The fate of Obamacare now rests with the Senate, and it will pivot on Harry Reid's ability to overcome one measure in particular: the filibuster. It wasn't always so easy to block legislation using this tactic, since senators no longer have to remain on the floor and read out loud until their wills--or their bladders--give out.

The roll call was less than twenty-four hours away. And the votes still weren’t there. It was more than eight months ago--June 25, 2009--and the White House was hosting a luau on the South Lawn for members of Congress and their families. But with the House set to vote on cap-and-trade the next day, key members of the president’s staff and House leaders were huddling about how to proceed. There was even some talk of postponing the vote, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation.

I have always believed that the key to getting health care reform through Congress lay with President Barack Obama, not with Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Obama had to win back public support for health care reform so wavering Democrats wouldn’t feel they were risking their jobs by voting for it. Well, it may be too late, and those of us who favor reform may have to rely on Pelosi’s skill to get this through, but there are signs that Obama’s health care summit has changed some minds. 

Yesterday, John Judis  -- last seen invoking the specter of McGovern, which he had also done in 2008 -- turned shockingly optimistic about the Democrats' political prospects:

Another major step forward: Senator Tom Harkin tells Politico that the Senate will take up amendments to its health care bill via the reconciliation process:

In a few weeks, Barack Obama will have a chance to do something he hasn’t done particularly well during his first year in office: successfully defy his opponents and, at the same time, reassure his most loyal supporters. At issue is the fate of Craig Becker, one of Obama’s nominees for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Last month, Becker was denied a vote on his nomination when Senate Democrats failed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Now, the Senate’s coming Easter break will give Obama an opportunity to put Becker on the NLRB via recess appointment.

One of the enduring mysteries about White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is why he took the job in the first place. At the time he accepted it, he was the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, a position he’d attained with considerable effort. Two years earlier, Emanuel had chaired the House Democrats’ campaign arm and led the party to a 31-seat majority after a decade of futility.

President Obama got a lot of attention for the letter he sent Congress on Tuesday. But a leader of the House Democrats made some news, too.

Inside Health Policy's Julian Pecquet and Amy Lotven report on a Democratic memo sketching out a timeline for passage of health care reform. The gist is pretty simple: The House takes up the Senate bill and passed it by March 19.

The Senate passed its relatively modest $15 billion “jobs bill” last week, with reminders from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that that another legislative package would soon pick up some of the elements missing from this latest round of policymaking.  Will state and local aid make it off the list of possible next items—like an extension of jobless benefits and additional tax breaks—into a new bill?  At least some n

February 26, 2010

President Barack Obama

Senator Harry Reid Majority Leader

Senator Max Baucus, Chairman, Committee on Finance Senator

Tom Harkin Chairman, Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives Congressman

Charles Rangel Committee on Ways & Means

Congressman Henry A. Waxman Committee on Energy and Commerce

Congressman George Miller Committee on Education and Labor

The White House has released some more details about Thursday's Blair House meeting: Who will be there and the shape of the table where they'll all be sitting:

The President will be seated in the middle of one side of the hollow square, with the Vice President, Secretary Sebelius, and congressional Leadership seated alongside him. Members will be seated by caucus around the square.

"This is the last, best shot." That's how one veteran policy wonk described the state of health care reform to me a few days ago. And that sounds about right.

I'm a longtime, enthusiastic fan of the public option. And I am really nervous about its latest rise from the grave.

If you read this blog, you probably want to know the true state of play in the health care reform debate.

Well, join the club. After yet another a round of phone calls on Friday, I've become convinced that nobody really knows for sure.

House Republicans mock the Dems via email:

In the last week and a half, Obama has rediscovered his voice on health care--telling audiences he is determined to achieve comprehensive reform, not some piecemeal version, and that he is willing to fight for it. And, administration officials say, the sentiments are genuine. Obama has instructed his staff not to abandon the pursuit of a full reform package, even though, it seems, that's what some advisers would prefer--and even though the Democrats no longer have the sixty votes necessary to break Republican filibusters in the Senate.

But rhetoric alone won't get the job done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said her chamber won't vote for the Senate bill, as written, until the Senate passes modifications to that bill--something the Senate would have to do through the budget reconciliation process, in which Republicans couldn't block a vote from taking place. The modifications the House has in mind include more money for affordability protections and the elimination of a tax on expensive health benefits.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, naturally, wants the House to vote for the full Senate bill first. And while he's said he thinks amending the bill in reconciliation makes sense, he wants the bill to be as small--and easy to pass--as possible. He also wants to keep the benefits tax, or some version of it.

In both cases, the leaders are basing their positions in part on what their caucus members are saying to them. Most progressives don't like the benefits tax. Most moderates don't like the alternatives--some combination of taxes on the rich and cuts to industry--and don't like the high price tag in general. Members of all ideologies are worried that passing a bill in reconciliation would drag out this politically debilitating debate longer--while giving critics more reason to think the bill is full of unsavory backroom deals.

The position of the two leadership groups isn't surprising. It's exactly the sort of posturing you’d expect in a House-Senate negotiation--and, if it were happening four or five months ago, the Democrats could afford to let it play out on its own. But there’s no time for that now. While giving health reform a small break from the spotlight is probably healthy, just letting the negotiations drag out will only disappoint supporters while antagonizing the opposition--all while the attention of members begins to wander.

