Here is Wiki on the Filibuster:
In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority[9]:
The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.
More after Break
The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.
Nevertheless, the current Senate rules state that 67 votes are required for future rule changes.[10]
[edit] Procedural filibuster]
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
This is obviously a game. Harry Reid, if he wished, could force Republicans/Lieberman to actually filibuster the damn bill. If they really wanted a "public option" or even better single-payer, the Democratic Leader could force Lieberman to read a cookbook indefinitely if he wanted or the Republicans. Have them stop government, Have them ruin their political careers.
But I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is all a charade. It is a play put on for our benefit to believe that one side is fighting for us, when they are all in bed together.
One need only look at the President's behavior towards HCR. Standoffish, wanting to accept any bill, not fighting for anything in particular except the mandate to force us to buy insurance...
Of course verbally he'll say he supports the public option, but guess what actions are still louder than words in my book.
Forget reconciliation for a moment. Let the bill be filibustered. Fight them on 2010 and watch the wave of support the people with give the Democrats.
They won't do that because they want exactly what has happened. If this is a game of chess we are the pawns, the politicians are the knights, rooks, bishops, king, and queens, and the Insurance Companies are the players.