That's the way Dean Barnett of Soxblog sees it, anyway. He clearly lands on the side of those not opposed to Alito. Still, here's an interesting bit:
So, in the public’s eyes, it is now Ted Kennedy who purports to judge the character of Sam Alito. Ted Kennedy – the heavy drinking guy whose immorality actually has a body-count. Liberals could argue that Kennedy has put his life together and now is an admirable lion in winter, but the indisputable fact is that west of Cambridge, Ted Kennedy is a joke, someone who has been consistent fodder for late night talk show hosts for almost four decades. Obviously if this thing comes down to Kennedy versus Alito, the Kennedy side loses.
Also, Dean has a bit of advice for the Democrats:
But there is one limit – leave the opponent’s family alone. When the New York Times investigated the adoption process of John Roberts’ children, the nation’s chattering class was appalled. When New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Doug Forrester ran an ad featuring the commentary of his opponents’ ex-wife, Garden State voters were repulsed.
I shouldn’t glance over the fact that Mrs. Alito’s dash from the hearing room was truly a poignant moment in our political history. The sad fact is that entering the Supreme Court-level of public service means you have to endure the crude efforts of men like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden to humiliate you, distort your background, and ruin your reputation and your life. It’s a bit like throwing the Christians to the lions, except the lions say “aaah,” “puzzled,” and “extreme” a lot.
I guess this comes of trying to make every issue another sign of the Apocalypse. It didn't work very well for the Republicans in the early '90s. What makes the Democrats think it'll work well for them now?