I am not a woman.  I wouldn't dare speak for women.  But my life and activism are intricately tangled with that of women and that of women's rights.  I worked hard - phone-banking night after night - in 2006 - to defeat Proposition 73, the first of three consecutive parental notification measures on the California ballot in as many years since.  We defeated 73.  We defeated every one of them since.  But the bastards keep coming back.  I took away my dad's pen when he was filling out his mail-in ballot last year and was about to vote for Prop 4, last year's parental notification measure on the California ballot.  I took away his pen and had a half-hour conversation with him until I convinced him to vote 'No.'

But I'm getting off topic.  This post is about the House and the Senate health care bills.  Let me be clear: I don't like either the Stupak language or the Nelson language.  Among the two, I prefer Nelson as the lesser of the two evils. It requires insurance companies to separate their accounting for abortion coverage and fund it only with private dollars.  States can opt out of even this.  Not good.  But better than Stupak.  The Stupak language would ban insurance plans being sold on the exchanges from offering abortion coverage, period.  As I pointed out before, contrary to the demands of some, it is not possible for a House-Senate conference committee to drop both.  But I don't want to make this an abortion-coverage diary.  While the right to an abortion is critical to women's rights overall, it should not be overshadowing all the other important health issues women face, and how the bills score on those.  I want to talk about what both the House and the Senate bills do to actually improve women's health care.

Gotta give quick kudos to the MyDD redesign.  MyDD is a great progressive blog, run by Jerome Armstrong, and is acknowledged as Daily Kos' blogfather.

So, check it out!

The mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been under financial distress and political scrutiny at the same time.  The Treasury Department has lifted the $400 billion cap in investment in Fannie and Freddie, and that has caused a political uproar.  Now, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised an investigation.

I want this to be an informational post.  There is a lot of heat around the lightening rod issue of Freddie and Fannie, but not a whole lot of light, and even less perspective.  People are outraged that the bailed-out mortgage giants have been approved for $6 million executive compensation packages.  What I see happening is the proper liberal anger over executive compensation here is making an ugly alliance with the conservative class and race-baiting in which they blamed Freddie and Fannie for making the economy collapse by giving mortgage loans to - can you believe it - poor people!  Poor people - especially poor black and brown people brought the whole economy to its knees.  Uh huh.

Today, there was a diary by slinkerwink on the Daily Kos recommended list, titled "President Obama Prefers Senator Nelson's Abortion Language".  It told us that "we now have a President that's comfortable with restrictions on women's reproductive rights."

At issue is the fact that the President let a cat out of the bag.  The cat is that the President prefers the Nelson abortion language over the Stupak abortion language.  Never mind that of the two, Nelson is by far the lesser of two evils.  Never mind that the rules of Conference don't allow conferees free rein to drop both - they must choose one, or come up with something in the middle.

I just decided that I would take the standard that FDL's paid employee applied to our President and apply that same standard back to FDL.  And I am going to take that out for a spin.  See what happens.

I have been, for a while, speaking out against the manipulation of the netroots by the likes of Jane Hamsher in their narrow attempt to kill any health insurance reform bill without a public option.  Everyday, the mob at the kill-bill upper echelon takes new tactics to attack people on the left, people like Bernie Sanders, John Lewis, Rosa Delauro and Barack Obama, while their leader graces the screens of Fox Noise.  So it's no surprise that today would be a new tactic.

Today, FDL-paid blogger 'slinkerwink' posts on Daily Kos with outrage.  Outrage, I tell you, that Obama is "a President that's comfortable with restrictions on women's reproductive rights."  Well, this is, of course, not quite the story.

Many of you have heard of Fire Dog Lake.  It's an influential blog founded and published by Jane Hamsher, the infamous self-proclaimed progressive crusader who has made a sport of beating up on progressives like Bernie Sanders, making common cause with Grover Norquist and making the notorious Fox Noise Network her friend.  So I guess I shouldn't be surprised when they quote out of context a Washington Post article in their scorched earth policy to try to kill health insurance reform - and if they can't do it, at the minimum, to drag their proverbial nails across the chalkboard to make it really painful for everybody involved.

FDL published an article today, currently gracing its front page as the top post, quoting from a part of the Washington Post article that makes it look like Democrats are trying to sneak a larger Medicare doughnut-hole past seniors in the health care bill in the next couple of years while promising to close it over the next 10.  Here, have a look yourself.  The part that gets a bright tanning light shined on it?

As I write this, a well-written diary by kck sits on the Daily Kos recommended list, taking President Obama to task for saying that the public option was a matter of ideological contention between the left and the right.  That diary claims that the public option is not ideological, that it would have been a vehicle to save people from the claws of Murder by Spreadsheet industry, and would have given businesses in this country relief.  The diarist makes a lot of good points, and it would have all been fine if the public option took the shape of what the diarist was driving at.

But before we go onto that, let's review the President's quote:

"Every single criteria for reform that I put forward is in this bill," Obama said. "It is true that the Senate version does not have a public option, and that has become, I think, a source of ideological contention between the left and the right.

