Second, the bill did not fail after Dorgan's "killer" amendment. It failed on an ordinary cloture vote, in which all parties had been clearly warned by Reid that failure would mean withdrawal of the bill. Yet it couldn't even muster a majority, let alone 60 senators. Why did a bipartisan majority effectively vote to bury the bill? The Hill s Manu Raju offers an explanation that's more sophisticated and plausible than Murray's Disgruntled Saboteur theory:

Since the bill failed on a procedural motion, it gives both parties cover when trying to court the influential Latino vote in the 2008 elections.

That's how the Senate works, no? It excels in providing opportunities for lawmakers to engineer stalemates that kill legislation a majority wants killed while diffusing responsibility for doing so (or allowing reporters to blame "disgruntled" loners). ...

Failure was an option! - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine

George Borjas:

Before pouring the champagne, the opposition needs to realize that the bill, though badly battered, is still not dead. The ideas and forces represented therein are like the villain from a bad horror movie that will not die even when a stake is driven through its heart (for some reason, the grand bargain reminds me of Samara from The Ring). The thirst for cheap labor continues unabated and that alone is enough to keep this issue alive.

Maybe now is a good time to look back and daydream: what could a more competent administration have proposed to get us out of our current mess?The Borjas Blog: Kill Bill