DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, it's a victory for the American people. It's a victory for the uninsured, the underinsured and those with insurance. It saves lives, saves money, extends the life of Medicare. So I think this is a victory for the president. It's also a victory for the House Democrats, as well as Senate, and demonstrating that they can govern, they can get something big, and something complicated done.
TAPPER: Peggy, Republicans are talking about repealing it, they're talking about challenging it in court. How realistic are these both as campaign slogans and as actual lines of attack?
PEGGY NOONAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL: I don't know. I think it is very interesting that we have debated this bill every day for one year. The president has put forward his case again and again. He just won. It was very close, but he won, and yet, the American people still, according to the polls, don't like this bill. The president, just after his great victory, is forced to come forward and speak now and tell the American people, no, it was really good, you're really going to like this thing. So I do think he is in a difficult position. It seems to me positions are hardened and they have over the past year. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party will be looking at the country and saying, experience now the wonder of this bill. Is it more burden or more benefit? They will be talking to the center, trying to convince the center of their case.
TAPPER: Paul, I'm sorry.
NOONAN: Go ahead.
TAPPER: Paul, you heard Governor Barbour say that this is not going to reduce the deficit. And you're the only person I know with a Nobel Prize in economics. And I want to put up something that the former director of the Congressional Budget Office wrote in your newspaper, Doug Holtz-Eakin.
"In reality, if you strip out all of the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus a wholly different picture emerges. The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower federal deficits, by $562 billion."
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: That was a shameful column on the part of Doug Holtz-Eakin. You can just go through it and see that he made assertions. They're just not true. He's not commenting on the reality. He's commenting on what the Congressional Budget Office was based on. And if you look at the things he said, he says it's 10 years of taxes for six years of benefits. That's just not true.
Most of the taxes don't start up until the time the benefits do. That's just wrong. The odds are this is going to actually be better than the CBO numbers say. Because there are things that are uncertain and the CBO scores them as zero because we don't know if they work. But some of them will work. Above all, it's amazing. Think about people on the right. They're simultaneously screaming, they're going to send all of the old people to death panels and it's not going to save any money. That's a contradictory point of view.
TAPPER: Death panels would save money, theoretically.