After hearing the heart wrenching stories of those with inadequate health care coverage, and reading the writings of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)  who called health care reform ‘the cause of his life,’ I came to the realization that reform was essential and could not wait any longer. Employment status, financial resources, and the type of sickness one has, should not be factors that decide whether an individual can have access to needed medical attention. Health care coverage is not a luxury that is meant to be enjoyed by the upper echelon of society; it is an undeniable human right.

Healthcare coverage is a fundamental right that needs to be protected and upheld by our government. Up until now, our democracy has failed to fulfill its obligation to the people of this great nation. Too many people have suffered, and too many lives which could have been saved have been lost. Government should exist to protect and preserve the lives of its people. With this landmark legislation, people from all walks of life, from every region of this country, will be able to attain quality and affordable health care.

 The bill is not perfect; no bill produced on Capitol Hill in this political climate ever is. However, this bill is a positive step toward universal health care. At the core, this bill provides for the principles that will positively influence lives of Americans, and change the way the health care industry conducts business entirely.

Health insurance market exchanges will be established, which will allow for a greater amount of choices and drive down prices for the consumer. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny individuals for pre-existing conditions.  This concept of ending discrimination among patients is elementary and just; people, sick and healthy, should be relieved that this evil practice of denial has seen its last days of use. Finally, this bill will extend coverage to over 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. This expansion to men, women and children who are in need, and are victims of exploitation by the current healthcare system, is a cause for celebration.

This journey toward reform has been tough and indeed a struggle of epic proportions. It has brought out the best and worst of our politicians and our citizenry. The passage of this reform by the House is utterly historic and the true impacts of this legislation cannot be expressed in words alone. However, the work on this matter is not done. The progressive movement and desire for social justice has yet to be completed. President Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate deserve praise. Yet, at the end of the day, this passage is not just a political victory for the White House or the Democratic Party, it is a victory for all Americans.

The Obama administration’s “A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” would dismantle the concept of annual benchmarks and, instead, institute a series of rewards for schools that demonstrate progress. In his weekly radio address Saturday, Pres. Barack Obama called for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first passed in 1965, which was a staple of Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty initiative. Since 1965, it has been reauthorized by Democratic and Republican administrations numerous times.

Obama’s version of reauthorization will be reviewed by the House Education and Labor Committee sometime this week. Obama stressed the importance of putting this reform into law by stating, “Unless we take action, unless we step up, there are countless children who will never realize their full talent and potential.” Under Obama’s proposed $50 billion education plan, students would no longer be called to perform at grade level in areas of reading and math by the year of 2014. Instead, schools would be expected to prepare all graduating high school students for college or a career by 2020.

Schools would also be granted more flexibility by enabling officials to use measurements in subjects other than reading and math to signal progress. With the No Child Left Behind Law, many in the educational field feel that numerous subjects have been neglected at the expense of trying to raise math and reading scores. According to Dean Birch, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “Obama’s plan redirects the focus of education back to all courses with the goal of educating students to be good citizens and human beings.”

On Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan visited the morning talk shows to publicize the administration’s plan. As a guest on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Duncan said, “The previous law led to a lowering of standards and narrowed the curriculum and we want to reverse all that. We want to raise the bar for all children and we want to reward success.”

However, this optimism over the new educational policy is not being felt by all, as several organizations have already expressed doubts in various areas of this reform package. For example, the education community is  particularly concerned with the idea of the government punishing the lowest performing five percent of schools by firing their teachers.

According to the National Education Association’s Web site, NEA President Dennis Van Roeke said, “This blueprint’s accountability system still relies on standardized tests to identify winners and losers. We were expecting more funding stability to enable states to meet higher expectations.”

Earlier in the week, Pres. Barack Obama met with top congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle to discuss the potential possibility of reaching a consensus on a jobs bill. A sense of optimism existed that perhaps a bipartisan resolution would soon take shape. The measure that was the topic of discussion was the one produced by the Senate Finance Committee. 

This bipartisan resolution crafted by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) was estimated to have cost $85 billion and attracted support from members across the entire political spectrum. Despite the realistic chances of the bill reaching the President’s desk, which has been a rarity in the current political climate, Reid and the Democratic leadership are in favor of adopting a smaller and more centralized jobs bill.

