Read this report from Politico and you will see there are differences in the Democratic party as to how far to go anti-war in the campaign.

As George McGovern is loosely quoted as saying, it wins the primary but it doesn’t win the general election.

For Democrats of a certain age, there is no figure more haunting than George McGovern, who ran for president pleading, “Come home, America,” but instead was sent home himself with just 38 percent of the vote.

Among those who worry that the lessons of 1972 may still spell trouble for Democrats in 2008 is none other than … George McGovern. He is 84 now, is as opposed to the Iraq war as he was to the one in Vietnam — and is paying close attention to the race for president.

“I’m not sure that an anti-war Democrat can win,” McGovern said in an interview. “We haven’t proved that yet.”

“Some people point to the fact that the war in Vietnam was dreadfully unpopular,” he said, “but that when I came out for an immediate withdrawal, it helped me win the nomination but not the general election. And there may be some truth about that.”

But some political analysts say they believe the McGovern experience could be repeated again, as the party’s presidential candidates compete to win the favor of anti-war Democrats while leaving themselves vulnerable to charges of weakness in a general election.

This uncertainty is one reason the leading Democratic candidates are trying to run as hawk and dove simultaneously. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), for instance, are both moving rhetorically and substantively against the Iraq war while calling for an increased military presence to fight terrorists in Afghanistan.

But if the mood of the country has changed, Democrats are plainly still laboring to project that opposition to Bush’s handling of the Iraq war — most polls show the public agrees with them — does not mean they are uncomfortable with military force.

“It’s one thing for (Democrats) to say, ‘Get out,’ or ‘Redeploy,’ or ‘Divide the country into thirds,’” said Mark Salter, a counselor to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “But it’s another to say, ‘We won’t fund the troops.’ That, I think, will be a pretty costly mistake in the general election.

“You had 150,000 troops in the country, and you voted not to resupply them with armor,” Salter added. “Those things are easy to point out.”

Today, as Clinton and Obama debate who is more qualified to lead a pullout from Iraq, leading Republicans compete to portray themselves as most capable of continuing the fight. Neither party’s leaders seem willing to break too brazenly with their base over the war.

More than six in 10 Republicans still support the Iraq war, while nine in 10 Democrats do not, according to a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press analysis of March, April and June polling for The Politico.

Republicans are also more concerned over terrorism. Fifty-three percent of Republicans say they are “very” or “somewhat” worried about being a victim of a terrorist attack, while 43 percent of Democrats express the same, according to Gallup polling conducted in mid-June.

Among top-tier Democrats, it is Clinton’s maneuvering on Iraq that has drawn the most attention — and the most criticism — from people on both sides who see calculation rather than principle guiding her.

In the past year, she has advocated stances she once opposed, both on a set timetable for withdrawal and in utilizing the “power of the purse” to end the war in Iraq. But last month, at a Take Back America conference of liberal activists, she offended some by treading a careful rhetorical line.

“The American military has succeeded,” Clinton declared. “It is the Iraqi government that has failed.”

That drew boos from the hall. Clinton’s rhetoric seemed “almost calculated to draw a negative response” before the liberal audience, observed David Gergen, who has served in four presidential administrations. “That’s a very confident campaign,” he added.

Yet some Democratic veterans remain worried, including those who favor a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m afraid that we might be pulled too much to the left, too much into the anti-war sentiment, so that it might be as drastic as during the Vietnam War,” said Richard Bolanos, who was one of four brothers to serve in the military during Vietnam and was part of the veterans group that campaigned for Kerry during the 2004 election.

“Democrats could still blow this, particularly if they get themselves into a posture where they were to force all the troops to come home over the next six months,” Gergen said. “That would leave them very, very vulnerable, because Republicans could argue that whatever chaos erupts, that has Democratic fingerprints all over it.”

“When (Democrats) nominate someone who seems soft — Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, who I love, Jimmy Carter in his second incarnation — they lose,” Wattenberg added. “This is not proof, but Americans want a guy who will stand up for America.”

Clinton is compelled to prove Americans also want a woman, an obstacle Obama does not face. “She’ll be as tough as any Republican on our enemies,” Bob Nash, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, says when the subject of gender is raised.

For his part, McGovern wishes that Clinton — toward whom he said he feels “personal loyalty” — was less worried about looking tough and more willing to be “stronger in favor of disengagement.”

But McGovern said he, of all people, understands the appeal of political pragmatism.

“I lost for standing up for what was right,” McGovern continued. “Some of our greatest presidents have compromised their positions in order to not offend large elements of the voting public. It’s possible that’s what Hillary is doing.”

I let the article speak for itself.