One of the things that struck me surveying the Democratic candidates’ websites for positions on the war was the variety of views, plans, and level of detail. Stated positions ranged from a couple of paragraphs to two or three pages. Preliminary indications are that with respect to health care the differences will only increase.

Another aspect in which a lot of variation was evident was the relationship between the visibility of an issue in the candidate’s rhetoric and the amount of detail provided on the website about that issue.

A significant part of Senator Obama’s appeal, for example, is his early and vocal opposition to attacking Iraq. The appeal is easy to understand, given the complicity of most of the other candidates in initiating the war, with the noble exceptions of Kucinich and Gravel.

Obama’s website has, as far as I can tell, a total of three paragraphs that directly address the situation (one noting his original position, the other two I quoted). As of this post Obama’s site does not seem to mention either Brzezinski’s endorsement or Powell’s contribution of advice. As the inimitable Robert Parry says:

His decision to seek the counsel of Colin Powell — a move leaked by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Powell on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — suggests that the Illinois senator is hoping Powell’s “gravitas” inside Washington might rub off. Powell also retains popularity with many centrist Americans despite his Iraq War role.

But the Obama-Powell alliance may mean, too, that Obama won’t press very hard for an end of the Iraq War since Powell’s current position is that the United States can’t afford to withdraw despite the many errors in implementing the war strategy.

The last time I remember hearing the communicable-gravitas meme was when Chick Deney and Ronald Dumsfeld were gonna hold President Shrub up by his armpits. Of course, Obama’s not an impressionable, faith-based addict personality. Exactly. He’s got a bit of each of those, but they seem to contribute a level of understanding to the final sum.

Compared to Senator Obama, Senator Clinton has an extensive discussion of issues relating to Iraq. She advocates deauthorizing the war and refusing to pass another authorization unless the bill began removing troops from the “sectarian civil war”. She has also proposed capping the troop levels.

Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

Does this depend on the definition of “permanent” as opposed to “enduring”, or am I pushing it to parse the statement that finely?

I read somewhere recently a reporter claiming that anti-war Democrats were having trouble finding a candidate they could support. Probably this was Anne Kornblut or some equally unreliable source, but I was still struck by the concept. In particular, because of its patent falsehood.

At a minimum, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel support removing all US troops from Iraq, in periods ranging from four to eighteen months. There are certainly logistical issues that would weigh heavily in the decision on a time period, and to me it seems secondary exactly what target we pick. Mainly we need to say we’re leaving, and start doing so.

I get the feeling that those traditional media folks who were supportive of the war, or insufficiently skeptical, are scrambling to make us believe there were and are no other good choices. That we were wrong to oppose it from the beginning, and that our predictions have only come true by chance. Maybe they even believe that.

Then there’s Biden, who certainly wants to end the fighting, but the way he figures to do it is for us to divide the country in a way that makes sense to him but doesn’t seem to be catching on with the Iraqis.

Finally, let me mention the website OnTheIssues, which has a lot of information to compare candidates. More links would be nice, to verify the candidates’ statements and positions, but what’s there is quite useful.