The Democrats aren’t even going to mount an opposition:

Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

Although they expect to subject President Bush’s nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes — enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.

Now I am not Chuck Schumer or Pat Leahy, but 70 votes seems to mean pretty broad support consaidering the current political climate.

Right now, the only thing that interests me about this debate is which way Hillary votes, because that says more about the possible tone of the 2008 election than anything else. At least right now.

Roberts Confirmation ALL But GuaranteedPost + Comments (21)

A Small Victory (thanks to Bill for the link):

Is it really necessary to splash her divorce papers all over the internet? Is this anybody’s business? No, her personal life is NOT fair game. Her family is not fair game. And as much as it takes enormous balls of steel for Sheehan herself to pen a diary at Kos entitled Leave My Family Alone when she’s the one who brought this into the public eye, it takes a person with no semblance of common decency to start gloating over Sheehan’s divorce as this proves something, somehow. Do you know how common it is for couples who have suffered the loss of a child to separate? Do you think this is some win on your part, something to high five each other about? Woohooo, a family is falling apart, another point for our side! That’s sick. SICK.

Read the whole thing. And again, there is no reason not to stick to her statements, which provide ample fodder. Forget about the divorce, which is really none of your business. Forget all the Israel/PNAC/War For Oil stuff. This is what Cindy Sheehan said LAST NIGHT on Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don`t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We`re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we`re saying. But they`re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

Those are the deep thoughts of the new patron saint of the anti-war movement. And I say ‘anti-war,’ and not ‘peace,’ because they are not the same thing. This is the message they have, and it is silly, irresponsible, and easily refutable. And this is AFTER she has spent time with media handlers.

There is no need to go rummaging through her personal life- even if it is ‘news.’ It is mean-spirited, unfair, and should be beneath most decent people. And it is irrelevant.

And just for the sheer comic hilarity of it, this excerpt:

MATTHEWS: Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?

SHEEHAN: No, not this time. I`m a one issue person. I know a lot about what`s going on in Iraq but I don`t know anything about anything else. And I want to focus my energy on bringing the troops home.

So back off her divorce and other family matters. If her husband comes forward and makes public statements, that is another matter. The focus should be on the message she is spreading, her public statements, and the organizations promoting/using her. And that isn’t smearing her. That is merely examining the public record of a public actor.

What She SaidPost + Comments (110)