Health Care Reform passes

The Democrats finally did it, passing health care reform. Props to Nancy Pelosi for bringing it through the House. Props to all the Dems in the House who voted the right way, which was most of them, and enough of them. There are some other procedural votes in the Senate, and then Obama has to sign it. But it's done.

The details of what this bill covers have been examined in excruciating detail in many, many places. Andrew Sullivan rounds up the usual suspects and their reactions. I'm just thrilled that we finally have something - anything - different from the status quo. I don't know whether or not this bill will solve the problems we hope it will. I hope it will. I have a certain amount of faith. For various reasons, I haven't followed the ins and outs of this debate as closely as I could have. I understand the basic outline, the amount of detail has been mind-numbing. I started following politics seriously when all you had to do was read The New York Times and a couple of other sources, and you knew all you had to know. I still haven't learned how to drink from the firehose that is the Internet.

What I do know, or at least what I feel comfortable theorizing about, is that this isn't just about healthcare, as broad as that topic may be. This may be the last great victory in the culture wars that started almost 50 years ago. Liberals have won on almost every issue in those wars: they have won on feminism, civil rights, the environment, abortion, and separation of church and state. They're winning on gay rights. They've essentially lost on gun control, but they're starting to win on crime, after losing for decades. Some would argue that they lost on the very broad issue of capitalism, but I don't think that was really up for debate. As frustrated as liberals are by corporations, only the wackiest have really seriously contemplated any kind of alternative to capitalism.

This is not just a political, legislative, or even cultural victory. This is a philosophical victory, an ideological one. What won tonight was the idea that government can improve the lives of its citizens. That's an idea that has been around for a long time, and there have been many victories on that front along the way. But this may be the ultimate victory for that idea. Which may be one reason Republicans fought this legislation so hard: they knew what was at stake, and they knew how badly they were losing. And now they have lost. Take it away, Mr. President:

Health Care Passes In The House

The House of Representatives passed its version of health care reform today. TPMDC has a great analysis of the issues here.

The bill passed the House 220-215, just a couple of votes more than needed. Abortion, a long-simmering issue, exploded in the debate in the last couple of days, as some conservative Democrats decided that they couldn't vote for Federal funding for abortions. They got their way. I'm not thrilled with that, and lots of feminists and liberals are going to be disappointed, but I'm not surprised this happened. Abortion is one of the last battles of the culture wars that is still open, and conservative Democrats need to feel like they won something in this debate. As a percentage of the actual money involved, I'm sure funding for abortion is miniscule. But it's a very high-profile issue, and Democrats from culturally conservative districts can use this vote to demonstrate their independence from "Washington elites."

Obama, as I expected, used some of his political capital at the end, showing up on Capitol Hill to bang some heads and twist some arms. Just a few days after the votes in Virginia and New Jersey that were allegedly so bad for him, he achieves a major victory.

Momentum breeds momentum. As Democrats have come together, they have, collectively, ever more reason to vote together, to make something happen. They must all hang together. They don't all have to vote for the bill to get it to pass, and I'm sure Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn have a very good sense of who they can bring on board under what conditions. As they get closer to passing the final bill, they get closer to defining the political reality. And conservatives and Republicans get closer and closer to losing a major battle. That's one reason that they are fighting so hard, and using such absurd rhetoric - if they lose this one, they don't just lose on the issue - they lose their ability to be obstructionist. Some members of the base will be ever-more frustrated and vitriolic. But a fair number of Republicans are going to be deflated and demoralized. And a fair number are going to be disgusted at the tactics of this highly vocal minority. There are still many, many moderate, tolerant, decent, open-minded conservatives and Republicans who still believe that respecting your opponent is a key quality for being successful in a democracy. Those Republicans, by definition, are not rabble rousers. They are not the ones raising signs on the steps of the Capitol. Which means that they aren't the ones being noticed in this debate. But there are millions of them, and they are paying attention.

Reading the article in TPMDC, I finally started to pick up a good understanding of what is at the core of the debate. I finally get the basic issue. We have lots of uninsured people in this country. Taking care of them costs the rest of us a lot of money. We have to get those people insured. There are a couple of ways to do that: abolish all private insurance, and enroll everyone in the same government program, or encourage/force everyone to buy insurance on their own, or encourage/force all employers to offer insurance. The problem with encouraging/forcing all people to buy insurance on their own is that many of them will not be able to afford it, and many will resent having to buy insurance when they haven't had to before. So, to make it possible, and to ease the pain, the government will do two things: 1) offer subsidies so people can afford to buy insurance, and 2) set up a government-run insurance program for people to buy into. To level the playing field, and to make insurance work better, the government will also be imposing new restrictions on insurance companies.

I finally get it. It's great not to have to worry about the constant battle over fine details of political gossip - which Senator said what about what obscure part of the bill, and how did the White House react, and how did the Senate leadership react, etc. I found the news coverage - particularly on the liberal blogs, TPM, DailyKos, and HuffPost - getting bogged down in that kind of detail. That's a subject for a post-mortem.

But the bill passed the House. On to the Senate.

Brancy: Brad Pitt meets Nancy Pelosi

Brad Pitt traveled to Capitol Hill today, and met with Nancy Pelosi. They held a joint press conference, with Pelosi just gushing. Dana Milbank, WaPo columnist, let his imagination run wild, and came up with a couple of alternative takes on Brad Pitt movies: What if it was Nancy Pelosi in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, instead of Angelina Jolie? This is hysterical.

Blogging the Convention: Unconventional Women

I'm at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. This morning, I attended one of the side events at the Convention: something called Unconventional Women. It was a series of discussions (mostly with two or more women) about women in politics. There wasn't much in the way of policy - it was pretty much, "tell us about your experiences in politics, and how can we get more women in politics." Which was a fine thing to focus on, as far as I am concerned.

The highlight was when Nancy Pelosi arrived. She comes across as a solid professional on TV, but she's very impressive in person. The crowd loved her. I don't think I've ever seen anyone get two standing ovations before they even said a word. And boy can she work a crowd, and yet make it look easy. She has a compelling personal story; she had 5 kids in 6 years. She didn't run for Congress until she was 47. She's very aware of sexism all around her, and she shared some stories about clueless men, but she doesn't let it bother her - she just plows ahead.

One nice thing that she mentioned was that it's crucial for a member of Congress to be an expert on policy. She also said that she makes it clear to new Members that they have three responsibilities: to the Constitution, to the country, and to their constituents, in that order. Hopefully all of those always coincide, but if not, they are responsible for managing the conflict. It was good to be reminded that politics, at the end of the day, is about the work, and the work is passing laws.

Pelosi has a Republican opponent

Nancy Pelosi has a Republican opponent in the general election. Her name is Dana Walsh. Pelosi has had Republican opponents before; last time, it was a guy named Mike DeNunzio, who raised $149,842 and got 10.7% of the vote. That's par for the course against Pelosi, who has won reelection 10 times with an average of 81% of the vote.

But this record is not deterring our erstwhile Republican interior decorator/sacrificial lamb/deluded martyr Ms. Walsh! She is planning on raising $1 million for her race against Pelosi.

This is yet more proof that the Republican reputation for being fiscally responsible is highly undeserved. Raising $1 million to run against the Speaker of the House, who is wildly popular in her own district, which has a 6 to 1 Democrat advantage among registered voters? How smart is that? Why not just raise money to do something like endow a chair in conservative thinking at Berkeley? Why not raise money for a retirement home for all the GOP Representatives and Senators who are going to be out of a job next January? Why not hire a bunch of therapists and grief counselors for the GOP staffers who will also be out of work?

Conservatives argue that individuals are better at spending their own money than the government. This is strong evidence to the contrary. I would love to see someone try to justify this as an efficient allocation of resources. Or even a responsible allocation of resources.

A large chunk of this money is going to be spent on TV ads, which means that GOP donors around the country are going to be sending their money to support the media in San Francisco. I'm sure the TV stations in the Bay Area will be more than happy to take their money.

Ironically, Cindy Sheehan is also hoping to run, as an independent. This is not surprising or even interesting - as noble as her crusade is, Ms. Sheehan doesn't seem to have the best political judgment. But her presence, if she gets the necessary 10,000 signatures, will make it more interesting!

My favorite part of the story is Walsh's justification for why she is running:

Walsh said she knows the odds against her are long. “It’s a two-party system. Someone has to run,’’ she said.

Well, no, actually, someone does not HAVE to run. And someone does not HAVE to raise $1 million for a suicide mission. And someone does not HAVE to provide material for Democrats to be amused.

