A leading progressive in the House of Representatives said on Wednesday that she felt reassured that the White House would not pursue health care reform that tied a public plan to worsening economic triggers.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel might have been floating a "trial balloon" when he told the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that a trigger option could be a compromise approach to health care reform. Judging by his interaction with progressives in the House of Representatives in the subsequent hours, she added, it seems that the administration has taken the proposal off the table.

"The president wasn't talking about a trigger," said Woolsey. And when Emanuel floated the idea, she said, "the balloon blew up. He got to the Democratic caucus and he heard loud and clear that that is not what we wanted. And he definitely heard it from myself and the progressives, very clearly, that we're talking about a robust public option."

The co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, Woolsey said that when Emanuel came to meet House Democrats on Tuesday evening -- hours after his interview with the Journal was published -- he did not receive a warm reception.

"He was on the defensive because he got there and he had to explain that what the president really wants is a robust public plan," said Woolsey.

The California Democrat said that she has whipped the progressive caucus in the House and concluded that more than 60 of its members would vote against a health care reform plan that had a public option tied to economic triggers. It is a line in the sand that she and others expressed to Emanuel when he met with his former House Democrats.

"Fortunately, when [Emanuel] left, we knew that he was not going to be out working for a trigger," said Woolsey. "He didn't make excuses," she added. "We [the progressive caucus] have already compromised. More than 90 percent of the progressive caucus would vote today for a single payer system. And so for us to compromise and get behind a really good strong public plan, I mean that's as far as we're going. And I started with that and he said, 'Lynn I know that.' He knows that we're very serious about this."

The revelation from seven Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that they were misled about a critical CIA program has sparked a debate that touches on the most sensitive areas of national security policy. What program, exactly, was being kept secret?

No one is answering the question, citing the sensitivities that come when discussing classified intelligence matters. But in various conversations with sources on and off the Hill, two general theories have emerged. The first is that the CIA was keeping quiet about the use of waterboarding on terrorist suspects. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she was misled by the intelligence agency on that very subject. It's also the story told to the Huffington Post by a source with knowledge of the letter the seven House Democrats penned to CIA chief Leon Panetta, in which they complained about being misled.

But the dates don't line up. In their letter, the lawmakers note that members of Congress were "misled" for "a number of years, from 2001 to this week." Pelosi, however, contended that the CIA lied to her about the use of harsh interrogation techniques during the fall of 2002.

And in a conversation with the Huffington Post, Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-Calif.), one of the letter's signatories, said that Panetta "stopped the program the day after he was informed." Waterboarding was ended as a practice during the Bush years.

So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it," he added. "It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."

Asked if this was the basis of her letter to Panetta, Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans." A Republican committee member told Who Runs Gov's Greg Sargent it was something they hadn't heard before.

Panetta himself was kept in the dark about the program -- whatever it was -- having only been told about the classified activity on June 23. "His own top leadership didn't even brief him that this program existed," said Eshoo.

The day after he found out, on June 24, the CIA header briefed members of Congress about the matter. Two days later, on June 26, the seven lawmakers wrote Panetta asking him to publicly correct an earlier statement he had made, in which he declared that it was not the CIA's "policy or practice to mislead Congress."

Asked why it took two weeks for that letter to Panetta to become public (news of the letter broke on Tuesday evening) Eshoo said it was simply a matter of clearance.

"I was informed by one of the committee lawyers that the letter should be classified and so it was sent to him classified," the California Democrat replied. "The lawyers made a determination recently that it did not need to be classified so we made it public."

Had she received a response from the CIA? "We have not," Eshoo said.

One of the key Democratic senators whose vote remains up for grabs when it comes to health care reform urged his colleagues to continue to push for a bipartisan bill, even as party leadership said it was time to give up on recuriting GOP support.

In an interview this week with the Huffington Post, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) maintained that there was still "great interest in the Finance Committee for a bipartisan bill on both sides of the aisle" and he urged lawmakers to continue to pursue a collaborative path. He would not comment directly on news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had urged the Committee's Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop efforts to attract Republican support. But he also didn't hide his own preferences.

"I'm committed to the priority that the president laid out," said Wyden. "I think the president got it right. He said 'I want to get it done this year' and he also indicated that his first choice is to have a bipartisan bill because he recognizes that a bipartisan bill allows the country to come together."

Asked whether he would support cloture on health care legislation that he would ultimately oppose -- so as to preempt a Republican filibuster -- Wyden was noncommittal.

