Today, everyone's officially on the same page. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and his leadership team, and the White House all stand behind the Senate health care bill, which, as we learned this week, includes a public option. But the days leading up to Reid's big Monday announcement were perhaps more trying for leading Democrats than has been publicly acknowledged, or than today's picture of calm would lead you to believe.
Much of the hoopla surrounding Reid's decision centers around a tense Thursday night meeting between President Obama and Senate health care principals--including Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)--at the White House. But according to sources briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, things began boiling over earlier in the week, when a key question was, Who's going to take the blame when the public option doesn't make it in to the base health care bill?
According to a source briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, the public option's saving grace was its political popularity with the Democratic base. The source described the back and forth between Senate health care principals and the White House as a "sort of stare down where the two sides were saying, 'you be the face of pulling it out.' Reid wants Obama to do it to give cover to his caucus, Obama wants Reid to do it so he's not the bad guy on the public option, and can still walk away with a win with reform, with bipartisanship, and with a card for everybody running for re-election."
According to a separate source close to both parties, administration officials pushed hard against the idea of Reid backing the measure. "I started hearing...in the days before [the Thursday meeting], that the White House was trying to fuck with them on this whole thing, and that was very much of a thread throughout the days before."
On the morning of the meeting, anonymous sources--and even some high profile senators--came forward to say that Reid was leaning very heavily toward backing the public option. And that's the news he and other senators brought to the White House that night.
"Reid actually asked Schumer to make the pitch," the first source said. When he did, "Obama was less than responsive and asked questions that suggested he preferred an option that could get the trigger and bipartisan support."
How the meeting ended remains unclear. But what we do know is that, early Friday morning--hours after the parties went their separate ways--Politico's Mike Allen reported that, according to a top administration official, Obama's preference was still for triggers, and he'd let the senators know that.
Multiple sources--including Schumer himself--now dispute this interpretation, saying instead that Obama merely pushed hard to make sure leadership had the politics right. But what's interesting is not so much what Allen's source said, but where Allen's source came from: The White House. Perhaps Obama didn't explicitly oppose Reid's plan. But after the meeting broke that night, somebody wanted to make crystal clear where the White House stood.
There has been plenty of speculation, but it's still unknown who went whispering to Allen. It's also not completely obvious what the ploy was: A final warning shot across Reid's bow? A bid to get ahead of the news stories that both the White House and Senate aides knew were coming?
If the hope was to get Reid into line, though, the leak may have had the opposite effect. That Friday, Senate sources told reporters, including myself, that the White House was pushing back against Reid's decision.
In the ensuing political melee progressive activists and strategists made one final push to get the administration on board--or at least quiet their resistance--and discussions between principals continued through the weekend.
In the end, Reid and Schumer did exactly what they told the White House they wanted to do. The administration (or at least one senior administration official) did not get its way. And yet, during his Monday announcement, Reid insisted that the President stood behind his decision, and all parties have basically pushed the same line ever since. Perhaps that's true. But even if it is, the turbulent road to unanimity can't be forgotten by the players involved. And for all the intrigue and drama behind closed doors, the result of the showdown will likely be remembered, for better or worse, as one of the most pivotal moments in this year's endless tug of war over health care reform.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

kash79
October 28, 2009 7:26 PM
"perhaps"
"according to source"
"According to a source"
"According to a separate source"
"Multiple sources now dispute this interpretation"
" anonymous sources"
You pretty much painted a front-row seat action- these phrases notwithstanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph
October 28, 2009 9:19 PM in reply to kash79
So true. Particularly this line: "Multiple sources--including Schumer himself--now dispute this interpretation, saying instead that Obama merely pushed hard to make sure leadership had the politics right."
Not sure why it's so hard for some people to understand that Obama wants to be certain that the strategy chosen will succeed. That's not just to cover his own ass - failure at this point would be disastrous for democrats and for health reform alike. But that doesn't mean he is AGAINST the public option, which is the narrative many of the left seem to be pushing. Which is just plain bizarre when you consider that Obama has argued passionately and tirelessly for the public option for months now.
