On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs strongly hit back at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate health care bill, suggesting, at one point, that Dean was being irrational and didn't understand the contents of the legislation.

"I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"I would ask Dr. Dean, how better do you address those who don't have insurance: passing a bill that will cover 30 million who don't currently have it or killing the bill?" he added. "I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

A prominent champion of the public plan, Dean has strongly criticized the recent round of compromises made by Senate Democratic leadership, in which the public option was axed and a provision to expand Medicare was also sacrificed. The former Vermont governor has called the current incarnation a give-away to the insurance industry because it won't effectively control the cost of premiums and would not create additional competition for the private market. Gibbs went through a list of Dean's complaints, rebutting them one by one. He also insisted that, during his run for the White House in 2004, Dean ran on a platform that resembled the current Senate bill.

"If this is an insurance company's dream, I think the insurance companies have yet to get the memo," he summarized.

In actuality, the insurance companies do seem to have considered the recent round of negotiations a victory, with one executive telling Ben Smith of Politico: "We win."

The relationship between Dean and the White House has been frosty, starting when the president did not pick the former DNC chair for the post of Health and Human Services Secretary. But the rhetoric from Gibbs on Wednesday brought the animus to a far more public level.

Asked if they are worried that Dean's criticism of the bill will sway progressives in the Senate, Gibbs replied: "No."

Asked if Dean was an irritant, Gibbs replied: "That is not a question for me to answer. I think if you look at what Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and others have said, I think they can point out the benefits of the legislation."

When White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel implored Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday to agree to demands to drop a provision to expand Medicare coverage, he was abandoning principles of health care reform that he once supported.

Back in November 2007, the then-Illinois Representative and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in which he specifically vouched for the provision he now opposes.

Titled "Before We're 64", Emanuel and Bruce Reed, president of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, wrote that allowing those as young as 55 to buy into Medicare was essential to relieve the financial burdens on American workers and businesses.

In 2005, Americans ages 55 to 64 were the fastest-growing segment of the population to become uninsured. For those employees lucky enough to still have insurance, the percentage of workers with deductibles of $500 or more has nearly tripled.

Covering early retirees is the most acute problem for workers and employers alike. Younger workers have fewer health needs and cost far less to cover; older retirees have much of their higher costs covered by Medicare. The average annual cost of covering a 30-year-old employee is $2,222. The average yearly cost for an employee who retires at 60 is $6,139.

We can't afford to let American workers and companies wither on the vine. We can ease the cost crunch for both by giving employers and unions a new option: buying Medicare coverage for retirees ages 55 to 64. Retirees would get quality care from a program they can trust. Employers would get to buy affordable insurance and take spiraling health costs off their books.

At the time, Democrats controlled Congress but not the White House. And the notion of enacting health care reform was tempered by the implicit recognition that you needed a president willing to do the heavy lifting. Emanuel, then and now, was considered a pragmatist above all else. But in writing about the benefits of a Medicare buy-in, he referenced virtually the same arguments that champions of the proposal have today: that it would alleviate costs on companies who provide health insurance to this age group without costing the taxpayers money.

Those points seem largely moot at this juncture of the current health care debate as Emanuel, the president and Democratic leadership in Congress have said they value the passage of legislation over any one particular provision. But the Washington Post op-ed remains a vivid illustration of how the current political system creates an inverse relationship between political power and policy passion. Emanuel, today, is in a far better place to enact the Medicare buy-in proposal. But he reportedly played the persuasive role in getting it sacrificed.

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who deny victims of sexual assault the right to bring their case in court has survived attempts to dull its impact and seems poised to become law.

The Senate Committee on Appropriation passed, on Tuesday, a defense appropriations bill that included the "anti-rape" amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). The legislation was intended to address and prevent a recurrence of the assault and rape that Jamie Leigh Jones, a defense contractor for the company KBR, alleged was committed by her fellow employees. But the amendment became a subject of debate after the Department of Defense, Republicans in the Senate, and even the committee chairman, Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) raised concerns that it would leave contractors over exposed to lawsuits.