"I'm going to just say that I think the president's right and I'm supportive of what the president said in terms of both a timetable and in dong something bipartisan," he said.

While Democrats both inside and outside of government say they expect Wyden ultimately to support the health care legislation put forth by the party, his most recent round of comments are likely to cause anxiety among progressives. The senator is one of a handful of Democrats whose thoughts on key components of reform have been difficult to pin down. On a public plan for insurance coverage, for instance, Wyden maintained that while he supports the concept, he could not commit to backing a bill because of one singular component.

"You just can't give a simple yes or no answer to that, because real health reform is so much bigger than its individual parts," he said. "And the reason I say that is that real reform means containing costs. Now the reason I'm open to a public option is that a public option is one way that could contain costs. But throughout my comments about health reform, I've never said I'm going to vote for health reform because of one component."

This type of wait-till-the-final-product approach extends to the legislation currently being crafted by the various committees in the Senate. Wyden sits on the Finance Committee, which has stalled in its efforts to produce a bill -- they are still, as The New Republic reports, trying to figure out ways to pay for reform. The HELP Committee is further along, marking up a bill that includes a somewhat limited public option and could extend coverage to 97 percent of all Americans. But Wyden said that he was worried with the legislation's potential costs.

"The $600 billion didn't involve the Medicaid additions," he said, "and it went to $1.2 trillion with that. I don't know if you've heard me outline this but I think the way the public starts this topic is by saying, 'Hey guys, you're spending enough on healthcare but you're not spending it in the right places.' And I think a big part of what health reform is all about unpacking ... showing that you can spend it more efficiently. You got to, I think, first show that you're going to squeeze more of the excessive and inefficiently spent dollars out of the system before you come up with a $1.2 trillion bill. Remember the $1.2 trillion is on top of the $2.5 trillion that's being spent now."

For all the consternation such remarks are likely to cause, Wyden does hold a unique distinction within the Democratic Party. His proposal for health care reform -- the Healthy Americans Act -- actually has public, bipartisan support, including the cosponsorship of Utah Republican, Sen. Bob Bennett. The bill, which would effectively do away with the employer-based system and replace it with state-run pools of different health care coverage, has supporters on the Hill and (at least privately) in the White House. It achieves 100 percent coverage without a massive government expansion.

But strategists intimately involved in the reform battle say there is no chance that Wyden's proposal will make its way to the president's desk. "Absolutely no chance whatsoever," said one Democratic strategist. "None. Zip."

That, however, hasn't diminished Wyden's efforts to move the debate in his direction. He noted with pride that over the course of 18 months, he and Peter Orszag -- then the head of the Congressional Budget Office and now the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget -- have tried out "various iterations" of new legislation that would be both efficient and effective. Recently, he added, another senator had come on board as a cosponsor -- Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) -- which brings the number of lawmakers to14. Wyden even hints that his legislation has the president's support, too -- at least philosophically.

"[Obama] invited me to the White House a bit ago and made it clear that he had certain core principles that were very important to him. But he was very open and very flexible on the ways in which to deal with it. And I kidded him a little bit. I brought my copy of the Audacity of Hope and I showed him the section that describes giving people health care choices like (those available to) members of Congress and affordability," Wyden recalled. "I said, 'Mr. President, in the book it sounds like what you're for is the Healthy Americans Act.'"

As Wyden sees it, the key focus of the debate should remain on controlling costs in the private market, ensuring that consumers can keep their doctors regardless of what plan they enter, modernizing the medical system and providing incentives and subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance. To boil it down to an up or down vote on specific proposals, like a public option, he says, is to do a disservice to the health care debate.

"As I try to say, when I get asked about one of the individual components, it's very hard to give a yes or no answer, as much as people would like it," Wyden explains. "Real health reform is bigger than the sum of its parts."

Sarah Palin continues to be a dynamic cultural figure as much as a political one. The Alaska Governor, who announced her impending resignation from office last week, is now the inspiration for a new piece of slang. The phrase, "Pullin' a Palin," is currently defined by urbandictionary.com as:

1. Quitting when the going gets tough; abandoning the responsibility entrusted to you by your neighbors for book advances and to make money on the lecture circuit.

2. Bizarre move that will damn ambitions for higher office.

"I bet when people saw Jade they were convinced that David Caruso was pullin' a Palin."

