Regarding the question of whether Democrats could speak during a Republican filibuster. I believe the answer would have to be no, because once they relinquish the floor the vote can be called again. Since this is inevitable, filibusters are only good as a temporary stalling tactic.

However, once the vote fails to bring cloture, the intention of Senate rules is to re-open the debate. That is what the Democratic "leadership" should be doing, rather than meekly tabling the measure until Hell freezes over.

If they don't want to vote on cloture, it MUST be assumed they want to debate it further. If Reid was vertebrate, he would just keep scheduling debate until the friggin' measure has an up or down vote. Remember how the Republics were screaming about the "tyranny of the minority" whenever the minority Dems dared to filibuster? These measures are "FAILING" with 56 votes!

Where the Hell is the outrage on THIS "tyranny of the minority". DO we have two parties or not?

Anonymous can't think of a single thing the Bush administration has done which rises to the level of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors? I thought Rip Van Winkle was fiction!

Come on anonymous, think! Lying to congress, abrogating international treaties, refusing to "faithfully execute" (or even acknowledge) the laws passed by Congress, torture, illegal spying on citizens, gross malfeasance already demonstrated in EVERY *#!^*! executive department and cabinet office, war profiteering, mind boggling conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc.

I believe that IF the "Democrat" Congress was actually interested in their constitutional duties, they could find a few (hundred) grounds for impeachment AND conviction. It's become crystal clear that their careers are far more important to them then their country.

you seem to forget that this is a political CONTEST, not a support Hillary fest. There are an awful lot of us, true "lefties" as you seem to view us, who have no desire to see Hillary, "DLC" Clinton II, invested with the grossly expanded, powers of the presidency.

The Noise Machine has no need of juicy sound bites from fellow contenders to attack any Democrat on their greatest strengths. But the voters have both the need and the right to force those who would apply to us for a job to prove that they are the best qualified. NO FREE RIDES on the Hillary inevitability Band Wagon. That's the invention of the "mainstream media circus" and probally a Rovian wet dream.

We "lefties" have had more than enough experience with false choices being foisted on us by "righties" who continue to vote against their own interests. In some bizarre way, it's comparable to rooting for your favorite team. Unfortunately, sports teams don't create wars which have probably killed more than a million human beings. It's time the adults took over. Hillary might be a very good president. Some of us don't want to risk losing the election to find out.

In response to Amity's assertion that the Democrats are teetering on the brink of minority again, I believe that's hogwash.

I freely confess to not being a Constitutional law expert, perhaps Glenn could clear this question up for us. With full attendance, the Democrats have 50 votes that (I certainly hope) could be considered reliable for such an import question. Say Boltin' Joe finally admits that he's a Republican, deep in his shriveled soul and joins his friends across the aisle.

That leaves a 50/50 vote split for majority leadership. Darth Cheney is constitutionally unable to vote on Senate organizational issues. His sole power to vote is to break ties over LEGISLATION. Democrats currently enjoy a slight majority in many committees and of course, the Majority Leader's authority. In order to effect a reversal, it seems to me that a majority would be required. A simple tie would NOT be sufficient to change anything.

I believe the majority now will be the majority until a majority vote can overturn the current situation. Also, I've read that such Senate organizational issues tend to remain settled once the new Congress has been seated, unless the balance changes.

I would very much like Glenn, or a Constitutional law expert, to weigh in on this VERY important question. I simply don't believe we should keep excusing craven capitulations by Democrats on the basis of spurious dangers that they supposedly face.

In any case, since Harry isn't doing anything with his scheduling and assignment authority anyway, what the Hell would be any different if he was minority leader again. That seems to be a more comfoprtable role for him anyway.

There is a telling recommended diary at DailyKos by thereisnospoon http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/3559/2099/574/421499 , which addresses this issue. This despicable behavior is not the result of confusion or weakness and they certainly aren't as naive as Nancy Pelosi pretends. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggeAtsS2Wdlv3rvFrvJexIGpvpLAD8TGOEMG0 "GOSH! Who could have predicted that the Republicans wouldn't end the war"?

These venal cretins are calculating that they have guaranteed support from those who care and they can freely piss on our heads and tell us it's raining. This is all calculated to continue to degrade the Republican "brand" so they can elect even more dishonest and cynical Democrats next year. That's apparently, ALL they care about. That and their contributions. The nation be Damned, they are in it for themselves.

Reid SHOULD be removed from leadership and Russ Feingold put in his place. Unfortunately, there are probably only about 14 "Democrat" Senators who actually care. Every one of these PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS should be contested in every upcoming primary until the Congressional toilet has been flushed.

So why should anyone give a bubbly fart about the noxious output of one of the worst examples of "serious" insider, Beltway journalism? I think I'd get as fair and balanced information from Talon News.

These creeps link to Drudge and think it's kewl.