Satellite Synergy

"The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result. Hillary will now see her campaign events hijacked by anti-war protesters, with people demanding she defend her vote at every corner."

Time's Ana Marie Cox calls the senator stubborn (but why is it stubbornness if she doesn't agree?):

"Hillary's 'never apologize, never explain' approach to her Iraq vote has confused me for awhile and I agree with Joe that, as far as primary voters go, it will soon become clear that hewing to this line was a mistake on her part. (Though she'll never admit that, either.)

"Her stubbornness is puzzling not just because the vote itself may cause problems for her with anti-war Democrats (hell, anti-war Republicans), but because it signals the kind of verbal hairsplitting that led to 'the definition of 'is' ' and 'I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it': Most people, when they say, 'If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it,' the next logical sentence is, 'I made a mistake.' I know Mark Penn has this weird theory that to even SAY mistake relating to her own position somehow takes responsibility for the war off of the Bush side of the ledger, but, let's face it, there's more than enough error (and death and destruction) to go around. She may have been misled, she may have been lied to, but just because someone else gave you the wrong directions doesn't mean you're not lost.

"As recently as two weeks ago, there was still some debate within Hillaryland about whether the 'I won't admit it' position made her look more like John Kerry, rather than less. Her comments in New Hampshire mean that she definitely can't change her message now.

The Nation's John Nichols also employs the S-word:

"At the very least, Clinton's steadfast refusal to admit that she was wrong to vote to give George W. Bush the power to launch a preemptive war against Iraq sets a news standard for stubbornness.

"According to the New York Times, top Clinton aides have done everything in their power to get her to acknowledge that she read Bush wrong back in 2002. 'Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease anti-war Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process,' reports the Times. 'Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize . . .

"Is it really courageous -- or politically smart -- to suggest that voters who want a president with good judgment should vote for someone else?"

Why doesn't anyone view this as a Sister Souljah moment? (For younger readers, this was Bill Clinton in '92 going before a liberal audience and denouncing a rapper whose lyrics were filled with violence.) Dick Polman at least says Hillary isn't kowtowing to the left:

"What's most striking about McCain is the contrast between his political strategy and the path currently being charted by Hillary Clinton. Whereas McCain is working overtime to pander to his Republican base (and especially the religious right), Clinton seems increasingly committed to ticking off her Democratic base (and especially the antiwar left)."

Slate's William Saletan flatly declares: