USA Today says the White House is embarking this weekend on a campaign to sell its plan to the public. Bush will appear on CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday, while Cheney hits FOX News Sunday. 

In a front-page article, the New York Times traces how Bush reached his decision to send more troops to Iraq. "A narrative pieced together … suggests that through much of the process, generals who had been on the ground in Iraq during the past year had favored that the new strategy begin with a substantially smaller force than the one that President Bush announced to the nation on Wednesday night. In the end, it was Mr. Bush who appeared to drive his commanders along to the conclusion that more troops were needed." 

USA Today writes that Bush's plan "rests on a shaky foundation: the Iraqi military. Recent reports by the Pentagon and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) say Iraqi security forces, primarily the military and police, suffer from a lack of training, supplies and availability… Things will change under the new plan, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday." But: "How much the Iraqi military can be relied upon to provide the manpower … is uncertain." 

NBC's Carl Sears observes that in his 20-minute speech, Bush never once mentioned the word "coalition," suggesting that the war is increasingly America's war alone. That omission is a shift from his prior rhetoric, and it reflects the dwindling strength of the coalition -- further complicating the war effort diplomatically and militarily.

The Washington Post reports that when Bush visited with US soldiers at Fort Benning yesterday, he wasn't greeted with "the boisterous, rock-star reception Bush typically gets at military bases." And it adds that the base commander prohibited the press from talking to soldiers there.

The Washington Times also notes that Bush "received only tepid applause" at the base. "The brigade has done two tours in Iraq, and on its last yearlong deployment, in 2005, 34 soldiers from the 4,000-member unit were killed."

The Washington Post notes that Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates "were greeted with a skepticism not seen from Congress over the past six years… Rice appeared to be on the receiving end of the toughest grilling yesterday, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Not a single senator from either party expressed support for the president's plan, many posed hostile questions, and others expressed deep doubt about the Bush administration's premise of creating a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East." 

The New York Times: "The reception she received suggested that Mr. Bush's prime-time address to the nation on Wednesday had done little to build political support for sending additional troops to Baghdad." 

The Washington Times says the GOP opposition to Bush's plan "appears to be considerable, especially for a conference that has been overwhelmingly supportive of the Bush administration for the past six years. However, it is unlikely that there is much Republican congressional critics can or will do to alter the president's military plans in Iraq." 

The Boston Globe: "Democrats said they would offer a resolution in the House and Senate next week to put Congress on record as being in opposition to the president's plans." And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "predicted that enough Republicans would join Democrats to overcome a GOP-led filibuster of the resolution, and said that passing it would leave the president little choice but to change course."

Per the Chicago Tribune, Reid "said he knows of at least 12 Republican senators who oppose Bush's new plan."

But the Wall Street Journal adds: "White House officials calculate that Democrats will be stymied by practical problems, legislative maneuvering and internal divisions in their attempt to prevent the administration from sending 21,500 more soldiers -- and more money -- to Iraq." More: "White House officials downplayed the possibility of Congress blocking troop escalation, noting that the administration has enough money to send most of the additional 'surge' forces to Iraq. That means any Democratic move to limit funding would effectively impact money used for sustaining troops already in the field."

[excerpt]

In his latest National Journal column, NBC political analyst Charlie Cook interviews three veteran GOP campaign consultants, who express concern that the "GOP brand" has been tarnished. "For top strategists to be so candid about their party's problems is fairly unusual, and it reflects just how urgent they consider the party's need to redefine itself as it prepares for the 2008 campaign."

An AP-Ipsos poll that came out yesterday shows that 70% of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq, and just 35% still think the US should have gone to war in the first place -- "a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move." Bush's job approval rating is 32%, also a new low in the poll.

[/excerp]t

In his latest National Journal column, NBC political analyst Charlie Cook interviews three veteran GOP campaign consultants, who express concern that the "GOP brand" has been tarnished. "For top strategists to be so candid about their party's problems is fairly unusual, and it reflects just how urgent they consider the party's need to redefine itself as it prepares for the 2008 campaign."

An AP-Ipsos poll that came out yesterday shows that 70% of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq, and just 35% still think the US should have gone to war in the first place -- "a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move." Bush's job approval rating is 32%, also a new low in the poll.

The Washington Times writes how some conservatives are worried that Bush will band together with Democrats to help reauthorize the controversial No Child Left Behind education law.

The New York Times reports that a group called Revolutionary Struggle anonymously telephoned local security to say it was responsible behind the Athens attack. Revolutionary Struggle, a Marxist group with strong anti-American sentiments, emerged in 2003, bombing an Athens courthouse complex. The group remains the most active Greek terror organization since the downfall of the country's most deadly urban guerrilla group, November 17, blamed for killing 23 people - including U.S., British and Turkish officials - and for dozens of bomb attacks."

House Democrats today take on the fourth item of their "Six for '06" agenda: allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices. But the AP says Bush has promised to veto the legislation. "'Government interference impedes competition, limits access to lifesaving drugs, reduces convenience for beneficiaries and ultimately increases costs to taxpayers, beneficiaries and all American citizens alike,' the administration said in a written statement."

Another thing standing in the Democrats' way: the powerful pharmaceutical lobby. "Despite years of lopsidedly favoring GOP lawmakers with campaign cash and other benefits, the drug lobby continues to wield tremendous power in the Democratic-controlled Congress. It also still has the backing of the White House."

The House yesterday passed its bill to expand embryonic stem cell research by a 253-174 vote. USA Today: "Supporters were 37 votes shy of the 290 needed to override a veto but got 14 more votes than last year."

The Chicago Tribune adds that yesterday's stem cell debate "showcased many of the new Democrats elected to Congress, many of whom campaigned last year for overturning Bush's policy."

The New York Times writes that Senate Democratic leaders yesterday unsuccessfully tried to block a GOP-sponsored proposal -- similar to one that already passed in the House -- that would shine a light on earmarks. "The Democratic leaders' effort to block the … proposal was defeated by a vote of 51 to 46, surprising almost everyone in the Senate. The outcome reflected the keen desire of many lawmakers to appear to be on the side of openness and reform after an election that turned in part on Congressional corruption scandals."

The AP is reporting that South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson (D) "has been transferred out of intensive care and has started to speak, his doctor said Thursday… On Monday the senator's condition was upgraded from critical to fair, and his doctors said he no longer needed a ventilator to help him breathe. He is being weaned off the tracheotomy tube that remains in his neck." The AP adds that Johnson's recovery is supposed to take several months.

And per MSNBC's Jennifer Yuille, two Democratic sources confirm that former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. -- who narrowly lost his Senate race last fall -- is expected to become the next chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. He will be replacing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is running for president. An announcement, Yuille adds, could come as early as next week.

The Des Moines Register reports on Dodd's announcement yesterday that he's running for president, and his visit to the state today.

The AP suggests that Dodd may have John Kerry to blame for a tough road to the White House, because they both share the image of a New England liberal. "Kerry's losing 2004 campaign embittered some Democrats who contended he squandered a prime chance for his party to capture the White House. Those bad feelings have lingered as the 2008 contest begins to unfold."

Another Republican appears to be running for president: Texas congressman Ron Paul. The Galveston Daily News notes that he has formed an exploratory committee and will formally announce his intentions in the next week or two. The paper also reminds us that Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. 

The bids by Paul and Jim Gilmore reflect, more than anything else, how there's no traditional conservative in the GOP field - and everyone sees a hole they can fill.

South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin will step down from his post in April, The State reports. "Erwin will leave the party at a crucial time. His term officially ends with the state party convention April 28, two days after the party hosts the nation's first presidential debate in Orangeburg. Many of the 2008 candidates might stick around for the convention, and the national media would likely stay with them." 

The Washington Post covers the Democrats picking Denver as their convention site, and it notes that the city hasn't hosted a convention since 1908. The convention there will take place from August 25-28; the Republicans' convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul will occur September 1-4.

The New York Times adds that if Democrats are stronger in the West and in Colorado, "they are also probably more iconoclastic and diverse than ever, political experts say. That could make the party's Western venture less predictable, if not downright disharmonious. Many Western Democrats, like Senator Jon Tester of Montana, oppose tough restrictions on gun ownership; others, like Colorado's new governor, Bill Ritter, have voiced personal opposition to abortion."

