7/7: The New Benchmark

Although the abrupt resignation of AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) remains a topic of much discussion in the blogosphere, liberals are once again turning their attention to health care reform. Lefty bloggers are currently upset that WH CoS Rahm Emanuel said that the White House is willing to accept a health care reform bill that doesn't include a public option. One blogger complains: "Emanuel's orientation is to accommodate centrists and kick liberals. He's been doing it since he entered politics." It's become clear that the existence of a public option (or lack thereof) will determine whether or not liberals consider health care reform a success -- even though some complain that "it's not necessarily a very good benchmark."

Meanwhile, other liberal bloggers are contrasting Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) strong statement about the importance of providing a public option with Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) unwillingness to demand loyalty from his 60-seat caucus. Needless to say, the netroots are praising Schumer and criticizing Reid.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Some liberal bloggers (Lange, Llorens) are expressing concern about VP Joe Biden's comments about a hypothetical Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities during his appearance on ABC's "This Week." Others (Farley, Yglesias) didn't find Biden's comments alarming.
• Most conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Ace, Fiano) believe that Palin damaged her political fortunes with her abrupt resignation, but some disagree.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Seriously, Rahm?

Liberal bloggers are upset that Emanuel said that the White House is willing to accept a health care reform bill that doesn't include a public option:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Thanks, Rahm. [...] Let's give an industry that has acted in complete bad faith a chance to get it right, and kick the can down the road a few years so that we can all wind up in a huge fight about whether the trigger standards have been met, hopefully in a Republican era when the entire mess can be rolled back. Because Medicare Part D was such a huge success. [...] Well, it's good to know that Rahm is at least admitting that all that BS about controlling costs is just protection for private insurance companies, and that he's looking to Republicans for solutions. So he can what, finish the job of screwing the country he started with NAFTA?"
• dday: "Emanuel's orientation is to accommodate centrists and kick liberals. He's been doing it since he entered politics. There's plenty of elements to health care just as important as a public option, but that's the most controversial, and so the Chief of Staff wants to cave on it to reach a compromise. The other issues, like the health insurance exchanges, the subsidies for the poor, Medicaid eligibility, the baseline level of care, etc., isn't getting the same attention, so Emanuel figures he can just strangle them behind closed doors. With the public plan, a high-profile issue, Emanuel probably thinks he has to lay the groundwork for a capitulation."
• digby: "It's always possible that Emanuel is playing 45 dimensional chess. Gosh I sure do hope so."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Sargent, McCarter, Benen, Orton) are praising Schumer for his statement about the necessity of creating a public option and criticizing Reid for his stated unwillingness to "bulldoze anybody" in order to get 60 votes.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: In Retrospect, Or Not

Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman offers some thoughts on the late Def. Sec. Robert McNamara:

"McNamara possessed a characterological pathology I had never before encountered outside of a toddler: a bent for demonstrative public apology combined with a strident defense of both his course of action and the reasoning chain that led to it. [...] I forget whether I read this in The Best And The Brightest or somewhere else, but I recall some (possibly-apocryphal) story about McNamara considering it his responsibility to attend Georgetown dinner parties and receive verbal abuse about Vietnam, particularly from the antiwar children of the establishment. The airing of this dissent, McNamara thought, was a solemn responsibility of power. Which sounds lovely and civic-minded until you consider that McNamara had by mid-1967 come to the conclusion, entirely in secret, that the war was unwinnable and he possessed considerable power as defense secretary to end it. Instead, he subjected himself to harsh language determined to reinforce his apoplexy while Americans and Vietnamese died for no reason. Viewed in that light, the 30 years between McNamara's Pentagon tenure and his memoir were basically a period of dress rehersal.

I don't know if it really serves any purpose to compare McNamara to [ex-Def. Sec.] Donald Rumsfeld, irresistable as the comparison is. But it's always been striking to me how much Rumsfeld appeared to want to avoid what he considered to be McNamara's chief mistakes. Concede that troop levels in Iraq were too low? Why, that merely sets the stage for an endless and politically untenable series of escalations. Concede that strategy had gone off-course? Why, that merely sets the stage for the press picking the strategy to death. Concede that you made mistakes? Why, that merely positions you as a vain and irresponsible know-nothing. None of this is to say that Rumsfeld's errors look better than McNamara's -- judging which of two train wrecks is the worse one is academic -- only to warn that an attempt to avoid the disasters of the past can steer us into disasters of our own, because the world is an evil and inscrutible place."

LEST WE FORGET: The Audacity Of Fuchsia

From Overheard in New York:

Defensive blonde: You can't mock my leggings, they're awesome! How dare you?!
Offended brunette: They're fuchsia. How dare you?