It’s hard being a Democrat running for president in 2007. On the one hand, you know that if you are lucky enough to get the nomination, you are going to have to veer away from the neutralists in your base — if you are to have a prayer of winning a general election in a time of war. On the other hand, you need those neutralists to get the nomination.

Consider the dilemma of Hillary Rodham Clinton. On Wednesday she voted with 75 of her colleagues to condemn Iran’s role in sabotaging Iraq, killing our soldiers and recommending that the White House get on with designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Even her fellow New Yorker, Senator Schumer, joined the ayes in that vote which did little more than express the sense of the senate in a non-binding resolution.

For most Americans, this vote is as controversial as declaring one’s opposition to cancer or support for fire fighters. But many Democratic primary voters are not like most Americans. Hence at the Dartmouth debate Wednesday night, Mrs. Clinton was skewered by her rivals on the stage. The former trial lawyer and senator, John Edwards, said the measure reminded him of the Iraq war resolution that he voted for in 2002. Everyone knows what happened after that.

Mrs. Clinton’s fellow senators, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, voted nay on the measure. Senator Obama skipped the vote altogether. A wild Alaskan who also used to be a senator, Mike Gravel, told Mrs. Clinton that he was ashamed of her. And what does one expect? A Daily Kos internet poll taken the day before the Iranian president’s speech at Columbia asked the net roots who they would rather have as president, President Bush or President Ahmadinejad. It turns out the front man for the Mullahs garnered an astounding 40% plurality among the Daily Kos poll takers.

These are the Democrats driving the nomination process in 2007 in the party of Hillary Clinton. Those who seek the party’s presidential endorsement must court this toxic 40%. So on the one hand New Yorkers can congratulate Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer for casting a tough vote and displeasing their party’s activists. But they can also mark an emerging pattern. It was only two weeks ago that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer refused to condemn the MoveOn.org libel of General Petraeus. For the senate resolution rebuking personal attacks against men in uniform, Mrs. Clinton voted with the left-wing base.

No doubt General Petraeus wears the contempt of fools and liars with the pride of all just men. On Iran, however, despite the non-binding nature of the resolution, something else was at stake. American diplomats are today in negotiations with our European allies to craft tough sanctions on Iran’s oil sector as punishment for the country’s enrichment of nuclear fuel. To lack resolve at this moment, after President Ahmadinejad challenges the world to oppose him yet again at the General Assembly, could undermine a negotiation that must succeed if there is a chance to prevent the bombardment so many in the left oppose.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer understand this dynamic all too well. They also know something else. There is little chance the Iranian terror war will let up, and there is a chance the Mullahs will gain their A-bomb in the short term. If that occurs many Democratic voters will be looking back to last Wednesday’s vote in the senate to see how the leaders of their party voted when there had been a chance to stave off disaster.