One year after (100 years, actually, if you're counting from the time Teddy Roosevelt launched his campaign for national health insurance) negotiations started on comprehensive health care reform - we're still talking about it.

But something has changed in the last few weeks.

President Barack Obama has energized his Party mostly through fear - if you don't pass health care reform you'll go down in flames in November's mid-term elections, he has essentially told them.

Obama has also campaigned across the country, finding his 2008 fiery voice once again and rallying support among grass roots Democrats who had been demoralized by the last few months of looming failure.

And it seems to be working - there is a very real chance that this bill will finally pass without a single Republican vote.

Critical to this change in fortune for the health care reform proclaimed dead some time ago, has been the insurance companies themselves, historic and implacable foes of reform. 

In an act of hubris or shear stupidity, some insurance companies, like giant insurer Anthem, significantly raised rates on policies a few weeks ago - thereby demonstrating the ongoing risk to national solvency of runaway health care costs and an insurance industry unable to ever act for the common good or even their true self-interest (lesson here: if you're about to torpedo health care reform again, don't flaunt it by raising rates).

Also important, the White House changed the framing of the issue. 

Where as the raison d'être of reform had been to cover the uninsured - making anybody with even bad insurance fear change and the unknown - they are now selling the benefits of the reform to the majority of the electorate who already has insurance but is reasonably anxious about the future should they change jobs, get seriously ill or simply if their employer drops coverage because of un-affordable costs.

The change in frame, the insurance companies collective hara-kiri, plus a realpolitik approach from the White House have transformed what could (still be if it does not pass) failure into potential victory.

The next few days and weeks will be decisive both for health care and the fate of the Democrats and the President's ability to implement the rest of his agenda.

Here's the President at one his rallies:

From the White House transcript of the President's speech:

There’s no government takeover, unless you consider reining in insurance companies a government takeover -- and I think that’s the right thing to do.  There’s no cutting of Medicare benefits.  There’s just cutting out fraud and waste in Medicare to make it stronger.  What we’re proposing is a common-sense approach to protecting you from insurance company abuses and saving you money.  That’s the proposal, and it is paid for.  And I believe that Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care reform.  The time for talk is over; it’s time to vote.

ABC News reports on the Democrats' determination to pass the bill:

The AP reports:

House Democratic leaders on Thursday worked to rally their rank-and-file members around last-minute agreements on insurance taxes and prescription drug coverage that could move President Barack Obama's overhaul of the nation's health care system a step closer to reality.

Although some issues remained unresolved — including a divisive battle over restricting taxpayer funding of abortion — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said: "We have enough to move forward."

She asked Democrats at a two-hour, closed-door briefing whether they wanted to vote sooner rather than later on the legislation. They responded with a broad shout of "Yes!" according to lawmakers coming out of the session.

White House officials and congressional Democratic leaders met Wednesday evening in Pelosi's office. Aides said they agreed on scaling back a health insurance tax that unions object to, and on gradually closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap. They were not far apart on other major issues, including Medicaid funding for states that already provide above-average benefits, and on improving subsidies that would be available under the plan to help individuals and families pay their premiums.

Nancy Pelosi said last night on Charlie Rose that she has the votes to pass the bill:

First, she has mounted a spirited defense of Dick Cheney's torture policies even as they have been declared illegal -  by such radicals as the second Bush Administration and the United States Congress.

Second, Cheney seems to be working on a political campaign.  Her ambition to be the next Republican uber leader is obvious and understandable - her father has been at the core of every Republican administration since Nixon's and, well, politics has been very lucrative for the Cheneys, both in terms of raw power and financial opportunities (hello Halliburton).

So Liz Cheney has been an ever more vocal force in the Washington debate since her father left office.

Appearing on FoxNews, the Sunday talkshows and founding the KAS organization, she has raised her profile and positioned herself as kind of Margaret Thatcher with blood lust. 

KAS is "Keep America Safe" and it serves as a clearing house for terrorising Americans with apocalyptic warnings that the Obama Administration is just too weak to keep the country safe.

From KAS' mission statement:

...Amidst the great challenges to America’s security and prosperity, the current administration too often seems uncertain, wishful, irresolute, and unwilling to stand up for America, our allies and our interests...

