Criticism of War Seen as Risk for Democrats?

Good story but typically Brownstein blows the analysis.

"I've done focus groups in three cities this past week, and I think this is already adding up to something quite big," said Democratic pollster Stanley B. Greenberg. "There is an erosion of trust. And whereas before people were almost unwavering in support of the direction he was taking the country in fighting terrorism, now I think people are unsure about the direction he is taking on terrorism."

Yet even while creating danger for Bush, the continued spotlight on Iraq is producing headaches for the leading Democratic contenders who supported the war. All find themselves under intensified fire from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the war's most vocal foe among the major Democratic candidates.

And as Dean tries to ride the resurfacing skepticism about the war among Democratic activists, some party strategists worry that by redoubling his criticism of the conflict, he risks further alienating swing voters who could decide the general election.

Indeed, Republican strategists believe that Dean is driving all of the Democratic contenders toward an overheated criticism of Bush that could sound to swing voters like backpedaling on the Iraq war itself.

"The Democrats are inviting a debate that they cannot win," said Ed Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee.

For the pro-war Democrats, the paradox is that the same developments on Iraq that are strengthening their case against Bush also are strengthening Dean against them.

"The good news here is that the more Bush's standing on foreign affairs is diminished, the better he looks to beat in 2004," said a senior aide to one of the pro-war Democratic contenders. "But the blow-back from that is it diminishes the candidates who voted for the war also."

Gee, could it be those same analysts warning that Democrats shouldn't go there?