Jonathan Stein is trying to be amusing but comes off to me as cynical and immature. Isn't this a serious issue - the war in Iraq and the media and Democratic leadership's failure to address it as the top issue in the campaign?

Richardson has taken it on the chin for advocating for a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within one year. He has been accused of pandering to the voters by the editors and other candidates and their supporters, even though his reasoning on why we must withdraw can't be refuted.

At the Presidential debates Clinton, Obama and Edwards refused to pledge to bring our troops home by 2013. That's the safe message, the one that fits CW, not something I'd expect Mother Jones to approve of.

But the voter in Iowa is smarter. The voter wants a commitment from the candidates. Clinton was asked at forum when she would "bring the boys home." Her response was designed to create the impression "nearly" everyone was coming home in a year, and protect her from losing support of anti-war voters.

When Clinton appears on the national talk shows and at the Presidential debates it's all about leaving Iraq "safely" and "responsibly" implying that Richardson's call for a complete withdrawal within a year is irresponsible and continuing the U.S. military presence in Iraq to fight terrorism, train the Iraqi army and provide security for the government.

When face to face with the Iowa voter, Clinton flips. It's nearly everyone out in 12 months. She deserves to be criticized for her inconsistency. And she deserves to be criticized for her deception on Iraq.

What you are also missing is Clinton offers a continuation of the current approach to U.S. foreign policy. As noted by William Arkin of the Washington Post earlier this year, "Clinton made it clear once again that she is a realist and a Washington fixture, demurring on the question of a "world free of nuclear weapons," a notable departure from the other candidates. Clinton supports a "global effort to reduce the terrible dangers of nuclear weapons," but she stops short of rhetorically committing herself to disarmament, preferring "sensible near-term steps."" http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarn ing/2007/08/bill_richardson_the_man_who_ wo.html

Richardson offers a strikingly new and honest approach to foreign affairs. As Arkin continues: "And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.""

Anyone that thinks Clinton will remove most, if not "nearly" all, U.S. troops within a year of taking office isn't paying attention. Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.

Are we ever going to leave Iraq under Clinton? I highly doubt it. Go back to the question of why did we invade? Did we really care about Saddam's supposed WMD or was it the fact Iraq has some of the world's largest proven oil reserves? We are building an embassy the size of Vatican City in Iraq and our military bases are designed for a permanent occupation.