I consider Huff Po an arm of the Obama campaign so it would not suprise me if he were doing well in a Huff Po poll.  Further, Slate and Huff Po cater to an elite liberal audience, this is part of Obama's base of support, so it would not suprise me to find Edwards not doing as well with this crowd.  Basically, as you said, it's unscientific.

She does not need to 'sell herself as a dove'. She is not a dove and every Hillary supporter on tis site knows this whether they are more moderate or more progressive. She's stating honestly the reason why she voted for the bill. The blogsphere simply chose not to believe it. They want to get her down the heels. It won't matter in the end, democratic base is not just consisting of elitist bloggers, the majority of the base believe her explanation. That's why she's continuing to lead.

yeah, it does seem to be a bit buggy. I'd just keep trying though.

Re: Anti-war.

This article and the polling data accompanying it shows how much Democrats believe Clinton on the Iraq war issue.  They trust her far more to do the right thing on Iraq (FAR, FAR more) than any other candidate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-clinton13sep13,1,3833607.st ory?page=1&ctrack=2&cset=true&am p;track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines -nation

Clinton appeals to anti-war Democrats

Many of those voters who want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops support her candidacy and consider her best able to end the war, as do many who back a more gradual drawdown.

"It's just the way Hillary Clinton handles herself," said McCarthy, 55, who lives near Myrtle Beach. "She says what she wants, and I think she'll let the American people know exactly what's going on."

The findings help explain why the New York senator has built a strong lead over Democratic rivals who have made their opposition to the war the centerpiece of their campaigns -- and who have laid out more-detailed plans for quicker troop reductions.
....
The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be "the best at ending the war in Iraq" -- 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.

Supervised by Times Poll director Susan Pinkus, the survey was conducted last Thursday through Monday, and has an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points; among the Iowa Democrats it was 4 percentage points.

Clinton won support from 36% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters who said they wanted U.S. troops withdrawn "as soon as possible"; by contrast, 14% of those voters backed Obama and 12% favored Edwards. Clinton also led among those in that group who said they supported more-gradual withdrawal plans and who backed remaining in Iraq until the war is won.

The numbers were similar on that front in South Carolina. And in Iowa, where the overall race is tighter, Clinton was essentially tied with Edwards in support from Democratic voters wanting an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. But among those same voters, 33% said Clinton was the best candidate to end the war, compared with just 6% for Edwards.

Democratic pollster Dave Beattie, who is not affiliated with a campaign, said Clinton's rivals risked reaching a "point of diminishing returns" if they focused too heavily on differences between them and Clinton on Iraq.

Clinton's answer, as Dickerson says, is her usual defense of her vote and criticism of the way the war was waged and, while perhaps not satisfying, demonstrates pretty clearly how the most hawkish of the candidates has been able to sell herself to the Democratic base as a dove.

Clinton has never tried to sell herself as a dove.  

Rather, she sold herself as a competent realist with regards to Iraq and other security issues.

Clearly, a plurality of Democrats belive her.

It's a great educational tool for voters.  Richardson whom I'm supporting had a great answer to Maher's question as well as strongly restating his views on Iraq.

" In other words, George Bush fooled you. Why should Americans vote for someone who can be fooled by George Bush?"

Heh heh, my sentiments exactly. And a similar comment of mine got a zero from a Hillary supporter on this site. Maybe it was easy for her to rate it a zero than actually respond to the comment.  I ignored it initially, but whenever I see Lori in all her selfrighteous glory, I feel like bringing it up.

Ok...I have always respected Kucinich...and always will...that said I watched the "top 3" ...
I hope that you all will...

I have started and will continue to refer to Sen. Clinton as Mrs. Bill...
My wife just received (because last year she not I gave $25 to the DNC)a letter with the return address
"Bill Clinton" on the back P.O. Box 40370 Arlington, VA 22204-9820...can i assume that "Bill now lives there?

It was a 2 page letter.....asking of course for ah...money...it closes with

"I look forward to working side-by-side with you in the months ahead as we help Hillery change America's direction, restore our standing in the world, and create a future of good jobs, quality health care, and clean energy"
signed of course...just  Bill Clinton...
(no William etc)

....just wondering...can we now call him Bill and not reference his former position as former President? It is obviously his written desire.
...and yes this is only affirmation that I will call her Mrs. Bill.

Ditto.

I see a trend in the positions of Hillary supporters which reinforces my belief that the Clinton campaign strategy on Iraq is more about blurring the distinctions between the candidates then proposing coherent policy.  This is reflected in the interesting phenomenon noted up-thread that supporters with different shades of dove/hawk preferences all seem to find something in Hillary's position which they are comfortable with.

From Chris Chillizza in Washington Post's The Fix:

...Clinton and her team have been committed for months now not to allow any rhetorical or space between she and Obama on Iraq. Both voted in late May against a bill to fund the troops because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal and both will almost certainly vote against any future funding bill that lacks withdrawal dates.

Obama's opponents also note that he was a less-than-vocal presence on the war in the Senate and had opposed timelines for withdrawal before announcing for president. To be frank, that strikes us as somewhat thin gruel. While Obama may not have been an active anti-war presence during his first two years in the Senate, he was on record as being opposed to the war from its inception. For activists, that is all that matters. And each of the top three candidates have moved further to the ideological left on the war as it has played out over the past five years.

The challenge for Obama as it relates to Iraq is twofold. First, he must show voters that real differences exist between himself and Clinton on the war -- most notably that he opposed it from the start while she did not.

Chris Chillizza - Washington Post 13 Sep 07

An more extensive analysis of the same issue from today's Washington Post:

Before she officially became a candidate, Clinton worked within the system, working closely with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R-I.) on the language of amendments designed to force Bush in a new direction.

Those were days when she lagged behind other Democrats in opposing a timetable for withdrawal. Then came a period of convergence, when her political needs as a candidate forced her to catch up with the timetable advocates. She became a leading critic of the president's policy and an advocate for ever-tougher measures aimed at changing that policy.

Then came the moment when she found herself to the left of, and in a minority within, her own party (but in the same place as rivals Obama and Chris Dodd). That was on May 24, when she voted against the funding bill because the timetable for withdrawal had been stripped out after Bush had vetoed it.

Eighty senators voted in favor of it, so her opposition carried no practical consequence. What she would have done had her vote meant the difference between passage or defeat isn't known. What is known is that Candidate Clinton protected her political interests in the campaign for the Democratic nomination.

There may be another moment later this fall when she is asked to make a similar choice on a measure of disapproval when her vote might actually count. She may, at that moment, argue that nothing Congress says to the president legislatively -- short of enacting a timetable for withdrawal -- will bring about a change and therefore it is far more important to register her dissent.

That would certainly bring approval from many rank-and-file Democrats who will be voting in Iowa and New Hampshire next winter. But that is different than the kind of painstaking work she held up as the example of what a leader should be prepared to do.

If Majority Leader Harry Reid manages to find consensus on an Iraq measure in the Senate, will Clinton heed her own advice and act like the kind of president she said she would be -- and risk the wrath of the left and some of her rivals -- or will she put her needs as a candidate first?

Dan Balz - Washington Post 13 Sep 07

I am not suggesting that there is anything essetially wrong with Hillary's strategy here, in fact it is extremely clever politics and appears to be working, but it does support the view that her positions are motivated far more by electoral ambition than anything else and do not necessarily give an indication of her true position or intentions if elected.  This has always been my concern about Hillary as president and leader of the party.  Given her tendencies I would expect to see some shift in her position if she was nominated as she prepares herself for the general election.