TODAY'S TALKER: Hillary's New Glow

Of course she CAN win, but it wil have to be an absolutley bulletproof campaign. One little slip, one chink in the armour, and her opponents from the left and right will be on her like ants on jelly.

I'd like to build an amalgam candidate, one made of parts of just about every Democrat running. Perhaps they should run as a team. That's it, we nominate them all, and then they choose among themselves who's the boss (no voting for yourself allowed), and the rest are the Veep and the cabinet. This is a sweet daydream. I think I feel another column coming on...

She has surprised me. She is campaigning much more effectively than I expected her to. I thought she had painted herself into a corner with the vote for the war that she will not renounce. But she's getting away with it. Meanwhile, she is getting terrific staff work and has successfully modified her image to emphasize her most attractive qualities.

I thought Hillary was going to be defeated by the long-standing image of Hillary that was so unlikable. But the new Hillary is running a very effective race. People seem willing to take a new look at her.

I thought this was Obama's year. Now I'm not sure. She's looking very, very good.

I agree she looks very strong. The biggest question is not can she will BUT Who will take the chance and run with her as her VP. I would be interested to see what suggestions peolpe have.

She can win and quite possibly, she and Obama may end up on the same ticket -- and I'd think the two of them with Bill in the wings the next administration will be a great one... one that will surely help unravel the mess we're currently in. . .

"A foundation is but the base and it is the collection of building blocks that creates what many should strive to ascend."
Ricky J. Fico
My Quotes

You know it's funny. The biggest baggage she carries into the race is the unreasoning venom and hatred from some neocons . . . and this seems to be both a good and a bad . . . she gets automatic rejection at the polls from them . . . but any Democrat would . . . . and though they often claim to hope she's nominated since she'd be "an automatic win for them" . . . they still spew out any false or damaging comments they can think of using. This suggests and underlying fear from some . . . and not without reason. As it stands, she faces a seriously inadequate field of Republican candidates . . . in a party that would never allow Dr. Paul to carry the ticket since the party is still run by neo-cons! The opposition candidate will get the die-hards . . . and the Democrats will get the Libs . . . so the deciding factor will be the strength of the war time opposition (dramatic increases won't help the Conservative cause) and the face of the opponent. Can she win? She, assuredly can.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Seeing Hillary is from Park Ridge (a Chicago suburb and my sister lives a block away from Hillary's childhood home) and Obama a Chicagoan I think we can't lose.... This is why:

The people of Chicago - hard-working, proud and representative of America's heritage. Chicago is the heartland of America and it's not so much because of geography but because of its people.

Chicago's diverse in ethnicity, culture, ideals and profession.

Chicago has background and it is its people's background that bring to the forefront a portrait of harmony and togetherness.

Chicago is not white, is not black, is not brown nor gray - it is a colorful city - and its strength lies in the vibrancy of this spectrum.

Chicago is great not because it was built on the waves of Lake Michigan but built by the waves of immigrants - people of various religion, ethnicity and culture - who, had combined their ambitions and ideals and made Chicago home.

Chicago has three million people, and with its suburbs, the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area has a population of about nine million.

African American, Euro American, Asian American, Latin American - all American and here in Chicago, all Chicagoan. To be a Chicagoan is to be a proud Chicagoan.

Chicago's racial makeup is about a third Caucasian, a third African American and a quarter Hispanic or Latino. Although of various race, the finish line is the same - a place for all winners and Chicago has many winners - all from various cultural, ethnic and racial groups.

Chicago, like its parent (United States) is a melting-pot:

Chicago has a very large Irish American population - and St. Patrick's Day in Chicago is a true testament to this fact as well as the numerous Irish pubs throughout the city.

Chicago's Italian population is second only to New York City and many of Chicago's festivals, parades and neighborhood gatherings bring to the forefront an American essay on pride and gratitude.

Chicago has the largest Polish population ouside of Warsaw; Chicago is also the second largest Lithuanian and Serbian City in the world. Eastern Europe is well-represented in Chicago and its tastes, aromas and traditions are prevalent throughout.

Chicago is the 3rd largest Greek City in the world and many of Chicago's churches and restaurants attest to this heritage.

Chicago has the largest group of Swedish Americans in the United States as well as a very large South Asian, Indian American population.

Chicago--its people proud of both custom and heritage. Chicago's many festivals reflect its diversity and its diversity, in turn, reflects its unity. Chicago has many threads, woven together--and it is with this togetherness, that we welcome you!

Ricky J. Fico

Keep selling Chicago, Ricky. It is one of the greatest cities in America.

Thanks Joe, Chicago is unequivocally one of the greatest cities in the known universe and I've been to a few. . . Now, we have to reinvigorate our sports teams.

Hillary's experience is an asset, couldn't possibly be a liability unless, of course, she hadn't learned anything from her experiences and I hardly doubt that's the case. And if it is the case then she'd stumble and fall...

"Always remember that the door that may separate us is more valuable than any wall." Ricky J. Fico

Some Hillary highlights:

"SEN. CLINTON: Well, and I think it's important particularly to point out this is George Bush's war. He is responsible for this war.

He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war."

AND THIS TAKES THE CAKE... SHE IGNORED THE QUESTION:

MR. BLITZER: Senator Clinton, you've voted in favor of every funding for the U.S. troops since the start of the war until now. And some are accusing and some others of playing politics with the lives of the troops. What is your response?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have the deepest respect for my friend Senator Biden, and he and I have agreed on much of what we have attempted to do. Unfortunately, we don't have a president who is willing to change course, and I think it was time to say enough is enough. I thought the best way to support our troops was to try to send a very strong message that they should begin to come home.

That is the best way to support them, and I thought that vote was an opportunity to do so.

Everybody on this stage, we are all united, Wolf. We all believe that we need to try to end this war. In two nights you're going to have the Republican candidates here; they all support the war, they all support the president, they all supported the escalation. Each of us is trying in our own way to bring the war to an end.

I do not think Obama will run as her VP. The talk is Richardson. Any thoughts from anyone?

Well, I think Richardson is a viable running mate and he does possess the attributes...

Clearly, Hillary's advisors are telling her that she needs to get on the anti-war bus. She's a politcal whore.

I think that a Clinton/Richardson campaign would be terrific. Richardson brings a richness to the ticket that will be needed at the time. Nice suggestion, Susan.

Yes, I think a Clinton/Richardson ticket is a possibility too. Yes, Susan it is a suggestion that has much merit....

Well Don, we've whores in this current administation -- whores to the big oil companies, whores to the stockholders of major defense contractors and construction companies and the list goes on and on....

"Sometimes we are pressed to dance around the truth so it is best if we follow the rhythms of the heart."
Ricky J. Fico

Don? Every candidate avoids answering the questions they're asked if they possibly can.

To address the question: Yes. I think she could win, and I honestly believe she would do a great job. Then again, when compared to the present resident of the White House, anyone would look good.

On the other hand, I think because of the frothing at the mouth neocon right, her administration would be a divisive nightmare as they repeated their performance with Bill. They would literally spend tens of millions of dollars manufacturing stories and accusations.

The only salvation might be if she had a really solid Democratic majority in both houses. Unfortunately that would require that they give up the politics of bombast, personal aggrandizement, and selling out to special interests and embrace actually working for bipartisan solutions to real problems. Given their current track record in that department, that's about as likely as it was for the Republicans when they were in the exact same position.

It is definitely going to be an interesting next few years.

No way. She's too polarizing.

She will get about as many Republican cross-over votes as Gingrich would get Democrat votes.

I have to agree with Dan K.

I think we've (Americans) have learned our lesson on voting for someone that has a personal agenda from our current administration. I think that she doesn't hide her personal agenda very well. She is all about herself just like George W. is. That will be her demise.

"...manufacturing stories and accusations?" Do you remember Monica Lewinsky? Who could have possibly manufactured anything that good?

