Washington ? One of the most instructive parts of my schedule is the hour spent every other week or so with citizens in the chats that appear on washingtonpost.com.

They are not a cross-section these are people seriously engaged in politics and public policy but the shifting tone and content of their questions and comments offer important clues to the trend of opinion, at least in that influential segment of the population.

Last week’s chat was, of course, dominated by Iraq, with probing questions about U.S. strategy and its chance of success. But a provocative second theme emerged: Where are the Democrats on that issue or, for that matter, on any other?

Here are a couple samples. From Philadelphia: “I’m a Democrat. Considering that talk of an attack on Iraq has dominated the news, I’m really upset that Democrats have done so little to try and neutralize the Republicans on national security issues. Is there any way they can do that? Are there any prominent Democratic politicians who could give their party credibility on foreign policy or national security? Our party should not be at the mercy of the news media by hoping that domestic issues lead the news.”

And here’s another, from Madison, Wis.: “During the Vietnam War, antiwar forces were vocally represented by Sens. Morse, Gruening, Fulbright, McCarthy, McGovern, Robert Kennedy, etc. But we do not hear antiwar voices in the Senate today. … The Democrats are even less likely to voice critical views than the Republicans. … Whatever the merits, the restriction of the legitimate boundaries of debate does not seem to be in the interests of our democracy. What’s going on?”

Good question. The party certainly has potential spokesmen, including the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees and veterans of the Clinton administration Cabinet and National Security Council. Several things are going on, specific to Iraq. Saddam Hussein has no defenders in American public life. Almost everyone would like to see him gone. Second, there’s a strong feeling he has been thumbing his nose for years at the United Nations and its inspectors. Third, no alternative strategy to reduce the threat of his using weapons of mass destruction is obvious. Fourth, the president, as commander in chief of the war on terrorism, has a standing that makes almost every politician wary of challenging him.

But there is something deeper and less justifiable at work. The Democratic leaders in Congress, in both the House and Senate, largely have abandoned principle and long-term strategy for the short-term tactics they think will help them in this November’s election.

Tom Daschle’s desire to hold the one-vote margin in the Senate and Dick Gephardt’s hope to pick up the six additional seats that would switch control of the House are driving decisions even on large and consequential matters.

Why challenge Bush on his strongest suit, his role as the nation’s spokesman to the world, and why let any voter think Democrats are soft on Saddam? Tactically speaking, that’s a no-brainer.

An even clearer case is the Democrats’ rollover on taxes and the budget. On the same day that the Philadelphia Democrat said Democrats should not rely on the news media to put domestic issues to the fore, Daschle took the Senate floor to start a concerted effort to put Bush on the defensive on the country’s economic performance.

The Dems do not lack for ammunition on that front. From the losses in retirement funds to the scandals in corporate suites to the unwillingness of House Republicans even to risk a vote on the inadequately funded appropriations bill for health and education and welfare, there is plenty for Democrats to criticize.

But the single biggest economic decision Bush has made was his decision to push through a massive tax cut and his insistence that its future largesse to high-income families not be touched, even though budget surpluses have melted into deficits.

Daschle targeted that Republican policy in his speech, saying, “They have one economic all-purpose antidote for everything, and that is tax cuts tax cuts largely dedicated to those at the top.” But he and Gephardt made the tactical decision early this year not to challenge those tax cuts, lest the minority of Democrats who voted for them be embarrassed and potentially weakened in their re-election bids.

The Democrats’ refusal to face up to that fundamental issue leaves them without credibility for their entire critique of Bush’s economic policy.

No wonder those Democrats who contacted me are upset.