If the House votes to pass the health care bill on Sunday, Rahm Emanuel will be vindicated.
So sayeth the bloggypulpits. Reason: Rahm's always argued Dems should ignore the mewling of progressives -- e.g., the stentorian Paul Krugman, the fast-fingered Markos Moultias, that legislative leprechaun Kuchinich -- because their caterwauling about the public option was nothing more than a noisome bluff.
They'll fall in line, he said, because where else can they go?
That's quite a change in perception from last week, when speculation about Rahm's failures as chief of staff climaxed with a New York Times Magazine cover story entitled The Limits of Rahmism -- so defined as, basically, pragmatic deal-making.
Of course, that reading of Rahm begs the question: how can Rahm be vindicated if the president eschewed that pragmatic strategy for an all-or-nothing agenda?
The answer is who cares.
The pillorying of Rahm Emanuel is an entertaining side story, pregnant with personality -- jokes about cuss words and stubby middle fingers never get old! -- but fallow in substance.
The real question is whether health care passes on Sunday. If it does, then the entire administration shares the win -- and then, joy, shares the mid-term election gauntlet.
Meanwhile, we can distract ourselves with the more entertaining local question: whether Rahm's angling for five.