But we are glad that Ms. Walsh is obliging.

Pelosi will step in

Nancy Pelosi has made it official: if things don't tidy up quickly in the campaign for the Democratic nomination, she'll clear everything up. From her hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle:

Pelosi predicted Wednesday that a presidential nominee will emerge in the week after the final Democratic primaries on June 3, but she said "I will step in" if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan

Like I said.

Pelosi will be delegate #2,025 for Obama

Talking Points Memo has a post about Howard Dean making it clear that he wants all of the superdelegates to make up their minds soon after the last primary on June 3. This makes perfect sense. The Democrats need time to unify the party before the convention and before the general election. And there's no point in waiting. Nothing of significance will change between the end of the primaries and the convention, so they should make their decisions sooner rather than later. And they're politicians - they have to make hard decisions all the time, usually with the threat of alienating a core constituency hanging over their heads.

My prediction is that Nancy Pelosi will be delegate #2,025 for Obama, the one that pushes him over the top and clinches the nomination. She's the most highly visible Democrat among the supers, so this would signal that it's time for the party to get behind Obama. More importantly, though, as the first woman Speaker of the House, she understands extremely well how important it would be to have a woman president. Absolutely no one could accuse her of being sexist or bowing to pressure from the old boy's network. There will be a lot of Hillary supporters who will be disappointed by this decision. And many of the women who support Hillary and who identify with her will be very tempted to claim that this is an example of a woman's ambition being thwarted by a man. They will want a target for their anger. But if Pelosi puts the last nail in the coffin of Hillary's campaign, they will not be able to direct their anger at her. And they will listen to her, as they would not listen to Howard Dean or Harry Reid or even Obama himself. And the healing will begin.

Harry, Nancy, and Howard

HuffPost reports on some rumblings among the top three national Democrats (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean) about bringing this primary to a close.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid took his comments about the state of the Democratic primary one step further today, suggesting that he and other prominent Democrats would intervene in the race if primary season concludes without a clear winner:

The dynamics here are interesting. Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, is technically the boss of both Hillary and Obama. He can't tell them what to do, obviously, but he is in a position to hear from around the country, and he is in a position to pressure some superdelegates. Dean, as chair of the DNC, is in an even better position to hear from people around the country, but he's also in a position where he CAN'T put pressure on the supers. What he can do is make it clear that the rules will stay as they are, and that Michigan and Florida will just have to deal with the fact that their gambles to try and win more influence did not pay off.

But Reid and Dean are both men, and, as such, will be perceived by some, particularly some of Hillary's women supporters, as members of the old-boy network squelching a woman's dreams.

Pelosi, on the other hand, is a woman, and if she brings the hammer down, she is not doing it for sexist reasons. Particularly as the first woman to ascend to a position very close to the president, she understands how important it is to women to have a woman president. And she has direct influence over even more superdelegates than Reid.

More not-so-good news for Hillary

In contrast to the good news for Obama (see my post immediately below), there's a little bit of weird, and not necessarily good, news for Hillary. Seems that some of her supporters are a little miffed that Nancy Pelosi seems to be drifting into the Obama camp. Talking Points Memo has the letter. It's not even that thinly veiled:

"you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier"

They go on to articulate why superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their decision on who to support.

"Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee."

Which is code for "we don't care how many votes Obama has, we still don't think he'll win the general election."

And this lays it on the line: "We have been strong supporters of the DCCC." Hint, hint, do what we want, or we'll make big donations to the local museum instead of the Democrats.

I can appreciate people playing hardball. I have no problem with people with money using their money to make their voices heard. Hey, it's their money, they can do what they want with it. If I ever have oodles of money, I have every intention of doing the same thing. You write large checks, you get to go to great parties. I'm glad people with this kind of cash are on my side. Of course, I'm also very much in favor of transparency when they do. But everyone involved put their name on the letter, so they're upfront. That's all to the good.

But judging from the reactions at TPM, this could seriously backfire with the base. The word "extortion" appears several times. Guess what? The Democratic party is allegedly the party of the little guy. Guess what else? The little guys don't like being pushed around by the big guys. Or the big girls.

And guess what else? Nancy Pelosi is a big girl, too. She can take care of herself. She can also read the handwriting on the wall.