According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “Reid is trying to get something smaller but still get bipartisan support. However, his recent efforts could make it harder to do so.”

The 361-page Grassley-Baucus bill contained numerous extra provisions and pork barrel projects that Democrats claim are unrelated to true job creation. In efforts to limit unnecessary bill spending, which could be used against Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, Reid is insisting that his $15 billion resolution be signed into law. Reid criticized the Baucus-Grassley bill of having a job creating message that was “watered down with people wanting other things in this big package.” 

Reid’s plan does offer numerous policies which are favored by both parties. It calls for Orrin Hatch’s (R-UT) and Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) provision of using $13 billion as a tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers. The bill also includes tax breaks for businesses that purchase new equipment for their companies and further invests into highway and infrastructure projects.  

This simplified approach to job creation has angered several Republicans, including Hatch and Grassley, who believe that Reid’s motion is derived from partisan tactics and questioned whether or not this smaller package will actually create jobs. 

An official comment from a spokesman at Grassley’s office said, “Sen. Reid’s announcement sends a message that he wants to go partisan and blame Republicans when Sen. Grassley and others were trying to find common ground on solutions to help get the economy back on track and people back to work.”

This past Tuesday, high ranking officials from the Pentagon visited Capitol Hill to meet with senators to discuss the administration’s plan.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen, chairman of the joints chiefs of staff, stood before the Senate Armed Service Committee to present a new approach and answer questions from skeptical senators. Since its implementation in 1993 under Democratic President Bill Clinton, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been an issue engulfed in controversy.  

The central points of this policy forbid openly gay and lesbian individuals from serving their country, and prohibit military leadership from questioning the sexual orientation of service members. 

This policy has angered many in the gay and lesbian community which has fought to have this law repealed. Over the past several years, this movement has gained momentum as past arguments favoring “don’t ask, don’t tell” no longer seem to resonate as strongly as they did in the early nineties. 

According to Elizabeth Stiles, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “As societal attitudes about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have become more favorable, many people are unconvinced by these old arguments.”

During the campaign, Obama promised he would work with Congress for new legislation. In his most recent State of the Union address, he called upon Congress to repeal the “law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” 

Following the President’s initiative, the Pentagon has taken the first steps to adopt a new policy. Gates said, “We have received our orders from the commander-in-chief and we are moving accordingly.”  

The Pentagon has set a goal of getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” by the year’s end. In order to do so in the most effective matter, Gates has set for a study group to be established to provide insight and recommendations. 

Gates has asked Commander of United States Army Europe, Gen. Carter Ham, and Jeh Johnson from the Department of Defense General Counsel to lead this endeavor. 

This controversial policy change already has the support of the nation’s top officer in the military. “Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,’ Admiral Mullen told Senators. Despite the support from the Pentagon and the White House, several Republicans have expressed doubts whether or not it is the appropriate time for such action. 

Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and John McCain (R-AZ) have cited the potential negative impacts on unit cohesion and discipline if a policy alteration takes place. 

McCain said, “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has been an imperfect but effective policy. And at this moment, when we are asking more of our military than at any time in recent memory, we should not repeal this law.”

Speaking to a nationally televised joint session of Congress, Obama used his first State of the Union Address to reassure the American people that he was capable of leading a country that remains nervous and uncertain about the future.

In a speech that lasted almost 70 minutes, Obama concentrated on domestic issues and laid out his agenda for the upcoming year. The topics and the tone of his speech were more moderate than his last speech to a joint session of Congress, but still remained loyal to core Democratic values. 

With the country weary of his administration’s intentions and following the recent upset victory of Republican Sen. Scott Brown in the historically Democratic state of Massachusetts, Obama attempted to appeal to independents and moderates not only on Capitol Hill, but also across the nation.

His speech especially focused on creating jobs and ensuring that an economic recovery would take place. Obama said, “Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that’s why I’m calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”

According to Dean Birch, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “Obama understands that with 20 percent unemployment in some sectors and 10 percent unemployment overall, jobs will be the most important thing to people.”

In order to initiate the process, Obama offered several proposals, including using the $30 billion paid back to the federal government from the Wall Street bailout to assist banks at the local level in their efforts to provide credit to struggling small businesses. 

He also called upon the nation to double its exports over the span of the next five years, with the hopes of creating an additional two million jobs for Americans. Both of these proposals would complement Obama’s plan to cut taxes for the middle-class and increase tax credits for small businesses.

