You can watch it on C-Span2 or online.

Update (TL): The cloture vote is expected at 8 pm. Firedoglake has a "semi live blog" up.

This is a debate about whether to allow the bill to come to the floor where it can be debated and amended. The Republicans are threatening to use the Senate’s unlimited debate clause to prevent the bill from coming to the floor where it then can be debated. They are threatening to never stop debating (this is what a filibuster technically is) the vote on the motion to proceed. This is how the Republicans plan to use their right of unlimited debate to actually stop any debate on health care reform. When trying to explain how the Senate has become a broken, undemocratic, unconstitutional perversion of its original self, I recommend using this as an example.

Just finished participating in a call with Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) regarding Afghanistan. I imagine Senator Specter was a bit surprised by my questions from the more hawkish view on Afghanistan. Senator Specter's position is that he opposes troop increases in Afghanistan and even questions maintaining troops in Afghanistan unless the effort is "indispensable" to the conflict with al Qaida. (See Spencer Ackerman's coverage of the call) Senator Spector's primary opponent, Representative Joe Sestak supports troop increases in Afghanistan.

Senator Spector responded to my question regarding the connection with Pakistan and Afghanistan and how an effective Pakistan policy related to adequate troop levels in Afghanistan by turning the question around to me, asking how does increased troop levels in Afghanistan help us with the situation in Pakistan? A fair question, which I will try to address more comprehensively in another post. But on the issue of Pakistan, I believe Senator Specter demonstrated understanding of the issue and when I pressed for an answer on what type of initiatives he would support, he made a good point - promoting peace between India and Pakistan would be an important breakthrough that could lead to a more cooperative and responsible Pakistan. Which could lead to a more successful policy against the Taliban and al Qaida in the region. More on this discussion in a later post.

Firedoglake is against it:

It is encouraging that Senator Reid respected the will of the American people and included a public option in the merged Senate bill. However, the addition of a state opt-out provision threatens to leave millions of Americans at the mercy of private insurance monopolies, with the federal government acting as enforcers for a product with no competition to keep prices down. [. . .] [W]hile people struggling with crippling health care costs and pre-existing conditions may have to wait until 2014 for relief, states can begin opting out immediately. That means for the next four years, health care will become a partisan football at the state level, easily gamed by the same insurance company lobbyist dollars that flooded on to Capitol Hill this year.

If you can get a public option passed without an opt out, then let's do it. But if we can not, then I believe an opt out that requires enactment of a state law through regular procedure is acceptable. My view remains that the only real reform in this bill (as I have stated, there are other good features in the proposal - specifically the expansion of Medicaid coverage, but they are not meaningful reform imo) is the public option. Indeed, if given a choice I would rather have an opt out Medicare +5 public option available to more persons with an opt out than a level playing field national public option without an opt out. Neither seems politically possible at this time, even through reconciliation. More . . .

This strikes me as quite good news:

[E]arlier in the day, in a meeting about floor procedure going forward, [Senate Majority Leader] Reid let three of the key skeptics within his party know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of the bill through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process. In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."

"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."

(Emphasis supplied.) Important that people get that message. Good on Reid.

Speaking for me only

Via digby:

Hot off the presses:

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, is meeting with fellow Democrats to brief them on his version of the major health care legislation, which a senior Democratic leadership aide said would cost an estimated $849 billion over 10 years while reducing future federal deficits by $127 billion. The aide said it would extend health benefits to roughly 31 million people.

What's in the plan? No idea.

Viewing politicians through the lens of their physical attraction is not limited to women.

John Edwards got it far worse than Sarah Palin.

In November 2000, People magazine named John Edwards as its choice for the "sexiest politician alive." A sampling of news and blog post titles:

• 51 Thoughts on the Apparent Sexiness of John Edwards
• John Edwards, Sexy Beast?
• JOHN EDWARDS IS TOTALLY HOT! (Orlando Weekly)

Would his $400 haircut have made as many waves if he wasn't so attractive? Conservatives ragged him over his looks. A blogger at Michelle Malkin's site wrote, "Edwards, who essentially rose to prominence because of his pretty face and his bouncy hair, has now come full-circle on his Iraq position."

How about President Obama's shirtless picture that topped the news for days? ABC ran with "President Beefcake? D.C. magazine to feature shirtless Obama on cover". Other story leads: "Who would have guessed that President-elect Obama is ripped?" and from the NY Post, "Just call him "Ab"-bama. Buff-bodied President-elect Barack Obama put his chiseled frame on full display..."

