Democratic presidential candidates stepped up their criticism of rival Hillary Clinton at last night's debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, an event that came as Clinton has solidified her lead in state and national opinion polls.

Questioning whether Clinton is too polarizing to build consensus on high-profile issues, several Democrats referred to the former first lady's failed effort at overhauling the health care system in the 1990s. Clinton also faced disapproval for voting yesterday for a U.S. Senate resolution urging the State Department to deem the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds force a terrorist organization, with former North Carolina senator John Edwards suggesting that Clinton failed to learn from her vote authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq.

"I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that," Edwards said. Referring to Clinton, Edwards said that "we learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran."

Several lesser-known candidates seized on the issue of the Iraq war to distinguish themselves. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has highlighted his proposed solution for the conflict in recent days, debuting a New Hampshire television ad aimed at the liberal, anti-war Democratic base. The ad describes Richardson as the only candidate with a plan to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I have a fundamental difference with Senator (Barack) Obama, Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton," Richardson said. "Their position basically is changing the mission. My position in bringing all troops out of Iraq is to end the war."

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich went further, saying he'd remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 2007, prompting moderator Tim Russert to remark on the current date. Kucinich, to laughter from the audience, responded, "make that 2009. I'm ready to be president today."

Clinton, Edwards and Obama, meanwhile, refused to pledge that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by January 2013, the end of the next presidential term. The three candidates, who have been leading opinion polls, suggested that Richardson's pledge was politically expedient but politically impractical. All the Democratic candidates advocate removing troops from Iraq, but cautioned that the U.S. embassy in Iraq would need protection.

"It is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting. Now, we do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find," said Clinton, who stressed that Democratic leaders in Congress have pushed, albeit unsuccessfully, for a change of course in Iraq.

"But I think it is fair to say that the president has made it clear: He intends to have about 100,000 or so troops when he leaves office: The height of irresponsibility, that he would leave this war to his successor," added Clinton, a senator from New York.

But Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd suggested that his Senate colleagues haven't used their greatest influence, the power of the purse, to bring an end to the war in Iraq. "As long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments here, talking about timelines and dates, we're not getting to the fundamental power that exists in the Congress, and that is to terminate the funding of this effort here - give us a new direction," said Dodd, who pledged to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013.

Earlier this month, Dodd used a Senate vote to distinguish himself from his Democratic rivals. Among Democratic senators running for president, Dodd cast the sole dissenting vote on a proposal to bring U.S. troops back from Iraq in nine months. The problem, Dodd said, was that the measure (sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed) didn't ensure that funding for the war would be cut off. (next page »)