Not really, but let's pretend he does as Booman argues. I think it would be most helpful to the public option cause if the story played that way. Here is what White House flack Dan Pfeiffer wrote, basically a repeat of his statement to Ambinder on Friday:

President Obama [. . .] supports the public option [. . .] That continues to be the President's position. [. . .] President Obama completely supports [the Senate leadership's] efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate.

Certainly this makes it tougher for Obama to publically support triggers. That's a good thing. His earlier dithering has done plenty of damage to the public option cause, not just in the Senate, as Jon Cohn reports, but in the House, as Roll Call reports. Hopefully this will stop the bleeding. At least until Obama and his team try to gut the public option again.

Speaking for me only

Russ Feingold's appearance this morning on Face The Nation raises an interesting question for President Obama, who appears to be arguing for Snowe's trigger. Feingold signalled his opposition to the trigger and said it would be enough of a basis for voting No on a health care reform bill:

Obama is reported to have said to Harry Reid that he hopes Reid knows what he is doing. Forget the bad policy, on the politics and the vote counting, does Obama know what he is doing? Pelosi will have a very difficult task to pass triggers in the House and Senators Feingold, Burris and Rockefeller look like No votes on the trigger. 30 Senators are strongly for a robust public option. How many of these will vote No on a trigger? Are there 50 votes for a trigger in the Senate? Does Obama know what he is doing?

Speaking for me only

What will Obama do? It is quite remarkable it seems to me that whether Obama will support a public option is an open question. It's one thing to be a bystander, quite another to wade in in favor of Snowe's trigger. And yet, it appears that privately that is what the President is doing. Harry Reid is going to bring a public option to a vote. Will Obama lobby against it publically? I think he might. Amazing.

Speaking for me only

HuffPo:

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

Two Dem Senators confirm this reporting. One 11 Dimensional Chess player accepts this reporting and argues that it is a good thing. I disagree.

Speaking for me only

Reacting to the reports that the White House is pressuring Harry Reid to give up on the public option, White House aide Dan Pfeiffer said:

The report is false. The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills[.] We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform.

What report is false? That the White House is pressuring Reid? Ok, let's accept that. Here's a question for an intrepid reporter to ask - what exactly IS the White House saying to Reid? Pfeiffer does not say. To pass the hot potato back to Reid, the White House - ALL of it - will have to be Jarrettesque (I'm looking at you "top Administration officials" Rahmbo and Messina.)

Speaking for me only

Brian Beutler:

Multiple sources tell TPMDC that [. . .] the White House is pushing back against the [public option], in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). "They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "they're certainly not calming moderate's concerns on opt out."

This new development, which casts the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option, is likely to yield backlash from progressives, especially those in the House who have been pushing for a more maximal version of reform.

The good news is Harry Reid is up for reelection next year. As I have written before, Obama has to publically take the heat for this if he wants it to happen. Reid can not, and imo, will not do Obama's dirty work for him.

Speaking for me only

This is the one I believe, because it comes from blogger insider Ezra Klein and because it rings true:

On Thursday night, Reid went over to the White House for a talk with the president. The conversation centered on Reid's desire to put Schumer's national opt-out plan into the base bill. White House officials were not necessarily pleased, and they made that known. Everyone agrees that they didn't embrace Reid's new strategy. Everyone agrees that the White House wants Snowe on the bill, feels the trigger offers a safer endgame, and isn't convinced by Reid's math. [. . .] One staffer briefed on the conversation says "the White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing.'"

(Emphasis supplied.)Obama wants "health care reform." He could not care less about a public option. If he gets "health care reform" with it, great. But if it gets in the way, then get rid of it is Obama's thinking.

Reid has different problems. Reid is in much less need of a health care reform bill passing than in being perceived as fighting for the public option. Reid is putting it in. Cuz he needs to politically. Unless Obama takes him off the hook.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein has a strange idea of what nightmares are:

Imagine Reid puts Schumer's national opt-out plan into the bill. The bill comes to the floor, and it loses Snowe and one or two centrist moderates. Byrd is sick and unable to vote. The Schumer plan needs to come out of the bill. But even though the bill can't get 60 votes to proceed, Reid's office also can't find 60 votes to strip the public option out of the bill. The liberals won't go for it. The left is organized against it. There's no reason 55 Democrats should bow to the wishes of five centrists and a Republicans on a popular provision. Indeed, maybe some mischievous Republicans even join the liberals in defeating the motion to strip Schumer's proposal. The bill is just stuck in limbo: It doesn't have the votes to move forward or backward.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a nightmare why for Ezra? Not because the public option will be defeated, but because it WON'T BE DROPPED. For some of us, Ezra's dream scenario is the real nightmare:

While today has been an all day Obama love fest for the public option, more reporting is trickling out that this was not the case in last night's meeting with Congressional Dem leaders. Sam Stein reports:

The White House, Democratic sources say, is keen on ensuring there is bipartisan support for the final package -- which would explain its support for the trigger proposal. "He certainly didn't embrace it and he seemed to indicate a preference for continuing to work on a strategy that involved Senator Snowe and a trigger," said a senior Democratic source who was briefed on the meeting. A second aide whose boss was in the room confirmed the general nature of the exchange.

The good news seems to be Harry Reid does not care what Obama prefers cuz Reid prefers to be reelected next year:

Today is a day where the Obama White House been speaking up for the public option. Again, via Jed Lewison:

[BILL] BURTON: The President thinks that the public option is the best way to achieve choice and competition and bring down health care costs for the American people. And he will continue to ensure that it is achieved in the final health care reform legislation.

(Emphasis supplied.) Perhaps we have Mike Allen's anonymous White House source (Rahmbo! (cough!) Messina! (cough)!) to thank for this, but it is a very good thing.

Speaking for me only

The Bystander President method can only work for so long. Greg Sargent reports on a letter from progressive groups to the White House Chief of Staff:

Dear Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

We, the undersigned alliance for a robust public option, write to request that President Obama heed the will of the people and the organized progressive grassroots and take a strong leadership position in support of a robust public option. The public has spoken and the majority of members of Congress have spoken: Health care reform must include a robust public option…

The House has shown leadership by moving forward health care reform that includes a robust public option. We respectfully ask that the Office of the President take a stronger stand on a robust public option in order to enact true health care reform this year. We request a meeting with you at your earliest opportunity to further discuss this matter.

That's a call out.

Speaking for me only

Via Jed Lewison:

VALERIE JARRETT: I think the President has always said that he's committed to the public option. [. . .] He's committed to it, he's pushing for it, and he's absolutely committed to delivering on health care reform this year.

Good to hear. But Mike Allen did not make up his source. Someone in the White House (Rahmbo! (cough!) Messina! (cough!)) is fighting AGAINST the public option. The power struggle is playing out by anonymous quote.

Speaking for me only