It's certainly unual for an administration to single out a single news channel ...... and decidedly unusual for this "no drama"/"avoid direct conflict" administration to do so. But the very fact that it IS unusual may be enough to get John and Jane Doe to at least question what they have been taking in as undisputed truth.

Every once in a while I'll drop something, just a small comment, about Fox -- and people at work are shocked. Since I'm well known as the (token) liberal Dem, I don't think they are shocked I don't like Fox .... they are shocked that I would actually question its accuracy! Someone very high up recently said to me "But Bill O'Reilly is a very careful researcher - he always makes sure of his facts before he talks about something." Er, no - not really, sir. (I dredged up some accounts of his "there are no homeless veterans" tirade from back during the campaign to show why I might be suspicious of the man's facts.)

It's really a bit more complex that the comments here indicate and there is really a great deal more at stake than pleasing or displeasing the most liberal and certain-they-know-what-is-right of his supporters. Speaking as one supporter, I am tremendously pleased that he is giving the decision this much time and attention it deserves, that he's listening to all voices and opinions, and making the decision that he feels is best, for all interests involved.

Since I haven't seen any evidence of poor judgment or hidden motives or unthinking stubbornness in his other decisions (not that they have all been perfect)and am prepared to support him on his decision, whatever it turns out to be, on this issue.

Just thought a different point of view needed to be represented here.

Although ...... maybe it's a good thing if some on the left keep screaming - just to reassure those who wouldn't want to agree with them.

This is different than the FDR situation, because the decision here will ultimately be in the hands of the people ............ and you may find a lot of tea-party types who are presented with a real choice. Half (or more than half) of their anger is about feeling left out, powerless, etc., etc. Some won't move from where they were but some are going to calm down enough becasue they are being given power to actually think about the options. -----

Also, in any event, I agree whole-heartedly with LJG (below). If I lived in one of the states where opting-out was possible or likely, I would still be very much in favor of this compromise. Relief is going to come a lot more quickly with the rest of the country moving down the road than if we are all stagnated.

She's right about one thing: she and Palin and others of their ilk seriously bother me. I'm literally stunned, and very bothered, that they are anywhere near positions of power in this country.

I don't think much of Bill O'Reilly, but I do think he is fairly smart. I like to think he had to quell his gag reflex just a bit when he had to say, "Why are they coming after you? I don't get it."

I wonder if she and Mrs. Obama will meet? I hope so.

One tought -- A State that opts in for the beginning would have the option to change it's mind and opt out every, say, two years (a number of reasons to provide for that) ... but a State that opts out in the beginning and changes its mind and wants in would have to commit to remain in the public option system for five years. (Tho I do like groveling at Pelosi's feet.....)

Oh, please --- even just talking about this possibility is going to reduce the heat and get more people thinking and perhaps questioning their fears.

Thank you -- these all look wonderful!

That's where the pressure should be -- there has been a loosening and re-consideration about the various options so this is a very important time to let those in Congress know that even if Boehner can't "find" anyone who supports the public option, we are HERE - in the millions! Those who aren't open to it by now will only change their position when they hear from constitutents who sound like they are ready, willing and able to get out there the next election and affect votes. Obama's troops should be able to convince them that we know how to do it and will do it effectively.

Hard to believe something like that would stand, especially since people are starting to figure out that we *all* pay - a lot - for the ER care given to the uninsured. This sounds like it would create/guarantee a fairly large group who would have to do just that.

Thanks for the info

It occurs to me that if Michelle Bachman really thinks there should be some sort of test to separate out those who hate America from those who love America, she might want to consider rating them on their reactions to this situation. It's very informative. ------- PLEASE someone ask her to make a comment on this!!! Please, please. I admit it will be hard to do better than meandering on about abortions in school (and home again by 3:30, with parents none the wiser) or asking Bernake about ACORN, but, heck, I have faith in her! (In fact, if there were an Olympics event in Idiocy, I think she might have the gold medal all locked up.)

Actually -- isn't it a tad "egocentric" (or something in that direction) on Drudge's part to assume that the IOC's ruling was entirely a reflection on American politics and politicians, without consideration of all the other people and interests there are around the world.

But that's okay: if Obama hadn't gone to Copenhagen, the headlines would be reading: "USA Loses Olympic Nod Because of Obama's Inaction" They are really, really getting quite boring and predictable.

As to the ones criticizing Obama for going over to Copenhagen -- don't you know that they would be after him for his "lack of patriotism" or "indifference to the pride and economic needs of our country" if he had NOT gone. The easiest thing in the world to do is to criticize: being good at that (which I'll grant you they are) is like being good at combing your hair. Not really very unusual or impressive. They don't deserve attention or even anger -- simply a yawn.

I haven't had time to look for it myself but have a hunch that this or the Carper amendment, or something along that line, may be the direction that will be accepted, both by the people and by conservative Dems, maybe a few Republicans. Call it the "Saskatchewan model"

It rather negates the image of this big, monolithic Fed gov't either setting up a Big Brother mechanism that will be poking its nose in your life -- or -- (to my mind the greater fear) setting up some one system for health care that doesn't work well. Where would we be then? And it's hard for the Reps to argue against States' rights ..... or their constiuents who would now say "Sure we're skeptical about the Feds taking over, but don't you think we are capable of deciding for ourselves what we want?" Someone on TV last night pointed out that the ins. lobby would be just as able, maybe more able, to influence State legislators. True. But there are 50 states and all it would take would be for one or two of them to plow through that and develop a truly good system -- and then .... (see, Sasketchewan).

Think about it -- most of the progressive advances we have had (at least the ones that changed the status quo rather than establishing entirely new programs) - things such as women's suffrage, integration - have some by way of states first and then the rest of the country following afterwards.

But apparently, from the lack of comment both to this post and in the news in general, few people are sharing my hunch that this is an important direction. Time will tell.