Win what? The Dem's nomination? Probably could. But putting Hillary on the ticket is the surest way to get another Republican elected.

God help us!

Psssst. Bonnie.

Nobody said manufacturing ALL stories and ONLY stories? You probably missed the "story" about Whitewater, which costs taxpayers so much and essentially accomplished nothing. Did you hear the one where the Clinton's were Responsible for all kinds of murders??? Miss that one, did ya?

Sheesh. She IS polarizing and Dan (in this rare instance of agreement) is right. She won't win a lot of Republican votes (like Gingrich wouldn't get Dem. votes) . . .

Of course, the difference is Democrats don't need a lot of Republican votes . . . while Republicans have to pull off Democratic votes. THAT is becoming more and more unlikely each day thanks to Geo. II who is the best campaign poster for the Democrats in ages. Don't see him joining the Republican candidates at a lot of stops yet . . . maybe later, huh?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

As I responded to a different Gather article, I think Senator Clinton "won" Sunday night's debate. However, that's not what you asked.

I do not believe she is electable. She is way too polarizing (even among Democrats), and she gives too strong a perception of being overcalculating, untrustworthy, and/or conniving. She should, however, win the Democratic nomination. However, keep your eyes on Gore (if he enters). If Gore doesn't get in, don't discount Edwards.

For many months, I have predicted Romney and Gore as their party's respective nominees, and Romney and Edwards if Gore doesn't run. I'm starting to wonder if Hillary might not yet come through, but like the song says, "That's my story and I'm (still) stickin' to it".

I said Romney two years ago... but I want Newt. Romney is second choice.

That said, if Ron Paul gets some momentum, I may get behind him because I would like to see someone who is not beholdened to big money.

I'm with YOU for a change Don! Go NEWT! ;)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

One of the most amazing things about politics on a national level is the degree to which we, the public, evaluate politicians on what they promise they will do for us and never on the plans they lay out to deliver these promises.
If push were to come to shove ( and it will ) the majority of voters will be looking for two things come election time:
1. healthcare cost brought under control
2. the Iraq situation resolved
The person that will win the next Presidential election will be the person who does the best job of promising these two golden rings without ever actually getting into the details of how they will do this.
Voters don't like details, they make their heads hurts. If they did, they'd be asking the questions themselves rather than waiting for someone else to do it for them.

Time to absorb, not decision time for me. Ellen B.

I agree with you George that voters are looking for solutions to healthcare and Iraq, but I think that most are realizing that promises without plans haven't worked in the past. I also agree that voters don't like details, but think that plans for solutions will have a more significant impact on votes in 2008. Just my humble opinion.

I think Hillary can get the nomination but her chances of becoming President may not be so rosy. I think it needs to be considered when voting in the democratic primary. I may like some of her ideas but I don't have 100% faith in what she says. I'm tired of political machines where people have old ties.

I believe Hillary is a viable candidate. Edwards came out attacking his own...not a good thing. Obama looked good...but lacks experience, which is the same problem current administration had. Although I must say, GWB could have had 1000 years of experience and he still could not have pulled his head out of his perverbial rear end and got even remotely close to being Presidential. Gravel is a ranting lunatic. Biden is filled with passion, but lacks electability. Richardson just draws a blank with me...can't see him going anywhere. There rest looked like window dressing and not very good at that. And after all anna "surrounded by love" isn't politics about giving people what they want. Politicians have been doing it for years and getting elected. I think thats how the dubya got elected...a big snow job he lovingly referred to as his faith! The only faith he ever had was that Karl Rove could convince people that Ann Richards was a lesbian and that was good enough for him! After all it worked for him in Texas!

This is ridiculous, Hillary cannot win, and she will drag the Democratic party down, yet again, if she is nominated. The get out the vote effort to overcome the voluntary mass inundation of the polls for those that would stand in the rain for eight hours to vote against her would be insurmountable. She would motivate every right wing conservative, every religious right voter, and worst of all, the most reliable voter block in the country, the seniors, that vote every election, regardless of party, find Hillary offensive in poll after poll, would vote her down as well. She has alienated the left as she tried to move right, and the people she thought to influence through that move, have not been fooled at all. She is simply unelectable. In the meantime, even those that would vote for her would not bother to brave that same rain to do it. Rain or shine, she's a losing proposition. That's not to say I don't think she'd be a great president, because I think she would, I just think there is way to much to overcome to get her elected, and those that hate her, hate her deeply, and will never be won over. Wake up and quit looking at reality as you wish it was.

It's a done deal. The only question is who will be her running mate. She has the most experience for the office in the last 100 years!!! Her experience will out weigh any negatives come Election time.

I personally will not vote for her, in one breath she says that she for working Americans and in the next she's whooing money in the Hi Tech silicon valley saying she supports more H1B visas. 80% of these go to entry level positions yeah, there are no Americans willing to fill these jobs. The U.S. government says these are handled like the lottery not on a experience basis. Then she votes to support slave labor. read more here http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2616#comment-813
and here
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/oman_free_trade_agreement_passes_senate_10_democrats_sold_us.htm

And Gulliani, the Master of adultry is electable? Ron if you think the religous right wing voters are going to put that cheating excuse for a husband, in office you have been nipping a bit of the Republican "kool-aid'" yourself. Apparently your not looking at all the polls I am because I don't see her getting all the offensive marks you do. If you think I and many others wouldn't brave the rain or worse for our candidate after the travesty that has been in office for the past 6 years, you are sadly mistaken! You only need to smell the horrors in the wake of the bush/rove years just to get a glimpse at what a voter will do. You need to wake up realize that this isn't a land of wells any longer...no room for wishing! Time to make it happen! By the way....I'm a Texas senior and my senior group doesn't find her the least bit offensive. In fact we ALL we be working her campaign in our local area. So don't count the seniors out just yet!

PJ,
Get a clue. I am not a republican, I am an independent with a marked anti neocon democratic slant, at this time. Everything I have said is the truth, and you need to come to your senses and realize life is not a thing you can bend to your wishes. Things are what they are, and looking at them through "I want it this way" glasses won't help a bit. You want four more years of repugnican "leadership", nominate Hillary, that's your choice. If I had any druthers, I would say the best bet for a democratic victory would be Edwards, but Obama is possible as well. Two recent polls show Hillary behind both Guiliani and McCain for gods sakes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/
general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1694406

In June 2006 a CNN poll showed Clinton got the highest "would definitely not vote for" total of all potential candidates polled. I'm not making this stuff up PJ.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/

Ron:
I felt like you did initially . . . but you want some reality? How about this then . . . the people dead-set against Hillary will respond JUST as vehemently against ANY Democrat. Edwards,, the wealthy ambulance chasing attorney driving up the cost of healthcare and then in charge of changing it so that he can earn less later? Dude, that's coming from me . . . a FAN!!! They will tear that boy up too. And Seniors in MY world DO like Hillary.

Reality is some will vote ticket. You can call a bunch of them Hillary haters . . . but they should be called anti-Democrats. That won't change. And after the Iraq fiasco and 7 yrs. of NeoCON failure . . . you should probably reconsider. People WILL stand in the rain on both sides for this one.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Your polls include ALL candidates. Who knows where they will go after there are just the two?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I think you aren't looking at this realistically either Doyle. The reason we won the mid terms was we had the support of enormous numbers of independents like me, and moderate republicans horrified by the corruption and the war. Those voters dry up and blow away when the name Clinton is put forth. It's just wishful thinking, and I'll say it again, I think she'd be a great president, but to do that you have to get elected, and there are just too many enemies that hate her and will never listen to a word she has to say. The polls show it, people will tell you that if asked, and it's just madness on the order of Kerry's nomination to do it. On the other hand, you have Edwards, that polls well with independents and even has some support in moderate republican circles, and was gaining in each and every primary even though Kerry was anointed prematurely by the party leadership, and many felt like to vote for him was a wasted vote in 2004. I just think you need to be realistic and go with your best chance.