Tina Brown today, on the Newsweek cover: [More..]

Digby cites Rick Pearlstein:

Question: Has Obama succeeded on his promise of being a “post-partisan” President?

Rick Perlstein: Well, the problem with Obama’s post-partisan agenda is that he came into it, he came into his presidency at a time when millions of Americans, perhaps even tens of millions of Americans don’t consider a Democratic president legitimate, don’t consider liberalism legitimate, don’t consider the idea of the state forming new programs to help people legitimate. So, he’s in a situation a lot like Abraham Lincoln faced in 1860 when you had millions of Americans who didn’t even consider what was going in Washington to have anything to do with them. [. . .] If people say that you're illegitimate and your liberal agenda is extremist socialist destroying the America that we all grew up with, you have to be willing to say, “This is unreasonable. This is extreme.” And if you aren’t able to say, “This is unreasonable and this is extreme,” then you're granting your opposition an undue influence. You’re basically negotiating with the unnegotiatable. And as Abraham Lincoln said quite eloquently in his 1860 speech at Cooper Union, you can’t win that way.

(Emphasis supplied.) Lincoln 1860 was a theme Digby and I discussed a lot in 2003 and 2004, long before the emergence of Barack Obama, so these themes are not new to us. However, my first post at Talk Left applies the thinking to Obama. Digby recapitulates the point well:

Glenn Greenwald visits the twisted minds of the Weekly Standard:

Joscelyn insists that -- even though they've never been charged with, let alone convicted of, anything -- these men are guilty, evil Terrorists. To make his case against them, he relies on Bush-era documents containing unproven, untested, and uncharged allegations. But what he dishonestly -- though understandably -- fails to note is that each of these individuals are available to appear in the ACLU video because they were released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration [. . .] If, as Joscelyn claims, the ACLU are Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" for producing a video containing interviews with these individuals, what are Bush officials who released them onto the streets?

(Emphasis supplied.) Straight from the Ed Meese School of Constitutional law:

[F]ormer Attorney General Edwin Meese III, [. . .] when asked whether “suspects” should have the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning, replied “Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a decades long story for Republicans and conservatives. They have long believed in a police state.

Speaking for me only

Are we learning yet?

Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, says he is not sure he is ready to help a Democratic health care proposal clear even the most preliminary hurdle: gaining the 60 votes his party’s leaders need to open debate on the measure later this week. Two of his fellow Democrats, Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, are proving tough sells as well, raising the prospect that one or perhaps all three of them could scuttle the bill before the fight over it even begins on the Senate floor.

Enough of this. If they do not want to proceed to a majority vote on the bill, then it is time for the "more contentious procedural shortcut around the need for a 60-vote majority." Let's go through the motions I suppose, but once they say No, time to move on and keep them out of the room. Time for the 50 Senators who will vote for health care reform to craft the best bill they can that will garner 218 votes in the House. It is time.

Speaking for me only

Are we learning yet?

“For the final vote," says Evan Bayh, "I see no distinction between substance and procedure.” That is to say, if he decides to vote against the bill, he'll also vote against breaking a filibuster.

How about now?

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin isn't inflating anybody's expectations about Harry Reid's chances for passing a health care bill with a public option on the Senate floor. On MSNBC last night, Durbin said it would be a hard slog. "We're working on it, struggling," he said.

I think the real question is what form of a health care reform bill can garner 50 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House via the reconciliation process. Regular order is dead. Maybe the Village will start dealing with that reality soon.

Speaking for me only

Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is officially out of office. Her one regret: Accepting a plea deal from Tommy Chong. I take that to mean she's sorry she didn't force him to trial so she could have slammed him with more than 9 months for selling bongs on the internet.

She made no secret that she wanted President Obama to keep her in office. Good for him for declining. Her chief legacy will be Tommy Chong, who, via Celeb Stoner, responded:

"I'm honored to be Mary Beth's only regret. Now does she regret going after me? Or does she regret that I never got enough time? I tend to think she wishes she'd never heard my name. I have become her legacy. Mary Beth Loose Cannon is now looking for a job. She blew her last job busting me. Karma is so sweet! She's looking for a work while Cheech and I start our second multi-million dollar tour thanks to the publicity she created for us! Thank you Mary Beth - may you find peace and happiness in your search for your soul."

Another over-the top prosecution (and failure): That of Cyril Wecht.