MSNBC: Obama's Speech before the United Nations 9/22/2009 (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Good morning. I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating. That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it - boldly, swiftly, and together - we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples - our prosperity, our health, our safety - are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man." It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We're making our government's largest ever investment in renewable energy - an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits - projects that are creating new jobs and new industries. We're investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances - helping American families save money on energy bills in the process. We've proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks - a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil. We're moving forward with our nation's first offshore wind energy projects. We're investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants. Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we'll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country. Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before. In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We've worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.

Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government. We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.

But though many of our nations have taken bold actions and share in this determination, we did not come here today to celebrate progress. We came because there is so much more progress to be made. We came because there is so much more work to be done.

It is work that will not be easy. As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us. We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation's most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work. And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.

But difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress. Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet - and we must all do it together. We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress. Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead. And we will continue to do so - by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.

But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well. Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy. Still, they will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together. There is no other way.

We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations - especially the poorest and most vulnerable - on a path to sustainable growth. These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution. For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet - famine and drought; disappearing coastal villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources. Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both. It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet. By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nations leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

As we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done. We know that our planet's future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution. We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs to build a better world. And so many nations have already taken the first steps on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long. The journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make it. It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts. So let us begin. For if we are flexible and pragmatic; if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose: a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children. Thank you.

Letterman's Top Ten (VIDEO)

10. Heard the lady with the heart shaped potato was gonna be here.
9. Thought it would be fun to watch someone else get heckled
8. Something to do with that whole cash for clunkers deal
7. Every president since Teddy Roosevelt has done it
6. Someone offers you 600 bucks you take it ladies and gentlemen
5. We told him Megan Fox would be here
4. Needed some time to hang out before check in time at his hotel
3. I have no idea
2. Said yes, without thinking, like Bush did with Iraq.
1. Wanted to congratulate Dave on the big Emmy win.

The Fireside chat for September 19, 2009

DNC: It's on... (VIDEO)

Filmed at the College Park rally, on Thursday.



There's also a new DNC Website called "Call 'Em Out".

Seattle Times: What did you expect?

Holocaust survivor has highly negative reaction to Obama as Hitler signs.

Gee, can you blame him??

As a child in Armenia, Henry Gasparian witnessed firsthand the horrors of Nazi Germany. Two uncles were killed, his father wounded and a brother starved to death during the German invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union. So when Gasparian, 70, of Edmonds, saw a poster of President Obama with a Hitler mustache near the entrance to the Edmonds Farmers Market on Sept. 5, he admits that his reaction was "personal and emotional."

He tried to grab the fliers being passed out by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial presidential candidate who has likened Obama's health-care proposals to the Nazi extermination of Jews and other "undesirables."

Two young LaRouche supporters told police that Gasparian repeatedly pushed them and grabbed one of their arms. Gasparian said it was they who first pushed him.

Now Gasparian is charged with two counts of fourth-degree assault in Edmonds Municipal Court for what he describes as an attempt by "an old man to say you cannot insult the president with this outrageous campaign."

HuffPo: WTF?!?!?

Bill O'Reilly...backs...a Public Option?!?!??!

Okay, now I'm scared.

The GOP's only chance to kill the Public Option is to vote yes...

Here I was, about to write a long piece about how the only chance Olympia Snowe has to kill the Public Option is to vote for Health Care Reform, and Robert Reich (who, I admit, has been getting on my nerves recently), beats me to it.

Basically, the Dems have 59 votes. They need 60 to pass something.

If, say the Baucus plan (as crappy as it is) becomes the Plan, and Snowe jumps on board. Boom. It passes with 60 votes. End of story.

But let's say Snowe holds back (more than likely because she doesn't want to be the only GOP Yes Vote for Reform), all of the sudden, Health Care Reform has 59 votes...or fewer. Does that mean Health Care Reform dies?

No.

Not only does it not die...it gets better.

MSNBC: The President at the University of Marlyand (VIDEO)

Oh yeah...my Alma Mater.

He wished us good luck in football (against the MTSU Blue Raiders for pity's sake), and said he might rub Testudo's nose.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Forgive the Low-Def feed...apparently...someone at Maryland didn't spring for HD Cameras.

Any comments there, Dad?

UPDATE: 3:54pm Pacific: This is from the Washington Post story, which explains the President's momentary "what's going on there" confusion in the first half of the speech:

The crowd was overwhelmingly friendly to the president -- Obama interrupted his speech to reply, "I love you too," to one person in the audience who had called out to him -- but one heckler caused Obama to briefly pause and ask what the commotion was. The protester was in the back of the arena, however, and the president continued talking. When security officers escorted the man out, the rest of the audience stood and cheered.

No explanation as to why MSNBC chose to edit the speech with that dissolve in the middle.

WaPo: Health Care is being taken out of Baucus's hands...

More Erza:

But Baucus now has a legitimacy problem. A dealmaker needs credibility and respect on both sides, and Baucus has lost it. The Democrats on his committee don't trust his instincts or his core commitments or his legislative skill. Nor do the Democrats outside his committee. They feel he gave away too much in return for not just too little, but nothing at all. That means the Republicans on his committee have further reason to distrust his ability to make a deal, because restive Democrats are going to want to change his bill. Meanwhile, House Democrats are enraged that he left them to suffer through August, and have little interest in passing a bipartisan compromise that doesn't come with any Republican votes.

Attacking Baucus, in fact, has become an applause line for liberals: Gerald McEntee, president of the powerful AFCSME union, responded to Baucus's proposal by leading delegates at the AFL-CIO's annual convention in a chant of "bulls**t." The blog response hasn't been much better.

