The War has been the central theme of the primary (and all of politics), yet after six+ months of campaigning and two debates Hillary has still not fully declared the nuisances of her position. As a strategy, it certainly isn't failing - but can it hold throughout the longest-ever primary season? There will be a point where Edwards or Obama attack her on this - and what will she say then? Does she really want to admit she will keep troops in Iraq indefinitely after Obama (or whoever) calls her out on it?

The reason why the rival campaign is reduced to sending out its criticism to bloggers is because there is no named source for this information so instead of sending it to the MSM which might occasionally have some scrupples, it's better to send it to bloggers who never can resist running with something as unsubstianted as this.  It's not about "getting comfortable with disagreement", it's really getting comfortable with suckers.

First, I totally agree that what we need is a REAL debate about Iraq. I fully support Joe Biden's idea to have a full debate on only that issue.

Secondly, while it is physically possible to withdraw all troops from Iraq, it would be irresponsible to do so. As reported today, the Iraqi military is years away from being able to maintain their own security. If we do the 'popular' thing and withdraw all of our troops we will leave a mess in a region of the world we depend on for our energy needs. This isn't an excuse but an explanation. Therefore the only responsible way to leave Iraq is to withdraw most of our troops and leave behind a force large (or small) enough to train the Iraqis and hold off Al-Qaeda. But otherwise get the hell out. And once the Iraqi military is capable of defending itself we can leave for good.

I am quite certain most here will completely disagree with me.  But I fail to see what is progressive about being irresponsible.

I agree that we should have a real and open debate about whether "residual forces" should remain in Iraq.  But I'm not sure I agree with your approach to that debate, which seems to (1) assume a candidate or voter can't be progressive and disagree with you on this issue; and (2) argue that disagreement on this issue should move progressives to shift our focus to unseating the next Democratic president before we even elect one.

As far as your starting assumption goes, I should get out on the table that I'm actually agnostic on whether SOME troops remaining either in Iraq or over the horizon COULD be acceptable.  I'm not comfortable entrusting W with control over that kind of a force, but I think that it MIGHT make sense to keep 10,000 troops somewhere in the region to -- if nothing else -- try to prevent Darfur-esque genocide from occurring after we pull out combat personel.  Then again, maybe such a force WON'T make sense -- depending on when we get the majority of the troops out and on what happens when we leave.  To the extent that candidates are similarly agnostic, I'm OK with that and think it's unfair to say such a position is - per se - unprogressive.  Depending on circumstances, I would actually suggest such a view could turn out to be the MOST progressive.

Second, I also disagree that this issue should serve as the predicate for a primary challenge in 2012.  Would that kind of a challenge really make sense if, in 20012, there are 11,000 troops in Kuwait, but they're only serving an anti-genocide function?  How about if that's true, AND we've passed universal health care?  And generally rehabilitated the image of the US around the world?  Obviously, my point is that there are a lot of variables that ought to be considered before the netroots plans to challenge a yet to be elected Democratic president.  

Anyway, here's hoping that my attempt at getting comfortable with a real debate is well received.  These are important issues that should be discussed, even if I end up catching a ton of flak for this comment.

Clinton told the NY Times in February she would leave a "significant" number of troops in Iraq after "withdrawal."  she says she will end the war, but it is pure bs.

Her nomination will split the Democratic Party. I do not think splitting the Party is good.  Two pro-war candidates (R and D) would cause progressives to leave.  

There is a difference.  I prefer John Edwards. But even Obama, as weak as he can be on things, is better than Clinton.

Good post, Matt.  

While Bush or the next great GOP hope can dig this hole deeper, I suspect all the Democratic candidates will have their hands tied by the difficult situation on the ground in Iraq, and will not withdraw as fast as the American people desire. Maybe they get lucky (in the cynical sense) and Iraq collapses on Bush's watch.

But let's say the most anti-iraq president wins the election. He (gender specific, I think) will depend on support and political cover in Congress. And Congress will depend on support and pressure from the populace.

The best service we could do is to produce electoral wins by stronger anti-war candidates for Congress, which means playing a strong role in the primaries. If we end up with a Congress that is 1/3 split (Reactionary, Conservative-Centrist and Liberal), then we don't have the means to change US foreign policy.

We may even be better served by losing some bluedogs to the right wing, as their pro-war support could have the effect of dragging the Democratic party to the right politically, and down in the polls.

I'm beginning to think that progressives might have to embrace a different strategy than to hope that we get a progressive in the 2008 race, and work to build the machinery for a progressive primary challenge in 2012 against a sitting Democratic President.

