I think everybody's got it wrong on the hearings. (Full disclosure: I'm wait-and-see with a bias toward "oppose"). These hearings will be different. Most of the time, we already know the qualifications, the hearings are normally about "how will he/she vote?", which of course, we can't know.
The objections to Miers are more qualifications based. I really think the hearings are going to be more like an oral exam in con law. She'll sink or swim based on her knowledge.
Unfortunately, the anti's have overplayed their hand, and painted a picture of a woman who can't string two sentences together. She'll look brilliant by comparison. I think she'll get confirmed, it'll be be antis fault for talking down her intelligence, and it'll be a shame if she turns out to be somewhat less than competent.
I have always avoided characterizations of her intelligence. I have emphasized the fact that she was not the most qualified nominee at a time when the Court needs a stellar one.