Indeed, the only group that does seem happy with Baucus, or at least relatively forgiving of him, is the White House. They think he tried to get bipartisan support, and though failure was regrettable and delaying the August deadline was damaging, the effort had enough potential upside that it was worth trying. At the very least, it exposed Republicans as unwilling to cooperate, and demonstrated that Democrats had indeed been willing to reach out. They're also very happy he's given them a framework that CBO has scored as not only deficit-neutral, but deficit-improving.

But that leaves Baucus with little evident power at this juncture. Even within his committee, it's not obvious he can secure the votes of the liberals, and if he does, he almost certainly sacrifices Snowe. That means the White House and the Senate leadership are going to play the primary role in both offering concessions and guaranteeing their preservation in the process. The bill remains in Max Baucus's committee, but at this point, it's largely out of his hands.

WaPo: True friendship

Erza Klein:

I actually find Grassley's behavior throughout all this a bit shocking. Grassley's friendship with Baucus is long and deep. And he has made Baucus look like a weak, ineffectual fool. He has absolutely hung him out to dry.

Baucus assumed enormous personal risk to try and secure Grassley's support. He formed the "Gang of Six," infuriating the other members of his committee. He blew through the White House's August deadline, angering Senate Democrats and harming the White House. He compromised on a raft of liberal priorities, infuriating the Democratic base. And he got ... nothing.

Less than nothing, in fact. Grassley went on TV to trash the Democratic bills and proclaim that he was closed to an actual compromise. He let Baucus end the process with a compromised bill and not a single vote of confidence from his Republican colleagues. He made Baucus look like a knave. If there was any evidence that Grassley hated Baucus and wished him ill, it would count as one of the truly masterful political defenestrations in recent decades.

WSJ: Teabaggers complain about Metro...

The Teabaggers complained...apparently bitterly at the Government run Metro System in D.C.

But I love the Murdoch Street Journal's opening paragraphs on this:

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

MSNBC: Rachel Maddow's short history of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VIDEO)

With an able assist from personal fave Jonathan Alter.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

They also talked about Jimmy Carter's statement from Sept. 15th.

JONATHAN ALTER: Well, I think he‘s right. Not in every case. It‘s very important to say that many—maybe most people who oppose President Obama do not do so on the basis of race.

But clearly, a significant number, there is a—for a significant number, there‘s a racial factor. And I think you have to include Joe Wilson in that. If you look at his background, he was one of the big advocates of the Confederate flag in South Carolina. He thought that it was wrong for Strom Thurmond‘s illegitimate daughter to come forward because it was something to be ashamed of.

RACHEL MADDOW: He said it was a smear, right?

JONATHAN ALTER: And—so there is some indication—I think Maureen Dowd was right that when he said “You lie,” it was almost like, “You lie, boy.” It does fit a certain pattern of southern racism in this particular case.

But it‘s important not to extrapolate that out to all criticism of the president. It clearly has added an intensity to this, though. If you‘re disagreeing with health care policy, this level of anger has to come from someplace deep and ugly and in our—in our history and that, of course, race is the great stain on our history.

HuffPo: Hmm? What? Never happened... (VIDEO)

Maria Bartiromo goes on Joe Scarborough...and lies about her right-wing lunacy of a couple days ago.

WaPo: Neutered Co-ops???

So the watered down Public Option, is, in itself, watered down???

The co-ops have never been a satisfying alternative to the public option. But the version in Baucus's bill isn't even a satisfying alternative to the co-op option. It's a neutered version of the co-op idea, which was in turn a neutered version of the public option.

The co-ops are on the state level, with each state pretty much required to have one. The 50 co-ops can then band together to leverage their national purchasing power. Sounds good, right? Sort of.

The co-ops can only compete in the small group and individual markets. That is to say, if the co-ops prove effective, and The Washington Post would like to offer co-op coverage as an option to its workers, it can't. The co-ops are not allowed to contract with large employers, which is to say, they can't compete with private insurers in the largest market, and they can't get the purchasing power that would come from a serious foothold among corporate customers.

Not only is their size restricted, so too is what they can do with their size. The co-ops can band together to increase their purchasing power, but they can't set national payment rates for their members, a la Medicare. As I understand it, they have to bargain with each provider and drug manufacturer and hospital and so forth separately, meaning they're denied one of the main advantages of size. The insurance industry is, in other words, being protected from not just public competition, but co-op competition.

Yeah, this idea is dead on arrival.

And in case you missed it...

This is in regards to the School Bus incident that Comedian Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin have been harping about. I picked this up on Andrew Sullivan's blog, this morning:

A student on a Belleville West High School bus was beaten for his choice of seat, not because he was white, according to a witness and police. "The incident appears now to be more about a couple of bullies on a bus dictating where people sit," said Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax, who originally said Monday's attack may have been racially motivated. D'Vante Lott, 16, said he was on the bus and witnessed the attack by the two black students. The victim walked onto the bus, looking for an open seat, but students kept turning him down, as D'Vante said happened often with this student. But Monday, the victim apparently tired of asking for a seat, D'Vante said, moved one student's book-bag off a seat, and just sat down.

Let me ask the same question Sullivan asked: Where's the retraction from Limbaugh and Malkin?

The Resurgence of the Public Option.

In a trying to craft a Health Care/Insurance Reform Plan to please three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee (half of the so-called Gang of Six), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) has managed to not only to piss everyone off...

Erza Klein:

Max Baucus will release the Chairman's Mark -- the official first draft of his bill -- later today. But things are not going according to plan. He's got a bill full of the compromises meant to attract Republican support, but no Republican support. Not even Olympia Snowe, at this point, has committed to backing the bill.

