If you don't think there's a difference between Democrats -- even DLC Dems like the Clintons -- and the neocon Republicans, consider this:

The 5 justices on the Rehnquist court who made the outrageous decision in Bush v. Gore (even the decision to hear that case, which should have been thown back to Florida) were all appointed by Republicans.

Rehnquist appointed by Nixon
Justice John Stevens appointed by Ford
Scalia appointed by Reagan
O'Connor appointed by Reagan
Kennedy appointed by Reagan
Thomas appointed by Bush 41
David Souter appointed by Bush 41
Breyer appointed by Clinton
Ginsburg appointed by Clinton

True, sometimes (as in the case of Souter) the appointee surprises and disappoints the President who nominated him/her. (Souter came very close to resigning from SCOTUS over the Bush v. Gore decision because he considered it such a slap in the face to the Constitution.)   But the ones who can just about always be counted on to make decisions that favor big corporations, the rich, the religious right, and the Republican party -- regardless of the Constitutional justification -- have all been appointed by Republicans.

There's a huge chasm between Breyer and Ginsburg (Clinton appointees) and Stevens (appointed by rather moderate Republican Ford), on the one hand, and Scalia, Thomas (Reagan and Bush 41 appointees), at the other extreme.

Now that Rehnquist has been replaced (by Bush 43) by the even more extreme Roberts and
Sam Alito (Bush 43) has replaced the more moderate O'Connor, even the appointment of another justice like Kennedy or O'Connor could be a disaster if that appointment was to replace any of the justices who seem to value the Bill Of Rights and the rights of ordinary individuals over those of big business (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter).

It's very likely that one or more of those four so-called "liberals" on the court -- so-called only because the others are so far to the extreme right -- will leave the court in the next 4 to 8 years.   Quite possibly all of them could, because of their age and the state of their health.   

We cannot afford another Clarence "never-justify-or-explain-your-decisions,-just-vote-in-favor-of-the-neocons" Thomas, John Roberts, or Samuel Alito on the court. (Even Scalia occasionally honors his own sense of allegiance to the Constitution and breaks with the outrageous policies of the Dubya administration. And Kennedy seems to be less of an idealogue than even Scalia.)   

I realize that it's the Senate that confirms justices, not the House Of Representatives matters too.   But when I hear (alleged) liberals saying there's not a whit of difference between Democrats like Clinton (either one) and most of today's Republicans, I beg to differ,   There have been some HUGE policy differences between Bill Clinton and Republicans like Regan, Bush 41, and Bush 43.   And there have been some huge differences in legislation passed by Democratic-controlled and Republican-controlled Congresses.   

Let's not forget that one reason the Dems haven't accomplished a lot, legislatively, since Jan., 2005, is that the Republicans in the Senate keep filibustering and Bush keeps vetoing.