Determining who the lone senator not voting was. A Republican obviously ... more shortly.

Late Update: Sen. Voinovich did not vote and was not present in the chamber, AFP's Olivier Knox reports.

But Baucus is apparently in the building, and Byrd just arrived. So we should be all set for a vote shortly.

You might attribute that in part to the Dem holdouts wanting to enjoy their moment of maximum leverage for as long as they can, right up until the final vote later this year. But it's wishful thinking to conclude that's the only thing going on here. Blanche Lincoln's floor speech in particular seemed to foreclose her being able to plausibly turn around later and vote for a public option. You can't come out as strongly against it as she did and then vote for it anyway without seriously compounding your political problems back home.

The only reasonable reading of today's developments is that while the Dems will get 60 votes this evening they are still short of the 60 they need to get to a final vote on a bill that includes an opt out public option. Couple that with the fact that there is 100% guaranteed to be a health care reform bill in some shape or form passed by the Senate, and you're left with somebody needing to strike a deal to get this done.

We reported earlier that, according to one Senate aide, Sen. Chuck Schumer has been trying to map out a compromise that would switch the public option from an opt out version to some form of triggered public option that would satisfy the Democratic holdouts (and maybe Olympia Snowe). This apparently ticked off some of the opt out proponents in the Senate, though Schumer's office is vigorously denying to us that Schumer has had any role in any such negotiations.

Pissed at Schumer? Really?

No one's been as committed to the public option as Schumer, and our reporting has suggested that it's very unlikely that the public option would be in the bill today were it not for Schumer's efforts. But for all his work to get a public option through, Schumer is still a pragmatist, and surely he's known for several days what's becoming obvious to all of us today: they don't have the votes. So I'm not sure I get why anyone would be pissed at him for trying to come up with a compromise that gets the votes and preserves as much of the public option as possible.

I mean I "get it" -- emotions are raw and no one who's pushed hard for public option is going to be happy to see it watered down more. But at this point you're just denying reality if you think all that the Dems need to do to get the waverers to come around is stand together in a show of unity. Lieberman is a no. Snowe is a no. Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln are tepid at best. Whatever peer pressure could be brought to bear is heavily diluted when you're four votes short. If it were one lone holdout, maybe. But four?

I don't have any independent knowledge about whether Schumer's been trying to forge a compromise. But it sure wouldn't surprise me. I'd be more surprised, given what we now know about the lack of votes (or, more precisely, what we've pretty much known but have had confirmed today), if Schumer were not trying to find a compromise. Somebody's got to. This isn't one where you get to just pick up the ball and take it home with you. You still have to play, even if the outcome is guaranteed to disappoint.

Hard to imagine she'd go so far as to block the bill from even being debated. Then again, you never know.

Late Update: Landrieu will stick with her party and her President ... for now.

The jab came in response to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's citation of Broder's column set to appear tomorrow.

Broder is 80. Reid is 69.

Thot I'd stick w tour news on Twitter but can't help digress: Call senators! Tell 'em KILL THE BILL tonite;horrible govt healthcare takeover

Evan McMorris-Santoro has the story.

There is a lot of misplaced anger coming from many of our fellow progressives about Senate Democrats (which often is just shortened to "The Democrats") inability to pass a robust healthcare reform bill, climate change, etc.

However, I believe it's worth reminding folks that--as long as the Republican Senators hold together--we have to hold EVERY single Democratic Senator, including folks like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, which is usually impossible unless the legislation in question gets substantially watered down.

So, what we might end up with is a Senate Democratic Caucus that holds 98% of its members but still fails to pass healthcare reform, AND a mob of angry progressives who are screaming for the heads of "the Democrats." This isn't fair, but more importantly, it's self-defeating. If progressives REALLY want to transform America, they'll make an issue of the anti-democratic rules of the Senate which make real change virtually impossible. Blasting their elected Democratic officials, the vast majority of whom will vote for the Senate bill (and would also support a more robust public option if we didn't need 60 votes to achieve cloture), may make folks feel good, but is both short-sighted and stupid.

This is Chris Matthews from a few moments ago on Hardball, worrying about the propaganda victories he fears KSM will win spouting jihadist propaganda while on trial in New York City.

As I've said in earlier posts, I simply do not get this. And is from Chris Matthews who's said an improving record of political sanity. First, federal trials give defendants precious little opportunity for free-form court room lectures or speeches to the cameras that don't even exist in federal court.

But what do we have to fear? We're going to lose this argument? Really? Why am I so alone in having confidence in this country and what it stands for?

What you say about Palin is certainly true in general, but her likely endorsee in FL - Marco Rubio - is one of the only Republicans in the country right now who really worried me as a Democrat. He's young, telegenic, polished, Latino in a too-white party, a father of four married to a former Dolphins cheerleader, and politically talented enough to rise to Speaker of the state House before he was term-limited out. Granted, his conservatism is of the '01-'05 W. Bush vintage, but he worries me as much as any Republican in the country this side of John Thune (which says as much about the Republicans as it does about Rubio, but still). If I had to bet my life savings on who would be the Republican VP nominee in 2016, I'd definitely take Rubio.