Meanwhile, the framework has conceded enough to the GOP that it's also losing Democratic support, including that of Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Finance Committee's Health Care Subcommittee. And Rockefeller says that four to six Democrats on the committee feel similarly. Baucus is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. The absence of any Republican support makes it hard for him to justify his compromises. And his compromises make it hard for the Democrats on the committee to support his bill.

Nate Silver (oh, and I just have to add the title for this one):

Baucus Compromise Bill Draws Enthusiastic Support of Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Negotiations are funny things. Sometimes the scariest moments come when you're closest to a settlement, as all sides feel emboldened to take the last opportunity to demonstrate resolve. Leverage in a negotiation is not necessarily a zero-sum affair, since nobody has any leverage if there's no hope to reach an agreement. So some of this maneuvering, perhaps, is a reflection of the bill moving closer to passage and not further away.

But let's be clear -- some of this is Baucus's chickens coming home to roost. When you make a unilateral decision to negotiate with only five other people from a 23-person committee and 100-person Senate, and two of those five people have clear electoral disincentives against supporting any plan that you might come up with, the negotiations are liable to end in failure far more often than not. The flurry of on-the-record statements against Baucus's reform plans -- not "leaks", not trial balloons -- points toward a defective process.

And that may suit Democrats just fine. There are at least three other starting points for a final showdown over health care: the House Tri-Committee bill, the Senate HELP bill, and possibly also the White's House's statement of principles, some of which remain vaguely defined. Many of the objections raised to BaucusCare would necessarily apply to one or more of those bills too -- but they'd appear to be starting from no worse a position than Baucus's plan itself.

And finally, Andrew Sullivan:

The pattern is now clear: the imperative to play the political game has won on the right. The longer-term pattern is just as clear: a faction of congressional Democrats sometimes backed Bush on his initiatives (such as his tax cuts). No one in the Congressional Limbaugh-run GOP will back anything this president does. Not only that; they will assault him, race-bait him and insult him in a continuous reel of populist bile.

It seems to me that the GOP was once recognizable as a human personality. It had an id; but it also had a series of responsible egos - Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I and, to some extent, Bush II; and it had a super-ego - some kind of conscience that made it think of the broader society over partisan warfare. What we've seen in the last few years is the removal of both ego and super-ego.

And, Andrew adds:

I suspect we will see a few more twists and turns on this yet - and even a left-liberal revival.

Well, in the words of the current President...yes we can.

And best of all, that left-liberal revival can only mean one thing.

We're down to four options, on containing the ever rising costs of Health Care Premiums:

1) The Public Option
2) The Public Option - with a Trigger
3) Co-Ops
4) Nothing

Right now, No. 4 is the only one off the table. One of the quiet games the President has played, and in this case played very well, is repeating in his speech of September 9th, in his Rally in Minnesota, and on 60 Minutes: I will not compromise on some means to contain costs.

The President on Sept. 9th:

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

The President on 60 Minutes:

Look, I have tried as much as possible in the plan that we've designed to make sure that the best ideas are out there. I have no interest in having a bill get passed that fails. That doesn't work. You know, I intend to be President for a while, and once this bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, "You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around," I'm the one who's going to be held responsible.

To paraphrase: "Insurance Premium costs are going up way too fast. We need a way to check them. My way is the Public Option. If you find that unacceptable, fine. Come up with a plan of your own, but make no mistake...there will be a mechanism to check costs in this Health Care bill."

As crazy as it is to say, right now, of those four options, the Public Option, is starting to rocket back to the top of the heap again.

Here's why:

Susan Collins has said no to Public Option, and Public Option with a trigger, and seems to be talking herself right out of the discussion. She seems to be a no vote at this point.

Olympia is game enough for a trigger, but doesn't want to be the only Republican voting for the bill. She's also going to vote no (as it stands) on the Baucus Bill, which renders her pretty much useless as well.

And every other Republican is acting like...well, the way Andrew Sullivan just described.

The only option left to get anything passed out of the Senate is going to Reconciliation, and to get a bill passed with Reconciliation, means that the money saving provisions of the Health Care Bill will have to be strengthened.

And one of the biggest money saving provisions...believe it or not...is the Public Option.

The CBO has scored the Health Care Plans cheaper with a Public Option than without one.

Time to start paying special attention to the Parliamentarian of the Senate, and the Byrd Rule.

This is where I think we're headed at this hour. Health Care Reform with an actual, robust Public Option, passed by Reconcilation. Granted, it will sunset in five years (thank you, Kent Conrad, you useless sack of...), but I dare the Republicans to try and take it away once its passed.

There is still the possibility of a No. 5 Option, but no one knows what that is.

One of the ideas I have, as a No. 5 is a straight cap on Premiums. We as Americans say, that's it. Insurance Companies can only charge X amount per month, that's it. If you go out of business as a result...tough @#$%.

(Like the Insurance Companies have shown so much concern for Americans going into Bankruptcy to pay for their weak-tea product.)

A Premium cap would sure as hell contain costs. Of course the Free Market Conservatives will howl and bitch, but...we can turn around at that point and remind them, we tried a Free Market solution...it was called the Public Option, and y'all said no.

And thus we come to the irony of our situation, by drawing a line in the sand to stop the Public Option, the GOP might wind up making it far, far stronger.

WaPo: Kaiser Permanente's prices up 131 percent over the last ten years...

From Erza Klein:

The Kaiser Family Foundation's latest Employer Benefits Survey is out, and they've got some numbers worth remembering.

The average cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009 was $13,375.

Over the past ten years, premiums have increased by 131 percent, while wages have grown 38 percent and inflation has grown 28 percent.

If health-care costs grow as fast as they have over the past five years, the average premium for a family policy in 2019 will be $24,180. If they grow as fast as they have over the past 10 years, premiums in 2019 will average $30,803.

No one quite knows when, or how, the system will crumble. But make no mistake. At this rate of increase, it will, eventually, crumble. Want more numbers? They're here.

I'm currently a Kaiser Member here in California, having the premiums paid for by my company. When I first got dropped off of my Dad's Cobra waaaay back in the early-mid nineties, I joined because it was the cheapest...at $140 dollars a month, which I though at the time was insane.

Last year, I went checking it again, and it was $260 dollars a month.

Yeah, like the President said...this is unsustainable.

But did the President get it wrong?

I would say...no.

TPM: Here we go again...(Gun threats edition)

Silence from the right speaks volumes.

[32 year old Josh] Hendrickson showed up to the event with a Glock in a holster, and a Kel Tec 380 -- known for its light weight and "manageable recoil" -- in his back pocket. The local police and the Secret Service question Hendrickson after seeing the outline of a gun in his camo shirt, he said.

But, Hendrickson told the Star-Tribune he was not inspired by the gun-toters who showed up to Obama events in August. He just wanted to make the same point they wanted to make: "The Second Amendment isn't suspended just because the president's in town."

Hendrickson then revealed to the Strib reporter that he recently got out of jail.

MSNBC: "Welcome to my world..." (VIDEO)

On Thursday night (Sept. 10th), Laurence O'Donnell (MSNBC Commentator and former Chief of Staff for the Senate Finance, and former Showrunner for the West Wing), offered this little bit of wisdom:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

You know, I didn‘t listen to Rush today, Keith, but here in Washington, I did listen to some African-American talk radio. There‘s another phenomenon out there, which is, in black America, they are noticing that the very first president in the television age to be heckled, the first president to suffer a heckling in that situation is the first black president. That has not gone unnoticed. There is a very particular offense being taken in the African-American community tonight.

While the implication that Mr. O'Donnell spoke of was already well known in the black community, going back to the campaign in fact, it's still a good to see it being noticed in the white community as well.

But Mr. O'Donnell did not stop there.

He continued on Friday Nights (Sept. 11, 2009) Countdown, along the same lines, with an assist from Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

O‘DONNELL: And finally, Clarence, tell us, how does it land in the black community when a southern white congressman heckles the first black president of the United States in an address to Congress?

PAGE: Well, it doesn‘t sit well, as you well might imagine. I mean, it was interesting to see the cameras swing over. Look at the picture of Joe Wilson there that was caught in action and what you see, one white guy in a suit surrounded by white guys in suits.

I mean, as much as people say, well, race doesn‘t matter and I don‘t see race, blah blah blah, hey, Republican leaders can‘t be so naive that they don‘t see that that‘s not the kind of image that they want to put forth at a time they‘re trying to broaden their appeal.

So this is something that, as far as African-Americans are concerned, and a lot of other people—I've had more white people come to me saying, wasn‘t that outrageous, what happened? Don‘t you think that‘s racist? It‘s really quite remarkable.

I‘ve told several friends, well, welcome to my world, you know. I get accused of seeing things through a lens of race, but that‘s kind of the way African-Americans have learned the hard way to see developments in America.

And you have to wonder, the first time somebody has called the president a liar to his face in a joint session, it had to be the black president.

While Laurence O'Donnell stopped there...it hasn't stopped there.

Maureen Dowd:

Barry Obama of the post-’60s Hawaiian ’hood did not live through the major racial struggles in American history. Maybe he had a problem relating to his white basketball coach or catching a cab in New York, but he never got beaten up for being black.

Now he’s at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension. Even if he and the coterie of white male advisers around him don’t choose to openly acknowledge it, this president is the ultimate civil rights figure — a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe.

For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.

Glenn Greenwald, of course, think race isn't that much of a factor. (Which is why I continue to think he's a self-serving moron).

Other than the fact that Obama's race intensifies the hatred in some precincts, nothing that the Right is doing now is new. This is who they are and what they do -- and that's been true for many years, for decades. Even the allegedly "unprecedented" behavior at Obama's speech isn't really unprecedented; although nobody yelled "you lie," Republicans routinely booed and heckled Clinton when he spoke to Congress because they didn't think he was legitimately the President (only for Ted Koppel to claim that it was something "no one at this table has ever heard before" when Democrats, in 2005, booed Bush's Social Security privatization proposal during a speech to Congress).

Ta-Nehisi Coates, partially responding to Glenn Greenwald. (Oh, and yes...he's black, as if you couldn't tell).

If we concede, as most reasonable people do, that racism is a factor--not the factor but a factor--in resistance to Obama, then in fact, what we've seen this year is, by the very nature of an Obama presidency, unprecedented. Put simply, we've seen the crazy-tax, of which race is a portion, before. But we've never seen the crazy-tax intensified by race. We have not seen it accompanied by watermelon jokes, by Congressmen referring to him as boy, by clucking heads claiming that the president "has exposed himself as someone with a deep-seated hated of white people." We've never seen the whitey tape, before.

There's a tendency to lump anti-black racism in with all the serious problems presented when you try to make a democracy work. There is always a danger of becoming single-minded, of bringing to bear a myopic analysis which sees one thing in everything. Moreover, watermelon jokes are a long way from red-lining, and in seeing how far we've come, the temptation is to dismiss how far we have to go. But from a black perspective, it's a temptation you can ill-afford. Racism cost us dollars a half-century ago. Today it costs us quarters--but it still costs.

Don't let the grinding familiarity of Obama blind you to the profound times we live in, and the work that's still left to do. We've never had a black president before. This is without precedent. We've also never had anti-Semitic white supremacists shooting up the Holocaust Museum. This, too, is unprecedented.