The entry was filed by the user "No One Likes a Quitter" on Wednesday and actually represents the second Palin-related phrase on the site. "Pull a Palin," which was entered after the 2008 vice presidential debate, is defined by Urban Dictionary as: "To avoid answering questions directly because you don't know the answer, or you don't want the person to [whom you are] talking to knowing the real answer, and talking about another subject you do know something about, or something to flatter or distract the other person, instead."

This type of small-bore snark is good fodder for the partisans. For sober-minded Palin supporters, the worry has to be that the soon-to-be-former governor will be permanently defined as the butt of the political joke.

CIA Director Leon Panetta told lawmakers in a recent briefing that the intelligence agency he heads misled Congress on "significant actions" for a "number of years," a group of Democrats revealed on Wednesday.

In a letter written to Panetta on June 26 by seven Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA chief is urged to "publicly correct" an earlier statement he made in which he insisted that it was not agency policy to mislead Congress.

As the letter details, Panetta apparently acknowledged in an earlier briefing that this statement was not, in fact, true.

"Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week," the Democratic lawmakers write. "This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods."

cialetter -

The letter does not explain what those "significant actions" were. But a source with knowledge of the dispute says it concerns Bush administration interrogation policies. Panetta briefed the Intelligence Committee about these and other matters two days before the letter was written, as well as other dates.

Early reports on the matter said that the letter was signed by six Democratic lawmakers: Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., John Tierney, D-Mass., Rush Holt, D-N.J., Mike Thompson, D-Calif., Alcee Hastings, D-Fla. and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. (These are the members who signed the above document). A source with direct knowledge of the letter's content says that Rep. Adam Smith D-Wash., has also added his name to the letter.

The note was made public just hours after Congressional Quarterly reported that the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, also stated that the CIA had "affirmatively lied" to his committee.

The CIA, in a statement from spokesman George Little, pushed back on these dual allegations.

"It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress," Little said. "This Agency and this Director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up. As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees."

Nevertheless, the late-evening stories provide a boost to earlier claims from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was drastically misled by the CIA when it was briefing members about the Bush administration's enhanced interrogation techniques. They also threaten to rip open the debate on whether Congress should revamp the process of how it is briefed on covert intelligence. The Obama White House on Wednesday said it would veto any legislative effort to change the current structure of the briefings, which limits the session to only the "Gang of Eight" lawmakers. Pelosi and her allies want to give the Intelligence Committee the authority to determine who is briefed on the critical intelligence.

President Bill Clinton, who during his administration spearheaded the last effort to overhaul the health care system, predicted on Wednesday that President Barack Obama will ultimately succeed where he failed.

In a speech before the progressive youth group, Campus Progress, the 42nd President said that he suspects Obama will "get a health care reform bill" because of three distinct reasons.

"The filibuster won't be an option," Clinton said, "the small business community won't be as against any plan we got now, and frankly the economy is in such a mess that you've got a little more budget flexibility."

The former president also made it known that he fully backs a government-run option for health insurance coverage as a means of lowering costs and adding competition to the private sector.

"I'm for the public option because I think there needs to be some competition here," said Clinton. "Yes, I favor a public health option, Yes, I favor the efforts the administration has made to get the drug companies, the hospitals, and everybody else, to chip in and give up some of their projected future increases based on rampant inflation. And yes, I favor organizing a society so that old people stay healthier and young people don't get diabetes. Otherwise we will pass this health care plan and five years from now we will be back to the drawing board."

The remarks come at a time when the debate over health care, and a public option in particular, is moving towards a crucial juncture. Clinton, perhaps more than any other pol, can understand the tenuousness of the current debate. Despite having widespread public support for a health care overhaul, his process fell apart amidst disunity within the Democratic Party and distrust of his White House's approach.

Sixteen years later, he displayed a calm confidence that health care reform will be passed. Twice in his speech, Clinton referenced the fact that Democrats in the Senate now have the 60 votes needed to stem off a filibuster attempt by Republicans.

As for the other features of health care reform, Clinton kept his remarks - which were delivered without notes and lasted nearly an hour - relatively broad. He did, however, offer his support for the legislation being outlined by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, which is one of several potential measures that Congress wil consider.

"I believe that the last plan the Senate is talking about is basically quite good," Clinton said. "It won't get us to universal. It would insure about 97 percent of the people and it would be done under the president's budget allocation for health care."

Clinton's speech to the crowd of mostly college-aged attendees touched on a wide variety of topics beyond health care -- from his work in Haiti to his admiration for Amazon's Kindle. In between he managed to sneak in a few jabs at the media, which he insisted only reports on him when he slips up verbally, and the GOP.

