--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > Lots of rhetoric and diddly squat about a public option.
I think he's describing what he's pretty sure he's going to get, and not promising anything he's uncertain about. The provisions he lists are just crucially important. He's said over and over again that he would like a public option. I don't see any reason to think that he really *doesn't* want it. But there's *huge* opposition to it, and he'd rather get what he outlines here than have the whole thing go down in flames because he's insisted on a public option. I don't know whether he could have gotten a public option if he'd been more forceful, but I seriously doubt it. I don't know whether it would have been better had he put together a bill, handed it to Congress, and told them to pass it, a la the Clintons, but he obviously thought that wasn't the way to go, that he'd be able to get more of what he wanted if he instead told Congress what he wanted and had them draft the bill. I think he's doing the best he can against very, very tough odds. Whether it's good enough, whether it's the best that *can* be done, isn't clear yet, at least not to me.