MSNBC: The President's Speech to Wall Street (9/14/2009) (VIDEO)

To me, a bit of a barnburner. The President, sitting there, in front of the Wall Street barons who nearly tanked the planet, told 'em that next time, help may not be on the way:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

At the same time, what we must do now goes beyond just these reforms. For what took place one year ago was not merely a failure of regulation or legislation; it was not merely a failure of oversight or foresight. It was a failure of responsibility that allowed Washington to become a place where problems - including structural problems in our financial system - were ignored rather than solved. It was a failure of responsibility that led homebuyers and derivative traders alike to take reckless risks they couldn't afford. It was a collective failure of responsibility in Washington, on Wall Street, and across America that led to the near-collapse of our financial system one year ago.

Restoring a willingness to take responsibility - even when it is hard - is at the heart of what we must do. Here on Wall Street, you have a responsibility. The reforms I've laid out will pass and these changes will become law. But one of the most important ways to rebuild the system stronger than before is to rebuild trust stronger than before - and you do not have to wait for a new law to do that. You don't have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers. You don't have to wait to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote. You don't have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains.

The fact is, many of the firms that are now returning to prosperity owe a debt to the American people. Though they were not the cause of the crisis, American taxpayers through their government took extraordinary action to stabilize the financial industry. They shouldered the burden of the bailout and they are still bearing the burden of the fallout - in lost jobs, lost homes and lost opportunities. It is neither right nor responsible after you've recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity.

So I want to urge you to demonstrate that you take this obligation to heart. To put greater effort into helping families who need their mortgages modified under my administration's homeownership plan. To help small business owners who desperately need loans and who are bearing the brunt of the decline in available credit. To help communities that would benefit from the financing you could provide, or the community development institutions you could support. To come up with creative approaches to improve financial education and to bring banking to those who live and work entirely outside the banking system. And, of course, to embrace serious financial reform, not fight it.

Nate Silver: These were Ron Paul Rallies???

I think there's something to this. And knowing a bit about Ron Paul's background, the racism doesn't surprise me either.

I didn’t wander down to the Capitol and National Mall on Saturday because I’m nursing a bum ankle from a spill I took playing pickup hoops. But I wish had been able to go, and I further wish I had developed even a crude survey instrument to administer to protesters. What I would have asked them is one, simple question, “Whom did you support in last year’s Republican primaries?”

My suspicion is there would be an unusually high number of people replying, "Ron Paul."

...

...strip away the angry rhetoric and easily-mocked signs to listen to what people are complaining about--and, perhaps more tellingly, what they are not complaining about--and the protesters sound eerily Paulesque. They are complaining about government intrusion: oppressive use of government (czars!), too much intervention in personal lives and markets (death panels!), long-term debt obligations (where will the money come from?!), and the proper role of the federal government (it's all so unconstitutional!)--that is, they fret that Obama is going to destroy America and American values from within. What the vast majority do not seem to be complaining about, so far as I can tell, is how the Administration is fighting and managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or its overall security and intelligence posture--that is, they don't seem too worried that Obama is going to let America be destroyed from the outside.

Granted, a plausible explanation for a general absence of defense or foreign policy critiques is that the national conversation right now is focused squarely on health care coverage, deficits and debt, and domestic policy more generally. It may well be that if I poked a Saturday protester in DC he or she would have had something critical to say about Obama’s foreign and defense policies, too. Still, it's interesting to consider the possibility that the town halls of Summer 2009 are a rekindled version of Ron Paul rallies in 2007 and 2008. And one of the reasons I suspect this is the nature of the fervor itself--its tenor, its intensity, its certainty, and especially its language.

Actually, I disagree with Nate on one part. A lot of these people do think the President is out to hand over the country to the Terrorists.

MTV: Breaking News! Kanye interrupts President Obama to say "Beyonce had one fo the best videos of all time..."

The President swiftly denied the allegation.

Please go viral.

In reference to what I said before...

I take it back, the 60 Minutes interview, wasn't just edited, was cut to ribbons.

For example, portion of the transcript I highlighted is three-quarters of the way down on the first (of eight) page of the Transcript. On video, it's the beginning of the interview.

My gut feeling tells me that they were going to do a full on, two or three segment interview, which would have taken up most of the hour, and instead, they went with their Guiding Light tribute and Ted Kennedy. While you may be able to justify it on a business level, it sure don't help with the Health Care Debate.

And maybe that was the point.

I'm not saying it's bad form. T.V.'s at the mercy of the clock, after all, but some of the better stuff, I felt got left on the editing room floor.

CBS: The Barack Obama 60 Minutes Interview for Sept. 13, 2009 (VIDEO)

Watch CBS Videos Online

"Who told you your incompetent little fingers had the requisite skills to edit me!"

Sorry, movie reference.

I recommend the transcript if you have the time. They definitely did a lot of cutting.

KROFT: Before you made this speech, there was a sense clearly in the press and among people in Washington that this program was in trouble.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: That the healthcare reform was in trouble.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: Do you think that you do you think you changed some minds? Do you think you picked up some votes this week?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, here's a conversation I had with one of my advisors early on in this process. He said, "I've been in this town a long time. I think this is the year we're going to get healthcare done. But I guarantee you this will be pronounced dead at least four or five times before we finally get a bill passed." And so in some ways we anticipated this was just going to be difficult. Look, you're talking about one-sixth of the economy. You've got a whole range of special interests out there that are profiting from the current system and don't want to see it change. You've got a continuing habit of polarization inside of Washington that's hard to break.

And so we knew this was going to be hard. And I think what is true is that as Congress moves forward with all its legislation, the sausage making process got a lot of people confused. They didn't know which bill was which and what the program was. It was important for me to provide some clarity. And as a consequence of the speech that I gave, I think now more people understand what the bill's about. I think there's still going to be some vigorous debate. I think there's still a lot of hard work to get to get done. But I think at least it focused people's attention on why this is so important and what exactly we're trying to do.