The final product, in the end, proved remarkably strong. According to a Franken aide, the substance of the language "is unchanged." Under the amendment the government would not be able to do business with companies that deny court hearings for victims of either assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent hiring practice. The controversial Title VII provision, which would allow victims of assault to sue the employers of the alleged perpetrator and not just the perpetrator himself or herself, remains in the bill. Meanwhile, the threshold at which companies will be subjected to the legislation is set at those who have contracts totaling $1 million or more.

All told, the legislation would affect all major and many minor contractors, forcing them to choose between allowing litigation for their employees or forfeiting the hundreds of millions in dollars that are doled out annually in contracts by the federal government.

The Franken amendment includes a national security waiver, meaning that the Department of Defense could circumvent the law if it is deemed dangerous to U.S. safety. But, for that to happen, the Secretary of Defense would have to "personally explain why the waiver was used to Congress and at that point make it public," the Franken aide explained.

"I came to Washington to stand up for folks like Jamie Leigh, and stand up to the powerful interests that too often silence their voices," Sen. Franken said in a statement. "I was gratified to see so many of my colleagues in Congress and so many national civil rights leaders join in this effort. The Jamie Leigh Jones amendment is on its way to becoming law thanks to their work, the work of Chairman Inouye, and the work of the White House. I'm pleased that together, we were able to find a solution that allows victims of assault and discrimination their rightful day in court."

The amendment was initially added to the defense appropriations bill on October 21, 2009 by a 68 to 30 vote. Despite wide support for the measure (and ridicule for the 30 Republicans who opposed it) both the Obama administration's Department of Defense and Chairman Inouye raised concerns while the legislation was being considered in conference committee. Attempts to strip it of the Title VII provision were met with public outcry, which a Senate source familiar with the negotiations says was partially responsible for its ultimate passage.

"The public support surprised a lot of senators and not just the chairman," said the source. "The White House was working with Franken's office to find language that would be enforceable... and I think by the time those talks began everyone was on board, including Chairman Inouye."

Two of the country's largest labor groups, the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, are each holding emergency executive meetings today to discuss whether they should support the latest round of health care compromises made by Senate Democrats.

Though there's no official word yet, early indications based on talks with various officials are that the groups will either formally oppose the legislation or, less dramatically, just not fight very hard to ensure its passage.

Labor leaders are fuming at the concessions that Democratic leadership made in the last few days to win the support of the caucus's most conservative members, notably Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). A bill that already included one highly objectionable provision (a tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans) was stripped of a provision beloved by labor: a public alternative to private insurance coverage. Frustration boiled over even further after the leadership succumbed to Lieberman's demand to jettison even the compromise to the public option -- a proposal to expand Medicare to those as young as 55.

Together, the changes have spurred emotional internal debates about the approach labor should take to the Senate bill. Dennis Rivera, the Health Care Chair at the SEIU, was slated to appear at a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday to push for senators not to filibuster reform. He pulled out from the event, which was sponsored by the pro-reform group Families USA, because of uncertainty about the union's position.

"We just couldn't do it," said an SEIU official. "We haven't even seen the manager's amendment... At this point, we have to make the final decision about how to proceed. There is an emergency meeting tonight to figure that out."

The AFL-CIO, likewise, is hosting an executive council meeting to discuss the legislation. Richard Trumka, the president of the union conglomerate, has been one of the foremost champions of a public plan. And on Tuesday, one of his close allies, Leo Gerard, the president United Steelworkers Union, hinted that opposition to the bill is in the offing.

"I believe that the House [of Representatives] has got a good bill," Gerard told MSNBC's Ed Schultz. "Hopefully it is going to have to go to committee, we're going to fight like crazy to make sure that we get a good bill. I'm not prepared to give up. I want to fight and get a good bill out of this. The American people deserve this and President Obama, whose values are right, he deserves this."

Labor's stance could have big ramifications. Progressive Senate Democrats held their noses as the legislation was watered down at the behest of Lieberman and others. Off the Hill, however, former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean called for the current Senate proposal to be "killed" -- and others echoed his concerns.

