No clue what you are going to shoot or what qualities about the 1DII you like. For example, why you want the "rugged" body, and why you think "bigger" pixels is important.
Current sensor technolgy means those "smaller" pixels don't scale down in size equal to the increase in pixel count. Space is reduced between pixels and improved micro lens gather more light. So more pixels doesn't always translate to less quality - in fact improved sensors/pixels is one reason they are achieving these ridiculous ISO's.
As far as video, this to me is irrelevant. If you are interested in a still camera the fact that it does video doesn't matter. The mediums are converging and including video in still dSLR's hasn't increased their price. Within another year or two it is doubtful there will be another digital camera made that cannot shoot video other than MF. Once Live View came along, it became just a logical convergence that was mainly firmware driven and didn't require adding expensive hardware. So if you don't need it, then just ignore it.
I guess what puzzles me is why you think the D3 fills the ticket, but the new 1DMark4 doesn't. Not that it matters to me, but to completely re-gear a full lens line up ... I guess I just don't know what is so appealing about the Nikon.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fantastic camera. I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from, because even a 1DMark3 is a nice step up, and it sounds like if you are a canon shooter the 1DMark4 would make perfect sense.
Now if there is something else you like about the Nikon that the canon just doesn't do or something about the CAnon you just hate , sure. Maybe it's a good time to switch.
Of course, I'd take a look at Sony if I were switching.