Leave it to the Clintons to figure out how to emerge as big winners in somebody else’s race, a tricky maneuver proving once again that they might well be the only Democrats on the national stage with the political skills to retake the White House.

The Clinton victory in Connecticut’s Senate primary last week was hardly obvious, because it came about as a result of what did not happen, rather than anything tangibly on the surface. In all of the bluster about Joseph I. Lieberman’s support for the Iraq War producing his dramatic primary defeat at the hands of Ned Lamont, you would think that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s longstanding support for the war would be raising widespread doubts about her 2008 presidential prospects, and possibly even a reappraisal of her chances of winning a second Senate term this year.

Die-hard Hillary Clinton detractors, such as former Clinton pollster Dick Morris, went out of their way to suggest that the Lieberman loss was also a Clinton defeat. But Internet-based groups credited with helping engineer the Connecticut outcome show no signs of going after her. MoveOn.org’s executive director, Eli Pariser, told reporters that he was not hearing much interest from the anti-war group’s membership about her race, declaring that Clinton’s recent public tongue-lashing of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld proved that “she does appear to be listening to her constituents.”

If the Democrats behind Lieberman’s fall show so little interest in targeting Clinton’s re-election, it stands to reason that she might also get a pass in a presidential race. Still, she faces a threat to her White House ambitions if the midterm election becomes a clear referendum on the war, provoking conclusions that pro-war Democrats cannot win the national nomination. The Connecticut primary results certainly suggest a trend in that direction.

A pro-war presidential contender less skilled in the political arts probably would be getting painted into a corner right about now, pictured on the same canvas as Lieberman and branded as out of sync with party voters. But not the junior senator from New York, who is suffering nothing more than some Internet grumbling about her refusal to renounce her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq invasion.

Staying out of the front-and-center analysis of Lieberman’s defeat was a victory unto itself for Clinton, and yet another cautionary tale for party rivals now trying to figure out how they could possibly beat her for the presidential nomination in two years.

It was no accident that Clinton emerged from the Lieberman debacle mostly unscathed, despite her closeness to the war views of an incumbent so severely punished by Democratic primary voters. As always, she planned ahead, precisely crafting a measure of distance between herself and Lieberman. And for the sake of political safety in case Lieberman prevailed, she dispatched her husband, the former president, to campaign for him before the primary vote.

Clinton the senator began the work of distancing herself from Lieberman weeks ago when he revealed his plan to run as an independent if, as even his own campaign team expected, he lost to Lamont. She made a point of saying she would not support a Lieberman independent candidacy. After a run of headlines heralding her jab at Lieberman — which underplayed or completely failed to note her continued support of his primary bid — Bill Clinton showed up in Connecticut to campaign for him.

Interestingly, the Clintons did little to dispute news media conclusions that this exhibited a split between them, even though they were basically saying the same thing: They were supporting the incumbent senator in the primary, but after the primary they would support the winner. The lesson here is that we should look for the Clintons to allow the impression of differences between them anytime they need to straddle both sides of an issue.

Clinton’s lambasting of Rumsfeld was the critical move in her chess-like maneuvers to avoid association with Lieberman’s pro-war stance. She is one of the few Democrats famous enough to garner such widespread media coverage for asking questions at a congressional hearing. Using this power to rally anti-war Democrats at such a crucial moment shows how formidable an opponent she will be for those seeking to deny her the party’s presidential nod.

Clinton also managed to avoid pandering to anti-war Democrats, as potential rivals John Kerry and John Edwards did in loudly disavowing their pro-war Senate votes and calling for the immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. Sticking to her guns on voting for war while bitterly criticizing its execution and quietly supporting a phased exit is likely to be the better long-term play for appeasing most Democrats and staying viable in a 2008 general election.

In politics, victory often goes to the person most skilled at having it both ways on a dicey issue. At the moment, that’s Hillary Clinton.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.