As the only major election of the first half of 2011 -- the Chicago mayoral election -- comes into focus, there is more action on these boards to try to figure out who, in the national progressive community, deserves what could be a sizable chunk of support to try to (admittedly) beat the odds against one of the major enemies of progressive politics, former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Indeed, Rahm is working overtime to show just how much he despises true progressive policies, from his open-armed embrace of corporate money to his Chris Christie/John Kasich-like call to deprive Chicago school teachers of their right to strike.
That Rahm deserves to lose is probably not in too much dispute here. The question, however, is which Chicago mayoral candidate stands up for the true progressive policies that could make Chicago better and bring Chicago out of its tradition of mayoral machine politics into the 21st century.
In the opinion of this poster, there is really only one candidate that can do that. The (somewhat lengthy - apologies) explanation (and bold-faced appeal for support) below ...
If you're listening to Randi somewhere, you'll notice there is now a repeat of the show from a day or two ago. That's because about 20 minutes ago her control booth in L.A. brought up a conversation involving a bomb threat - and did so in the middle of a commercial, which was extremely unusual.
The taps are the sound of the microphone to see if the thing is working, and whether Obama is around today.
It's nice that he called the victor and the vanquished yesterday. It would be even nicer if he would talk to US -- his BASE -- about where we're going with health care and everything else.
In the last 36 hours, for a guy who supposedly has all the momentum going his way, the Scott Brown campaign seems to be doing some things you never see a frontrunner who is winning going away do. Entries here and in other blogs may be telling a different story than the one Da Media is promoting -- that Brown is ahead and poised to win everything tomorrow.
Witness the evidence below ...
So apparently this opt-out public option is out and some kind of Medicare buy-in is in.
Okay ... it's time for me to be selfish in order for me to decide on whether it's a good deal or not:
What's in it for ME?
So with the flurry of stories in the last 72 hours about the status of the public option -- and despite a lot of public hand-wringing -- it appears that a decent public option is closer than ever, with only one potential obstacle that we activists need to be battling.
That obstacle, however and unfortunately, seems to be located somewhere inside the one place we have never gotten the 100% support we have been demanding for months and months: the White House.
This summary by Steve Benen at WASHINGTON MONTHLY seems to summarize the state of play pretty nicely ...
If true, given what's been being said all day, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ...
Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "they're certainly not calming moderate's concerns on opt out."
The details of the Baucus/Senate Finance health reform plan is out, and while it is as craptastic as many of us suspected it would be, it seems like it may be SO craptastic that it'll be DOA. Maybe, just maybe, this stinker is such a stinker Baucus is essentially signaling he's punting the plan and throwing it to the rest of the Democrats to hash things out?
It'll be up to us to decide, but the NYT link is below ...
So after the 48 hours of pushback on the public option ... after Rahm apparently wakes up and realizes there's no such thing as 'bipartisanship' when the other side doesn't want it ... after the Progressives stand up and say "Public Option or Else!" ... after we make the table for the White House to finish it up and send health care reform forward, what does Robert Gibbs do?
He pulls the tablecloth out and makes a mess of things. AGAIN.
I hope that this report is from a patriotic staffer willing to leak this story in an effort to spark what would be a deserved nuclear reaction to Benedict Baucus, Traitor to the Health Care Reform movement ... otherwise, this report, if true, would confirm some of our worst fears about what Senate Republicans and DINOs are doing to the health care movement ...
EDIT: Thanks for the Rec List. Hope it helps!
You see THE DAILY SHOW tonight?
Oh, man, you HAD to see THE DAILY SHOW tonight, above all nights.
If the Emmys gave an award for balls, truth, and hilarity, they'll retire the award after tonight.
If you hadn't heard, CNBC blowhard Rick Santelli was supposed to be Stewart's guest - but was pulled, apparently at the behest of his bosses.
Bad decision. Really bad decision. REALLY bad decision.
When the YouTube comes out, watch the person who just may be Obama's best media surrogate out there just lay the lumber on the woman who obviously also didn't do her job in the VP search, Carly Fiorina.
On Steffie, McCaskill -- without ever losing her smile -- made Carly Fiorina her ... okay, I won't be politically incorrect and finish that sentence, but you can.