As for the Nixon secret plan approach as I understand it:

Nixon let the NV know during the Johnson 68 Paris talks, that they might get a better deal from Nixon. Scuttled the talks to keep Humphrey from getting any benefit.

After the election, Nixon tried to link US Soviet relations to the the Soviets pressuring the NV for a settlement on our terms. Gromeyko  told Kissinger essentially, your problem is not our problem (much more diplomatically than I put it here, according to Dallek).

That led to Vietnamization and bombing as the only strategies Nixon felt he had, because he too, feel into Johnson's trap of not wanting to be the first American president to lose a war.

Well bombing into submission didn't work then, Its dubious that it will work today. Iraqization has not worked so far. In fact it was the point of the surge- give the Iraqi's breathing room to get their act together. They got their breathing room,  they still haven't got their act together.

But when the country (and Dem voters)turned on the war, so did HRC. Obama may not have been perfect in his anti-war stance, but his postion was head and shoulders above HRC at any point in the last 6 years. But because Obama acted like a politician once on the subject, hes' just as bad as she is? Is that the argument?

Revising history through the use of the echo chamber. Yet another trick from the Rove playbook the Clintons have picked up, along with race-baiting, whisper campaigns, voter suppression (NV), and maybe even creative use of Diebold machines (NH?).

The Bushes and Clintons have a lot in common.

And the failed Iraq policy of the clintons provided a large basis of support for war.
The shame we felt over the sanctions that brutalised the civillian population. This was brought home to me like kick in the gut when I watched hillary and albright (500,000 dying kids was worth it) at the podium the other day.

CLINTON: What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Sen. Obama's campaign, being premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his website. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, 6, and 7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq. I think it is fair to ask questions about, what did you do after the speech was over? And when he became a senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially. So I think it's important that we get the contrast and the comparisons out. I think that's fair game. [Meet the Press, 1/13/07]

It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he has been against the war every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time -- not once -- well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there is no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since.

Then her recitation of events:

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.

   `When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. `What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush's position on Iraq:

   In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. [...] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it "dated":

   Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because "the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

Finally, Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq:

   In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]

Hillary and her defenders try to make that vote seem equivalent to all the other votes that came afterward about whether to fund the war and how to withdraw.  But the fact is that every Democratic Senator voted for funding.  No one was for an immediate withdrawal right after we went in.  And even after some changed their mind on those points, there has never been broad agreement among war opponents on those matters.

But what I don't see mentioned, if not very carefully avoided by Hillary, is that he emphasized the need to weigh intelligence (intel he did not have) before making a critical decision, especially in such a highly emotional moment.

IMHO, that is perhaps the most critical piece that is also the most un-discussed. By contrast, Hillary's explanation makes little sense, and is very disheartening.

It took Chris Dodd to force BOTH Clinton and Obama to embrace the NOT funding approach.

If your comment contains a url that is not in html format, and it exceeds the box, it will be deleted.

There is a link button at the top of the comment box in which you can paste your url.  Please use it.

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"--let me finish--"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."

SEN. CLINTON: ...The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.