Just as significant as the decision by the House yesterday to approve funding of the troops in Iraq with the setting of a deadline for withdrawal, were Rudy Guiliani’s comments in New Hampshire on April 25th.

In what the New York Times called one of the harshest partisan attacks by the Republicans on the Democrats, Guiliani said that the Democrats simply did not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us and made it clear the U.S. would suffer “more losses” if the party reclaimed the White House.

The Democratic response was strong and unwavering, but it also reveals that national security could well be the achilles heel of the party as it goes forward into campaign 2008. As I argue in my new book The Power of the Vote: Electing Presidents, Overthrowing Dictators, and Promoting Democracy Around the World, the only way the Democrats can lose the next Presidential election is if they apper to be weaker than the Republicans on national security.

Such was the case in 2004 when Senator John Kerry and the Democrats led George Bush and the Republicans on virtually every important issue facing the country–save for the war on terror and the struggle for Iraq. By the 2006 mid-term election, the gap on these two critical issues had disappeared and the Democrats were able to win a landslide victory, not only because of dissatisfaction with Bush administration policies both here and abroad, but also because the Democrats were perceived as being superior on the key domestic issues facing the U.S.

That is why it is important for the Democrats to try to achieve two goals simultaneously with the fight in Congress over continued funding over the war in Iraq. First, as is very clear, the Democrats need to do exactly what they are doing; pressing the case that in their view future funding should be tied directly to the setting of a timetable for withdrawal as well as goals to be achieved along the way–political reconciliation, equitable sharing of oil revenue, and the development of responsive local government institutions.

But the Democrats also have to make it clear that if President Bush pursues his ill conceived policy of opposing any sort of timetable or goals for withdrawal, they will not leave the troops and the war effort unfunded. To be sure, the President, however wrong he may be, is still commander-in-chief and must have the final say on matters like continued funding of the troops already on the ground in Iraq.

I well understand the vehement opposition this last statement attracts, and am sympathetic to those who hold an alternative view. But that being said, the best way to make the case John Edwards made yesterday: that the U.S. is less safe and secure in the fight against terror is by not giving the Republicans any opening to attack the Democrats on national security.

Ultimately, this is a tactical judgment which, however frustrating it may be for many, reflects the fact that we cannot abandon our troops and we cannot allow the Democratic party to once again be perceived as weak on national security.

If we are able to avoid having the Democrats portrayed as weak, and to avoid having Senate leader Harry Reid become a focal point for opposition to Democratic foreign policy positions, the party will be much stronger going into election 2008.

This positioning will also help the party press a vigorous argument against the Republicans on national security and terror when it really matters most–in the run up to the 2008 vote.