From last night’s Special Report with Brit Hume :

–On the Iraq Resolution in the Senate–

MORT KONDRACKE: [T]hey’re just not going to vote on a nice, clean resolution giving people only one choice, which is what the Democrats wanted, they wanted their resolution to be voted on. And what Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are going to hold out for . . . will be a vote on three different things and it looks as though Judd Gregg’s [resolution to continue funding] is the one that’s likely to pass and that could be interpreted as being pro-president . . .
FRED BARNES: [W]hen you saw Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, they sounded like Republicans a year ago talking about votes on judges being blocked. At the end of the day, though, Republicans would much rather see a headline around the world that says Republicans filibuster war vote or block war vote . . . than Senate rebukes president on war. So, they’d be happy not to have any votes, too.

–On the Democratic Candidates–

BARNES: [T]hey’re playing a game of leapfrog and once one gets father out against the war, then another one leapfrogs them. And, look, and I think it’s headed, as Mort suggested earlier, it’s headed in the direction of a cutoff in funds . . .
HUME: Well, why doesn’t Hillary go there?
LIASSON: Because Hillary has made a decision, I think, that it is not a good place to be if you’re going to be a general election candidate.
KONDRACKE: Hillary’s got a problem, too. Her latest position is that if she’d been president in 2003, she would not have gone to war. Now, what she said in 2003 was, this is Saddam Hussein’s last chance, either he disarms or he will be disarmed. She voted against a resolution that the president had to come back to the Congress to get a further authorization to go to war which suggests now what she would have done when Saddam didn’t disarm would be to back off. She would have backed off, way back then, and that looks like a very weak position for her.