There is one thing Hillary could say that would remove all need for nuance in her campaign communications. If she could say this, she could say practically anything she wanted about Barrack Obama and she would be allowed such frankness simply out of respect. She could say virtually anything about her policy ideals and we would be given to respect them almost unconditionally. The Tuzla affair would have been a fleeting blip, merely a forgivably goofy gaffe, and we might even be tempted to praise her association with Rupert Murdoch. At this point in the democratic campaign we would all be looking forward to a Denver convention where there would be no talk of unity because, pretty much from the start, the party would already have unified around its candidate, and there would have been no Clinton-Obama divisions in the first place. In fact, Hillary Clinton could have ended this campaign in Iowa.

If she could only say what she now wishes she had said in Iowa and in each state throughout the campaign. If she had only said this:

"I just want to thank all of you who stood with me and others in our party in opposition to our president's misguided, short-sighted, and politically expedient campaign to create conflict in this world where no conflict was necessary. The minority of senators who actually took the time to investigate the National Intelligence Estimate were convinced that there were serious flaws in the administration's rationale, and given that the president has in most other ways shown himself to be untrustworthy, we simply felt that there was no way we could give the president our approval until those flaws were publicly addressed and answered to. Of course, as you will remember, there was great political pressure to give the president our approval and the benefit of the doubt. The president's approval ratings were at an all-time high, and the 24 of us who voted "no" in the senate did so despite polls that showed over 80% of the American public was against us at the time. But we felt that this vote was a matter too important to trade for cheap political gain, and in our hearts, and I know in my conscience, the moral choice was crystal clear. I voted NO to the Authorization for Use of Military Force because of my commitment to world peace and to the prescious lives of those who defend our liberties. And because of this commitment which I made public on October 10, 2002, you know that I can be trusted, more than any candidate remaining in this race, to bring our troops home in a timely manner, to provide our veteran service men and women with the best possible medical care, and to restore peace in the Middle East."

Well, I guess that about covers it, doesn't it? I'm convinced if she would have said this back in January we'd all be talking about Obama's chances in 2016, or whether he or Edwards or Richardson (probably Richardson) would make the best VP choice. But, like a lot of us have already discovered in our own personal endeavors, life can be cruel sometimes.