pick your battles?

Eleanor Clift over at MSNBC has a rage-inducing article about how Dems need to "pick their battles": that is, our left-leaning elected politicians shouldn't "waste their time" filibustering Alito's nomination There are, supposedly, "bigger fights coming down the pike."

Ummm.
Wait, so the impending overturning of Roe v Wade and a woman's rights over her own body aren't the right battles to choose? Riiight.

Clift gets into the (increasingly Democratic) stance of pessimism, and claims that the Alito issue is an "unwinnable fight," and instead of worrying our silly heads over his taking away our fundamental rights to our own uteruses, we should worry about when John Paul Stevens, "the most liberal member of the court" steps down or dies. (He is, after all 85.)


I guess I don't understand why it is that we should ignore a fight that, by the way, we can win, just to wait for a fight that may or may not happen while the Shrub is president, a fight that, fate willing, won't happen for a while now.
Are we (as liberals) that inept at multi-tasking that we really can't fight Alito and be prepared to fight Stevens' replacement at a later date? Because, really, I'm pretty sure we're quite capable of doing so. No thanks to you, Eleanor Clift.