Obama also addressed the Republican concern of deficit spending. He vowed to install a three year freeze on discretionary domestic spending, and urged Congress to fully adopt the policy of “pay-as-you-go,” which would increase fiscal discipline in legislation passed by Congress. 

The Republican response to Obama’s address was given by newly elected Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia. In November, McDonnell defeated Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds, and has been a part of the Republican resurgence over the past few months. Criticizing the White House’s course of action, McDonnell said, “The president’s partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one. The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.” 

Although there were efforts to reach across party lines, there were still moments of confrontation. For example, openly challenging Republicans and their opposition to various pieces of legislation, Obama said, “Just saying ‘no’ to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.” 

“President Obama engaged America in a conversation about what has worked, what needs improvement and how we can move forward together. Senate Democrats view the challenge of cleaning up the mess we inherited as an opportunity to set our nation back on the path to progress and prosperity,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in an official statement.  

Last year’s top two domestic priorities, a greater commitment to clean energy and health care reform, did receive some attention. Despite the fact that both matters remain in political gridlock on Capitol Hill, Obama pushed Congress to pass strong bills regarding each issue. 

He reminded Congress about the positive impacts of what green energy can do for a struggling economy, and when addressing the issue of health care, he encouraged Congress “not to walk away from reform.”

However, with his stunning victory on Jan. 18, Brown has burst onto the national political scene. The impact of his election victory extends beyond the borders of Massachusetts, as Brown has become the crucial 41st Republican in the United States Senate. 

Brown was able to secure a victory over the heavily favored Democratic candidate Martha Coakley with 52 percent of the vote. Coakley, Massachusetts’ attorney general, had been expected by political pundits to win the Senate seat, which was held by the late Edward Kennedy for nearly 47 years until his passing in late August. 

Leading up to the final weeks of the campaign, Coakley had held demanding leads in numerous polling figures. However, her lead began to steadily decline as the Coakley campaign committed a number of gaffes. 

For example, in the final debate among Massachusetts Senate Candidates, Coakley implied that, in essence, Afghanistan was free of terrorists. Brown was quick to criticize this belief, portraying Coakley as misguided on areas of foreign policy. 

Coakley’s other slip-up occurred during a local radio talk show interview, when she accidentally confused Curt Schilling, a beloved Boston Red Sox icon and a Brown supporter, for a New York Yankees fan. This misstep badly hurt Coakley as she tried to win over the support of the diehard Bostonian sports fans. 

With Coakley not appearing as strong of a candidate as she was earlier in the campaign, the likeable Brown was able to increase his popularity among Massachusetts’ voters. Using the appeal of being a regular guy who drove to his campaign locations in his pickup truck, independent voters began to flock toward Brown. 

Despite a last minute visit on the Sunday before Election Day from President Barack Obama, Coakley was unable to motivate her base to the polls. This allowed Brown to gather enough support from independents and moderates to become the first Republican to hold a senate seat in of Massachusetts since 1972. 

During his victory speech, Brown addressed his fellow politicians in Washington, particularly the Democrats. He said, “I hope they are paying close attention because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken.” The arrival of Brown to the Senate has created a compelling situation as Obama and the Democrats try to make good on top domestic priority of health care reform, and then try to pass climate change legislation. 

Brown has already stated that he will not support the current versions of health care reform, and his opposition as the 41st Republican Senator rids the Democrats of their once supermajority of 60 votes. With the inability to enact cloture and end a potential Republican filibuster, Democrats will either have to alter their approach to receive bipartisan support or once again accept the disappointment of not delivering on health care reform. 

In addition to the issue of health care, Brown’s victory carries with it a number of further implications. According to CNN, Republican Chairman Michael Steele said, “The message of lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility clearly resonated with independent-minded voters in Massachusetts.” 

The White House was quick to respond, signaling that it will continue to fight in their pursuit of health care reform, creating more jobs, helping the middle class, and improving the environment. 

Speaking with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos,  Obama said, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and frustrated.” 

There is no denying the fact that without a supermajority in the Senate and with midterm elections right around the corner, the White House’s task is indeed tougher. 

According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “Scott Brown’s victory has a big impact on the Democrats’ agenda and even on the 2010 congressional elections. The victory has energized the Republican Party and base.”

