Democrats looking to run Iraq/Afghanistan vets

It's Pearl Harbor Day, which means that it's time for John Gianulis' annual Democratic Christmas shin-dig at the Town & Country. See you all there. I'll be on the dance floor most of the night, no doubt.

ISSUE #1
And at least one commenter has voiced their extreme disapproval of a recent strategic initiative by the Democratic party. They've let it be known that they're very open to recruiting recent veterans to run as congressional candidates.
This would appear to be a practical and shrewd move, in light of the fact that the Dems have been, and will continue to be tarred as being somehow weak on defense, and seem to be too easily dismissed when they oppose Bush's "war".

A veteran candidate would obviously carry a lot of weight and lend weight to opposition to this "war".

What do you think?

ISSUE #2

Hillary. She's been busy positioning herself as quite the hawk lately, voicing opposition to the way Bush has handled the "war", but being quite supportive of "staying the course." She's come in for some criticism from Dems for this. Is this a good move on her part? Or is she undermining the principled opposition to this obviously disasterous quagmire and capitulating to the Republicans?
And is this a good idea? How so?