We've been able to get very Democratic presidential candidate to express opposition to permanent bases in Iraq, except for Sen. Chris Dodd. But Mike of Blue Hampshire recently got Dodd on the record:

Mike: There's some concern about the bases we've built in Iraq, and whether the candidates are clear about whether we are turning those bases back over to the Iraqis or whether we would somehow retain posession of those?

Dodd: Well, my view is you don't need American bases in Iraq. We've got plenty of base capacity in the region.

Mike: So you'd commit to "over-the-horizon" vs. continued --

Dodd: It's a much preferable choice.

So we can say every Democrat running has expressed opposition to permanent bases, meaning none of them are campaigning on a continuation of neoconservative foreign policy objectives.

There's still concern that the candidates may be fudging on this point -- dishonestly claiming that any residual force dealing with training of Iraqis or counterterrorism would be limited and temporary.

But LiberalOasis would reiterate what was said hre earlier this month:

Whether or not they are fudging is a judgment call for individual voters to make based on the totality of their record.

And the best way for candidates to convince voters they are not fudging, is not to only say "no permanent bases" at selected venues, but to put it in the context of an overarching foreign policy vision -- that is a direct contrast to the dangerous neocon vision -- and make it a central focus of the campaign.

Now, won't it be fun to ask the Republicans how they feel about permanent bases?