Jan. 5, 2008: Democrats talk tough on bin Laden in St. Anselm debate

Goffstown – The leading Democratic candidates for President said in a nationally broadcast debate last night that they would take military action to destroy Osama bin Laden, without or without the permission of Pakistan, if they had reliable intelligence that the terrorist leader is in a specific location there.

"We should press to do more to take him on, and if they could not or would not, then we should strike ... We have to make sure we do not hesitate to act when it comes to al-Qaida," Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards agreed, "I'd go get him period."

They made their remarks in response to a hypothetical question about a terrorist nuclear attack on the U.S. posed by the debate moderator, ABC anchorman Charles Gibson.

Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and Obama's fellow senator from Illinois, said it's important to remember that sort of attack is likely to come from renegades, not an organized state with leaders and easy targets. If the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, she said, it would have to make sure that its leaders knew the attack was coming form the U.S. and not India, a neighboring nuclear power with which it has an uneasy peace.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson agreed that if there were reliable information regarding bin Laden, an attack would be approprite. But he urged a surge in diplomacy to stabilize Pakistan while the hunt for bin Laden goes on.

Health care, Iraq and the economy were also expected to dominate the debate at St. Anselm College among the four Democrats, who faced off less than three days before the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Change is the by-word of the Democratic campaign, and the ability of each candidate to change business as usual in Washington D.C. In Iowa, the promise of change worked best for Obama. Those on stage last night argued over whether changing Washington is best done by those with experience inside the system, or by those who have not yet been corrupted by special-interest money and lobbyist influence.

Clinton has faced attacks from Edwards, who boasts he has not taken money from political actions committees or special interests, and Obama, who positions himself as untainted by only two years in Washington.

Last night was the first time that only four Democratic presidential hopefuls appeared on a debate stage. In prior events, all eight candidates had vied for time from moderators, who most often favored those who were leading in the polls.

ABC set strict criteria to select out candidates who did not show enough voter support, restricting the stage to the top four finishers in the Iowa caucus and those who drew 5 percent support in a national or state poll. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden withdrew from the race after poor showings in Iowa. Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel finished at the bottom of the heap in Iowa and did not break the 5 percent mark in polls.

ABC's decision to bar some candidates was criticized by in-state media and the state's Republican and Democratic parties, on the grounds that network executives' decision should not interfere with voters who want to choose among all candidates.

Kucinich filed a complaint about his exclusion with the Federal Communications Commission. ABC argued that its criteria were "highly inclusive."

Polls in the past month saw Clinton's once commanding lead over Obama and Edwards steadily narrow. It was Obama who took the top slot and seized the political momentum by winning the Iowa caucus by more than 8 points over Edwards and Clinton.

In New Hampshire, where Clinton hopes to bolster her fading numbers, a new CNN-WMUR poll last night showed she and Obama are tied at 33 percent each with Edwards at 20 percent.