Obama and the Senate Democrats are confusing bipartisanship with consensus. We already have a consensus: 72% of Americans want a public health plan option, the Republicans have just a 25% approval rating, and there are nearly 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Senators fetishize "party" at the expense of people. Their whole lives revolve around party. If there were 90 Democrats in the Senate and 10 Republicans, some Democrats would still be worrying about winning over one or two of them for fear of being called "partisan."

Bipartisanship is meaningless. Consensus is what matters.

Boxer did exactly that in answer to my email urging public option

Those are the Obama Principles. You get those back from Dems who do not want to commit to this or that specific

It is a sign of indecision at best, temporizing in many cases

thanks for making this point. if rahm is obama's outspoken half, then it's clear what obama wants. he wants a win, he wants a bipartisan win, and he wants to look like something big has happened regardless of whether it has. this is all incredibly sad, but hey, you get the centrist non-feather-ruffling president you voted for...

The argument is clearly coming from someone who supports single payer (as I do, and Obama at least used to say he did). The question is focused on the politics at this point in time where the rubber hits the road in Congress and its relations to the Administration.

(Incidentally, as a strong Obama supporter, donating to his campaign starting B.O. [before oprah became central to the campaign, giving the first glimmer of hope that Obama might actually win] I remember LOTS of venom in the campaign, almost ALL of it against Obama mainly from Hillary supporters, including high up in the campaign. I don't know who said exactly what, but people should check out the mountains of threads attacking Obama for not cancelling an engagement at the last minute with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, a name most folk have since forgotten, if they ever knew it. That was some campaign -- replete with race-baiting and hints/charges of anti-Americanism and even the repeated claim that Obama was a Moslem. I myself got pretty sharp in response to some of that.

Now, like so many others who supported Obama PRECISELY because he at least held out the HOPE that he would not just be another Clinton/Al From Democrat, and on energy, health care, a range of human rights issues both explicit and otherwise, the same old pattern of pseudo-compromise that only turns out to be unstrategic as well as unprincipled is rearing its ugly head again.
The energy bill is so bad that I for one feel it would be better to just pass the clearly positive and relatively hard-to-vote-against parts of the bill, and let the whole cap-and-trade thing wait for next year. At the very least the legislation MUST have a non-lockin clause that allows for tightening of standards as scientific findings suggest the need for it.

On health, the same pattern applies. Obviously we won't get single payer, although the way the huge support for it has been marginalized by fiat in the debate has been obscene. And COngress isn't Iran -- Obama need not take a hands-off approach to that. At this point, one CRUCIAL provision, like the non lockin provision on energy would be something that makes clear (and formulates the bill to make it possible) that this reform does NOT preclude a future transition to single payer. Also, states should be explicitly empowered to opt for statewide single payer systems without prejudice to their federal aid or eligibility for it. This "state system" option should be ALONGSIDE and not instead of the national public option.

And yes, Obama needs to draw a line in the sand on public option. But what does Skocpol mean about "privately"? My question on health care is what can folk like Theda Skocpol and the many prominent intellectuals and medical professionals she knows or has access to do at this point?

I suggest they run a full-page ad in the NY Times (and possibly elsewhere) specifically noting that many of the signatories support single payer and consider it regrettable that single-payer was excluded from discussion and that Obama not insist that it at least be seriously included as a possibility. (This would be a subordinate point). Then it would insist that, as an ABSOLUTE and NON-NEGOTIABLE minimum, Obama MUST publicly and explicitly draw a line in the sand on a meaningful and robust public option, with various specific parameters, and threaten to veto any legislation that lacks such a provision at the very least. Hopefully, such a statement could include the "nonpreclusion of single-payer" clause I mentioned above as something they suggest, even if not as part of the 'line in the sand'. And then there could be oodles of intellectuals, doctors, medical professionals, some members of Congress and other politicians and notables, and a call to support the statement, donate, etc. This would generate news, (like the Betray-Us ad, whatever else one might say about it, succeeded in doing), and have a lot more impact than all the 'petitions' in the world, and the relatively meager mass demonstrations that have been held.

If I were rich, I could offer serious money towards this, but no doubt there ARE such rich folk around who could and might pony up what is needed to finance both the ad and the organizing/name-culling effort.

Perhaps Ms Skocpol, others at TPM Cafe, or some who folk know are in a position to get a ball like this rolling. It could, in my arrogant opinion, make a difference

Seconded.