Nor is it clear the two houses are even capable of reaching an agreement on their own. If members of the House were rational, they would pass the Senate bill, as written, simply because it'd be such a huge achievement--one that would make life better for literally tens of millions of Americans. And, if members of the Senate were rational, they would sign off on at least some of the House’s requested fixes without a fuss, because they were about to agree on them anyway--after the last round of negotiations, before Massachusetts--and because most of the changes make the bill better.

Indeed, there's a pretty obvious deal that ought to work for both sides, even now:

In the days immediately after the special Massachusetts election, which gave Senate Republicans the ability to block votes on legislation, the prospects for reform looked so bleak that one reliable source emailed me a one-word message: “Dead.”

But within 24 hours, that same source had emailed me another one-word message: “Alive.”

And that’s a pretty good description of where things stand today, at least based on what I've gleaned from conversations with insiders over the last week.

According to these sources, Democrats have made progress--more progress, certainly, than might be evident from all the dire headlines of the past few days. There seems to be a plan in place for enacting reform, even with the Massachusetts setback.

But it’s not an easy plan to execute, at least in this political environment. And it’s not clear--to me and to many of the people I’ve interviewed--whether Democrats in the House, Senate, and administration are sufficiently committed to making it work.

Hi everyone--Mike Crowley here. I'll be blogging throughout the State of the Union tonight. Not liveblogging, exactly (Update: I succumbed), but refresh this thread for regular updates on the latest Speech of Obama's Life. Then, stay tuned to tnr.com for more fully-baked reactions from your other TNR favorites. (Click here for a transcript of Obama's speech and see below to read Jonathan Cohn's live Twitter coverage.)

9:13pm Black Tuesday tested the courage of our convictions? Hmm. But important to remind people how dire situation was a year ago.

9:14pm It is just HDTV or did Geithner not shave? Guess he had a long day.

9:20pm A good defense of the bank bailout, plus an assault on the banks. Obama's winning smile and sense of humor give his explanation a likeable sheen. He should have done more of that by now. (Geithner still looks, in a friend's words, "like he got hit by a truck.")

9:23pm Harry Reid caught yawning.

9:24pm I'm not sure that was the most persuasive defense I've heard of the stimulus bill. It came and went fast--a bit dependent on micro-anecdotes that won't persuade many Americans who think it was a pork fest.

9:25pm Key soundbite: "That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight." This would be what they call a pivot.

9:29pm Democrats have been vowing to end the overseas tax business break since at least 2004. Why didn't it happen last year?

9:30pm Read the full speech text here.

9:32pm "How long should we wait... Washington has been telling us to wait for decades." This is reminiscent of campaign rhetoric--the fierce urgency of now.

As will become clear in tonight's State of the Union, President Obama wants to start focusing on jobs and the economy. Apparently, so do Democratic leaders in Congress. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday said his chamber was in "no rush" to finish health care reform.

"So is that it? Is it over?" I've gotten about a half-dozen e-mails with versions of that message this morning.

The answer is "No." That's not it. This isn't over.

The primary reason for all the messages seems to be stories in the New York Times and Politico, describing the difficulties Democrats are having coming to agreement on health care reform. The Times story, which is the more alarming, begins:

With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying that they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them.

The original headline--the one that ran on the Times website last night--used the same language as the article. It said "Democrats Slam the Brakes" on health care reform, or something like that. The current headline is a bit softer: "No Rush" on health care, it says.

The basis for the story, and the gloom, was the revelation that Senate Democrats didn't even discuss health care at Tuesday's Democratic caucus meeting. Afterwards, Reid talked to the press about it:

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” he said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.” He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

The Times' reporters may know more than I do. It certainly wouldn't be the first time! And the difficulties are definitely real. But, as my tan, rested, and ready colleague Jonathan Chait notes, the situation actually seems to be less dire than it was a few days ago.

So Bernanke may be in even worse shape than I thought. The Times says Harry Reid isn't sure he has 60 votes for confirmation. In fact, he's not even sure he'll support Bernanke himself. The most telling detail in the piece:

Is health care reform dead or, to quote the Princess Bride, "only mostly dead"? It depends a bit on who's talking and when, but at the moment it seems to be only mostly dead.

To review, things looked grim--really, really grim--most of Wednesday. Senate Democrats seemed to be throwing up their hands: We've passed our bill, they were suggesting, and the House could take it or leave it. House Democrats responded pretty clearly: They were inclined to leave it. And the White House? They were waiting to see how Congress reacted--which is to say, they weren't pushing hard in one direction or another.

But as the shock of Tuesday's results wore off, the mood shifted. Barney Frank, who drove a stake into reform with his words on Tuesday night, yanked the stake out and indicated that passing the Senate bill--with promises to fix its flaws later--might just work. Kent Conrad, who would play a key role in the reconciliation process, indicated there were ways to accommodate House concerns.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel spent the day working the phones, floating the possibility of a scaled-back plan that--by all accounts--he prefers. But at a White House meeting last night, sources say, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the president they weren't ready to throw in the towel. Pelosi, in particular, was said to push hard.

So what's the latest, as of Thursday afternoon? Make no mistake: Things still look gloomy.

After Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, everyone's been pondering the fate of health care reform. But to gaze even further ahead, where does this leave climate and energy legislation? Is that just going to get scrapped? Or could it still survive in some form?

Credit where credit is due: