It'd be nice if courting Snowe were really all about getting one token Republican vote. The fact is, though, that there are at least 3-5 democratic Senators who are likely to be as difficult (or in some cases more difficult) to bring to the table. Every vote counts at this point. Also, those Senators are the ones who stand to benefit if they can take cover behind some bipartisanship (even if it's just token).

As for those of you railing for Obama to "toughen up" or "twist more arms" for the bill, what are you expecting? Do you want him to go on national television and start calling out names? Something like, "Max Baucus, if you don't vote for this bill, I'm going to shit all over Nebraska."? The fact is, these kinds of horse-trades and political negotiations are done in private for a reason. We really won't know whether Obama has been doing enough until after the bill passes (or doesn't), regardless of what some anonymous "senior staffer" is quoted saying on a blog.

It's about 51 votes... and party loyalty.

I don't understand -- and perhaps someone could enlighten me -- why the Senate needs to prepare a bill that will garner 60 votes. I understand that the Republicans would filibuster Christmas if they thought that Obama was for it, but the fact is that Democrats who don't like the proposed health insurance reform law don't have to vote for it -- JUST DON'T VOTE TO SUSTAIN A FILIBUSTER. Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, etc., can vote against a bill that contains a public option... but they need to have enough party loyalty to also vote against a GOP filibuster. Just let it come up for a vote, then vote against it.

If the Dems can't whip together enough party loyalty to simply win a cloture vote, why on Earth should any Democratic voter show enough party loyalty to give the party, or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, money?

Seriously, can anyone explain to me why you need 60 people to pass the bill? You need 60 to vote for cloture, which is not the same thing. Baucus, a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry, can vote for cloture and against the bill and go back to his patrons and honestly report that he voted against the law. And it can pass with 51 votes, not 60.

Rocket, thanks for some common sense!

That'd be great if the Democratic Senators on the sidelines all lined up to oppose the filibuster, but vote against the bill. And it'd be nice if there was some way to force them to act that way if they weren't willing to without making any compromises. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

Ultimately, a primary reason that the Democrats have 60 Senators is because the Republicans have pushed out moderates and pared down to their base. Yes, that makes for great party unity, but it doesn't exactly build majorities. The Democrats, on the other hand, have maximized their numbers by filling their ranks with moderates. That means, on most issues, the Democrats will have somewhere around 10 Senators who are only loosely in line with the party. That's why it's so much like herding cats.

While it'd be great if there was a 60 member Senate majority comprised of liberal Democrats, that's not going to happen without substantial political realignment. That leaves two options: whittle down the party to the true believers by castigating the DINOs or continue to build majorities, with the understanding that many red-state Democrats are going to have disagreements with the party. Personally, I'd rather see the Democrats continue to go with option two.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Obama should not have wasted his time reading about Roosevelt and Lincoln but instead should have studied Lyndon Johnson. That guy knew how to squeeze people and get things done.

What Obama should do is say, "Vote with us or else." Then hand those senators on the fence a double-sided, single spaced paper outlining exactly what "or else" entails.