>Let's agree to disagree. I think his motivation is more honorable than that. Health care reform was one of his main campaign promises. I'm sure he doesn't like everything about the two bills any more than many others do. The question is whether it better to start with a flawed bill or get nothing (probably for a LONG time). That is the messy reality of politics, especially in times as polarized as these.

It would be better to draw a line in the sand at the few substantial things which had to be in (public option, some rules to ban the worst behaviors of HMOs), no negotiations on that core; if it fails, anyone can see how the vote went and who's to blame. This way, both sides are to blame - the Reps for making so many dents in the law they didn't vote for anyway, and the Dems for giving so much in to pressures. They didn't have the stones to go public with those pressures, probably because they're equally dirty, and outing the dirty tricks of the opponents would be their own political suicide. And they aren't that different either - "vrana vrani oči ne vadi" - crow doesn't pick [other] crow's eyes out.

The watered down, compromised and perverted bill, which has lost its substance, is worse than nothing. It will be an excuse to improve nothing substantially in the next fifty years. Unless it's another "everyone must give money to pharma|insurers|whoever", which would be passed.

I pass such on everydaily basis, but I'm glad those go down the drain.