Chris Dodd for President

Mike Caulfield of Blue Hampshire takes a look at recent Iraq framing by leading Democratic candidates and asks, "Was the Dartmouth debate just the first step in a long retreat from clarity?"

This a key question. While the "top tier" Democrats refused to commit to have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013, Chris Dodd said, "I will get that done."

Democrats need to offer clarity and they need to stand with conviction on their plans for ending America's involvement in Iraq's civil war and bringing our troops home to the heroes welcome they deserve.

When it comes to Iraq, the choice is clear: Chris Dodd is leading, but others just aren't providing the America people with clarity.

Senator Dodd has an op-ed out today on the differences between the Democratic presidential candidates on ending the war in Iraq and getting all US troops out before 2013. The op-ed is appearing in both The Huffington Post and Manchester Union-Leader.

Read the full text of Senator Dodd's op-ed below the fold.

Mike Caulfield of Blue Hampshire has a great post up grading the candidates following last week's Dartmouth debate - specifically on Iraq and how the frontrunners punted their answer on 2013 and ending the war in Iraq. Caulfield writes:

I've had some time to think about it, and the three front-runners get an 'F'. Period.

Note to the frontrunners: we already know that you can't know the future. We get it. We weren't looking for a weather forecast, guys.

We were looking for leadership. And I have to say, y'all flunked.

Looking at the fundraising numbers today I'm ready to throw my Sidekick through a window. Hillary, are your sponsors putting up that $27 million to be out of Iraq, "maybe"? Obama, is that $20 million to get us out of Iraq, "depending"?

It's beyond belief.

The outrage Caulfield expresses towards Obama, Clinton, and Edwards failure to lead with clarity and conviction has been widespread since the 2013 answer. Caulfield, like many others, thinks tip-toeing around the most important issue facing our nation today shows the frontrunners out of step with the American public. He articulates this in a comment on his post:

Sometimes leadership requires precision, and sometimes it requires clarity.

This was not a time for precision.

Senator Dodd was clear, but also precise when he answered the 2013 question:

Tim Russert: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge as Commander in Chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?

Chris Dodd: I will get that done.

Tim Russert: You'll get it done?

Chris Dodd: Yes, I will, sir.

The choice is clear: support a candidate who is committed to getting all American troops out of Iraq in his first term in Chris Dodd or support someone who does not have the conviction to do what these times call for and end America's involvement in Iraq's civil war.

Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen writes about Iraq, 2013, and the opening that has been created by the refusal of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards to take a strong position on ending the US involvement in Iraq. Yepsen writes:

[Dodd's] an experienced politician. He knows how the caucus game often breaks late. Because of his 33 years of experience in Congress, he also knows something about U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq.

He does get agitated about that, particularly when the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination appear to be in no big hurry to get out. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all declined in last week's debate to say they'd have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term - in 2013.

"I was stunned, literally stunned" to hear them say that, Dodd said in an interview for last weekend's Iowa Press program on Iowa Public Television. "It was breathtaking to me that the so-called three leading candidates would not make that commitment. That's six years from today."

"The one issue that gave us the majority in the House and Senate last year was Iraq. It's the dominant issue in the country. We're spending a fortune, $10 billion a month. Reconciliation is no closer today. I think for anybody out there wondering whether or not Democrats get this at all, or not ... to stand up and say six years from now, I will not make the commitment that U.S. forces will be out of Iraq, I found breathtaking."

And therein may lie an opportunity in Iowa for Dodd and the two other back-of-the-pack Democratic candidates, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. All three of them promise to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq well before that date.

While it's clear the three front-runners are hedging their bets, trying to be presidential by refusing to get pinned down on a key question, many Democratic activists are looking for something more definitive.

That gives those second-tier candidates a chance. That's because the Democratic presidential race has essentially been fought to a draw among the three front-runners in recent weeks. The Clinton-Obama-Edwards camps are deadlocked. Polls show them in a statistical tie for first place. Nobody's breaking through.

Polling out today shows that a strong majority of Americans oppose the Bush administration's $190 billion supplemental funding request and Democrats and independents want to see Congress take action to end the war.

Senator Dodd is the only candidate who's leading to end the war in Iraq now through his seat in the Senate. Yepsen notes, "the front-runners could fizzle if liberal Democratic activists think they're wimping out on Iraq - or would be wimps in November." Dodd has lead with clarity and conviction and no one will mistake his bold leadership on ending the war in Iraq for anything less than that.

Update:
This is what Yepsen's talking about with regard to 2013: