More here.
She only uses the word "bipartisan" in reference to the hearings on the legislation, but the context appears to be her arguing that the ACA was a product of a bipartisan process different from what's going on now -- which isn't true.
I think the headline expresses the gist of what she was saying, though it puts it in a more condensed and pointed form that's more likely to generate indignant responses.
A conversation about the process of "reconciliation" -- a technical term -- is pretty opaque to the rest of the country and goes right over our heads, so it does have to be put into other words.
If you wonder how come politicians are able to say the outrageously untrue things they say and get away with it, the answer is that what you read online isn't exactly what they're saying, though it often accurately reflects what they're trying to do.
I didn't even see her use the word then. It's possible if I play enough videos she might use it, but I'm not going to do that.
My point isn't about her, it's about the writer of the article and the headline. It's very misleading because that's not at all what she says.
"A conversation about the process of "reconciliation" -- a technical term -- is pretty opaque to the rest of the country and goes right over our heads, so it does have to be put into other words."
It's certainly possible most people don't know what "reconciliation" means in this context, but that doesn't make "bipartisan" a substitute for it. They are two different things. It is pointed out to Pelosi that the Democrats has 60 votes and she acknowledges that. She does not appear at all to be making a point about being "bipartisan". Instead, she's making a point about using the reconciliation process now, which she says isn't right because that wasn't used before. That might be debatable, but it's wrong to cast that argument as one about being "bipartisan".