Editorial: Bush speech confirms it's election year

President George W. Bush's State of the Union address was originally going to climax with a rousing appeal to Americans to support his war on terrorism. When it was delivered, however, the order of the speech had changed, and it finished with a lengthy dissertation on domestic issues. The switch was significant. As an election year dawns, domestic matters are playing increasingly on the minds of Americans. So much so that they loom as the Achilles' heel of the President's bid for a second term. An ABC News/Washington Post poll provided further evidence this week when it found 50 per cent would prefer the Democrats to hold the economic reins, while 43 per cent backed Mr Bush.

Ironically, however, this new focus on jobs and healthcare has had its first impact on the Democrats. It has upended Howard Dean, once the clear frontrunner for the party nomination but a dismal third placegetter in the Iowa caucuses, the starting point for presidential campaigns. His campaign was based almost solely on bitter opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the Washington Establishment. This platform, delivered in angry tones, struck no chord with Iowa Democrats. They concluded that Mr Dean was ploughing the wrong field, and that, despite his organisation and money, he was unelectable.

Instead, Iowa turned to two mainstream senators, handing victory to John Kerry, a blueblood Massachusetts liberal, over John Edwards, a self-made millionaire lawyer from North Carolina. As Washington insiders, they were regarded as being more capable of claiming the White House. Mr Kerry has seized the advantage for two main reasons: he has focused on domestic policies; and he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. The war record is important. It provides him with the credentials, if not the experience, to square up to Mr Bush over foreign policy and national security, the areas in which the President still commands overwhelming support.

Significantly, Mr Kerry is not unduly abrasive in this arena. He supported the Senate resolution on Iraq, thereby distancing himself from Mr Dean and retired General Wesley Clark, who enters the Democratic race in next week's New Hampshire primary. His criticism of the Bush Administration is based on the "arrogant, inept and reckless" way the United States broke ties with many of its traditional allies. On the debit side, Mr Kerry carries the baggage associated with a wealthy New England liberal. The momentum, however, is with him. Even as Mr Dean tones down his act and emphasises his safe-hands governorship of Vermont, Mr Kerry is appealing increasingly to Democrats as the candidate most likely to defeat Mr Bush.

Record numbers of Iowa voters turned out in freezing conditions to suggest just that. But the size of the turnout also spoke volumes of their desire to oust Mr Bush - and the extent to which the President has polarised the US. This tendency was emphasised again by his State of the Union address: unusually it paid no heed to national unity. This was a hard-edged election speech, right down to the emphasis on domestic concerns.

Yet even while emphasising such matters, Mr Bush provided nothing concrete to prevent huge budget deficits into the foreseeable future. That shortcoming alarms fiscal conservatives among his own support base, as well as an international community that shudders at how the American economy is being jeopardised.

Mr Bush also provided nothing to suggest that sturdy economic growth would soon produce more than tepid jobs creation. His father paid the price for a jobless recovery, even though he had overseen a victory over Iraq. It is too early to suggest that George W. Bush will share the same fate. His overall job approval rating remains high, and further terrorism activity would strengthen his position. But cracks on the home front are showing - and the Democrats may just settle on a candidate capable of giving him a stern fight.