Sen. Hillary Moderate Clinton

From Drudge:

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

...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.

It surprises me that Hillary intends to vote NO on the Roberts nomination.

This flies in the face of her extreme makeover to present herself as a centrist.

As a result, this leads me to believe that she has re-evaluated her assessment of the current state of the Democrat Party. She has determined that the only way she will be able to get her party's nomination for the presidency is by pandering to the lunatic fringe.

She knows her fund-raising efforts will suffer, particularly from the Hollywood elite, if she does not fall in step with their extreme liberal agenda.

This sentence is idiocy at its purest:
"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."

Hillary is saying indirectly that Justices like Scalia and Thomas vote against civil rights, voting rights, and women's rights. She is saying that Roberts would do the same. That, of course, is absurd.

Does it make sense that Hillary claims to have respect for the character of Judge Roberts, yet believes that the man intends to rip away civil, voting, and women's rights from the American people?

Obviously, her statement does not make sense, which means it will appeal to the radical Left. (For years, I've heard that Hillary is so brilliant. If that's the case, why does she make such God-awful decisions?)

As I see it, there is not a single moderate Democrat planning to run in 2008.

Hillary seems to have abandoned her feigned move to the middle. If she refuses to vote for a nominee like John Roberts, she is certain to reject Bush's next candidate for the Supreme Court.

Today, Hillary has painted herself into a tiny Leftist corner.

She just lost the 2008 election.