http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_po/democrats_debateThe leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.
"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
I saw this in the debate then had a slightly difficult time finding it in news stories.
It made me wonder why they had that position on stage (a position I find actually honest and realistic) but these same folks push for an immediate pullout and/or set timetables on the floor of the Senate. I have contended before that they are interested in facilitating a defeat because they have a political stake in it and want to hang it around the neck of Bush and therefore on Republicans. That they don't actually think Iraq is a worthless effort and of no value.
I also got a sense that the moderator was more informed then the candidates on a lot of issues. I don't particularly agree with Tim Russert but he seemed to be the smartest person in the room.
Anyone else watch?...... notice the odd position on Iraq ...... other issues?