Charlie Cook is one of the nation's leading election analysts and progonosticators. In his latest column (sent by E-mail, with no link currently available), he warns that while everything seems to be going Democrats' way, their streak of good luck is bound to end. Further, he says that Democratic sloppiness about foreign policy may seriously weaken the chance of a Democrat winning the White House in 2008:

Cook criticizes Congressional Democrats for scheduling a vote on the Armenian genocide resolution, then pulling it from consideration. He says that it highlights the weakness of Democrats on foreign policy issues. He then says:

It is important to remember that the Democrats' only presidential victories since 1976 were in 1992 and 1996; the first two elections after the Iron Curtain fell and the Cold War was over. At that point, the foreign policy aspect of the presidency was pretty much discounted, and Democrats nominated Bill Clinton, widely considered to be a moderate.

While many voters might disagree with the Bush administration on foreign policy issues, it doesn't mean Democrats get a free pass. They have to be very careful...

But the important takeaway is that while Republicans might not be a credible threat in terms of recapturing majorities in the House or Senate, congressional Democrats should still be more concerned about the consequences of their actions on their party's chances of winning the White House next year.

Voters seem angry enough at Republicans today to take the presidency away from them, but putting a Democrat into the post can't be seen as a risk.

Cook is right, but the question of the Armenian genocide is the minor one; the real question is whether Democrats will be seen as credible on national security. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve, some swing voters will reconsider how much might have been lost by the precipitous withdrawal pushed by Democrats. They will wonder why Democrats have been so conciliatory toward Iran, and why they are fighting against reasonable measures to continue surveillance of foreign terrorists. According to the ABC News/Washington Post poll, in October 2006 Americans favored Democrats over Republicans by 6 points on the question of who was more prepared to handle the war on terror. According to the most recent poll, that margin in now at 1 point. That is an awfully tenuous edge on such a critical issue.

If the voters anticipate that Democrats will retain control of the Congress, it will mean that the Democratic presidential nominee will face an even higher degree of scrutiny. Voters will need to decide not only whether Democrats can be trusted on national security, but also whether they can be trusted to handle it with no meaningful Republican input. As things currently stand, it would be no surprise if the issue is a drag on the Democratic nominee.