There are few things that faux liberal sophisticates are more excited by than academicish journal articles that purport to draw subtle distinctions that the other side is just too dumb to get. Clinton has a rambling tract [warning: PDF] in the most recent Foreign Affairs about how she would lead America in the battle against political Islam's asymmetric terrorist warfighting. No doubt the article was edited dozens of times before it was released for publication. It is careful. It is considered. It is deliberate. Her strategy? No one in her administration will ever negotiate with any single individual terrorist who is somehow all on his own:

As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. We cannot negotiate with individual terrorists; they must be hunted down and captured or killed.

There's also a section there about how she wants to withdraw from Iraq in order to "enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process." Losing a war that we're only now beginning to turn around so as to gain the diplomatic capital to force Israel to make concessions - and she's the wonkish, levelheaded Democratic moderate.

References:
* Hillary: 'We Cannot Negotiate With Individual Terrorists.' What About Groups? [Campaign Spot]
* Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century [Foreign Affairs]
* WaPo editorial: Let’s face it, the casualty trends in Iraq are cause for hope; Update: Military believes AQI is crippled? [Hot Air]

Previously:
* The Israel Angle In the Clinton Meltdown
* MR Has A Question For Democratic Jews: Are You Fucking Retarded?
* Clinton: If Arafat Hamas Will Pretend to Want Peace, Israel Should Give Up Territory