I would pay very close attention to what the President is saying here.  He is saying that the public option has become a point of ideological contention.  Not that it's a policy based on strict ideology, but that it has set off an ideological battle and it has become ideological.

There is a lot of outrage at the bank and the auto bailouts on both ends of the proverbial political spectrum, and quite a bit in the middle of the said spectrum as well.  A lot of that outrage, of course, is both reasonable and warranted.  Taxpayers are royally annoyed that the government decided to bail out the banks and the auto companies, while we continue to bleed jobs and incomes of people who have jobs continue to stagnate or fall.

However, I believe that irresponsible people on both far ends of the political spectrum are whipping up this frenzy for their own self-aggrandizement or the growth of their respective organizations and blogs (I'm looking at you, Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist).  The anger of the egotistical bloggers who claim to represent the liberal base of the Democratic party has combined with the runaway hatred of the conservative right for President Obama for a potent and potentially destructive force in American politics.  Both are trying to whip up people's emotions with a version of faux populism that is hurting our country.  So I plan to present an assessment that is sober and based on numbers and not emotions.  I urge my readers to rein in their righteous anger and read about the actual consequence of the policy we are so angry at.

On open left, yesterday, David Sirota posted an article about how there are 60 Democrats in the House who have pledged to vote against any bill without a public option. And to be sure, there are. There was a big drive organized by a coalition on the left back in August and it breathed new life back into the public option. 64 House Democrats signed a letter saying that exactly that - that such a bill is "unacceptable."

And then, David quoted from the letter:

Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. [emphasis mine.]

For a long while now, Democrats and progressives have been squabbling amongst ourselves about what is and isn't acceptable in a health care bill. Why a bill should be killed. Why another should be saved. Why (insanely, in my view), liberals like Bernie Sanders must be taken out of office (and presumably, replaced by Jane Hamsher).

But I want to remind us why we are where we are today. Why did we have to stand at the edge of history and negotiate/capitulate some of that history away to Joe Lieberman? To Ben Nelson? Why did we even need their votes?

There has been a loud pronouncement by self-proclaimed representatives of the left-netroots that the Senate bill must be killed in order to be saved. Or improved. Or some such thing. Never mind the absolute incoherence of logic in the argument of killing the patient to save it. I don't want to talk to Adam Green or Jane Hamsher. I want to talk to the people they talk to. The people that sign their petitions. I want to share my feelings about what I feel I would be doing if I had a hand in killing the bill.

If they are successful in killing the bill (which, thankfully, they won't be since among the progressives in Congress, cooler heads seem to be prevailing), health care/insurance reform is over for more than a decade. This idea that we can bring it back next year or in 2011 with some sort of a left-right populist alliance if we fail now is bullshit. Before you sign one of their petitions to kill the bill, let me remind you what you will be putting your name to:

Facts are stubborn things. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to his or her own facts. There has been a firestorm over whether or not then-Senator Barack Obama "campaigned on" the public option. So let me first lay out what I understand "campaigning on" to mean:

It means that the things that a candidate for office goes to the voters and talks about often. The things they repeat and repeat. The things they talk about in rallies, the things they assert in their debates with their opponents, etc. Having something in one's campaign platform does not make one "campaign on" those things, even though it puts them on the record in favor of those things. Filling out a questionnaire is not campaigning on something. Campaigning on something is the ideas they repeat to voters, the ideas on which they want to define themselves for voters.

By that definition, it is crystal clear that candidate Barack Obama did not campaign on the public option. I'm a supporter of the public option. I want it. But to say that Obama campaigned on it is simply not true.
To be sure, President Obama campaigned for the public option during the summer, after he became president. But he did not campaign on it as a candidate.

I consider myself a bold progressive. I speak my mind, and I am a progressive that cares about policy. For me, being a bold progressive requires that when there is legislation that is far from perfect but is a step forward from the status quo, I cannot sit by, bitch and put out triumvirate calls to "kill the bill." No progress is ever made in one fell swoop. That's why I cannot see my progressive self telling me to do anything other than to support the passage of the Senate health care bill, which is ridden with imperfections and concessions to the insurance industry, but still takes us light-years ahead of where we are today.

I wrote yesterday about FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher's rant about killing the senate bill, and posted a point-by-point rebuttal. So what do you know, I get an email today, from the Progressive Change Campaign Committe at Boldprogressives.org. I will be quoting parts of it and pointing out how dishonest the email is - just to serve the purpose of getting people to sign their petition. You can see the whole email right here (click to enlarge):

None other than Jane Hamsher has convinced me that the Senate health care bill is, in fact, better than the status quo. I know, what? Jane Hamsher? Isn't she the FDL warrior fighting against this Senate bill? Yes, yes she is. But she gave me some particular pieces of information that I was very impressed by.

I got an email from her this morning excoriating the vices of the current Senate bill. Don't get me wrong, I think the bill is full of vices. It's also on the FDL website with a petition. And it convinced me that this bill must pass and is much, much, much better than the status quo.

So I have been on an emotional roller coaster the past few days. One thing is for certain, I cannot, in good conscience support this new Senate bill that delivers to the Murder by Spreadsheet industry 30 million new, captive customers on a legal mandate. On the other hand, I am also not sure that I can oppose a bill that expands health insurance to 30 million people, has a patient's bill of rights, and puts on the insurance companies regulations that are far better than they have today.

