In the wake of the Democratic victory in the midterm election, many are labeling the results a referendum on the war in Iraq. And indeed, dissatisfaction with the course of the war has been expressed on both the left and the right.

But to think that the country as a whole is anti-war is folly. If Iraq were indeed the pivotal issue of the election, why did the decidedly hawkish Joe Lieberman handily defeat the much-vaunted anti-war candidate Ned Lamont in Connecticut? Why did Democratic candidates across the country win on a pro-military, moderate-to-conservative platform?

Looking forward to 2008, the top-rated presidential candidates -- Sen. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Sen. Hillary Clinton -- have all supported the war in Iraq to varying degrees. We are indeed a nation at war, and any responsible leadership in this time will have to address that reality.

But despite the ascendance of the "Blue Dog Democrats," the Democratic Party leadership appears to be firmly rooted in its anti-war past. When Speaker of the House-to-be Nancy Pelosi told Fox News' Brit Hume last week that Iraq "isn't a war to be won, it's a situation to be solved," it was a harbinger of things to come.

To read the entire article, go to SFGate.com.