When the Democratic leadership of Congress decided to back off from their demand for a timetable of withdrawal in the latest draft of the Iraq funding bill they created a problem for two of the Democratic front-runners and an opportunity for the third.
The candidates with a problem are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The candidate with an opportunity is John Edwards. Clinton and Obama are serving U.S. Senators and must vote on the proposed funding bill. John Edwards is no longer a serving Senator and doesn't have to vote.
Clinton and Obama are caught between the need to provide the troops in Iraq with the funding they need to remain equipped and relatively safe while Bush pursues his war. If Clinton and Obama vote for the bill, they could anger the Democratic base, which opposes funding Bush's irresponsible military adventure. If they vote against the funding bill, the could anger ordinary independent American voters who oppose Bush's war but feel that the troops need their funding to remain safe while the serve in harm's way.
Edwards, who voted to approve Bush's aggression in 2002, can now stand on the sidelines and criticize Clinton and Obama, scoring points with the Democratic base.
Clinton is particularly vulnerable in this situation. She voted to authorize Bush's aggression in 2002, so if she votes for this funding bill she opens herself up to charges of being weak on opposing Bush's military adventurism, particularly at a time when Bush is trying to provoke a war with Iran. She has since refused to apologize for her earlier vote (Edwards has apologized, claiming he was misled by Bush).
Obama faces a somewhat different scenario. Obama opposed authorizing Bush's war of aggression in 2002, but did not have to vote because he was not yet a Senator. He has held out that opposition as evidence of superior judgement. Should Obama vote against the funding bill so as to appear consistent with his opposition in 2002? Or should he vote for the funding bill in order to show his support for the troops while they fight in a war that he opposed and still opposes?
Obama could point out, with some justice I think, that he opposed against the war and to keep our troops out of harm's way: now that they are in harm's way he cannot withhold the funding they need. This might be the right answer, since it points up the inconsistency in Edwards' own voting record. Edwards, in effect, voted to send the troops into harm's way but now urges his competitors to withhold funding for badly needed supplies.
Republicans should not take any comfort from the debate among the Democrats over funding. The funding debate is urgent precisely because the Republican Party failed to properly fund and equip the troops during the four years it controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress and the Presidency. Instead, for four years the Republicans indulged in pork barrel spending and corrupt contracting that squandered the funds that were meant for our troops.
Donald Rumsfeld famously dismissed calls for better equipment by saying "you go to war with the Army you have." It's no coincidence that the issues of healthcare for our troops, better troop pay, better body armor, and Mine-Resistant-Ambush-Protected vehicles ("MRAP") have become hot issues: they are all being pushed by Democrats sitting in the majority for the first time in four years (twelve, in the case of the House).
But I digress . . .
The funding bill vote sets up some interesting possibilities in the Democratic primary. How will Clinton and Obama (and Dodd and Biden and Kucinich) vote? Will the Democratic base reward Edwards for not voting for a bill he can't vote on anyway?
This could be the first big fork in the road for the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
Cross posted at The Richmond Democrat.