In June 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to offer a resolution calling on the President to offer a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. When the President failed to provide any suggestion of when U.S. forces would redeploy, Feingold jumpstarted the issue by suggesting the end of 2006 as a target date. In November 2005, 40 Senators voted in support of an amendment including language crafted by Feingold that called for a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
\ufffdOur current path is unsustainable,\ufffd Feingold said. \ufffdWhile this amendment recognizes the need for certain U.S. forces to be engaged in counter-terrorism activities, the training of Iraqi security services, and the protection of essential U.S. infrastructure, it also recognizes that the President\ufffds current strategy in Iraq is undermining our nation\ufffds national security.\ufffd
I don't think the Democrats are taking [link|http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10993|recent polls] calling for immediate withdrawal seriously. They recognize that there has to be an extended timeline and are pounding on Bush and Rumsfeld because they won't even commit to that. Even Murtha's call for redeployment over the horizon was over a 6-month timeline, IIRC. There are a variety of [link|http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html|withdrawal plans] out there, but I don't think any of the serious versions envision immediate withdrawal.
Clinton's opponents apparently would include Mark Warner (a generally pretty good, moderate, governor. That was his first elected office though, so he doesn't have much of a history to judge.); Russ Feingold (someone who also has to battle caricatures); maybe Gore; maybe Edwards; maybe Clark; probably some others. I can't see another major Democratic candidate at this point having a position substantially different from Hillary's at this point. (Yes, there is some difference in emphasis, as would be expected.)
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.