Hillary has taken so many different positions on the war, her rationalizations are already making "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" sound downright unequivocal.
Does anybody really want to spend the next two years listening to the answer to "Sen. Clinton, here is a clip of you from 2005 explaining an earlier clip of you in 2004 defending your comment in 2003 confirming your 2002 vote for the war. If you had to do it over again, would you give a different explanation in 2004 or 2005 justifying your 2003 defense of your 2002 vote?"
This is one more reason for the attractiveness of Barack Obama's candidacy. Here's the pre-war soundbyte they can roll on him, from a speech he made in October 2002:
"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
How's that for clear and unambiguous? And prescient.
-- Arianna Huffington, Feb. 7, 2007.