reform passed by Congress. Let Max Caucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and yes Olympia Snow, explain to the American people why THEY blocked health care reform from happening over dogged opposition to a feature that the public wants included. Unless they are convinced that it may come to that, they are free to bluff their way to the concessions they want. If blue dogs demand a game of chicken they can have it, and let the chips fall where they will. It's the only way left to unrig the way the political game is played in Washington today.

but they ignore us because they assume we have no where else to go. Sometime next year they'll start making empty promises again ("Vote for me just one more time and I promise things will be better.") but they might be in for a rude awakening when they find the battered left has wised up to their lies and won't fall for them again.

They can get their votes from the wheels at the insurance companies and Wall Street - that's who they represent.

I can't understand why it's not obvious to some folks here, unless they choose not to understand it, don't have the stomach for it, or are Blue Dogs themselves.

We've always advocated *starting* a negotiation with what we want - not what we think will pass. We realize we may not end up with what we ask for, but have a better end result than the train wreck that's happening now. Imagine if we started with single-payer: I think you'd see wide support among progressives for the PO as a compromise. But since we started with a compromise, there's simply less room for flexibility in the midst of negotiations.

You don't by a car by starting with highest price you're willing to pay. Where can you go from there but up?

then at least make it god damn clear that you have drawn a red line in the sand with that moderate proposal that you will not back away or down from. That wasn't done regarding the public option either.

Reid and The President have got to include a public option.

(so, let's see if I've got this right)

Then it will take 60 votes to remove it with an amendment which seems difficult. If they don't include it it will take 60 votes to put it in with an amendment which seems impossible.

Each of the bills in the house has some form of public option already included.

I don't see how Snowe's vote is consequential at all.

The only votes that are important are the 60 votes necessary to end debate. Any Democrat who doesn't vote for cloture is playing with fire. After debate ends it only takes 50 votes plus The Vice President to break the tie to pass the legislation.

Maybe I'm not understanding everything but the biggest thing we have to worry about seems to be the leadership abilities of Senator Reid and President Obama. If Obama can't pressure Reid to include the public option in the bill that reaches The Senate floor then it seems to me then that he never really cared that much about it to begin with. Once it's in it's a matter of getting each Democrat to vote for cloture. Why they won't play hardball and make it clear that any Democrat who votes with Republicans to filibuster the bill will loose committee chairs etc. is beyond me.

- and then there's the reconciliation option which is another kettle of fish entirely.

If Dems end up passing a bill that forces us to buy private health insurance and doesn't decrease premiums they will have hell to pay. You can bet on that.

Two have already indicated that they might not - Lieberman (okay, he's not a Democrat but he counts in our 60) and Evan Bayh.

"Not vote for cloture? I wouldn’t rule that possibility out — not at all," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats.

"It’s not fair to ask people to facilitate the enactment of policies with which we ultimately disagree," said moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). "So the closer we get to the end of the process, the more, for me, the process and policy will be one and the same."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/15/793321/-Reid-cant-lead-a-prostitute-to-a-bed

They know how to make threats to get their way. And that is how they work their will if there are never counterbalencing threats. Threats? There are many types of threats, LBJ knew all about that. If progress can always be stopped by a threat there will always be threats to stop progress.

In that case the mood of the country was surging left and FDR needed to stay in front of it. It's not quite the same now, but the public is clearly to the left of our political class regarding the role of government is providing affordable health care insurance. The government run program that they are already familiar with; Medicare, has strong support. The public option plans being considered in Congress barely qualify as left of center. Affordable health insurance is a perfect example of the realm in which the public supports a real public role in society. It's about life and death and that is not a matter that Americans traditionally want the unchecked private sector to rule supreme in.

But as long as left of center Congressional votes can be taken for granted and right of center Congressional votes can bully and bluff to their hearts content to blackmail concessions, the right will always hold undue sway.