It sticks out like a sore thumb. During Hillary Clinton's answer on Iraq last night, after offering her three-point plan on how to withdraw from the country, she added, almost as an afterthought:

"But if it is a possibility that Al Qaeda would stay in Iraq I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run as we currently are doing in Anbar province."

(By the way, anyone else notice the way Keith Olbermann, hardly bothering to look objective even in a moderating role, in his question about al Qaeda taking over Iraq kept insisting that it goes "against all prediction"?)

Back to Hillary, her Anbar Addendum was similar to her answers on meeting with dictators or retaliating to a terrorists attack on the United States that she's offered in previous debates, which have generally helped boost her experience and toughness quotient at Obama's expense. She tried the same thing last night by saying she'd pursue al Qaeda, whether in Anbar province or wherever. Only in this case her answer didn't work as well.

That's because it sounded like Clinton would be willing to stay in Iraq if the surge appeared to be succeeding. This is the kiss of death with the Democratic base, which wants the U.S. out of Iraq without conditions. While Clinton can afford to out-tough Obama on certain foreign-policy matters (i.e., retaliating against a terrorist attack and refusing to meet with Castro), Iraq is a non-negotiable matter at this point.

Of course, as the title of this post indicates, Clinton might be hedging her bets. As the frontrunner currently holding a double-digit lead, Clinton can afford to say things that will anger the base, but help make her more electable in the general election. Stories like this one about how the surge is working are becoming more prevalent. Dropping hints every now and then that she would continue "to keep them on the run," as she said, might be a necessary price to pay.