The labor community has already poured massive resources into the health care debate. Now there is a growing concern that the money and time may have not been well spent. As one high-ranking labor official emailed the Huffington Post:

"What is really frustrating folks here is that it's impossible to make and implement plans to pressure senators when the White House and Reid keep undermining the efforts no one from the outside can put any credible pressure on Senators because they know the White House will back that Senator up whatever they do. If the White House is going to cave to a Senator who spent the entire election campaigning with McCain and calling Obama a traitor how are we supposed to have any leverage over anyone?

"If Lieberman -- who has done so many horrible things directly to Obama -- can get away with this on Obama's signature issue it makes it infinitely harder for us to pressure senators, on issues in the future, because there is no fear of retribution or coercion from the White House. They only pressure progressives, not anyone in the middle."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted on Tuesday that the president has been consistent in demanding that both moderates and progressives within the Democratic Party make policy sacrifices in an effort to pass comprehensive health care legislation.

Speaking to reporters hours after the president met with nearly the entire Democratic caucus, Gibbs said that Obama urged everyone to rally around the remaining components of reform, which, he noted, were historic in their own right.

"The president believes that whether you are on the left of the Democratic spectrum or the right of the Democratic spectrum in the Senate, or concerned about health care in this country, that there is plenty to like in this legislation," said Gibbs.

Asked if Obama is as demanding of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn), whose opposition to a public option and Medicare buy-in provision led to their removal, as he has been of progressives like Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), both staunch supporters of a public plan, Gibbs affirmatively replied: "Yes."

"The president was clear with members of the democratic caucus, including independents who caucus with the Democrats," he said.

Such a depiction of the legislative process would likely come as a surprise to liberals both in and outside of office, many of whom point to the various, watered-down versions of reform to which they agreed in hopes of winning Lieberman's vote. One of those liberals, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, said on Tuesday that the leadership had acquiesced too much to win moderate votes and called on the party to "kill the bill."

Asked about Dean's remarks, Gibbs declined to argue medicine with the doctor. But he "would argue policy with him."

"In 2004, Howard Dean as a candidate sought to build off an employer-based health care system in order to cover millions of Americans that currently lack coverage," said Gibbs. "There are two differences between what the president is doing in 2009 and what Howard Dean proposed in 2004. The first difference is we have an increase in the number of uninsured. The second biggest difference is... the bill is paid for, the bill reduces the deficit, the bill bends the cost curve, the bill adds insurance reforms."

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters on Tuesday that he believes health care reform has the votes to pass the Senate before Christmas after Democrats removed a provision to expand Medicare coverage.

"It is my understanding that, at this point it is going to be changed and removed," Durbin said the proposal to allow people between 55 and 64 to buy Medicare. "I think we are very close. We are still working with a few senators who have not made a commitment and until those commitments and votes are made we are going to keep working... Ultimately, we will pass it before Christmas."

The Illinois Democrat, speaking to reporters after a nearly full caucus meeting with President Obama, said he did not believe liberal members of the party would vote against the legislation, despite the absence of a public option or the Medicare buy-in provision.

"They are not happy," he acknowledged. "I'm not happy. I don't like the way this has progressed." But he stressed that there are enough important components in the bill to make passage vital. In particular, he cited bending the cost curve in the health care system, reducing the cost of health care premiums insuring more than 30 million currently uninsured people and strengthening the patient's bill of rights.

Asked by the Huffington Post to respond to former DNC Chairman Howard Dean's call for the bill to be "killed" -- replaced by something more progressive that could be passed through reconciliation -- Durbin replied:

"I disagree with Dr. Dean. I think if he would sit back and look at 31 million Americans who would have health insurance as a result of this bill. How do you say to them: 'Sorry you can't have health insurance. We think this bill can be better.'"

Pressed whether the changes made by Democrats to the legislation would gain the support of any moderate Republicans, he added: "I hope we will. It will be a great Christmas gift."

The progressive community is moving swiftly against Sen. Joseph Lieberman for killing the public option for insurance coverage and the provision to expand Medicare.

On Tuesday, MoveOn.org put out a fundraising plea asking its five million members to donate to a huge ad campaign that they plan to launch against the Connecticut independent. The group says it will also use the funds to oppose him in the next election.

Sen. Lieberman has been one of the biggest obstacles to real health care reform with a public option all year. But over the past two weeks, he's taken it to a dangerous new level.