The Fireside chat for September 12, 2009

TPM: Minnesota and the history of Tentherism...

Earlier today, Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)...apparently forgetting that a) he's not yet the Republican Presidential Nominee for 2012, b) he's a douchebag, and c) he's never won more than 47% of the vote in Minnesota for either of his two elections, thus casting (a) into doubt...said that Minnesota would consider using the 10th Amendment to stop Health Care Reform for their state.

Besides being a monumentally stupid political idea, it also may be illegal. Or rather should I say, it's been ruled on by the Supreme Court and the argument's been found wanting (at best).

TPM's Eric Kleefield presented a short history of Minnesota's previous (and left-leaning) run in with the 10th Amendment, and how it didn't end up so good.

As you may know, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is now threatening to invoke the Tenth Amendment in order to keep his home state of Minnesota out of any health care reform package that gets passed, and raising the possibility of governors filing lawsuits against it. As it turns out, this is not the first time that a Minnesota governor has been embroiled in a battle of states' rights with the federal government -- and the last time it happened, it involved political action from the left.

The last time, in the 1980's, Democratic Gov. Rudy Perpich unsuccessfully went to the Supreme Court, leading a group of governors who argued that the federal government had no authority to send the state National Guards for what were officially billed as training missions in Honduras, in which they would be building roads, over the governors' objections. The governors and other opponents had argued that this was a pretext for aiding the Contras in neighboring Nicaragua, according to an April 12, 1987, article in the Chicago Tribune (via Nexis).

The confrontation began when three governors, George Deukmejian (R-CA), Richard Celeste (D-OH), and Joseph Brennan (D-ME) refused direct federal requests for their state Guards to be called up. Congress then passed the Montgomery Amendment, named for Rep. Sonny Montgomery (D-MS), stripping Governors of the legal power to refuse an overseas Guard deployment.

"A few governors just cannot say, 'I will not let my guardsmen go to train in a certain part of the world because I do not like the politics of that situation,'" Montgomery argued at the time, according to a November 4, 1986 article in the Christian Science Monitor.

Perpich then took the lead, filing a lawsuit against the constitutionality of the Montgomery Amendment. After he was initially rebuffed by a federal district court judge, he vowed to appeal. "We feel very strongly about the states' rights issue, and that is why we will be appealing ... ," Perpich was quoted in an August 4, 1987, Associated Press article. "This is a clear example of the federal government's encroaching on state powers that have worked effectively in the past."

Yes -- the nation was subjected to the spectacle of a liberal Minnesota Democrat arguing for states' rights, against a measure from a conservative Mississippi Democrat.

Perpich went all the way to the Supreme Court, joined by six other governors, including Celeste and Michael Dukakis. In the end, the Supreme ruled unanimously for the federal government in Perpich v. Department of Defense.

The Press blew it...

Sorry, but it's striking me that CNN blew this story. They were the first go on the air with reports of "shots fired" at a Boat near a restricted zone in the Potomac, without checking any Coast Guard sources to see just what the hell happened.

In other words, CNN was so hot to make sure they were first with the story, they didn't check to see if they had a story...and thus...wound up creating a story where there wasn't one.

Now, instead of admitting that this was a Journalism f-up, the Journalists of the world are locking in step behind their colleagues. They're saying that the Coast Guard should have shown greater awareness.

Josh:

CNN's Kyra Philips says that CNN went up with the story as breaking news without confirming what was happening with the Coast Guard. That looks sort of iffy in retrospect. But when you think about it, if reporters hear Coast Guard officials talking on an emergency frequency about firing on a suspicious vessel in the Potomac on the anniversary of 9/11, I think there'd be a pretty decent rationale for sounding the alarm.

Dana Milbank trying to have it both ways:

On the eighth anniversary of the terrorist strikes, the incident served as an unwelcome reminder of two facts of life in the capital: Homeland-security authorities continue to bear an occasional, unnerving likeness to Keystone Kops; and the cable-news-driven, minute-by-minute news cycle has a unique ability to sow mass confusion and misinformation.

But what about CNN??

Olympia Snowe...

Erza Klein has this little scoop on Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. It makes one wonder if she's worth dealing with at all:

Word is that Olympia Snowe now wants the cost of health-care reform brought down to $800 billion or lower. That's strange, because Olympia Snowe also wants the subsidies increased from 300 percent of poverty to 400 percent of poverty. Which would increase, not decrease, the price tag of the bill.

Snowe's concern for the subsidy levels was perfectly understandable: Insufficient subsidies mean health care won't be affordable, and the plan won't work. In light of that insight, her desire to drop the price tag doesn't make much sense at all: It makes policies even less affordable, and the plan even less likely to work. Speculation is that Snowe is afraid to be the sole Republican on the bill and feels she needs a concrete concession on the price tag in order to justify her involvement. But you have to imagine her to be quite craven, and quite politically afraid, to believe she'd knowingly make the bill less affordable when she's spent the last few months pushing the "Gang of Six" to make it more affordable. And for what? A vote Republicans will hate her for anyway?

I'd be careful if I were her. She's walking right Health Care Reform right into reconciliation. If she pushes this !@#$ too far, there's not going to be any choice.

CNN: "In some form, a public option will be available..."

As the sausage continues to get made, we get this from my former Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

As Democrats met Friday in hope of achieving consensus on one of the biggest sticking points in the health-care battle, the House majority leader predicted final legislation will include a "public option."

