I couldn't agree more with what Gene Healy says here:

In a party-line vote at 1:17 a.m. yesterday, Senate Democrats cleared a key procedural obstacle to a federal takeover of health care. With Saturday's buyoff of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a pre-Christmas vote now looks likely.

But Obamacare's far from a done deal. There are large and contentious differences -- on abortion, taxes, the "public option" -- between the Senate bill and the one that passed by five votes in the House. The GOP Senate leadership intends to filibuster whatever emerges from conference as well.

Liberals are screaming bloody murder about Republican obstructionism. But thank God for obstructionism, and the Senate rules facilitating it -- because the longer this debate goes on, the less Americans like what the Dems are trying to sell them.

No wonder Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is desperate to force a vote before senators go home: As CBS's Nancy Cordes put it, he otherwise runs "the risk that any Democrats change their minds over the holidays or get swayed by all those tea party protests."

I like Healy's conclusion, which I find downright Churchillian:

Having overthrown the constitutional doctrine of enumerated and limited powers, liberals now want to remove a Senate rule that serves as an imperfect, but necessary substitute -- a jersey barrier to unconstitutional federal expansion. Thankfully, Senate rules still give a determined minority the tools to help them stand athwart the federal juggernaut, yelling "stop!"

The Center for American Progress' Matt Yglesias argues that "welfare state entrenchment" is a key reason liberals should abolish the filibuster. They should make it easier to pass universal entitlement programs, because "nobody dismantles public commitment to these goals once they're achieved."

It's that dynamic that has us careening toward fiscal apocalypse. Attempts to grease that slide ought to be met with the fierce urgency of "never."

Let any Democratic victory be a hard fought one, and hopefully a Pyrrhic one.

MORE: It ought to go without saying, but MAKE ALLIES WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM!

(Hell, if I have advocated libertarians allying themselves with social conservatives, then why not Jane Hamsher? You know, if Hitler invaded Hell....)

AND MORE: I didn't mean to leave out transsexual anarchists framed as conservatives.

(Sorry, but I can't cover every last thing.)

The point is, if you're going to engage in obstructionism (which by definition means being a pain in the ass), there's no reason to be picky. Transsexual anarchists can obstruct just as well as fundamentalist Christians.