Hillary's Iraq Shuffle

By William Kristol

Twice before in Hillary Clinton's adult lifetime, a Northeastern Senator has been the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both times, the nation was at war. In both cases, the war, presided over by a Republican President, was unpopular--especially with Democratic activists.

In 1971, Richard Nixon was managing a fighting retreat from Vietnam. Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine was favored to be his 1972 opponent. Centrist enough to be a favorite of the Democratic establishment, liberal enough to be respected by many on the left, Muskie had impressive credentials: first Governor, then Senator for a dozen years, as well as having been the 1968 Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Muskie delivered the well-received Democratic response to Nixon on election eve 1970, and, as TIME noted, "Some politicians thought his congressional election eve TV speech last November gave him a virtual lock on the nomination." The magazine also wrote that some Democrats worried about Muskie's political caution and lack of emotional connection with voters. But the nomination was his to lose.

And lose it he did. Even though Muskie wiggled belatedly left to try to accommodate the ever rising antiwar sentiment among Democrats, it was too little, and he remained basically a centrist to them. The more unequivocal antiwar candidate, George McGovern, won the nomination and got clobbered in the general election.

At the beginning of 2003, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts led the Democratic field. But the story of that year was the rise of Howard Dean, riding a wave of anti--Iraq war sentiment to lead in the polls. By October, the establishment candidates had to react. Kerry and Senator John Edwards tried to make up for their votes in favor of the war by joining nine other Democrats in opposing one version of an $87 billion supplemental war appropriation. Senator Joe Lieberman and Representative Richard Gephardt stayed the course and voted yes. Gephardt didn't survive Iowa, and Lieberman didn't survive New Hampshire. Kerry and Edwards were able to blunt Dean's charge, and emerged as the ticket. But Kerry's flip-flop on the $87 billion hurt him in the general election.

The examples of Muskie and Kerry are Clinton's Scylla and Charybdis. She will spend the next year trying to navigate between the twin dangers of being too moderate on the war for an antiwar primary electorate and going so far in mollifying that electorate as to weaken her chances in the general election. Like Muskie, a Humphrey backer in 1968, and Kerry, an Iraq-war authorizer in 2002, she's saddled with the original sin of being an original war supporter. Like Muskie, she's been moving gradually away from that position. Like Kerry, she'll soon have to cast votes on various legislative proposals related to the war.

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.