When Bill Clinton addressed a crowd of mildly despondent progressives at the Netroots Nation conference this past August, he made a prediction. If health care reform were to pass, the former president said, it would result in a massive uptick in Obama's popularity.

"Within a year, when all those bad things they say will happen don't happen, and all the good things happen, approval will explode," Clinton declared.

A polling bump has served as an alluring carrot to win over Democrats skeptical of health care reform. But not everyone is convinced that the sheer fact that legislation passed will do wonders for Democrats in the world of public opinion.

"Bill Clinton has always been a better strategist than I have been," Mark Mellman, a prominent Democratic pollster, told the Huffington Post. "But, you know, I would not be surprised if we don't see that... I wouldn't be surprised if [Obama's] ratings stay fairly close to where they are. And for two reasons: first of all, the real weight that is holding down the president's approval rating is the economy. There is just no question about that is the real impediment to his approval ratings improving. To pass health care reform on Christmas Eve is not going to improve the economy the day after Christmas. Secondly, at this point this is still a pretty controversial bill. When people know the content they are for it, and when they don't know the content they are pretty divided. So I'm not sure there are going to be a lot of people jumping for joy [when it passes]."

"I think [Obama] is going to get some credit for being effective here and I think that would help him," Mellman added. "But I would be surprised if we saw a big jump in approval ratings. We may see them for a day or two, but I don't think it is going to last very long."

Public opinion prognostication is inherently chancy. But if any pollster has a good grasp of the health care debate, it is Mellman. A highly respected Democratic adviser, he has been consulting Senate Democrats about how to properly sell the reform package they are poised to pass. His advice to those who have spent months engaged in the process is a bit dour: The debate's not over. As Mellman sees it, public opinion on the legislation should remain malleable months, if not years, after passage. Placed in a news vacuum -- as it was during the August recess -- the bill can be painted in the most nefarious of lights. And so, even though Democrats may gain momentary relief by getting the legislation done, they shouldn't rest on their laurels.

"There is going to be a prolonged process here, even after the bill passes, of selling the bill," Mellman said. "The naturally tendency of the legislative process is to move on. You pass legislation, breathe a sigh of relief, and move on to another bill and stop talking about that which is already done. That can't happen here."

Mellman noted that some of the legislative perks from health care reform won't kick in for years down the road; the bill's supporters will be championing abstract achievements. Nevertheless, he said there are immediate benefits to which Democrats should and can point -- namely the prohibition on abusive insurance industry practices.

As for internal party divisions, Mellman said he expects progressive critics of the bill to eventually come back into the fold.

"There is no question that there are a meaningful chunk of voters out there who think this bill did not go far enough in reforming health care," he said. "I think at the end of the day, the people who think this bill didn't go far enough will come to recognize the political realities: which is there aren't the votes to go further. And the only way to get something more than this is to add even more progressive Democrats in the Senate. So their electoral enthusiasm should be increased, not decreased."

If Democrats had any hopes of winning Sen. Olympia Snowe's vote on a health care reform bill, the Maine Republican likely put an end to them on Wednesday when she cast a vote expressing the view that a key element of the legislation is unconstitutional.

Snowe was one of 39 Republicans who voted in favor of a resolution, introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) that the reform bill, and in particular the individual mandate for people to purchase coverage, violates the Constitution's Fifth Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

The measure was ultimately defeated when all the chamber's Democrats voted against it. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okl.) was the only member not voting.

It was, as one Senate aide noted, another effort by the GOP to "kill this bill."

It also seemed to lock Snowe into a no vote on the whole bill. It's hard to imagine her expressing the opinion that the health care legislation is unconstitutional and then turning around weeks later and supporting it.

On a related note, the Senate acting on a bi-partisan basis agreed to move the time for the final vote on health care reform from 8:00 a.m. Thursday morning to 7:00 a.m. The window to get home in time for Christmas is, indeed, closing.

The way Democrats secured the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster of health care legislation has exposed them to accusations that they have abandoned the "reformist" platform that swept them into office.

No cameras were allowed in the room where the final bill was written. And legislative sweeteners were added to the product to win the support of wavering members.

Senate Republicans, hell-bent on extracting every piece of political flesh they can in the current debate, quickly seized the initiative. And when they did, they turned to a familiar, self-proclaimed reformer to wield their message.

In a withering address on the Senate floor on Sunday, Sen. John McCain accused the president and Democratic leadership in the Senate of abandoning pledges of accountability and transparency during the reform process.

