Via Jane, Sebelius--like everybody else seems to--has her version:
"Hopefully, at every step of the way, people will ask themselves: 'What would Teddy do?' and move it forward," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"If people are truly interested in honoring his legacy," she added, "the best possible legacy is to pass health reform this year and get President Obama a bill he can sign."
The best possible legacy for Ted Kennedy would be passing comprehensive, meaningful reform, not just a bill that the President can sign to say he did healthcare reform. The best possible legacy for Ted Kennedy, as David has pointed out, would be to rename the public option component of the bill for him, the Kennedy Health Care Plan, and pass it.
Jonathon Cohn has an excellent reflection on Kennedy, and a call to arms for moving forward on real reform:
So what now? Two of Kennedy's colleagues, Orrin Hatch and John McCain, remarked recently that health reform would be in much better shape if Kennedy had been shepherding it along personally--because he was the type of Democrat who knew how to compromise and accommodate his political opposition....
But this notion that Kennedy's liberal reputation somehow belied his pragmatism--a notion already gaining traction in the media, which has turned non-partisan accommodation into a fetish-- misses the point. Kennedy compromised on means, not ends. He would negotiate because it helped achieve his broader goals--signing on to NCLB, whatever its cookie-cutter standards, because it would send money to schools in poor, underfunded districts; embracing the Medicare drug benefit because, however poorly designed, it'd save senior citizens from having to choose between medicine and food.
It was precisely because Kennedy's devotion to his notion of social justice was so clear and dependable that he could make such deals stick....
In the fight for health care--and, perhaps, the broader liberal agenda--this sense of moral purpose has waned. It's inefficient to spend 16 percent of gross domestic product on health care. But it's an affront to our basic sense of decency that almost any American can lose his savings, his home, or even his life because he doesn't have the right insurance policy--or perhaps because he doesn't have any policy at all. As Kennedy battled brain cancer, critics would point to the expensive, cutting-edge treatments he received and say he was fortunate to live in a country that made such treatments available. That's right, Kennedy shot back--but why should only rich people like him be guaranteed access? A decent society made these gifts available to all. (He'd also point out that, thanks to the waste, there really was money to treat everybody; Kennedy knew the policy facts, even if he didn't rely exclusively on them.)
In the hours since Kennedy's passing, his speech to the 1980 Democratic convention--his most memorable oration, along with the RFK eulogy--has gotten a lot of play. Typically the networks show the final quote, in which he promises to continue his crusade even as he gives up his quest for the presidency. But the more important passage is where he invokes Franklin Roosevelt as an unabashed defender of the common man against the forces--and, yes, the people--who would disregard his well-being. Like FDR, Kennedy was not afraid to talk about values, to talk about right and wrong. Now that Kennedy is gone, who will pick up that torch?
Who should pick up that torch? In the case of healthcare reform, in the case of "change we can believe in," it should be Barack Obama. The best possible legacy for Ted Kennedy would be for Barack Obama to draw the line on "a bill he can sign" and demand that it be a bill that Ted Kennedy would have been proud to see him sign.
