The worst possible strategy on Roberts

OK, so it's not looking like the Dems are going to adopt my "everyone vote yes, but with a warning" strategy.  Nor does it look like there will be united front of "no" votes, though there will certainly be some.  So far, what I've heard is that Kennedy, Kerry, and Reid have announced they will vote "no"; Leahy (D-Vt.) and Baucus (D-Mt.) have said they'll vote "yes," and everyone else is thinking about it.

Another possible strategy, and I think quite an interesting one, would be for Democrats to vote "present" on this nomination, as a way of indicating that the administration's appalling refusal to provide highly relevant documents has left them unable to evaluate Roberts adequately.  A vote of 55-0 would be a strong message that better behavior will be required next time.  The first time I saw this idea was in the comments to this post in my Kos diary - thanks to all that mentioned it there.

The WORST POSSIBLE STRATEGY for the Democrats, in my view, is the one that they appear to be pursuing: everyone does what they feel like, with the result that, let's say, about 20 Democrats vote "no," about 25 vote "yes," Roberts is comfortably confirmed, and the Democrats have failed to stake out any ground whatsoever for the next nomination.  Look, we cannot, and probably (in my view) should not, prevent John Roberts from becoming the next Chief Justice of the United States.  But we CAN, and we SHOULD, send a powerful message of some sort to President Bush and the Senate Republicans that Justice O'Connor's replacement is a different kettle of fish because of her unique role on the Court.  If we fail to do that, we really suck.