Led by Dick Cheney and a compliant Bush, the last Administration spread fear and anxiety through the nation.  Post the 9/11 attack, an attack that they themselves failed to stop in spite of well documented intelligence briefings, Cheney used psychological terror to keep the country, and its spineless politicians,  in check.

Terror warnings were raised and lowered to reflect the political needs of the Administration.  Talk of "mushroom clouds" was used to justify an attack against a country that was not at war with the United States (Iraq), even as Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape during the Battle of Tora Bora.

The creation of CIA "black sites", essentially secret prisons where suspected terrorists where sent to be subjected to "enhanced interrogations", i.e., torture, were all justified by a Vice President whose moral compass broke long ago (Nixon's White House?). 

The damage to American prestige in the world of this and the many other acts of alleged behavior explicitly banned by international treaties, American law and military rules and tradition, is incalculable.

So here comes Liz Cheney with a fundamentally insane attack of lawyers who have represented and defended suspected terrorists at Guantanamo (itself established on novel, not to say erroneous, legal arguments). 

These attorneys, Americans and loyal members of the Justice Department, connecting with the most basic traditions of American justice, were performing their duty in the judicial system - representing clients to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of a trial.

But Cheney launched a vicious attack against them.  In a TV spot, Cheney accuses these attorneys of being terrorists - she calls them the "Al-Qaeda 7". 

Not surprisingly, the sane and truly patriotic wing of the Republican Party is rejecting Cheney's attempt to vilify these people.

Respected figures in the Conservative movement, people that even Cheney could not try to destroy with attacks on their patriotism, are blasting her.

It would seem that 60 years after Joe McCarthy terrorised the nation with false accusations and terror stories about a "Fifth Column", those kinds of tactics are no longer an acceptable part of the political discourse.

Cheney is a radical with tremendous resources to spread her terrorist message.  All Americans should be worried about her plans to take over America.  All freedom-loving Americans who believe that the United States Constitution is a sacred document that cannot be abrogated by executive fiat should take notice of Ms. Cheney's actions - and get ready to defend our Democracy.

Here's Liz Cheney's ad accusing the attorneys of being collaborators or, more graphically, "the Al-Qaeda 7":

The New York Times reports:

...[T]he group, which is run by Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, have also split the tightly knit world of conservative legal scholars. Many conservatives, including members of the Federalist Society, the quarter-century-old policy group devoted to conservative and libertarian legal ideals, have vehemently criticized Ms. Cheney’s video, and say it violates the American legal principle that even unpopular defendants deserve a lawyer.

“There’s something truly bizarre about this,” said Richard A. Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor and a revered figure among many members of the society. “Liz Cheney is a former student of mine — I don’t know what moves her on this thing,” he said.

On Sunday, the Brookings Institution issued a letter criticizing the “shameful series of attacks” on government lawyers, which it said were “unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.”

The letter was signed by a Who’s Who of former Republican administration officials and conservative legal figures, including Kenneth W. Starr, the former special prosecutor, and Charles D. Stimson, who resigned from the second Bush administration after suggesting that businesses might think twice before hiring law firms that had represented detainees. Other Bush administration figures who signed include Peter D. Keisler, a former acting attorney general, and Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general.

The letter cited “the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients,” including the defense by John Adams of British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre, and noted that some detainee advocates, who worked pro bono, have made arguments that swayed the Supreme Court.

Former George W. Bush Attorney General and respected Conservative judge Michael B. Mukasey refutes Cheney in the Wall Street Journal:

...Most recently, lawyers now employed at the Justice Department who, while in private practice, volunteered to represent suspected terrorist detainees, or argued legal positions supporting various rights of such detainees, have been portrayed as in-house counsel to al Qaeda.

This is all of a piece, and what it is a piece of is something both shoddy and dangerous. A lawyer who represents a party in a contested matter has an ethical obligation to make any and all tenable legal arguments that will help that party. A lawyer in public service, particularly one dealing with sensitive matters of national security, has the obligation to authorize any step or practice the law permits in order to keep the nation and its citizens safe. And a lawyer who undertakes to represent someone whom his neighbors—perhaps rightly—revile as a threat to the public welfare is obligated to bring his talents to bear just as forcefully in favor of that client as he would if he were representing Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, the French artillery officer who in 1895 was found guilty of treason and sent to Devil's Island for little more than being Jewish.

Political disagreements with the Bush administration fueled and still fuel much of the intensity underlying attacks on Messrs. Yoo and Bybee. Similarly, I believe the results achieved by lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees have had a good deal to do with the criticism of them...

