Morning Diary: Iraq still driving Democratic race

Yesterday's main news (besides the Warner announcement, which we already disclosed yesterday) was Barack Obama's speech on Iraq, which the NYT called "his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war." He called for a withdrawal of troops by the end of next year, with only a small residue staying in Iraq. More specifically, he proposed withdrawing one or two brigades a month (there are twenty total in Iraq right now):

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

Speaking from the town of Clinton in Iowa (an obvious way for Obama to call attention to his differences with Clinton's war proposals, without having to ever name her), Obama echoed his usual Frost-esque campaign theme: conventional route v. bold path. He said, “Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown.” And he made sure that voters knew he opposed the war from the start: “I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006.”

But this did not suffice to convince others in the party, who accused him of saying nothing new and using old timid recipes. Richardson answered, “Leaving behind tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time is nothing new. This plan is inadequate and does not end the war.” And Dodd pounced on Obama as well:

I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline... It is clear to me - especially after yesterday's testimony - that half-measures aren't going to stop this President or end our involvement in this civil war...Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity.

Clinton did not want to be undone by Obama, and came out with an open letter she sent to President Bush, asking him to stop lying about Iraq:

Mr. President, it has been nearly four and a half years since you landed on an aircraft carrier and stood before the American people under a banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” Do not repeat that mistake on Thursday night. Do not misrepresent the facts about the situation on the ground. And do not portray an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels that would occur anyway as a mark of success. Be candid with the American people. They deserve it.

And Edwards entered the fray today. He is set to run a two-minute ad on MSNBC today after Bush's speech: "Tell Congress you know the truth. They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."

It is interesting to wonder whether Democrats would forcefully oppose Bush's Iraq policy if we were not a few months away from the primaries. It does seem that the Democratic candidates for president are pressuring each other into taking harsher and harsher positions on the war - positions that might have been marginalized if it wasn't for this competition for the primary vote.

It is also interesting that all three of the frontrunners have left a space at their left on this question, and have taken the risk of letting Richardson be labeled the most anti-war of the top Democratic candidates. Richardson is using his calls for total withdrawal without leaving any troop residue to differentiate himself from his rivals. If Edwards, Obama or Clinton were to join him there and try to outflank the two others from their left, what effect might that have on the race? (Not that Obama or Clinton could realistically turn that left at this point).