Obama is a pragmatist and understands that progress is incremental, unlike certain "liberal" bloggers who would prefer no reform at all to reform that isn't exactly what they want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
October 28, 2009 9:35 PM in reply to Joseph
So let's get some other reports that confirm or refute this one. Where are they?
Either way, this is damned good reporting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to Richardxx
As this article points out, actual named sources dispute the narrative that Beutler is trying to push.
With that said, it's important to consider the first rule of tabloid journalism:
Boring sources don't get published.
The guys pushing the sensationalist angle will get print, and if you're aggregating stories from rags like HuffPost and Politico... you're going to be on the far end of a media filter concerned with hits first and the truth second.
I'll stick with the people who aren't afraid to stand by their account publicly. You can keep selectively reading articles to pretend Chuck Schumer and others don't exist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 29, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to Richardxx
Damned good reporting? You gotta be kidding me. No proof it went down this way at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 28, 2009 10:19 PM in reply to Joseph
Passionately?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 28, 2009 10:28 PM in reply to Joseph
Pragmatists don't argue passionately. I've yet to see Obama passionate about anything or anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph
October 28, 2009 10:43 PM in reply to bluebell
Sorry, but you haven't been paying attention. Nothing to do with healthcare, but if you don't think this is passion, I'd like you to give me an example of anybody speaking with passion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv6EAaoFNno
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 28, 2009 10:56 PM in reply to Joseph
Politicians know how to communicate. They have to, to get elected. But whether they have the courage of their convictions is another matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph
October 29, 2009 12:11 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
"Politicians know how to communicate. They have to, to get elected. But whether they have the courage of their convictions is another matter."
We're talking about a person who went from working as an organizer in poor communities to President of the United States. It's laughable to read a comment on a website discussion thread suggesting he may not have "the courage of his convictions".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 29, 2009 5:21 AM in reply to Joseph
So he was a community organizer. He probably started out very idealistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 29, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
I'm sure he became a community organizer for the high salary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 29, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to Joseph
Don't even bother trying to argue with Bluebell. It is a thug troll who pops in and out to take stupid shots at the President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 28, 2009 10:55 PM in reply to Joseph
Since when is the statement 'I like it fine but could live without it' passionate support of a position?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mauimom
October 29, 2009 10:46 AM in reply to Joseph
I'm sorry, Joseph, but that is just bullshit.
"Progress is just incremental" -- when 70% of the American public wants it?
"Obama is a pragmatist" -- when a bill with mandates and no cost controls is going to be an anvil around the neck of Democrats for decades to come?
Obama is out for what he perceives will be best for Obama, and he and Rahm have determined that that will be a Rose Garden signing ceremony. They don't give a damn about what's IN the bill, or the EFFECT of the bill on ordinary Americans. They figure they can lurk under cover since the bill's effective date isn't until 2013. When Americans wake up to the bill's actual lack of coverage then, Obama figures he'll be coasting into his second term.
We "liberal bloggers" care about the American people, not about Obama. We did care about him during the campaign, and donated and worked hard to get him elected. It's only now that we see his true colors that we're disillusioned, but continue ourselves to work for what's right.
Obama hero worship is NOT what's best for the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 29, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to Mauimom
Nor is blind hatred.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 28, 2009 9:23 PM in reply to kash79
It's a start on investigative reporting. It has been so long since we have seen it that we have almost forgotten how it goes. Current 'journalism' is limited largely to republishing publicity handouts uncritically.
Investigative journalism starts by talking to any one who will talk to you -- on or off record. If source A off record tells you Y you go to source B and ask him, on or off record, is it Y?
If you get enough sound sources in your judgment you report it is probably Y as I was told by two off record sources that I trust.
The reader, over time, decides whether or not to trust the judgment of the reporter who does reporting of this kind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 9:31 PM in reply to AJM
Coincidentally, it's also the start of tabloid reporting. The question is whether the reporter can get concrete facts to substantiate any of the third-hand hearsay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
October 28, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to Stroszek
Tabloid reporting usually is on unimportant but shocking subjects with no purpose except to attract readers and often involves paying witnesses.
As near as I can tell, no source got paid here, and this is a subject that will go down in history because it is so important. This ain't tabloid reporting.
That said, it is preliminary reporting. It's the first cut on history. It'll guide those competent reporters and the historians who follow as they investigate what happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 9:46 PM in reply to Richardxx
Well, you can insist on an overly restrictive definition of the term "tabloid," but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about reporting driven by sensationalism and exaggeration with the intent to drive web hits.
I'm so glad you can vouch the integrity of all these anonymous sources and assure us that Chuck Schumer and other people giving first-hand accounts are liars. It's a shame you can share the source of your knowledge with the rest of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
October 28, 2009 10:08 PM in reply to Stroszek
I'm not "vouching" for the integrity of the sources. That's part of the problem the reporter and his editor have to deal with, and I don't expect perfection. Just effort. I delegate that to the experts once I have decided they are an ethical and professional organization.
But I wouldn't read TPM if I thought they were so unethical as to pay sources for their information. Besides, I rather strongly doubt that TPM has the financial resources required to resort to checkbook journalism.
Checkbook journalism (along with some other severe ethical lapses) is tabloid journalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmags
October 29, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to Richardxx
Mylai paid one of the main sources for that story. That was pretty tabloidy, right. That's on par with paying for children's pictures.
You're thoughts on journalism have little perspective for history and your only making statements you think are correct. They aren't, however.
People are comparing this to watergate. Nothing illegal is going on. No one's job is at stake.
My question is will anyone go on the record when they can avoid any hassles at all by staying anonymous?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 9:28 PM in reply to kash79
My favorite:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LFO
October 28, 2009 9:29 PM in reply to kash79
Yes this exactly, and what Joseph says. I usually lurk here but this narrative since last Friday has been driving me insane. Zero differentiation between policy preference and strategy to get the bill passed in the senate. And all hanging on anonymous sources. I expect so much better from TPM. Ugh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
socraticgadfly
October 29, 2009 3:31 AM in reply to kash79
Much more of this, and we'll be reading the WaPost or NYT, TPM-style, as far as the "old media" use of anonymous sources.
Guess the "new media" ain't so new, after all, when it gets to a certain point inside the Beltway, eh?
SIX uses of anonymous sources in 750 words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
October 29, 2009 9:41 AM in reply to kash79
Source means one. Sources means more than one. This is not the reporting of hearsay--that's just a negative swipe at a nuanced story. In fact, the story makes it clear that the protected sources were in a position to know. TPM even indicates the caveat of "briefed on the negotiations" where first party knowledge was not in place. "Top administration official," or "seperate (read independent of first) source close to both parties," indicates to me that the reporters are doing a pretty good job of telling us everything that they can under the constraints of protecting their sources. Unless they are pulling a Judy Miller by identifying Congressional aids as administration officials or vice versa (lying about sources), we have enough information to judge the credibility of this report.
Bottom line: the top priority is getting something (anything) passed but the livid activism of you democrat leftist liberals in favor of the welfare option forced the hand of both Reid and the so called President. (note: I am the Decider and I have to keep up appearances by inciting liberals so please understand that I post tongue-in-cheek).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JeffB
October 29, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to kash79
.
Will Democrats invoke the Reconciliation process?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6388
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 29, 2009 2:39 PM in reply to kash79
I know. I am sick of these unscourced stories. Come on TPM. What gives here? Looks like you re you trying to look more like Huffpo everyday?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
October 28, 2009 7:39 PM
This of course does not bode well for the opt-out.
If Obama never wanted the opt-out, will he fight for it now that it's in the bill? Will he work to get Lieberman, Bayh, etc. on board, or will he just sit back and tell Reid, "I told you so"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 28, 2009 7:57 PM in reply to CN
The President just wants a bill he can pass and a po complicates his political life. His support for it has been lukewarm, along the lines of 'Yes we can (but if it's too hard, forget about it)'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 28, 2009 8:01 PM in reply to CN
So far, it seems the only thing Obama will really fight for is finding a scapegoat to blame for the horrible final bill. He tried it with Baucus, Snowe, Reid, now Lieberman...
