WASHINGTON - It's true that politics is the art of the possible, but it's also true that great leaders expand the scope of possibility. Barack Obama took office pledging to be a transformational president. The fate of a government-run public health insurance option will be an early test of his ability to end the way Washington's big-money politics suffocates true reform.
Giving up the public option would send many of Obama's progressive supporters into apoplexy, yet the administration has sent clear signals that this is the path-of-less-resistance it's prepared to take.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, told CNN that a public option is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform.
But what is the "essential element"? Where, if anywhere, does Obama draw a line in the sand? For reform to be meaningful, there must be some components that a final package absolutely should include. What on earth might they be?
Obama set broad - and, frankly, awfully fuzzy - policy outlines and let Congress fill in the details. But he followed this strategy to a fault, allowing the effort to be hijacked by special-interest lobbies determined to thwart genuine reform.
Republicans could find opportunities for demagoguery - the proposal to have Medicare pay for end-of-life counseling, for example, which was twisted into euthanizing the elderly and infirm. Opponents could write a script for chaos at town-hall meetings, designed to create the impression that Americans love their health care system just the way it is.
Clearly, the White House feels itself on the defensive. But why?
Consider the political landscape. Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress. No matter how disciplined Republicans are in opposing any reforms, they don't have the votes to kill a final bill.
If conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats are successful in nixing a public health insurance option and watering down other reforms, progressive voters have a right to ask why they went to such trouble to elect Democratic majorities and a Democratic president.
Historical trends indicate that it's unlikely the Democrats will expand their majorities in 2010. Politically, therefore, there's not likely to be a better moment for health reform than right now.
It would be understandable if the White House decided that the important thing, at this point, was to get a "win" at all costs. Is this what the apparent retreat on the public option signals?
If so, that would not only be wrong but also unnecessary, or at least premature. What the president hasn't done is the obvious: Tell Congress and the American public, clearly and forcefully, what has to be done and why. Take control of the debate. Consult less and insist more.
Giving up on the public option might be expedient. But we didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one.
• Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.