First off, a personal note: Yes, I was wrong about Massachusetts. I predicted Martha Coakley would likely find a way to win in one of the bluest states in the nation. I also said I was fine with being wrong. So there you go, my crystal ball didn't account for a Democratic blunder this big.

Now then, onto the business at hand:

Democrats here in Washington are asking themselves a lot of tough questions this morning. The two most obvious ones, staring them right in the face: 'what the heck just happened?', and 'how badly are we going to lose in 2010?'.

But there's another, much more pressing question that they need to answer first. How do they get a year-long effort on health care reform finally done?

You might be a bit confused by some of the legislative decoding going on this morning on The Takeaway and on TV. So here's a quick look at where things stand and the tough choices confronting Democrats in Congress. A warning to the squeamish: None of the options are pretty, they're all complicated, and which one Democrats choose is yet to be decided.

Option One is to go on with the plan to quickly strike a deal on final health care legislation between the House and Senate, then put it to a vote in the Senate in the next 10 days or so before GOP Sen-elect Scott Brown can be seated. That strategy counted on a carefully stage-managed dance in Congress over the next week. And it seemed doable, until last night. A mere 20 minutes after Martha Coakley conceded the race to Brown, Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb fired off this statement:

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

Translation: Option one looks like it's no longer an option. When Harry Reid's own Democrats are warning him publicly not to jam health care through the Senate, it strongly suggests he won't have the 60 votes he needs if he tries to do it.

Option Two is to avoid the Senate all together. Democrats could do that by just having the House pass the bill the entire Senate already passed on Christmas Eve. Procedurally, it's easy. The House votes, the president signs, and you're done. But politically, it may be impossible. That's because House liberals, dozens and dozens of them, despise the Senate bill. It taxes so-called "Cadillac" high-cost health plans and has a weaker national insurance exchange. Meanwhile conservative Democrats think the Senate went milquetoast on restricting abortion.

It seems pretty clear the Senate bill can't win in the House on its own. "They don't have the votes," said Rep. Peter Lynch (D-Mass.), when I asked him the other day whether House could swallow the Senate's bill if its the only option.

Option Three is to exercise Option Two, but also pass some "perfecting" language (at least from House liberals' perspective) at the same time. This could smooth over angry Democrats, who will be incensed at having to vote 'yes' on a Senate bill they hate. But the Senate still has to act on that "perfecting" language, and without 60 votes, Democrats will have to resort to a controversial and rarely-used tactic called Budget Reconciliation. It's complicated, opaque, and trust me, you probably don't want to go there right now. The bottom line is Dems can use reconciliation later to pass the rest of their health care agenda with only 51 votes, IF they can get the House to go along with the plan. Liberals are skeptical.

Option Four is to drop health care altogether, reassess, regroup, and focus on jobs and the econony. Option Four isn't really an option. Not for Democrats. There are many reasons why Democrats got trounced in Massachusetts. One of them is that the Dems' base was deflated and stayed home. Democrats in Washington know (or should know, anyway) that dropping Barack Obama's marquee domestic agenda item now will give their politcal base almost no reason to come to the polls in 2010.

That would likely make Massachusetts seem tiny compared to the Democratic losses across the nation. And for Dems, that's not an option.