But the scapegoat is obvious: the Democrats.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
October 28, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to Why oh why
Obama's Presidency depends on the result of the health care legislation. Whether it is what he wants what Reid hands him or not (and what he wants depends mostly on what he and his crew think will pass) when it comes down to the crunch he is going to fight like a trapped and panicky rat to get a bill through Congress and onto his desk. There has to be more than Clinton got. That's Obama's bottom line.
That's what his hesitancy has been all about. Obama is not going to let the bill get killed as Clinton did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 28, 2009 10:15 PM in reply to Richardxx
The way I see it, the final bill is sure to hand out hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to the health care industry, and do little to control costs; but it will insure tens of millions of Americans, finally.
Yet the bill could be so bad that it 1. increase costs for those insured today and 2. give away just too much money to the industry to be sustainable. It would need to be revised down the road, maybe by a Republican president and Congress. That is the worst outcome, and not something worth passing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
October 28, 2009 10:52 PM in reply to Why oh why
I disagree. The bill, whatever it is, will include a lot of people who are not currently insured and will set in place the idea that the federal government is responsible for those who are not insured.
Politically, which politician dares try to pass a bill that removes coverage from people who currently are covered for health care? Can you imagine running on a platform your opponent can show kills people?
Besides, including extra people in the insurance gives an opportunity to actually reduce costs. The costs are climbing largely because there is such a large group of insured and because anyone under age 65 can be thrown into that group. The health care providers can jack up the charges because those people who are sick are desperate. Starting the program up is going to cause increased costs for a short period (your item 1.) It has to. But in the long term, overall costs will decline.
The decline in the ability of the insurers to raise prices is going to lower the revenue to the insurance companies in the long run.
Any program that increases the number of people covered under health insurance is going to allow the federal government more control over costs of health care. This is what the insurance companies and the Republicans are afraid of. Every step closer to universal health care with community risk pools is a major step in that direction.
That said, universal coverage is preferable. It just doesn't seem to be politically possible right now. This is still a whole lot closer. And the ultimate goal is clearly single payer or some overall supervisor of the health care system.
Did you know that Mexico is implementing a system of universal health coverage and has been since 2003? Mexico, for Christ's sake. We damned sure aren't that far along.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 28, 2009 11:11 PM in reply to Richardxx
I won't argue with you over the benefits of a *good* reform: it would do of all those things. But again, it all depends on the details. Obama has certainly never declared that "the federal government is responsible for those who are not insured". Many will stay uninsured, others will still lose their insurance over time.
Without a principle of universal health care to guide the reform, with "triggers" or "opt-outs" to delay its implementation, nothing would necessarily save a bad plan. Not all roads lead to single payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 29, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to Richardxx
Good post Richard!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
October 29, 2009 9:46 AM in reply to Richardxx
Dear Richardx: O'Bama's Presidency only depends on the passing of health care if he allows it to do so. Clinton was more committed to the issue (for God's sake, his wife was in charge of it--you can't get more personal). He lost. He came back to win re-election and left office with strong ratings despite screwing around on the job. I worked my butt off as President and no one appreciated me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 28, 2009 7:41 PM
More evidence for me that the WH has resisted Dem progressives on HCR. Unfortunately,their resistance is likely to embolden the conservadems to oppose Reid's gambit.
And, of course, more diabolically, this story adds new circumstantial evidence that the WH -- as Robert Reich and Fire Dog Lake writers have said --cut a deal with insurers months ago to kill or neuter the PO in return for the industry not vigorously campaigning to defeat the rest of the HCR elements and not funding the GOP opposition in 2010.
The pressure of the Democratic grassroots is what has saved us so far. I really think Reid's opt-out is the absolute best we can hope for with this present Senate and this mealy-mouthed WH. And I still think there is a good chance this opt-out plan will go down. I won't be blaming Reid for that, though, I'll be blaming the few conservadems who do it and the WH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 29, 2009 12:16 AM in reply to rwc
Although I supported Obama vigorously, I have been disappointed. If there is not a decent accessible PO in healthcare reform, there might as well be no Bill at all. As far as Obama and healthcare, he has done squat to move it along in a meaningful way. His constant hands off approach has done a lot to damage any real reform. Where is the leadership? All this bipartisan crap is nonsense. The GOP is not interested in anything but crushing the Democrats. Anyone that thinks there can be bipartisanship with that crowd is an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 29, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to xargaw
Wow, you just don't understand the process do you? You need to educate yourself on how the process works. No leadership from Obama - now that statement is about the most ridiculous I have ever heard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
syncro
October 28, 2009 7:44 PM
Hey, good post. Thanks.
