The dropping of ANWR drilling from the House bill was a dance, not a compromise. The idea was that because the Senate bill had a provision for ANWR drilling, the GOP could stick it right back in conference, where differences between the two chambers are hammered out (this has become routine under the Republicans, the abuse of conference to protect members from politically dangerous votes).

The idea was that the drilling was a chit in the House bill that could be "bargained away" to win over wavering moderates (knowing full well it was going back in during conference).

The good news is that it looks like they lack the votes to pass their cruel budget even without ANWR (as of 1:29pm EST). But however it plays out, ANWR drilling was never taken off the table - House members were simply protected from the political embarrassment of having to vote for it.

After 15 years of exposure to Hillary Clinton, I can't identify any values she may hold - not one.

Anyone who gets mad at people like Nader for "spoiling elections" is either blind or an idiot - it's not liberals' fault that Democrats don't represent them.

That the Democrats will be painted "obstructionists" by the GOP, if they filibuster, is true.

But what would Democrats save by avoiding that label?

If Democrats don't do their job - represent the more than 50 percent of America that still thinks checks and balances matter - then they are an empty shell. And an empty shell, capable only of avoiding the labels of a corrupt oligarchy, is useless to me and my nation.

And before someone points out that the Repubs will then end the filibuster with the "nuclear option," making the filibuster futile, I say: 1) the GOP doesn't have the votes (there are moderate GOP who will be happy not to have to vote on Alito; and 2) even if the GOP does succeed at the nuclear option, the action violates Senate rules; no one should avoid doing the right thing because their adversary plans to do the wrong thing.

I have two responses:

1) I doubt - very much - that a filibuster on Alito is going to affect swing voters more than: checkbook issues; Iraq; wiretapping; the environment; government corruption; education; healthcare; etc. etc. In fact, if the Democrats are in a place where their election hopes would hang on an "obstructionist" charge (over a confirmation battle most citizens are ignoring), they're already losers.

2) The idea of playing it safe to be in a good position for an election violates a long, deep historical record. The right took over the GOP and the nation by pushing as hard as they could to the right, without apology. They didn't care if they were called extremists (which they were), and it worked. Voters who lack facts (most of them) like conviction - or the appearance of conviction.

Moreover, people who buy into the idea of not offending the middle (who are barely paying attention at any given time) should consider that a party's base is what: talks to their neighbors, registers voters, works polling locations, donates, and all of the other things that are absolutely necessary to reach the middle.

I get your message. While I still believe that the Dems are totally incompetent if "obstructionist" loses them an election against an openly corrupt GOP, I think we differ on a deeper level.

I believe in all the rights that many Democrats only rhetorically value. That's why spending an extra few weeks keeping Alito off the Court more than makes up for two extra weeks of weak criticism on the Iraq war, for which there will be plenty of time. Forty years of a right-wing majority on the high court is not simply a short-term political inconvenience for me.

Funny that you call me naive.

I agree that Democrats are ineffective communicators, and I don't object to them getting their act together there. But what would help is a clear moral agenda.

In that way, I think my idealism is actually just what they need to have coherent talking points. If the Democrats had consistent values that they never compromised, average people who don't know many political facts could at least say, "I know where those guys stand."

If they don't filibuster Alito, how can they ever come back to me during an election and say they will protect me from a right-wing Court (as they did in '02 and '04)? Who are they if they don't reject Alito? I have no idea. I wouldn't trust them to give a damn about the poor or my civil liberties, whatever their press releases say.

In fact, I don't even want the Democrats to win unless they are ready to stand up for real progressive values. I'd vote for a third party for Presdient in '08 - knowing the GOP would stay in power - if I could expect the Democrat to be Republican Lite.

The hour is far too late to alternate between fast and slow drivers, if both are heading toward a cliff. At least with a total lunatic at the wheel, Americans might find the guts to grab the steering wheel themselves.