First, he demanded that the public option be removed from the bill. Then, last night, he killed an expansion of Medicare--an idea that he himself championed just three months ago and that was added to the bill specifically to satisfy him.

He's shown that he can't be reasoned with. Most of all, Joe Lieberman can't be allowed to stay in the U.S. Senate.

The group's goal is to raise $400,000 in the next 24 hours, which would be a tremendous showing of financial and political support against Lieberman's continued presence, both in Congress and in the Democratic caucus. As the fundraising appeal reads:

First, Joe Lieberman helped President Bush invade Iraq, and the Democrats in Washington forgave him. Then, he endorsed John McCain, and they forgave him again. Then, he personally attacked Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention, and still the Democrats forgave him.

Now, Joe Lieberman is single-handedly gutting health care reform. The time for forgiveness is over. It's time to hold Senator Lieberman accountable.

The Obama administration plans to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely at the newly-assigned facility in Thomson, Illinois, senior administration officials told reporters on Tuesday. In addition, President Obama will ask Congress for the authority to transfer those people it will hold indefinitely without charges to the domestic location.

The White House ordered the federal government on Tuesday to acquire the prison facility that currently exists at Thomson for the purpose of housing federal inmates as well as a "limited number" of terrorist detainees. The facility will be converted first into a "supermax" -- safer than the one that currently exists in Florence, Colorado.

Among the detainees destined for the site are those the president has described as untriable (either in criminal or military court) and unreleasable to a foreign country.

"Notionally, the facility would obviously allow for the detention of some number of detainees who the president outlined in the [National] Archive speech as not being triable in federal courts or military commissions," said a senior administration official, during a conference call organized by the White House. "[Thomson] would be a facility for such detention."

There was some discussion on the call, as to whether the president has the legal authority to bring detainees on U.S. soil. The senior administration official acknowledged that "it would be a violation of the law to transfer prisoners to Thomson for the purpose of anything other than prosecution," and, as such they would have to secure "some change of law." On the issue of housing those detainees indefinitely, both spokesman Robert Gibbs and a senior administration official said that the president currently has the authority to do so under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed in 2001.

The two administration officials on the call did not go into detail about when or how many detainees would be transferred from Gitmo to the facility at Thomson. But they did broadly outline the process by which transfers would take place.

"Those who will face trial in article three or federal courts will be transferred directly to that jurisdiction," said one of the senior administration officials. "Those transferred to the custody of friends and allies overseas will not be transferred to the United States and then further on, but rather directly from Gitmo."

The official stressed that the president "has no intention of releasing any detainees into the United States." The detainees at Thomson, he added, will not be allowed visits from family or friends, but only from attorneys, law enforcement officials and the Red Cross. They will be housed separately from other inmates and a military commission will be set up on site to try certain detainees there.

Earlier in the day, the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General wrote to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn announcing the administration's decision to use Thomson. The letter can be read here.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is releasing a new round of radio ads tying the GOP to big banks and targeting House Republicans for voting against financial regulatory reform.

In an ad provided to the Huffington Post, the campaign committee goes after Rep. Joe Wilson -- the controversial South Carolina Republican -- for voting "to let Wall Street continue the same risky practices that crippled retirement accounts and left taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion dollars."

"And he voted to allow the big banks to pay high-rolling executives unchecked compensation and bonuses," the spot continues. "Maybe the $55,000 dollars that financial special interests have given to Congressman Wilson mattered more to him than protecting taxpayers and consumers."

The DCCC is launching similar spots targeting Reps. Dan Lungren (R-Cali.), Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Charlie Dent (R-Penn.).

Officials at the committee are calling this a "multi-pronged" grassroots campaign to target House Republicans as Congress continues to consider financial regulatory reform. The overarching goal is to flip the emerging meme that a Democratic-led Congress and administration placed the interests of Wall Street over job creation. And officials at the DCCC believe they're getting a big assist from across the aisle, both in the form of votes against regulatory reform and in the Republican Party's willingness to openly associate with lobbyists for the financial services industry.

HERE IS THE FULL SCRIPT:

October 2008, the last months of the Bush presidency.

The big banks and financial institutions almost collapsed, putting our entire economy at risk.

