Hillary's Iraq Shuffle

(2 of 2)

Team Hillary may already be feeling the pressure. Consider the testy response of her adviser, Howard Wolfson, to Edwards' remarks recently. "If you're in Congress and you know that this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel," Edwards asserted. He didn't mention Clinton by name. But Wolfson gave Edwards' speech more publicity by taking the bait: "In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush Administration's Iraq policy." What's revealing is Wolfson's attempt to include Clinton among "Democrats who are fighting" Bush's Iraq policy.

Clinton's "fighting" has been pretty muted so far. Her response to the President's speech was a low-key press release: "I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq." She then set off on a trip to Iraq and upon returning went a step further than she had before: "I support putting a cap on the number of American troops as of January 1st." In the end, she may be able to triangulate successfully between the dangers of Muskie-esque centrism and Kerry-esque accommodation to the left. I'd bet on her if her competitors remain limited to candidates like Senators Edwards, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd.

But what if she faces a rival who spoke eloquently against the Iraq war from the first--yet also has a hawkish national security record? What if that man has substantial experience at the highest levels of government--and can also raise plenty of money as a candidate? What if he ran for President once before--and won the popular vote? Clinton undoubtedly dreams occasionally about the fates of Ed Muskie and John Kerry. But if she stays awake at night, it's because she's worrying about Al Gore.