Lacks a certain depth of coverage that would make the lede more credible. Also, is death toll the most accurate way to measure violence in Baghdad, or should it be measured by number of incidents? McClatchy didn't seem to consider this.

While the statisics are factual, they leave much to be examined. the fact that the increase in activity is numerous death in a small number of car bombs means the bad guys hve gotten more effective or lucky, not that the level of violence has increased.

The author gets all the statistics right, But doesn't understand the problem. No matter how many troops we have in Iraq, just like every where else in the Middle East, theres going to be tribal killings.

I think this article was a good analysis. While it does show a disturbing statistic (violence rising), it fails to say what the cause is or allude that there may be an underlying cause. It's good journalism, but could go deeper to be even better.

Good work. McClatchy is among the few newspaper chains that have invested the resources necessary to adequately report the Iraq story.

So-so report, using Michael O'Hanlon as a source of opinion. O'Hanlon was a cheerleader for the Iraq War.

I didn't really find this to be that great of a story. It said that the violence in Baghdad went up, but what can President Obama do about violence in a country he doesn't run. I thought it meant that violence amongst our troops has gone up, but it didn't say that anywhere in the story. Decent story, at best.

This is quality journalism because it offers a different perspective into Obama's first 100 days.

I think that they story has good content, but it lacks AP style of writing. I think that if this was a legitimate story, it would have not failed to notice little things such as grammar.