"In the long haul," Kerry said in an interview, "we are living in a dangerous world, and I think we need to be prepared to manage this in a more effective way."
Nothing better illustrates the party's mixed message on the war than its current leadership. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, has been a staunch war critic from the start. Harry Reid, the new Senate Democratic leader from Nevada, supported the war. The new Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean, rose to national prominence as the antiwar presidential candidate, but last week, as he accepted his new post, the only policy question he ducked was one on Iraq.
To be sure, some senior Republicans, such as Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Charles Hagel of Nebraska, also have questioned Bush's policy on Iraq, but lately they have praised the administration for making more overtures for help from Europeans.
Limited choices
The Democrats' problem is easy to understand. November's election results chastened many, forcing them to rethink whether the war was the place to take a stand against Republicans. Many House Democrats come from districts with staunch antiwar constituencies and feel a need to sustain opposition. Yet others, particularly in the Senate, harbor presidential ambitions and do not want to stake out a position now that could label them as being weak on national security in 2008.
Besides, most recognize that choices are limited.
Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush had effectively imposed his foreign policy on both parties.
