By Ellen Ratner
This is a difficult column for me to write. I have been a supporter of the Clintons since 1992 when Bill Clinton first showed leadership in the primary debates. I supported then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Hillary Health." If people had read the thousand-plus pages of the program, they would have realized it was not big government and most Americans would have the benefit of health care today. Despite the Right's vilifying Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village," it contains many of the basic principles they hold dear. And I think Sen. Clinton does a great job for the state of New York. I hope she gets re-elected.

Like many successful politicians, Sen. Clinton's "messaging" is well crafted, and the public often (and rightly) gives their pols great latitude, i.e., looks the other way when they shade, wiggle, maneuver. After over two centuries of casting votes, the American public knows they have to give their elected leaders a wide berth to deal with unexpected contingencies. Indeed, most voters even have a sense of humor about their politicians' foibles. Night after night, the Leno and Letterman monologues are sure to poke fun at leaders of both parties. There are limits, however, especially when the issues are life and death – like war and peace. Since Bush's invasion of Iraq, the issue of that war has been no laughing matter. Not with over 2,000 brave Americans killed, 15,000 wounded, and untold numbers (at least 30,000 and perhaps thousands more) of Iraqis killed, and an unknown wounded or displaced. No jokes about that on late-night television. So tell me, gentle reader, what did Sen. Clinton mean when she declared: "It seems to me the best thing to do is heed the wishes of all the leaders of Iraq ... who say they want us to draw down our forces." Then she added, "We don't want to set a fixed timetable if that led to chaos." It sounds like we're back to political parsing, in which principle takes a back seat to opportunistic nuance, plausible deniability, and telling the world what it wants to hear. It's an echo of John Kerry's memorable statement that, "I voted for the bill [authorizing expenditures for the troops in Iraq] before I voted against it." That much "wiggle room" voters were not willing to give him. Does anyone doubt that if Kerry had simply declared he was against the war, and stuck unequivocally to that position, that he'd be president today? So let's parse Sen. Clinton's statement. She wants to "heed the wishes" of Iraq's leaders – who, at a conference in Cairo insisted on a U.S. timetable for withdrawal – but doesn't want to set a timetable. So which is it, Sen. Clinton – timetable or no timetable? Those of us who opposed this war from the beginning have no problem continuing to declare our opposition. Even some Democrats, like Rep. John Murtha who originally supported the war, have no problem admitting that they were mistaken, and now oppose the war. Maybe Sen. Clinton's statement should be rephrased. Try this: "It seems to me the best thing to do is to heed the wishes of all the Blue States, who overwhelmingly want us to draw down our forces. [But] we don't want a fixed timetable if that led to chaos in my Red State poll numbers." Sen. Clinton has been posing as a hawk when she flies over Red States and a dove when she flies over Blue States. But she's making a huge mistake – like a mediocre general, she's too busy fighting the last war (election) to win the next one. What she doesn't seem to understand is the public is sick of the war and wants leadership, not parsing, to show them a way out. Whether you agree or disagree with him, John Murtha gives leadership on this issue – the only thing Clinton gives is a forked tongue. Meanwhile, men and women continue to die for a Bush's kaleidoscope policy, which seems to change with each nudge of the wheel. Message to Sen. Clinton: Sometimes it pays to think like a bumper sticker. So either "Just Say No," or even "I Support the War" if it suits you. But remember – the world has changed since President Clinton pondered what the meaning of "is" is. Now, people are dying and you owe it to the rest of us to declare – simply, clearly, unmistakably – whether you think it's worth it or not.