I understand blood oaths between Democratic presidential aspirants and the feminist lobby are nothing new, but Kerry went further this time, presumably to regain lost ground to competitor Howard Dean, who has been shoring up the far left wing of the party.

While announcing his pro-abortion litmus test for Supreme Court justices, Kerry -- with a straight face -- denied he would apply a litmus test. "The focus," said Kerry, "is on the constitutional right that Roe [v. Wade] established in America. I want jurists to agree, who swear to uphold the Constitution … The bottom line is, I want someone who will understand that right and uphold it."

I know that Democrats have already been applying a de facto litmus test, but don't underestimate the significance of Kerry all but admitting to it. Even constitutional scholars were surprised that Kerry publicized his intention to politicize judicial nominations "that baldly." University of Wisconsin constitutional law professor Donald Downs said, "There's a delicate balance between politics and the court's independent role as interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution. This does seem to push the envelope concerning that balance."

Seriously, how would you like to have to prove your professed allegiance to the Constitution by promising your indelible commitment to a "constitutional right" that was created out of whole cloth? By conceding the "constitutional right" to abortion wasn't established until Roe v. Wade in 1973, not through the proper constitutional amendment process but judicial fiat, Kerry essentially acknowledged the Framers didn't establish it. In one fell swoop he declared war on the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the Constitution.

Moving on, how would you like it if your political future were tied to your irreversible devotion to the catechisms of the faith of global warming? Or having to explain why the last president of your party is going around giving speeches undermining the current president (in a complete break with precedent and a demonstration of his abject classlessness), reportedly even suggesting that President Bush has secret plans to attack North Korea? How would you like to have to break bread with those who are now calling handguns weapons of mass destruction?

How would you like to have to justify such silly, illogical positions as "I oppose the war, but support the troops?" Or to have to identify with those "opinion leaders" who derive their self-esteem from their childish habit of attaching demeaning nicknames to the adults running this nation, such as "Rummy," "Wolfie" and "Shrub"?

How would you like to have to explain why you insisted on taking the pathological Saddam Hussein's word over the Bush administration's that he had disposed of his weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions he persistently flouted?

How would you like to have to suck up to those -- your constituents -- who chanted the unconscionably slanderous slogan "No blood for oil"? Or to explain away the jubilant Iraqis kissing our liberating troops? Or to explain why your prophecies of doom over an Iraqi invasion (such as Iraqi missiles raining down on Tel Aviv) didn't come to pass?

How would you like to have to explain your party's dire predictions of a Vietnam-like quagmire in Iraq (let alone Afghanistan)? How would you like to have to explain why once it became obvious there would be no quagmire, you immediately switched your criticism to "the Iraqis put up no opposition"?

How would you like to be reduced to advocating "regime change" for this country -- knowing the president has just accomplished more for the cause of good in America and the world with the war against Iraq than you could accomplish in two presidential terms, in the extremely unlikely event you were elected?

Oh well, you can always hope for a sluggish economy and blame it on the tax cuts you diluted.