Without any other consideration, 47%, regardless of political affiliation, affirming that they would "definitely not vote for" Clinton, has to tell you something. That's pretty damn hard to overcome. Then, even if you got Democrats to all pony up and support her, their support is not going to be the dedicated kind. You might stand in the rain to vote for her, but I'd bet those that said in 2006 they definitely wouldn't, would be easily distracted by any excuse not to.

Well Ron . . . we'll have to disagree. You claim the Kerry votes were wasted . . . I claim election fraud. You claim she'd make a good President but your Independent friends (presumably unlike you) would rather vote for "more of the same". I think I give Independents more credit than you do. Only time will tell. By the way . . . after Ralph Nader's supporters virtually gave the country to this corrupt NeoCON administration (Ok, that's not fair, the supreme court did that) many learned their lesson. I have a great deal of Independent friends who will NOT vote Republican. The trick is to put on your "National Eyeglasses" . . . and not your local ones. One of us need a trip to the optometrist. LoL!

I hope, quite sincerely, that whichever of us is right ends victorious. After the primary . . . we'll see better . . . DAMN that 20/20 hindsight!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~

47%??? Source that one for me. Please.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~

I already did Doyle, up the page there. And I think you're wrong, and hope it doesn't cost us "Goulash" as a president.

Sorry to have overlooked that Ron . . . Ok . . . flawed (IMO) on a number of levels.

First, Jeb Bush fared worse than Hillary. Did you miss that? So did Al Gore. How about this quote?

"Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her.

Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent."

The more significant problem we can add to that is that this poll is dated June 2oo6. There have been changes, yes? The illegal war in Iraq and the climbing number of forces and deaths . . . . the candidates themselves finally campaigning. Things people say at the time don't mean they stay set in granite.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

The people that hate Clinton wil never change that, and any changes haven't been all that much for the better, consider her stance on the major issue, Iraq. Did you notice her sidestep of the question Blitzer asked? I would say you fall well within the 22% yes, but 47% no is a lot more voters. Also Bush? Duh!

Relying on polls two years before an election can only be a mistake. My thoughts.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"She has surprised me. She is campaigning much more effectively than I expected her to. I thought she had painted herself into a corner with the vote for the war that she will not renounce. But she's getting away with it. Meanwhile, she is getting terrific staff work and has successfully modified her image to emphasize her most attractive qualities."

Sorry Steve. Not allowed to reconsider for two years according to Ron. By the way . . . I would have been in the 'Never' column at that time too.

Since then - A LOT has changed . . . even the candidate list. Update yourself Ron. Recent Polls to Cite? Something from BEFORE the build up?

Look at this:

JUNE 8, 2006: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, is killed during a U.S. air raid [AP, 6/8/06]



JUNE 15, 2006: Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq reaches 2,500 [Reuters, 6/15/06]

JUNE 15, 2006: With support of Iraq's President, Iraqi Vice President asks Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq [AP, 6/15/06]

JUNE 20, 2006: Japan announces it plans to withdraw its 600 soldiers from Iraq in the coming weeks [ABC News, 6/20/06]

JUNE 20, 2006: Iraqi National Security Adviser writes that U.S. troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2007


We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007. [Washington Post, 6/20/06]

JUNE 20, 2006: Mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers who were kidnapped four days earlier are found dead

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official, said the soldiers "were killed in a barbaric way." [USA Today, 6/20/06]

JULY 3, 2006: Pfc. Steven Green charged with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi girl


Revealed last week and denounced by clerics as showing the "real, ugly face of America", the case could be particularly damaging to the U.S. image in Iraq's conservative Muslim society even after several other murder cases in the past few weeks. [Reuters, 7/3/06]

JULY 8, 2006: Four other soldiers charged with participating in the rape and murders; a fifth charged with dereliction of duty for failing to report the crimes [Bloomberg, 6/9/06]

JULY 12, 2006: White House budget document reveals that administration will ask for another $110 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [White House Office of Management and Budget, 7/12/06]

JULY 13, 2006: Rampant violence grips Baghdad, over 140 people killed

Last month, Mr. Maliki implemented a security plan for Baghdad, where the sharp rise in violence over the past few months has been felt most acutely. But the strategy, which features a constellation of new checkpoints, has not curbed the mayhem. [NYT, 7/13/06]

AUGUST 3, 2006: The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, suggests that civil war is possible in Iraq.

ABIZAID: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I've seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war." [CNN, 8/3/06]

AUGUST 7, 2006: The top U.S. military official in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, says that civil war in Iraq is "certainly possible," calling it "the most significant threat right now" in the country. [ABC News, 8/7/06]

AUGUST 15, 2006: 3,438 Iraq civilians died in July, "the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians." [New York Times, 8/15/06]

AUGUST 16, 2006: 1,666 bombs exploded in Iraq in July, "the highest monthly total of the war." [New York Times, 8/16/06]



AUGUST 19 2006: 1,249 days since the war began — the war in Iraq surpasses the length of WWII. [The Nation, 8/18/2006]

AUGUST 21, 2006: Bush: "We're not leaving [Iraq] so long as I'm the president." [CNN, 8/21/2006]

AUGUST 21, 2006: Bush acknowledges Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11. [Fox News, 8/21/2006] (FOX?????)

AUGUST 22, 2006: Marine Corps begins involuntary troop recalls. "The U.S. Marine
Corps will start ordering what could be thousands of inactive service members to return to duty in the coming months to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer." [Reuters, 8/22/2006]

AUGUST 28, 2006: "A suicide car bombing and clashes between Shiite militia and Iraqi security forces left at least 50 people dead Monday in a brutal contradiction of the prime minister's claim that bloodshed was decreasing" The dead included eight American soldiers, one of the U.S. military's deadliest weekends in months." [AP, 8/28/2006]

AUGUST 29, 2006: Rumsfeld calls war critics "quitters" who "blame America first" for giving "the enemy the false impression Americans cannot stomach a tough fight" [LA Times, 8/29/2006]

AUGUST 30, 2006: Rumsfeld compares Iraq war critics to those who believed Hitler could be "appeased" [CNN, 8/30/2006]

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006: Baghdad morgue revises August death toll upward 300 percent

"[T]his means that a much-publicized drop-off in violence in August — heralded by both the Iraqi government and the US military as a sign that a new security effort in Baghdad was working — apparently didn't exist." [ABC News, 9/6/2006]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2006: Cheney: war critics aid terrorists.

CHENEY: terrorists are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. [Meet the Press, 9/11/2006]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006: Iraq becomes the deadliest place for journalists to work. A new study by the Committee to Protect Journalists found that of the 580 journalists who have been killed over the last 15 years, 78 reporters died in Iraq. [Reuters, 9/20/2006]

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006: Number of civilian deaths continues to rise. "The number of civilians slain in Iraq reached an unprecedented level in July and August, which saw 6,599 violent deaths," a new U.N. report shows. Researchers also noted "the growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women. [AP, 9/21/2006]

SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: President Bush describes Iraq violence as "just a comma" in history. [CNN, 9/24/2006]

SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: New National Intelligence Estimate determines Iraq war has increased terror threat.

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks." [New York Times, 9/24/2006]

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006: Pentagon announces 3,800 U.S. soldiers will be staying in Iraq about six weeks beyond their one-year combat tours. [USA Today, 9/26/2006]

SEPTEMBER 27, 2006: 71 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces To withdraw within a year. [World Public Opinion, 9/27/2007]

OCTOBER 2, 2006: 3,000 Iraqi civilians die in August 2006, up from 2,000 deaths in August of 2005, according to findings from the Brookings Institution. [New York Times, 10/2/2006]

OCTOBER 3, 2006: 58 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration has deliberately misled the American public about the war in Iraq. [CNN, 10/4/2006]

OCTOBER 4, 2006: Powell objects to "stay the course" strategy.

"Only the Iraqi people can resolve this … [S]taying the course isn't good enough because a course has to have an end." [Star Tribune, 10/2/2006]

OCTOBER 4, 2006: Al Qaeda letter says prolonging the Iraq war "is in our interest."

"The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq …Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God's permission." [Counterterrorism Center at West Point, 10/4/2006]

OCTOBER 4, 2006: Iraq and Afghanistan war vets say military is overstretched, underequipped. 63 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe the Army and Marine Corps are overextended. 67 percent of Army and Marine veterans believe their forces are overextended. [VoteVets Action Fund, 10/4/2006]

OCTOBER 6, 2006: In Baghdad, Rice says Iraq is "making progress." Her trip "began inauspiciously when the military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes" because the airport was under attack. [New York Times, 10/6/2006]

OCTOBER 8, 2006: U.S. casualties in Iraq spiking.

"The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war." [Washington Post, 10/8/2006]

OCTOBER 11, 2006: 655,000: The number of Iraqis who have died since March 2003, according to a team of epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University. [Washington Post, 10/11/2006]

OCTOBER 12, 2006: British Army chief: "We must quit Iraq soon."

"The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq 'soon' or risk catastrophic consequences for both Iraq and British society." [The Daily Mail, 10/12/2006]

OCOTBER 14, 2006: Three in four Americans support bringing troops home from Iraq. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home. [Fox News, 10/14/2006]

OCTOBER 15, 2006: Hagel: "We need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq."

"The American people are not going to continue to support, sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war." He added, "So we need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq, because the entire Middle East, Wolf, is more combustible than it's been probably since 1948, and more dangerous, and we're in the middle of it." [CNN, 10/15/2006]

OCTOBER 17, 2006: The number of embedded journalists reporting in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level.

Some journalists blame the decline on Pentagon bureaucracy, the reporting restrictions journalists face, and pressure by some commanders to avoid "negative" coverage. [Editor and Publisher, 10/17/2006]

OCTOBER 18, 2006: "Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Tuesday, one of the bloodiest days of the war for American forces outside of major combat operations." [Washington Post, 10/18/2006]

OCTOBER 18 2006: Electricity levels in Baghdad at lowest since U.S. invasion. Residents of Baghdad are receiving just 2.4 hours of electricity this month, compared to an average of 16-24 hours of electricity before the U.S. invasion. The lowest level prior to this month was 3.9 hours/day. [Brookings Institution, 10/18/2006]

OCTOBER 19, 2006: Staff on the House Veterans Affairs Committee report that the "number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have sought help for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) doubled — from nearly 4,500 to more than 9,000 — from October 2005 through June 2006." [McClatchy, 10/18/2006]

OCTOBER 20, 2006: Former top Bush administration official calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Richard Armitage proposed notifying "the Iraqis that we're going to be drawing down a reasonable but careful percentage of our troops over a reasonable interval of months — just for example, 5 percent of troops every three months." [New Jersey Express Times, 10/20/2006]

OCTOBER 23, 2006: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): "We have to face the fact that Iraq is a civil war." [CNN, 10/23/2006]

OCTOBER 24, 2006: 19 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war in Iraq, an all-time low. [USA Today, 10/24/2006]

OCTOBER 30, 2006: October is the fourth deadliest month for American troops since the war began. "The U.S. military announced the death of the 100th servicemember killed in Iraq this month." [CBS News, 10/30/2006]

NOVEMBER 1, 2006: Classified military briefing reports Iraq "edging toward chaos."

A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict. … An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads "urban areas experiencing 'ethnic cleansing' campaigns to consolidate control" and "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically." [New York Times, 11/1/2006]



NOVEMBER 2, 2006: 1,289 Iraqi civilians estimated to have died in October 2006 in political violence. The number — nearly 42 people per day — was up 18 percent from the 1,089 of such fatalities in September. [Washington Post, 11/2/2006]

NOVEMBER 3, 2006: "Rumsfeld must go." A group of military publications — the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times — call on Rumsfeld to resign:

"It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads." [MSNBC, 11/3/2006]

NOVEMBER 5, 2006: Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.

Iraq's High Tribunal on Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. [AP, 11/5/2006]



NOVEMBER 8, 2006: Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense. One day after the midterm elections that turned control of Congress over to the Democrats, Bush announced Rumsfeld would step down and be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. [CNN, 11/8/2006]



NOVEMBER 9, 2006: Iraqi health minister reports 150,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war — "about three times previously accepted estimates." [Forbes, 11/9/2006]

NOVEMBER 12, 2006: Up to 150 people are abducted from a government research institute in downtown Baghdad, "the largest mass abduction since the start of the U.S. occupation." Iraq's higher education minister orders all universities closed. [Washington Post, 11/13/2006]

NOVEMBER 20, 2006: Iraqis demand U.S. troops withdraw.

"Seven out of ten Iraqis overall–including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)–say they want the United States to leave within a year." [World Public Opinion poll, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 23, 2006: 144 people die in the war's deadliest attack to date.

"In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said." [New York Times, 11/23/2006]

NOVEMBER 25, 2006: The Iraq insurgency is now self-sustaining financially,"raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes … a classified United States government" concludes. [New York Times, 11/25/2006]

NOVEMBER 27, 2006: NBC News decides to refer to war in Iraq as a "civil war." [MSNBC, 11/27/2006]

NOVEMBER 28, 2006: A classified Marine Corps intelligence report concludes that in Western Iraq, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" where U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar." [Washington Post, 11/27/2006]

NOVEMBER 29, 2006: Pentagon plans Iraq escalation.

"The Pentagon is developing plans to send four more battalions to Iraq … partly to boost security in Baghdad … The extra combat engineer battalions of reserves, likely to be sent to Baghdad, would total about 3,500 troops." [AP, 11/29/2006]



NOVEMBER 29, 2006: 68 percent of Americans say they believe there is a civil war in Iraq. [Wall Street Journal, 11/29/2006]

NOVEMBER 30, 2006: Condoleezza Rice says Iraq is not in a civil war because "the Iraqis don't see it that way." [CBS Evening News, 11/30/06]

DECEMBER 2, 2006: "Not working well." Donald Rumsfeld, describing the Iraq strategy in a classified memo written two days before he resigned. [New York Times, 12/2/2006]

DECEMBER 5, 2006: Gates acknowledges U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. Asked if he believes the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates responds, "no, sir." [Fox News, 12/5/2006]

DECEMBER 6, 2006: Iraq Study Group Report released. Key recommendations include:


RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.

RECOMMENDATION 35: The United States must make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a way to talk to Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders.

RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
[United States Institute of Peace, 12/6/2006]

DECEMBER 8, 2006: 71 percent of Americans who disapprove of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, an "alltime high." [AP, 12/8/2006]

DECEMBER 19, 2006: The White House is "aggressively promoting" a plan to send "15,000 to 30,000 more troops" to Iraq "over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," the Washington Post reports. [Washington Post, 12/19/2006]

DECEMBER 19, 2006: 11 percent of Americans support escalating the war in Iraq by adding at least 20,000 additional U.S. forces. [CNN, 12/19/2006]

DECEMBER 20, 2006: Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, submit plans to retire. [LAT, 12/20/06]

DECEMBER 21, 2006: Lieberman: "I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad." [AP, 12/21/2006]

DECEMBER 21, 2006: 32 journalists died in Iraq in 2006, "the deadliest year for the press in a single country that the Committee to Protect Journalists has ever recorded." [Committee to Protect Journalists, 12/21/2006]

DECEMBER 23, 2006: 76. Number of American troops who have died in Iraq this month, "making December the second deadliest month for U.S. servicemen in 2006." [AP, 12/23/2006]

DECEMBER 30, 2006: Saddam executed by hanging. The execution was conducted just before the Sunni Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha. "It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs." [Salon, 12/30/06]

Bush: "When it came to execute him, it looked like it was kind of a revenge killing. And it sent a mixed signal to the American people and the people around the world. And it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do." [PBS Newshour, 1/16/07]



DECEMBER 2006: 3rd most deadly month in Iraq. 112 U.S. troops killed. [icasualties]

2007
JANUARY 2, 2007: 16,723 Iraqis died violent deaths in 2006, according to Iraqi authorities. Iraqi civilian deaths hit a record high in December 2006. [New York Times, 1/2/2007]

JANUARY 2, 2007: Gen. George Casey warns against troop escalation in Iraq.

