A reader writes:

The trouble with the argument advanced by Suderman is that it assumes a unified opposition to the bill. In reality, there's a wide variety of reasons people oppose the bill -- too liberal, too conservative, obstructing a jobs agenda, presence of kickbacks, etc. Not passing the bill -- which also means not passing any bill -- means the Dems will take heat from everyone, including those who don't want the bill to be passed because they think it's too liberal.

On the other hand, passing the bill and removing the kickbacks, along with some other budgetary changes, via reconciliation while still demonstrating a strong push on jobs -- which will likely pass before any movement on health care, just to make that clear -- will draw heat from those who think the bill is too liberal (who almost certainly don't vote Dem, anyway) but should at least soften the criticism of the other blocks enough for the Dems to be able to trumpet the subsequent law for what it is -- a triumph of historic proportions.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.