(CBS) 
"I take responsibility for my vote. It was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances we had at the time. Obviously, I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now," she responded.

Clinton has introduced legislation aimed at stopping the president's proposed troop "surge" and begin a phased redeployment as the first steps toward ending the war in Iraq. And she has added a pledge to her stump speech to end the war as president if the U.S. is still involved there in January 2009. But her refusal to apologize continues to gobble up the headlines.

It seems like an easy request to fulfill — unless you're a Democratic candidate who already has one eye on the general election. Since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party has, fairly or not, been at a political disadvantage on issues of national security. A quick trip through just recent history reminds us that, when it comes to war, Democrats have a habit of stepping on their own feet.

In 1991, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved the resolution authorizing the first Gulf War by a vote of 52 to 47. Just 10 Democrats joined all but two Republicans in approving a war which would prove to be relatively short and successful — not to mention wildly popular at the time. Even though the euphoria quickly faded and a Democrat recaptured the White House in 1992, the memory of that opposition lingered.

The experience was something that almost certainly lurked in the back of the minds of Democratic Senators in 2002, when the current Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress sought similar approval shortly before that year's midterm election. In the wake of 9/11 and military successes in Afghanistan, the politically safe move was to support the war. Given the intelligence presented at the time, it appeared to many the right thing to do as well.

It was no surprise then that 29 Democrats joined all but one Republican in authorizing the use of force that led to the current conflict. Now that the intelligence has been discredited and the U.S. bogged down fighting an insurgency and sectarian violence, members of both parties have publicly regretted their votes.

Increasingly, the American public views the decision to invade Iraq as a mistake and Clinton is being badgered for an apology. What Democrats may be missing, however, is the opportunity to capture the public's confidence on national security matters.

Over the past year and a half, Democrats have eaten away at the GOP's once huge advantage on national security. Whether they can capitalize on those gains is a question that will be largely answered in the course of this campaign. A stampede to placate the vocal anti-war activists in their party won't help them break out of perceptions of the past.

Looking at the actual positions of the presidential candidates, Clinton and the rest of the field are not far apart on Iraq. They are all harshly critical of how the administration sold it, both to the public and the Congress, of the way it has been conducted, and they all want it to end. Still, there remains an insistence for purity. Barack Obama is "pure" on Iraq because he didn't have to vote on the war and because he opposed it from the beginning. Others have had their sins washed away via public apology.

In the primary season, where purity sells best, it's easy and advantageous to say "sorry." But it was also politically popular to support the war in the first place.

By refusing to capitulate, at least so far, Clinton is betting electability will beat purity in the end. She said as much in her last trip to New Hampshire where she flatly told Democrats, "if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war."

Her advisers speak about the fear of being put in a "box" when it comes to Iraq. What they're really saying is they fear being labeled weak against an eventual Republican nominee, especially if that opponent turns out to be war hero John McCain or 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani.

Clinton's gender doubles the fear of that "box." Polls aside, there are concerns that American voters won't put a woman in the position to make decisions about war. If she courts anti-war activists by apologizing for giving a president the authority, would she be willing to seek such power as president? It's a perception problem she would like to avoid.

Will Clinton be able to avoid the big apology? Many analysts, and many Democrats have said they don't think so.

But in their quest to find purity among their candidates on Iraq, party activists may want to remember what one relatively unknown candidate said about the 1991 Gulf War vote. The then-governor commented, "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made." That was Bill Clinton, both agreeing and disagreeing with his own party's position on that war. He moved into the White House just over a year later.

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Back To Top