I don't know whether Hillary is just asking Democrats to ignore the positions she is taking (or avoiding taking) with the understanding that she is doing it to remain or become electable. The war is the issue, not just for democrats, but for the entire country. The claim that the entire senate looked at the same evidence and voted with the president is obviously and patently false. Our senator, locked in a statistical dead heat with his republican challenger, voted against the authorization of force and the next day saw his lead open up by eight to ten points depending on the poll. Of course, less than a week later, he, his wife and daughter and his key campaign staffers were all dead. Three weeks later the turmoil resulted in the election of Karl Rove's handpicked Bush lapdog, Norm Coleman. Only one fifth of the senate had the courage to vote against the war. But, since that time many, including republicans, have had the courage to admit their mistake. John Kerry, like HRC, tried to have it both ways in order to appear both strong and right. Americans saw through that ploy like a pane of glass and as a result were not inspired to vote for him. But Novak and Hillary are dead wrong (again) if they think democrats will repeat their mistake in 08. They will nominate an unequivocal anti-war candidate and neither McCain or Guilliani will have a snowballs chance in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that Novak (attributing it to the Clinton campaign) believes that homosexuals in Hollywood are organizing against Hillary in order to exact revenge for Bill's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays serving openly in the military. I'm sure a lot of liberal Hollywood homos are really upset about being excluded from serving (as targets for anyone with a gun or a bomb) in Iraq! The editors at the Washington Post obviously haven't the slightest sense of shame at continuing to publish this discredited traitor's idiocy.