Therefore, the Democratic leadership is focusing on keeping the Democratic caucus united in order to reach the crucial number of 60 votes needed for passage.

This pursuit of 60 votes will undoubtedly be a challenge, as there exist four moderate Senators of the Democratic caucus that have openly expressed reservations towards the health care bill in its current form.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has recently become an integral part of the political compromising process that has occurred among the ranks of the Democrats. Landrieu was able to secure an additional $1 million of Medicaid funding for her state in exchange for her vote to move toward debate on the health care legislation.

Although she voted for the motion to begin debate, Landrieu has said that she does not favor the current version of the bill, which contains the public option. However, she has expressed an openness toward a trigger option.

According to TheHill.com, Landrieu said, “Our caucus now is in the process of negotiating with ourselves because we need all sixty of us to get this done.”

Similar to Landrieu, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has come out against the public option. According to CNN, Lincoln said, “I don’t support a public option that is government-run or government-funded.”

This moderate Democrat faces a tough re-election bid in 2010, and will be the center of attention from interest groups on both the left and the right. Although she does not support the liberal-favored public option, there does exist room for compromise. Lincoln has made it known that some sort of trigger option could be appealing.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has taken a different approach of opposition. Besides having has some doubts about a public option, Nelson’s main concern rests with the issue of abortion.

He has long been a pro-life Democrat and favors the House amendment, created by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), that calls for more restrictions on the use of federal subsidies in the public option and market exchange programs to cover abortions.

If a Stupak-type of amendment is not present in the final form of the bill, Nelson’s support of health care reform could be in jeopardy.

Former Democrat-turned-Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut remains steadfast in his total opposition to any type of a public option.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate has recently been a source of frustration for the Democratic Party. During the 2008 presidential election, Lieberman actively campaigned for Republican candidate John McCain.

Now Lieberman seems to be disinclined to negotiate unless the public option is completely off the table. According to CNN, Lieberman said, “The better political compromise is to get the public option out of there.”

Whereas other moderate Democrats have been willing to listen to versions of the reform that include a trigger or state opt-in mechanisms, Lieberman has taken a hard-line stance that has put him at odds against the Senate’s Democratic leadership of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.

With Lieberman, an unlikely candidate for the sixtieth vote needed for passage, Democrats will most likely need to produce a bill that can gain the support of moderate Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “This creates an extremely difficult problem for Harry Reid and Pres. Obama. They have to walk a tight rope. If they give into the moderates it could anger the liberal Democrats.”

The White House is also expected to increase its involvement in the negotiations among moderate and liberal Democrats in order to deliver on this top domestic priority.

On Sunday, Pres. Barack Obama visited Capitol Hill to meet with the Democratic Caucus to urge his party to pass health care reform.

Recently the debate surrounding health care had intensified with several protests occurring outside the steps of Capitol Hill. These “Tea Party” protesters had gathered to voice their resentment toward this government expansion. The crowd even included several Republican members of the House of Representatives such Rep. Virginia Foxx and Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Despite the passionate opposition expressed by those on the right, the Democratic leadership was confident that they would reach the magic number of 218 votes needed for passage.

To ensure unity among the ranks of the Democrats, earlier that day President Barack Obama met with Democrats in the House, and made numerous phone calls to Representatives who were undecided.

This political pressure led to 219 Democrats and one lone Republican voting in favor of this bill. Democrats had hoped to attain more moderates within their own party, but in the end 39 Democrats voted in opposition. This opposition included liberal Representative Dennis Kucinich from the 10^th District of Ohio.

Prior to voting, the Republican leadership had believed their opposition to the bill would be undoubtedly unanimous. The only Republican that voted for passage was Rep. Joe Cao from Louisiana whose constituency is heavily Democratic.  

This bill, which has been supported by the American Medical Association and the American Association of Retired Persons, if enacted would be the biggest expansion of health care in the nation’s history since the establishment of Medicare in 1965.

House Minority Leader John Boehner released a statement in which he expressed severe doubts and stated that H.R. 3962 will “dim the light of freedom and diminish opportunity for future generations.”

However, those on the left such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi viewed the passage of this bill as a “great victory for the American people.” Liberals have come to this conclusion due to the progressive elements that this 1.2 trillion dollar program contains.

