(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I want to make sure the provision that emerges meets that test, that we are not in some way sneaking in, funding for abortions, but on the other hand that we're not restricting women's insurance choices. There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo. And that's the goal.

REP. BART STUPAK, D-MICH.: I hold the president to these words: No federal dollars, no matter how you try to disguise it, should be used in this legislation to fund abortion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: It is a sticky issue for Democrats on Capitol Hill. Now the Senate is dealing with it, the subject of abortion and healthcare reform.

We're back with the panel. Steve, what about this?

HAYES: I have absolutely no idea what the president of the United States just said in that sound bite. It doesn't make any sense. I think he said other things about it in the Jake Tapper interview that also didn't make sense and served to muddy the issue rather than clarify it.

The bottom line is that there will be 38 Republicans in the Senate who will likely vote to ban federal funding of abortion. That means you need to get 12 Democrats, basically, to sign on. If you look back at the recent history of where Democrats have voted on federal funding, that's going to be a hard number to get.

And then there's the separate issue of having to get to the 60 to avoid a filibuster.

BAIER: Mara, there have been some lawmakers who have been talking openly that the conference committee will yank this amendment out and they're just going to move forward from there.

LIASSON: They won't get it passed in the House if they do that. Now, maybe, as Charles has suggested in other programs, maybe years down the road they could do something about it, but I don't think they can pass health care unless current federal law, which is the president's position, is upheld.

Federal funding is already barred from paying for abortions.

BAIER: But the president is saying that this House health care bill goes too far.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: No, he said something very confusing.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: This is the point. He wants to be confusing. Wait a minute. He wants to be confusing. He doesn't want to be clear. The White House spends a lot of time not saying how they interpret the Hyde amendment - the Stupak amendment.

The question is, does Stupak enshrine Hyde, which is current law, the ban on federal funding of abortions, or does it go farther than Hyde. That is the question.

Liberals say, pro-choice groups say it goes farther because somehow it would prevent women from buying with their own money, not federal money, their own money coverage for abortions.

Stupak and the supporters of the amendment say that's not true. All it does is ban insurers from selling coverage for abortion to people who get subsidies, federal subsidies. That's the question.

And maybe the language has to be clarified. I know from a lot of reporting at the White House that the president has no problem enshrining Hyde in this health care reform bill.

KRAUTHAMMER: The liberal interpretation of the Stupak is correct. It is Hyde squared. It is stronger and goes way beyond Hyde.

In the end, I think it will stay in a modified form because the threats on the left of the 40 members of the House who said they will oppose the bill, that is not a credible threat.

But they are within reach of an historic once-in-a-century attempt to take over a sixth of the American economy. A liberal is not going to sacrifice it because of the Hyde amendment or Stupak.

I suspect a version of this will end up, Stupak or Hyde or something in between, will be in the bill, and the House liberals will swallow it because taking over a sixth of the economy was much more important.

BAIER: It will it be watered down from what we see now right now?

KRAUTHAMMER: Slightly, I think...

BAIER: OK, quickly, former President Bill Clinton was up on Capitol Hill today talking with senators, and here is what he is quoted as saying.

Now, this is from people who were in the room - quote: "The point I want to make is just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want. When you try and fail, the other guys write history. The reason the tea baggers as so inflamed is because we are winning. This is an economic imperative."

He is talking about the tea parties obviously around the country that we saw all over the place. Charles, what about the former president and that wording?

KRAUTHAMMER: What is amazing is how open the Democratic leadership are, Clinton and apparently Obama in private, about how all of this is a political imperative. It is saving the Democrats. If it goes down, it will jeopardize their future.

It is not about the merits of this case. It is about fighting the right, and the epithet he used in describing them and it's all about us and them. It's not about improving healthcare in the country, which of course it won't.

BAIER: Mara?

LIASSON: It's about two things: One of them is the Holy Grail for Democrats for more than 50 years has been to have universal healthcare coverage in this country. Now, whether this bill does it in the most perfect way or not is the subject of a pretty boisterous debate.

But I think the message that the White House and President Clinton is sending to doubting Democrats is: Swallow hard, vote for this even if it's not perfect. We can fix it later, because this is our chance and probably our one chance in this presidency to get this thing we have wanted for so long.