The 2008 campaign has begun, and the Democratic presidential candidates are competing for the support of the anti-war majority - that's us, folks!

It's extremely rare for progressives to be courted by Democratic leaders, so let's make them really compete for our votes by making our position clear:

1. Deny all funds for Bush's escalation
2. Use the Supplemental Appropriations to restrict all funds to safe withdrawal of our troops (Lee Amendment) attach a withdrawal timeline, even if Bush vetoes the bill 
3. Support legislation for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops, to be completed by the end of 2007 using the funds already appropriated
4. Oppose continued U.S. occupation of Iraq beyond 2007

We will track the candidates' positions below. Please help us by contacting the campaigns (click on their names for the contact form). Ask them to state their position on the 4 issues above - simply copy/paste into their contact form after this introduction: "As a member of Democrats.com, I support these positions on Iraq. Do you?"

Running	2002 - 2006	1/07 Surge Funds	5/07 $100B Supplemental Veto Response	5/07 Redeployment Completed in 2007	10/07 $200B request	09 Plan	Residual force	Iran
Biden	Authorized and fully funded	Non-binding resolution		Withdraw all but 20,000 troops in 2007	I will vote for the money necessary to protect them, period		.
Clinton	Authorized and fully funded	Set troop cap but allow escalation with Congressional approval	keep the pressure on him not to veto it	Supports non-specific phased withdrawal; Urges Bush to complete by 1/09 but won't support legislation requiring it; has a secret plan to complete withdrawal if elected	I have voted against funding this war, and I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes.		vastly reduced residual force to remain for some limited period of time to train Iraqi troops.. to provide logistical support, for counter-terrorism missions, to protect the Kurds... a continuing mission to protect America’s vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government... reassess in 2009	"We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons" "no option can be taken off the table."
Dodd	Authorized and fully funded	Set troop cap but allow escalation with Congressional approval	Supports Feingold-Reid	Begin immediately, complete by 4/08	terminate the funding of this effort here, give us a new direction.		Supports Feingold-Reid
Edwards	Authorized and funded until 2005	Deny funds	send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should do it again.	cap troops at 100,000, forcing withdrawal of 40-50,000 immediately, all combat troops by 9/08, meanwhile training Iraqi troops			Embassy guards, humanitarian relief protection, regional force to to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide	"Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." "We need to keep all options on the table."
Gravel	Opposed	.		Immediate and orderly withdrawal			.
Kucinich	Led Dem opposition, including 2004 Presidential campaign; opposed all funding.	Deny funds	Adopt Kucinich plan below	Begin immediately, replace all with UN			None - see Kucinich plan below	Pre-emptive U.S. attack is impeachable
Obama	Opposed in 02 but fully funded in 05-06	Set troop cap	find 67 votes to override the veto and shorten the funding periods to three or four month intervals	Begin by 5/1/07, end by 3/31/08	we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war.	remove 1-2 combat brigades per month, all by 5/10	limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda	Iran is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."
Richardson	?	Deny funds and deauthorize the war based on the War Powers Act		Start now, complete by 12/31/07			None whatsoever (except embassy guards)

The Kucinich Plan (H.R. 1234): How do the other candidates compare? 

.