From NBC's Huma Zaidi
Last year, 11 cities expressed interest in hosting the DNC's 2008 presidential nominating convention and after months of lobbying, Denver emerged today as the city of choice -- beating out it's last standing competitor, New York City.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, DNC Chairman Howard Dean cited Denver's "state-of-the art facilities" and "outstanding accommodations" as some of the reasons for its selection. More importantly, though, Dean said holding the party's next convention there is key to building on gains the Democratic party has made in the west. "If we win the west... we win the presidency," Dean said. He added that the convention will give the party a chance to show that "Democratic party values are American values." 

Newly inaugurated Gov. Bill Ritter, Sen. Ken Salazar and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper all expressed their excitement over the decision and agreed with Dean that the selection is symbolic of the Democratic party's progress.

The RNC announced last fall that their convention would be held in Minneapolis-St. Paul and observers were anticipating a similar announcement from the DNC for weeks. Dean downplayed reports that problems with local unions were the cause of the delay. "There are labor issues in every convention," Dean said. "We believe these issues will be resolved."
 
Dean also refuted claims that they didn't choose New York City because Mayor Michael Bloomberg was less than enthusiastic about hosting the convention in the Big Apple (as they did for the RNC in 2004). Dean said ultimately that the decision to head west was part of the party's goal to become a "national party" and to get more westerners to vote Democratic. "At the end of the day... that was probably what tipped it towards Denver," he said.

From MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell and Jennifer Yuille
Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and Tom Vilsack both said on MSNBC today that Congress should block funding for any troop increase. Edwards, the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, said he does "not believe we should fund an escalation of this war." When asked if he supported Senator Ted Kennedy's plan to bar funding for new troops, the former North Carolina senator said, "I am against Congress providing more funding for an escalation of this war. There have been a series of mistakes this president has made. Congress should not empower him to make another mistake."
 
Vilsack, the outgoing governor of Iowa, also voiced his support for Kennedy's plan. When asked if he would vote in favor of Kennedy's measure, Vilsack said "I would say Mr. President, we are not going to provide the resources to carry this plan out."  He went onto say that "Senator Kennedy is raising important questions. This is precisely what Congress ought to be doing."

When asked about recent polls in his home state showing him running behind other potential Democratic candidates (including Edwards and Hillary Clinton), Vilsack joked, "I'm not a rock star but I'm rock solid." He said "people in Iowa still see me as their governor and not a presidential candidate." On Thursday, the Vilsack campaign announced he would be stepping down as the chair of the Democratic Leadership Council to focus on a presidential run.

From NBC's Huma Zaidi
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is jumping head first into the presidential candidate pool. On IMUS this morning, Dodd said he was skipping the "exploratory" stage and would begin campaigning as an official candidate. He'll be in Iowa and South Carolina this weekend.

"There is a sense of urgency. The country wants leadership. Iraq is the clearest example of the need for change," Dodd said in a statement issued this afternoon.  "In my view, the President's new plan for Iraq is not simply a 'surge' but rather an escalation of the Administration's current failed strategy that will needlessly place additional troops in harms way."  The announcement comes on the heels of President Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq, which has caused consternation on both sides of the political aisle.

From NBC's Mark Murray
The Democratic National Committee has announced that it has selected Denver over New York City to host the Democrats' convention in 2008. The pick allows the Democrats to highlight a success story for the party -- and also avoid a huge P.R. embarrassment.

Democrats have made substantial political gains in Colorado. In 2004, despite John Kerry's loss, they picked up a GOP-held U.S. Senate seat and a GOP-held U.S. House seat there, as well as control of the state House and state Senate. In 2006, Democrats won the governor's mansion, another GOP-held U.S. House seat, and kept control of the state legislature. And not only have Democrats had success in Colorado, they've had success in the entire Mountain West -- notably Montana.

That said, Democrats had reservations with Denver -- due in part to concerns by unions since Colorado is not the nation's most labor-friendly state. But selecting New York would have been perceived to be a slight against the progress Democrats have made in Colorado and elsewhere in the West, especially when DNC chairman Howard Dean has been promoting his 50-state strategy.

In the release announcing the Denver pick, Dean cited the success Democrats have had in Colorado and the West as a chief reason for the selection. "There is no question that the West is important to the future of the Democratic Party. The recent Democratic gains in the West exemplify the principle that when we show up and ask for people's votes and talk about what we stand for, we can win in any part of the country."

From Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, Lauren Appelbaum, and Carrie Dann
Some of what we learned from Bush's speech last night:
-- that the 20,000-plus additional US troops would be used, for the most part, to support Iraqi forces
-- that the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of its provinces by November
-- that there weren't enough US and Iraqi troops to secure Baghdad, and that was a mistake ("Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.")    
-- that if Iraq's government doesn't follow through with its promises, US support there could end ("America's commitment is not open-ended.")
-- that his focus is just not on Iraq, but also Iran ("Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.")

What we didn't learn:
-- whether the additional troops will actually guarantee success
-- whether the US can truly trust that an Iraqi government that has so far failed at every turn to get the job done
-- why it took him this long to admit there weren't enough US troops in Iraq
-- when the US involvement there will come to an end
-- whether the speech might convince any of the seven in 10 Americans (now including some GOP senators) who disagree with his handling of the war

The speech -- and the particulars in it -- will once again dominate the day's news, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appears today before the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees to discuss it. New Defense Secretary Robert Gates will do the same before the House Armed Services Committee, as will White House press secretary Tony Snow when he plays Hardball with MSNBC's Chris Matthews. (As of this writing, Rice and Gates just held a joint press conference near the White House.) Bush, meanwhile, heads to Fort Benning, GA, where he will have lunch with US soldiers and make brief remarks to them and their families.

Another person officially has jumped into the oh-eight race. On Imus this morning, Sen. Chris Dodd (D) announced that he's filing paperwork today to run for president, skipping the "exploratory" stage to become a "full-fledged candidate." Dodd added, "I realize I am a dark horse in all of this." Yet citing his experience and his ability to bring people together, he said: "I believe I have a chance." Dodd will say more when he also appears on MSNBC's Hardball.

Finally -- although the focus on Iraq might overshadow it and Dodd's announcement -- House Democrats today will vote on and pass the third item on their "Six for '06" agenda: expanding embryonic stem cell research. In the last Congress, the legislation passed the House (238-194) and the Senate (63-37), but it didn't survive the first veto of Bush's presidency. Yet after supporters picked up four new votes in the Senate after the midterms (Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, and Jim Webb), they appear to have a veto-proof majority in that chamber. But the big challenge will now be in the House, where they will need 290 votes to override Bush's veto.

In a one-day Washington Post/ABC poll taken after Bush's speech, 61% of respondents said they opposed Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, while 36% said they supported it.

A USA Today analysis notes, "Except for the troop increase, none of the ideas is new. All are familiar parts of the administration's strategy in Iraq and Bush's prior speeches defending it." 

The San Francisco Chronicle says, "Administration officials emphasized the plan is Iraqi-conceived, will be Iraqi-led and was initiated by al-Maliki at his meeting with Bush last November in Amman, Jordan." 

"Bush's manner and language Wednesday night were more tempered than in previous Iraq speeches; he appeared to be making an effort to seem both conciliatory and confident," the Los Angeles Times writes. 

The Chicago Tribune contrasts last night's speech to previous Bush addresses on the war, saying that this time "he lacks the safety net of a Republican-run Congress, the political capital of which he famously boasted, and most decidedly, the support of the public weary of the war's grim narrative."

The Washington Post: "Despite his post-election talk of bipartisanship, Bush chose a path almost guaranteed to generate open resistance even from within his own party. Republican officeholders who did stick with him last night appeared largely unenthusiastic."

The New York Times' analysis: "The plan … is vintage George Bush - in the eyes of admirers, resolute and principled; in the eyes of critics, bull-headed, even delusional, about the prospects for success in Iraq. It is the latest evidence that the president is convinced that he is right and that history will vindicate him, even if that vindication comes long after he is gone from the Oval Office." 

Another New York Times article adds, "Not since Richard M. Nixon ordered American troops in Vietnam to invade Cambodia in 1970 has a president taken such a risk with an increasingly unpopular war." 