And then, I read this.

I am really ambivalent about the new health care bill in the Senate. If it came up for a vote and I was voting, would I vote for it? Probably. Because I cannot stand the thought of denying health care to 30 million Americans if nothing passes. As much as this bill is contrary to my principle that if the government mandates coverage, it should only do so with an option for the American people to choose a public option. But I am disappointed in the leadership of this president. I'm profoundly saddened. I tried to put my reactions into a note to the president:

Dear Mr. President, As a supporter and as a citizen, I write to you today in profound disappointment and with a level of disgust - not necessarily towards you but towards the political process. I don't know what went on behind closed doors with you and the Senate Democratic caucus. I do know that at the end of it all, the American people were denied a choice of a public health insurance option. The bill that you will likely sign will be scarred with the fundamentally bad idea that the government will force Americans to buy a product from private vendors without offering us a public choice. I would talk about politics, but somehow that doesn't seem appropriate. Mr. President, we are coming up on the first Holiday season of your presidency. At the heels of celebration, you have accepted the demise of the opportunity for the American people to make health care reform happen with our own choices. I am disappointed that you did not come down harder on the members of the Democratic caucus to make them stick with a public option. I am saddened that you stopped even publicly pushing for such an option. Say what you want, Mr. President, and time will tell the repercussions of this legislation. But you have accepted - and worse yet, made - an immoral choice. I wish you and your family the best for the Holidays, Mr. President. May the God you believe in protect you and bless you. And may he give you the benefit of a clear moral purpose with a conscience.

Dear Senator Lieberman,

You were the first Jewish American to be nominated on a major political party's presidential ticket. History was made, and barriers were broken. By the Democratic party. This honor was bestowed upon you by the party that has championed civil rights and workers' rights for the better part of a century. This honor was bestowed upon you by the party that is responsible for social security and Medicare. This honor was given to you by the party of the working people.

You ran for President, four years later in 2004 with the promise of universal health care. You ran on the rhetoric of "Don't you think we'd be a lot better off today if Al Gore and I were elected to the White House instead of Bush and Cheney?"

But the tide turned when you were challenged and defeated for the Democratic nomination for your re-election to the Senate in 2006. You threw a tantrum like a 5 year old whose candy had been taken away because the Democratic voters of your state exercised their small-d democratic rights and picked Ned Lamont to represent them. You, like a spoiled 5 year old with a tantrum, refused to abide by the results of the primary in which you chose to run. You got on the ballot with the party of "Connecticut from Lieberman", and won with Republican and some old-school Democratic votes. Even in that election, you promised not only to caucus with the Democrats, but to work your hardest to end the war in Iraq, to work for Democratic priorities and to work hard to elect a Democratic president.

But of course, your holiness works in mysterious ways. You could not be counted on to keep any of the promises. Why would we expect you to? You betrayed the democratic process in your own primary for the sake of senatorial power. I'd compare you to a snake, but I don't want to offend any snakes.
You did caucus with the Democrats so your chairmanship was preserved. But you, as always, remained the Bush administration's chief cheerleader in Congress (Democratic or Republican) with respect to foreign policy, and much of their domestic agenda. You, as the Chairman of the Government Affairs and Homeland Security committee, gave George Bush and his cronies a pass on their spectacular failures on both fronts. You became - maybe you always were - a tool of the right wing in this country. You betrayed your constituents, as well as the principles you told us you stood for in 2000, 2004 and 2006.

Then there was your love affair with John McCain and his presidential campaign. You not only supported John McCain's agenda of expanding American military operations into Iran, but zealously campaigned for his idea to fix the American economy by giving big tax cuts to fatcats and shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and the middle class in America (or whatever we have left of the middle class). Above all, you knowingly shilled for an utterly unqualified and unprepared person who claimed she would be "in charge" of the Senate as Vice President, named Sarah Palin, to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

When McCain and Palin were thoroughly whipped in the election by President Obama and Vice President Biden, you came out and called for a new day. You pledged to work to advance the new president's agenda. Heh. We warned the Democrats in the Senate then that they would rue the day they cut a deal with
the Devil.


Since then, you have worked to stifle the President's agenda at every turn. You are undermining not just the President but progressive policies that are at the root of what makes America the shining beacon of hope throughout the world.

You are blocking the most precious of all American priorities - health care reform. You don't even care that every day you pontificate about your egotistical rants about health care, 123 people die. And the blood of every single one of them is on your pious, pontificating, egotistical, self-indulgent hands. I would appeal to you on a human basis, but I know you have no humanity left in you.

So, my suggestion is, Senator, a simply political one - seeing the political animal (apologies to any real animals I offended) that you are.

Given that you, for the last 4 or 5 years, have constantly worked to advance a Republican agenda and defeat Democratic initiatives to make the lives of working Americans better, you are in the wrong party. It's time for you to stop being a vulture in a nun's clothing. It's time for you to become a vulture. It's time for you to become a Republican.

Sincerely,

An American.