Kiss Lieberman's butt. Also embarass Tom Harkin. Great way to build party unity.

[Armstead]

For months, Sen. Harkin -- one of the best damn liberal Senators we have and a loyal Democrat -- has been doing his best to keep hope alive. Putting himself on the line too. With every defeat, he tried to reassure the base that there will be a public option.

Every time it was threatened or watered down he'd go on TV and say "Keep the faith. At the end of the day I absolutely guarantee we will have a good public option in there. Take my word on that."

It made somne of us feel better. Even when things seemed bleakest, it seemed that Harkin knew something, had been told something, that we weren't aware of. Like maybe promises from the White House that they had something in mind to keep it alive.

Well now, he has been totally embarassed and he has been betrayed. He and the other proponents of a public plan have been overwhelmed by the pressure from the WH and Democratic leadership to play ball with Joe.

So, unless some rabbit is pulled out of some hat, he is going to have to eat his words. He will be a good soldier and try to make the best of it. But it is clear that he has been undermined and betrayed -- along with all of the other legislators who fought in good faith for a national public program of some kind.

Meanwhile Joe Lieberman wins. The WH and Congress bend over and kiss his ass and gut health care "reform" to sooth his delicate ego.

Does this make any damn sense?

[joeybee12]

1. Of course it makes sense!

In an alternate universe somewhere.

Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can.

Why does Holy Joe try to destory everything good and decent? Because he can. (i.e., the Dems-Reid and the WH--let him).

[emulatorloo]

3. If we had one or two more good Dem Senators, Lieberman would be powerless

Frustrating.

[emulatorloo]

2. Lieberman is the 60th vote. So there you have it

It is frustrating as hell. If we had a couple more Harkins in the Senate, Liberman would be powerless.

Instead he has all the power. And people are going to lose their lives because of his pettyness.

[Armstead]

10. We could have had more Harkins if the WH had given them backing

[dionysus]

4. it makes sense in the aspect that we unfortunately require the votes of 6 douchebag blue dog "dems"

doesn't make it right but it's quite easy to understand.

[Armstead]

5. I believe if the WH and leadership were effective they could have neutralized them

Compare then number of Democratic legislators who actually WANT a public option, single payer, Medicare buy in (whatever) to those few who don't really want anything done by "the government."

If the WH and leadership put their full support behind those pushing for a public plan and won over some milder wafflers,they could have forced those six to toe the line through a combination of public pressutre and some backroom carrots and sticks.

Instead, a minority has been given disproportionate power, while the best of the Democrats were sent out into the wilderness.

[dionysus]

6. perhaps, i am not so sure.

[Armstead]

7. better to try than to concede defeat as easily as they did

Instead of assuming the success of a comprehensive health care reform package that at least included a public alternative (which was already a big compromise over single payer), the leadership of the Democratic Party assumed defeat from the beginning and acted accordingly.

And they were right. Their assumptions of defeat has led to defeat.

[dionysus]

8. i think in the end, the problem were 6 blue dog "dems" that did us in.

[Armstead]

9. They were empowered by the leadership to do us in

The saddest part of all this is that the majority was catered to while the majority was left out in the cold by the way the administration and Congressional leadership handled it.

(Pelosi did the best she could, but the White House did not "have her back".)