Remember?

We all know we should never let this happen again. That's why what our Congressman Joe Wilson did last week is so disturbing.

Congressman Wilson voted to let Wall Street continue the same risky practices that crippled retirement accounts and left taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion dollars.

And he voted to allow the big banks to pay high rolling executives unchecked compensation and bonuses.

Maybe the $55,000 dollars that financial special interests have given to Congressman Wilson mattered more to him than protecting taxpayers and consumers.

Doesn't that just make you mad?

Call Joe Wilson, tell him to stop standing up for the big banks and to start standing up for us.

DISCLAIMER: Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, www. DCCC.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. (10 seconds)

One day after he single-handedly killed off a provision to expand Medicare, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is still not promising to support the Democratic health reform bill -- though he told reporters Tuesday that he is getting closer.

"I'm getting to the position where I can say what I wanted to say all along, that I'm ready to vote for health care reform," he said. The Connecticut independent said he was pleased with concessions made by Democratic leadership and was hopeful that nothing additional would be added.

Lieberman also offered up a lengthy explanation for why he is now opposed to a provision he championed as recently as three months ago: a proposal to allow those as young as 55 to buy into Medicare

"I did not change my mind on Medicare buy-in," he said. "And I know this is a classic sort of sport here. Although it is not terrible to change one's mind if in fact you do. I do not want to spend too much time on this. In the 2000 campaign, when I was privileged to be Al Gore's running mate, the party platform was to suggest one way to improve health care was to allow 55- to 65-year-olds to buy into Medicare. That is a very stressed age group when you don't have insurance. But a lot of things have changed in nine years. The first is that in 2000, the federal government was in surplus and paying off the debt, not having increased the debt enormously. Secondly, Medicare wasn't on the verge of imminent bankruptcy, which it is now. And third, there was not a bill on the floor such as the one on the floor now, that would extend very generous subsidies to those 55- and 65-year-olds to enable them to buy insurance and reduce the impact of age in the pricing of insurance policies. So things changed a lot....

"And in the Connecticut Post interview [three months ago] I finally got to see that on TV last night and it looked to me like I was referring back to things I had supported in the past to make the point that though I was against the public option, I was not against health care reform," he said. "And, of course, I did that before the Finance Committee bill came out with this very large and again, I'd say, generous -- but I support it -- system of subsidies to bring basically lower and middle income people into the health insurance system."

Lieberman concluded that the "Medicare buy-in as proposed didn't make sense....

"It seems to me when advocates for the public option saw they didn't have the votes for the public option they tried to go down another path."

The Senator's argument has several holes in it -- most notably that it would exacerbate the financial strain already on the government-run program. A CBO study has looked into the idea of expanding Medicare for 62-to-64-year olds and concluded that the premiums these people would pay would actually help the system's solvency. Also, Medicare is not "on the verge of imminent bankruptcy." As currently configured, the program is expected to have depleted its reserved around 2017, which is very different.

WATCH:

In the latest salvo in an increasingly bitter health care reform debate, progressive groups are targeting White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, accusing the president's top adviser of abandoning the principles of people in his hometown Chicago.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee released an ad on Tuesday in which, through the voice of a local Chicagoan, they warn that Emanuel risks support in his own district should he "undermine" the public option for insurance coverage. The spot comes the morning after Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post first reported that the White House chief of staff had urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to get a deal done with centrist Democrats on health care.

Playing off the widely-held belief that Emanuel will eventually return to elected politics, PCCC is set to air the ad solely on Chicago television. But it will run only as many times as fundraising permits. The initial goal is $50,000 worth of spots.

In addition to the new ad, PCCC and another progressive group, Democracy for America, provided polling numbers to the Huffington Post showing fairly healthy skepticism for the Emanuel's performance as chief of staff. Only 36 percent of Americans said they trusted Emanuel with his job. Thirty-five percent said they did not trust him, and 29 percent were not sure.

Taken together, the ad and the decision to poll Emanuel's popularity reflect a widening schism between progressive groups and the chief of staff. Emanuel, for his part, has been quoted in various outlets scoffing at the role played by these groups in the health care debate, even calling their ads "fucking stupid."

But the attacks also suggest the chief of staff is effective at his job. The more the spotlight shines on Emanuel, the less heat the president takes from these same groups. And while White House officials continue to insist that Emanuel did not urge Reid to compromise on health care during their meeting on Sunday night, they also feel confident that should legislation pass, there will be ample time to repair the hurt feelings that the process produced.

Below is the script for the ad, as narrated by Joseph Breitenbucher of Chicago, Illinois :

My family has lived here in Chicago for 30 years. Rahm Emanuel was our congressman. When I had spinal surgery the medical bills were enormous. My insurance company tried to get out of paying bills they clearly were responsible for. That's how they make a profit, by denying people care. Many families in our situation would have gone into bankruptcy. Luckily my wife is a doctor and she knew how to challenge the insurance company. So after months of paper work we got the bills paid. But not everyone has a doctor in the house who knows how to fight back. We need a public health insurance option now. That is the only way to drive competition and keep the insurance companies honest. Anything less is not reform at all.

All of us back home hope Rahm Emanuel is fighting for people like us as White House chief of staff. But if he sides with insurance companies and undermines the public option, well, he won't have many fans in Chicago.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman's abrupt announcement that he will sink the health-care bill if it includes a provision to expand Medicare has spurred a torrent of angry recriminations from Democrats -- and confusion among those trying to divine his motives.

A big issue is all the contradictions. The Connecticut Independent has for years been an ardent champion of the provision he now opposes. Lieberman has also reversed course on the question of filibusters, which he once denounced as a way of holding up legislation. And the same senator who was once critical of his electoral opponent for not exhibiting party loyalty has now fashioned himself into the ultimate rogue agent -- happiest only when the full attention of the political world is on him.

"When carrots no longer work, when you put Senator Lieberman's most significant health care proposal at the heart of reform and he still opposes not just the larger reform but also his own provision, you start to wonder if this man is dealing in good faith," said Paul Begala, the long-time Democratic strategist. "How do you deal with someone who is so committed to opposing health care reform that he will even oppose his own ideas? It's a tall order. And I haven't the slightest idea what the answer is."

The history is right there. On Monday, video surfaced of an interview Lieberman conducted just three months ago with the Connecticut Post in which he specifically endorsed expanding Medicare to those as young as 55.

And that was entirely in character. After all, Lieberman ran for vice president in 2000 on a platform that included a Medicare buy-in, citing its bi-partisan appeal within Congress. He repeatedly touted Medicare during his run for president in 2004. And according to Stan Greenberg, a prominent Democratic pollster and longtime Connecticut resident, he made the government-run health care system a focal point of his first run for office in 1988.

"The position on Medicare makes no sense to me at all at any level," Greenberg said, "either at the consumer level or in regards to the kind of social spending that he always supported. He always supported Medicare."

The simplest explanation for Lieberman's pirouette is that he is in the pocket of the insurance industry. He has been criticized along those lines since his days as attorney general of Connecticut. Back in 1988, he was dogged for accepting campaign donations from the insurance company Advest Inc. one month after Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Peter W. Gillies had requested an opinion from his office in a case involving the company. Over the course of his career in the Senate, meanwhile, Lieberman has taken more than $1.04 million in campaign contributions from insurance companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But not everyone buys that he is simply doing private insurance's bidding. The opposition comes from a far more personal place, they suggest: a grudge against the party for abandoning him in 2006 and not supporting him more fully in 2004.

"I think he is smarting from 2004 and 2006," says Greenberg. "I think he believes that he should have been a presumptive strong [presidential] candidate in 04 having been Al Gore's vice presidential candidate. That didn't happen and I think the resentment began then. Then in 2006 the [Ned] Lamont challenge which made him an independent. I know he resents the left wing of the Connecticut Democratic Party and the left wing of national Democrats. I'm sure he doesn't mind putting it to them."

Lieberman has abandoned long held principles in other ways as well, in his war against health care reform. The senator, for example, once bemoaned the use of the filibuster by senators, co-sponsoring legislation in 1994 that would have essentially eliminated the procedural tool. Now he is wielding the filibuster threat himself.