Pointing to the deals cut with the pharmaceutical industry, the American Medical Association and others, the Arizona Republican insisted that Democrats had "set up a tent out front and put Persian rugs out in front of it" - greeting special interests with specific gifts.

Recalling President Obama's campaign pledge to televise negotiations, McCain noted that "there has never been a C-SPAN camera" in the rooms where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) crafted the final version of legislation. Drawing attention to some of the sweeteners that were put in the bill to win the support of conservative Democrats, McCain scoffed that there were now "new words in our lexicon," including the "Cornhusker Kickback", in reference to Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and the newly recoined term "The Louisiana Purchase" in reference to concessions to that state's Sen. Mary Landrieu.

McCain's new high-mindedness didn't impress New York Time's columnist Maureen Dowd, who wrote on Thursday that while McCain "used to be such a constructive independent that some of his Republican Senate colleagues called him a traitor. Now he's such a predictable obstructionist that he's in the just-say-no vanguard with the same conservatives who used to despise him." She concludes: "With President Obama, McCain's objections seem motivated more by vendetta than principle."

McCain has indeed proven to be less than a willing negotiator since returning from the campaign trail to the Senate. But his Tuesday rant wasn't just another reflexive broadside. Republican Party strategists say the GOP senses a serious opportunity to portray itself as the party of transparency and reform. They know from their own history that the legislative process is inherently messy, requiring the type of back-room dealing that was recently witnessed. That makes those in power susceptible to claims of corruption - and particularly so when they vowed to hold themselves to higher standards.

Health care legislation may be impossible to stop. But the GOP plans to gain from its fallout.

"I think the difference here is that Obama and the Democrats promised things were going to be different and obviously it is not different," Ed Rollins, a longtime GOP strategist told the Huffington Post. "Obama set the bar very high and he will be measured by his own words and I think to a certain extent when David Axelrod and Harry Reid are saying that this is the way it has always been done, after they ran a campaign saying they wanted to change the way things were normally done, that will really hurt them."

"A cornerstone of Barack Obama's appeal to the American people was the promise that he was something totally different," said Alex Conant, another GOP strategist. "But the way his health care legislation came together was Washington politics as usual. When you consider the backroom deals made to pass this bill, coupled with all the earlier broken promises like bringing lobbyists into the Administration, a pattern emerges."

"What really strikes me about the health care debate is how it's been handled. We've been told that hearings will appear on C-SPAN. They haven't." said Larry Farnsworth, an aide for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. "But as a former Republican leadership aide, what I find most appalling is that they've turned to and cut a deal with Billy Tauzin on behalf of PHARMA. If you remember, six years ago when we passed the prescription drug bill, it was called a boondoggle on the floor of the House by Nancy Pelosi... Now, suddenly, they're working with the same person."

"This provides Republicans an opportunity for the contrast that eluded us in 2008 and 2006. One of the most troubling discoveries in the polling data from 2008 was just how far removed we were from being the party voters associated with the reform mantle," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's campaign. "The health care reform bill and its process are vehicles for the way voters view Washington: partisan, chaotic, unmanageable, wasteful."

Such criticisms call for some context. Republicans, while in power, held no negotiations where C-SPAN could see them. And the gift to Big Pharma that was Medicare Part D will likely still dwarf the benefits the industry will get from the current legislation.

As Craig Shirley, another longtime GOP consultant, noted: "There is an opportunity for Republicans here, but the problem is they are just as beholden to corporate America including the pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies as are the Democrats. Ideology and principles are not factors here. This is simply about raw, naked, unethical power."

Moreover, while Obama has not followed through on some of his pledges regarding transparency, he has on others, and has overall brought some additional sunlight to the legislative process. Indeed, while McCain and others argue that the president abandoned his pledge for transparency, others insist that it is precisely because the legislative process has been so open that Democrats have endured charges of being bought and sold.

"President Obama campaigned on transparency and accountability," said Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown University. "Now, what we have seen is the transparency because Obama allowed Congress to detail the legislation. But, when you detail the legislation you also see the deals made either for Nebraska or Louisiana and these other states. So you can argue that the transparency has hurt the administration in claiming the reformer mantle."

WATCH McCain's floor speech:

Former Colorado lieutenant governor Jane Norton, one of the five candidates competing in the Republican primary for the state's 2010 Senate race, is distinguishing herself with her full-hearted embrace of the tea party crowd.

