In the end, the senate leadership "did the right thing", but does it matter?
For the last six months I have watched the senate leaders such as Max Baucus and Harry Reid dithered and stonewalled, stonewalled and dithered on health care reform. Until the last month or so, Reid was quite iffy about supporting the public option, and even when he did, he made very little effort to rein in the Blue Dogs.
Baucus fought it all the way, then grudgingly says he'll support it (by opposing a filibuster, I still don't think his vote is guaranteed).
Now, let us assume for the sake of argument that they bill passes, and a moderately acceptable reform bill is sent to Obama's desk and signed into law.
The question is, do we give the leadership and the Blue Dog contingent a free pass in 2010 because the "got the bill passed", or do we say, "Screw you guys! You don't get credit for passing health care reform when you would only do it at gun point. Primary challengers for everyone!"
My view on this is to remember the lesson of Joe Lieberman and primary their asses. We need real Democrats, not Vichy Democrats who spend so much time providing aid and comfort to Republicans that we have to expend massive efforts (calls, emails, faxes, TV ads, protests and blogspace) in order to undue the damage and/or FORCE them back into the fold.
And yes, while it is possible we could lose a seat to a primaried incumbent, better a real Republican than a Lieberman Democrat.