I have already once expressed the view that the election of Barack Obama makes life more interesting by shaking up the lines of political debate after a period of some fixity. Here is an editorial in the LA Times arguing that it would be 'unfair and impractical' to make opposition to the Iraq war 'a litmus test for service in the new administration'.
[Hillary] Clinton and others who supported the Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution had been warned by experts, not all of them in the Bush administration, that Hussein likely possessed weapons of mass destruction.
'Not all of them in the Bush administration.' Remember those days? The editorial goes on to allow that 'reasonable people disagreed with them' - 'them' being Obama's 'prescient words' in opposing the war. For all I know, the LA Times has always held the views here expressed. But I've not been used to seeing them aired so much before George Bush became a nearly-former-President, about to be succeeded by a Democrat. Expect more loosening of the lines.