John Hinderaker asks:

I have to say, though, that I really don't understand what the Democrats are doing on Bolton. I can understand that for partisan reasons, to give the administration a black eye and to keep their contributors fired up, they think they need to choose a vulnerable appointee now and then, and pick him off.

But the U.N. ambassador seems like an odd choice. Normally, such appointments haven't even required a roll call vote. No U.N. nominee has ever had more than a handful of votes cast against him. This isn't because they have all been wonderful nominees, but because this is not a position where any significant power gets exercised. For the Democrats to expend so much capital on it seems odd.

For one, I think Democrats are simply in an obstructionist frame of mind. But, more importantly, I don't think the UN has ever been as vulnerable as it is today. Clearly, they've been trying to argue that Bolton shouldn't represent US interests because he's not a big fan of the UN -- so it appears, perhaps, they're worried that someone might actually want to -- you know -- reform the beast, or perhaps tarnish it's blackened reputation even further.