Read
this if you want a great example (it comes from CW hack Adam Nagourney).
The news about Saddam Hussein fulfills what many Americans have long viewed as a crucial test for measuring success in the war in Iraq and thus could rob Democrats of an issue they have increasingly challenged President Bush on, Democrats said on Sunday.
But its impact could fall particularly heavily on the candidacy of Howard Dean, the Democrat who most party leaders view as the leading contender for the nomination. It could force Dr. Dean, Democrats said, to deal with a stronger incumbent in next year's general election, should the capture prove the turning point Mr. Bush has sought in the war. It could also lead to challenges from newly emboldened Democratic candidates who supported the war, who see an opportunity to attack Dr. Dean on his antiwar stance, the issue on which he has built his candidacy.
Let me get this straight...
Saddam's capture is good for Bush, bad for Dean because Dean opposed the war. It's also good for other Dem candidates because they get to say, "Hey! Me too!" about supporting the war???!
The other Dems should be under no delusion -- if progress Iraq continues through summer and fall, any Dem will be in serious trouble against Bush, even self-congratulatory Lieberman. And he shouldn't pretend otherwise.
In other words, Saddam's capture oughtn't change anyone's mind about which candidate to support. If it does, they're fooling themselves.