Appearing at a recent coffee-shop event with Colorado voters, Norton sat silently while a female attendee declared twice that President Barack Obama is a Muslim and while a male attendee insisted that the president -- who he deemed "an idiot" -- wanted to let babies die on the side of the road "with the garbage."

"Well as you can tell there is a lot of passion around what is happening in our own country," Norton responded to the crowd, rather than correcting either individual. "And how we can channel that into positive constructive ways that will get our vote out it is going to be absolutely critical."

Also at the event, Norton praised the "tea-party movement and the 9/12 groups" for pushing a right-wing populist, anti-Washington agenda. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee highlighted that exchange in a video it sent to reporters on Monday.

Colorado remains a hub of arch-conservative politics and anti-Obama sentiment despite its recent Democratic leanings. One month ago, an auto dealer in the state gained notoriety when he put up a billboard asking whether Obama was a Jihadist and demanding a birth certificate be produced for the president.

So it's not all that surprising that Norton, in an effort to curry favor with the more impassioned voters, would tolerate that kind of over-the-top rhetoric. Indeed, the National Republican Senatorial Committee worked behind the scenes to get Norton into the race.

And yet, the willingness of the general public to stomach this kind of conspiracy-theory vitriol seems limited.

The health care reform debate may be dying down in Congress, but the ad wars continue.

On Wednesday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee unveiled a new spot in which it all but accuses the president of abandoning the principles of his health care reform agenda. Tackling the two provisions that rankle liberals the most, the PCCC highlights footage of Obama himself rejecting the efficacy of an individual mandate and insisting that a public option for insurance be part of the final legislative package.

Using Obama's words against him is particularly effective a day after he told the Washington Post that he didn't campaign on a public plan and challenged his critics to identify any "gap" between what he campaigned on last year and the health care legislation Congress is on the verge of passing.

The group is airing the ad in Wisconsin -- in addition to Washington D.C. -- in hopes of persuading Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) to drop his support for a bill without an additional element of government-run insurance. The goal is not necessarily to kill the Senate's legislation, but to use political leverage to make changes once it goes to conference committee with the House.

The initial ad purchase is a modest $40,000. But, as is their usual formula, PCCC will raise money online for more airtime.

"President Obama should frankly feel ashamed that he promised Americans a public option, got people to believe real change was possible, and then never truly fought for it -- instead, pushing a mandate that he specifically campaigned against," said Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee in a statement accompanying the ad's release. "Hopefully, our ad inspires one brave senator to represent the will of the people and insist that a public option be in any final bill."

President Barack Obama, in an interview with The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that in the two years leading up to his election he "didn't campaign on the public option" for insurance coverage.

Could that possibly be true? A plan for government-run insurance has been the focal point of the soon-to-be-concluded health care debate; the catalyst of white-hot partisan warfare; and the provision that progressive and conservatives alike have deemed the arbiter of whether legislation is a success. Is it possible the political world was, by-and-large, confused when they assumed this was what candidate Obama had wanted?

Not entirely.

The Obama campaign clearly did incorporate the public option into its health care agenda. The then-candidate signed a statement put together by the pro-reform group Health Care for America Now, which included the provision as part of its principles for reform. On issue forms Obama filled out for several publications he pledged to "create a new public health plan for those currently without coverage." His campaign arm, Organizing for America, continues to champion a "public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice." The White House website says that: "The President believes [public health insurance option] will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary."

It does, indeed, seem fair to say that a public option for insurance coverage was a component of the Obama health care agenda. But exactly how serious a component was it?

An examination of approximately 200 newspaper articles from the campaign, as well as debate transcripts and public speeches shows that Obama spoke remarkably infrequently about creating a government-run insurance program. Indeed, when he initially outlined his health care proposals during a speech before the University of Iowa on March 29, 2007, he described setting up a system that resembles the current Senate compromise - in which private insurers would operate in a non-profit entity that was regulated heavily by a government entity.

"Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one that every federal employee - from a postal worker in Iowa to a Congressman in Washington - currently has for themselves," Obama said at the time.

In the following months, reporters would remark, as did Robert Pear of the New York Times, that Obama "says he would 'establish a new public insurance program' for people who do not have access to group coverage." But it's not clear that their reference was a non-profit entity modeled after congressional coverage or the "government-run plan" that progressives pine for today.

