I stayed quiet during the Roberts' confirmation hearing, despite the big debate over tactics, because I honestly had no idea which way to proceed. We could either 1) oppose and/or filibuster Roberts, or 2) give Roberts a pass and focus on O'Connor's replacement, who if Bush stays true to forrm will be a real winger.
Opposing Roberts on ideological grounds was tough. Bush chose well with his stealth candidate. But, there were ample grounds to take the high moral ground and obstruct based on the administration's reluctance to release certain documents. The strategy worked like a charm with the Bolton nomination, and there was no reason it couldn't have been employed againt Roberts.
Instead, Leahy of all people now say they'll vote on Roberts, meaning there might be 20 "no" votes on Roberts. Some Democrats claim this will "keep the powder keg dry" when Bush sends up his potentially nutbag nominee.
Leahy just allowed a bad precedent -- accepting a nominee after being denied the documentary evidence to make an informed decision. That the administration refused to release those documents means that there was something to hide. But it's a precedent that can potentially allow our own stealth candidates to slip through without a full vetting. The GOP won't have the White House forever.
As for the dry powder keg strategy? I have no idea whether it was a good strategy or not. Instinctively, I tend to think Democrats are too worried about what the Kool Kids on Fox and MSNBC say about them, and should simply ignore the chattering classes. But who knows, maybe it'll work.
So I won't declare failure or become despondent over Roberts. I think a determination of success or failure is premature until we see how Democrats work O'Connor's successor.
And ultimately, the Republicans have the White House and a solid majority in the Senate. If we want to stop the Roberts of the world in the future we have to do so at the ballot box. The Roberts battle was lost in 2004, 2002, and 2000.