Battle joined?

So Hillary!(tm) has announced a vote against Roberts. Lord, I'd love to have heard the negotiating sessions on this: "Pat, you vote yes in committee, all with those Red-state Wisconsin guys, and I'll lead the no's on the floor. Teddy . . . Teddy, put that down."

So the Dems are hitting fairly hard against a man who is pretty, qualified and came off well. Along with Bill's silly little shots, does this indicate that they've climbed aboard the liberal toboggan and are ready for the ride? It seems likely the next confirmation fight will be a tougher one, so I have to admit I'm surprised Mrs. Bill Clinton didn't hedge by giving Roberts a "yes."

LAGuy helpfully adds: No one's gonna be punished for voting against a guy who gets in--who cares either way? (unless he overturns Roe before 2008). Essentially, for the Dems, this is a free vote. Certainly this'll have no effect on Hillary's popularity as she runs for Senator.

So her actions are hardly beyond understanding. She's been hawkish to prove (among other things, one hopes) she can be tough--the one area where a woman might have to worry. (See my post above.) But, like John Kerry, while it seemed to play well at the time, now it's an albatross. Hillary's got a base threatening to lock out anyone who's not expressly anti-war.

The solution, then, is to tack left whenever possible to prove her bona fides. A vote like this is a no-brainer.

ColumbusGuy adds: These people are entirely about perception. We're talking about the woman who, seven days after the election, said the Dems need to go to the churches (the Republican ones). Her problem is everyone knows she's a liberal; she needs to show she's a credible moderate. Votes like this will kill her, giving the lie to all her efforts to tack right. If she's decided she doesen't have room to do that because of her base, then it's pretty much game over. Her only hope then is that suddenly the country is ready to go 1968. (Say -- who was elected president that year?)