Despite the continued unpopularity of the war's progress -- or, more to the point, its lack thereof -- Republicans are still on more solid ground than Democrats. First of all, there is a Republican position on the war: Win it. If we do win, Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular, will benefit greatly.
Democrats, on the other hand, are still hesitant even to admit there is a war on terror (they won't even use the term!), let alone provide specifics about their actual national security policies. Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) have thus far been running essentially content-free, personality campaigns (a far more defensible strategy for Obama, whose personality may actually serve as an asset).
But that won't do forever. Come 2008, someone is going to have to stand up for the Democrats and explain to the American people that either: a) "Yes, we're at war, and here's how we're going to win it," and thus lose his base, or b) "No, we're not at war, and try to forget about the big hole in Lower Manhattan," and thus lose independents.
If things go well in Iraq, neither option will work; if they don't go well, … let's just say if I were a Democratic strategist, I'd still be looking really hard for a Plan C.