So, Bush's opponents need to make the case that voters are less safe because of Bush's actions and that they would do things better than Bush has. That's a lot different than asking, "Are you better off economically than you were four years ago?"

This brings us to the Kennedyesque "security gap" argument, which is too cynical to fly. Gephardt and Kerry both voted for the war against Iraq, however reluctantly. They can't claim to have been "misled" by those infamous 16 words - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - because A) they had access to the same intelligence as the president and B) those 16 words were uttered months after Congress had already authorized the president to go to war.

Indeed, in Democratic circles Gephardt's support for the war, which was crucial as he was the minority leader, is defended on the grounds that Gephardt believed taking war "off the table" as an issue would allow Democrats to make domestic issues the central focus of the 2004 elections. Well, if that's true, Gephardt is obviously guilty of sending our troops to battle for narrow partisan reasons, something Democrats suggest unfairly about Bush.

But even leaving that aside, with the exception of Senator Bob Graham, none of the Democrats can come close to claiming they'd be more aggressive on national security than President Bush (and Graham's record is all over the place). All of the Democrats denounce the Patriot Act as "going too far," and to one extent or another almost all argue for putting the United Nations' interests ahead of our own.

Today we really are supporting any friend and opposing almost any foe in order to spread liberty around the globe, while the Democrats sound like they want detente with the terrorists and their supporters. And that's not an argument for winning the White House in 2004.