10/26: Stop Sending Mixed Signals, Barack!

Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's apparent inclination to include a public option with a state opt-out clause in the merged Senate health care bill generated a lot of commentary in the liberal blogosphere this weekend. Although lefty bloggers were cheered by Reid's efforts, they were upset about reports that Pres. Obama was "actively discouraging" Reid from pursuing this strategy, due to his preference for the public option "trigger" mechanism favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). publius complained: "Despite its new momentum, the public option has a powerful new opponent -- the White House. It's incredibly frustrating."

Although the WH quickly issued a statement denying the report that it opposed Reid's strategy on the public option, the netroots were not satisfied. Adam Green sums up the views of many in the lefty blogosphere when he writes: "Here's what the White House needs to understand: Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Bandes, Lopez) continue to unload on NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R). Righty bloggers (Erickson, Geraghty, Jessup) are also criticizing the NRCC for refusing to abandon Scozzafava and throw its support behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
• Various WH '12 GOP hopefuls are taking their lumps from conservative bloggers for not endorsing Hoffman. Several righty bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey) are criticizing ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) for standing by his endorsement of Scozzafava. Meanwhile, RedState editor Erick Erickson is disappointed that ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) hasn't endorsed Hoffman.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Is Obama Selling Out The Public Option?

Liberal bloggers reacted with exasperation when The Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim reported that Obama "is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's time to be pissed."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "It is quite remarkable it seems to me that whether Obama will support a public option is an open question. It's one thing to be a bystander, quite another to wade in in favor of Snowe's trigger. And yet, it appears that privately that is what the President is doing. Harry Reid is going to bring a public option to a vote. Will Obama lobby against it [publicly]? I think he might. Amazing."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Despite its new momentum, the public option has a powerful new opponent -- the White House. It's incredibly frustrating. Although Reid is close to getting 60 votes on cloture, Obama and Rahm (who, for all his bluster, is politically timid) are pushing for the 'trigger,' which is the same as nothing. [...] I'm wondering if the White House's shorter-term political calculations (for themselves) are making them more timid than they should be on this issue. I'd like to have Snowe's support too, but I don't think it's worth sacrificing an opt-out policy that seems to have wide Democratic support (and would have more if Obama showed some spine)."
• digby: "It seems that the administration believes that it's better to deliver a bill that will not work than to take a chance on losing some seats. Since it's nonsensical to think that that Republicans would take those seats because of the public option but not health care reform over all, they must believe that they must deliver a devastating blow to the majority of their own party in order to prove their bipartisan bona fides and give Rahm's Blue Dogs a tea bag to take home with them. (Certainly, nothing would make the villagers happier...)"
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The Snowe Trigger is not a substitute for a public option. Harry Reid needs to hear that, [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi needs to hear that (though I don't think we really need to convince her), and everyone in the White House needs to hear that."

While most liberal bloggers have been very critical of the WH, it should be noted that some (Silver, BooMan) share the Obama admin.'s apparent concerns about getting 60 Dem senators to vote for cloture on a bill with a public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Damage Control

Liberal bloggers were not satisfied when the WH issued a statement denying that "the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option":

• Aravosis: "The White House has issued yet another general statement saying how much it likes the public option. That's nice. So what exactly has the President done to lobby individual Senators to get Harry Reid the remaining 1, 2, or 3 votes he needs to include the public option in the bill?"
• Green: "Here's what the White House needs to understand: Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid 'good luck with that' is not the same as the president saying, 'I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes.'"
• Big Tent Democrat: "Certainly this [statement] makes it tougher for Obama to [publicly] support triggers. That's a good thing. His earlier dithering has done plenty of damage to the public option cause, not just in the Senate, as Jon Cohn reports, but in the House, as Roll Call reports. Hopefully this will stop the bleeding. At least until Obama and his team try to gut the public option again."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "I'm...hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody. No one wants to be left in the cold here. If the public option is going to pass, plenty of people want to be seen as its champions. If it's going to fail, others want to be out ahead of that failure. Politicians need to know whether to begin managing the disappointment of their base or amping up their expectations. But since the administration is considered the most important actor here, no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (BTD, Dayen) are buzzing about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) criticism of Snowe's trigger compromise.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "Democratic" Versus "Liberal"

NRO's Jonah Goldberg comments on the recent Gallup poll which found that "conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace":

"...I do think one plausible theory as to why the Democratic party is having some of its problems these days is that they misread their pre-election unity. I think this is understandable. Lots of polls suggested that America was becoming more liberal under [George W.] Bush (at least on a bunch of issues). The differences between centrist and leftwing Democrats seemed trivial. Barack Obama won handily without ever tacking back to the center in the general election. In short, those eager to find evidence that the country was poised to lurch leftward had lots to go on.

But perhaps that had more to do with the fact that country was (again understandably) fed up with the Republican Party. The Democratic Party's leaders are a lot more liberal than their voters (the dynamic is even more true when it comes to committee chairs who are to the left of the average Democratic congressmen). The Democrats came into power in 2008 thinking they had a huge mandate for liberalism, when they really had a huge mandate for competence (for want of a better word). Obama and his coterie misunderstood this. They used a lot of 'pragmatic' rhetoric, but they governed from the left, starting with the calamitous stimulus bill. Obama's personal popularity is still sustaining him, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party missed an enormous opportunity. I don't think they're doomed or anything like that. But, they've managed to rebrand themselves as a very liberal party again, and that's a problem when 80% of Americans don't describe themselves as liberals."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Trying to Install Microsoft Windows 7

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report) -- Tensions between the United States and the Iranian government have risen over the weekend amid intelligence reports that Iran is trying to install Microsoft Windows 7.

Spy-satellite photos reveal a shipment of Windows 7 software, as well as a dozen IT professionals from Redmond, Washington, arriving early Saturday morning in Tehran.

While intelligence analysts warn that Iran's acquiring Windows 7 is a matter of grave concern, a Defense Department spokesman, Tracy Klugian, was careful not to overstate the danger: 'Even under optimal conditions, Windows 7 will probably take at least two to five years to successfully install.'

Mr. Klugian underscored his remark by reminding reporters that Iran attempted to install Microsoft Vista over three years ago: 'They still haven't gotten that to work.'"