It's true that, as this piece states, "the war on terror still carves deep division in Dems." Obviously, most of the party's liberal base is reflexively anti-war, which certainly didn't serve anyone -- least of all, John Kerry -- well during the last campaign. Now, as this piece makes clear, all the Dems are studying the matter to determine the most politically palatable course.

And that's part of the problem for the Dems. People understand that their position on the war on terror is being driven primarily by politics -- and they don't like it, and they don't trust it.

Hillary Clinton showed signs of developing a new political approach to the issue that is smarter than most -- and that's to complain that "homeland security" is being woefully underfunded. With that, she gets to sound tough about defending the homeland, even as she advocates funneling tons more money to allies in police, firemen's and construction unions, among other entities.

If there is no further attack within our borders (God willing), Hillary's still done herself a lot of good, politically. And if there is another attack (Heaven forbid), she'll be perfectly positioned to break into a shrieking chorus of "I Told You So" emanating from Senator Clinton.