Back in 1988, he spoke disparagingly of the fact that his opponent, Sen. Lowell Weicker, was not really a member of either major party. "Lowell Weicker is not a real Republican," Lieberman charged. "He's not a real Democrat. He does what he wants when he wants to do it." Now, of course, Lieberman is jubilant in his self-proclaimed independence.

If there is any consistency in what the senator is doing, it's his consistent eagerness to derail reform. Lieberman was a thorn in Bill Clinton's side during the last attempt at health care legislation in 1994 -- so much so that pro-reform activists staged a mock trial outside his Senate office, charging him with obstructionism. Capitol Hill police, according to the Hartford Courant, arrested ten people that day, including a protestor in a wheelchair.

And now it looks increasingly like the senator who Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Barack Obama generously kept in the Democratic caucus following the '08 elections will end up upending their primary domestic agenda.

"It's all about his ego and isn't based on any principled understanding of the policy," said one senior Democratic aide. "But the big problem with Lieberman is that his saying that he will vote 'no' gives cover and opens the door to about a half dozen other senators who can now do the same. So this really won't be about Reid having to find one more vote to balance Lieberman. Which means that either health reform is doomed or a bunch more deals will need to be cut watering down the reform even more. I guess the question is, at what point does it all become a wash?"

At 8:45 a.m. on a cold morning in Washington D.C. last week, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) meandered into the Capitol building through an entrance on the Senate side. Walking around the metal detector she paused to wait for an elevator to the second floor.

"You ready for one more day of health care?" the Huffington Post asked.

Snowe turned slightly away from the elevator, a slight, tired grin on her face. "One more day? How about one more week? How about three more weeks or another month?" she replied. "You're being way too optimistic."

And with that, she was gone, en route to a morning filled with impossibly busy hours, intense negotiations and impassioned floor speeches.

The health care reform debate is now, unofficially, in its 10 month. And, as Snowe can attest, it has worn people thin. Gone is the eagerness with which members of Congress, congressional staffers, and activists off the Hill once tackled the subject. In its place is fatigue and a growing despondence. While a cottage industry of government and non-government operatives have devoted nearly a year to improving the health care of others, they've spent little time worrying about their own wellbeing.

Gym memberships have gone unused. Smoking is on the rise. Food from vending machines has become a dietary staple, as have energy drinks. Friends and loved ones have gone unseen. Laundry has gone unwashed. And sleep -- like the once-cherished two-day weekend -- seems impossible to reclaim.

It's far from the regular perils of blue-collar work. And these individuals already have the safety net of health insurance should they get sick. But the lives they've been living are, to put it bluntly, unhealthy -- even as they work to solve the health problems of others.

Take, for instance, the day the House of Representatives passed its version of health care legislation. It was a Saturday. Eddie Vale and Lori Lodes, health care operatives with the AFL-CIO and SEIU respectively, spent the day on couch in Lodes's living room, laptops at the ready. For 14 hours, the two stared at C-SPAN 2's broadcast from the House floor, pounded Red Bulls and snacked on junk food. Constantly communicating with fellow staffers and reporters, they also stayed on top of the debate through Twitter. Towards the end, as delirium was kicking in and signs pointed to health care's passage, they switched from Red Bulls to bourbon. By midnight, they eagerly sent out their final statements on the vote -- and were mercifully done. Weeks later, they repeated the process as the Senate voted to consider its own legislation.

"Passing health care reform will be good for me some day but for now it has only resulted in sleep deprivation, mainlining caffeine and lots of hot dogs from street vendors," Vale said.

On the day of the House vote, Hill staffers roamed the halls of the Capitol with dazed looks, having spent the previous night working on a compromise for abortion language. Reporters, likewise, were groggy. Many had arrived on the Hill at 10 a.m. to chase after the president, who delivered a closed-door pep talk to Democratic lawmakers. Others were grabbing seats in the House Press Gallery, where they would spend the remainder of the day. At roughly 1:00 p.m., Jonathan Allen (then of Politico) ordered six greasy pizzas for the group to consume. They were washed down with soda from the vending machine.

Stories like these are numerous. And, in a perverse way, the deprivartions have become a source of pride. On the Senate Finance Committee alone, there are a host of health care masochists.

