In the latest round of maneuvers over last week's MoveOn.org ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chris Dodd today voted against a Senate resolution that condemned the ad and supported Petraeus. Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, two other Democrats running for president, did not vote on the measure.

Only 25 senators voted against the symbolic resolution, which said Petraeus "deserves the full support of the Senate" and the Senate "strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

Conservative blogger David Brody followed the floor debate and quoted Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell: “Let's take sides. General Petraeus or MoveOn.org. Which one are we going to believe? Which one are we going to condemn?" Brody said the vote could return to haunt Clinton.

Her vote triggered a sharp statement from Republican Mitt Romney:

"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief."

Dodd of course is a nobody and stands about as much of a chance of being elected president as I do. The Missus, however, is a different story. How can this woman honestly say she could look this decorated war hero, General David Petraeus, in the eye as commander in chief after she first called him a bald-faced liar during a senate hearing THEN refused to repudiate one of the slimiest of all slimy smear ads from the leftist fringe?

Mitt Romney is absolutely right: This woman isn't fit to lick the boots of David Petraeus, let alone be his commander in chief. Although he is too much of an officer and a gentlemen to ever admit it, it would have to make the bile rise in his throat to one day have to salute this woman as commander in chief. Can you even imagine the effect on the morale of our brave fighting men and women if one day in November 2008, they woke up with the knowledge that the following January they would be taking orders from Mrs. Bill Clinton?

Of course we know The Missus is bought and paid for by MoveOn.org: This is something no liberal should even bother to dispute. These slime balls began as apologists for the manifold Clinton scandals in the late-90s and now have grown into vile, hateful, evil clones of the "give peace a chance" hippies of the 70's. Imagine John Lennon's Mr. Hyde and you have a real good idea of how vile and disgusting Hillary's buddies at MoveOn are.

When we are fighting a global war on terror and the Democrat’s front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination is aligned with the anti-war bastards from hell, how do you suppose she would respond to the evil that we face around the world? Probably just as her husband did: By ignoring it.

Another thing about this ad: We're always bombarded with talk about "negative campaigning" and "smear campaigns" and told how horrible they are during political campaigns, but the only real political ads that smear anyone at least on a national level come exclusively from the left.

One of the oldest of these ads dates back more than 40 years when LBJ, the guy who was responsible for the reckless escalation and needless slaughter of 58,000 American troops in Vietnam insinuated in the Daisy Girl ad that Barry Goldwater would get us nuked into oblivion if he were elected president. Of course this was utter BS but it didn't stop the lefty smear merchants from trying it again 16 years later with Ronald Reagan. Fortunately that campaign failed or we'd still be living with the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain to this day.

Who can forget the fantastic NAACP ad that as much as claimed black men would be dragged from the backs of pick-ups until dead if George Bush were elected president? And wasn't it Bill Clinton who flat-out said that if conservatives were elected, more Black churches would burn (even though the Black churches were burning on HIS watch)?

On the other hand, the media definition of a conservative smear campaign is when a conservative group does an issue ad which points out some inconvenient truth about the liberal opponent.

The oft-cited example is George HW Bush's "weekend pass" Willie Horton ad which pointed out that a despicable shred of human debris -- a convicted murderer -- was released on multiple weekend furloughs on Michael Dukakis' watch as Massachusetts governor and on one of those furloughs kidnapped a young couple, killing the man and repeatedly raping the woman.

Another more recent of these would be the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads sponsored by a group of war heroes, some of whom knew John Kerry in Vietnam, knew he had a reputation as a self-serving bastard and knew that he managed to weasel three Purple Hearts in the space of three months, one by shooting himself in the ass, ostensibly so he could be shipped stateside to make up lies about soldiers in front of congressional committees.

Of course conservative candidates are badgered and pestered and harangued into repudiating the inconvenient truths told in conservative issue ads. Lefties like The Missus however, throw their full support behind smear merchants like MoveOn.org and the media gives them a pass.