Seems Senator Clinton’s (excuse me, “Hillary’s”) in a bit of a bind. Lots of Dems voted for the authorization. Then they waged an effective PR campaign for “Bush lied” (spin?) to justify the war (were WMDs a valid basis for war? Debatable - but recently President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Perry said both he and Pres Clinton were convinced Hussein had WMDs) but they were hoodwinked, fooled, lied to. Saddam must have had a great program to destroy all his WMDs, get rid of all the evidence, remove all trace. I mean, they were really, really quick about it once Pres Clinton left office.

So they separated themselves from the Administration and sought to attract the antiwar voters (Democrats, Republicans, liberal, moderate, conservative - cuts across these categories). As the midterms show, they were effective.

Given the nature of the Democratic Party, the power brokers for nominees are rabidly antiIraq, so that’s a big litmus test (Republican power brokers are really concerned with such vital questions as, “are you married? Once?” and “are you going to put reproduction and sex at the forefront of your agenda” or “should Ozzie and Harriet return to prime time?”).

But pandering to either side is a good way to alienate about ten percent of the middle - enough to swing an election. But if you don’t pander, or at least dance a pretty good jig, you may not get the nomination. If there’s one thing Democrats are good at, it’s fratricide.