The question, Rep. Steny Hoyer told CNN, is what form it will be in. "We'll have to see how that legislative process goes. The public option is a priority for us, it's our objective, and we think that in some form, a public option will be available," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

MSNBC: "We'll never falter..." (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

MSNBC: The Complete Health Care Speech of Sept. 9, 2009... (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

AFL-CIO of Connecticut...not happy with Lieberman anymore

Saw this on Kos, but linked from the New Haven Independent instead:

Three years ago the state AFL-CIO convened in New Haven and embraced U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s reelection. Thursday the AFL-CIO reconvened here — and made Lieberman its target.

The occasion was the state labor movement’s biennial convention at the Omni Hotel. The convention runs through Friday. A central theme of this year’s convention: Push politicians in Washington to pass universal health care with a “public option” — government-backed insurance.

Connecticut Sen. Lieberman has been a prominent opponent of a public option and of moving with what he calls too much speed toward universal coverage.

“Joe’s gotta go!” union members yelled at a rally on the Green during Thursday’s lunch break.

It doesn't get a lot better for Joe from there.

Apparently, as Kos reminds us, this is the same Union that once said that "Joe was with us on everything but the war".

Talk about a self-inflicted wound. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see where Lieberman was headed. But whatever, I look forward to having the AFL-CIO on our side in 2012 as we finally end Joe Lieberman's career (and no, not with Dick Blumenthal).

The Hill: Hmmm....

On the one hand, we got (TPM Alum) Greg Sargent saying this:

While Obama did offer far more expansive support for the public option than expected, he hinted at the possible use of coops or a trigger, which are both unacceptable to liberals. Combine this letter with the fact that Tom Harkin, the chair of the Senate HELP committee, said today that a public option won’t be a dealbreaker, and you’ve really got a serious intra-Dem split in the works.

A serious what?

Looking at the...you know...actual article where Tom Harkin is quoted. He says this:

The new chairman of the Senate HELP Committee said a public option won't be deal breaker for moderate Democrats.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who just replaced Ted Kennedy as head of the committee, said his centrist colleagues might accept a bill with a public option even if they aren't crazy about it.

"Some of my colleagues may not like a public option, but they like all the other things and I don't think they'll vote against the bill just because it has the public option in it," Harkin said on MSNBC.

Maybe Harkin's wrong. Granted, HELP shares jurisdiction with Finance over Health Care Legislation, and Max Baucus is out there saying there aren't the votes for a Public Option.

But maybe, the key word that's not being used is, there aren't votes for a Public Option...yet.

TPM: Why am I not surprised?

John Stossel leaving ABC for Fox.

AP: Another Man, Another Gun...

Maybe more details are going to come out, but...I mean, Jesus. How many more of these am I going to have to read about? And yes, this suspect in question consented to a search, but why was he trying to get into a restricted area?

I stand by my earlier comments.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police have arrested a Virginia man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as the president gave his health care address to Congress.

Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Thursday that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of Falls Church, Va., was arrested around 8 p.m. Wednesday. Bowman's intentions were unclear, police said.

Schneider says Bowman approached a security checkpoint near the Cannon House Office Building in a 4-door Honda Civic and told officers he wanted to park.

People who want to get into the area must have a permit and have their vehicles searched. The timing of the request raised an officer's suspicion, Schneider said, and Bowman consented to a vehicle search.

Schneider said a shotgun and ammunition were found in Bowman's trunk. Bowman was charged with having an unregistered firearm and ammunition, she said.

A telephone directory lists a Joshua Bowman in Falls Church, but the telephone rang unanswered Thursday afternoon.

You know you're in trouble when...

...even Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (not exactly Mr. Racially sensitive) says...you (by which I mean Joe Wilson in particular and the Republicans in the House Chamber in general) were probably being racist.

Obama is president in the standard way. But his illegitimacy continues to be questioned by the “birthers,” who insist he is not a native-born American, who demand to see the president’s birth certificate, and then, when they see it, insist it cannot be genuine. Neither evidence nor facts will dissuade them because they are the throes of an irrationality based on bigotry. An American president must be -- ought to be -- white.

Some of the same ugly feeling was present in the House chamber Wednesday night. The lack of respect shown the president of the United States was both appalling and shocking. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) yelled “You lie,” when Obama said that his health care proposal would not cover illegal aliens. Other Republicans held up placards saying “What Plan?” or “What Bill?” as Obama was speaking. The Party of Rudeness had outdone itself.

All presidents get vilified. It’s part of the job. White House aide Van Jones stepped down last week amid controversy over the fact that, among other things, he once signed a petition declaring that the administration of George W. Bush "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." Bill Clinton was accused of running drugs through Arkansas’s obscure Mena Airport, among many, many other things.

But when the fringe starts pushing into the center, then attention must be paid. In general, the Republicans in the House treated Obama disrespectfully, and some of them treated him with contempt. When opposition to a piece of legislation turns swiftly into disdain for the man -- when policy becomes personal -- a columnist is permitted to wonder why. He is permitted, furthermore, to wonder if some of Obama’s more hateful critics are not expressing a repressed bigotry -- the feeling that the man up on the dais cannot really be the president of the United States. After all, he does not look like one.

It would be an awful thing if genuine criticism was labeled racist and therefore muffled. But the disrespect shown Obama seems so disproportionate to the issue -- health-care reform -- that I just have to wonder. Wilson later apologized for his outburst, but he cannot take it back. It was, as has been said of another incident, a teachable moment. I hope he and other Republicans learn from it.

Rep. Wilson...Part II (VIDEO)

Josh is right. He looks and sounds like he's about to cry.

Still lyin' by the way.

By the way, if this was spontaneous...how did the AP get that photo of him juuust as he screams "You Lie??"