A third New York Times story observes that Bush's plan "depends on the good intentions and competence of a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that has not demonstrated an abundant supply of either."

The AP: "While Bush put the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, he did not threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed previous self-imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities."

The Boston Globe's Canellos says, "Bush's new strategy sounded too much like his old strategy. His delivery was intentionally muted, to avoid any hint of bravado. But his admission of mistakes was oblique and seemed almost grudging... What wasn't grudging was his reiteration of all his familiar talking points… Now, the most immediate obstacle to Bush's strategy in Iraq is that not enough Americans believe his talking points any more."

A coalition of groups -- including the SEIU, MoveOn, Vote Vets, and the Campaign for America's Future -- holds a press conference today at the National Press Club to launch a national campaign to protest the Iraq war, as well as Bush's call for more troops.

The Washington Post says that House Democrats "will attempt to derail funding" for Bush's plan, "setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War." More: "Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said Democratic leaders have made no decision to hold back funds, but he added: 'We are not going to give the president a blank check. We will subject any proposal to escalate the war to harsh scrutiny, and we will set benchmarks he has to attain to get that money.'" 

Rep. Jack Murtha tells USA Today that he plans to use his position as chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee to thwart Bush's course in Iraq. "Specifically, Murtha … said he'll focus on the administration's supplemental spending request for Iraq, which is expected to be as high as $160 billion. Murtha says he will hold extensive hearings on the budget request. 'We're going to make them justify every cent,' he said. He also said he may use the funding bill to hamstring the efforts to add more troops to Iraq."

Yet per the New York Times, "Any challenge to Mr. Bush over paying for the additional troops is probably months away. House Democrats said their first step would be to vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing Mr. Bush's plan. The Senate is planning to vote on a similar resolution as soon as next week."

NBC's Ken Strickland compares two different resolutions Senate Democrats plan to offer in the coming weeks. The first is sponsored by Sens. Biden, Levin, and Reed. It's in the earliest stages of being drafted, but it would be non-binding and would call on senators to vote up or down on whether they support the president's new policy. Aides say that as of now, it would not include language on cutting off or restraining troop funding. It's likely to be introduced sometime next week, but not debated until the following week of January 22.

Strickland says the second is Sen. Ted Kennedy's resolution, which would be a binding resolution. According to his aides, the legislation requires a vote -- i.e., approval from Congress --before funds are spent to deploy more troops and escalate the military presence. But it doesn't cut off funding for troops already in Iraq. The debate and vote on this bill would happen days after the Biden-Levin-Reed bill was addressed.

However, many observers say Kennedy's resolution "will stop short of a congressional standoff, as many of his most ardent backers in Congress are pushing for more moderate challenges to Bush on Iraq."   

The Boston Globe: "The resolutions present Republicans with a politically awkward choice: They can vote to endorse the expansion of a war strongly opposed by the American people, or defy their president at a time when he is seeking to build support for a new strategy in Iraq."

NBC's Strickland notes that at least seven GOP senators released statements yesterday that were either skeptical of Bush's plan -- or flat-out against it. Among those seven are two possible presidential hopefuls: Sam Brownback and Chuck Hagel. Brownback said, "I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer." Over the last two days, he has met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and others and came away "convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi'a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other."

Hagel was more blunt. "This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an un-winnable swamp at a great cost. It is wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq's civil war. It is not in America's national interest to increase our troop presence in Iraq."

On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani -- after initial silence on the issue -- released a statement supporting the president's position. "All Americans should be hoping, praying and offering constructive advice for the success of our troops in Iraq and for those Iraqis seeking to create a stable and decent government," he said. "In that spirit, I support the President's increase in troops."

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton issued a statement after the speech opposing Bush's plan. "The President simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course. The President has not offered a new direction, instead he will continue to take us down the wrong road -- only faster."

The Los Angeles Times also writes about the reaction from the presidential wannabes and adds: "Presidential politics will probably cast a shadow over the opening debate on Bush's proposal when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Five members of the panel are thinking about running for president."

MoveOn PAC says it will release a new TV ad next Tuesday attacking McCain for advocating sending additional troops to Iraq. The ad will air in the critical 2008 states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

The AP says that Sen. Dodd "will travel late Thursday to Iowa, which will host the first presidential nominating caucus next January. He heads to South Carolina, an early primary state, on Sunday." 