I really don't understand the logic here.  We are more than six months out from Iowa and you are ready to throw in the towel???

What about Bill Richardson??  He said no troops.  Period.  

Why is it always Clinton, Obama and Edwards?  I think Richardson is the most qualified and he's got "our" position on Iraq.  

There are 2 frontrunners (Clinton and Obama due to their national name recognition and fundraising) and 2 challengers (Edwards and Richardson both are polling at or above 10% in Iowa and New Hampshire).

Only one of these candidates is calling for a total withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within a year of taking office combined with a diplomatic offensive.  That candidate is Richardson.  He has the credibility and foreign policy expereince to deliver on his commitment.

how aboput working to stop Hillary in 2008, before 2012, it's either going to be Hillary or Obama, and Hillary is less electable in a general and is far more hawkish on Iraq, even though Obama is cautious about how we leave, he wants to leave and  doesn't think we should have went in FROM THE FIRST PLACE unlike Hillary, wh will nbever get the troops out because she has a complex about being senn as the "weak" candidate, Hillary will be a much better preident than a Republican for many reasons, but on Iraq she probably would not be, she will come up with reasons to stay there and we know it.

Obviously, said rival campaign knows that it's political useful to point out that Clinton won't end the occupation.

Matt, an occupation is "the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power." The whole point of residual forces is that we'll have people present but separate from the population to look after our own interests: making sure Turkey doesn't go to war with Kurdistan, fighting terrorism, keeping an eye on Iran, etc. That is not control over the country. That means when the Shiites and Sunnis decide to kill each other until almost nobody's left, we won't be in the middle of it trying to stop both sides. We may have gone to Iraq for no reason but there are still some realistic and ideal ways to salvage what's left of our responsibility to the region. It's such a decent idea that Mr. Obama has quietly agreed that he would do the same.

>>>>I'm beginning to think that progressives might have to embrace a different strategy than to hope that we get a progressive in the 2008 race

Matt - this is an shocking statement. You actually thought Hillary and Obama were Progressives?
Ivo Daalder, an Obama advisor and in the Clinton administration, signed PNAC letters!
And yet "progressives" trash a truly Progressive candidate who's never been aligned with these war hawks in the rightwing wing of the Democratic Party!!

 ...I seriously doubt there's going to BE a sitting Democratic President in 2012.

 The Dems folded to Bush on the war, their poll numbers took a powder, and they're STILL not connecting the dots?

 Maybe the Dems really CAN'T be trusted on national-security matters. If they're this dumb...

NO President in 2009 can just pull out all troops in one fell-swoop.  If any candidate says differently, he or she is either being dishonest or is really stupid and therefore not qualified to be President.

Bill Richardson has become a gas-bag.  Have you noticed he also promised healthcare for ALL in the first year of his Presidency?

It's shocking that you think Gore will be your ideal 'progressive' candidate on Iraq war if he jumps in.

Al Gore is actually much more cautious than most candidates including Edwards/Obama etc when asked about the troop pullout. He repeated his position recently on Larry King that a premature withdrawl may cause disastrous consequence.

If he sticks to his position, he may shock you to be the most 'right wing' candidate, even more so than a slightly 'evovled' Hillary.

calling for immediate deauthorization of the war, before the Congressional recess on June 30. Bill Richardson would leave no residual troops (though he would leave the Marines to protect the embassy).

Here is Governor Richardson's 7 Point Plan for Iraq. It is the only comprehensive plan that ends the war now and leaves no residual forces. None of the so-called front-runners goes this far.

From the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy blog:

The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous.  When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President "no," the President must comply.  Thus, Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms.  First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that war--and forbid the President from exceeding these limits--such as by imposing a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict.  Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations riders that limit the use of appropriated funds.  Indeed, the reason that the Constitution limits military appropriations to two years is to prevent Congress from abdicating its responsibility to oversee ongoing military engagements.

Join Bill Richardson in calling on Congress to deauthorize the war now.

MY mistake on the Congressional recess. It isn't June 30, it's August 30. Even so, Bill Richardson wants the war deauthorized now.

2012 is the magic number. Hillary won't win.

It will be Thompson or Rudy or Mitt and maybe McCain if he comes back from the dead. The best we can do is hold the Senate to protect to Supreme Court, then throw everything we have behind Feingold to pick off the GOP incumbent.

From there it's on the HOV lane to the Promised Land.