Ezra games out what the conference committee could look like, as far as retaining the public option in the final bill:
The members of the conference committee are chosen by the leadership. They include the relevant chairmen of the committees -- Max Baucus will be there, and Chris Dodd will probably serve in Ted Kennedy's stead, and they will meet with Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel and George Miller -- and a handful of others. The final bill needs a majority of both the House and Senate negotiating teams. That will be no problem on the House side. If Harry Reid stacks the Senate team with enough left-leaning senators to ensure a majority for a liberal-leaning bill (this is where Jay Rockefeller, chairman of Finance's health care subcommittee, and Barbara Mikulski, chairwoman of HELP's retirement and aging subcommittee, could play a role), a liberal-leaning bill, with a public option, is a pretty good bet.
That bill would easily pass the House. The Senate is trickier. But the conference report can't be amended. It can't be changed, or held up in committee. It can be filibustered, and it can be voted against. Those are the options. If three Democrats opposed the legislation and wanted to kill it, they would literally have to filibuster it (this is assuming that Democrats have 60 votes, which is not certain given Kennedy's health). That would be a very hard thing to do at that stage in the game. It would isolate the obstructionists, ensuring funded primary challenges and the enduring enmity of the Senate leadership and the White House. Kent Conrad can say that there aren't enough votes for a public option and imply that he's just protecting the final bill from defeat. But is he willing to be one of those "no" votes? Is he willing to filibuster? That's a different game indeed.
On Countdown last night, Lawrence O'Donnell wasn't so optimistic about the public option's chances in conference. Though, as Ezra wrote, Harry Reid will be responsible for stacking the Senate side. I suspect that "Harry Reid" will actually be "the White House." If that's the case and the White House is firmly behind the public option by October/November, then its chances are much stronger.
Also, there's just no way any Democrats will join the Republicans in a filibuster. President Obama is a powerful figure who is still very early in his presidency. While, yes, his approval rating could hang at around 50 or it could drop further. But there's an equal, if not greater shot that he climbs back up into the middle 60s. A Democratic president with a strong approval rating "accidentally forgetting" (wink) to endorse a congressional reelection campaign would be the kiss of death for that campaign.
In other words, you do not filibuster against a popular president of your own party -- especially on a bill that's this huge and important.
The Progressive Caucus is twice as large as the Blue Dogs and we have at least 45 Senators on record for the public plan in the Senate. If they want to block legislation they can do it. If the White House needs somebody to eat shit, there's a far better political reason for it to be the Blue Dogs and the corporate lackeys in the Senate than the progressives.
All Obama has to do is tell the Blue Dogs that he won't work for them in 2010 if they don't support him.
That said, I'm sure Lieberman, Bayh, Conrad, Lincoln and some others could potentially vote no on the bill itself. If it passes with 51 votes, no harm no foul.
The wild cards in a filibuster, sadly, are Senators Kennedy and Byrd. Without them, we'd need two Republicans to break ranks and vote against the filibuster. That's a little more complicated and I have no idea how that'll work. Snowe and Enzi? Who knows.