The Hartford Courant notes that Dodd "has serious hurdles as he enters a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls. Dodd is perceived as a New England liberal, does not have the kind of cash on hand that others have, and will have to take on New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards - all of whom are viewed as top-tier candidates."

The Wall Street Journal looks at the "electability" factor that is consuming Democrats as the field of presidential hopefuls grows.

While the first president debate, sponsored by MSNBC and the South Carolina Democratic Party, is set for April, the New York Daily News writes that the first candidate forum will be during the DNC's Feb. 1-3 winter meeting in DC.

After a clip surfaced on YouTube showing Romney expressing his support for abortion rights in a 1994 debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy, Romney's press shop played defense by releasing a rebuttal he made on the "Glenn and Helen Show." Romney said, "Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have." The AP also covers this.

Roll Call columnist Stu Rothenberg says former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore faces an uphill climb in running for president. "I find it awfully difficult to take seriously a presidential wannabe who left office having divided his own party and alienated voters, and who begins with no major assets except his alleged strategic positioning on the right. Jim Gilmore surely has a better chance of becoming a nominee than Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), but that doesn't make him a major player for '08 in my book." http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_62/rothenberg/16516-1.html

Finally, the Washington Times writes about the problems the DNC is encountering as it tries to choose between Denver and New York as its convention site. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is hesitant to host another convention, while Denver's critics say the town is not union friendly.

Bob Novak devotes his column to why John Negroponte left his job as director of national intelligence for the No. 2 post at the State Department. "Just what career diplomat Negroponte was doing as the new intelligence czar in the first place was puzzling. But to pull him out just as his on-the-job training as director had been completed reflects a panicky desire to fill the deputy secretary's post that had been unfilled for an unprecedented six months." The reason why? "Republicans in Congress, who do not want to be quoted, tell me the State Department under Secretary Condoleezza Rice is a mess." 

With House Democrats voting on their stem cell bill today, the New York Times notes that the White House yesterday "urged" lawmakers to vote against it. "In a White House position paper, officials pressed for consideration of alternative research strategies that would be 'free of the ethical violations of embryo destruction.'" More: The "White House's engagement on the issue on Wednesday appeared to be aimed primarily at limiting the size of the votes in favor of the bill in Congress." 

USA Today covers yesterday's House passage, by a 315-116 vote, of legislation that would raise the minimum wage to $7.25. "All 233 Democrats voted yes, along with 82 Republicans… To pass the Senate, the higher wage probably will be combined with tax breaks for small businesses, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said. That action, backed by Bush, could come late next week." 

Roll Call adds, "Given the bipartisan efforts on both a minimum-wage hike and a new lobbying and ethics reform measure, it appears unlikely that Bush will have to use his veto power on either bill. But the same can't be said for myriad other issues that Democrats will tackle this year, notably a $100 billion-plus supplemental Iraq War spending bill, judicial nominations, a stem-cell research measure, and legislation to give Medicare officials the ability to negotiate lower drug prices." 

Tomorrow, House Democrats will turn to their plan to allow the government to negotiate lower Medicare drug prices. But the Washington Post has experts saying the plan is flawed because it doesn't require Medicare to provide a narrow list of drugs -- which would force drug makers to offer big discounts.

From NBC's Mark Murray
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R), who is eyeing a presidential bid, just released a statement saying he opposes a troop increase in Iraq. "I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," said Brownback, who is currently on a two-day tour of that country. "Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. In the last two days, I have met with Prime Minister Maliki, with two deputy presidents and the president of the Kurdish region. I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi'a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other."

Not only does Brownback become another Republican senator who opposes sending more troops to Iraq, but his statement also puts him at odds with two other prominent Republicans gunning for the White House: John McCain and Mitt Romney, who both support sending more troops there. In fact, this could produce an interesting dynamic in the GOP field: Brownback would be running to the right of McCain and Romney on social issues, and to the left of them on the war.

