You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1255)

PLAYS: (1952)

President Barack Obama accused Fox News as operating in a talk radio format. Fox News only strengthened that argument Sunday as they allowed only White House detractors to comment on the situation. Chris Wallace went so far as to suggest the White House was using mob tactics in it's "war against Fox News." Of course, Fox couldn't find any White House defenders to appear on the Sunday talk show.

It's "what some people are calling the administration's Chicago way of doing business," said Wallace referring to a scene from the classic mobster movie "The Untouchables." Wallace's comparison follows other commentary by the right wing echo chamber. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel was one of the first:

A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.

Glenn Beck followed the script with a rant about the White House "beatdown" of its enemies the following day.

That's the Chicago way and now we have it in Washington with Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.

What was it that Obama promised on the campaign trail? Oh yeah, a "new kind of politics." America didn't think the "new" politics would be even worse than the "old" politics.

Agree with the administration? Fantastic. Dare to stand in the way of "reform"? Uh-oh.

No longer is it a gentlemen's disagreement that can be debated. No, you are going to play ball or get a beatdown.

Media Matters put together some examples of how Fox opinion bleeds into Fox "News."

BBC:

A panel probing fraud claims in the Afghan election has found Hamid Karzai did not gain enough valid votes for an outright win, the BBC understands.

Preliminary results from August's first round had placed Mr Karzai comfortably over the 50% plus one vote threshold needed to avoid a run-off.

But the BBC understands Mr Karzai's vote share has fallen below half, after a number of votes were ruled invalid.

Under poll rules, Mr Karzai now faces a runoff against rival Abdullah Abdullah.

The panel said it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" at the polling stations, which were across the country.

It was not clear how Mr Karzai would respond to the ECC findings, amid reports of a possible legal challenge.

Initial results released last month had given him nearly 55% of votes, with former foreign minister Mr Abdullah on 28%.

The Afghan president has insisted he won the election outright, but EU observers have said as many as one in four votes cast were suspicious.

Sources have told the BBC that Mr Karzai is furious over the prospect of a second round.

It makes Rahm Emanuel's comment that we must know if we have a partner in Afghanistan before making a decision on troop escalation that much more pointed and the Republicans pressuring Pres. Obama to make a quicker decision regarding Afghanistan that much more ridiculous and reactionary.

This is pretty big news. The big progressive groups hadn't yet spoken on the question of escalation in Afghanistan - their silence was pronounced. MoveOn finally broke that silence today, appealing to the President to commit to a clear exit strategy. It's a pretty big step.

U.S. policy in Afghanistan has reached a pivotal moment. President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. And there’s a big debate happening right now about what to do.

Pro-war advocates both inside and outside the administration—including John McCain and Joe Lieberman—are calling for a big escalation. The general in charge of Afghanistan is expected to request tens of thousands more troops, and that may just be the beginning. They’re cranking up the pressure for an immediate surge.

But other powerful voices are urging caution: Vice President Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have raised real concerns about the idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan without a clear strategy, as have Democrats in Congress. And a majority of Americans oppose increasing troop levels.

Can you write to the White House and tell them we need a clear exit strategy—not tens of thousands more US troops stuck in a quagmire? You can send the President a message by clicking below:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51843&id=&t=1

Some administration officials are arguing for a smaller, nimbler approach with a narrow focus on the threat from al-Qaeda. But cheerleaders for the war refuse to acknowledge that there could be any viable strategy other than more and more troops. So they’re trotting out the same tired old lines and questioning the motives of those who disagree with them.

They figure they can cut off any debate about our ultimate goals in Afghanistan and the region. But President Obama has consistently shown a willingness to stand up for his more thoughtful approach to foreign policy, and that’s what he needs to do here, too.

The hawks are making their position heard. Now, the majority of Americans—those of us who are for as quick and as responsible an end to the war as possible—need to make our voices heard, too.

With Democrats opposing escalation by more than two to one, MoveOn is just reflecting the opinions of their membership. They're a bit late to the debate, but better than ducking it entirely.

The D.C. crowd really does live in another world, don't they? Interesting that this article concludes the Dems are having trouble raising money is that they're not business-friendly enough!

The reporter doesn't mention that the netroots community (aka the Democratic ATM) has stopped donating to the DCCC and the DSCC, and instead donate directly to candidates - mostly because we're so disgusted with the Blue Dogs Rahm Emanuel and Co. have recruited.

The party's obliviousness is costing them money at a time they really need it. Worse, it will end up costing us a majority. But why should we give them our money when they're more interested in serving corporations than they are in us?

Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.

The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.

The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior.

As the battle over President Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system reached a fever pitch this summer, the three national Republican committees combined to bring in $1.7 million more than their Democratic counterparts in August. The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent with little more than a year to go before the November 2010 midterm elections.

Gee, Rahm. We didn't have that problem when Howard Dean was DNC chair, did we?

Large-scale defeats in the midterms could be a crippling blow to the ambitious agenda mapped out by Obama's top advisers, particularly if they happen in the Senate, where Democrats caucus with a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. The party will have to work furiously to defend at least six Senate seats and as many as 40 in the House, including many snatched from Republicans.

"If they take them back, this is the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do," Vice President Biden said Monday at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), whose district was held by a Republican for more than two decades before her 2006 victory.

Democrats said a struggling economy is only partly to blame for the poor fundraising performance and acknowledged a more perilous problem: satisfaction among activists that the party now holds the White House, 60 votes in the Senate and 60 percent of the House.

Watching August finally come to a close, I couldn't help but notice that the strategy being used by David Axlerod on the health care reform debate is pretty much the same one he's used throughout the primaries and the general election: David allows the debate to drift off, loses the messaging almost completely, the media runs afoul with wingnuttery and then Axlerod brings President Obama back in so he can swoop down and save the day at the last second.

How's that working for him now?

It might have had a better chance of working if the President had given more definitive answers to what he wanted in health care reform. Instead, he turned the entire legislative process over to Congress, the Baucus Dogs, the Blue Dogs and the Chuck Grassleys, and now it's a mess.

If a bill is passed without a public option, President Obama is in jeopardy of losing his base now. If he doesn't want to lose the left, he must speak out and make clear what he wants in the bill that includes a vibrant public option.

Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, has always been the biggest supporter of the Blue Dogs and it seems like it's part of his strategy to let them block real change to the system and is making sure that the insurance companies still rule the world. Without ever going out on a limb and saying what exactly he wants to pass in health care, he's allowed the right ring fanatics to spew their Beckerwocky, brandish their assault rifles at his events and it shows in the polls. If President Obama loses his base, then who will be there to get his back as his presidency continues? As Mike Lux has written, it's Bush's base that kept him afloat when things got rough and without them, he surely would have lost the 2004 election.
Chris Bowers writes:

In both branches of Congress, Democrats already have the votes and procedural options in place to pass a public option on health care reform. This means it is possible to pass a public option now. it also means that if a public option does not pass as part of health care reform, it will be a because of a political calculation made by the Democratic leadership, not because there was no way to pass one...read on

We have the votes and we have the power, but does the will to really change health care exist? Only time will tell, but the Obama administration is at the precipice now on health care. When Congress comes back in session the time for games, trial balloons and focus groups are over. We voted you in to make real change and not phony compromises. Allowing conservatives to dictate health care and his agenda was never something the almost 70,000,000 who voted for him wanted.

I didn't vote for Rahm Emanuel, did you?

He still has time to make it work, but that time is running out.

UPDATE: I watched Chuck Todd say on MSNBC a little while ago that we should all circle the date 09/15/09. That's the day of reckoning. He also is reporting that President Obama's true health care bill of love is the Baucus Bill and that's the one he'll get behind. How does Chuck know that? I'm not sure, but he's an elitist Villager.

