Sen. Hillary Clinton refuses to repudiate her vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. However, she still criticizes Bush for his performance during the war. She shows no signs of abandoning this strategy going into 2008. This is the same strategy that defeated Kerry in 2004 and will defeat her in 2008, either in the primaries, or if we have the misfortune of nominating her, in the general election.
In 2004, Bush should have been defeated simply by virtue of how badly Iraq war going. However, John Kerry's position on the war was so complicated that it became the issue instead of Bush's handling of Iraq. Kerry didn't want to look weak by saying he didn't support the war, but he didn't want to lose political advantage by supporting Bush completely on the war. Now Hillary's doing the same thing, ignoring the political minefield she's walking into.
The lesson from the 2004 campaign is clear: if you want voters to view you as a credible critic of the war, you can't be a supporter of it. Otherwise, what grounds do you have to criticize Bush? Furthermore, Hillary won't call for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, even though most of the public supports one. If people want to vote for "stay the course" they know which party to pick. Unfortunately, Mark Warner falls into this same trap. He likes being in the "center" but fails to see that the political center has moved to where a timetable for withdrawal is the new center. Vague explanations for what to do next in Iraq won't suffice. As a matter of principle, as well as political calculation, Democrats should not support any candidate who is pro-war or who does not favor withdrawal. If we have a pro-war, stay the course candidate who still tries to criticize Bush, we'll end up losing again (and even if we win, what is gained? We can stay the course with Republicans). Warner has a lot of potential, but he is making a mistake assuming that the political center is in between the Republicans and Democrats since the Republicans are so far-right. As for Hillary, for such an overwhelming front-runner (if the media is to be believed) she has a rather underwhelming lead. Dean was polling in her range and he lost the nomination. But whoever you support, do not support a candidate who isn't anti-war. If we run a candidate who supports the war but still criticizes Bush on the war, they will be seen as an opportunist. Since we want to criticize Bush on the war, we should run someone who opposes the war, who'll be seen as intellectually consistent. You'd better believe Hillary will be asked, "Knowing what you know today would you still vote for the war?" She can't say no, or she looks "weak" and if she says yes, she might as well just give her concession speech right there. We need leaders now. Hillary Clinton is not a leader. She waits until its safe to take positions on contoversial issues. 2004 showed that "play-it-safe" politics are not just cowardly, they're bad politics. If Hillary Clinton wants to rehash the John Kerry 2004 campaign, she should not be allowed anywhere near the nomination.
Just another thought...it would be as hard to elect Hillary as it would be to elect a very liberal candidate, since most people view Hillary as very liberal. But she is not. So if we're going to work that hard to elect someone, why not elect someone who's very liberal?
John Kerry 2004........Hillary Clinton 2008...so similar, it's scary
Update: Just to clarify, the poll is asking about a candidate who supports the Iraq War. We can't and shouldn't have a pacifist as president, but that doesn't mean we ought to go in the opposite direction and get a warmonger. Afghanistan was a necessary war. If only we'd "stayed the course" there and caught bin Laden, we'd be much better off. Thanks a lot Dubai-ya.