Craig defines the hysterical pundit syndrome. (Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)

UPDATE (3:06pm): Public plan goes down in Senate Finance

Today we begin to learn whether it's real or fake health reform. The head counting on a public option is expected today in the Senate Finance Committee.

A majority of the panel is not expected to support creating government-run insurance for those who cannot get or afford coverage. But with a majority of the House on board, the public option might have a chance if a sizable minority of the Senate committee gets behind it.

The Senate Finance Committee has 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans. The GOP members are solidly lined up against a public option, although Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe might go far a "trigger," which would create state-level public insurance plans where there is no competition in private industry.

By most counts, up to nine Democrats favor or are at least open to some sort of public plan. That leaves us with a bit of intrigue if undecideds such as Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln back it. The fewer the number of last-minute deciding votes will put immense pressure from the left on those remaining Democrats, who might become fearful at the prospect of being remembered as the one who killed public insurance.

Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana could even be the one in the hot seat at the end of the day. And here's a video sample of what his voters are already hearing from liberal groups . . .

Once again, Democrats face the vortex of gun rights. They probably lost Congress in 1994 largely because then-President Bill Clinton backed the outlawing of assault weapons. This is so nuts. I grew up learning to shoot critters with my 20-guage shotgun, but I never EVER considered it a constitutional right. As an 11-year-old stripping the skin off squirrels I decided against such a thing. Frankly, it made me a bit ill, and I suddenly resolved to give up killing animals, even if it was for food. (Squirrel stew is tasty, by the way.) But I never imagined a gun defining my status as an American -- and I still don't.

Still, I enjoy handling my 20-guage beauty, here it is . . .

Whether or not it works, many Republicans at least think they have a message: "Take back your country." Or should it be "Take your country back" -- do enough voters want to go backwards?

Hoping for a replay of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress after Bill Clinton's first two years in the White House, party message makers see an opportunity in portraying Barack Obama as a big government pariah with an army of "czars" bent on controlling industry and socializing medicine while cutting and running abroad.

Obama's United Nations speech last week provoked the latest Republican message in the making for next year's midterm congressional elections. His conciliatory posture toward the world in that speech has GOP enthusiasts accusing him of apologizing for America.

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer says the President "denigrated America." Mitt Romney, a leading contender for the party's next presidential nomination, anticipated this theme with the title for his new book: "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness."

Clinton, whose party succumbed in 1994 to similar theatrics, sees little chance for a replay in the 2010 midterm races.

"Number one, the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think -- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president." -- Bill Clinton (NBC, "Meet the Press," 9/28)

For your weekend enjoyment, explore all that Trail Mix has to offer. In our little corner of the "internets" we not only debate politics, we have some fun too. These links are always available on this page -- see the left sidebar under Trail Mix Links. But I wanted to give them an extra plug today:

Trail Mix Links

• Blogroll -- Craig's favs and Trail Mix bloggers
• Weird Stuff -- Oddities and other goodies
• Cookbook -- Reader Recipes
• Videos -- Produced by CQ-Roll Call's Andrew Satter
• Election Predictions -- Readers compete to call big races
• Best Comments -- Memorable lines posted by readers
• Commenting Guide -- How to join the Trail Mix community

Craig talks with Keith Olbermann about what's next for Sarah (MSNBC, 9/24)

So now Mike Barnicle thinks Bill Clinton is a great guy? Hosting MSNBC's "Hardball" tonight he sang the former president's praises as a savior for President Obama's embattled health reform plan. But last year Barnicle joined the chorus of those who maligned the Clintons as racists. Those who still say the Clintons are racists are at least consistent. But those who conveniently reverse their stand are simply frauds. Consider the Ed Schultze about face.

Craig on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
Tonight (9/24) MSNBC 8:50 PM ET

In this interview today with C-SPAN's Susan Swain and callers, we talk about issues of the day and, with apologies to my political science professor, my memory lapse about Hegelian dialectic. ("Washington Journal," 9/24).

Sign Up for Email Alerts
about Craig's upcoming TV appearances

Craig plays "Ask and Tell" with President Obama's foreign policy.
(Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)

Craig on C-SPAN "Washington Journal"
Live call-in with host Susan Swain
Thursday (9/24) 9:00 AM ET
Email Alert Signup for Craig's TV Appearances

President Obama lost August but he owns September. I am looking at embargoed poll numbers that demonstrate significant progress in his media blitz these past days, suggesting that those who say he's overexposed are wrong. The public is still evenly split on health "reform" but it's clear that the "dumbikazes" of August have peaked with the fear-mongering about Obama's aims. The president's fourth-quarter strategy might work. Letting his foes shoot while he kept his powder dry might just get the job done. And, by the way, it doesn't hurt that a hugely overwhelming majority really like our President as a person.

It's your war now, Mr. President.

Here's what I don't get about Gen. Stanley McChrystal's review of our standing in Afghanistan: President Barack Obama sent more troops earlier this year to secure the election. But that election appears to have failed, according to McChrystal's harsh assessment. Shouldn't that be a lesson for not sending more troops? And yet, as military types often tend to do, McChrystal is asking for more resources.

Already, Obama's first objective for adding troops is not working. Why should we expect more troops for other purposes to do any better?

Obama has a knack for knowing when to pull the plug on losing propositions. This could be one of them, Mr. President. More drones and fewer troops might best achieve your narrowed goal of thwarting terrorists in Afghanistan.

• Obama war choice: Escalate or scale back
• Obama's Measured Approach to Afghanistan
• Senators Presented Plans for Success in Afghanistan, Pakistan
• Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan

Now on Imus.com (by Julie Kanfer):

Craig Crawford stopped by for a rare in-studio appearance to hand deliver to Imus the very first copy of his and Helen Thomas's forthcoming book, "Listen Up, Mr. President," which comes out the first week of October.

To welcome Crawford, Imus spent a few minutes speaking extemporaneously about his prostate cancer, explaining that much of the treatment for prostate cancer is fear-based. Luckily, Imus has no cancer in his blood or in his lymph nodes, and he is willing to deal with having the cancer inside of him, something many people are unwilling to do.

"But enough about me," he said to Crawford. "How do you think I look?"

But Imus's tale was relatable for his guest, whose friend's brain cancer diagnosis has forced him to put things in perspective. "He keeps a blog," Crawford said about his pal, "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Have Brain Cancer Instead."

Imus asked his second southern-born guest of the day why President Obama's election to office has fanned the flames not only of racism in this country, but of accusations of racism directed at almost anybody who dares criticize Obama.

"I grieve for racism," said Crawford. "But I also grieve for this pattern of turning every criticism, legitimate or otherwise, of Obama into calling that racist. I think that dilutes what is real racism."

Crawford, however, has picked up on a tendency of Obama's to be careful when commenting on the actions of white people, like the police officer in Cambridge who arrested Henry Louis Gates. The President initially said the officer acted "stupidly," and quickly backed away from that characterization.

On the other hand, Crawford continued, "He's very quick to call Kanye West a jackass, he's very quick to go before a black audience and give tough talk. I think black leaders are beginning to think, what have we gained here? Is our first black president turning red?"

That observation led Crawford to wonder how Obama would have reacted now to the I-Man's "great unpleasantness" from a few years back, when he called for Imus's firing.

In Obama's defense, Imus said the President was goaded into saying that by "that Howdy Doody-looking, gutless, sniveling, wretched, pigeon gut-sucking coward" David Gregory.

Imus shared with Crawford that Bernard and Charles were exercised by the Massachusetts legislature's intention to overturn a 2004 law banning the Governor from filling a vacant Senate seat by appointment, which at the time suited their fancy because the Governor was a Republican. Now that Democrat Deval Patrick is in office and Sen. Kennedy has recently passed, it's a different story, one that Bernard and Charles find totally hypocritical.

Said Crawford, "If hypocrisy was a virus in politics, they'd all be dead."

It was far from an endorsement, but President Barack Obama told newspaper editors over the weekend that he would be "happy to look at" proposals for a federal bailout of their industry.

The idea seems dicey, at best, and you have to wonder if Obama was just being nice in the interview with editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade.

Putting aside the cost in these times of rising federal debt and the public's growing fatigue with bailouts, it's a dicey concept because newspapers that owe their lives to the government are probably not worth having. The potential for politicians to directly or indirectly influence coverage would not exactly build reader confidence.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln's administration invested in failing Southern newspapers to influence public opinion in favor of the North. A noble cause in that case, but an example of how public ownership can be used to promote the government's agenda.