...But that prudence is not properly exercised by arguing that lawyers who defended drug cases, or worked on defense teams in death-penalty cases, or helped bring legal proceedings in behalf of those detained as terrorists, are automatically to be identified with their former clients and regarded as a fifth column within the Justice Department. The rules of conduct of the District of Columbia bar, for example, direct that representation of a client not be portrayed as endorsement of the client's views or behavior.

If the Department of Justice comes to attract only lawyers who have spent their professional energy principally in avoiding matters of controversy, the quality of lawyers willing to serve at the department will decline, and the department will suffer, as will we all.

And Jonathan Capehart, a conservative commentator at the Washington Post, blogged this:

In this hyper-partisan age, the bipartisan outrage being expressed over the reprehensible television ad from the fearmongers at Keep America Safe is encouraging. The organization run by Liz Cheney, a state department official under President Bush and the daughter of the former vice president, is attempting to sow seeds of distrust by raising doubts about the loyalties of attorneys who once volunteered to handle the cases of suspected terrorists and are now working in the Justice Department. Wanting to know the identities of the lawyers is one thing. Smearing them as the "the al Qaeda 7" is over the line by a mile.

As The Post editorialized on Saturday, the ad gives the impression the attorneys "had committed a crime or needed to be exposed for subverting national security." And, sadly, it sought to remind folks that part of this nation's grand legal tradition is volunteers taking on cases of suspects who aren't popular or necessarily innocent but who need representation. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that detainees at Guantanemo Bay can challenge their detentions, groups like Keep America Safe is determined to ignore that fact.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger penned a defense for one of the lawyers, Karl Thompson. His work was "not only part of a lawyer's professional obligation but a small act of patriotism as well," Dellinger wrote. He added that all the lawyers targeted by Keep America Safe "deserve our respect and gratitude for fulfilling the professional obligations of lawyers." And Dellinger got some serious back-up today from a group of conservative lawyers and former Bush administration officials, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr and deputy attorney general Larry Thompson. "To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit," the signatories noted. I have nothing to add to their persuasive argument. Unfortunately, I'm not too hopeful that it will stop Keep America Safe and its acolytes from trying it again.

Vice President Joe Biden is today making an official visit to Israel to achieve two major goals.  First, to reassure the Israelis that the United States remains its closest, most steadfast ally.  And second, to convince the hard-line government of Benjamin Netanyahu to enter into good-faith negotiations with the Palestinians - and thereby defuse the perpetual ticking bomb of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Over the last year tensions have emerged between Washington and Jerusalem.  Frustrated by lack of any meaningful progress in bringing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close, the United States has pressured Israel to stop any further development on Palestinian lands, a source of tremendous friction for the Arabs.

This pressure has come as a shock to the Israeli establishment.  During the George W. Bush years American policy had tilted away from the honest-broker posture of past Republican and Democratic administrations, to a noticeable pro-Israel bias.  The prospects for a lasting peace moved further and further into the future as Palestinians felt abandoned by the historic American referee that had guaranteed them over decades of negotiations a fair deal.

But now these two very close allies are getting even closer.  The prospect of a nuclear Iran, an Iran determined to be the regional superpower that checks Israel while dominating its Arab neighbors, has once again brought the U.S. and Israel into strategic confluence.

It has been reported that the Obama Administration is of the view that lasting stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved until a final peace is struck between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 

American policy in the region has therefore focused on a simultaneous pressuring for a final peace accord while stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel has stated in the past that it will not wait indefinitely to respond - read unilateral military strike - to what it sees as Iran's hostile intent in developing illegal nuclear weapons capability. 

Israelis see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat - a threat repeated over and over again by the Islamic Republic's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an avowed Holocaust-denier.

The U.S. has also said that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.  The stage is therefore set for a confrontation with Iran.

If the United States is able to broker a final peace agreement between Israel and Palestine it will not only defuse the decades-long conflict, it will also create significant good will in the Arab world - and isolate Iran in the process.

It may even pave the way to a negotiated deal with Iran. 

Or even create the political space to militarily destroy Iran's dangerous and unacceptable nuclear program without sparking a regional conflagration.

CNN reports on the Vice President's trip:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden emphasized the close relationship between the United States and Israel as he met with Israeli leaders Tuesday, a visit that also touched on relations with Palestinians and Iran.