Digby writes:

Chuck Todd is a bit of a dim bulb, but he is a perfect purveyor of beltway conventional wisdom. His proclamation is what the Village believes and regardless of whether or not it's true, the debate will be shaped by that preconceived notion.

Just a word to the wise: as of September 15th, if the committee reports out a bill as promised, the proponents of real health care reform will be fighting the notion that the debate is over and anything more than minor cosmetic changes to the bucket of corporate compost the Finance Committee serves up will be portrayed as Obama caving to the hippies. Plan your arguments accordingly.
{}
Update III: Ooooh. The plot thickens. "Robust" public option or nothing? Brian Buetler reports...
The Republican obstructonism, from a number of anlges, is pushing Obama to choose between a good plan or nothing.

If he picks a good plan, maybe we should send them all thank-you notes.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1394)

PLAYS: (2816)

(h/t Heather.)

I, for one, am thrilled that Dr. Dean is outside the White House, agitating for real healthcare reform. He's much more effective out here than on the inside, being back-stabbed by Rahm:

Howard Dean has emerged as President Barack Obama’s chief antagonist from the left on healthcare reform, raising questions over whether Obama made a mistake by snubbing Dean for a position in his administration.

Dean’s strong advocacy for creating a broad government-run health insurance program, known as the public option, has become a headache for Obama while at the same time giving liberals a powerful spokesman with national credibility.

Dean, who once declared himself a representative of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” has been traveling the nation this summer offering his own views on Obama’s healthcare proposal. His uncompromising stance is reminiscent of his 2004 presidential campaign that took many Democrats by surprise, and has begun to symbolize a rift between the president and those activists who played a major role in electing him.

Oh, yeah. Yoo hoo, over here! Remember us?

“Howard Dean has been the bully pulpit for the grass roots, expressing what the majority of Americans across the country are feeling but using his profile to make it newsworthy,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a liberal activist group that supports the public option.

“It might have been a blessing in disguise that Howard Dean was not brought into the admin because it has allowed him to be bully pulpit for the overwhelming majority of American people who support the public option.”

Soon after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a television interview that the public option is “not the essential element” of healthcare reform, Dean took a strong opposing stance.

“You can't really do health reform without it," Dean said of the public option in a television interview Monday, calling a major government role “the entirety of healthcare reform.” His comment spearheaded a week of liberal criticism of the administration’s mixed messages on healthcare reform. (Obama insisted on Thursday that his position on the public option has not changed and described it as “a good idea” but “not the only aspect.”)

His potential to torpedo the administration’s signature domestic proposal is somewhat ironic given Obama’s efforts to enlist potential adversaries in his administration rather than face their wrath.

Dean was once considered a candidate for secretary of Health and Human Services. Obama passed him over while appointing former rivals and potential adversaries to Cabinet posts. He named his primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State and asked Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a longtime critic of Democratic fiscal policy, to serve as secretary of Commerce.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (110)

August 19, 2009 News Corp

VAN SUSTEREN: Voters want answers on health care. What they don't want is for the Democrats to go it alone. Now, according to one poll, 59 percent of people say Congress should not approve a health care plan if it's not bipartisan. But will the Democrats go it alone anyway, shut Republicans out of the health care debate? The New York Times reports that Democrats do not think the GOP is going to cooperate on health care reform. The Times quotes White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying, "The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."

In a press briefing today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pulled back from the report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are focused on a process that continues in the Senate with both parties. The president again met with Senator Baucus on Friday in Montana, and they discussed the progress that was being made among Democrats and Republicans on the Finance Committee. That's our focus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator Chuck Grassley is ranking Republican member of the "Gang of six," a bipartisan group of senators working for a deal in the Senate on the health care bill. and according to The New York Times, the White House sees criticism by Senator Grassley as a sign there is little hope of reaching a bipartisan deal. Is that true?