There was already a hint of an agenda in Obama's remarks about a bailout. As newspaper readership declines, he expressed concern about "the direction of the news" and the loss of "journalistic integrity, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting."

Also a noble cause, but insisting on quality journalism in exchange for federal support raises questions about how that would be guaranteed and who gets to define what it means.
 

Craig discusses the political violence debate with Lawrence O'Donnell on "Countdown" (MSNBC, 9/18)

You gotta laugh at conservatives trying to assert that President Barack Obama is overexposed, as Pat Buchanan just did tonight on MSNBC's "Hardball." Sure, I tend to agree that presidents should be careful not to discount their words by uttering too many.

But something else is going on here.

Conservatives saw that Obama's recent speech to Congress significantly improved his poll standings. So now they want to back him down.

Go for it, Mr. President. In your case, the more you talk, the better you do.

• Obama in media blitz to push health care overhaul
• Zogby: Obama Approval Up After Speech‎

Craig on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
(Lawrence O'Donnell substituting)
Tonight (9/18) MSNBC 8:40 PM ET

White House silence in the latest race debate suggests a pattern. Ever since the flap over his fiery pastor, Jeremiah Wright, nearly scuttled his budding 2008 nomination campaign, President Barack Obama seems more willing to engage a race debate when blacks are attacked -- and lately he tends to side with the attackers.

When whites are attacked he backs off, taking care to avoid joining the attack. Most recently, by keeping mum about Rep. Joe Wilson's insults and the ensuing claims that the South Carolina Republican was motivated by racism. Look at how quickly he caved in the Henry Louis Gates Jr. matter, retracting his words that the white police officer in the case "acted stupidly."

While off the record, Obama was harsh in his comments this week about a black rap singer who interrupted a white singer's acceptance speech at the MTV video awards, calling Kanye West a "jackass." And in prepared speeches to black audiences Obama likes to deliver tough remarks -- telling black fathers "any fool could have a child" and, in a speech to the NACCP, urging more focus on education in black culture by saying "No excuses! No excuses!"

One casualty in the attacks against expanding health insurance is perhaps the most popular federal program ever created: Medicare. Foes are careful not to say it too directly, but the implication is that the retiree insurance program exemplifies what's wrong with government-run health care. And the daughter of the president who created Medicare is fed up with that argument.

Here's Lynda Bird Johnson Robb in a video message to a retiree group on Medicare, which was signed into law by her father, Lyndon Johnson, in 1965:

Source: Alliance for Retired Americans

On another topic du jour, check out CQ's Jeff Stein's look back at another racial debate: Obama, Racism and Jimmy Carter.

Happy Birthday to the Constitution! 

Craig on "Imus in the Morning"
Friday (9/18) 8:30 AM ET
Listen Live: WABC-AM (NYC)

. . . and on "The Scarborough Show"
Friday (9/18) 10:05 AM ET
Listen Live: WABC-AM (NYC)

Racism politics again? As a child of the south, like Jimmy Carter, I grieve at the sight of idiots like Joe Wilson lionized by haters. But it also grieves me to see liberals play the race card, attempting to turn any criticism of President Barack Obama into a racially-charged incident. Who can forget how Obama fans unfairly accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of racism. And yet those same folks now look to them as the saviors for health reform. I cannot forget how Ted Kennedy's backers in 1980 accused Carter of being a racist despite now rallying to his charges against those who criticize Obama.

In this Trail Mix Video Craig ponders the advent of "czarism" in the White House. (Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)

Craig on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
Tonight (9/15) MSNBC 8:50 PM EDT 

Weirdly, the stunning news of Jody Powell's death on Monday immediately brought to mind an odd and revealing episode from the days I worked as an intern in his White House press office. It shows his legendary coolness as a wry observer of Washington's bizarre ways.

It all started when Jimmy Carter tangled with a crazed rabbit on a fishing trip near his Georgia home and it became a headline grabber for days, prompting Powell, his press secretary at the time, to try and set the record straight in a book about his White House years, "The Other Side of the Story."

