If Republicans are going to persist in supporting a "war president", and insist that criticism of the president during a time of war hurts America, perhaps Democrats can look towards Great Britain and counter by promoting a candidate for "Law and order President".
Our allies must be learning that, if they want to pursue counterterrorism investigations, that they have to be careful what to tell the Americans, who are establishing a record for prematurely publicising these investigations for political gain.
It seems likely that the Bush administration, by blowing the lid on an active investigation in the UK, allowed bad guys to slip away that later contributed to the 7/7 bombings and to the latest plot to blow up airliners. It also appears that
they applied pressure on the British to go public with the latest investigation before its completion.
Contrast the successes of Great Britain's legal investigations to the lack of tangible American successes in the GWOT. Also consider that police often rely on informants and good will from the muslim community, whereas the U.S. have burned their bridges (figuratively and literally). Imagine if the resources spent on military action had been spent on law enforcement, counterterrorism technology such as detectors for chemical and nuclear materials, greater port security, etc. It seems obvious that the Bush administration has made America substantially less safe, yet a large proportion of the electorate haven't reached that conclusion yet.
One tack that the Democrats could take is to contrast the successes of traditional police work within the bounds of law to the failure of using armed forces to conduct a "war" on terror. In other words, counter a "War President" candidate with a "Law and Order" candidate. Demonstrate how law enforcement can counter terrorism without infringing further on civil liberties.
However, I see one major problem with this tack. The current administration has done so much damage to international relations that, even if the U.S. changed its approach overnight, it would take decades...generations?...for the ill-will in the Muslim world to subside. A "Law and Order" candidate couldn't just take office and eradicate terrorism in four or eight years. The Bush administration has made messed our bed, and we'll have to lie in it for decades.
If you think of America as a brand name, and the U.S. flag as a logo, the Bush administration has cheapened the value of the brand. The Founding Fathers created a new form of government that was to become a model for the rest of the world to follow. Traditionally the brand name America would be associated with ideas like: "liberty"; "opportunity"; "a beacon of hope"; "spreading democracy around the globe". Now the brand is associated with "rolling back civil liberties"; "torture"; "pre-emptive warfare/wars of opportunity"; "hypocrisy" (in supporting some dictatorships yet forcing democracy on other "rogue nations"); and so on.
If the negative connotations associated with "America" obscure the positive message the U.S. would like to promote, it will be harder and harder to find allies...not just foreign states, but individuals abroad. For a law and order approach to terrorism to work, we need the good will of such allies. The U.S. needs to change its approach to combatting terrorism, and to start mending fences with other nations and communities abroad...and it needs to start yesterday.
Otherwise, I fear future attacks are not only unavoidable but assured for decades to come.