...but Russ Feingold says that it comes up short on all of his criteria. If Russ says that, I doubt I want to even bother.
Baucus says that he thinks that the bill can pass. From what I'm hearing, I pretty well doubt it, since Republicans are never going to vote for anything that even hints at being reform. Honestly, if the Republicans were smart, they'd all sign on to this relatively toothless bill immediately and make a big show of being pro reform, in an attempt to head off stronger legislation. But they're not that smart.
I griped a lot about Bush keeping Congress in session just to get his FISA farce through with telecom immunity last year (among the other bully tactics he used), but it's different when it's Congress policing itself using this tactic.
It's long past due for Reid to bring the hammer. Maybe too late for him, but we'll see.
Nobody even suggested that Obama couldn't "take" heckling. He clearly dealt with the interruption and moved on (and accepted the dude's half-apology later).
Now, I do love my Jesse Ventura, but his problem was that he didn't demand respect (and a hostile legislature sure wasn't just going to hand it to him), and wasn't able to get much of his agenda (except the light rail, and bless him for it) passed. If he'd been less of a crankypants and more of a leader in the spirit of what the public wanted when they elected him, then maybe he would've been more successful, and perhaps even ran for another term.
I agree that Democrats should stand their ground, but they should do it in the proper forum. For example, Joe Wilson chose the wrong forum, and it's perfectly legitimate for the House to police its own.