Biden, who arrived in Israel on Monday, first met with Israeli President Shimon Peres at his official residence in Jerusalem.

"The bond between our two nations has been and will remain unshakable," Biden wrote in the guest book. "Only together can we achieve lasting peace in the region."

Biden said he hoped the talks with Peres would be "a vehicle by which we can begin to allay that layer of mistrust that has built up in the last several years" between the two countries.

"There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security -- none at all," Biden said.

Peres began a long discussion about what the United States should do about Iran and the Middle East peace process. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel, he said, were a coverup for the "hegemony" it seeks in the region.

"The United States should lead the Iranian policy," Peres said. "There is nobody else in the world."

From Al Jazeera a report on the challenges for peace:

From the AP, here's Vice President Biden speaking in Israel:

While some doubt that those very words were uttered, the sentiment was certainly correct. 

The U.S. invasion of Iraq plunged that country into sectarian and ethnic warfare - and kept the United States military tied down, spending blood and treasure, for years with no clear strategic objective to justify it.

Historians will continue to debate the wisdom of an invasion of a country that did not attack the United States - it is one of the most controversial actions by any President in American history. 

And the fascinating psychological dimensions of this war of choice - did Dubya do it to avenge or surpass his father? -will be analysed endlessly in years to come as well.

But yesterday's election, in which over 60% of the electorate participated in spite of threats of violence from what remains of the insurgency, could be an important turning point.

The United States' policy is to begin a draw down of military forces by next year.  Both supporters and critics of that policy looked to these most recent elections as a test: is Iraqi society fixed enough and its leadership focused enough on Democracy that an American pull-out is either possible or even desirable?

While the election was marred by sporadic violence, the high level of participation and initial results of the vote - no party emerged dominant, reflecting the diversity of the Iraqi people - is being pronounced a success by both Iraqi leaders and international observers.

Indeed, if stability continues to flourish across this very damaged, divided society, we could actually see the American timetable met - and our intervention in Iraq actually begin to come to an end.

ABC News interviews General Ray Odierno, the commander on the ground, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill:

The New York Times reports:

Iraqis defied a barrage of mortars, rockets and other bombs to show up to the polls in strength on Sunday, in elections that have been seen as a critical test of Iraq’s stability and a last milestone before American troops leave the country.

Official results of the elections are not expected for at least a few days. The Iraqi Election Commission said at a news conference on Monday that 62 percent of voters went to the polls on Sunday, according to news reports. That marked a rise in turnout from provisional elections a year ago, but a decrease compared with the at least 70 percent of registered voters who turned out for nationwide elections in 2005.

Insurgents here vowed to disrupt the election, and the concerted wave of attacks — as many as 100 thunderous blasts in the capital alone starting just before the polls opened — did frighten voters away, but only initially.

The shrugging response of voters could signal a fundamental weakening of the insurgency’s potency. At least 38 people were killed in Baghdad. But by day’s end, turnout was higher than expected, and certainly higher than in the last parliamentary election in 2005, marred by a similar level of violence.

The AP reports:

 The President praised the election:

Teddy Roosevelt established America as a world power even as he reformed the monopolies that were strangling American workers and the economy. 

Dwight Eisenhower beat the Axis in the field of battle, concluded the Korean War and stared down the Soviet Union across the globe. 

Ronald Reagan pushed the decomposing carcass of the U.S.S.R. over a cliff and ushered in the end of the Cold War.

These Presidents, Republicans all, stand as some of the most respected, consequential presidents in America's history.

Fact is, the Republican Party has produced some of the best leaders of this country, men who achieved great things for the people and nation. 

The dice throw of history gave us these different presidents in the times when the very existence of the Republic was in question.

We were lucky - and the voters of time, wise.

To say the obvious, leaders matter and great leaders are called for at all times when your country bestrides the world as the greatest power since Rome dominated the ancient world.

Our standard for the election of a President must therefore be at the very highest levels.  George Washington set the tone for greatness - and every one of his successors is measured by that exacting metric.

So as we now look at the prospects for the Party of Lincoln in the coming 2012 Presidential election, we are struck by the Sarah Palin juggernaut - the immense passion she has unleashed among the core of the Republican Party as they look for a savior from what they have termed Obama's "socialism".

