When it comes to the Obama and the public option, the old concept of "trust but verify" is an essential approach. And, oddly, so is an old cold war strategy: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

First, look at gossip-journalist Stephanopoulis:

I had a pretty spirited go around with White House Press Secretary Roberts Gibbs and the latest on this dilemma over the public option. The bottom line: Gibbs says the President will make the case for a public option in his speech to Congress on Wednesday but he won’t issue a veto threat if it isn’t in the final package.

Gibbs also said the White House is willing to draft its own health care legislation. Here’s our exchange:

GEORGE: There has been some talk about whether the President will draft legislation is that what’s happening now?

GIBBS: “Well look, We have been looking a legislation for months. You have now several different proposals in the House and Senate that have made the way to the committee process. Obviously the Senate Finance Committee continues to work, so you are going to have ideas coming from a couple different directions and the president has take all those stands and pull them together.”

GEORGE: So he will do that and put his ideas on the table?

GIBBS: Were going to certainly..People will leave that speech knowing where [Obama] stands and if it takes whatever to get health care done the president is ready willing and able to do that. We are closer George than we have ever been before.”

While there might be some excitement generated by this prospect–that Obama is going to come out swinging hard for the public option on Wednesday, look at what the administration is actually doing:

First, the efforts in congress most associated with this administration have obliterated the public option.

Second, it appears that AFL-CIO has been cut out of the public option herd, using card check. The WH has had at least some hand in this.

Third, while progressive caucus co-chair Grijalva is putting a happy face on it, Obama’s probing at a recent conference call looks more like he was seeking chinks in progressive armor, rather than recognizing the strength and resolution of their position.

Finally, look at Gibbs’ quote above:

and if it takes whatever to get health care done–the president is ready willing and able to do that.

This is exactly what Obama has consistently said. That Gibbs offers this restatement, now, repeats and confirms that Obama has made no movement towards the public option. All it says is: "please help us–we’re desparate to make a deal–any deal–make us an offer!!"

This is where the "mutually assured destruction" concept comes in. We know Obama absolutely must have his health care bill. His presidency is in all likelyhood mortally wounded without it. We know this is true, because CNN has told us a thousand times. We also know that the progressive coalition can keep a bill that is either empty or harmful from getting to his desk, if they stay strong.

Will progressives take a hit if they actually use the MAD strategy? Perhaps. But the blow may well fall much harder on blue dogs, if it falls at all. Regardless of the nature of voter reaction in 2010, that hit will be miniscule compared to what Obama himself will feel.

The reality? House progressives are in the drivers seat on this–if they stay strong. We already know Obama’s position on the public option–he has always been ready, willing, and able to trade it off. Barring some miracle of a massive shift in his position, the public option now rests with our progressive coalition in the House.

And yes, the dangers of such a stand on their part are great. But the rewards are greater. Not only would the reward be the achievement of reform that’s actually worthy of the word "reform", it will represent the arrival of progressives at a place they have not previously inhabited: Power. And that is a goal just as important as the public option itself–perhaps moreso.

No guts, no glory.