Wanting their cake and a chance to eat it, Democrats appear to be playing both ends against the middle.

...all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were called -- once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill. That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) -- including the addition of the public option -- would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.

Sounds like black helicopters, but Glenn Greenwald isn't without some evidence.

If that's true -- if they lack the votes to pass the public option through reconciliation? -- why is Dick Durbin now whipping against it, telling Senators -- in his own words -- "You just have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen"?

No one has to argue against something 'impossible', so by definition it must be a real option.

Of course, it presupposes that the legislation can actually be put through the reconciliation process, which is by no means certain.

Frankly, a column like this works against the House passage of the bill because it creates even more suspicion that reconciliation isn't only a long-shot, but that Senate leadership doesn't even want it.