"It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term." [New York Times, 1/2/2007]

JANUARY 2, 2007: "For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll." [Military Times, 1/2/2007]

JANUARY 3, 2007: Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 3,000 [CNN, 1/3/07]

JANUARY 10, 2007: New troops in Iraq lack needed armor.

"The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said." [Baltimore Sun, 1/10/2007]

JANUARY 10, 2007: Bush announces escalation. "I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." [Bush, 1/10/2007]

JANUARY 11, 2007: 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq.

"Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move." [AP, 1/11/2007]

JANUARY 11, 2007: Hagel on escalation:"The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." [CSPAN, 1/11/2007]

JANUARY 19, 2007: $8.4 billion: The cost of the Iraq war per month. "It rose from a monthly 'burn rate' of about $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003." [LA Times, 1/19/2007]

JANUARY 20, 2007: 25 U.S. service members killed, marking "the third-deadliest day for American troops since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq." Twelve of the U.S. deaths on Saturday came in the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter northeast of Baghdad. [Baltimore Sun, 1/22/2007]

JANUARY 22, 2007: Sen. John Warner (R-VA) introduces resolution opposing Bush's Iraq plan. [Washington Post, 1/23/07]

JANUARY 26, 2007: The White House has "authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias." [Washington Post,1/25/2007]

JANUARY 30, 2007: The Army and Marine Corps "are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply" the extra 21,500 troops President Bush plans to send to Iraq. "It's inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky," one senior Army official said. [Washington Post, 1/30/2007]

FEBRUARY 1, 2007: 150 Iraqis are killed in suicide bomb attack on a crowded market in Hilla, Iraq. [ABC News, 2/1/2007]

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: Iraqi civilian deaths hit monthly high.

"Iraqi officials said on Thursday that nearly 2,000 civilians had died in January, a new monthly high that suggests that a crackdown by the government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki against militias has failed to yield any immediate results." [2/2/2007]

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq declares Iraq is worse than a civil war. The document states that the term civil war "accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict," though it "does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict." [Washington Post, 2/3/2007]

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: Bush requests another $100 billion for Iraq

"President George W. Bush will ask Congress for $99.7 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for rest of fiscal year 2007 and more than $145 billion for fiscal year 2008. … That money comes on top of $70 billion that Congress approved for the current fiscal year, adding up to a total of $170 billion and making it the most expensive year yet for the war." [Reuters, 2/2/07]

FEBRUARY 4, 2007: "There has been an ongoing effort to target our helicopters," chief U.S. military spokesman William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad. "We have had four helicopters shot down … It appears they were all the result of some kind of ground fire." [Washington Post, 2/5/2007]



FEBRUARY 6, 2007: Pace: Not enough equipment to support escalation.

"U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday equipment will be a problem when U.S. forces in Iraq are increased. … Pace said the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq — fewer than will be needed 'to cover all of the troops that are deploying.' Pace says it will be July before enough equipment is in place." [UPI, 2/6/2007]

FEBRUARY 10, 2007: Gen. David Petraeus officially takes charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, replacing Gen. George Casey, who will become Army chief of staff. [Defenselink, 2/12/07]

FEBRUARY 12, 2007: Car bombings kill at least 80 in Iraq.

"Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad Monday when at least two car bombs - one parked in an underground garage - tore through a crowded marketplace, setting off dozens of secondary explosions and killing at least 71 people, police said. Another bombing nearby killed at least nine." [AP, 2/12/2007]

FEBRUARY 13, 2007: 63 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008. [CBS News, 2/13/2007]

FEBRUARY 16, 2007: The House opposes escalation. By a vote of 246-182, the House of Representatives passes a resolution opposing President Bush's escalation in Iraq, marking the first time in four years that Congress has voted decisively against Bush's Iraq policy. [C-SPAN, 2/16/2007]

FEBRUARY 17, 2007: Senate rejects debate on anti-escalation resolution.

"The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops. The vote was 56-34."

That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that passed the House. [C-SPAN, 2/17/2007]

FEBRUARY 18, 2007: A Washington Post investigation reveals that returning soldiers face deplorable conditions at Walter Reed's outpatient center

The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses. [Washington Post, 2/18/2007]

FEBRUARY 21, 2007: Tony Blair announces a timetable for the withdrawal of U.K. troops from Iraq. [BBC, 2/21/2007]

FEBRUARY 22, 2007: 8th helicopter shot down in Iraq in a month

"Insurgents shot down an eighth US helicopter in Iraq yesterday in what the Pentagon acknowledges is a change of tactics, as well as the use of more sophisticated weaponry." [Guardian, 2/22/07]

FEBRUARY 22, 2007: Insurgents turn to chlorine bombs

"For the third time in a month, Iraqi insurgents have set off a make-shift chemical bomb. All three have used chlorine, which can kill if inhaled and can burn the eyes and skin. The use of chemicals in attacks is a new tactic, reflecting the adaptibility of insurgent groups." [NPR, 2/22/07]

MARCH 2, 2007: Pentagon says 7,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq.

"President Bush's planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday." [USA Today, 3/2/07]

MARCH 8, 2007: "Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday proposed legislation that would bring American combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008 at the latest." [Reuters, 3/8/07]

"At the same time Senate Democrats were preparing their own bill with binding legislation that would require a withdrawal from Iraq to begin no less than 120 days after the legislation is enacted with the goal of redeployment by March 31, 2008." [FoxNews.com, 3/8/07]

MARCH 10, 2007: Senior Administration Official: "Right now there is no trend" that escalation is working. [Washington Post, 3/10/07]

MARCH 12, 2007: Pentagon planning fallback strategy if escalation fails. [LAT, 3/12/07]

MARCH 13, 2007: For the first time since the Iraq war began, less than half of Americans (46 percent) believe the United States can win in Iraq. [CNN, 3/13/07]

MARCH 14, 2007: The Pentagon acknowledges Iraq is a civil war

"In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report." [AP, 3/14/07]

MARCH 24, 2007: "Record high" percentage of Americans believe the Iraq war was not worth fighting. [3/24/07, ABC News]

MARCH 26, 2007: Army deployed seriously injured soldiers.

"In some cases, soldiers were sent there even though their injuries were so severe that doctors had previously recommended they should be considered for medical retirement from the Army." Military experts say the decision "was an effort to pump up manpower statistics used to show the readiness of Army units." [Salon Magazine, 3/26/07]

MARCH 27, 2007: McCain claims progress in Iraq. McCain tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don't get it through the filter of some of the media." He later acknowledges, "There is no unarmored humvees. Obviously, that's the case." [CBS, 4/8/07]

MARCH 29, 2007: Senate passes Iraq withdrawal. The Senate votes 51-47 to pass a "war spending bill that would require U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by the end of March 2008, ignoring a veto threat from President Bush." [CNN, 3/29/07]

MARCH 29, 2007: 100+ dead in Baghdad suicide bombings.

"Multiple suicide bombers struck in predominantly Shiite markets in Baghdad and in a town north of the capital, killing at least 104 people and wounding scores on Thursday - the day that new U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker took office." [AP, 3/29/07]

APRIL 1, 2007: McCain strolls through Baghdad market, accompanied by 100 soldiers, 3 blackhawks, 2 Apache gunships. [NBC News, 4/1/07]



APRIL 2, 2007: Civilian deaths up 13% across Iraq.

"Iraqi figures estimate civilian deaths in violence across the country rose by 13% last month, despite the security crackdown in Baghdad." [BBC, 4/2/07]

APRIL 5, 2007: 12,000 more National Guard troops to Iraq. "Coming on the heels of a controversial 'surge' of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan." [MSNBC, 4/5/2007]

APRIL 6, 2007: Pentagon report criticizes Feith's office, finds no Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday. [Washington Post, 4/6/07]

APRIL 6, 2007: Chlorine attack kills 27.

"A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas crashed into a police checkpoint in western Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people and wounding dozens, police in the Anbar provincial capital said." [4/6/2007, AP]

APRIL 6, 2007: Fallen troops begin to be brought home via charter flights, met by honor guards. [Fox News, 4/6/07]

APRIL 9, 2007: Tens of thousands of Iraqis gather to protest U.S. presence in Iraq.

On the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam's statue, up to one million Iraqi Shias summoned by Moqtada al-Sadr "have gathered in the holy city of Najaf for a mass demonstration calling for US-led troops to leave Iraq." [BBC, 4/9/07]


APRIL 11, 2007: White House unable to fill new post of "war czar."

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military. [Washington Post, 4/11/07]

APRIL 11, 2007: Gates announces 12-15 month extensions for Army troops.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that all active-duty soldiers currently deployed or going to Iraq and Afghanistan will see their one-year tours extended to 15 months, acknowledging that such a strain on the war-weary Army is necessary should the ongoing troop increase be prolonged well into next year. [Washington Post, 4/11/07]

APRIL 12, 2007: Iraqi parliament bombed inside Green Zone.

"An apparent suicide bombing inside the tightly guarded parliament building that killed two Sunni Arab legislators and six other people here Thursday struck at the heart of Iraq's struggling democracy and the U.S. security plan that is trying to bolster it. The attack in the parliament's cafeteria, which also injured 23 people, highlighted what many have described as serious gaps in security around the building where legislators elected in December 2005 have been struggling with little success to form a consensus to bring peace." [LAT, 4/13/07]



APRIL 16, 2007: 3,300 U.S. troop casualties. "As of Sunday, April 15, 2007, at least 3,300 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count." [AP, 4/16/07]

APRIL 18, 2007: Four bombs kill at least 180 in Iraq.

Suspected Sunni insurgents penetrated the Baghdad security net Wednesday, hitting Shiite targets with four bomb attacks that killed 183 people — the bloodiest day since the U.S. troop surge began nine weeks ago. [Fox News, 4/18/07]

APRIL 19, 2007: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declares Iraq war "is lost." [AP, 4/19/07] He later says, "As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course."

APRIL 20, 2007: Iraqis protest Baghdad wall. The New York Times reports on reaction to the Bush administration's "radical new strategy to quell the widening sectarian violence by building a 12-foot-high, three-mile-long wall separating a historic Sunni enclave from Shiite neighborhoods." [NYT, 4/20/07]

APRIL 22, 2007: Maliki says he will halt construction of Baghdad wall. [AP, 4/22/07]



APRIL 23, 2007: 9 U.S. soldiers killed in blast in Diyala province, Iraq.

"A group led by al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a suicide truck bomb that killed nine U.S. soldiers and wounded 20 in one of the worst attacks on U.S. ground forces since the invasion in 2003." [MSNBC, 4/24/07]

APRIL 24, 2007: Tillman family accuses Bush administration of twisting the facts.

In "explosive testimony" today, Kevin Tillman, brother of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former NFL player who was killed in action in Afghanistan, "accused the Bush administration of twisting the facts of his brother's death to distract public attention from the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib." [LAT, 4/24/07]

APRIL 25, 2007: Laura Bush: "No one suffers more than their President and I do." [NBC, 4/25/2007]

APRIL 25, 2007: White House excludes bomb deaths in casualty counts.

"Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims." [McClatchy, 4/25/07]

APRIL 26, 2007: 28 percent. President Bush's approval rating in a new Harris survey, the lowest of his presidency. [WSJ, 4/26/2007]

APRIL 26, 2007: Senate approves Iraq withdrawal bill.

"The Senate on Thursday narrowly passed legislation ordering U.S. troops to begin coming home from Iraq by Oct. 1. The vote was 51-46. The House on Wednesday passed the same war spending bill, and President Bush next week is expected to receive, and swiftly reject, the legislation. The veto could fall on the fourth anniversary of the president's Iraq 'victory' speech, which is Tuesday." [MSNBC, 4/26/07]

APRIL 26, 2007: Gen. Petraeus warns, the war in Iraq is "'exceedingly complex and very tough' … and said the U.S. effort might become more difficult before before it gets easier." [MSNBC, 4/26/07]

APRIL 28, 2007: U.S. rebuilt Iraq projects are crumbling.

In a series of reports to Congress detailing a sample of major projects, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that new equipment and facilities turned over to local authorities suffered from misuse and neglect. [GovExec, 4/30/07]

APRIL 28, 2007: At least 66 dead in bombing near shrine. [LAT, 4/29/07]

APRIL 30, 2007: 104 U.S. troops killed this month in Iraq.

At least 104 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, capping the deadliest six-month period for U.S. forces since the war began more than four years ago. [McClatchy, 5/1/07]

MAY 1, 2007: Bush vetoes Congressional plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. [AP, 5/1/07]


Yeah. No change since the poll. Whatever. (And thats just Iraq)!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Good for you Cat! This country really needs more mindless support of criminals!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle,
You are obviously in some kind of fog. The vote on Clinton has been in forever. People made up their minds about her clear back in the Clinton white house years, and they aren't about to reconsider now. You want to support her to the losing slot in 2008 fine, I was sorta hoping we could avoid giving the Republicans the white house all wrapped up in a ribbon. You are definitely kidding yourself, but don't let me interrupt your delusion. Clinton is vulnerable on Iraq because of the stuff you trashed the page up with, not helped by it. She has voted to fund the war every time, except this token one, and that is what Wolfe asked her about that she sidestepped. Do you pay attention at all? She is the one democrat least able to distance herself from the republicans on Iraq. What are you thinking?

And you too Ron . . . it's our country isn't it? Why not cite an older poll, couldn't find one lower (where they compared her to people not even in the picture)? If you believe that old polls never change . . . I have to wonder why they conduct more than one. But, trust me, I WILL research. I always do. ...and with current info.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Browsing through the last couple days polls, you will probably have your way, Doyle, hope it turns out the way you would like it to, but I have my doubts, Clinton carries a lot of baggage that the Republicans are going to get a lot of mileage out of, once it gets to toe to toe campaigning. I personally think Republicans are rooting for her, because of that.

Issues of Monumental importance face this country. Sorry to here you have neither the time nor inclination to examine them. Heres my 2 sec. search for a more current poll which means either those MAGGOTS in 2oo6 lied or people DO change. MAY - 2oo7 - Newsweek.

May 2oo7 Poll

Nice to find another person willing to rationally discuss issues. Your old poll is toast. Done deal. Useless. We need to look at now. It's going to be fine. As I said . . . I hope either of us who is right turns out to be right in the long haul!!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

You're AB-SO-FREEEKIN-Lutely right. They think it's an easy win and I root for Newt for the same reason. 20/20 hindsight. All you can do is your best!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle,
Your poll shows both obama and edwards ahead of clinton against both mccain and goulash

She can and will win in 2008....her experience is a major plus!!! She will be more than capable to deal with the YoYos and mess this administration has left to be cleaned up...
just answering your original question...
and to Ricky Fico, I say Bravo!!! well said.

It shows her also ahead of every Republican contender in spite of your faulty, old poll. After the Primary . . . should she win, she'll get their supporters too. The question was "Can she Win?" The answer is she can! Nobody would ask WILL she win.......

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

And Romney

The Democratic party should go with their best candidate, and that isn't Clinton, I still say that, and your poll proves it.

And she will not automatically get those independent and republican moderate voters that pull the other two ahead of her.

OMG Ron . . . please don't suggest we vote by a sampling pool!!! I was giving you so much credit. Today's poll and tommorow's may well be different. Get a grip my friend . . . . The question was CAN she win? That's it. And it's WAY too soon to tell what the poll will say on election day - YOUR poll proves they vary! All I say is she can . . . and we need not decide just yet. And I'll be DAMNED if some random poll sampled by some group will dictate MY vote for what I feel is best! Tell me you're no different. Please.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Nobody "automatically" gets Republican votes . . . except the Republican candidate will get the religious right and the Extreme left will vote Democrat. Independents are largely going Democrat . . . not that it matters much. This is nothing new. She would pick up mainstream Democrats though. So?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"that pull the other two ahead of her."

Your opinion without substance. MY opinion is that YOUR opinion (on this) has as much meaning as your poll!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

You had me wavering there for a minute Doyle but looking over this fresh poll, and knowing what the republicans are good at, I have to say I am even more convinced she can't win in the end. We need the independents and moderate republicans to win, which was proven so decisively in the last election, and I don't believe she can pull them in. I also think there will be a lot of dirt drug up that will remind those starting to accept her, why they hated her. I have to say that she will not pull us together, either, but be one more polarizing figure in American politics when we really need some healing.

Hey doyle, opinions are like you know what, and yours is as valid as mine, not more.

Ron . . .
All due respect. Hell, I KNOW she'll be polarizing . . . her single biggest fault whether it's her fault or not. But ALL I'm suggesting is wait - who will she face . . . what will change next? It's still early . . . and all valid points. I haven't commited to anything other than NOT "Stay the Course"!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Fair enough Doyle

As I said in a comment elsewhere this former Goldwater Republican is supporting another former Republican, who quotes Goldwater, for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

There are a lot of former Republicans among the electorate, who are strong supporters of individual rights, freedom of speech and a balancing the budget without placing the burden of balancing it on those who can least afford it. We dislike corporate welfare and subsidies even more than we disliked being expected to provide a middle-class life style to those who refuse to accept responsibility for themselves, but we recognize that there are those who, due to circumstances that were or are beyond their control, are unable to accept responsibility for themselves. Particularly when the latter are children we feel a responsibility to provide for them and provide the opportunity to become productive citizens in the communities that as adults they will share with our children.

There are even current members of the Republican Party who share our values, and we will be joined by Democrats and Independents who also share our values and our concern for our children's future and those values will lead us to vote for the candidate who offers the best likelihood of a peaceful and at least modestly secure future for our children and grandchildren.

We will also be joined by the millions of women and even some men who have decided, men have made enough of a mess of this world and perhaps it is time to see if a female can do a better job of leading our nation and the world to a better future.

Hillary can and will win in 2008.

Hillary IS looking good. Can she win the nomination? Don't see why not. Unless.....there's a dark horse candidate named Gore who keeps saying he's not going to run, keeps producing environmental hit movies and writes an important book this year of all years, and, who is the new darling of the Hollywood set, who have a ton of money and clout to lend to a campaign.

Carol:

Awesome points. The Republicans from my youth have lost the control of the Republican Party. True Conservatism is Not this NeoCON style of egregious spending . . . bigger Government . . . etc.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I like her politcs alright, and I am a staunch liberal, but she has ONE SERIOUS DRAWBACK: NO PEOPLE SKILLS.

As far as I am concerned, neither party has any obvious winners.

I don't know..I think alot of women will vote for her just because she is a woman. Yet alot of people will vote against her just because she is a woman. I like her..but she isn't my favorite right now. My husbands opinion is that she will knock someone who could really do a good job out of the running. I think anything could still happen at this point.

Kathryn! No people skills? She left the White House hated and detested (like Bill) by a LOT of people . . . moved to New York and immediately won a US Senate seat. They were from Arkansas. I'm thinking that took SOME people skills!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"My husbands opinion is that she will knock someone who could really do a good job out of the running."

Just like Kerry last time, and I called that one, too. Your husband has a good head on his shoulders, Jeanie.

Doyle, you're hearing big city views, I think. she's got better handlers, but she has never had, and still doesn't, good people skills, and New York is probably the only place that she could have been elected, or maybe your home town, Tinseltown California, where we know she'll win, any democrat would, but certainly not back in Arkansas, or anywhere in the Bible belt. Here she was, and is, hated more than Bill, who's seen as a sinner, but a good old boy, where as she is seen as an arrogant lawyer and political social climber, with more New York cold ambition than Little Rock charm. I doubt seriously, if even her new handlers can keep the classic Hillary arrogance from surfacing somewhere in this election cycle, either. It already has in the flap over the disputed bills for the fund raiser in California she got into. I don't think you have a clue, living where you do, how much she is hated in broad parts of this country. The two coasts can't get her elected, as Kerry found out last time.

"My husbands opinion"

Uhhhhh . . . no disrespect but . . . Ron? Ron's wife? What's this?

For the record . . . "Tinseltown"? Does that NOT seem a tad derogatory?
Arkansas . . . Where he was Govenor??

I've been to Little Rock AND my son still lives (after his return from Afghanistan) in New York. Oh, I DO get around! You're speaking for your people in your community??

Clue me in Ron . . . I thought we were agreed to sit back and see what happens next!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Oh, we were? When did that become Ron shuts up and Doyle keeps on stating his opinion far and wide? And I'm just supposed to sit here and listen to you, without stating why you're wrong? Seems to me you weren't sitting back Doyle. You people on both. coasts forget there is a little thing called America between you, and they have a lot different moral and ethical standards. Backward though they may be. They also have a pretty major effect on elections, or so I'm told. Visiting Little Rock once doesn't make you an authority on the Bible Belt, I've lived here all my life, suffered as a Blue Dog in a Red State, worked in many election campaigns, most losing efforts, and talk to people here every day at the Grocery store, the Home Depot, the Dr. office. You folks think that what you see and hear around you is representative of the nation, but it is not representative of a major part of it. People here, and especially older people, hate Clinton, and have for years.

Whoa! Ok . . . I thought you were talking to me . . . I wan't talking to you. Fine. No need to be so rude!

"When did that become Ron shuts up and Doyle keeps on stating his opinion far and wide?

NEVER did I suggest you couldn't (or shouldn't) talk. I thought you were back to discussing with me issues you and I had resolved. Rant on . . . with my blessing. I was talking to someone else thinking we had reached an accord. My mistake.

Is this Ron or Ron's wife? I never refer to myself in the 3rd person . . . Ok . . . just to see how it feels I'll try it this once . . . .

Doyle didn't mean you couldn't talk . . . he just assumed his conversation was over.

Ooooh. Feels wierd.

Anyway . . . I never EVER meant I wouldn't talk to anyone else. Hell, I never meant I wouldn't talk to YOU (whoever you might be). You just took me by surprise.

"You people on both. coasts forget there is a little thing called America between you"

Complete idiocy. Nothing less.

" . . . and they have a lot different moral and ethical standards."

Oh? They support the erosion of the US Constitution and illegal wars?? They're FOR abortion? Exactly HOW different ARE they?

"Visiting Little Rock once doesn't make you an authority on the Bible Belt"

Wow . . . you assume a lot. Did I say I visited there once?

"Backward though they may be.

Says YOU.

I never claimed you weren't more informed about local opinion in Little Rock.

"You folks think that what you see and hear around you is representative of the nation..."

Around me? You have NO idea how much of this country I've been in - or how long at different places . . . and you'd obviously be surprised. We're talking many years . . . and purchased homes . . . not a stopover on a cross country trip. But you go ahead and delight in your uninformed delusions . . . they served you this long!

"people, hate Clinton, and have for years."

Such hatred! I see why you elected him!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

We are discussing the different Dem candidates, and you keep bringing up Republican wrongs? What the hell is that about? As far as I know Edwards, Biden, Obama, and the rest, had nothing to do with constitutional degradation, or illegal wars, and if there is one Dem candidate that has, it would be Hillary. She has never apologized for her war vote, and has voted to fund it every time it has come up, until this recent token political ploy. She's a hawk, trying to distance herself from her record. I also never agreed not to respond to something new you brought up, (Hillary and people skills is an oxymoron) and you seem to have ignored the quotes on the statement ahead of my rejoinder. Since we talked last, I have asked a lot of people around here, in passing, their views on Hillary. For the most part, they don't trust her, find her abrasive and controlling, and she will get few votes here. I don't care, actually where you "have been", or "visit", you apparently have adopted a coaster's views on this, as in large part, that's what it is, and as for hating Clinton, you know I spoke of Hillary. Bill is not as unpopular, albeit still not loved, hereabouts, by any but me and a few more misguided folks, I guess. He has people skills, though. You seem to want to use all kinds of topic obfuscation here, which doesn't make your argument any better, I might add. Clinton, if nominated, will drag the Democratic Party down to defeat, because she will inspire massive Republican turnout, lose the independent and moderate Republican vote, and many Democrats will be less than inspired, because they had hoped for much better. Reminds me of the situation with Kerry a bit.

Oh, and I live in Kansas, not Little Rock, but both are firmly ensconced in the legendary Bible Belt, and rural tradition, and share the view of Hillary I have portrayed, I think. I'm just telling you what I overwhelmingly hear around me, and what I think rural people everywhere perceive this woman to be. Many commented that she belonged in New York, not the Midwest, and they deserved each other. Good riddance to bad rubbish, was one description of her defection. My own objections to her are entirely because I perceive her to be unelectable, and you have to get elected to effect the change we so badly need. It is possible any Dem will get elected, but I doubt that, myself. The indications right now say yes, but the indications for Kerry were pretty good as well, and we know how that turned out. As for Republican election fraud, yes, I know that was a factor, but we will have it again, and have to overcome it. I don't think Clinton is a good bet to do that.

Ron:

"We are discussing different Dem candidates, and you keep bringing up Republican wrongs? What the hell is that about?"

Check again . . . the topic was "Can Hillary Win?" - Not "Let's discuss Dem Candidates". Also, I don't keep bringing them up . . . the reference was to a statement YOU made about my very different values and was placed quite clearly in context.

"" . . . and they have a lot different moral and ethical standards."

Oh? They support the erosion of the US Constitution and illegal wars?? They're FOR abortion? Exactly HOW different ARE they?"

You asserted different moral and ethical standards to " . . . you people on both coasts." so you initiated moral and ethical standards into the conversation apparently since our standards are so different. I'm simply wondering 'which' standards you refer too. If you're going to make a blanket statement implying bi-coastal differences . . . you should probably expect a question or two.

"I don't care, actually where you "have been", or "visit", you apparently have adopted a coaster's views on this, as in large part, that's what it is . . . "

Poppycock. "I haven't commited to anything other than NOT "Stay the Course"! My view was clear. Unless you're suggesting the bi-coastal crowd is uncomitted, unlike your crowd . . . which is committed against Clinton. ...and, incidentally, if you don't care where I've been . . . then you should probably not inject it into the conversation. It was you and not I that incorrectly assumed I was geographically isolated. I merely pointed out your premise was wrong . . . so now it doesn't matter? Fine.

"You seem to want to use all kinds of topic obfuscation here . . . "

Hmmmm . . . yet you injected bi-coastal morals and geographical isolation (which you yourself now admit doesn't matter). Not to mention stating my position erroneously when I have listed it already in my own words and repeating your own opinion as though that will somehow change the fact that it is just that, an opinion. An opinion, I might add, contradicted by the poll I cited.

"Clinton, if nominated, will drag the Democratic Party down to defeat . . ."
You made your opinionated point already. Your opinion is not unclear and repeating it doesn't make it somehow more true . . . regardless of how many times you say it.

Your initial foray into this topic was relying on an old, outdated poll which seemed to back up your personal opinion. When confronted with a recent poll which contradicts your opinion . . . . you decide to rely instead on your same opinion and formidible knowledge of both coast's preferences and morals as well as the "Bible-Belt"'s preferences. Although the poll clearly shows Clinton leading every</> Republican opponent and the question was "Can" she win.

"My own objections to her are entirely because I perceive her to be unelectable . . ."

No freekin' kidding?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"I haven't committed to anything other than NOT "Stay the Course"! Oh?, you'd have to be the most committed uncommitted voter in the history of the electoral process, I'd say. Your newer poll only proved my point, Doyle, that there are two stronger candidates, and my opinion that Clinton will bring out massive Republican voter turn out isn't disproven by that poll, it isn't even addressed. That is not just my opinion, either, it has been discussed at length in blogs, political shows, and papers across this country, and I'm sure that isn't the first time you've heard it. Leading in a poll by less than either of the other two major candidates for the Dem nomination does not address the issue of her ability to bring out the Republican voter base, that would require massive Democratic turn out to offset. We had that last time, but we also had the help of moderate Republicans and Independents, which we will not have, should Clinton be nominated. Your failure to see that your poll is addressing nothing to do with her motivating factor for Republicans is the flaw in your thinking. If nothing else Doyle, she will have a bunch of republicans voting that sat out the last election. Every Republican I have talked to here that said they sat out the last election from disgust and discouragement, said if Clinton is in the race, they will definitely vote. I know that's just a few people I have spoken with, and not scientific at all, but I would bet the sentiment is shared by quite a few. We did elect a Democratic Congress person here for the first time in, well, forever, in my lifetime, Nancy Boyda, but I am afraid that our chance to get rid of a lousy Republican senator this time around will be endangered by the heavy Republican turn out that Hillary's candidacy would provoke. I would imagine it will not be good for many other states Democratic congressional and senate candidates as well, should the Republican machine achieve the turn out I think she will encourage. For a myriad of reasons, it's just a bad Idea. I still believe her candidacy is suicide, and not just for the presidential slot, but for Democrats nationwide.

"Oh?, you'd have to be the most committed uncommitted voter in the history of the electoral process"

Wow, what a shock. You not only know what both coasts and the bible belt are thinking and planning . . . but now you presume in your arrogance to tell me my stance on a subject . . . just as you presumed to think I did a stopover in Little Rockand nothing more. Just being honest, thorough and accurate doesn't mean I'm commited to somebody even if I do hang out in "tinseltown" you arrogant, bible-belt intellectual.

"Your newer poll only proved my point, Doyle, that there are two stronger candidates"

You need to stay on topic. You're back to which Democrat is the best because none of the 'Stronger' candidates are Republican in that poll. Had I been asked if and Democrat has polled higher I would have said yes? SO? Concentrate.

It is also somewhat clear to me that you absolutely do not understand polls.

"Without any other consideration, 47%, regardless of political affiliation, affirming that they would "definitely not vote for" Clinton"
This years old relic was not accurate mostly because it was asked of 1,000 random people (with McCain also being covered by these same people). They have no idea how many of the people they spoke with were Democrat or Republican either . . . a heavier presence of one party would obviously skew the results.

"Republican voter turn out isn't disproven by that poll, it isn't even addressed."
Neither is Democratic turnout - leaving us, yet again, with your opinion.

"I still believe her candidacy is suicide, and not just for the presidential slot, but for Democrats nationwide. "

No shit?

I got it . . . again and again and again (and again). If it's all the same to you . . . regardless of your arrogance - I will STILL reserve my commitment . . . though not to honesty or accuracy.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~