From NBC's Adam Verdugo
By now, you've probably heard it from everyone: This could be the most important speech President Bush will give. Given these stakes, it's worth pointing out that during times when America has needed leadership, US president's have often delivered with powerful speeches. Two examples that come to mind are Franklin Roosevelt's "Fear itself" speech and Ronald Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." But perhaps no speech was as important and memorable as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. "Now we are engaged in a great civil war," Lincoln said, "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Of course, no one is comparing Lincoln to Bush -- especially when it comes to oratory! -- but some Republicans and Democrats have recently evoked Lincoln and Gettysburg to describe both the stakes of Bush's speech tonight and the civil war in Iraq. Lee Hamilton (D), co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, mentioned Gettysburg in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams last month: "The question that Lincoln asked, 'Whether this nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure,' that was the operative question at Gettysburg. It is still the operative question today." Moreover, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), speaking to reporters after his appearance on Meet the Press last weekend, also evoked Lincoln's name: "General [David] Petraeus represents the best hope of this country to start over. I hope that he will be the General Grant for President Bush, as General Grant was the savior of the Union army for President Lincoln."

From NBC's Ken Strickland
If the White House was counting on any moderate, red-state Democrats to support the President's plan for more troops in Iraq, he shouldn't count on the senior senator from Montana. Besides coming out against the so-called surge plan, Sen. Max Baucus just spoke on the Senate floor, announcing for the first time that he would not have voted to authorize force in 2003 "if we knew then what we know now." 

He added, per a copy of his prepared remarks: "If we knew then what we know now, I believe that results of that vote would have been different." Baucus, whose nephew was kill in Iraq last summer, also called for troop redeployment within six months. "It is time for our combat troops to come home from Iraq," Baucus said. "America entered into this war with motivations that were honorable. But they were mistaken."

Baucus is up for re-election in 2008.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
The Senate's second ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin, will hold a news conference following the president's address tonight to give the Democrats' "response." 

It will happen in the Senate Radio/TV gallery shortly after the president's speech.  He'll have about three to five minutes of opening remarks and then take a few questions.

From Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, Lauren Appelbaum, and Carrie Dann
The latest news before President Bush's speech tonight: US and Iraq troops yesterday battled insurgents in downtown Baghdad in some of the most intense fighting since 2003. Also, per NBC's Mike Viqueira, the top five House leaders (Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Boehner, and Blunt) and the top four Senate leaders (Reid, Durbin, McConnell, and Lott) head to the White House this afternoon to meet with president. And early this morning, Mitt Romney released a statement saying that he supports increasing troops in Iraq, which puts him in agreement with likely GOP presidential rival John McCain. "The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq," he says. "I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports that the speech will take place in the White House Library, not the Map Room as was previously announced. According to Administration officials, it will run about 23 minutes and there will be some poetic language -- but mostly complex explanation of Bush's plan and the circumstances that have led to this point. The advisers note the president will say, in effect, "I get it." He will take responsibility and acknowledge that past attempts to secure Baghdad have failed, and he will explain how and why he expects different results this time.

By our count, Bush's speech will be his third primetime address on Iraq since his re-election. In June 2005, commemorating the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty there, Bush spoke about having "a clear path forward" but added that there was still more work to be done. He also objected to sending more US troops to Iraq. "If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them," he said. "But our commanders tell me they have the number … they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever."

In December 2005, after Iraqis went to the polls to elect a new parliament, Bush declared, "My fellows citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq" -- although he admitted that the work there had been "more difficult than we expected."

Tonight, however, Bush is expected to give a different kind of speech on Iraq. In it, he'll call for sending up to 20,000 additional US troops, handing Iraq up to $1 billion in aid for jobs, and requiring benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. The address comes after the GOP's losses in the midterm elections (where Iraq played a key role), the Iraq Study Group's recommendations (remember those?), passing the 3,000-causalty mark of US troops, and Bush's precipitous drop in the polls.
 
Per last month's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 23% said they approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, only 19% said they feel more confident that the situation there will come to a successful conclusion, and even 53% said we don't have an obligation to the US soldiers killed in Iraq to remain there until the mission is completed. More recent national surveys paint a similar picture, including yesterday's USA Today/Gallup poll, which showed that 61% oppose a temporary increase in troops.