Russ Sullivan, the staff director of the committee and one of the most important health care staffers on Capitol Hill was given the key to his dry cleaner's store because the hours he works means he's never home when they're open. His colleague, Tom Reeder, the senior tax counsel on the staff, had guests visiting him from Alaska who, despite staying in his home, he didn't see for days. Scott Mulhauser, the communications director at Finance, said it was safe to report that "the vending machines in the Hart Office Building are without snacks and the ones left are the stuff you wouldn't want to eat." Another aide was forced by friends and family to lock his Blackberry in a closet during Thanksgiving for fear that he would be too distracted. Jacki Schechner, the communications director for the pro-reform group Health Care for America Now, brings hers to the gym so she can check email while on the treadmill. She's known, she says, for typing while jogging.

One health care policy adviser, who asked to remain nameless, drives 250 miles every Friday evening to Pittsburgh to see her husband who is doing a fellowship in the city. The four-hour jaunt, in recent months, has been for a slim 36-hour visit, as the staffer has been forced to leave Sunday afternoon. Her presence in the Senate being required first thing Monday morning, she's unable to work remotely.

The meetings, at least at the higher levels, come fast and early. Hill staffers are in by 7:15 a.m. and have already hosted three strategy session by 9:15. By 11 a.m. that number is likely up to five, before a wave of press requests begin to flood in. Normally the staffers are out of the office by 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. But lately the departure hour has been closer to midnight.

One beleaguered Democratic aide compared the pace to working on a campaign. The description applies to the press as well, with dozens of reporters chasing the same parcel of news. Chris Frates, who was dispatched by Politico to cover the health care debate, works from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., filing developing health care stories. A break for dinner and a few hours of relaxation are interrupted at midnight when, for the next three hours or so, he puts together material for his publication's subsection: Politico Pulse. Recently, the 14-hour days have extended to the weekends, as important votes or caucus meetings have demanded his presence. The crazy hours have forced him to give up time at the gym, producing, what he called, "a snugger waistline."

"It's a brutal schedule for sure, but I feed off the energy of my readers who send links, tips and, of course, song lyrics," said Frates. "The large quantities of coffee and Red Bull don't hurt, either."

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said he would be troubled if the country elects an openly gay president, telling Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he finds homosexuality immoral.

"It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral," DeMint said in a fairly provocative interview.

The South Carolina Republican, who has become the face of the Republican purity movement, expressed other socially conservative stances during his interview, including his staunch opposition to state-permitted gay marriage.

"Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is," he said. "Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that's proven to be destructive to our society."

DeMint has previously gotten in hot water for these types of remarks. As pointed out by the news site GOP12, the then-Representative caused a bit of an uproar -- even in decidedly conservative South Carolina -- when he said in 2004 that he supported banning openly gay teachers from serving in state public schools.

"I believe that's a local school board issue," DeMint later told "Meet the Press". "And, Tim [Russert], I was answering as a dad who's put lots of children in the hands of teachers and I answered with my heart. And I should just say, again, I apologize that distracted from the real debate."

More than 80 percent of Democrats say they believe Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) should be stripped of his powerful chairmanship in the Senate if he ends up supporting a Republican filibuster of health care reform, according to a new poll.

The liberal action groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America commissioned a survey several days ago, in which they asked more than 800 voters whether Lieberman's position on health care should affect his status as head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds, underscoring just how divisive Lieberman is within the party.

An additional 43 percent of independents agreed that Lieberman should lose his post, with 30 percent saying no. Only ten percent of Republicans, meanwhile, thought Lieberman should be punished under such a scenario -- while 66 percent said he should not.

All told, 47 percent of the public said Senate leaders should remove Lieberman from his chairmanship if he joins the Republican filibuster; 32 percent said they should allow him to keep the post; 21 percent said they weren't sure.

Lieberman, on Sunday, informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would, in fact, be filibustering health care reform in its current incarnation. But leadership aides have remained mum about what kind of punishment such a vote would provoke.

It is entirely possible that a heated internal drama will play out within the Democratic caucus should the Connecticut independent prove to be the one-vote obstacle to getting legislation passed. The polling numbers certainly show where the heart of the party lies.