By December 2007, however, Obama clearly had endorsed a government-run option. In a speech at the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum, the then-Senator declared that if he "were designing a system from scratch" he would "probably move more in the direction of a single-payer plan,"

"But what we have to do right now," Obama added, "is I want to move to make sure that everybody has got coverage as quickly as possible. And I believe that what that means is we expand SCHIP. It means that we extend eligibility for some of the government programs that we have. We set up a government program, as I've described, that everybody can buy into and you can't be excluded because of a pre-existing condition."

In January 2008, meanwhile, Obama submitted an issue form to Ebony Magazine, in which, as the third principle of his health care reform agenda, he promised to "require all employers to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan."

By that point, the press, commentariat and widely respected health care observers all were reporting the government-run plan as a component of the Obama agenda.

On May 31, 2007, Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a New Yorker staff writer, wrote in The New York Times that both Obama and then-candidate John Edwards, were offering "a choice of competing private plans, and... a Medicare-like public option, too."

On September 20, 2007, Ezra Klein -- then a staff writer at The American Prospect and now with The Washington Post -- wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times in which he said that "all of the Democrats" in the primary field had offered the option of "a government-run insurance program modeled on, but distinct from, Medicare."

On February 12, 2008, Jonathan Oberlander of the University of North Carolina, told NPR's Fresh Air that Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton both "would create a new public plan similar to Medicare."

"And do we have any sense of what those public plans would look like?" the host asked.

"They have been fairly vague about that, as candidates often are in this election season, other than to say it would be like Medicare," said Oberlander.

On February 26, 2008, meanwhile, Jacob Hacker, the so-called "godfather" of the public option, offered much the same synopsis. In an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the Yale University professor noted that both Clinton and Obama would require employers to "provide coverage to their workers or enroll them in a new, publicly overseen insurance pool." People in this pool, he added, "could choose either a public plan modeled after Medicare or from regulated private plans."

On July 30, 2008, The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn wrote that Obama was gravitating closer and closer to making the public plan a prominent feature of his health care platform. "[He] not only included an optional public plan in his eventual blueprint for universal coverage; more recently, he also tapped Hacker to be on his campaign's health care advisory committee," Cohn wrote.

On August 18, 2008, Cohn followed up on his story, writing that Heather Higginbottom, the Obama campaign's policy director and now White House adviser, considered the public plan "an elemental pillar" of the proposal. The President, Cohn added (channeling Higginbottom) "is prepared to defend this fall even if, as expected, Republicans attack it (falsely) as a "government takeover" of medicine."

The general press, naturally, followed suit.

Fortune Magazine, on July 7, 2008, wrote that "At the center of Obama's plan to help ease the middle-class crunch would be a requirement that nearly all businesses provide health insurance or contribute to a government-backed "purchasing pool" that includes private plans and one public plan like Medicare."

The Chicago Tribune, on August 21, 2008, wrote that Obama, "would require employers to offer health benefits to workers or contribute to the cost of a new public plan"

The National Journal on August 23, 2008, reported that Obama's health care plan "would require insurance companies to compete in publicly structured exchanges not only with each other but also with a government-run insurance plan. 'Wherever possible," Obama said in an interview last year, he wants to harness "market mechanisms to bring about change.'"

There are countless other examples as well; but remarkably few other times in which Obama himself was quoted supporting an additional program of government run insurance. His campaign never pushed back on the report. If anything, it seems they clearly constructed a health care strategy that embraced the public option as one of several principles of reform.

It also, however, seems clear that the philosophical attachment of the candidate to the issue was limited. Obama would discuss the public option more frequently once he took office. But on the trail he almost always highlighted other elements of his health care agenda first. As one progressive activist who has worked on health care reform for the past year put it:

"What I think [Obama's] point was [in making his statement to the Washington Post], is true. The public option was not his number one talking point on the trail. Hell, it wasn't even number 12. The public option didn't become the central part of health care reform until after [he entered the White House]."

Under fire throughout much of the health care debate from the left, conservative Democratic senators are now getting an even harsher reception from the right.

The angriest accusation: that they sold their votes.

On Tuesday, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) was pilloried during an appearance on C-SPAN Newsmakers for the $300 million in emergency Medicaid funding that she secured for her state in the Senate's legislation. One self-identified Republican caller proclaimed that she had engaged in political prostitution -- trading her vote for the funds. Another called her "nothing but a Judas goat selling out for thirty pieces of silver" who would lose her next election.

"You know," Landrieu chimed in at that point, "being in public office isn't easy because we have to listen to situations like this.

