Spun

I think the only thing that makes this "a bridge too far" is the necessity of 60 votes for cloture, but I think this gets it about right.

So, confusion. It's unavoidable at this point--the system is still shuddering from the aftershocks of the Massachusetts election and it's difficult to sense what sort of legislation is still possible. But it would be nice to hear the Administration acknowledge something like this: We went a bridge too far. When you have to resort to deals like the Cornhusker Kickback, the Lieberman collapse, the union buyoff, you don't have the broad support that's necessary to put something like health care reform into law. As Karen has argued, that's the most important message from Massachusetts. Another message: we like the universal health care we have in Massachusetts, but we don't want to make any sacrifices--especially when it comes to Medicare funding--so that the rest of the country can get universal, too.

Unfortunately, health care legislation is hard and complex, and it is much more interesting to reporters to cover the politics and the deals rather than what reform means for you and me. Congressional Democrats don't have a Fox News megaphone to help them make those points and, frankly, I'm not convinced many Congressman have any idea what's in the two bills that have been passed. That leaves -- or left -- the administration. I realize the president didn't want to put his finger on the scale for either the Senate's or the House's approach. But as he himself has pointed out, there are more similarities than differences. Obama has the national pulpit to make the case about what's good -- right now -- about the bills. Not, "oh, it's imperfect," but rather this is what passage is going to do for you and your family right now. This is how it will get better down the road.

The question is, is it too late to do that?