In light of this, I think it's worth asking whether Kent Conrad is affirmatively trying to kill health coverage reform. For one, he's just incorrect -- the two-track bill is completely doable, and reconciliation has been used commonly in recent years. Second, why say this? Why say something that so obviously undermines the leadership, the party, the reform efforts, etc. If that's what you think, just shut up about it for a while.
When law students learn about murder, they learn that you generally need to kill knowingly -- that is, the prosecution must show that the defendant actually intended to kill the victim.
In some cases, however, a defendant can be so utterly reckless that he is assumed to have knowledge. For instance, if I drive drunk really fast down a crowded street, I might not have knowingly tried to kill someone. But because I was so knowingly reckless -- so oblivious to the obvious risks -- I could still be charged.
That's basically what Conrad is doing. If he's not knowingly trying to kill reform, he's acting with such an extreme recklessness that we might as well assume that he is.
In either case, he is a corrupt and immoral man who needs a primary challenger rather than an appointment as a lead Democratic negotiator on health coverage reform.