After the Pentagon’s public statement that “the worst of the fighting is now over” in Iraq, media coverage has shifted away from the “Showdown in Iraq” to the “Showdown for the Presidency.”

Political analysts from both parties agree that Bush has a tough battle ahead of him. While Republicans hope to retain control of the executive branch, Democrats hope for a replay of the 1992 election that made Bush Sr. a one-term president.

We may feel that the Middle East is a less important issue than it was a few weeks ago, but it is predicted to be one of the core issues in the presidential race.

Bush couldn’t be more right when he said, “There is still much work to do in Iraq.” Iraq still needs a civilian government. The success and speed with which the government is constructed will most certainly be an issue in the campaigning and debating. If the new Iraqi government is seen as representative of the population and is accepted by the people of Iraq, Bush will very publicly add this to his accomplishments. If the Iraqi government is unsuccessful in any way, Democratic contenders will jump on this and describe it as a failure of the Bush administration.

Iraq isn’t the only likely campaign issue regarding the Middle East. The Bush administration has created a “roadmap to peace in the Middle East” along with the European Union, United Nations and Russia, but will not unveil it until the Palestinian Authority has finished installing a Prime Minister and cabinet. Bush has taken the lead in the construction of this policy and its success or failure will likely be an issue in the struggle for the presidency. If an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel can be accomplished under his watch, it would go a long way to boosting Bush’s image. It would do the president good to be seen as the source of Israeli-Palestinian peace, perhaps counter acting the “axis of evil” rhetoric and distrust from many Arab governments.

Economic issues will most certainly be central in the presidential race. The Democrats need to pin the country’s economic troubles on Bush. Without that, Sen. John Kerry’s wish for a “regime change [in America],” as he put it, will be doubtful. It will become imperative for Bush to remind Americans that the first signs of trouble did not arise after his inauguration, but before. Americans don’t recall the purpose of the first tax cut as it pre-dates Sept. 11, 2001, which dominates our recollection of that year. Bush’s tax cut was passed as a stimulus package to a struggling economy that had peaked in January of 2000. If Democrats succeed in convincing Americans that the economy is connected to Bush taking office and his economic policy, then 2004 may indeed be a repeat of 1992.

Democrats not only need to connect the ailing economy to Bush in order to win, they need to define his tax cuts as detrimental and immoral. If Americans are convinced that wealthier Americans did not and do not deserve tax relief, than Bush’s tax policy can be seen as a kind of betrayal to middle- and lower-class Americans.

On the other hand, if the economy picks up, as it looks like it is doing, then Bush can credit this to his stimulus plan and leadership role regarding economic policy. Also, if the economy recovers, the large deficits in recent years will most likely be seen as a rather unimportant sacrifice to get the economy rolling again. If the country is still in an economic slump, then the deficits will be more ammunition for Democratic candidates to blast Bush’s fiscal policy.

What may prove to be the principal difference between 1992 and 2004 is the not necessarily the candidates’ positions on issues or the condition of our economy — it may be the credentials of the Democratic candidate. In 1992 there was no more Cold War, no recognized terrorist threat and no other foreseeable world conflict. It was considered a peace time election, thus little emphasis was placed on national security credentials. In 2004, this will most definitely be a consideration for voters. Unfortunately for Democrats, voters tend to favor Republicans on security issues.

With so many considerations and future developments yet to shape the presidential race, it is hard to see who might have the advantage. At this point, it’s anybody’s game.