Liberal Democrats have done their share, and compromised, and compromised, and comprised for the sake of reform; when will President Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership make Blue Dogs Democrats and conservative Democratic Senators do the same?

Saturday night's vote in House of Representative on health care reform, while milestone in many respects, was a dire wake up call to liberals and progressives who worked hard during the past election cycles to give Democrats control of both houses in the Congress and the White House in 2008. The bill passed the House, though just barely: needing 218 to pass the House the bill managed to gather 219 Democrats and one Republican Congressman, Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao from Louisiana. Thirty-nine Democrats voted no on the bill. (See Why Some Democrats Voted Against the House Health Bill)

The focus now shifts to the Senate, which has a reputation of being much more conservative than the House. Many Senators such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have already openly stated that the House bill or anything like it is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. And the Democratic Whip in the Senate, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), has implied that the Senate might even have to delay legislation until 2010 because the votes are currently not there for the bill Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) recently released. Meanwhile Republicans in both houses continue to demonize reform and conservative Democratic Senators continue to either threaten reform in general or demand further concessions from leadership.

All of this seems to suggest that in the end if we are to get any kind of reform passed that it will be a quasi-Republican bill with no Republican support that hinges on leadership requiring progressive Democrats to bite the bullet to satisfy conservative Democrats once again.

When pro-choice Democratic congressmen left Speaker Pelosi's office infuriated about the decision to put the Stupak amendment up for a vote they knew that while they were free vote against the amendment when it came to a vote for the overall bill that they were expected to put aside their principles and values and vote "Aye" for the Democratic bill. When will SpeakerPelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama make their conservative colleagues do the same?

From the beginning progressives understood their place in the debate and were willing for the sake of the party, because they knew that all Democrats would rise or fall on the issue of health-care reform, to vote for a bill were some aspects of the bill went against issues they deeply cared about. They understood that inspirational speeches from the President were never directed towards them, but rather their colleagues that were willing hold up reform simply to get what they wanted. In the early days of the debate almost all progressives gave up on single payer, even though it would be undoubtedly better than what we will ever end up with, and settled for a diluted public-option, because leadership told them they would have to. They stood by as their leader, President Obama, transitioned from a fierce advocate for change to a shrewd politician seemingly willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of simply passing a bill. 

Progressives understood that in this debate, and all the ones previous in the Obama Era, and seemingly all the ones from here on out, that they would have to be the grown-ups in the Congress and do for the American people what conservative Democrats are refusing to do: compromise for the sake of the greater good. 

Meanwhile Blue Dog Democrats in the House and conservative Democrats in the Senate have blatantly made it clear that they are willing to hold up reform so long as it takes for leadership to give them what they want. They have largely been successful in their efforts, because many of them come from conservative districts/states, and leadership has determined that in order to hold on to majority status that it would be in their best interest to succumb to these leaders rather than side with the majority of their caucus. This adds another layer of frustration among progressives, as the majority of the caucus in both chambers are supportive of provisions such as the public option or disapproves of such measures like the Stupak amendment. 

To make matters worse, President Obama has consistently refused to put significant pressure on conservative Democrats to vote for a bill that the majority of the caucus (and the American people) supports, while the base that elected him (and undoubtedly the same base that will be responsible for re-electing him) has seen him remain silent on the substantive issues, such as a woman's right to choose, and the public option.

The president and the Democratic leadership's actions so far do not come to a surprise to many. Throughout the debate over health-care reform the President spent much of his time with conservative Democrats trying to craft the various bills to meet their favor assured that progressives would be with him no matter what. With all eyes on the Senate now many political observers have noted that while the majority of the Democratic caucus, some thirty-plus Senators, are in favor of the Public Option the decision as to whether or not the Senate will even pass a bill with such a provision it has been determined to be in the hands six senators (Bill Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-AR), Joe Libermann (D-CT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND)), all of whom have gone on the record as being opposed to the public option. 

Both the president and Majority Leader Sen. Reid have publicly stated their support for the public option (the president most staunchly in July 2009), both have hinted that if push comes to shove they might be inclined to remove the public option in order to get the support of the six conservative Democrats who currently are holding up reform. 

While many, including President Obama, have stated that the nature of politics is to compromise, it is worth pointing out that what has taken place here during the health-care reform debate has not been compromise but rather a political hostage situation. 

Progressives have begun to fight back in some areas. Particularly in the House of Representatives where after the passage of the health-care reform bill on Saturday with the Stupak Amendment included, Rep. Diane DeGette (D-CO) submitted a letter to the leadership containing the list of forty pro-choice Democrats in the House who vow to vote against the final bill after it goes through conference if it includes the Stupak amendment. 

Quick to make their intentions also clear forty anti-choice Democrats have stated that they will vote against any bill that comes from conference without the Stupak amendment. 

House leadership and the president will have to side with one of the opposing groups. Conventional wisdom suggests that President Obama and the House leadership will maintain the double standard and force Rep. DeGette and other pro-choice Democrats to vote for the bill in exchange for other assurances; however, what remains to be seen is whether or not Rep. DeGette and the other pro-choice Democrats will succumb to the pressure and let through legislation that sets women's right back thirty years for the sake of appeasing the minority of their caucus.