This London Times editorial points out that "on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging." That this is not yet being fully and publicly recognized by the media (and by Democratic candidates for President) is another matter. But it is now true that "Iraq is no longer, as they [politicians] thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity." Hillary, in my opinion, is the Democrat least disadvantaged by the success of the new more sophisticated strategy (aka the surge) in Iraq.
Right, Hillary really does know what she's doing. It remains to be seen whether Iraq can actually be helpful to the Republicans.
I also happen to think that Hillary has positioned herself well. The question is if after Bush the main characteristic people might be looking for is someone who can position himself/herself well. Bush isn't that bad of a guy and sometimes I wonder if he is viewed as a failure because he lacks a lot of the virtues that Hillary seems to have. People keep saying Hillary is triangulating...well maybe we want a president who triangulates...It didn't necessarily hurt Greenspan.
Another thing that strikes me, If Republicans argue too much that Hillary is a clever Machiavellian Realist...but they also claim that politics is the art of the possible when it comes to abortion/ the welfare state/Islamo-fascism...people might just say well then why shouldn't we have someone adept at triangulating? We had this honest president who talked of right and wrong and the axis of evil...but he was just a blundering cowboy because he didn't understand the true realities of the game of intrigue. All of this kind of points towards proven executives like Guiliani, but is Guiliani really as adept as Clinton?
In a certain sense conservatives are insulting Hillary by calling her competent. In an age when everyone is super skeptical of politicians because they are all disemblers, might not skill at disembling become the next virtue?