Taking the stage to a roaring applause, Clinton said that he found current Republican complaints about Obama's economic policies, specifically the stimulus package, to be "fastidious" and "hilarious."

"The members of the other party say they are not for the stimulus, or health care reform, or fighting climate change because it costs money and they really would hate to put that debt on our grandchildren," he said. "In the last eight years I saw the surplus I left, which would have taken you out of debt, even with the 2001 recession, by 2013... I saw it blown away and the debt doubled. And in the 12 years before I became president they quadrupled the debt."

"These same people," he added, "it didn't bother them a bit to put a burden on our grandchildren to pay for a millionaire's tax cut. But if we are helping some poor person go to work, or helping some young person go to college, that is unacceptable... I'm not saying we don't have to worry about the debt. We do. It is a problem. But it is a problem that will have to be addressed after the economy grows again and we start generating revenues."

President Obama has threatened to veto a Democratic-backed bill that would likely expand the number of lawmakers who can be briefed by the White House on covert national security operations.

In a statement issued on Wednesday afternoon, the White House Office of Management and Budget said that it does support many provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 currently making its way through the House of Representatives. But it had "serious concerns with a number of provisions that would impede the smooth and efficient functioning" of the intelligence community.

In particular, the administration opposed a provision of the bill that would give Congress greater authority to decide which members are briefed on covert actions. The Intelligence Authorization Act proposed restructuring the "Gang of Eight" briefings, which are currently provided to the House and Senate leaders from both parties and the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence panels. The House legislation, backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a former intelligence chair herself), would give the intelligence committees, not the president, the authority to determine which members were briefed.

In its statement today, the White House argued that such a change would "run afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the Nation's vital national security interests."

"If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision," read the critical passage of the statement, "the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto."

The language suggests that the President, at least at this juncture, is looking to bolster his standing with the intelligence community. But it could leave the White House facing a bevy of criticism from progressives. Already there are signs of a coming uproar.

Progressives have expressed strong opposition to the president's handling of other matters involving executive authority -- in particular, his willingness to construct an alternative system of indefinite detention and continue the use of the "state secrets" privilege to avoid turning over information to federal courts.

But the issue of congressional oversight of national security affairs is particularly sensitive. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly protested what they said was a deliberate attempt by former President George W. Bush to keep them in the dark about interrogation policy.

The provision to change the Gang of Eight structure is an attempt to remedy the situation by expanding the number of lawmakers who have access to national security intelligence. The administration argued that this could be a dangerous infringement on the intelligence community's ability to do its work. But it will likely be hard for progressives to see this as anything other than Obama maintaining a Bush-era system.

Excerpts from Wednesday's White House statement are below.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 2701 - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

The Administration supports House passage of an Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2010 that would support the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Community's mission to conduct intelligence activities to protect the Nation. The Administration appreciates the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's inclusion in H.R. 2701 of many provisions submitted by the Administration.

Although the Administration is pleased with the many favorable provisions in the bill, the Administration has serious concerns with a number of provisions that would impede the smooth and efficient functioning of the IC and that would raise a number of policy, management, legal, and constitutional concerns. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these concerns, some of which are outlined below, in order to enhance the effectiveness and capabilities of the IC on behalf of the Nation.

While the Administration appreciates the funding authorized for critical intelligence programs as described in the classified schedule, it has serious concerns with certain funding reductions and other matters in the classified schedule that will be addressed separately by the Administration.

Report on Covert Actions (Section 321). The Administration strongly objects to section 321, which would replace the current "Gang of 8" notification procedures on covert activities. There is a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters, and the Administration has emphasized the importance of providing timely and complete congressional notification, and using "Gang of 8" limitations only to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting the vital interests of the United States. Unfortunately, section 321 undermines this fundamental compact between the Congress and the President as embodied in Title V of the National Security Act regarding the reporting of sensitive intelligence matters - an arrangement that for decades has balanced congressional oversight responsibilities with the President's responsibility to protect sensitive national security information. Section 321 would run afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the Nation's vital national security interests. In addition, the section raises serious constitutional concerns by amending sections 501-503 of the National Security Act of 1947 in ways that would raise significant executive privilege concerns by purporting to require the disclosure of internal Executive branch legal advice and deliberations. Administrations of both political parties have long recognized the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the Executive Branch's legal advice and deliberations. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto.

UPDATE: In a statement accompanying Leon Panetta's confirmation in February, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., suggested that the CIA Director had pledged to end the "Gang of Eight" briefing structure of the Bush years.

"In his meeting with me and at his confirmation hearing, [Panetta] provide assurances that he will put CIA activities squarely within the law and refocus the brave and dedicated professionals of the Agency on what they do best, and on what we need them for the most," said Feingold. "Congressman Panetta also committed to ending the Bush administration's practice of using 'Gang of Eight' briefings to evade its legal responsibility to brief the full congressional intelligence committees, thereby thwarting oversight."

The statement supports one component of what Pelosi is currently trying to do. But not all of it. Panetta did not, at least according to Feingold, endorse the idea that the Intelligence Committee should determine which lawmakers should be briefed.

Members of the House Financial Services Committee, which is playing a critical role in restructuring the nation's reeling financial, banking and housing sectors, have received nearly $63 million in campaign contributions from the industries they oversee.

A new analysis of campaign finance data by Public Campaign Action Fund, which provided an advance preview to the Huffington Post, shows that financial, insurance and real estate interests donated a combined $62.9 million to the 71 members of the House Financial Services Committee.

The hefty donations reflect the extent to which key companies and individuals of the financial sector have attempted to exert their influence on legislative debates even before the recent economic collapse. For good-government groups, the findings also raise a bevy of questions over just how neutral lawmakers have been in crafting solutions toward getting the financial markets and Wall Street on more stable footing.

"Wall Street and their allies on Capitol Hill should not write the rules that govern the financial, banking, and housing industries," said David Donnelly, national campaigns directory for Public Campaign Action Fund, in a prepared statement. "Their years of influence peddling, big money campaign contributions, and unaccountable rampant greed got us into this mess."

"Americans know that campaign contributions matter," Donnelly added. "Members of Congress will be held accountable for whether they side with Wall Street and the big banks or if they side with the rest of us to restore some stability and responsibility to the marketplace."

In its release, Public Campaign Action Fund notes that more than half a dozen trade organizations from these same industries were currently gearing up to defeat the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- a key component of the Obama administration's attempt to overhaul regulatory reform. With major policy overhauls like these set to be considered by Congress, campaign donations have, not surprisingly, ticked up. In the first quarter of 2009 alone, the financial, insurance and real estate industries donated $2.25 million to House Financial Service Committee members.

The top two recipients of contributions among committee members are Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who received $3.62 million and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who took in $3.12 million.

Two Senators said on Tuesday that they disagreed with President Obama's backchannel complaints that progressive advocacy groups ought to stop targeting Democrats on health care.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has been a target of the ads himself, said he was perfectly fine with progressive organizations airing television spots critical of him in his own state.

"Folks are using that wonderful First Amendment to be heard," said the Oregon Democrat, whose refusal to commit to voting for a public health insurance option has caused great frustration among health care reform advocates.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose progressive tilt has made him a champion of many such activists, was much harsher. Asked about Obama's remarks, in which the president reportedly bemoaned the ads run by a variety of left-leaning organizations, Sanders whacked the president for trying to stifle the same groups that got him elected.

"My own view is that constitution of this country provides the right of the people to get actively involved in the political process and express their point of view," the Senator told the Huffington Post. "Barack Obama would not have been elected as president of the United States without the active support of many of those people.

"I hear from people every single day who are very upset that single payer has not been given a real hearing or a real open acceptance in terms of at least being part of the debate," Sanders added. "So there's that reality. But to suggest that the people who helped elect Barack Obama, the strong grassroots activists who are fighting for working people and fighting for the environment should not be actively involved in this process, in demanding that at the very least every United States Senator in the Democratic Caucus agree to stop a Republican filibuster, I think if that message is coming from the White House it's an unfortunate message. It's a wrong message. We should encourage people to participate in the process."

The Washington Post was first to report that Obama was sour on the ad campaigns being run against moderate Democrats by groups like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," the president reportedly said on a call to six top Democrats in the House and Senate. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."

In the subsequent days, representatives from several of the organizations involved pledged to keep targeting Dems, regardless of the president's wishes. MoveOn, on Tuesday, urged its members to call the White House to register their disagreement with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's favorable comments about a public option with a trigger.

There are, of course, multiple layers to the debate over the role progressive advocacy groups play in regards to ensuring Democratic unity on health care. Publicly, no member of Congress will back the president's sentiments, lest they give the impression of being too sensitive for public office. But in private, the White House undoubtedly gains some favor for trying to deflect the heat off.

