I like Dan Balz's writing at the Wash Post, in general, but I think he's wrong on this one:
Clinton is confronting the Democratic Party's long-standing dilemma on national defense, with those harboring national ambitions caught between the passions of the antiwar left and political concerns that they remain vulnerable to charges of weakness from the Republicans if they embrace the party's base. But some Democrats say, the left not withstanding, her refusal to advocate a speedy exit from Iraq may reflect a more accurate reading of public anxiety about the choices now facing the country.I am pretty damn hawkish on defense. My views are hardly liberal anti-war, and actually they're probably more in line with the Republicans in many ways. Having said that, I don't believe in lying to the country in order to justify a war, and I don't believe in continuing to fight a war after we've lost. That's not "anti-war" left, that's realist American.
I think the media, and much of the talking head class in Washington, fails to understand that a lot of us who are ticked off at Bush are not necessary the far left. And painting us all as Michael Moore clones (not that there's anything wrong with Michael Moore, I like him too) is naive and shows a lack of understanding as to how deep the anti-Bush anger, and overall angst at the direction our country is heading, really goes. There's a new dynamic out there.
