A "significant setback" that should have been avoided

First, McClatchy's take on the Senate Finance Committee votes yesterday:

In the first significant setback for the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday soundly rejected the "public option," or government-run health insurance plan.

It was a setback the Obama team brought upon itself. The Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, Jim Messina, used to work for Baucus as his chief of staff. They're very close. Messina and his boss, Rahm Emanuel, had a Senate strategy built around Baucus and his bill. If the White House wanted a public option in the legislation, it would have been there. Then, the Republicans would have had to remove it, instead of having Democrats add it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to be faced with a similar opportunity. He can include the very popular public option in the Senate bill. That way, the GOP will have to try to remove it on the Senate floor -- a move that could be filibustered by Democrats. I don't know why, with 60 votes, the Democrats haven't figured out how to use the process to their advantage. Sure, the GOP will try to filibuster the final bill. They're going to do that anyway. That's where leadership comes in -- from Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Without leadership and using the power they have, there will be more articles about "significant setbacks." There's a growing sense in the traditional media and from the pundits that the public option is finished. That's because they know the players and are not expecting to see real leadership. Will our leaders prove them wrong?