The reception for Clinton contrasted with the cheers that greeted two other possible 2008 contenders – Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Both demanded a timetable for withdrawal and both brought the liberal delegates to their feet.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, another potential candidate, also spoke at the conference but sparked much less interest and little passion among the liberal attendees.

The spotlight was much more on the showdown between two senators who voted for the war initially but now diverge on Iraq – Kerry, the 2004 nominee who wants a second shot in 2008; and Clinton, who stands in his way.

Unlike Kerry, Clinton has not renounced her vote for the war and maintained that stance before the loudly anti-war group.

“I just have to say it – I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain” for withdrawal, she said. “I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country.”

Before that, the audience had been very supportive – even when she sounded a call for spending discipline, arguing that “we have to put fiscal responsibility back at the core of the progressive agenda or we will never be able to achieve our goals.” But her opposition to an Iraq deadline turned many in the crowd against her, with boos and catcalls mixing with the applause.

Less than an hour later, Kerry reacted to Clinton's caution.

“It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict's execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are,” Kerry said. “It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake – to say the simple words.”

At that, the crowd exploded in applause and cheers. And there were more cheers yesterday for Feingold, the first senator to call for a timetable for withdrawal. Contrasting himself with both Kerry and Clinton, he noted that he had voted against the war, adding, “I still cannot believe that Democrats helped facilitate this.”

If this was an early audition for 2008, Feingold had the hearts of these liberals, many of whom had “Run, Russ, Run” stickers on their shirts. But he didn't necessarily have their votes and some could not keep his name straight.

“I was most impressed by Russ Feinstein,” said Miguel Ortega, 61, an investment research consultant in Virginia who objected to the other candidates being “too pragmatic.”

Another delegate, Clarence Mondale – a retired professor who is the younger brother of former Vice President Walter Mondale – objected to Feingold's “not very exciting” delivery, noting “his sort-of, matter-of-fact flatness.”

In contrast, he said he liked Clinton's presentation. “She really is a barn-burner in terms of performance and connecting with the audience,” even though he said he was “uncomfortable” with her stand on the war.

Others booed, including Tim Carpenter, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America, who said he wanted a candidate who was “right on the war from the beginning.”

Most analysts gave Clinton high marks for not simply telling the liberals what they wanted to hear.

“She may not have helped herself with the really progressive left of the Democratic Party,” said Boston-based Democratic strategist Maryann Marsh. “But in the long run, that could be the thing that helps her the most. Because Republicans' favorite thing is to call everybody a liberal – this is one way for people to see her in a more moderate frame.”

She added: “In many ways, you saw the real John Kerry, the real Russ Feingold and the real Hillary Clinton. They are all going to appeal to a different set of people, not necessarily the people in that room.”

Samuel L. Popkin, a UC San Diego political scientist who was an adviser to the Clinton White House, said catering to groups could get a candidate's support to 30 percent but keep them from winning. “She is playing it really well,” he said of Clinton. “She can't pander on the war and be president. A woman can't pander on the war.”

Thomas Mann, a veteran political analyst at the Brookings Institution, said Clinton was working hard to develop a national security profile that was “not in any way defeatist or pessimistic or weak.”

He said she was “prepared to take her lumps with groups” like those at the “Take Back America” conference. “She has some room to operate. This reflects a certain level of confidence and willingness to look ahead.”