The War in Iraq: What Next for Democratic Opposition?

Yet, the approval rating for Democrats exceeds Bush's by only two percentage points -- meaning essentially that given the margin of error, Democrats are about as popular as the man they love to loathe.

On Iraq in particular, the party can neither paint a united face on the most divisive issue of the day, nor can its leaders explain clearly, succinctly and without parsing why they voted the way they did or where they stand now. The net result is a party full of leaders that look either craven (i.e. criticizing the president while refusing to renounce their votes for war authorization) or opportunistic (renouncing their votes only now that a majority of the public opposes the war.)

Dick Polman, a veteran political reporter for Knight-Ridder News, examined why some Democrats with presidential aspirations are sticking by their votes to authorize war.

"Their reticence might stem in part from awareness of the George Romney rule of politics: Gullibility is not a character asset for a presidential candidate," Polman wrote, relating the sad tale of the late George Romney, who was considered the front-runner in the 1968 GOP presidential race "until he tried to explain, in a radio interview during the summer of 1967, why he had renounced his previous support for the Vietnam war. The Michigan governor complained that, while visiting the hot zone, he had been duped by the brass into backing the war...Romney plummeted in the polls, and his candidacy soon evaporated; voters didn't like the idea of electing someone who admitted he was capable of being fooled. And, as many political observers argue, that's the lesson for Democrats today."

Some election observers in Washington said the same dynamic could play out similarly for Democrats seeking the presidency in 2008.

"If you're running for president, you have to balance the primary electorate, which is going to be much more dovish on the war and wants to make sure each candidate is suitably irate at the administration," said elections analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "If you're thinking about how it looks from the general election, it's problematic, because if you're a Democrat, you want to be hawkish...You have to show strength, consistency and conviction and changing [positions] would be a problem for them."

This line of thinking enrages some on the left, who argue that the party's problem is that it is too beholden to the punditry class and scared to take a stand on an issueeven when the public agrees with them as they do now on Iraq.

"Democrats can only make the case that they are better able to defend this country than Republicans by being against this war," the liberal blogger David Sirota said in response to an e-mail question.

"The real pro-national security case against the GOP is the one that says wars are sometimes necessary despite their national security risks but that the Bush administration deliberately misled America about the Iraq War's necessity, and thus unnecessarily weakened America's national security. Democrats can make this case without appearing politically opportunistic by stating the honest truth: that after 9/11 Congress and the American people believed the White House's dire warnings about Iraq, and deferred to the president at a time of national crisis."

Sirota may be right--to a point. Democrats have to find a way to differentiate from the president and the GOP by making clear that they never would have gone to war in Iraq, and by reflecting the anger that much of the public has about the false claims the administration made on the march to war. Trying to have it both ways by criticizing the president on Iraq while standing by the vote might be a safe strategy, but it's hardly a bold one.

Without a clear, concise plan for extricating the country from the mess in Iraq, and a strong, big picture foreign policy vision and homeland security vision, all the outrage won't mean a thing politically. Voters want real solutions and vision, not just criticism.