The statement was more to the point of the issues the Lib Dems ran on/hoped to accomplish with their term in power, especially with a Dem Pres. Items such as getting out of/reducing troops in Afgan, ending DADT, single payer health care (your points made are valid where more of a compromise than a goal), closing Gitmo, climate change legislation, card check for unions (who spent a ton of money in the 2008 elections), and like items.You can agree or disagree with those policies, but I think its silly to say liberals didn't get anything out of two years of Dem rule
With regards to the filibuster, with control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate (before Brown's election) the Dems didn't need the GOP to get their goals accomplished. All the Dems had to do was to unify their party like the GOP did. If so then "filibuster" would have just been a word. Anyway the threat or use of a filibuster, IMO, has been reduced. With a GOP House and enough Blue Dog Dems in the Senate running for re-election in 2 years to work with the GOP minority in the Senate and with a Pres who now seems to walk-the-walk with regards to the bipartisan talk most if not all legislation will be done before even before its first vote. You might have some Lib Dem and hard-core Tea Party types voting against and expressing displeasure with legislation but I think most legislators will read the election results as voters wanting things done instead extreme hard line stands and nothing done, at least I hope so.