"I'll say it again and I'll continue to say it, I did not vote for this bill because of [the Medicare funding]," she added. "I voted for this bill because it's going to lower costs for Americans, it's going to give the private market the boost and the reform it needs to do a better job for all consumers in our country. It's going to expand the life of Medicare for nine years, it's going to reduce the federal deficit, and it's going to bring efficiencies to a system that is wasteful, abusive and out of control. I know there are some people that don't believe that. Time will tell. And I'll tell that gentleman I've been elected three times to the United States Senate, and I will probably be elected again. Thank you."

Landrieu isn't alone. Both she and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have been called prostitutes by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The Nebraska Democrat also secured Medicaid funding for his state -- a legislative coup that was deemed either the "Cornhusker Kickback" or "Cash for Cloture" depending on the reporter or medium.

Nelson isn't up for re-election until 2012. Landrieu, meanwhile, runs again in 2014. So they have three and five years respectively before voters decide their fates. Unlike, say, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) -- another swing-state Democrat who is up for re-election in 2010 -- both Landrieu and Nelson stand to actually benefit from the health care provisions they secured, rather than be blamed for the messy process that produced those provisions.

Radio talk show host Bill Press has become an intern for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-V.T.), the liberal commentator told the Huffington Post on Tuesday.

The move is not some impulsive late-career change on Press's part. Rather, it is an effort to make it easier for him to report from Capitol Hill.

On December 8, Press was denied a request for media credentials from the Congressional Radio-Television Galleries, effectively limiting the type of on-the-ground journalism he was hoping to do on the Hill. Soon thereafter, the radio host petitioned Sanders for an internship with his staff in hopes of circumventing the red tape.

"I am officially a Senate intern of Bernie Sanders'," Press told HuffPost. "I am his in-house Senate reporter. Basically, I'm reporting on news from Capitol Hill."

Press, who moved to Washington D.C. in 1996 to take over the liberal post of the now-defunct CNN program "Crossfire," says that he will cover news conferences and hearings for Sanders staff. Naturally, the material will also be used for his morning radio program. "There is more than one way to skin a cat," said Press.

Conventional efforts to gain access to the Hill on Press's part were rejected after the seven-member executive committee of the Congressional Radio-Television Galleries determined that his program was too aligned with political advocacy. Specifically, the committee pointed to language on the radio host's website urging viewers to call Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and convince the lawmaker to support health care reform.

In an interview with Politico, Press pointed out that several members who denied him entry work for notably political outlets, including Salem Radio Network -- an organization that hosts such conservative talkers as Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett and Michael Medved.

Press is still looking to get credentialed, which is likely when a new board is instituted. Until then, he is assuming the role that is traditionally filled by wide-eyed college students. Only, he will share his experience with a massive radio audience and not merely his immediate family.

"Given my record [with the board] I was quite nervous I would be rejected [by Sanders]," Press jokingly said. "Now I'm proud to be the newest member of Bernie's staff."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted once more that President Obama did everything he could to get a public option through the Senate, even if the administration never talked to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) about his opposition to the provision.

On Tuesday, Gibbs reiterated that President Obama "absolutely" did everything he could to ensure that a government-run insurance option was part of the final legislative product. Pressed by the Huffington Post as to why no one from the administration ever reached out to Lieberman to alleviate his concerns about the proposal, the press secretary said he didn't want to "rehash" the past.

"I think the president has been clear on what he supported," Gibbs said. "I think members of the Senate have been clear on what they didn't support. The president believes... health care reform that will pass the senate contains about 95 percent of what he wanted out of health care reform. And the president is quite pleased with the product and looks forward to signing comprehensive health care reform."

The remarks were part of a broader effort by the White House to sweep Democratic dissension with the Senate's health care bill under the rug. Gibbs noted that on Saturday White House health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle spent 45 minutes talking to Gov. Howard Dean -- perhaps the most high-profile progressive critic of the bill -- about his concerns. After their conversation, claimed Gibbs, Dean acknowledged more positives with the final bill than he initially let on.

"I think all of them are certainly entitled to their opinions," Gibbs said of progressive critics. "Again, we would not be at this point in health care reform were it not for the president's leadership. We would not be at a point where we were a couple of votes away, not in people but in sequencing, to getting health care reform through the Senate."

"The president and his team will continue to play the role they have throughout the process and that is working with leaders in the House and the Senate, discussing with them the options," Gibbs said earlier. "I think the role that he and his team have played up to this point has gotten us to the point where health care reform is not a matter of if, health care reform now is a matter of when."

