(Crossposted from The Huffington Post)

Consider a couple of tried and true axioms. “Divide and conquer.” “Diversity is strength.” When you think about it, they are, on the face of it, contradictory. Nevertheless, they both have an inherent wisdom, and there can be a fine line separating the two when you’re talking about politics. While many in the left are now concerned about the danger of the former, it may well be time to consider instead the opportunities of the latter.

First a little context. It’s hardly news to say there’s a split within the left, following the bitter struggle over health care reform. While many progressives see the final Senate product as a qualified win, many others see it as a giveaway to the insurance companies that will make a bad situation worse. Gone from both sides of the left is the pretense that the White House has not been a major player; those that support the bill praise Obama for its passage, those that fear the bill blame Obama for its passage.

But while some on the pro-bill camp are now reciting the “no hard feelings” victory mantra to disheartened members of the “kill the bill” camp, leading activists from the latter set have charted a different path. Bloggers like Jane Hamsher are diving headlong into the strategy laid out by Cenk Uygur in what has become a manifesto of sorts to those liberals stinging after their expulsion from the negotiating table and steaming at the open dismissal by White House legislative hammer Rahm Emanuel. Uygur’s piece gave voice to what more progressives have come to realize (based not only on the health care struggle, but virtually every other political hot potato from the Afghan War and civil liberties to Presidential appointments); that this administration will seriously consider no policy to the left of the Senate’s most conservative Democrats.

The solution, to Uygur, is for an organized and mobilized progressive movement to “hurt” the President. To draw political blood. That this is, by process of elimination, the only way to be taken seriously in the hardball world of Emanuelian politics which Obama has embraced.

Again, this isn’t breaking news. Still, there should be no question as to the reason for the speed and ferocity of the manifestation of the Uygur strategy that has appeared at progressive website Firedoglake. On the one hand, this faction sees the failures of the health care bill as a massive electoral loser, and with November looming, it becomes necessary from this perspective to improve the Democratic Party’s record despite itself.

More significant, though, is the fact that other major policy battles near and dear to the left are rapidly approaching (particularly climate change and the final disposition of the Employee Free Choice Act). Progressives are not willing to again cede these decisions to the “corporatist” wing of the party without a fight. In this sense, the clock is ticking to rediscover enough power to be taken seriously again (if indeed they ever were by this administration).

So that’s the liberal split in a nutshell, but it’s more than just a difference in strategy. It’s the form the opening salvo from FDL is taking that is serving to further antagonize these divisions; a corruption charge tailored not only to the populist inclinations of independent voters, but the scandal-obsessed traditional media as well. Yes, it’s increasing tensions, but there is also an undeniable cleverness to this line of attack.

The charge of corruption (through the person of Rahm Emanuel and questions around his involvement in Fannie Mae) is uniquely non-ideological, and has thereby allowed for an alliance with right wing hero Grover Norquist. This political jiu-jitsu co-opts a major driver of the very right wing machine Obama and Emanuel are concerned about, but puts it in service of a left wing ideological bloc, eager to garner the same respect from the White House. While many on the left are understandably finding the alliance distasteful, its potential potency is hard to deny.

Still, it is unquestionably cementing the fractures that have formed among the left. Calls of “why can’t we all just shake hands and get back to working together” fall apart before such a strategy.

Given, then, the innate wisdom of the “divide and conquer” axiom, this scorched earth approach must be a bad thing. A fractured left is a weakened left, and a weakened left can never, ever find its way back to relevance. Right?

In reality, it all depends on how it plays out in the coming month, because “divide and conquer” may not be the axiom in play if the rift can be finessed. Instead, the far more liberal mantra of “diversity is strength” could cede policy victories to the American left – even to those currently demonizing FDL’s Jane Hamsher and her allies.

So-called  “movement conservatives” have proven that size does not necessarily matter when it comes to impacting policy. In fact, the beltway seems to respond to a definition of political force that mirrors Newton’s own definition of physical force in his second law: f=ma (force equals mass times acceleration). The Uygur/Hamsher activist faction may divorce itself of some mass through its approach, but through an even greater increase in its acceleration (by being more focused and nimble), it could end up a far more potent political force when all is said and done.

In addition, there’s even the potential for a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic among progressive ideological allies on either side of this attack-strategy divide. It may be distasteful for the Hamsher opponents among the left to consider, but the fact is that Rahm Emanuel may be more inclined to bring what he sees as agreeable progressives into the process in an active way if he thinks it may limit or even undermine the FDL-set during delicate negotiations. It may not put Jane Hamsher or Glenn Greenwald at the table personally, but it would be progressives at the table nonetheless – which is better than what we’ve got at present.

Is this more optimistic view the way the dynamics will play out in the coming months? Maybe, maybe not. There’s no question that FDL and company are engaging in a high stakes gamble that could either enhance the left’s impact, or further erode it. The answer to the question of which way it will all turn depends less on who is right, and more on how this tightrope is walked in the coming weeks.

However you slice it, a decision to turn up the heat on this White House, in the process solidifying the split in the left, is a high risk strategy. But it would seem that the administration has left progressives little choice if they want a way back to the negotiating table.

Cenk Uygur has written what may be the most important piece currently out there on the interwebs for progressives to read. It ends up optimistic, although considering the article’s almost behavioralist slant, its hard to get very excited.

On Obama:

I’m sure Obama is a progressive that would help the average American if he thought he could. But apparently he thinks he can’t. He can only bring them a small amount of change because of what he thinks the system will allow.

You can criticize him for lack of imagination, duplicity during the campaign, lack of spine and political miscalculation. And you might be right about some or all of that, but all of those aren’t the essence of Obama. The core of Obama is a man who is a cautious politician. That is what he is at his center. He can’t help himself.

[…] so why did Obama drop the progressive reformer angle and go toward the right and corporate America? Because his field changed. He went from campaigning all across the country to being in the middle of Washington, DC. The center of Washington is very different than the center of the country.

[…] Right now, Obama perceives the center of the country to be somewhere between Dick Cheney and Harry Reid. Do you know where that leaves him? Joe Lieberman. That’s why we’re in the sorry shape we’re in now.

On Dean:

The reality is that Howard Dean is a moderate. Progressives in Vermont were upset with him when he was governor because they thought he was too far right. I just heard from someone who was on a cruise that The Nation organized and that Howard Dean spoke at. The crowd on the cruise nearly booed him when he spoke because they thought he was far too moderate.

If you look at Dean’s policies, they are right down the middle of the country. That’s part of the reason his 50 state strategy worked so well. But the establishment media hate him. Why? Because he points out when they’re doing something wrong – and he winds up being proven right in the end. There’s nothing that irritates the establishment more than that.

On Bernie:

As things stand, Howard Dean is perceived to be to the left of all of the Democratic senators in Washington (not because he’s more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Harry Reid; it’s because unlike them, he’s willing to fight for his positions (sorry Bernie, at this point, it’s true)). That’s unconscionable. Washington has shifted so far right that Dean is considered some sort of wild-eyed liberal. We have to move it back if we are to have any hope that Obama will move further left (and much closer to the true center of the country).

On what’s next:

It’s not pretty, but it’s necessary. We have to attack Obama relentlessly from the left. Right now he is a giant that is unmoved by anything in his left flank, he keeps looking to his right and ducking and worrying and moving to accommodate them. They are so loud and so visible. It’s hard to miss them. We have to make him look left. We have to shake him off his foundation.

Rahm Emanuel gave a wonderfully condescending interview to the Wall Street Journal where he explained that the White House has nothing to worry about from the left. That’s exactly what we have to change. Unfortunately, the only way to capture their attention and make them accommodate us rather than Fox News Channel is to hurt them. When we can put on the same kind of pain and pressure on the Obama White House as Fox does, that’s when they’ll have to move, at least to get out of the way.

You inflict political pain by voting things down. So far progressives have been completely unwilling to do this. They got rolled on healthcare because they had no intention of putting their foot down – and everyone knew it.

For my part, I’ll be honest. It’s been a while since I felt this beat up, exhausted, and discouraged. Even cynicism takes a certain amount of energy, and I’m out.

But I suppose tomorrow is another day. Heck, its Christmas. Happy (?) Holidays.

We could be in for a rough few years, both electorally and in terms of the costs of health care, unless the House can stand up to the Senate bullies and change it…

And its come clear that Rahm Emanuel had every reason to blow off the left. Smart man.

