With Lieberman using his all-important 60th vote to get the public option (government funded heath insurance) out of the healthcare reform bill, a lot of progressive voices (such as The Daily Kos) are calling for the current bill to be ditched. In short, it's the progressives teaming up with the Republicans because the current bill doesn't go far enough.
The argument, of course, is (well, one of the arguments, anyway) that the current bill is a windfall for insurance companies since it requires insurance yet does not provide a government option. On the other hand, it has stuff like preventing the pre-existing condition clause and, it would seem, prevents insurance from dropping you because you didn't declare some pre-existing condition somewhere at some time.
These are good things and, I don't think, insubstantial.
The problem, I don't think--at least for the hard-core left--isn't the bill per se. It's the whole Obama-as-a-Moderate 'betrayal.' The theory goes that "Barack 'W' Obama' was supposed to be a super-left Manchurian candidate who would instantly close Gitmo (he's, as of yesterday, required a facility in Illinois to be upgraded to hold Gitmo inmates), get us out of Afghanistan (instead of sending 30k more troops), and instantly overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell.
As he hasn't done any of these things, progressive commenters (in the more restrained general blogopsphere) have decided that there's no party and no candidate for them! That they'll have to go their own way in 2010--because that'll show the Democrats who their base really is.
Unfortunately for them this is not true: they do have a party and a candidate. In fact, he's one that's already shown up the Democrats!
They can vote for Ralph Nader.
That'll learn 'em.
-Marco