There is among the GOP leadership and grassroots a search for a 2012 standard bearer who will vanquish the forces that they think will destroy America - even if they must vilify and caricature the current President of the Unitied States in order to be successful at electing a Republican President in 2012.

For such a lofty, crucial mission, one would think that the Party would turn to a proven leader, a person of such unimpeachable qualifications, temperament and intellectual vigor that his or her election would guarantee that the next GOP President will stand proudly among the Pantheon of Great Republican Presidents.

So how to explain Sarah Palin's enduring popularity, not to say adulation among the Party faithful?

When she cut short her term as Alaska's governor, theoretically her claim to executive experience, she offered a curious reason:  she could better serve the country by not being a public servant.

She also took the opportunity to slap the pesky press for her troubles in Alaska - a pattern that has been repeated over and over again as her very public mistakes have tripped her up.

Her recent book, a huge success, was seen as a classic pre-candidate move meant to test the waters of grass roots support for a run at the White House.

These opaque moves - why leave the Governorship even before finishing your first term? - have gained deeper meaning as members of the John McCain campaign have gone out of their way to reveal the real Palin behind the scenes of the staged managed campaign events. 

According to these McCain staffers, the Sarah Palin coming into the campaign was highly uninformed even about basic American history, international politics, economics or geography. 

Moreover, she was not a diligent student - or even a competent one - as they tried to give her basic Education 101 so that she would not look like an undereducated rube in front of the national and international press that covered the most important election in the world.

The McCain team now say that Palin was unqualified to be President of the United States.

And even some highly respected Conservative commentators have made the case that Palin is not of Presidential timber - that she is a lucky celebrity with a limited range of actual talent.

One is struck by Palin's contrast to the lions of the GOP.  Lincoln was an autodidact that became an intellectual able to grapple with the most complex leadership and moral issues of his time. Theodore Roosevelt was a voracious reader with a a defined, clear world view and plan of action.  Eisenhower represented the very finest of our country's military education system and managed one of the most complex human endeavors of all time - successfully leading American forces to victory over the Nazis.  And Ronald Reagan, who at times was derided for "just being an actor", was actually a fine writer who documented his deep knowledge of history and world events in a series of hand-written diaries that dispel the notion that he was anything but a brilliant man.

On the other hand, Palin has been called "horrifying" by one of Ronald Reagan's key advisors.  She was unable, now famously remembered, to answer the basic question of "what do you read?" from the menacing Katie Couric. 

She could not answer, perhaps, because "I don't read" would have doomed McCain's campaign.  She was left just looking more stunned than moronic.  But it was a moment of self-revelation that speaks volumes about Palin and her real self.

More recently, as Palin has emerged as popular speaker, leader of the Tea Party and active campaigner for the more radical-right members of the Republican Party, Palin has hinted broadly that she is ready to serve the country in some other, presumably more profoundly important capacity. 

The flirting with a run for President in 2012 is public and obvious.

For many listening, and there were many, Palin's performance at the Tea Party convention was powerful.  She gave a rousing speech that simultaneously attacked the Obama Administration and the traditional Republican Party establishment. 

She was received as a hero - the savior.

Now Palin is flying around the country giving speeches and supporting candidates that she deems worthy to take back the country.  This is classic favor bank building prior to a national run.

And while no one knows what are her real motivations (money, fame power, all of the above) , one can only think that the Republican mainstream party is looking to Palin with a bit of fear.

Although Palin's overall negative ratings have shot up, her support among core Republicans remains high.  According to February's ABC News/Washington post poll, "69 percent of Republicans see her favorably".  Could she use that popularity to influence the Republican primaries, pushing forth candidates so far to the right that they unelectable in a general election?

And as far as 2012 goes, party primaries are usually won by candidates that can motivate the base of their parties. 

With her proven ability of ginning up excitement and action on the part of her supporters - how hard will it be for Palin to get in front of the 2012 GOP hopefuls and drive the whole primary process into a "who is most the right-wing" debate - and fatally position the winning Republican as too Conservative for the mainstream?

Even as we speculate on Palin's future, she continues to apply her folksy charm to talk away even the most bizarre aspects of her public persona.  Remember the famous notes on her hands?  Derided as the action of a mentally weak, generally unprepared person unable to remember even her basic talking points - it was actually Biblically inspired.  Really.

Here Sarah Palin explains, at a Ohio Right to Life fundraiser, why God would approve of her hand notes: