I love Hillary, starting from the moment she tried to get healthcare reform in 1993, but it's impossible to know if she would be in any different place right now, substantially, with this bill. Hillary has a very different dynamic and we can't predict at all how her presidency might have unfolded.

I agree that Dean would have been the absolute right choice for a point person, and for that I blame Rahm - it was a foolish, petty snub.

But here we are, and neither of those people has a role in getting this bill passed (although Dean might after all!). What do we do? If blaming Obama for not being Hillary helps us keep our eye on the ball - good. Respectfully, I don't think it does. If pining for Dean keeps us focused on the enormous strides that Obama and we have already made just getting this far - great. But it doesn't seem like the point to me any more.

Unity, focus, determination and a clear goal seem like the best route. If Obama can't provide every one of those points, then we have a week to make the strongest case possible to the White House and every pol and news source we can reach, before he "closes the deal". We have a week to shore him up, rather than tear him down.

He's the only president we have for the next 3-7 years. Maybe we can help replenish his focus and determination, and sharpen the goal.

Unity is up to us.

When you scan right-wing and left wing websites, you inevitably see the truisms that right-wing authors and readers are mostly in the business of defining a common enemy, which is us.

Left wing authors and readers are also often in the business of defining a common enemy - also us.

That's our nature - our strength in diversity and our cross to bear - and it can't be changed. But we ought to at least try to bend it in this one instance, if we expect to get healthcare reform before 2092.

"If I'm not mistaken the Obama campaign clearly conveyed the message it would take on AND ACHIEVE "health care reform." Obama, as candidate, unequivocally expressed his commitment to a public option. Presumably, some people may have cast their vote for him on the basis of that commitment."

Perhaps you know something that I don't, but I believe the game is still in progress. The Public Option is still on the table, according to the NYT today, although certain other smaller options like "death panels" are not. Obama is preparing to make a major statement next week. If a writer cares about the outcome, this would be a good time to try to galvanize readers into action. "Quagmires" need not apply.

I don't think this article has that intent at all - it's another in a line of many attempts to lay ALL the blame for the non-passing of a bill that hasn't even been finalized at the President's feet. I don't think that's useful. In fact, it seems remarkably counterproductive, as it lures many readers into complacency and blame, rather than motivation - as with the bulk of responses herein. Complacency and blame we've got; inspiration (from journalists too) is in short supply.

If Lyons wants to hold up Truman as a benchmark for Obama (Truman?! where was that trope in 1993?), then I'll hold up my personal journalistic benchmarks for healthcare criticism and effect: Bill Moyers and Robert Reich.

Reich has consistently pointed out errors in the fight for healthcare, but with direct, positive suggestions, as well as appreciation for what has been done RIGHT. (Something has, or we wouldn't be talking about this at all.)

Moyers has done the best job around at holding the administration's feet to the fire WITHOUT glossing over the complexities of what Obama, and we, are up against. There is an enemy here, and it's not us.

Moyers is also deeply and simply humane about the issue. You can criticize AND inspire. This issue is so immensely important that I don't feel the need to applaud half-assed criticism when I can get the real stuff on other pages.

For my money Obama has addressed the three most important issues in his first months - (green) economy; global warming; and healthcare - amongst other actions, and is on his way to achieving some, if not all of those goals. That's hardly a "gutless wonder". I'm pissed as hell that he's letting the Public Option hang out there without full backing - and letting him know it - but I see absolutely no reason not to support him 100%, and kick his ass, while the ball is still in play.

fits Steele just right. More like the human whoopie cusion that he seems truly to be.

Funny, and probably true! No wonder he's got that gleam in his eye when he busts in - he's copyrighted.

"But do you want to win this fight or express your moral superiority? My state's two Democratic senators need reasons to support what many of their constituents fear, and the most persuasive voice many are hearing is Rush Limbaugh's. This is true across large parts of America where left-wing populism once held sway."

So what the hell are you doing bringing a pundit blame-Obama op-ed to a fight instead of a persuasive voice?

Healthcare reform has been on the table for 60 years and counting. It ain't about Obama. It's about why we should want it. Convincing people to act is harder than convincing them it's someone's fault. But it's the best kind of journalism.