Ahh, this is where Clinton disagrees with us

Remember this from a Clinton big-dollar fundraiser?

Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down. We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them."

No one asked Clinton to explain just what, exactly, was the point of disagreement. Clearly, she said that our opposition was driven by national security and foreign policy, and that she didn't agree with us. But what were the specifics?

Now we know. This is from a CBS appearance in 2005:

"Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties," said Clinton. "We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."

Creepy how Clinton and McCain have morphed into the same candidate, huh? Okay, McCain wants 100 years in Iraq, Clinton wants "50-plus". Plus what? Plus another 50? She doesn't seem to care. She's already sharing talking points with McCain on Wright, on their sham gas tax gambit, and now Iraq as well?

You know what this means, right? She wouldn't be able to create a contrast with McCain on Iraq. Every time we tried to attack McCain on his 100 years of Iraq, Republicans would shoot back with Clinton's own words:

Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with.

This is a disaster for her, taking Iraq off the table. And without Iraq as an issue, our path to victory is actually a lot tougher. In fact, this was a major factor in Bush's victory in 2004:

What did Rove have to say about [Howard Dean's collapse to Kerry]? "'The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee,' Rove now argued to an associate in his second floor West Wing office. Dean's unconditional opposition to the Iraq War could have been potent in a face-off with Bush. 'One of Dean's strengths though was he could say, I'm not part of that crowd down there.' But Kerry was very much a part of the Washington crowd and he had voted in favor of the resolution for war. Rove got out his two-inch-think loose-leaf binder titled 'Bring It On.' It consisted of research into Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate. Most relevant were pages 9-20 of the section on Iraq."

In short, Kerry could offer no contrast on one of the major issues of the campaign as Dean would've offered. And now we have Clinton, who voted for the war, who has refused to apologize for that vote, who voted affirmatively on a similar resolution dealing with Iran, and who now says she totally agrees with McCain.

It's a Republican's dream come true. Or nightmare, since Clinton's chances of winning are next to nothing.