This bill would provide coverage to 36 million uninsured citizens, and would call for the establishment of a public option to compete with private insurers in a market exchange. The bill would also guarantee that people could not be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and would require employers to provide coverage to full-time employees.

In a compromise to win over moderate Democrats, an amendment to the bill was passed. This alteration dealt with the use of abortion services in the public option and market exchange programs.

In a vote of 240-194, it was decided that federal dollars will be prohibited from providing abortion services to customers. Although this amendment pleased moderate Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, it did little to appease Republican anger. 

“Americans want a common-sense, bipartisan approach to health care reform, not President Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s costly 1,900 page government-run experiment on our nation’s health care system,” said Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The bill will now move to the United States Senate where it is expected opposition will be fierce. President Barack Obama, speaking to the press in the Rose Garden on Sunday, called for the Senate to “take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on the behalf of the American people.”

Unlike the House, the Democratic leadership in the Senate will need more unity among the Democratic Caucus, and will try to appeal to moderates such Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Independent Senator Joe Lieberman.

According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “It will come down to the cloture vote and keeping 60 members together. Harry Reid and President Obama are working on negotiations to keep the moderates happy.”

The Senate also has its own version of health care reform produced by the Senate Finance Committee. This version could attract more support from moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle than the House’s favored bill. 

If both chambers pass different forms of reform, a conference committee would be instituted in order to work out differences between the two.

President Barack Obama, seen here giving a speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in Egypt on June 4, won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Oct. 9 for his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and multilateral cooperation.

President Barack Obama can now add the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to his list of career accomplishments, which includes his historic presidential election victory last November.

In a move that was viewed as stunning to many observers and pundits, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Obama would be the recipient of this prestigious accolade. Obama was given the breaking news of his winning of this award early Friday morning by his press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Speaking to the media in the Rose Garden later that day, Obama spoke of his reaction upon hearing the news as “very surprised and deeply humbled.” Prior to the official announcement made by the Committee, there was little mention of Obama as a possible recipient.

While being only nine months into his young presidency and having been in office for a mere 12 days before the official nomination deadline, Obama becomes only the third sitting United States President to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Past recipients of this honor were President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

The reasoning behind the Committee’s unanimous decision to select Obama was due in large part to the peaceful diplomatic agenda he had pushed for while on the campaign trail and has currently pursued in office.

In its press release, the Committee outlined this belief. They said, “Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”

According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “Certainly an important aspect of the Committee’s decision was they had opposed many policies of the Bush Administration and felt Obama has moved toward a different direction.”

His efforts to adopt a new policy of global nuclear disarmament, reaching out to the Muslim world, incorporating the work of various global players to resolve conflicts such as global warming and re-establishing initiatives of Israeli-Palestinian Peace, all influenced the Committee’s decision.

The announcement brought about much joy to many people across the globe, but also angered some citizens of the world. According to MSNBC, Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore said that the reward was “extremely well-deserved.”

However, critics were quick to point out his administration’s handling of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and questioned whether or not the President had actually accomplished something substantial while in office.

Republican Chairman Michael Steele proclaimed in an official statement that Obama’s award was won based on his so called “star power.”

In both his address to the media and his email to his supporters of Organizing for America, Obama used the winning of the award to re-enforce his message and to invoke a “call to action” at a global level.

He will need the cooperation of the world due to the fact that besides the initial opinions that were expressed by individuals, the award will undoubtedly bring forth added pressure for Obama to deliver upon his promises he has made to people of America as well as the world.

According to The New York Times, Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland and last year’s Nobel Prize winner, said, “The world expects that he will also achieve something.”

Obama will travel to the home of the Committee in Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 10 to accept the award. Although the receiving of the award carries with it a 1.4 million dollar financial incentive, Obama plans to donate the cash prize to charity.

The Democrat from Montana had been in tough negotiations with so called “Gang of Six” which is a bipartisanship collection of senators focused on providing a moderate approach to health care reform.

Baucus released his bill a week after President Barack Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress on the importance of passing a health care bill.

This particular version of reform sets the stage of what could be a very tenuous debate on the floors of the house and senate.

Although Baucus supports the President’s call to action in reforming the health care system in America, this bill does not include the President’s and the House favored public option.

Instead, this $856 billion dollar plan calls for the installment of nongovernmental cooperatives.

