Several months ago, I helped persuade encourage Jerry Nadler to take the whip count pledge.  So I’m particularly thrilled to see that’s he’s standing firm as iron these days. From the way he’s talking, he’s a changed man–delighted he took the pledge, and knowing full well the critical nature of the pledge project.

And for anyone with lingering doubts that the path to securing the public option runs right through the House, Nadler’s resolve is what the Whip Count Project is all about.

Nadler was interviewed the other day by PolitickerNY, a local New York newspaper about the public option.  Here’s some of what he said.

Thanks to our hard work and fierce push back, Nadler is feeling much more optimistic:

But now a key Congressional backer of the public option believes his side may have regained some momentum.

“I’m probably a little more optimistic than a couple of days ago, because of the strength of the pushback,” Representative Jerry Nadler told me in an interview yesterday.

A Senate bill with no public option won’t pass the House:

At the time, Nadler and his colleagues were upset at a Pelosi-backed compromise with conservative Democrats that watered down the public option in the House version of health care legislation. But last weekend’s developments suggested that the White House was ready to go one step further and junk the public option altogether.

That sparked a vocal backlash from Nadler and his allies.

“If they try to get a bill through the Senate with 60 votes without a public option, it won’t pass the House,” he said. “We will make sure it doesn’t pass the House.”

Drawing a line in the damn sand (also known as voting no against any bill without a public option):

“We’ve got to draw the line somewhere,” he added. “And this is where we’re drawing it. And we have to draw it here. We probably should have drawn it a little closer in.”

So what happens, I asked Nadler, if the House is ultimately presented with a bill with a cop-op provision instead of a public option—and if the White House and House leadership then tell progressives that it was the best they could do and that if it fails, the Obama presidency might be sunk?

“They can’t allow it to come to that situation, because I’ll vote no,” he replied. “They cannot allow it to get there, and that’s what we’re telling them now. If it comes to that, enough members, I think, will vote no. And they certainly don’t want to test that.”

Got that, Donna?  Got that, Rahm?  Got that, Max? Got that, Kent? Got that, Harry?  Got that, Mr. President?