Powell wrote this hilarious account of how the story so simply began, and then mushroomed into a national joke that actually hurt Carter's image -- long before the internet provided presidential detractors a forum for such silliness:

"It began late one afternoon in the spring of 1979. The President was sitting with a few of us on the Truman Balcony. He had recently returned from a visit to Plains, and we were talking about homefolks and how the quail were nesting and similar matters of international import. Suddenly, for no apparent reason -- he was drinking lemonade, as I recall -- the President volunteered the information that while fishing in a pond on his farm he had sighted a large animal swimming toward him. Upon closer inspection, the animal turned out to be a rabbit. Not one of your cutesy, Easter Bunny-type rabbits, but one of those big splay-footed things that we called swamp rabbits when I was growing up. The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind. What was obvious, however, was that this large, wet animal, making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth, was intent upon climbing into the Presidential boat."

Apparently, the president shooed the offending rabbit away with his paddle. The story would have died of natural cases, had Powell not made the mistake of passing it along to a reporter, Brooks Jackson of CNN. Still, the reporter wrote the story in a lighthearted fashion. Powell wrongly thought it would be received as a "mildly amusing incident" and laughed it off.

"We were soon corrected. The Washington Post, exercising the news judgment that we in the White House had come to appreciate so keenly, headed the piece 'President Attacked by Rabbit' and ran it on the front page. The more cautious New York Times boxed it on page A-12. That night, all three networks found time to report the amazing incident. But that was just the beginning. It was a nightmare. The story ran for more than a week. The President was repeatedly asked to explain his behavior at town hall meetings, press conferences, and meetings with editors. There was talk of a suit under the Freedom of Information Act to force release of the picture showing the President, paddle and rabbit in close proximity. Shortly after the Reagan administration took office, they stumbled upon a copy of the picture -- apparently while searching for a foreign policy -- and reopened the old wounds by releasing it to the press."

Click photos to enlarge

President Barack Obama soon decides whether to send even more troops to Afghanistan, despite narrowing our purpose there to the prevention of terrorist nests.

Here's an idea, Mr. President: Why not just bribe the Afghan war lords to keep the terrorists out? They could even be our proxies against the Taliban. This is more or less where our policy was heading until Obama decided to escalate our military presence.

The war lords are only interested in keeping control of their turf. Guarantee them that and provide incentives to run off the terrorists when they come around. They also have no interest in supporting national government, whether it's run by our puppets or the Taliban. So, pay them off to oppose the Taliban.

War lords being, well, war lords, they're not a trustworthy bunch. Some will surely lie to us. But we have the technology for monitoring them. A quick visit from one of our predators could help keep a duplicitous war lord in line. The same goes for any terrorist camps that spring up.

• Deadly Afghan ambush shows perils of ill-supplied deployment
• Congressional Democrats Consider Parting With Obama on Afghanistan
• New Bin Laden Tape Calls Obama Powerless to Stop AfghanistanWar
• Richard Clarke: Afghanistan Is Not a Numbers Game

Richard Nixon won two elections promising to end the Vietnam War, but it took his unelected successor, Gerald Ford, to actually do it.

Barack Obama catapulted to the top of the heap in the 2008 Democratic nomination race largely on the strength of his promise to get our troops out of Iraq. But we're still there at about the same force levels that George W. Bush maintained.

Following the Nixon example, will we see Obama run for reelection on the promise of getting our troops out of Iraq?

Afghanistan: Pelosi Warns Against Afghan Troop Boost 

Video: No public insurance option expected in Senate bill to be released in the week ahead. (Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)

Craig on "Imus in the Morning"
Monday (9/14) 6:30 AM EST
Listen Live: WABC-AM (NYC)

A Republican congressman shouting down the president might not be what Dick Cheney had in mind, but he started it.

At the beginning of the year, when the GOP was cowered by Barack Obama's momentum, it was Cheney who first dared to attack, pressing his claim that the new president would get us killed by dropping the ball on national security.

By the end of summer, Republicans upped the ante, accusing Obama of plotting to kill old people with health care "death panels." The Cheney formula is now the norm for Obama foes -- outlandish claims based upon shaky ground. Then apply a basic marketing principle -- say it loud and say it often.

What more might GOPers borrow from Cheney? After all, calling the president a liar on the House floor is tame compared to what Cheney once said to Sen. Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor: "Go f--- yourself."

• 'You Lie' Fallout: Foe Hauls in Quick Half-Million
• Pelosi Won't Punish Wilson's Outburst
• Blogroll (Sean Holton): Dick Cheney vs. Bob Dylan

As dumb as Rep. Joe Wilson was, at least his heckling of President Obama last night got us a step closer to the British Parliament's Question Time -- something I've always yearned to see in our government. Members of Congress yelling at the president as members of Parliament do to their prime minister would not only be more entertaining, but a fine test of presidential mettle.

Indeed, as happened last night for Obama, the British prime ministers usually come across looking stronger as they stand down their foes. Presidents get enough opportunities for one-way delivery of their message. It would be good for us to see them in a verbal brawl on the House floor.

Wilson has a point on the substance, by the way. Sure, the South Carolina Republican went too far in calling it a lie to claim that the health insurance bills would not insure illegal immigrants. But there is a loophole in the legislation that makes Obama's claim a bit wiggly. The House voted down any efforts to enforce the measure's ban against benefits to illegal immigrants.

Without a mechanism to verify someone's citizenship, which the House bill lacks, there really is no way to bar non-citizens.

"I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans cannot find affordable coverage we will provide you with a choice."

If that quote in President Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Wednesday means what it seems to mean, publicly-sponsored insurance for those who cannot afford or get private coverage is alive and well.

Providing a Medicare-like option to all will create a lasting legacy for Obama. Anything less won't.

NBC News calls the public option a "fetish." Providing insurance to Americans who cannot afford or obtain coverage is a fetish? A fetish? Have things gone so awry that health care for all is considered a deviant concept. Seems to me that big media's knee-jerk defense of the status quo is the real fetish.

A thread dedicated to President Barack Obama's speech to Congress.

How to Comment on Trail Mix

Americans chose change in 2008, picking a president who seemed to represent a profound shift from his predecessor in style, ideals, outlook and agenda.

Tonight, Barack Obama gives new voice to what that means as he addresses Congress at a critical juncture in his young presidency.

So often in our history voters have looked for a new president who is as different as possible from the one who had disappointed us.

In Obama, voters followed a unique and thoughtful man who displays the promise to be one of our best. It will take time to know if he can fulfill the promise and match his stirring words with deeds. He's got hope. Now it's time for audacity.

As with John F. Kennedy, the world looks at Obama and sees a new America, one that looks more like the rest of the world.

Propelled to office by a surge of optimistic new voters and young people, Obama widened the universe of citizens who want to get involved in civic affairs.

Obama has the chance to bring about a new spirit for the country, as Kennedy did. His campaign attracted supporters who had never before been active in politics. They learned that being an American is about taking part, that the genius of our nation and the gift of our best presidents is the preservation of a simple ideal: We run our own country.

Tonight, Obama must choose. Will he lead his band of newbies to a better country, or more of the same?

Craig on "Imus in the Morning"
Thursday (9/10) 6:30 AM EST
Listen Live: WABC-AM (NYC)

The era of big bang solutions must be behind us. As President Obama stumbles toward what appears to be endorsing consensual -- and partial -- solutions on health care in a speech to Congress on Wednesday, it appears unlikely that we'll see legacy-making, transformational change along the lines of creating Social Security or Medicare.

The incremental steps that we might see are not insignificant. Insurance companies could no longer drop someone because they fell ill.  Workers would no longer have to worry about how they could afford care if they lost their job. No one would be uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition. Preventative care would be easier to obtain.

But we likely will not see big ticket items such as universal health insurance for the estimated 45 million uninsured Americans, or a government-run plan for those cannot get or afford coverage.

Unfortunately for presidents like Obama, who apparently must settle for less than he promised, the incremental steps, while helpful to millions of Americans, are not the leaps forward that etch their administrations into history books.

If Obama's insurance tinkering becomes law, chances are that citizens will come to enjoy the benefits and not remember that he had anything to do with it. Heck, there are even plenty of Americans who have no idea that Lyndon Johnson got Medicare passed in one of the toughest legislative battles of all time.

• Obama Ready to Stress Areas of Health Agreement
• A Compromise on Health Care?
• What Obama Will Say in his Address
• Starting Point: Where Republicans, Democrats Agree
• Blogroll (Sean Holton): The new Old People
• Video: Get the Inside Scoop on This Week's Big Stories

Trail Mix is out to sea this weekend, enjoying the 25th Annual Schooner Festival in Gloucester, MA (Cape Ann). Last night we marveled at the Parade of Lights fireworks show over the harbor (almost upstaged by the brilliant moon rise). Today is the Mayor's Race for the Esperanto Cup, Ned Cameron Trophy and Betty Ramsey Trophy off Eastern Point.

