I know this isn't especially recent news, but during the presidential debate on Jan. 31, Hillary Clinton said that at the time she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, it wasn't clear that we would end up invading Iraq and that "coercive diplomacy" seemed like the more likely course of action. "I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission," she said. Now, Clinton's lame attempt to rationalize her Iraq war vote is obviously horse shit. But suppose for a second that you actually believe her. If she really couldn't foresee our eventual invasion into Iraq after Congress passed the war resolution, then that should be really embarrassing. The only thing that's more striking that the fact that she would admit this on television is that she seems to have largely gotten away with it. Democrats, regardless of whom they are supporting, universally accept without challenge the idea that Clinton is very smart. And it is certainly true that she seems to have a very detailed knowledge of policy and thinks quickly on her feet during debates. Clinton has an advantage over Barack Obama on both of those points. But all evidence suggests that Obama outclasses her in emotional intelligence, the intuitive understanding of human emotions and relationships that represents a key element of judgment and leadership skills. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if Clinton was too dense to see as of November 2003 that an obvious con man like George W. Bush intended to lead us into war, then why on earth should we believe that she, as president, would be able to correctly discern the intentions and capabilities of far shrewder leaders like Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin, or far more unstable leaders like Kim Jong Il? Clinton and her campaign's mouthpieces have understandably been trying to downplay the Iraq vote, making the case that the relevant issue is how to proceed in Iraq now. The fact that the candidates are talking about how they would handle the Iraq occupation is all well and good, but ultimately the original sin of Clinton's Iraq war vote tells us more about what kind of president she would be than the details of her proposed schedule for withdrawal. UPDATE: I meant Nov. 2002, not Nov. 2003.