Now what if Reid can't deliver? Is that a strong possibility?
And Will President Snowe come back if Harry gives her the trigger in order to shut Joe the Bummr up?
I'm even more proud of Reid than before, knowing he went against the Prez for a PO like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kiku
October 28, 2009 8:13 PM
There's another option.
Reid came in Monday knowing that he had the full support of Obama, even if Obama explored a weaker bill. Obama obviously gave Reid his full support. We can assume that Obama wanted the public option, maybe he was thinking safe strategy.
Cyburn recently stated that Obama had no place in writing the legislation. Maybe this is Obama's way of continuing to stay out of the legislation, so that people don't rebel against him. He has no reason to fight when he gets what he wants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph
October 28, 2009 9:36 PM in reply to Kiku
"We can assume that Obama wanted the public option, maybe he was thinking safe strategy."
Yes. In fact, it's not even an assumption but a matter of historical record, because he has pushed for it continuously in events all across the country, in dozens of interviews, and in a speech to a joint session of congress. The narrative that some on the left are now trying to paint - that Obama doesn't support a public option - is absolutely bizarre. Why on earth would he spend so much time and energy promoting an idea if in fact he never wanted it? The narrative makes no sense from any angle. He clearly wants the strongest reform THAT CAN PASS. Which, funny enough, is what he's been saying all along. The only trouble with this simple narrative is it doesn't fill 3 months worth of 24 hour gossip ... oops I mean news cycles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
October 28, 2009 9:52 PM in reply to Joseph
This is what Obama said in his joint session speech:
====================================================
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/09/transcript-obama-health-care-remarks-to-a-joint-session-of-cong/
Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (Applause.)
For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring.
====================================================
Not the strongest endorsement possible of the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 28, 2009 10:06 PM in reply to Eric Jaffa
He said on Oct 20:
""Even the worst of the five bills now before Congress will give millions of Americans health insurance who don't have it," Obama said. "Even the worst bill now before Congress will prevent insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. Even the worst bill is the first chance we've had since Teddy Roosevelt was president to make substantial changes to health care system we can no longer sustain.""
Which is all true; but the details matter, and I fear the final bill could be a giant gift of taxpayer money to the health care industry. Better waste it on insurance companies than on another war if it helps millions of uninsured but still...
It could also be seen as a strong endorsement of even the "worst bill", one without a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph
October 28, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to Eric Jaffa
That's part of what he said. Just before that part he proposed and argued for a public option. But that's only what he said in the joint session. Obama also argued for the public option in dozens of events and dozens of interviews over the past few months. There was one Sunday morning where he appeared on each network advocating for the public option. We can agree on that much, right?
A public option has been included in his health reform plan since before he was elected. How do the people saying that Obama doesn't want a public option explain the fact that last week, OFA made 300,000 calls pushing for the "Obama Plan", which includes, among many other things, a public option? Do you think OFA has gone rogue?
Again, the narrative that he doesn't want something that has been in his plan all along and that he has been advocating for all along is, to put it kindly, bizarre, and to put it bluntly, idiotic and completely contrary to what has happened over the past few months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 28, 2009 10:30 PM in reply to Joseph
Typically, politicians promise one thing then don't follow through once they get elected. So I think that's part of what's making people nervous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
October 28, 2009 10:33 PM in reply to Joseph
The only thing that matters is the final bill. He is going to be judged on that and he will not be able to bob and weave and duck and cover. Candidates get by with narratives. Presidents don't on this or anything else that matters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 28, 2009 10:45 PM in reply to bluebell
People have such short memories, and are subject to mainstream media topics du jour.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
saulgoodman
October 29, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to Joseph
Hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
October 28, 2009 10:20 PM in reply to Joseph
Agreed. Obama entered office with the intent of getting universal health care or something very close enacted. The Great Bush Recession has been a major impediment, and since next year is Congressional election year, it has to happen this year.