Not even having to boil our water to ward off coliform bacteria (thought to be caused by a DAMaged beaver DAM) has DAMpened our holiday spirit. Here's wishing all Trail Mixers a welcome break.

Gloucester Harbor, 9/05/09 (daleblank.com)

Pardon me if I chuckle as libs such as Ed Schultz, who once maligned the Clintons with abandon, now gripe about Obama on health care and approvingly quote Bill (as he did Friday on his MSNBC show). Wasn't it obvious during the Democratic nomination race? Obama proffered the least ambitious health reform plan of the top three party candidates. In debates he was inarticulate, at best, on the subject. And his campaign even blasted Hillary Clinton's blueprint at one point, accusing her of planning to garnish wages because she proposed mandatory insurance (part of today's GOP attack against his plan) -- and yet somehow Obama got away with calling her the undependable centrist. Of course, going slow on health reform proposals as a candidate helped Obama raise tons of cash in the early days from industry donors worried about Hillary and John Edwards. It seems that it's all coming home to roost, but folks like Schultz are just now figuring it out. Hey Ed, you got who you asked for.

Two questions about Afghanistan didn't get answered in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' Thursday press conference: Why are we there and how do we leave?

Despite the eight years of fighting Gates incredibly argued that the conflict is "only now beginning" because, he asserted, President Obama's new strategy hasn't had enough time to work.

That supposedly new strategy, in summary, narrows the objective to thwarting safe havens for terrorists while enlarging the effort to do so.

You'd think narrowed objectives would allow a less expansive effort. But more combat troops, not less, are on the way.

Gates was cavalier about the public's mounting concern. "The fact that Americans would be tired of having their sons and daughters at risk and in battle is not surprising."

Surprising, but not convincing, in Gates' view. This war could go on forever if every new president keeps it going while claiming to start anew.

Gates Press Conference

The futility of trying to "fix" Afghanistan could be seen 35 years ago in one of John Huston's best films. Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter.

It's a dubious honor to be sure, but only one more day of voting left to elect Craig the official FishbowlDC Class Clown.. http://bit.ly/2sNIY0

Now on Politics (Un)Seriously:
Uncle Sam Meets Helen Thomas

Craig and Keith on the latest episode of "Wasilla Hillbillies" (MSNBC, 9/2).

Dictionaries offer at least two meanings for the word recess: a break from business or a dent in the wall. Both meanings apply to Washington's August recess.

The congressional break from business ending next week also put a dent in President Obama's once solid approval ratings.

Most significantly, lots of independent voters bought Republican arguments that Obama is trying to grow the size of government beyond what should be acceptable. Never mind that many of the arguments, including several in the health care debate, were specious at best. It worked.

The result is that the Obama White House now signals plans to showcase the President taking on liberal Democrats, inviting their anger, for instance, by making it clear that he will not insist on a public health insurance option for Americans who cannot get or afford private insurance.

Getting in a fight with liberals might repair the recess in Obama's ratings, but inflict an even bigger dent in the support of the political base that got him to the White House.

• Obama Won't Insist on Public Insurance, Aides Say
• Obama Ready To Get Specific On Health Bill
• Health-Care Anger Has Deeper Roots
• Gallup: Obama at 52% Approval

Craig on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
Tonight (9/2) MSNBC 8:50 PM ET

Hey, United Airlines once named an offshoot "Ted." Why shouldn't Democrats give that a shot for health reform?

Sure, United ultimately gave up on Ted, the airline, so perhaps the brand is tainted.

Still, imagine the pressure it would put on wavering Democrats to name legislation creating public insurance after the man who spent his career fighting for it.

Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, suggested renaming the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act after him. Other Democrats have suggested naming the public insurance option in the bill for Kennedy.

Some Democrats think the name would honor the Senator and give the bill a much-needed boost. But some Republicans think Kennedy's liberalism would further taint the bill among conservatives.

Tell your lawmakers what you think about the proposal

Write a letter in support:

Name the Health Care Bill for Kennedy

Name the Public Option for Kennedy

Write a letter in opposition:

Don't Name the Health Care Bill for Kennedy