Senator Grassley joins us live. Good evening, Senator. And is there little hope of a bipartisan deal, sir?

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: I haven't given up yet, and I haven't said anything new since we adjourned for the summer break that I've been saying for the last three months. So for the White House to draw any conclusions other than what I've told the president right to his face -- and I've said a couple things that are very important, and I've said them before. I've told him for several weeks that, number one, it would really help get bipartisanship if he would make a statement that he would sign a bill that didn't have a public option, or what some of us call a government-run health plan, in it.

And the second one was, in response to a question he asked me about would I be (ph) three or four Republicans going along with the Democrats to make a bipartisan issue, and on that issue, I answered him the same way I've been telling a lot of people for three or four months, that I would not go along because that's not bipartisan.

What you have to have when you're rejiggering one sixth of our U.S. economy, and when you're dealing with health care because that's life-and- death issue for every American, affecting every American citizen, it's got to be done with lots of Democrats and a lot of Republicans, and that's bipartisanship. And it's my responsibility to do something that would get broad support among Republicans, and it's Senator Baucus's Republican to get something that would get broad support among Democrats.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (798)

PLAYS: (2297)

The always classy Coultergeist:

In the discussion with Coulter, in the first video below, Hannity brought up an old statement by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to Obama’s Chief of Staff: “Services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Hannity showed that statement with the clear suggestion that it somehow indicated the current health care bill will include euthanasia, even though the statement was made in 1996 by someone who is not part of the Obama administration. Hannity went on to conflate the statement with the health care bill by (falsely) describing it as “taking seniors in a room and offering them end-of-life counseling.”

Coulter agreed. She added, “Totally ironically, Zeke Emanuel is on my death list. Hold the applause. I’m going to be on the death panel.”

Hannity, obviously stunned, said, “In other words, you get to pick who dies.”

“Right. I have a list,” Coulter answered. “Should I start with the ‘A’s?”

Was Hannity outraged that she spoke that way? Heck no. In a half-admiring tone, he said, “I can read the headlines tomorrow. It’s going to be Ann Coulter…”

It's not the first time that Coulter has fantasized about killing a person. She also wanted to put "rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee".

Of course, Fox News remains blissfully unconcerned by providing a forum for Coulter's murderous impulses and fantasies.

All I know is months ago it was conventional wisdom in D.C. that the Democrats couldn't take the House, that candidates shouldn't talk about the war, and that the best way to try to win 15 seats was to throw all your money into about 18 of them, and hope for the best. In the end, that's not how it played out.

- Duncan Black, better known as Atrios, in November 2006.

Who boosted Howard Dean into the chairman's spot at the DNC, bringing his successful 50-state policy to fruition in last year's presidential race? The netroots did. And in 2006, who showed Rahm Emanuel that yes, we really could take control of Congress? We did.

Whose fundraising pushed the Democrats over the top in the 2008 Senate races? Ours did. Whose activist base drove the publicity, turnout and dollars in last year's presidential primaries and general election?

Duh.

So what have we accomplished? The war goes on and we've even expanded our presence in Afghanistan. The Bush-era encroachments on civil liberties have not only been embraced by a Democratic president, the Democratic Congress gives him their blessing. And with the goal of universal healthcare within tantalizing reach, we have Blue Dog Democrats - Democrats! trying to obstruct it.

Enough of kicking the Blue Dogs. What can we do to be more effective? Where did we go wrong?

Continue reading »

UPDATE: Harry Reid has kissed and made up with the Finance Committee Republicans. So much for that momentary attack of leadership!

I think it's pretty clear that Rahm's original statements were some kind of trial balloon. I know some of you would like to think Rahm was acting as a loose cannon, but that's just not the way political operations are run, especially at the White House level.

It's just as clear that the pushback from every direction has sent a very strong message to the White House. That's why Rahm rushed to meet with members of the Democratic caucus last night: to quell the firestorm. Nice work, everyone! Don't let up on the pressure, because Obama may yet compromise on the public option:

Liberal groups on Tuesday made it clear that they are not happy with news reports that the White House may be considering alternatives to a public plan in health care reform.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the 77-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, fired off a letter to President Barack Obama warning him against dropping a public insurance option from health care reform plans.

Grijalva described the “alarm and dismay” he felt after reading a Wall Street Journal story that cites White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offering support for a “trigger” mechanism, under which a public plan option is only part of health care if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own.

“I want to be crystal clear that any such trigger for a strong public plan option is a non-starter with a majority of the Members of the Progressive Caucus,” Grijalva said.

“Moreover, I consider it unacceptable for any of the cost savings that you are negotiating with hospitals and other sectors of the health care industry to be made contingent upon a robust public plan option not being included in the final legislation,” Grijalva continued.

Obama sought to ease liberals’ concerns by issuing a statement that reaffirms his support for a public option. But many House liberals remain concerned that Emanuel is still pushing a deal for hospitals.

And in a meeting last night with House Democrats, Rahm Emanuel reassured rebellious members the president strongly backs a government-run public plan:

Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) warned Emanuel that he would lose the caucus’ votes if the White House compromised on the issue and included a “trigger” that could delay a public insurance plan indefinitely. The trigger idea is backed by conservative Democrats but is anathema to liberals.

“We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game,” Woolsey said she told Emanuel. “People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives.”

Now, let's parse what Rahm continues to say. Obama "strongly backs" a government-run public plan - but is not willing to draw a line in the sand? What, then, does "strongly back" mean to Obama? He simply shrugs and says, "Whatever"?

Emanuel met with House Dems yesterday to reassure them that the President remains firmly behind the public option. But it’s still not quite clear what Rahm said or how strongly the White House remains committed to it.

Here’s how Rep. Henry Waxman, who says he was reassured by the meeting, characterized what Rahm said:

“He doesn’t stand by that trigger,” Waxman said. “He said the president and his administration and he are for a public plan as one of the options.”

The claim that Rahm “doesn’t stand by” the trigger is a bit opaque. If it means that Rahm took back his claim that the White House sees the “trigger,” which many see as a back-door way to kill a public plan, as a viable option, that will reassure many Dems.

However, if Rahm said that the President backs the public plan as “one of the options,” that doesn’t really go much further than what the President said yesterday, which left the White House plenty of wiggle room on this question.

In other words, it looks now like Rahm told House Dems that the President strongly backs the public option, but isn’t willing to draw a line in the sand over it. Which, of course, is what Obama has been saying all along.

Watching this White House deal with health care has been an education. When Rahm is involved, nothing surprises me.

Still, it was good to see Chuck Schumer step up to the plate:

On Monday, Mr. Emanuel said the trigger mechanism would also accomplish the White House's goals. Under this scenario, a public plan would kick in under certain circumstances when competition was judged to be lacking. Exactly what circumstances would trigger the option would have to be worked out.

Some Democrats pushing for a vigorous public plan say the trigger idea isn't good enough. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in an interview, "If it's not there on day one, those of us who support a public option have a real problem with it."..read on

It's really hard to believe that Schumer is standing with us on this issue, but it seems like he is.

Hullabaloo writes:

Using the prescription drug plan as an example is brilliant. Pharma loved it. And they really loved Billy Tauzin, the man who rammed it through. Good times.

Dday wrote about the "trigger" in this post:

A trigger mechanism is simply absurd. The insurers have had decades to provide decent coverage and have demurred every time. They have shown themselves to be untrustworthy that entire time, including just last month, when they backpedaled on the cost controls they vowed to offer. Mike Lux, who has seen these battles up close, senses that this is the big proxy fight right now.

Sure, we'll just have to trust that a trigger will kick in and save the day.