Something significant is going to pass. Half-a-loaf? Hell, it's been since Medicare that there was NO loaf.
We're going to get something.
Whatever it will be (what is the level of craptitude?) I won't be satisfied, but we are getting a bit closer to being a civilized society. It WILL happen, the Republican obstructionists and Joe Lieberman notwithstanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 28, 2009 8:21 PM
Well this story gives The White House the cover necessary to re-reach out to Sen. Snowe and her trigger option if the Reid/Schumer Opt-Out Option bill can't get cloture.
What this move did was take the pressure off the progressives to get in line, and put it on the ConservaDems, and whether they'll join Republicans in a cloture filibuster, voting against a pillar of the Democratic Platform. Also if the bill is watered down, it will be because of the ConservaDems.
The White House seemed to want to use Snowe to give the iffy Conservadams coverage. Now the pressure is squarely on Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dschwarz
October 28, 2009 8:24 PM
Ok, so what happened to the reconciliation option?
Open Enrollment period starts soon - I just read the 2010 plan changes from my health care provider. Large increases in premiums, higher copays and more restrictions. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Reid needs to put an end to this nonsense. Get it done with 51. Reconciliation!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
October 28, 2009 8:40 PM
'principals' - not 'principles'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gizmo
October 28, 2009 8:42 PM
From the beginning of this process I have been pretty sure that what we're going to get is a halfass-watered-down-piece-of-crap healthcare bill. It will include enough reforms for the Obama administration to declare it a political victory, but it will far very short of what progressives had hoped for. And we're going to watch the progressives cave in the end, as they make the political calculation that voting against the final version of the bill would be politically catastrophic for the Democrats. The writing has been on the wall for quite awhile now-- this is not going to be a happy ending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 28, 2009 9:19 PM in reply to gizmo
Don't think the Progressives will cave. Since they largely come from strongly blue districts they are apt to get into more trouble if they do cave! The Blue Dogs are already in trouble with their base where the voters do support PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joyba
October 28, 2009 8:50 PM
I am beginning to think that Obama asked Lieber-jerk to pull this stunt and become the fall guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
October 29, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to joyba
This is the most pathetic comment on this thread, though not by far. No unsubstantiated accusation has become out of bounds lately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 29, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Or John's comments right below yours. Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
October 28, 2009 9:01 PM
Obama, along with some Democrats, is being helpful in destroying the Democratic majority in Congress and his own chances for re election.
Any bill that is passed is going to be scrutinized by the base and the blogs, and if what they pass is sham reform, the shit will hit the fan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JAY LAPIDUS
October 28, 2009 9:26 PM
I see Rahm Emanuel's signature word in this quote!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dweb823
October 28, 2009 9:27 PM
I dunno about you, but when I hear "prefers triggers" and top White House source in the same sentence, why does the name Rahm keep floating into my head?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dweb823
October 28, 2009 9:29 PM
Gosh Jay.....I guess we got ESP. The use of that word was also another clue to me as to just who this mysterious high level source was. Rahm has been trying for months to tell progressives not to push for a strong PO, and not to put pressure on members of Congress who won't support a PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
Most of the comments here are just fucking idiotic.
That is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris Brown
October 28, 2009 9:33 PM
And it still unknown who went whispering to Brian Beutler. I must agree that your report is thinly sourced. Really not sourced at all.
Folks in D. C., as you well know, whisper to reporters to pursue an agenda, and so they won't have to accept responsibility for what they have said. Politico.com "reporters" have been consistently wrong with their reports of what their "sources" have told them. Likewise the AP.
Don't get me wrong I appreciate the great reporting on this matter that you and other TPM reporters have provided, but I do not believe reports based solely upon unidentified sources.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lalilyman
October 28, 2009 9:51 PM
Interesting report, but what none of this explains is why the White House would prefer the trigger option. I guess the problem is that it really hasn't made it's position clear, to begin with.
Good on Reid for sticking it in. This is one thing I think the White House is WRONG about.
Now we need to hit back about Lieberman, fast, and show that the momentum really is in our direction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
October 28, 2009 9:54 PM in reply to lalilyman
A theory is that is they could get Olympia Snowe to vote for cloture, then corporate Democrats would feel that they had to vote for cloture, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
October 29, 2009 9:48 AM in reply to Eric Jaffa
It has always been more important to this WH to get a bill, not to get a good bill.
I suspect that is the WH position on most things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 28, 2009 10:42 PM
I wish they would forget about cloture and use reconciliation. Tie compensation to Medicare +5%, open it to all Americans. Do everything possible to start decoupling employment and health insurance.
And then get the CBO to score Weiner's HR 676. Compare costs. And coverage.
And I don't see why people should trust Obama any more than they trust your average politician.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 11:57 PM
This is a great follow up to what has been a pretty interesting week. At this point I am willing to give credence to this account, but only because Josh has good instincts, and until proven otherwise, runs a tight ship.
The one unnamed source still troubles me, though, especially given the big names that have registered on the record denials.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Schwartz
October 29, 2009 12:03 AM
None of this info would mean very much to me, except that it is in line with what Brent Budowsky also has been reporting. I can understand Obama's viewpoint (though I think it is wrong); in his campaign he promised what boils down to ‘bipartisanship’ first, increased warfare in Afghanistan second, and healthcare reform third. He doesn’t want to back out of #1, but one ought to grab at opportunities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 29, 2009 1:04 AM
Ignoring the sources, speculation, interpretation, and so on, here's something I can't understand if this story is true.
Reid decides he wants to make a power play and defy the White House on the public option, then comes back and tells them to take the fall in front of the public if the gamble fails? On what planet does a politician get elevated to Senate Majority Leader and think this is a sellable proposition to guys like Rahm?
It's one of the reasons why I think we're still getting subjective pieces of the story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hawaiian
October 29, 2009 1:12 AM
MMM MMM MMM
Barack Husain Obaama
He want everybody to have a bandaid no matter what color they are,
MMM MMM MMM
He also want everyone to have a asprin, no mater what union they are in.
MMM MMM MMMM
Barack Husine Obaama
It time for Four fingers to take Hairy from Searchlight out to the garage and tune him up.... if yous gets my drift
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
October 29, 2009 2:20 AM
i think people are just so used to beating up on the president, they're still in that mode of thinking.
if anyone believes at this moment that President Obama does not want the public option, and is beholden to corporate interests, after all this time, they never will believe different.
you already know how i feel about all these unnamed sources.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 9:20 AM
Makes sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 29, 2009 10:55 AM
"Multiple sources--including Schumer himself--now dispute this interpretation, saying instead that Obama merely pushed hard to make sure leadership had the politics right. But what's interesting is not so much what Allen's source said, but where Allen's source came from: The White House."
I don't doubt TPM's sourcing and judgment, but that's Allen and the GOPolitico were talking about -- a vertiable RNC newsletter, filled with propaganda, anonymous smears, and tabloid trash.
Need I bring up their front page story based entirely on anonymous Republicans badmouthing that meanie Barbara Boxer?
And since when did Allen, of John McCain BBQ fame (I think he worked the grill) move to covering the WH?
I'm sorry, I just can't trust anything from these well-known liars, who have a huge incentive to tell us, once again, that the PO is somehow doomed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SWL
October 29, 2009 11:31 AM
A fine post, but here's a persnickety point: In the second graph, it should read "principals," not "principles." I'm sure some of the latter are involved, though they tend to be in short supply in our nation's capital (capitol too).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmags
October 29, 2009 11:54 AM
I guess my main problem with this article is its conflicting itself on what actually happened. It's not left for me to decide whether pushing for the trigger is right or wrong, but rather what was actually said, and which "high level source" is reliable, the one who said the f word, or the other guy, or the named source, or this other named source.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
October 29, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to bmags
Yep. TPM has joined the villagers. Now everything is just he-said-she-said, with unnamed anonymous sources carrying just as much weight as named principals who have a dog in the fight.
That's when they don't source small rightwing rags like the Washington Times, which has a 50% smaller circulation than my city's alt weekly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephanie Hunter
October 29, 2009 1:38 PM
The public option is for the people and becoming by the people. It can work and we must support it fully! http://cli.gs/z3AtaY
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?