The Democrats and Iraq

The early debates among the Democratic presidential candidates were dominated by a look back when the topic turned to Iraq. Barack Obama proudly, and frequently, noted that as an Illinois state senator, he opposed the war from the get-go.

Some of his rivals --- who, unlike Obama, had to make votes in Congress that counted on the issue --- ruefully expressed their regret for backing the resolution that authorized the attack. And all waited in vain for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her vote for the measure.

The dialog has progressed since then. As the candidates gather tonight at Dartmouth University for their latest face-off (televised on MSNBC), the verbal dueling can be expected to focus --- as it has of late --- on which Democrat has the best plan and is the best equipped to extricate the U.S. from Iraq.

Clinton continues to frustrate some party activists by avoiding details; her main position is that if President Bush doesn't wind down the war during the rest of his watch, she will upon taking the helm. Expect her to be pressed for more specifics tonight by her opponents, and expect her to give absolutely no ground.

Bill Richardson, as illustrated by a new campaign ad, has been making an especially aggressive bid for support from antiwar bloggers. Expect him to enthusiastically continue that effort tonight. But expect Chris Dodd to pursue a new line of attack he launched this week on Richardson's claim that he would leave "zero" troops in Iraq. And Obama, no doubt, will promote the end-the-war plan he recently outlined.

Even as he does so, however, it remains clear that he still is not ready to completely let the past be forgotten. His campaign has announced that a series of rallies will be held next Tuesday to mark the fifth-year anniversary of the speech he gave, at a demonstration in Chicago, publicly opposing the use-of-force resolution in Iraq that Congress was about to approve. As the Chicago Tribune's Christi Parsons aptly phrased it in a blog item, the date "is a high holy day in the calendar" of Obama's supporters.

Three of the rallies are set for California --- the gatherings in Los Angeles and Sacramento are scheduled for noon (PDT), in San Diego the start time is 5 p.m.

--- Don Frederick 

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

HRC poses a grave danger to Democrats because of her meaningless assurances to end the war. Does she think the anti-war vote Dems and Independents will support her blindly?

Aside from Richardson, none of the major Dem candidates have any foreign policy experience or the confidence in their own judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment and unambiguously call for a complete and prompt withdrawal from Iraq.

If HRC is the nominee, what difference will there be between her and the Republican nominee on Iraq? Both will say we need to change course and bring the war to end - but "prudently and cautiously." The Democrats will lose the advantage they have on the most critical issue of the election. And America will lose because we will continue to be stuck in Iraq for years to come regardless of who wins.

Look at what Republican Patrick Ruffini has recently written:

"So what Hillary told us on Sunday is that she will refuse to be pinned down on a date certain for withdrawal. (She won’t even apologize for her 2002 vote!) Until she does, her pledge to end the war should be laughed at, and this should be used to drive a wedge between Hillary and her anti-war base."
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/d074a0bc-0045-4b83-8037-be3a4f7733d1&comments=true#comments

Republicans want HRC to be the nominee so that Iraq is not an issue in the general election.

[HillaryLovesObama]

Obama controls his media too. Why isn';t GQ running any smear campaigns against him? The press has played its part in the WMD brouhahaha and purposely played down the CIA warnings about Iraq projections to serve the Bsh agenda.

It's a little late to claim perfect transparency in press relations are happening in Washington, after 8 years of less than drilling down on Bush's lies. Billions missing in Iraq, but every press pundit wants to be the one to score against Hillary.

I wouldn't be handing out any press awards for this type of pro-Bush drippy coverage. Bushes in love is not my idea of hard hitting Iraq policy thus far.

[HillaryLovesObama]

Since when does the times moderate any opposition to pro-Republican editorial content?