Well, there might be some good news on the Alito front: Senators Kennedy and Kerry are seriously considering filibustering the Alito nomination. Inspired by dadahead's argument that the Democratic 'strategy' really doesn't seem any different than if the Democrats were intentionally trying to lose to the Republicans on every issue, I want to ask a simple question:

According to a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politi cs/27judge.html) President Bush, in yet another example of the Republican party's dirty tricks, has nominated the chief prosecutor on the Jack Abramoff case to a federal judgeship. Democratics are understandably up in arms and demanding a special prosecutor to be appointed; Republicans aren't at all keen on the idea.

If the Dems think Frist has 60 votes for cloture (and, please God, there are some Dems who can actually count votes!), then that's all the more reason to try a filibuster.

Because, if so, the nuclear option is moot this time. And the only risk for Dems is failure. And, let's face it, that's not a state of affairs they're unused to!

Just the sheer relief among the base that Congressional Dems have taken the fight to the GOP will make it worthwhile.

Believe it or not, I actually understand the thinking of Democrats who fear being attacked by the GOP for opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito. It doesn't matter how radical Alito is in reality. Republicans will claim that the only people opposing Alito are moonbat lunatic Bush-haters. Of course, I understand this thinking to be small-minded cowardice, but I understand it none the less.

So let's get a few things straight here. Sure, The Washington Post editorial board has come out for Alito's confirmation, but that's about it. The New York Times is opposed, as is the not-so-liberal New Republic. Even 'Gang of 14' member Joe Lieberman has refused to rule out a filibuster.

My point is not that any Democrats should be taking marching orders from the traditional media or the DLC. Rather, with the DLC officially in opposition, even the most conservative of Democrats have the political cover they need to vigorously oppose Alito's confirmation. The DLC's Ed Kilgore echos his organization's position at his New Donkey blog.

Armando already pointed out something important Kilgore had written about the confident support Alito has won from anti-choice activists. If any single factor has the potential to seriously derail Alito's momentum, that's it. But from a larger perspective, Alito's hostility to privacy rights is just one piece of a much larger, quite disturbing picture of his brand of rightist judicial activism.

This is a moment of unity for the Democratic Party. I hope we're able to capitalize on it. There's quite simply no reason for any elected Democrat not to oppose the confirmation of Alito.

This is clearly a very close whip count: When I was down in DC, I heard some people optimistically argue that Republicans would not try and use the nuclear option if Democrats filibustered Alito, simply because going down that path would be extremely poor timing around the SOTU, the start of the legislative session, and the start of an election year. I have no idea if that is a likely scenario, as I also do not know if Democrats will actually be able to round up the votes on a filibuster. Clearly, however, the situation is extremely close, and the next reporter who writes or says that Alito is "likely" to be confirmed is either not paying attention, or needs to come clean about their connections to the Republican Noise Machine.

So many people have been saying that, since Alito's confirmation hearings are over and he survived it without throwing a tantrum or a water glass, it's a done deal. It's not. In order to win his seat on the Supreme Court, he still has to win the votes of a majority of the US Senate. Now, this is all completely obvious. But reading some of the defeatism out there, you'd think that he already has.

At The Nation, Bruce Shapiro explains why it is so important that Democrats do not give up fighting against the Alito confirmation. Essentially, there is no reason that it shouldn't be clear that Alito's positions are those of a judicial extremist.

Likewise, Steve Gilliard makes an incredible case for continuing the fight. I wholeheartedly recommend reading the entire post, but here's what I consider the operative section.

With a Democrat like Diane Feinstein openly saying that she does "not see a likelihood of a filibuster," it makes our job that much harder. But it also makes our job that much more important as well. We need to make it clear that confirmation for Alito is not acceptable to moderate Americans. Not only do we need to convince the Democrats, but also shaky Republicans who need to win Democratic votes. So let's get to work. Stopping Alito is something we should now throw our full support behind. And despite what you may have heard, it's not yet out of the question.

For me, one of the most exciting moments of the Alito hearings was Senator Feingold demanding a list be made public of all the people who took part in Alito's preparations. Here was something that Alito had to answer for, factually speaking. He couldn't forget. He couldn't squirm out of it. He couldn't wave it off, saying that the issue might come up before him in court. He had to answer.

So of course I found Feingold's request even more important in the aftermath of Lindsey Graham causing Alito's wife to have a breakdown. It's a well-established fact that Graham was involved in the preparations. Some have wondered whether or not the spectacle of Alito's wife crying during the hearing was something that was rehearsed before hand, as the right-wing message machine blamed the whole thing on the mean ol' Democrats, even though it was a Republican who set her off. I can't claim to know either way.

What does bother me greatly is that Graham's name does not appear on the disclosure list of those in attendance at Alito's murder boards. Here's a graphic file of the PDF posted by Think Progress.

Am I missing something? Unless I'm wrong, this is not a full and accurate list of the people involved in preparing Alito for the hearings. And as Kos points out, disclosure of the names of those involved is a very serious subject, as it raises some real ethical questions. Here's hoping the full list -- the real full list -- is released soon.

This is it for me--no more posting in Washington. I am going to skip town and head back to my beloved Philly soon. (yey!) Before I go, I would like to announce that "Borkemada" won the Guess Alito's Freeper User Name contest. User Clare Boothe Lucid should send me an email at chris@mydd.com, so she can claim her prize. I will get back to her tomorrow at the latest.

We can still beat Alito, even if the odds are against it right now. Winning the post-hearings spin is important in this process, so check out Bill Scherr for some really good post-hearings messaging.

I would like to give a big thanks to everyone who helped me out in DC this week, and a big shout out to the blogopshere in general. I think we did a much better job this time than we did on Roberts. There is still some real opposition left in this country.

Finally, I thought that Senator Kennedy's statement today at the end of his questioning was a very good summary of why Alito should not be confirmed. I have included it in the extended entry.