The White House quickly pounced after news broke that Michael Steele was charging up to $20,000 in speaking fees in addition to his official gig, mocking the RNC chairman for delivering criticisms of the health care bill for profit and calling his reasoning '"delusional."

Pressed about a remark Steele made Monday, in which he insisted Democrats were "flipping the bird" to the public in the form of health care legislation, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asked how much money Steele was paid for "that interview." Later when a cell phone ring interrupted the briefing, and someone cried out that Steele was on the line, Gibbs insisted it would cost $30,000 to answer that call.

The quips were both delivered with a Cheshire-cat smile. On Tuesday morning the Washington Times reported that Steele, who earns $223,500-a-year in his RNC post, was charging roughly $10,000 to $15,000 for appearances at "colleges, trade associations and other groups." The moonlighting was condemned by former RNC chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. ("Holy Mackerel!") and Jim Nicholson. But Democrats also gleefully jumped on the news -- in addition to going after the substance of the RNC chairman's latest round of health care criticism.

"I think if you look back, just to give everybody some context... [Steele's remark] was, I think, predicated on the fact that he had in his mind deduced that the White House had pressured the Congressional Budget Office into coming up with statistics that are good for the bill... The notion that this White House is in cahoots with the CBO is delusional to put it mildly. So I would suggest this for the RNC and anybody else in the Republican Party: There are millions of people who do not have health care this Christmas ... instead of giving chippy interviews it might be good to be part of the negotiations and the solutions."

The perks that Senate Democratic leadership put into the final health care bill to win the support of conservative caucus members may cost them the one opportunity to secure a bipartisan bill.

On Monday, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the only Senate Republican who has voted for a version of health care reform, said that she was offended by the sweeteners that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) threw into health care legislation to win the votes of individual senators.

"I think we all should be concerned about all of these last-minute arrangements and sweetheart deals considered in there," said the Maine Republican. "I don't think that that is fair, frankly. As one who has worked on the policy for as long as I have and as long as I have and my staff, I just think that, in all fairness to all parts of the country, I think it is important that the policy be equitable."

Snowe, who voted for the Senate Finance Committee's version of reform, has said she is not inclined to back the current version produced by Democratic leadership -- though she hasn't fully ruled it out. It wasn't because her home state of Maine wasn't getting its piece of the pie, she insisted: "I didn't ask for carve-outs for Maine. That wasn't what I was all about."

It was because the legislation has been tainted by parochial interests.

The Maine Republican wasn't alone. On the Senate floor on Monday, a host of Republican senators -- none of whom have engaged in honest brokering during the health care debate -- excoriated Reid for the legislative sweeteners he added to the final health care product such as the $300 million in Medicaid funds for Sen. Mary Landrieu (deemed "The Louisiana Purchase") or the $100 million in Medicaid relief for Sen. Ben Nelson (described either as the "Cornhusker Kickback" or, cleverly, "Clash for Cloture"). Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) set the tone early when he declared that "votes have been bought."

The carve-outs -- as they have been called -- have had the side effect of pitting Republican lawmakers against the needs of their constituents. Sen David Vitter (R-La.) was forced weeks ago to come out against needed health care funding for his state, and was berated by local and national Democrats for doing so. On Monday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) walked the same plank.

Taking to the floor around midday, the Nebraska Republican said he was heartened to see local constituents rise up in disgust against the deal that Nelson made on their behalf.

"Less than 24 hours after [the] announcement of the special for Nebraska with virtually no warning, no preparation to speak up, 2,000 people gathered in Omaha, Nebraska; Nebraskans, who in one voice, cried foul," said Johanns. "Nebraskans are frustrated and angry that our beloved state has been thrust into the same pot with all of the other special deals that get cut here. In fact, Mr. President, they're outraged that a backroom deal for our state might have been what puts this bill across the finish line. You see, Mr. President, I fundamentally believe that if this health care bill is so good, it should stand on its own merits. There should be no special deals, no carve-outs, for anyone in this health care bill. Not for states. Not for states. Not for insurance companies. And not for individual senators."

In actuality, the sweeteners are proving more difficult for Democrats to defend than they have been for Johanns and Vitter to vilify. Progressives begrudgingly acknowledge that it sends a bad message when Democrats appear to be "buying" Senators off, with only a perfunctory nod to the defense that these paybacks won't kick in until 2016.

The most common response has been that this is simply the seedy underside of the legislative process. And that it is better to have a bill with these perks than no bill at all. On Monday, however, Reid scrapped those lines in favor of something more novel: casting the carve-outs as politically virtuous and a reflection of a particular senator's legislative acumen.