The same day the email from Jane and I went out to Vermonters, letting Bernie know that we (or many of us, at any rate) still recognize how dangerous this health care bill is (regardless of the juicy extras that were slipped into the bill to win him over), a glowing, downright gushing post went up on the Prog Blog praising Bernie for being such a champion, despite caving to the pressure from Reid and Obama. The post, entitled Bernie Sanders – Tonic for the Politically Depressed (do you feel healed yet, JD?) was penned by former Representative Chris Pearson, and in response to a bit of progressive pushback in the comments, Pearson responded:

Would doing the “right thing” have been standing with the Republicans to support the filibuster? That was really his only choice and as much as this bill is a disappointment I don’t think that would have advanced the cause or satisfied many of the left in this country.

Once that choice is made then Bernie could only make the bill as strong as possible… it doesn’t make much sense to me to include Bernie with the group of leaders that sold us out to the industry (again).

What’s Bernie supposed to do? Vote against it even though it’s a done deal? Especially if he can squeeze some good out of it?

That’s funny, because it’s apparently how Pearson himself felt back during the hearings on the Catamount Health Plan – Vermont’s own attempt at health care reform back in 2006. Pearson “stood with Republicans” and voted against the bill. In fact, he seemed fairly uninterested in the nuances he now incredulously demands folks consider in regards to Bernie:

…health care is simply a yes or no question. Are we going to cover everyone?

Now in fairness, there’s a big difference between the Catamount Health Bill and the US Senate health bill. The difference? Despite being a “band aid” for a broken system, Catamount was clearly going to help a lot of people (and it has). Not only did Catamount meet the more good that harm test, it didn’t really do any harm at all, on its own merits – which is precisely why, unlike Pearson, I supported it myself at the time. The Senate Bill, on the other hand, is a massive insurance company giveaway with no meaningful safeguards on corporate abuse, that could easily do more harm than good. Apparently the former merited a “no” vote, but Bernie’s “yes” vote on the latter is to be lauded.

Gawd.

Although this may be inconsistent on its face, it is consistent in another way. Despite the fact that he caucuses with the Dems, attends Dem fundraisers and the Dem party conventions, Progs still consider Bernie Sanders one of their own, and as one of their own, he is subject to the one absolute rule among the old-line Progressive intelligensia that transcends all others – including stances on policy; no fellow Progressive must ever be criticized. Even under the most extreme circumstances. Until and unless they learn to follow the example of newer Progs (like Jessica in the comments below…. bravo JF), get over that particular hang up and embrace honest, open, even rollicking self-examination and criticism, the Progs will always resemble something more akin to an exclusive political club than a healthy, functional political party in a democratic society.

Be a true progressive. Join your voice with those in the national Nurses Union. Click here to sign the petition – stop the Senate bill.

I get it. I really do. I’m not being snarky, I’m 100% serious.

It’s the hope for something better.

Under the mandate, the hope is that 30 million people will be insured that wouldn’t otherwise be insured. Hopefully the private insurance plans will be structured such that working and low-middle income families won’t be forced to plow through 10% or 20% of their income for basic care. Hope that families living that tight can find enough extra money – perhaps in an upturned economy – to make it work, rather than face IRS penalties.

Hope that the skyrocketing costs of health care will be slowed down enough so that working families won’t be further forced into that scenario by private insurers looking to squeeze out as many dollars as possible from the consumer. Even though these companies won’t be constrained by antitrust laws or the need to stay competitive with a robust public option of some sort that could be fine-tuned by the feds to meet Americans’ needs, maybe they won’t leap in and maximize profits, out of fear of pushing the system into collapse. Or maybe the same Congress that rejected such meaningful, systemic checks on costs will loosen up a bit when the heat comes down and vote to expand one of the cost control pilots in the bill. Maybe concerns about the effectiveness of those mechanisms will prove unwarranted. Maybe the Independent Medicare Advisory Board will live up to its theoretical potential and impact the very way health care is priced.

Hope that the tax on benefits won’t force many employers to cut back on existing health care plans, thus putting increased costs onto a middle class already reeling from recession. Perhaps employers will feel committed enough to their employees and to an understanding of the positive potential of an improved insurance system to bite the bullet on behalf of those employees.

Hope that states will be up to the task of enforcing the bill’s demanded changes to insurance company behavior.

Hope that insurance companies won’t continue to use loose, unrestrained and heartless definitions of “pre-existing conditions” to increase as many premiums as possible to the maximum allowable, above and beyond the base limits.

Hope that the extra money for Community Health Centers thet Bernie Sanders pushed into the final agreement will be enough to help those that fall between the cracks, or make so little money they are exempted from the individual mandate.

