[Cicero]

I disagree on two points. Landrieu's vote doesn't show that she thinks she has enough votes to win. It only shows that she calculates that the risk of offending her base is greater than the risk of offending independents. So she did what her pro-abort base demanded.

Also, we already knew that the Dems can filibuster on issues they consider critical. But it remains to be seen whether they can prevent Bush and Lott from offering deals to moderate Dems on key votes that would enable them to achieve cloture. I'm thinking of a tax cut bill, for instance. And it remains to be seen how many Senators will be willing to filibuster against a popular president. Byrd did some token filibustering, evidently, but the Dems decided it wasn't worth fighting the Shedd nomination. On the one hand, they need to keep their pro-abort base happy. On the other hand, they need to avoid giving the voters the impression, already pretty widespread, that they are a bunch of angy obstructionists. If they filibuster against all judicial appointments, how well can they expect to do in 2004?

[For the Unborn]

If Landrieu thought she had enough votes to beat Terrell then why vote with republicans on the Homeland Security Bill? She voted against Shedd to shore up the liberal black vote.