"That's what legislation is all about," Reid told reporters. "It is the art of compromise. In this great country of ours, Nebraska has many different problems than does New Hampshire. Michigan has many different problems than does Georgia. We have a wide range of different needs throughout regions of this country."

"I don't know if there is a senator who doesn't have something in this bill that is important to them," he concluded. "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then that doesn't speak well of them."

One of the public option's strongest Congressional supporters insisted on Monday that while the Senate is poised to pass health care legislation that does not offer consumers a government-run insurance plan, he will bring the idea up again -- most likely after that bill is passed.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters that the public option is not dead. "It will be revisited," he said. "I'm just saying, I believe it is so vital and so important that it is going to be revisited. Believe me." The Iowa Democrat said that "even next year," senators "may be doing some things to modify, to fix, to compliment what we've passed here."

The idea of pushing for the public plan as a stand-alone piece of legislation sometime down the road has been championed by other supporters of the provision.

Harkin did not blame the White House for the absence of a public plan in the Senate's bill, as his colleague, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) did in a statement on Sunday night.

Also unlike Feingold, he hinted that he was giving up for now. Asked whether he would consider reinserting the public option into the legislation during the conference committee set to commence between the House and the Senate, Harkin replied: "I didn't say that. I said it would be revisited."

Acknowledging that, philosophically, he favors components of the House's version over some in the Senate's, he nevertheless said that when he goes to conference committee it will be as an advocate for his chamber's product.

"I always say when we go to conference we are going to stick with the Senate side," Harkin said. "Look, I'm a conferee, I have to fight for the Senate and I will fight for the senate but we will have to make compromises with the House."

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), likewise, insisted on Sunday that the conference committee would have to produce legislation that mirrored the Senate's or risk losing key conservative Democratic support. Asked about this process on Monday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) kept mum.

"We have to pass this bill in the Senate first and we will worry about the next steps at a later time," he said.

One of the Senate's most soft-spoken members, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), unleashed a little pent-up frustration on Monday, telling reporters that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was redefining the term obnoxious with his latest histrionics.

On Monday morning, Steele held a conference call with reporters in which he called Democratic Senators crafting health care reform "cowards" who are "flipping the bird" to the American public. Harkin, along with a host of other Democrats, were asked about the remarks during a press conference touting the American Medical Association's endorsement of their bill.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) deemed Steele's comments crass and inappropriate for "someone who has the title Mr. Steele has." But Harkin, standing off to the side, was seen rolling his eyes as he whispered into the ear of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)

Asked after the event why he seemed surprised by what Steele had to say, the Iowa Democrat replied.

"I didn't seem surprised. It is not the first obnoxious thing he said. I mean, the guy gives new definition to the word obnoxious. You know. He says outrageous things."

A small grin entered Harkin's face. At which point his press handler declared: "Thanks everyone" while pulling the senator away from the pool of reporters.

When two of the nation's largest unions held emergency meetings last week to discuss potential opposition to the Senate's health care bill, the White House paid close attention.

Administration officials were in touch with their counterparts at both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU as each discussed the merits and downsides of the legislation. Days later, when both union groups put out statements -- neither formally opposing nor supporting -- the Senate bill, the White House quickly called to go over the details and the potential fallout.

The attentiveness of the Obama administration to labor's concerns is the latest reflection of an increasingly sensitive relationship between the two. Eleven months into office, President Obama has proven to be one of the most union-friendly White House occupants in recent memory. His staff is in constant contact with union officials, granting them access and input given to few other organizations. And yet, on some of the major legislative items, his administration has disappointed labor: an economic recovery plan that was too fixated on Wall Street, the punting of the Employee Free Choice Act until 2010 and the willingness to drop a public option for insurance coverage.

Labor leaders are loath to publicly criticize Obama, in part because they remain acutely aware of the benefits of staying in his (and WH chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's) good favor. But in private, there is a growing "frustration," as one union official put it. And as it became clear that the Senate was settling on a health care bill that taxes high-end plans (which cover many union members as well as other workers) and includes no additional government-run plan for insurance, a hint of that frustration seeped to the surface.

"What I want the president to do is to work with the conferees on the issues that he has said from the very beginning are important to him and say we have a chance to get some of those done, particularly the ones that relate to making sure that people who don't have insurance will be able to afford what is made available," SEIU President Andy Stern declared in a conference call this past week. "We need his moral suasion. We need his personal involvement and we are totally convinced that what we want done is what he wants done. And all we can do is maximize the effort."