Although it lacks a public option, the bill does provide for numerous items that would please liberal members of Congress as well as President Obama.

It does create a market exchange, prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage due to illness or pre-existing conditions, does not extend coverage to illegal immigrants, prohibits funding for abortions, and after 10 years, would actually start to reduce the federal debt, something that none of the other major proposals in Congress would achieve.

It also institutes a mandate that all citizens must attain some form of health care coverage. For those individuals unable to financially secure coverage, federal subsidies would be issued.

While the “Gang of Six” tried to produce a bipartisan bill, no Republican has yet to offer support. According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “Baucus was not able to get the Republican support he was hoping for.”

With none of his Republican colleagues from the “Gang of Six” along side, Baucus was forced to outline his bill to the media alone.

There exists little hope in the near future that any Republicans would offer their support to this particular bill; perhaps signaling that the goal of bipartisanship on health care reform could be dead.

Several members of the Democratic Caucus had been hoping to pick up Republican votes, such as Senator Olympia Snow from Maine, in order to reach the magic number of 60 since Democrats currently only hold 59 votes in the Senate.

What the bill has accomplished is a division among the Democrats in Congress. Moderates have suggested a more conservative approach to reform in order to attract Republican support while liberals have insisted on the controversial public option.

Criticism of this bill crossed party lines as both Democrats and Republicans expressed their frustration.

According to Politico, Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner from Ohio said, “This partisan bill is the wrong prescription during these tough economic times.”

Even Baucus’ Democratic Senate Finance Committee colleague, Sen. Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, said to MSNBC, “I can’t vote for the Baucus bill in its current form.”

The bill will now go back to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is expected that several amendments will be proposed and possibly added before it has any chance of advancing to the Senate floor.

Schwab also said, “it clearly will be a very important proposal in the debate.”

If the bill gets out of the Senate Finance Committee, the Democratic leadership will be forced to continue the path toward bipartisanship, push through a bill focused on the liberalbacked public option or somehow combine the Baucus bill with the various other health insurance reform proposals in the House and Senate.

In an unprecedented move, last Wednesday night President Barack Obama used the bully pulpit of the White House to advance his health care agenda. 

Speaking in front of a Joint Session of Congress and to the hearts and minds of Americans watching at home, Obama spelled out his plan and passionately hit back at his critics.   

Obama laid out the reason why health care has grown to be such an issue of importance and identified the flaws in the current health insurance system. 

He then proceeded to discuss the details of his $900 billion health care reform plan. 

His two-part plan initially outlines what it will do for people who already have insurance coverage and secondly provides a means for those people without insurance to acquire affordable coverage. 

As Obama said, his plan will give people currently with insurance “more security and stability.” It ensures that insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage due to a pre-existing condition, a practice known as underwriting which is expensive and adds to the cost of health insurance.  

The insurance companies will also not be able to limit or drop coverage to citizens during times of sickness.

It also guarantees that insurance agencies provide free preventive care and services, a move that many health care experts predict could save money and bring down health care costs. 

The second part of Obama’s plan is to offer quality and affordable choices to all Americans. 

By setting up a type of health insurance exchange or “market place,” health care insurance options would be available to both individuals and businesses for purchase at competitive rates. 

Obama said, “It’s how everyone in Congress gets affordable insurance.” 

He also addressed the controversial issue of the public option by expressing his desire to have a public option but urged restraint on both sides of the aisle since this portion is not the essential issue of his plan.

Understanding the need to respond to false claims and assure people who were skeptical of reform, the President strongly proclaimed that notions of illegal immigrants being covered under his plan and the idea that abortions would be federally funded were completely false. 

In regards to the concept of so called “death panels,” Obama called it “a lie, plain and simple.” Obama also spoke directly to two sections of the population concerned with potential reform: seniors and moderates, and conservatives worried about the deficit. 

He vowed to “protect Medicare” and promised “not to sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit.” In addition, Obama reached out to Republicans by accepting their idea to pursue malpractice and liability reform.

The President ended his speech by invoking the spirit of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy whose family was in attendance. 

He read several excerpts of a letter written to Obama by Kennedy during the final months of Kennedy’s life before succumbing to brain cancer.  

The mention of the Kennedy legacy and the letter was to express the fact that health care reform is a moral imperative. 