President Obama commented all the way from Russia on Rahm's statements and had this to say.

via Open Left:

This forced Obama to interrupt his diplomacy in Russia to release this statement:

I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.

What happened here? Rahm likely was blabbering to a reporter and just went with his natural gut instinct -- to be weak, and cave to Republicans. As I told the New York Times Caucus blog recently:

Advisers like Rahm Emanuel operate out of fear — like it’s 1994 — instead of operating like people who just won a huge mandate in 2008. They obviously haven’t mastered the bully pulpit yet, which is a shame since Obama is a master communicator. If Obama insisted on the public option and held rallies in Montana, Nebraska, and Louisiana, it would happen.

Today's quote by Obama was a great step. Good job, White House (minus one). Rallies in Montana, Nebraska, and Louisiana would be another good step.

So Obama told him to STFU.
UPDATE: (I just got back from the doctor because of a bad wrist and the doctor doesn't take insurance and I need an MRI that he has to negotiate for me...I'll have more on this later.)

Is Obama just playing games? Is Rahm stating the position that Obama really supports? is the trigger the compromise? It's a muddled mess and I'm sick of the games and nobody knows for sure.
If they try to tank the public option I propose all Democratic politicians hold out and refuse to vote for anything that doesn't have a vibrant, public option.

All these gyrations and negotiations to avoid even the possibility of a truly robust public plan! Ah well, there's probably some 11-dimensional chess going on here that I can't see. But I'll tell you what I can see: That everybody's represented at this particular table except us:

WASHINGTON -- It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "stiff." Somehow, this statement has a whiff of Viagra spam about it: "Your instrument will be like a mighty oak." Uh huh.

"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," he said in an interview. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.

His comments came as the Senate Finance Committee pushed for a bipartisan deal. To help pay for the package, the committee planned to announce an agreement Wednesday with hospitals and the White House for $155 billion over a decade in reductions to Medicare and charity-care payments for hospitals, according to a person familiar with the agreement. That will help pay for the legislation, expected to cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years.

One of the most contentious issues is whether to create a public health-insurance plan to compete with private companies.

Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.

Are you kidding me, Rahm? Plan D is a piece of crap, a fact that is well-known to the people who actually rely on it. Oh, I forgot - to you, a success has more to do with "getting the job done" in Congress than in actually fixing the problem. Solution-esque, as it were. This is your template? Dear God, we're screwed. Because that trigger mechanism was designed to never be triggered.

Mr. Obama has pushed hard for a vigorous public option. But he has also said he won't draw a "line in the sand" over this point.

Will this man draw a line in the sand over anything? Is nothing non-negotiable with President Obama? Oh, right: Banking bailouts.

The deal with the hospitals follows a similar agreement with brand-name drug companies. And insurance companies were talking to Senate negotiators about cuts worth at least $100 billion over 10 years, according to two officials with knowledge of the negotiations.

Congressional negotiators and the White House hope to lock in support from the industry groups, which are backing a health bill in general terms but have opposed past efforts.

But this time, they're really, really, really operating in good faith. Honest! (Charlie Brown, meet football.)

Hospitals and insurers hope to gain some degree of control over cuts to their federal payments. In principle, a health-care overhaul could benefit both groups by raising the number of Americans who buy and have health insurance.

"They've made an assessment reform is going to happen, so it's better to be part of that than not," Mr. Emanuel said.

However, insurers, and most Republicans, strongly oppose creation of a government-run insurance option, saying it would ultimately drive them out of business. Most Democrats support a public option.

The president and his aides already have signaled a willingness to consider an alternative to a public plan under which a network of nonprofit cooperatives would compete with for-profit insurance companies. That is the leading idea in the Senate Finance Committee.

Continue reading »

Ezra Klein writes from his new gig at the Washington Post: Should California Get a Bailout?

That said, a lot of companies that proved too big to fail weren't too big to change. Wall Street was given compensation caps. GM had to renegotiate its labor contracts. If Washington is going to bail out the Golden State, it should make the money contingent on structural reforms that leave the state better able to balance budgets in the future.

This should be like an IMF intervention (maybe Simon Johnson has some thoughts?). California's legislature is in a strange position: It needs a two-thirds vote to raise taxes but also has to fund ballot propositions that require a simple majority of an uninterested public. The majority party in the legislature, in other words, can neither control how much money it raises nor how much money it spends. That's not a sustainable state of affairs

Howie Klein:

I think President Obama should direct his staff to think about bailing out California instead, and let the Europeans borrow the billions of dollars they need directly from the Chinese and leave us out of it. We have-- largely because of corrupt hacks like Rahm NAFTA Emanuel-- enough problems right here at home.

The Campaign Silo writes:

Funding the IMF: White House Should Honor Left’s Critique, Allow for Conditionality Review

Digby says:

"This bail-out for European banks by the American taxpayer is such a bad idea that they had to attach it to a "support the troops" emergency supplemental in order to get it passed.

Dear President Obama, please help California. We have a major league moron for a Governor and the 2/3 vote needed to make any substantial changes in the legislature is killing us. Stan Van Gundy's horrendous coaching of last night's Laker-Magic game is nothing compared with what we have to deal with.

h/t The Polical Carnival and LandlineTV.

Obama and his crew set up a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to discuss a nuclear deal. Obamtourage is not endorsed by Mark Wahlberg.

Cast:
Marcus Wright -- Barack Obama
Ben Rodgers -- Joe Biden
Doug Mand -- Rahm Emanuel
Craig Rowin -- Turtle
Jen Bartels -- Hillary Clinton
Justin Brown -- Hillary's assistant
Gil Ozeri -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Lucia Aniello - Mahmoud's assistant
Nicole Shabtai - Office Girl 1
Janette Johnson - Office Girl 2
Sunita Deshpande - Office Girl 3
Marcia Mitchell - Office Girl 4
Samantha Gurewitz - Office Girl 5

Crew:
Directed by Paul Briganti
Director of Photography -- Cory Dross
Idea by Jennifer Statsky
Script by Saj Pothiawala
Set Designer: Elaine Haswell
Set Photographer: Glenn Boozan
PA Coordinator: Jared Neumark
AC/Grip: Marcos Herrera
PA: Mike Schroeder
PA: Andrew Ford

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1685)

PLAYS: (2335)

Rahm Emanuel not only told George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week that no field officers should be prosecuted over breaking the law when it comes to torturing prisoners, but he took it a step beyond and proclaimed that even the lowlife John Yoos and Jay Bybees shouldn't face any consequences for their actions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?


EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement -- not the letter, the statement -- in that second paragraph, "this is not a time for retribution." It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution.


We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don't use anymore. He banned it.

Look, it's up to us and Congress to push along these hearings and impeachments.

As Jane says:

Is that truly what the administration thinks? That people who want to see those who illegally led the country down the road of torture held to account are simply "looking back" in "anger" and "retribution"? Fifty percent of the country favor such investigations, including 69% of Democrats and a majority of independents. Is Rahm saying that President Obama believes they're nothing more than an angry, vindictive mob, and that nobody could possibly have a rational basis for believing that our laws should be enforced?

Manfred Nowak, the United Nations top torture investigator, says that treaties entered into by the United States require criminal investigations:

The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court.

For Obama to say "it is the time to look forward" is not a shock to me, but we have to look backward and take action so these insane practices and anything like them never, ever happen again under any president. I understand that the spooks don't want to be prosecuted for following orders and the pressure the president is being put under by these agencies. I'm just fine with seeing Yoo and Addington and Bybee and all the rest of the Bush Administration honchos in shackles doing a frogmarch, justice for their miscreancy in disgracing this country and using the OLC to justify the illegal practice of torture. I think the world needs to see them, too.