Implicit in the remark was that, up to this point, Obama had provided neither the "suasion" nor "involvement" needed in the debate. It was hardly the most controversial of statements. Indeed, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) echoed the sentiment days later. But coming from Stern -- the closest of the president's labor allies -- it was, as one union hand pointed out, "hard to dismiss."

Stern isn't alone in believing the president can and should do more -- though he may be the most public. Other leaders in the labor community have, for the time being, held their guns. The ALF-CIO's president Richard Trumka, for instance, is giving Obama some leeway for the way his legislative agenda has played out.

"I don't think anybody disagreed from our side that health care is an important issue and ought to be moved," Trumka told the Huffington Post. "So what have been [Obama's] priorities? Now I'm not going to be their defenders. They can do that themselves. But his priorities right now are health care and jobs, reforming the economy, employee free choice act, as part of the effort to reform the economy, as part of a jobs package."

"He has been given a tough hand of cards," Trumka added. 'You know, he got an economy that was falling apart. He had two wars going on that he inherited. And he got a Republican Party that says no to everything. Did you see the fiasco yesterday [when GOP Senator Tom Coburn demanded that a 767-page amendment be read in full]. I mean, come on."

But a measured defense is hardly the same as a ringing endorsement. And when the AFL-CIO decided how to approach the Senate health care bill, Trumka came down harder than the SEIU -- much to the chagrin of the White House.

In reality, both Stern and Trumka are in the same tricky place: cognizant that the administration is, broadly speaking, an ally, though angered by the realization that the president didn't step in as health care reform was being gutted. Internally, the push is for them to take a hard line against the president. Externally, the White House holds many sticks and carrots.

"They're getting intense pressure from the bottom up: locals, union members are really pissed," said one labor aide. "They are afraid of the international unions selling out. And so union leadership is being squeezed from the bottom by members who don't want a shitty bill and from the top by Rahm holding the [Employee Free Choice Act] over their heads."

The outcome, in the end, may simply be that labor barks but doesn't bite, pressures Congress and not the administration and hedges its expectations and resources during the next major legislative debate. As one official involved in discussions with the labor community told Ben Smith of Politico: "They won't oppose [health care reform]. But they will definitely say tough things in the press."

With health care reform poised to pass the Senate on a party-line vote, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday, accusing Democrats of acting like cowards and "flipping the bird" to the American public.

Speaking hours after Senate Democrats cleared the first of three major procedural hurdles in passing their version of reform, Steele insisted that what was being witnessed in that chamber was nothing short of "a wholesale hijacking of the health care system in our country."

And he insisted that the GOP's obstructionist efforts were not the reason for the odd scheduling of the first vote at 1:00 a.m. on early Monday morning. "Bad policy is bad policy," he said. "If it stinks, you know it." Rather, the timing of the vote spoke to the "cowardice reflected of this leadership in the Senate and quite frankly Democrats across the country who dare not look the American people in the eye on this issue."

Steele emphasized that he will continue to work with Republican leadership in both the House and Senate to help defeat the legislation, with better prospects (admittedly) in the Senate, where a single Democratic defection could derail the process.

"There won't be a legitimate conference [between the House and the Senate]. Nancy Pelosi is going to capitulate on this. And the House members are going to have to live with it... and that ought to be fascinating to watch. The reality is [Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel and the White House from the West Wing are driving this process."

"I'm tired of Congress thumbing their nose and flipping the bird to the American people," he added.

The RNC chairman also pledged strong political and electoral pushback against those conservative Democrats who supported the bill, saying that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the senators he corralled should "look for the pink slip come next year." Discussing those Democrats who would vote to break up a Republican filibuster but might oppose the health care legislation when it comes to an up-or-down vote, Steele was even more incredulous.

"The ultimate act of cowardice for me is to sit there and say I voted for it before I voted against it. Or I voted against it before I voted for it," he said. "Don't think we are so deaf, dumb and stupid as American citizens so as to fall for that particular move. We know how it ends."

"The principle moment was this morning at 1 a.m.," he added. "So you showed us everything we needed to see about your leadership... when you were more afraid of Harry Reid and Barack Obama then the people who sent you to Washington. Well guess what. You will have a lot more to explain and a lot more to fear when you get back home... Whether you're [Sens.] Jim Webb (D-Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) or any of you. You don't have what it takes. You're unprincipled and the people know you are now."