The Democratic National Committee is taking the aggressive step of going after Republican politicians, accusing them of posturing and hypocrisy, when it comes to the president's stimulus package.

On Wednesday, the DNC put out a web ad rapping the House Minority Leader John Boehner for making inaccurate remarks about the infrastructure dollars sent to Ohio through the stimulus. The video, titled "Boehner 'No Facts'" accuses the Ohio Republican of "using baseless attacks to mislead the public about the success of the Recovery Act." It also ties him to the "Bush economic policies of the past eight years that brought our economy to its knees."

What's noteworthy here is not the Bush line -- a predictable line of attack when it comes to browbeating GOP pols. Rather, it is the willingness, indeed eagerness, on the part of the DNC to engage Boehner in a debate over the stimulus.

If there is a particular vulnerability for the White House, it is the scope of president's stimulus spending. And among the places where the recovery package's shortcomings are most obvious, Boehner's home state of Ohio is one of them. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that Obama's approval rating in the Buckeye State dipped from 62 percent in May to 49 percent a month later.

But, at least at this juncture, it seems clear Democrats feel comfortable defending the White House record when it comes to its job creations policies, in part because it's easy to localize the importance of the stimulus. As the DNC ad points out, Boehner's district alone has received nearly $15 million in recovery-related projects.

That said, Boehner's office isn't exactly shying away from the debate. As the House Minority Leader's spokesman, Kevin Smith, told Politico:

"Ohio was very nearly the last state to get the first 50 percent of its stimulus construction money obligated for construction projects, which is ridiculous. As of late May, approximately, no contracts had been signed. Since that time, some contracts have been belatedly set in motion, but the entire process has been absurdly slow-moving -- just as Republicans warned it would be last winter when we called for an economic recovery bill based on fast-acting tax relief for small businesses and working families rather than spending on slow-moving government programs. It's embarrassing that the DNC can't defend its own indefensible trillion-dollar stimulus that isn't working but resorts to desperate tactics like this."

UPDATE: DNC Spokesman Hari Sevugan responds to Smith's response, again tying Boehner to the Bush economic record.

Kevin Smith and John Boehner need a history lesson. It was them and their Republican allies - including Dick Cheney and George Bush that - that sunk our economy into a near depression - while it's the very economic policies and the jobs bill passed by President Obama that have begun to turn things around. What's embarrassing is that after being one of the handful of Republican leaders responsible for pushing our economy over the cliff and putting millions of Americans out of work - that John Boehner would go on national TV and not tell the truth about the projects in Ohio that are beginning to put people back to work - no thanks to him.

Hours after he was seated, Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, let it be known that he would be sign on as a co-sponsor to the Employee Free Choice Act, the labor-backed provision that would allow unions to more easily organize, as his first legislative activity.

"I just became a cosponsor of my first bill in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act," the Minnesota Democrat declared at a gathering at the AFL-CIO on Tuesday evening.

Despite taking a backseat in terms of media attention, EFCA remains very much a hotly-debated measure within the halls of Congress. And while Franken's vote will likely boost Democratic efforts on health care and judicial nominations (he is poised to sit on the HELP and Judiciary Committees) it could be on labor matters where his voice is most felt. Certainly the union community, which is pushing for a vote on EFCA sometime this year, feels relieved that it is one senator closer to preventing a Republican filibuster on the measure.

Franken, who was officially sworn into office on Tuesday after an eight-month recount, told the AFL-CIO crowd that he shared common interests with them. According to Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the union group, Franken described the long tradition that exist in Minnesota of "having two Senators who are very pro workers and working families."

"He said it was an honor to be sworn in today and walk through the aisles with Mondale and to be sworn in on Paul Wellstone's Bible," Vale recounted. "He stressed that both men were champions of the labor movement."

Alec Baldwin has flirted with the idea of running for public office for a long time. And the election of Sen. Al Franken in Minnesota has only fueled speculation that the 30 Rock star would use the upcoming elections to dip his toe in the political waters.

Recently, Baldwin floated the idea of taking on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) who is a thorn in the side of progressives like himself. Baldwin even discussed with Playboy the idea of moving to Connecticut to launch a campaign.

"I'd love to run against Joe Lieberman," he said. "I have no use for him."

Alas, as Baldwin went on to note, the idea of being a senator from Connecticut is, at this juncture, merely a fantasy. And in a blog for the Huffington Post, the politically active movie star seemed to remove any speculation about a possible campaign in the Nutmeg State, though he left the door noticeably open about a future in politics.

"Lastly, no I am not moving to Connecticut to run against Joe Lieberman," Baldwin wrote. "As much as I think Lieberman is an enormous letdown to the party that gave him their nomination for vice president, I am sure that Democratic Party leaders in that state will take care of themselves."

"Running for public office involves among the most sacred trusts that one can enter into and I would like to give that a lot of serious thought before I decide if that is right for me and the voters I would potentially serve," he adds.

Two major progressive voices in the health care debate took White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to task on Tuesday for suggesting that a public option with triggers could be a potential compromise on reform.

One of those voices, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went so far as to insist that some Senate Democrats would vote against any proposal that didn't include a strong government-run option. Even the bill being crafted by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Sanders noted, might not get the caucus' full support because it could stray too far away from an effective overhaul of the health care system.

"I think that it is fair to say that there are a number of us who would not be voting for anything resembling a Baucus-type plan as we understand it right now," the senator told the Huffington Post, referring to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' effort at constructing a reform bill.

In separate interviews, Sanders and his fellow Vermonter, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, both took umbrage with comments Emanuel made in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that was published Monday evening. The White House chief of staff did not deviate fully from the administration's line, suggesting that all prospects for reform remained on the table. But Emanuel added something that health care operatives said they hadn't heard from the White House to date: a statement of support for a health care insurance compromise based on a public option with triggers.

The president would, hours later, issue a statement reiterating his support for a "public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest." Progressives, fearing in part that the frame of the health care debate would be irrevocably shifted, pushed back.

"I think that a public plan with triggers is not a real public plan and it is going to be a trillion dollar failure," Dean said. "Anyone who thinks a trigger is going to lead us to a good place five years from now is wrong... It is not a sensible policy compromise."

Later in the day, Sanders offered a similarly critical reaction.

"Emanuel is dead wrong," Sanders said. "The triggers are meaningless. The American people have shown in poll after poll their contempt for private health insurance companies. They don't trust them and for good reason.

"Now, where we are right now politically is the HELP Committee, of which I'm a member, is going to bring forth a public plan," Sanders added. "The House of Representatives is supporting a public plan. And President Obama ran for office talking about a strong public plan. Why, with that political reality of the American people wanting it, the House going forward, the Senate HELP Committee going forward, would Rahm Emanuel suggest that we would compromise on this issue?"

In private, White House officials say that Emanuel's remarks have been overplayed. His interview was with multiple papers, one administration official noted, yet only The Journal made him appear to be endorsing the trigger option, which would prohibit the implementation of a government-run option until certain economic conditions were met.

In the weeks ahead, the Senate is poised to merge the bills produced by the Finance and HELP committees -- a process that is likely to determine the reform's success. As that date approaches, the public statements from elected officials have grown much more forceful. Sanders' declaration that he and several colleagues would not be able to support the Finance Committee's proposal in its current form underscores just how volatile and sensitive the legislative process currently is.

"A plan that is dependent on regressive taxation, taxing health care benefits when Obama ran explicitly in opposition to McCain who advocated that, the idea of regressive taxation... the idea of minimal cost containment, the idea of no strong public plan, that is a Republican bill," Sanders said of the Finance Committee's early offering. "It is not a bill that I think a number of us in the Congress could support."

Not all the health care news on Tuesday revolved around legislative disagreement and policy dissension. Sanders noted that on a key parliamentary procedure, the Democratic Party was making progress.

"There is, I think, a growing awareness that it is absolutely important that now that we have 60 people in the caucus, that every member vote to end a Republican filibuster," said the senator. "So I think the strategy right now is that we will get 60 votes to defeat a Republican filibuster and come up with a strong health care reform piece of legislation which absolutely includes a strong public plan.... Sen. Dick Durbin is talking about it Sen. Chuck Schumer is talking about [corralling those 60 votes for cloture]. I think other people are talking about it as well."

Gov. Sarah Palin has found a way to profit politically from the self-inflicted drama that surrounds her. The Alaska governor's political action committee has been running what appears to be a fairly robust ad and fundraising drive in the wake of her announcement that she will be resigning from office.

Sources at Google point out that SarahPAC has been purchasing ads through its search engine in effort to benefit from the spike in people searching for the governor's name.

The political action committee has tailored its strategy since Palin announced her intentions to leave office. Initially Google users who typed "Sarah Palin" into the search bar were directed to a link to SarahPAC with the subhead: "Join Sarah Palin's Team. Sign Up Now To Be Part Of Sarah Palin's Official PAC."

On Tuesday, the message changed to: "Help Gov. Palin Rebuild The GOP. Donate Today."

The switch in language reflects a change in political perspective on the part of both Palin and her PAC. The governor has announced that upon leaving office she will devote her time toward national conservative objectives, including restructuring the Republican Party, rather than simply Alaskan issues. SarahPAC will serve as the fundraising basis for this effort.

Officials at the political action committee did not immediately return requests for a comment about the size and nature of their Google AdWord purchase. But officials with the search engine site said that while the purchase is evergreen (SarahPAC runs the ads regardless of when the governor is in the news) there is ample opportunity to profit from the current wave of Palin-related discussion.

"Google searches for 'Sarah Palin' are at their highest point since the election," said Galen Panger, a spokesman for Google.

As Panger noted, the term "Sarah Palin resigns" is currently the hottest topic among rising searches, followed closely by the items: "david letterman palin," "letterman palin" and "sarah palin letterman."

On Google's Hot Trends feature, Palin's name was ranked 15th on Friday. On Saturday, "Sarah Palin federal indictment" was ranked 36th on that list, while on Monday "Vanity Fair Sarah Palin" was ranked 43rd.

The increased online interest in Palin, regardless of whether it is positive or negative, provides a potentially huge financial boost to both her and her allies. Every time someone clicks on the SarahPAC link, the political action committee pays a fee because the AdWords system works on a cost-per-click basis. In the process, the PAC gets another viewer and potential donor. And when that donation is made, it gets another email address. The Obama campaign, Panger notes, said it saw a 15-to-one return on every dollar it invested in AdWord purchase.

"It is something that is part of a broader trend we are seeing," said Panger. "Campaigns and interest groups are starting organizing much earlier before campaigns and making major efforts to collect donations and email addresses."

In an effort that seemed designed to appease concerned progressive advocates, President Barack Obama issued a clarifying statement about the administration's commitment to a "public option" for health insurance while traveling in Russia on Tuesday.

"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," read the statement. "I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals."

The vague reassurance came hours after Obama's own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel suggested that the White House would be comfortable with legislation that had a public plan "triggered" in only by worsening economic conditions.

"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.

It was, White House aides insist, far from a commitment to a trigger option. But a source close to the administration, who has been in contact with the White House on health care matters, said that Emanuel has been "floating" the trigger compromise since January.

"Rahm's problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy," the source added. "He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn't mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit."

Certainly Emanuel's remarks to the Journal presented a pill too big to swallow for many Democrats. "It is actually the most ludicrous of the compromises on the table," explained one activist. "It says we should wait until the health care crisis gets worse before it gets better."

And in the hours after the interview was published, the White House clearly sensed concern bubbling. Moving with haste, aides put out a statement from the president before any major firestorm erupted.

"I think it's more of a 'progressive groups don't freak the f*** out' statement," said one health care strategist.

In private, White House officials are concerned that the debate over a public option has become so volatile that it could end up derailing the entire health care package. The president has remained loyal to such a plan, but has not demanded the same from Congress.

"The President and every member of this Administration have been consistent," said one administration official. "They aren't drawing any lines in the sand that would give people an excuse to walk away from the bill, but the President's strong support for the public option is clear - and it shows in both the Senate HELP bill and the House tri-committee bill."

The real sticking point in the health care reform debate will come once the Finance Committee releases its bill -- which likely won't include a public option -- and is forced to merge its final language with that of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

That should happen relatively soon. Lines are already being drawn in the sand. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.), said the trigger option was unlikely to get the type of support it needs from Democrats to pass through the Senate.

"My bottom-line criteria is that it has to be strong, national, and available to everyone on day one, to keep the insurance companies honest and I'm not sure we can get there," he said. "I've been talking to [Sen.] Olympia [Snowe] about this," he added, referring to the trigger option's main champion in the Senate, "but I'm not sure we can bridge that gap."

Outside government, activists seconded Schumer's statement, adding that if any compromise were to make it through Congress, it would be for a co-op plan that had robust purchasing and negotiating power.

"I think there could be some push for a co-op plan if it was national," said the strategist. "I'm not sure state-by-state will fly by itself."