Democrats: Define Health Care This Week or Kill It

In 1993 and 1994, Washington was caught up in the Clinton health care quagmire, and the lesson then is similar to the lesson now. Even a shorter bill (2009-2010 versions) is really hard to stuff into a 30 second soundbite. But the argument against it was proven by the famous Harry and Louise ads to fit easily into a spot or soundbite. Same thing today. The only argument that needs to be said against anything in this economy, as Senator-Elect Scott Brown showed us, is "It will cost you more money."

Now the White House is dispatching political architect David Plouffe to identify problems early in 2010 battleground states. Newsflash: don't bother. It is bad everywhere. Really, really bad. Don't spend the money on Plouffe telling you that. He already knows it and so must the White House. As the saying goes, trick me once shame on you, trick me twice, shame on me. Is there anyone in the White House with some guts?

The writing is on the wall. It was there prior to Scott Brown beating Martha Coakley too. Read it, but don't waste time weeping. Enough. Take New Hampshire. Sen. Judd Gregg's open seat; Rep. Hodes (D) versus former AG Kelly Ayotte and former GOP nominee for Governor Ovide LaMontagne. She is ahead. In New Hampshire's two congressional districts, one open, both races favor the Republican. Okay, that one's analyzed. Next state?

The point is this: the pain out there is real and deep, and voters have lost their belief in either party. People need jobs. Health care? Only if you can get it done now and off the table, so you can work on creating jobs. This week, the Massachusetts election won't soak up coverage. Haiti is an important story, but voters have waited a long time to hear what this health care proposal is about. The Obama administration needs to move it or move on, for the sake of the country, as well as their own sake.