Chipping Away With a Vote a Day

By now you've probably heard that Hillary Clinton won't vote for Roberts. She says:

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts’s intellect, character, and legal skills.

Basically, Hillary is only voting against Roberts because he's shown discretion in his responses that don't reveal him to be left-leaning, which is what she requires to confirm a judicial nominee.

Now Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) has hopped on Reid's rickety wagon.

I cannot (conclude he'll be a great justice) because so much essential to reaching a considered judgment about this nominee remains unknown,” Bayh said in a statement. “And that is not enough for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court, a court from which there is no appeal, a court that is the ultimate arbiter of our most basic rights and freedoms.

Bayh has no reason to vote otherwise, either. None of the reasons given have anything to do with Roberts' record in any explicable, judicially meaningful way. Even Hillary refuses to do anything more than apply the broad brush to "the views he expressed in his legal writings."

But why are the Senators deliberating in the wake of yesterday's vote, especially when the hearings have been complete for a week, and Reid has already sounded the battle cry? And why would reporters poll one Senator at a time?

It's an old tactic - one the terrorists understand well - that when you don't outnumber your enemy, you wear them down. And it won't work in the end.