Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred.  Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:  

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

This is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I am not part of Richardson's campaign.

Four years ago, Dean was seen as the Democratic nominee and Kerry had run out of money. My point:  in presidential politics, three months is a lifetime.

Today, in the Democratic race there are 2 frontrunners – Clinton and Obama.  They have tremendous national name recognition and vast sums of money.

And there are 2 challengers – Edwards and Richardson.  Both have sufficient funds to compete with Clinton and Obama in the January caucus/primary states.  Edwards, as the immediate past Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, has strong name recognition too.  

Richardson lacks the national name recognition of the other top candidates. Nevertheless, he has distinguished himself in the early voting states.  As noted by Pollster.com, “for other Democratic candidates, we've not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”  

Today, only these four candidates have double-digit support in polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Last Sunday, in Indianola, Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin held his “Steak Fry,” one of the key events leading up to the Iowa caucuses.  David Yepsen, regarded as the premier political reporter in Iowa, praised Richardson for giving the best speech:

Richardson gave the best overall speech of the day. He was forceful. He was specific. He gave good sound bites. It’s clear the New Mexico governor is getting better on the stump as the campaign wears on. If one of the top three contenders stumbles, Richardson’s in a position to move up.

Yepsen has been noting Richardson has an opening to do well in Iowa's caucus.  In his August 30 column, Yepsen wrote:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's uptick in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was visible here Tuesday night at a town meeting he held at Coe College.  About 200 people showed up on a steamy summer evening to spend close to two hours listening to what he said was the “short version” of his stump speech – it still went 35 minutes – and then posing questions to him.

In Iowa, Richardson has moved from 1 percent support in the state to a middle tier all his own. That's more movement than any other Democratic candidate has seen this year. . .

Richardson has set the ambitious goal of finishing in the top three contenders in Iowa, which means he has to beat Clinton, Edwards or Obama, a feat that would deal an almost mortal blow to one of them and slingshot him into serious contention.

While that objective is the correct one – no one who has ever finished worse than third in a caucus fight has ever gone on to win a nomination – those are formidable contenders. Moving into their top tier will be harder than moving out of the bottom ranks.

Still, it's possible. Edwards' populism sounds increasingly angry, and voters don't elect angry people to the presidency. Edwards has seen a clear lead in Iowa shrink to a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama.

Also, many Iowa Democrats are worried about Clinton's electability. She has moved up in Iowa surveys as she debates well and addresses the issue, but the question hasn't gone away and remains her single biggest impediment to the nomination.

Obama is vexed by questions about his lack of experience. He also has upset some Democratic constituency groups by blowing off a number of Iowa events and debates because he doesn't want to be seen with his rivals. . . .

All of which gives Richardson an opening. A growing number of activists believe he puts together an impressive package. He notes in his stump speech that Clinton talks about experience, and Obama talks about change, “and with me you get both.”

A large part of Richardson's success in the early states can be attributed to his crystal clear plan on the number one issue in the campaign, the Iraq war.  

John Nichols of The Nation, in an article entitled “The Richardson Surge,” observed Richardson is clicking with voters because he emphatically calls for the removal of every single soldier – both combat and support troops – from Iraq:

Against a field of first-tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) who don't mind savaging the Bush Administration's management of the Iraq imbroglio but who regularly fall short of proposing clear exit strategies, Richardson offers not just a résumé but specifics–and a sense of urgency. His TV ads in the early caucus and primary states identify him as the candidate with “the only plan that pulls every single soldier out of Iraq.” As the contender with the most international experience–save, perhaps, hapless Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden–Richardson says it is not merely possible but necessary to end the US military presence in Iraq and to replace it with diplomacy and targeted aid initiatives. Rejecting all the dodges of the frontrunners, Richardson argues, “If we are going to get out, we need to do it now.”

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

In an interview with the Associated Press this week, Richardson explained:  

all combat and non-combat troops should be removed from Iraq because their presence is only contributing to violence instead of bringing security.

“There's no question there's tribal and ethnic hatreds,” Richardson told The Associated Press. “But when those tribal and ethnic hatreds are fueled by American policy of hostility, then you make the situation worse.”

Richardson criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — his leading rivals for the presidential nomination — for plans to pull out combat troops from Iraq but leave residual forces behind. He said he would keep the Marines that guard the U.S. embassy in Baghdad but would withdraw all other military personnel.

“Who is going to take care of non-combat troops? The Iraqis?” Richardson asked. He said he would move a small contingent mostly of special forces to Kuwait and more troops into Afghanistan, although he would leave the specific number up to military leaders.

Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, Judy Woodruff asked the candidates if they were elected how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after their first year in office.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:  

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

Here is the video of the most significant exchange to date in the debates among the candidates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination:
 

Obama chose not to attend the debate and instead conducted a fund raiser in Atlanta, making two huge mistakes in one day.  Earlier, Obama failed to vote against the Republican resolution condemning MoveOn for its newspaper ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus.