From Janet Hook's article in the Los Angeles Times on the pressure Dems are feeling from the antiwar left:

Some moderate Democrats worry that the pressure being applied by the antiwar left is misguided, arguing that voters want a change of course in Iraq but not a rapid withdrawal.

"Conventional wisdom says that presidential candidates who want to be responsible on this are going to hurt themselves with the angry, impassioned activist left," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. "But the activist left is out of sync with the American public. Americans don't want to concede this is a total debacle."

Meanwhile, from Glenn Thrush's piece today on Hillary's Iraq paradox:

Clinton's strategy may turn out to be canny, but she's increasingly cornered on the Iraq political chessboard. If she moves too far left, she runs the risk of being labeled a cut-and-runner by a Republican opponent in 2008. But she's angered her party's liberal base, which dominates early presidential primaries. They want action on Iraq and want Clinton to pay for her 2002 "yes" vote. [snip]

"When she voted for the war her party and the country were a lot closer to Joe Lieberman's position than Jack Murtha's," added Korb, referring to the pro-war Connecticut senator and the anti-war Pennsylvania congressman. "The country's a lot closer now to Murtha than Lieberman."

So who has it more right? Is Will Marshall right in saying the "activist left is out of sync with the American public" or is Lawrence Korb more correct in saying "the country's a lot closer now to Murtha than Lieberman?" I suppose if you don't think Murtha is part of the activist left you could argue they're both right....