1. That Ben Nelson is suddenly shaking on the abortion language, and willing to abandon the pro-blastocyst stance.

2. That a group of 6 (I think) liberal senators went to Reid as a group and told him bluntly they will not vote for the bill without the public option as currently structured (the opt-out).

  Really? And why is that?  The assertion is more sheer wishful-thinking and unsubstantiated pap.

   "If true, this would mean that one of the biggest hurdles will have been cleared."

  Ditto.  The "hurdle" is neither "bigger" nor "smaller" than any of the other "hurdles": closing debate, passing the measure on a final floor vote. (which probably amount to the same thing since, if the "leadership" (LOL!) can get 60 votes for closure, it can probably also pass the bill.  Of course, there are those amendments which may intervene, right?

  "Psychologically, it's good to have the number of votes you will ultimately need lined up on a procedural vote at the beginning."

  Why do you write such stuff?  Since to open debate at all there's a requirement of overcoming any minority objections with a mustering of 60 votes or more, it's far more than merely "psychologically...good", it's imperative.  I'm constantly amazed at your bizarre way of "explaining" things.

   "It will be difficult for any senators to vote 'no' on a later cloture vote once they have voted 'aye' on a prior one."

   Sez you.  But, again, we have just your word for this.  Why is it "difficult" to defy Senator Reid?  Apparently, he can't even assure the votes to begin debate without open opposition from "his own" "party".

   "Of course, that's exactly what Joe Lieberman has been threatening to do by saying he will vote to begin debate, but not to end it if a public option remains in the bill. Ben Nelson is making a similar threat related to the abortion language and the anti-trust exemption for health insurance corporations."

  So which, then, is it?  Is it "difficult" or not?

   "If this bill gets started in the Senate with an opt-out public option, it is either going to finish with one or it is not going to pass. Someone will introduce an amendment to strip out the public option, but it will probably need 60 votes to pass (by unanimous consent, most amendments will need 60 votes to pass). That means that 20 Democrats would have to vote to strip out the public option. It's possible that Lieberman and Snowe will argue that the amendment must pass or they won't vote for cloture to end debate on the bill. The Dems would then be forced to make a decision. Do they cave in to the threat and vote to strip out the public option? Do they call bullshit, and challenge Lieberman and Snowe to make good on their threats? Or, does Reid just pull the bill off the floor and replace it will a bill that lacks a public option?"

Another possibility is that Reid would just give up on passing the bill through regular order and move directly to the budget reconciliation process. If Reid is still facing stiff opposition after the first 60-vote hurdle is passed, he may begin threatening to use reconciliation as a way to keep the 'centrists' in line. The centrists have already won a lot in negotiations, and that can all be taken away if Reid is forced to pull the bill and do reconciliation. My sense is that the liberals in the Senate have given about as much as they're willing to give. And I know for certain that that is true among progressives in the House. The bill appears to be approximately where it should be for final passage. It's a better Senate bill than I anticipated and a much worse House bill than I anticipated. But the House-Senate compromise looks to be about what I expected."

  You're already acquainted with the substance of  " the House-Senate compromise" !?!

    "I don't like doing it this way because it gives Lieberman and Nelson and Lincoln and Landrieu and Bayh vetoes on the front-end when they have maximum leverage. But it might just work. And, if it doesn't, we might just get a more progressive (if less comprehensive) bill in reconciliation. I don't think failure is an option this time."

   I heard the same thing about the war in  Iraq.  Some Bush administration geniuses avowed that very thing: "failure is not an option!".  Then reality intervened.  I can't even say which you really mean there: "failure is not an option" really means virtually nothing since at the head of this confused explanation of yours you start by admitting that

    "If this bill gets started in the Senate with an opt-out public option, it is either going to finish with one or it is not going to pass."

  By the way, I wonder why you seem in doubt about whether or not the bill "gets started in the Senate with an opt-out public option".  

  If you already know this:

   "The bill appears to be approximately where it should be for final passage. It's a better Senate bill than I anticipated and a much worse House bill than I anticipated. But the House-Senate compromise looks to be about what I expected."

  then whence comes the question as to what shall be the bill's opening contents?  Again, an example of how your way of putting things makes me dizzy.

  So it would seem that since you already recognize that failure is a distinct possibility, (though one you don't seem to take as very likely, despite the clear evidence of the liklihood), then what we have  as a meaning for "failure is not an option" is nothing other or more than, "we dare not fail!"   To that, I say: So what?  "Failing," after all, is our political system's "long suit".  There has been virtually nothing but failure for the past eight years and now we learn that "failure is not an option"?  

  See "Iraq", "Afghanistan", 'the middle east Israel-Palestine "Peace Process" ' (LOL!),  national education policy, state and local education policy, environmental policy, etc.

   In closing, you put all this effort into your "reporting", your "explaining" and still somehow manage to leave out the detail of the required majority to move this bill "directly to the budget reconciliation process", the step you indicate as being the ultimate, the last resort to get things past the obstacles of Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, et al.  

   Doesn't "moving directly to the budget reconciliation process" itself require a 60-vote approval?  How you get that is left unexplained in your review.  Despite that, you inform us that, not only do we assume such a miracle, but, on top of it, we can also dare to hope to get even "a more progressive (if less comprehensive) bill in reconciliation."

    I really don't see this bill passing with any "public option"---let alone one which is pro forma only, seeing as how an "opt-out" clause would permit any state which doesn't already possess the will to implement its own program a free-pass on the federal one.  What I see as the most likely case is exactly what you discount here:

  Reid not only won't have "unanimity" in starting debate, he won't even be able to muster the votes to start debate--unless, that is, the Republicans' plan consists of allowing the Democrats to delude themselves and a gullible public that they have the stuff required to pass this legislation all the way to the very last moment, at which they intend to impose a truly humiliating refusal on their opponents and show them up as completely incompetent fools.

   What if that's the plan?  Would you then say "I don't think failure is an option this time"?  Somehow I think you would.

And, if it doesn't, we might just get a more progressive (if less comprehensive) bill in reconciliation. I don't think failure is an option this time.

Just to note, although it is not likely to happen, that a single payer bill would have little trouble making it past the Byrd Amendment in reconciliation.  That would introduce a sunsetting clause, but if the program was popular that would be a small risk.  And that would make the House-Senate conference very interesting indeed.

Interesting enough to give a few Senators pause maybe?

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts