If this were 12 months ago,when Iraq 'appeared' to be in so much more of a mess than it does today (and I emphasize appeared) then I agree with your contention that the war would devastate the republicans at the polls. Since then, the situation in Iraq 'appears' to have improved. The Congress under a democratic majority hasn't really done much to move us toward a 'different' direction. And the economy has become the dominant issue.

Eight years ago Bush defeated McCain and the incumbent VP (who has since won an oscar an emmy and a Nobel Peace Prize-oh and written a couple of best sellers and made some serious scratch) as the candidate of change (I was not then, nor am I now a fan of bush, so leave that as it may be). McCain ran as experienced, proven leader who has fought the battles, yet maintained his independent spirit. I see Hillary as being more like Bush (think bush machine-clinton machine).

I think our soldiers are better off with either McCain or Obama than they were under Bush. I listen tothe promisesbut don't get tocaught up in them. Whomever wins president,they will have tough decisions to make, and when they make them, it won'tbe predicated on something said outside the dunkin donuts in iowa. I would be willing to betthat we still have a presence inIraq 13 months after Obama or Hillery (please no) become president. I also believe that President McCain begins looking at force strength and the pct of it tied to Iraq, hewill be far more motivated tolook for a way out in Iraq. It is unfeasible for us to make a multigenerational stay there.