This is the video in which YouTube users were asked to turn in their questions for tonight’s Republican candidate’s debate.

The central topic at the Democratic Debate in Philadelphia this week was the issue of Iran. While all the Democratic candidates seem to agree on the issue of Iraq, when it comes to Iran, one of them stands alone.

Senator Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment last month. This amendment designates, among other things, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

In the debate Clinton was heavily criticized by her opponents, in particular by John Edwards, who made a strong performance at the debate, trying to establish himself as The Alternative to Clinton. Referring to the vote for military action in Iraq in 2002, he said: “A lot of us on this stage have learned our lessons the hard way: That you give this president an inch, and he’ll take a mile”.

At the time of the Iraq-vote, both Edwards and Clinton voted for the resolution. Edwards later apologized for the vote, but Clinton has always refused to apologize, which initially caused unrest among the Democrats. Clinton defended her refusal by saying: “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.”

With that unrest appearing to be put to rest, Clinton has now opened up another Pandora’s box with her vote for the sanctions against Iran. Her campaign released a statement last week saying: “We must use all the tools at our disposal to address the serious challenge posed by Iran, including diplomacy, economic pressure, and sanctions.[…]The Bush Administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program, while also averting military action. That is the policy I support.”

Of the major candidates, Barack Obama is the only one that hasn’t voted for the war on Iraq. He couldn’t have, because he was a state lawmaker in Illinois at the time, but he continually reminds voters that he was against the war in Iraq from the start. On the new sanctions against Iran, Obama said: “It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran.”

In the Philadelphia debate, the Iranian issue was used against Clinton as a way to slap on a Bush mask. Whatever the effect, with both Obama and Edwards going for the same bone of The Alternative for Clinton, the latter might actually still come out the strongest.

Emotions in U.S. politics are running high after General Petraeus testimony on Iraq earlier this week and President Bush’s speech after the release of the White House report on Iraq. Republicans as well as Democrats are divided in their reactions to the report’s results and the speech. Democrats who have been arguing for an immediate ending of the war in Iraq have been put into the extreme corner by Petraeus testimony and yesterdays’ speech by President Bush.

General Petraeus, commander in chief in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, ambassador to Iraq, testified before Congress in expectation to the release of the White House report on progress in Iraq early this week. The report, that was released yesterday, shows a lack of progress towards peace and stability in Iraq, with progress in only 9 of 18 benchmarks set for the Iraqi government. Read the full report here.

In reaction to the report President Bush addressed the American citizens via a television speech. The president showed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in Iraq. He announced that he will retire troops from Iraq, but that a fast retirement would be irresponsible and a possible disaster for the Iraqi people and the stability in the region. Mr. Bush plans to bring home 5.700 troops by Christmas.

Democrats favouring a fast retirement of troops are now vulnerable for accusations of being weak, something that causes the already existing divide within the Democratic party to deepen. Grassroots democrats are still pushing for a direct ending of the war, while the Democrat leadership fears a possible emergence of an image of weakness for the Democratic party, something that may have a significant influence on next year’s elections. However, although announcing the retirement of troops, President Bush did not offer a clear strategy towards ending the war, a weakness that might turn out to be a possibility for Democrats in Congress to push for their own strategy. Democrats do not have the majority to veto the President, but an alignment with Republican critics of the developments in Iraq might empower them enough to do reach a majority.

The democratic presidential candidates are now reacting to the Petraeus Report and to Bush’s speech, with Larry King having Barack Obama live in his late night show. Live from Iowa, in a reaction to the Petraeus report, Obama was very critical about the results of Bush’s strategy and he kept pleading for a different strategy in Iraq. He also stressed that, in opposition to his rival in the running up to the presidential elections Hillary Clinton, he has been opposing the War in Iraq since its beginning. Obama also praised fellow democrat Jack Reed, who earlier this week was responsible for the Democratic response to Bush’s speech. Read the full text of the speech here.

The war in Iraq, and especially the question of how to end the war, will be of major influence in the 2008 presidential elections. Let us hope that the fight for the presidency will not be determining the strategy in Iraq but that it will be the other way around. Whoever finds a possible strategy to end this horrific chaos and grow seeds for stability in Iraq and its neighbouring countries, deserves the presidency. The Bush era will end in January 2009 but Iraq will not, and this is becoming clearer every day as progress stagnates and violence stays alive in Iraq.

Sources:

www.uspolitics.einnews.com

www.ft.com (Financial Times)

www.cnn.com

In the coming weeks, this blog will lay out the top issues that the democratic presidential nominees are concerned with. Besides covering information available from the candidates’ websites, The Washington Post will be a major source of information as it has launched a special series called “The Presidential Field”. The Washington Post follows all individual candidates for the 2008 presidential elections, including a campaign tracker and an issue coverage tracker for every candidate.

At DemocraticPresidentialNominees.com, besides keeping you posted on news about the democratic candidates, we will be comparing the statements on major issues from the candidates’ official websites with information gathered by the Washington Post. We will be analysing whether the issues targeted as most important on the candidates’ websites, will be reflected in their speeches and television debates. It will be interesting to see whether the candidates’ speak according to the promises they make on their weblogs.

Expect analyses for each of the most prominent democratic presidential nominees in the coming weeks, as well as more general news about democratic candidates on the road to the White House.