[oblomov]

The concept of chareacter is this: one's actions speak for the person. Having a person "speak for himself" is redundant, and potentially misleading. It is better to examine the nominee by looking at their past decisions, causes, and statements. Whatever is said at the confirmation hearings will be in contemplation of the position, and should be given less weight than past actions.

Would you hire a person whose resume is a mess, but who makes comforting assurances in an interview? I wouldn't.

[Bush 100 Percent]

This sounds like the MSM who, I say, confuse "unbiased" with "uninformed". They don't want to ask the people who really know the subject inside and out (in this case H. Miers, herself), but resort to asking only people who have "opinions" that may be politically or competitively biased .......

What you have is people who don't really know her past actions, guessing on them and giving their opinions. I'm not going to hang my hat on that. I say we can learn a lot from how she handles herself in the hearings (actions).