That's the political context in which Bush will make his speech. And it raises a series of questions: As MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked on Monday, what can Bush say -- that he hasn't said before -- to convince Americans that sending in more troops is the right approach? Will sending in more troops actually work? With an eye on the 2008 calendar, how long will the increase last? And how would that impact GOP presidential candidates like McCain and Romney? You can catch it all on NBC and MSNBC, which will be airing the president's 9:00 pm ET speech live. In addition, be sure to check out MSNBC's all-day coverage previewing the speech, which begins at 9:00 am ET.

Democrats, of course, have their own challenge: deciding how far they want to go in opposing Bush's plan. As of now, it appears that Democratic leaders will offer nonbinding resolutions in the House and Senate to measure the congressional support of sending more troops to Iraq. But it's unclear if they will do more than that. Democrats, as we've mentioned before, are divided over whether to pull the funding for additional troops. And then there's the split in the party over withdrawal: NBC's Viqueira points out that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has announced a forum on Friday, featuring George McGovern, that's entitled, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now."

Although the House easily passed a bill yesterday implementing many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the AP notes that the anti-terrorism measure "faces tougher scrutiny from senators skeptical of its call for tougher screening for cargo aboard ships, a new way to divide federal security aid among states and other provisions. Raising further questions about the bill's future, the Bush administration said it opposed the measure's collective bargaining rights for airport screeners, inspections of cargo on passenger airliners and the cargo-scanning requirement for ships bound for U.S. ports. A White House statement, however, did not threaten a veto." 

The AP has an official stating that the suspected Al Qaeda militant responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa was killed in the US air strike in Somalia. 

The Washington Post: "When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against." More: "Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq."

The Los Angeles Times: "Many U.S. officials and outside Iraq experts view the economic and political portion of Bush's package … to be a big gamble with a limited chance of success. 'There's reason to try all of these ideas, and that's why we have tried them before,' said one U.S. official... 'We're reliving all of the issues that have been discussed since 2003. It's like "Groundhog Day".'" 

"A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of January under President Bush's new war plan," the AP reports, citing a senior defense official. "There are currently about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Much of the increase would come from speeding up the timetable for sending some forces already scheduled to go to the country, and keeping others there who were about to leave, the defense official said."

The AP also reports that Bush's remarks tonight will include an admission that "the rules of engagement were flawed."

Iraqi vice president Tariq al-Hashimi pens a Washington Post op-ed arguing that both the US and Iraq "have invested too much to walk away now. If this battle is lost, the entire region could be destabilized." 

The New York Times reports that Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate plan to offer nonbinding votes on Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. "In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions … would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war." More: "Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach."

Roll Call adds that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's nonbinding resolution next week "likely will be a major test of [his] ability to face down the White House and muster bipartisan coalitions on controversial issues… White House aide said Reid's nonbinding resolution likely would serve to put lawmakers on record as a way to gauge support for future efforts to block the plan."

The Boston Globe says "the fiery rhetoric from [Sen. Ted] Kennedy and other Democrats presage a major clash between the White House and Democrats, who took power, in part, on an anti war platform. The outcome could set the tone for the rest of Bush's presidency -- played out with the opposition party controlling Congress -- as well as the 2008 presidential elections."

The Washington Post's Milbank writes that although they're divided on a solution to Iraq, virtually all Democratic senators yesterday said they opposed an increase of troops. On the other hand, GOP senators "emerged from their weekly party luncheon … displaying more dance steps than the Joffrey Ballet." 

Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed, and Patty Murray, as well as Gen. Wes Clark, hold a press conference today calling for Bush to change course in Iraq and bring that war to a close.

While the president works on the finishing touches of his speech, Vice President Cheney heads to Jamestown, VA, to make remarks this afternoon before a joint session of the Virginia General Assembly.

The New York Times covers Bush's decision to drop his plan to nominate three conservative (and controversial) judges: William J. Haynes II, William Myers III and Terrence Boyle. "[T]he announcement was widely taken to mean that the president had decided that renominating them would be a needlessly provocative act, one that would anger Democrats without sufficient political payoff from conservatives for sticking by the nominees."

The New York Times is the latest to write about faculty members at Southern Methodist University in Dallas opposing their school to be the likely spot for Bush's presidential library.