Democratic presidential candidates were ramping up their rhetoric even before the bombings, but now they are emboldened. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida accuses Bush of having “let al Qaeda off the hook” by focusing too much on Iraq. Howard Dean argues that it’s the local police who “are the first line of defense” in the war, and that the president isn’t funneling enough federal money to them. Sen. John Kerry faults Bush for not pursuing diplomatic measures in tandem with military ones. Sen. Joe Lieberman is demanding that the president stop “paying lip service” to the needs of the Coast Guard. And so it goes, from forum to forum.

I can see why the Democrats think they need to take the offensive. They can’t afford to cede foreign policy and defense as issues entirely, even if Bush is highly regarded for his handling of both. They think they need to make him spend at least some effort defending that ground. Otherwise, he’ll be free to focus his entire campaign on shoring up his weakness: the economy.

Democrats also need to be able to say “I told you so” if the war doesn’t proceed as Bush hopes it does. For the most part, Americans don’t really care about the fine points of international diplomacy. What they are going to care about next year is simple enough: Are we safer than we were on September 11, 2001? If Democrats are going to argue that the answer is “no,” they are going to have to be able to say, with some precision, what they would have done differently. “We are not safer because of President Bush’s war on terrorism,” Dean declared the other day. The good doctor needs to explain how he’d do better.

And Democrats fear (not without reason) that if they don’t question Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism–and the relationship of Iraq to it–no one else will. The Republican Party is unified behind the president, and GOP control of both houses of Congress means that there will be few if any hearings or subpoena-powered investigations of the administration’s decisions and record. Nor can Democrats assume that the media–“embedded” during the war in more ways than one–is going to turn antagonistic anytime soon.

So the Democrats have no choice but to attack. But it’s risky business. At least so far, there seems little weakness in poll numbers showing that most Americans like both the theory and the method of Bush’s response to 9-11. In Europe and “Blue state” America, people deride Bush as a cowboy commander. But, in the eyes of most voters, Saddam deserved what he got and, although they doubt it made us safer, they still support the U.S. action.

That could change, obviously. But even if there are still 200,000 troops in Iraq next year–a very real possibility that Donald Rumsfeld and others angrily dismissed before the war, by the way–I’m not sure that fact will, in itself, be a political liability. Major casualties among those forces would be another story. So would another major attack here in the United States by al-Qaida or its allies.

In states that could be up for grabs next year, the president will run as commander in chief–and it’s going to be hard for Democrats to counter that strategy.

Take Kentucky, a state with an overwhelming (though diminishing) Democratic registration advantage. It went for George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bill Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96 and George W. Bush in 2000. The Democrats may have little hope of winning the state in 2004, but they’ve got to at least make the GOP spend a little time and effort defending it.

HOW IT’S PLAYING IN LOUISVILLE

How will the war on terrorism play there? Well, if it’s framed the way it’s been recently, the answer is: not very well for the Democrats. I happened to be in Louisville the other day, and Democrats I knew were still talking about a P.R. campaign by local Republicans to drum up support for Bush and the war on Iraq.

Spearheaded by a GOP consultant named Ted Jackson, the county Republican Party sold 10,000 yard signs–more than twice the number used in the 2000 campaign. They read: “SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH AND OUR TROOPS.” “Those signs were everywhere,” a Democratic activist glumly told me.

But the flag sells and, at least for now, the Republicans are clutching it to their bosoms in ways the Democrats can only envy–and try to imitate. When he won the Democratic nomination for Kentucky governor the other day, candidate Ben Chandler stood in front of a huge American flag at his victory rally. “I’ve never seen that before in a state campaign here,” said Jackson.

He had better get used to the sight.