the only anti-war candidate

Occasionally, I run into supporters of Baron Hill. And some of them bristle at my claim to be the only "anti-war candidate" in the 9th District congressional race.

I understand their partisan desire to maintain that label for their candidate and the potential for confusion and subjectivity in such claims.

But let's look at the three options in the race:
-Sodrel wants the status quo advocated by Bush and McCain. I respect but disagree with that position.
-Hill votes for every non-binding resolution, but voted to start the war and votes to fund the war every time. He returned to Congress in January 2007 promising change-- and we haven't exactly seen that. And we haven't heard Hill make much noise about Iraq. In my mind, that position is hypocritical at worst, inconsistent at middling, and tepid at best.
-I want the troops to come home within the next 8-12 months.

After I make those generalizations, his defenders usually make some excuse for Hill-- why he can vote that way and still be "anti-war". I'm not impressed, so I tell them that if they're content with that, then "that's fine, but it's not good enough for me".

Here's another barometer: how much of Hill's advertising budget is devoted to ending our on-going efforts in Iraq? How many TV ads, radio ads, and printed literature? For me, it's about one-fourth. If he really cares about the issue, he'd devote energy and resources to the cause.