More on why Hillary Clinton must not be nominated in 2008:

After more than three years of fighting and more than 2,400 American deaths, you still need a magnifying glass to locate the differences between Mrs. Clinton and the Bush administration on the war. It’s true, as the senator argues, that she has been a frequent and sometimes harsh critic of the way the war has been conducted. In a letter to constituents last fall she wrote, “I have continually raised doubts about the president’s claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops.”

But in terms of overall policy, she seems to be right there with Bush, Cheney, Condi et al. She does not regret her vote to authorize the invasion, and still believes the war can be won. Her view of the ultimate goal in Iraq, as her staffers reiterated last week, is the establishment of a viable government capable of handling its own security, thus enabling the U.S. to reduce its military presence and eventually leave.

That sounds pretty much the same as President Bush’s mantra: “Our strategy in Iraq is that as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.”

With disapproval of the way Bush is running the war at 64 percent, can somebody explain to me why sounding just like Bush is “smart politics”?

Democrats are still paranoid about being perceived as soft on national security.

With superhawk Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani making their way toward the starting gate for the 2008 White House run, the terminally timid Democrats continue to obsess about what they ought to be saying, neurotically analyzing every syllable they hesitantly utter, as opposed to simply saying what they really believe.

See also Brilliant at Breakfast.