According to Larry Schwab, a political science professor at John Carroll University, Obama’s speech “accomplished much of what he was trying to do and was a way to get back on the offensive after a summer in which conservatives got a lot of attention.”

Obama received numerous standing ovations during the roughly 45 minute speech and one vocal interruption. South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson yelled out “you lie!” during Obama’s explanation of coverage and illegal immigrants.  

Wilson was quickly booed by Democrats and even scolded by his Republican colleagues. Senator John McCain, speaking to CNN, called Wilson’s actions “totally disrespectful.” Wilson later apologized. 

Following the speech, Democrats and Republicans reacted accordingly. Little-known Republican Representative from Louisiana, Charles Boustany, gave the Republican response. He said, “it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan.” 

Meanwhile, progressives were elated with Obama’s speech and believed they saw the Obama they supported and elected as president.  Ohio’s very own junior senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, told MSNBC that it was the “best speech I’ve ever heard during a Joint Session.” 

Moving forward, Obama may continue to meet with Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, moderate Democrats, and perhaps a handful of Republicans in order to reach the magic number 60 votes in the Senate. 

Although the status quo is hard to break away from, Obama has an opportunity to use the boost in public opinion support from the speech to finally get a health care reform bill passed. 

As he emphatically stated to his colleagues as perhaps a rallying cry, “We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.”

As the youngest brother of the slain President John F. Kennedy and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Ted was the patriarch of the historic Kennedy family. 

During his nearly five decades of public service to the people of Massachusetts, the Democratic senator became known as the “Liberal Lion” for his tenacity and commitment to advancing a progressive agenda. 

 Although from a wealthy family, he fought for those less fortunate and the individuals considered forgotten by society. 

Even at times when personal struggles and tragedies were present, he still believed in helping others. 

Kennedy was a strong leader and supporter of civil rights, education, labor, immigration and especially health care. 

Kennedy grew to become a hero to many members of the Democratic Party and believers of the liberal movement. 

His mere name also became a fund-raising tool for Republican candidates across the country wishing to oppose his stances on key issues. 

Kennedy had a great understanding of the workings of the Senate.

He developed a knack for when to push his colleagues and when to settle for a compromise. 

John Carroll University political science professor Dean Birch said, “[his political legacy was] his mastery of the legislative process in terms of both policy substance and senatorial procedure, and of being able to achieve a working compromise with the opposition without losing sight of his liberal goals and objectives.” 

In the end, his legislative record was impeccable. Some of his most important accomplishments were the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. 

Upon hearing the news of his death, politicians from his own party, across the aisle, and around the world expressed their heartfelt condolences and deep admiration for this iconic figure. 

Republican Orrin Hatch, who was strongly opposed to many of Kennedy’s legislative efforts, remembered his colleague as a “treasured friend,” according to a statement on his senate Web site. 

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said, “Ted Kennedy will be remembered with great affection and enduring respect here in Ireland. Ted Kennedy was a great friend of Ireland,” according to Agence France-Presse. 

The wide array of sympathy was expressed not only due to his immense talents as a legislator, but also his legacy as a caring colleague and friend. 

CNN reported on Aug. 29 that President Barack Obama called Kennedy “not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.”  

The Kennedy family elected for his passing to be treated as a celebration and remembrance of his life rather than a time of great sadness. 

Both individuals close to Kennedy and those who only knew him from afar were given a chance to say their good byes. 

The Friday after his death, thousands of people flocked to the John F. Kennedy Museum and Library in Boston to see Sen. Kennedy lie in repose. 

Later that night, friends and family of Sen. Kennedy came together to celebrate and share stories of his life.

The funeral mass on Aug. 29 was held at Boston’s Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica. His sons, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Ted Kennedy Jr., gave heart-felt remembrances of their beloved father.

President Obama also gave a powerful eulogy in which he called Kennedy, “the soul of the Democratic Party,” according to The New York Times.

Kennedy’s body then traveled to Washington, D.C., where it stopped at the steps of the Capitol building, where hundreds of Senate staff members waited to say their last farewells before he was laid in his final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery near his brothers John and Bobby. 

Kennedy leaves behind his wife Vicki, his children Kara, Patrick, Edward Jr., Curran and Caroline and thousands of friends and supporters. 

Individuals who wish to further their knowledge about this iconic Senator can purchase his soon-to-be-released autobiography entitled, “True Compass.”