Rep. Wilson... (VIDEO)

I have never seen that look on Speaker Pelosi's face. Usually, she's the schoolmarm, Mom scolding her kids for talking too loud...

But look at her face. She's ready to throw.

It was the length of time she stared, that's what did it for me. She locked in on Wilson's face, and made promises that no man would wish on his worst enemy.

But I do wish them on Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. (South Carolina...what is it with you people?!?!)

He did...apologize.

This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill," the congressman said in a statement. "While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.

Not accepted.

It's not accept, because this is just one in a long line of this kind of behavior from this current Republicans Party. I will not amend this action with polite words or adjectives. This was racism, pure and simple.

And if you have your doubts, I could really give a !@#$!

The action we saw this evening would not have happened with a White President standing there.

We as a Nation are being continually told, over and over again by the hard American Right that this President is illegitimate, that this man's holding the Office, after getting more votes than any other Candidate in American History, is not to be respected, or...frankly...tolerated.

I will repeat what Dan Savage said a couple days ago: there are elements in the Republican Party that are trying to get the President killed, by continually denigrating the office (he's not worthy of your respect), presenting him as a threat to freedom, and your children (he's an evil predator, taking away everything you own), and in a lot of cases openly threatening him or hinting at threats.

Republicans, Conservatives, people like Joe Wilson of South Carolina, are now the face of the Republican Party and Conservative Movement. By your continued silence, this is what you are telling us is okay as far as the discourse in this country, and you will be held no less personally responsible for anything that happens in the future.

And no, John McCain and the Idaho GOP aren't enough.

MSNBC: Obama's Tribute at the Walter Cronkite Memorial (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

HuffPo: Obama Speech Preview...

The White House wisely decided to keep the Public Option text under wraps.

This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight - Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed - the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

WaPo: Erza Klein on the Baucus Bill...

...also not so bad.

How you'll judge Max Baucus's framework depends on how you understand the goal of health-care reform. Insofar as the effort is aimed at filling in the cracks of the current system — making it more affordable, more transparent and less cruel — it's not a bad bill.

The legislation really would protect millions of Americans from medical bankruptcy. It really would insure tens of millions of people. It really will curb the worst practices of the private insurance industry. It really will expand Medicaid and transform it from a mish-mash of state regulation into a dependable benefit. It really will lay down out-of-pocket caps which are a lot better than anything people have today. It really will help primary care providers, and it really will make hospitals more transparent, and it really will be a step towards paying for quality rather than volume.

To put it more starkly, it really will be the most important progressive policy passed since Lyndon Johnson. The subsidies should probably sit at 400 percent of poverty, and the employer mandate should be reworked, but such failures are relatively easy to fix, and may well be patched over by the time the legislation arrives on the Senate floor. The fact that a bill of this size and scope can still be considered disappointing is evidence that the doors of the possible have been thrown wide open.

The main disappointment is that insofar as you see the bill as a vehicle for moving us towards a better, more efficient, less costly system, there are some problems. In particular, this bill seems to block off a lot of its own possible points of expansion. The health insurance exchanges are limited to the state level, and appear to split the individual and small-group markets apart from each other. There's no mention of a possible expansion toward larger employers, either. Similarly, the co-op plan is an interesting policy proposal, but unlike a public insurance option, it's difficult to imagine it growing into anything significantly stronger than what's outlined in the paper.

The early reaction to Baucus's bill has been overly negative. It's an imperfect improvement to the current system, but an improvement nevertheless. Where it really falls short — even in comparison to the rudimentary framework released by HELP and especially when compared to the more complete package offered by the House — is in imagining a system that is different and better and fairer than our own, and working to make it a reality. Baucus talks often of building a "uniquely American" system, but this proposal largely plugs some holes in the one we already have. As such, the failure is not so much in the bill as in its unwillingness to lay the groundwork for the bills that may need to succeed it.

Think Progress: Matthew Yglesias on the Baucus Plan...

Not...so bad?

And this is Matthew Yglesias saying this, not a Blue Dog poser...

I hope that my bona fides as a Max Baucus detractor are not seriously in doubt. And as a Max Baucus detractor, I certainly have my criticisms of the plan he put out. A plan that’s relatively stingy to working Americans would be more forgivable were it not also so friendly to industry. Deficit concerns would be easier to take seriously if not for Baucus’ willingness to cast such worries aside in order to pass conservative bills in the past. It’s not a flawless piece of legislation and its flaws aren’t in there for good reason.

That said, I think a lot of the blog response to this proposal is overblown. There’s just no reason to think that the system envisioned by Baucus would be either a political or a substantive disaster. Instead, it would create something comparable to the situation that currently prevails in Switzerland or Massachusetts. Is that great? No, it’s not. Health care in Massachusetts is substantial worse than health care in any number of foreign countries. That said, the Massachusetts health care system is better than the health care system that exists in any other American state. Similarly, if it were up to me Switzerland is about the last country I would choose to emulate. In terms of excessive costs—spending that lines the pockets of medical providers with little real medical benefit—it’s worse that everyone except . . . the United States of America.

And there’s the rub. The status quo in the United States is really bad. Baucus’ plan would make it better. There are people right now who could use health insurance, but they’re too poor. Baucus would make many of them eligible for Medicaid and more of them eligible for subsidies to let them afford private insurance. Hopefully something better than this plan can be worked out between the merger of the Finance bill and the HELP bill and the conference committee and all the rest. But even in its meager Baucusish form, the health reform currently on the table would be the biggest piece of progressive social policy in decades.

MSNBC: The President's speech to schoolkids (VIDEO)

Relax.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

MSNBC: The Complete Speech... (VIDEO)

It took me a while to nail it down.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TPM: Fired Up... (VIDEO)

MSNBC: Video of the President's Health Care bit..

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy