In The New Republic, Peter Beinart's analysis of the the aftereffects of Tuesday's elections on the American Left is especially insightful.

I agree with damned near everything he says, especially this paragraph:

Politically, the notion that the Democrats would have prospered this election had they run as the peace party is laughable. Tell that to [Georgia Senator Max] Cleland--sunk because his Republican opponent painted the Democratic Party as hostile to defense. Or to Walter Mondale, who did trumpet his opposition to the war and was soundly defeated in a comparatively dovish state. The American public simply does not share the left's belief that the world is a dangerous place primarily because of the recklessness of American power. Americans may not know, or even necessarily agree with, all the details of President Bush's proposed war with Iraq. As with Ronald Reagan in the '80s, however, they are naturally drawn to a president who describes the enemy in clear moralistic terms and confronts it without apology or ambivalence.

To me, Bush's seeming moral simplicity is both a little frightening and a little refreshing at the same time. But ultimately, like most Americans I support his position on Iraq because I think it's the most sensible stance.