Clinton mobilises the Republican base more effectively than an evangelical rally on an aircraft carrier. But she is also a canny politician, like her husband, and there is a slight chance she could prevail. Remember the rumours that floated around when Clinton was deciding whether to run for the Senate? Many thought she wouldn't chance it, but she did. And she ran a pretty flawless campaign, even winning over the conservative constituents in upper New York state. Clinton grew up a Republican, after all. And her most recent positioning has come about because of the war against Saddam Hussein. As conservative reporter Fred Barnes wrote: "A week after the start of the war in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld gave a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee. At the time, the advance of US troops towards Baghdad supposedly was bogged down it turned out they really weren't and the Bush administration was facing stiff criticism. But the Defence Secretary got strong support from an unexpected source the newest member of the committee, Hillary Clinton. Alluding to her own experience in an administration under fire, she indicated she understood Rumsfeld's situation. Then Clinton assured him the committee was behind him 100 per cent and would provide anything he needed. The key is to win the war, she said. The war effort should not be shortchanged in any way." Surprised? Don't be. Hillary's pro-war stand has a pedigree. Last September, she backed George W. Bush's campaign to overthrow Hussein. She was asked on a US television program if disarming Iraq was possible without removing Hussein, and replied: "I doubt it." Bush's policy was "exactly what should be done". Regardless of the UN, she said, Bush "has to do what he believes is in the best interest of the country". It is a perfect political pitch. The Clintons have always been chameleons, and although uncomfortable with the military, have never underestimated its importance in US society. Two weeks ago, Bill Clinton voiced strong support for Rumsfeld's plans for transforming the military into a more high-tech and agile force. And the military that prevailed in Iraq so decisively was, in many respects, Clinton's army. Reforms to military organisation, acquisitions and strategy take years to implement, and much of the weaponry and structure of the current force was bought, deployed and planned for under the Clinton administration. Similarly, the official policy of "regime change" in Iraq was innovated by Bill Clinton rather than Bush. When the Democrats realise they need to co-opt the successes in the war on terror, rather than whine about them, watch out for this point to be made again and again. And who better to make it than Hillary? The polls reflect some of this advantage. In almost every survey that measures the popularity of the Democratic candidates for president, Hillary comes out on top even though she isn't running. A poll in February put Hillary at 46 per cent, compared with her nearest rival, Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, at 15 per cent. And she has a book coming out soon one that will give her a national tour of the US just as the presidential campaign season heats up. And her political game insulate herself with some conservative positions, while firing up the Democratic base is classic Bill Clinton. Will Hillary run next year if all the other candidates strike out? Almost certainly not; she has just been elected to the Senate, and leaving so soon to run for president would revive every carpet-bagging criticism she has rebutted in the past two years through diligent constituency work. Besides, her focus is clearly on 2008. Cynics believe she and her husband are actually hoping for a Democratic loss in 2004. By 2008, Hillary will be ready for prime time. The last thing she would want is an incumbent Democratic president to mess up her plans. And if Bush is re-elected, she won't even have to beat an incumbent vice-president, because Dick Cheney won't run. The Clintons exercise strong control over the Democrats through their cheesy henchman Terry McAuliffe, who is party chairman. What better strategy than to stay above the fray, while a bunch of ragged and raw aspirants squabble into a loss? And so far the Democratic field looks forlorn. Between Massachusetts senator John Kerry's pious hauteur, former Vermont governor Howard Dean's mean streak, senator John Edwards's boyish callowness and Lieberman's lugubrious tedium, it's not looking great for the Dems. Perhaps their best hope is union darling Dick Gephardt, but he makes Cheney look like Ali G. Lively he ain't. So Hillary Clinton bides her time, waiting for the kill. She's probably hoping her capacity to polarise the country will abate, although such a hope is probably ill-founded. But she could win. And so far she has been playing her hand very, very smoothly.