Now that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have admitted that
they aren't serious about ending the war in Iraq, it is time for anti-war voters to look elsewhere. In a Democratic debate on MSNBC this past week, none of the three Democratic front-runners would pledge to have American troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- the end of their first term in office, if they were to win.
Hillary Clinton's response should not have surprised anyone -- despite her campaign promise to "end this war," she has previously talked about leaving up to 50,000 troops there indefinitely as a "residual force." The bigger surprise was that Obama wouldn't commit to removing all the troops, despite his earlier support for withdrawal by the end of 2008, and that Edwards passed on the chance to clearly differentiate himself from the other top-tier Democrats.
To their credit, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel are serious about ending the war, but their chances of winning the Democratic nomination appear slim at best. They trail the front-runners badly in the polls, and even more badly in the fund-raising race.
It is time for anti-war Democrats to support Ron Paul instead.
Some anti-war voters might question whether Ron Paul's chances of securing his party's nomination are any better than those of Richardson or Kucinich, but there are increasing signs that he is a viable contender.
Ron Paul recently raised over one million dollars online in six days to end the third quarter. He has a committed nationwide network of grassroots supporters, with
over 49,000 signed up in local Meetup groups. He draws large crowds wherever he goes. He regularly wins post-debate polls where repeat voting is impossible. He is the most searched for, most read about, and most watched candidate online. Ron Paul has done
surprisingly well in Republican straw polls, regularly besting Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
But aside from those objective signs that the Paul campaign is primed to break into the top tier, he has a much greater opportunity than that facing the anti-war Democrats. While Republican voters are deeply dissatisfied with Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain, each of whom has serious flaws as a candidate, Democratic voters seem more than content with their own front-runners. Obama and Clinton are raising funds at a record pace and dominating the polls, while Edwards appears to be winning the support of the progressives who consider them too centrist.
Anti-war voters should size up their options now. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have made it clear that they won't commit to truly ending the war, and the rest of the Democratic field has little chance to catch them. Ron Paul is rising rapidly in the Republican ranks, and has consistently opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.
If you are serious about wanting to end this war, and prevent the next war, it's time to support a candidate who is equally serious. It's time to support Ron Paul.
