At the debate, the top three candidates were asked a simple question by the moderator, will you commit to removing all troops from Iraq by 2013, the end of the next president's first term in office, some six years from now?
Hillary Clinton said 'no.'
Barack Obama said 'no.'
John Edwards said 'no.'
And Bill Richardson said hell yes.
The debate, of course, was not the one last night in Las Vegas but the one in September in New Hampshire. That single moment was stunning to me, and to many other Democrats, and led me to helping Bill Richardson and his presidential campaign, because I believe that Iraq is the issue. Not one of the issues, the issue.
There are many reasons why we are in economic dire straits and apparently headed over the falls in a canoe, but one that is sometimes missed is the enormous strain that the war in Iraq has taken on our economy.
The horrible conditions and treatment of young veterans? Iraq. No money for SCHIP? Iraq. Sky-high oil prices? Iraq. Commitment to an oil-based economy? Iraq.
But back in September, our three top candidates would not commit to ending the war. Would. Not. Commit.
The American people want the war over and done, they want the troops home.
The military is at its breaking point.
And yet, despite the fact that our involvement in World War I was two years, our involvement in World War II just around four years, our three leading candidates would not commit to ending the war by 2013, making our stay in Iraq some 10 years.
'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' John Kerry once asked about Vietnam. The question still stands, but Iraq is more than a mistake, it is a lie, a fraud and a national disgrace.
From that debate, the Richardson campaign launched www.2013istoolate.com and helped sponsor the Iraq NewsLadder, a news aggregator that helps keep Iraq news front and center.
Online, I was surprised and somewhat disappointed at the reaction. In September, Bill Richardson certainly was still a very viable contender and all of the online activists, bloggers, and readers who had been crying for a clear leader on Iraq now, in my eyes, had one but they failed to support him.
It was very frustrating to say the least.
How could Markos say he would support the candidate who would leave 'no residual troops' and then not support Bill Richardson?
How could bloggers support candidates whose Iraq policies were cloudy and vague? Had we not learned the lessons of 2006 when promises led to well, nothing?
And what about two candidates who were offering vague promises and had also voted for the war without reading the intelligence? How could they get support?
When the online world failed to support Richardson on the Iraq issue, it made it difficult to transition and keep the Iraq front and center in the offline efforts as well.
Of course, at the same time, the media and the country, weary of the war, was more than happy to drink the surge Kool Aid and let the issue be.
But to Bill Richardson's great credit, he did not.
He kept talking about it on the stump, in speeches and here on the Huffington Post.
Back in May, Governor Richardson first posted on Huffington Post, committing to his position of "No Residual Troops."
He spoke up against the war with Iran here (and was dead right, this was before the NIE was released fyi.)
It was very interesting and somewhat discouraging to watch the corporate media allow the top candidates to debate foreign policy experience when, of course, neither of them has any,
It was very interesting and puzzling that Richardson, the only candidate with real boots-on-the-ground foreign policy experience, not getting more attention for having the clearest and most radical foreign policy positions.
Unlike 2004, when Howard Dean's views on Iraq were somewhat dismissed because what does the former governor of Vermont know about the world, why were Richardson's views not given more credence?
Let me interject.
I know, he was not the perfect candidate and the stumbles he made were maybe just enough to allow folks to dismiss his views, but seriously, this was a supremely qualified candidate.
So last night I watched as four months and a few weeks later, it is clear that our top three candidates, one of whom will be our nominee, have all moved about four years on the Iraq issue.
Now, all are committing not to 2013 but to 2009.
Now, all are promising in no uncertain terms to end the war when they move in the White House, not when they move out.
And for this I thank Bill Richardson, and every Democrat should as well. After all, if our nominee had the same position as the Republican nominee, that would be insanity.
Thank you Governor, for all those months on the road and all of those bad meals and sleepless nights. Thank you for keeping Iraq out there and pushing the other candidates along. Thank you.
Running for the presidency is about the toughest thing you can do. It's raising money and herding cats and frustrating and hard and just tough every single day. Bill Richardson was always friendly, always calm and always a gentlemen.
He didn't win the race, but perhaps he won something far more important: the war.
In January 2009, I fully intend to watch as one of our own is inaugurated. I expect we will hear a clear and firm commitment to end the war and bring our troops home and let the healing begin.
I'll think of Governor Richardson at that moment as well, you should, too.