For a candidate who is portraying herself as the most hawkish of the Democrats — and who, at least to judge by Jeffrey Goldberg’s dispatch in the latest New Yorker, is the most hawkish of the Democrats — Senator Clinton’s reaction to President Bush’s speech on Iraq was quite a disappointment. Mrs. Clinton came out against sending more troops, and her statement began with the words, “based on the president’s speech.” But based on Mrs. Clinton’s statement, it doesn’t sound like she even listened to the speech.

Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Bush, “as our commanders have said repeatedly, Iraq requires a political solution, not a purely military one.” But Mr. Bush said in his speech, “A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations.” Mrs. Clinton complained that the speech “failed to adequately address … growing Iranian influence,” yet Mr. Bush’s speech said, “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Mrs. Clinton’s own suggestions for Iraq included “an international conference of the regional parties to further the task of Iraq’s stability.” That would put non-democratic Jordan, terrorist-supporting, Holocaust-denying, nuclear-bomb-building Iran, and human rights-abusing Saudi Arabia in the driver’s seat when it comes to Iraq’s future. It seems a bit contradictory to both decry Iran’s growing influence and invite it to a conference on Iraq’s future, even if Al Qaeda is an enemy of the Hashemite and Saudi monarchies. One might imagine that, having endured back-seat driving and political second-guessing of her husband by congressional Republicans during the Balkan wars, Mrs. Clinton would know better. More than anyone else in the Senate, she should be protecting the office of the commander in chief.