Hope that millions of women won’t find their abortion coverage stripped away from them, making it an out of pocket expense that effectively takes away choice for working class women.

And finally hope that if all those (and other) best-case scenarios don’t come to pass, that somebody – somewhere – will do something to step in and fix it in some way that isn’t spelled out in the Senate legislation at this point. Maybe legislators will be eager to take up health care reform again. Maybe the rejected Medicare buy-in can be revisited – this time without resistance from the Insurance Industry, who may feel magnanimous after getting so much of what they wanted.

Maybe the economy will turn up and improve everyone’s lot enough to make this work, one way or another. Obama is a good man, maybe he can just do something as President if the worst of what could happen becomes manifest.

Maybe, if the right combination of economic circumstance, patience and just-enough-goodwill-or-cooperation from the insurance companies come together, this could make everything better – not perfect – just better.

I get it. I really do. For most, supporting this Senate bill is a statement of optimism – and who can possibly be against optimism? Without it, what are we?

But based on personal experience, observation, and our understanding of the way our institutions work, many of us don’t share that optimism in regards to this half-a-reform. And without it, unlike with the also-disappointing Catamount Health Plan (which I supported and continue to support) – its too easy to see everything getting worse if this becomes the law of the land.

So for us, especially those of us who have banged our heads against the wall on this issue for decades, now – our optimism becomes manifest in fighting to the very, very last – as hard as we can – to improve this bill.

And who can possibly be against optimism, after all?

(CLICK HERE to sign the FDL petition to stop the Senate bill from becoming the law)

Representative Ira Trombley of Grand Isle died yesterday. The release from the VDP office said only that his passing was “unexpected.” Trombley, who was 57, is survived by his wife and three children.

I didn't know Ira well at all. I was still working for the coordinated campaign when he was first voted into office, and that's where I met him. I haven't seen him very often at all in recent years, although he would occasionally drop me a postcard when he read something on GMD he liked.

Ira always struck me as friendly, intelligent – and above all, a very, very good man. That last adjective may sound trite or uninspired, but believe me when I say that, in my book at least, there is no higher praise.

But more than simply being good, Ira made a difference. He became a lawmaker and put his ideals into action. Every good thing the legislature has done (and in the case of something like marriage equality, historic thing) is a part of his legacy, every bit as much as the less public parts of his life. In ways big and small, he made the world a better place than it was when he came into it.

So I suppose there was some higher praise after all.

Hmm. Not too well, looking at the coverage from the Middle East:

US Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says.

Upon the orders of Obama, the military warplanes on Thursday blanketed two camps in the North of the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, claiming there were “an imminent attack against a US asset was being planned,” ABC News quoted anonymous administration officials as saying on Friday.

The US air raids were then followed by a Yemeni ground forces attack.

The operation led to the death of around 120 people of whom many were civilians, including children, the report quoted Yemeni opposition as saying.

Oh boy.

UPDATE: In regards to the comments below, the point of this diary was to offer a glimpse at perceptions in the Islamic World, rather than being a diary about the still-sketchy incident itself, or my opinion of the quality of the linked journalism/opinion/whatever. It’s to point out – and express concern – that anger towards the US may be ratcheting up.

Looks like its a done deal. Ben Nelson has agreed to a deal on restricting abortion access for women, and a deal whereby the feds cover medicaid spending in his state in perpetuity.

The other maybe-kinda-sorta-not-really holdout was our own Bernie Sanders, who was b(r)ought into the deal for the inclusion of a Patrick Leahy-promoted provision to increase Vermont's medicaid payments by a cool $250 million over the next six years. Breaks out, if divided evenly, to about $42 million a year. Given the looming budget hole, which could be $90 to $110 million, that's a big, big boost 

But given how scary this bill has the potential to be, is that a good deal for Vermont, or does it amount to thirty pieces of silver? And please don't try and tell me its getting any better in conference. Not with the White House pushing so hard for this very result.

I'll be the first to admit, my own reaction against the bill assumes some worst-case-scenario projections based on what the bill does – and doesn't – do. But given that the feds take virtually no responsibility for cost control and throws open the regulatory doors, its the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that are solely responsible for delivering the health care scenario, worst-case or otherwise.

You see my hesitation. This could all amount to one seriously ugly “I told you so” from the left. 

What do you folks think? 

ALSO: A big priority of Bernie's – increased investment in Community Health Centers – stayed ultmately intact. His website reports “$10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill.” 

As negotiations over what, exactly the real Senate health care bill will look like (as opposed to the actual bill that's being debated on the floor… this is all a bit surreal, really), Bernie Sanders' ambiguous television announcement that he would not vote for the bill in the form it has taken made absolutely no waves outside the blogosphere. 

Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that a few liberals might bolt over the compromises made with conservative Democrats.

Although he was apparently referring to cloture ("My colleagues may have forged a compromise bill that can achieve the 60 votes that will be needed for it to pass," he said. "But until this bill addresses cost, competition and accountability in a meaningful way, it will not win mine." ), his statement was apparently dismissed with some reason, as it is, at this point, no longer operative. The only official word I got from his office was:

The senator is working to improve the bill to make it something he can vote for.  We have not seen the final package and he hopes it will be something he can support and he's in frequent contact with the leadership and White House to make this a better bill.

Interesting that Bernie's office says he's still working with the leadership and the White House. Doesn't sound to me like Rahm Emanuel thinks the leadership and the White House is working with Bernie.

And where exactly is Leahy during all this?

Meanwhile, that other Vermonter, Howard Dean – who has become the most clear-spoken voice on the real dangers of this bill (namely the fact that its not "better than nothing" as so many weary congressional Dems from the Party's left  want to believe, that it will, in fact, make things worse and increase health care burdens of many working and middle class families), has way out-progressived Bernie Sanders. How's that for a shocker?

After the flip: A few more details on just how dangerous a bill with no regulation and cost controls would be when combined with the individual mandate…

First of all, we hear a lot about how "community rating" is included in this bill. Community rating is, of course, a good thing. It was a fundamental part of Vermont's health care improvements in the 90s and requires that insurance companies set rates based on community-wide metrics, rather than purely individual ones.But under the Senate bill's version, elderly can be charged up to 3 times the standard premiums for their plans (plans, again, that you will be required to buy if you are uninsured). In Vermont, those premiums for the elderly can only be an additional 20%.In Massachusettes under their comparable-to-the-national-bill plan, the increase isn't 3x, but 2x – and even that has created a situation whereby seniors are having a hard time finding affordable insurance.

And Vermont's superior regulations on such things? Forget it. Under language that conservative holdout Mary Landrieu got into the bill during the compromise-on-the-compromise-on-the-compromise, companies that sell across state lines can be held to their home state regulations, rather than the states in which they operate. Slick, huh?

Much has been said about cost control. That was one of the prime functions of the public option. There are some interesting ideas for cost controls in the latest version under discussion, but they are systemically prevented from being implemented on a large scale unless unprecedented market conditions are met, or unless Congress specifically authorizes it (which would give us the same roadblock we have now). There simply is NO cost controlling mechanism in this "compromise." Let's be clear – every single thing the industry wanted, they seem to have gotten. If this new version gets adopted as some sort of strike-all amendment, you will see any and all industry resistance stop cold.

It. sucks. It consolidates more control of our health care system in the hands of the industry. These are not theoretical concerns from high minded liberal elite, as the administration’s allies are trying to pass them off as, these are practical realities that will hit everyone and will hand control of our government right back to the Republicans in the quite understandable political backlash.The reality is, of course, staring everyone in the face:

Men prefer the public option, women prefer the public option, independents prefer the public option.

And look at Democrats. 88 freaking percent.

The public option is not a fringe position. It's not even the "liberal" or "progressive" position.

It is the mainstream, Democratic Party position. It is practically a consensus.

Nelson, Lieberman, Landreau, Lincoln – it is they who are on the fringe. And they have been joined there by Reid and Obama (or were they always there?). Who are the real Democrats here?

The numbers don't lie. Senator Sanders, time to show Vermonters you're at least as progressive as the Democrats…

Bernie says it below. What’s unclear is whether he’s simply talking about his vote on the legislation itself, or his vote for cloture against the filibuster. Obviously Sanders has been a leading voice demanding that every member of the Democratic caucus at the least allow an up or down vote and refuse to take part in a Republican filibuster, but its precisely because the so-called “centrists” ignored that voice that the bill has been made into the worst-of-all-possible-worlds bill. Will Bernie feel the need to unilaterally disarm in this manner, given how its played out?

TPM reporting seems to suggest that Sanders is referring to cloture, but I haven’t heard that definitively in his own words. I’ll see what I can find out.

Be sure and call Bernie and tell him you support him on this: 1-802-862-0697 – or – 1-800-339-9834 (In State Only)