http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201456.htmlFriday, February 23, 2007; A19
Hillary Clinton's rivals would love to paint her as inflexible, programmed, focus-grouped within an inch of her life and intent on bringing nothing less than a full-fledged Clinton Restoration to the White House. So why is she sitting for the portrait?
We'll get to her campaign's delicious quarrel with Hollywood mogul David Geffen in a moment. Less entertaining, but ultimately more important, is the rhetorical line that Clinton drew in the Iraqi quicksand Wednesday at the Democratic candidates' forum in Nevada: no apology for her vote to authorize the war, no admission that she made a mistake. In other words, Clinton opposes the war but defends her vote to enable it.
That's the kind of carefully calibrated position that I suppose might help her in the general election, when she would have to win support from independents. It would let her avoid the "I voted for it before I voted against it" trap that snared John Kerry in 2004. But buckling herself into a no-regrets straitjacket so early can only hurt Clinton among Democratic primary voters, who overwhelmingly oppose the war -- and who, by all evidence, expect abject contrition from candidates who voted to authorize it.
Barack Obama gets a pass -- he wasn't anywhere near Congress at the time, and he publicly opposed the war to boot. John Edwards and Christopher Dodd, both of whom were in the Senate in 2002, have proclaimed that their votes to authorize the invasion were wrong and are begging forgiveness.
Asked about Clinton's position, Edwards said: "Whether it's good enough, I think, is between her and her conscience. It's not for me to judge."
Which, of course, was a judgment.
Clinton may believe that being the front-runner for the nomination means never having to say you're sorry. She may believe that positioning herself at the hawkish end of the Democratic spectrum helps her project an image of toughness, dispelling any reservations voters may have about a woman as commander in chief. Whatever the reason, refusing to say the words "mistake" or "apology" seems transparently artificial. It's a simple matter of cause and effect: If you deplore the effect, how can you not regret participating in the cause?
eugenerobinson@washpost.com