National security tops nearly every candidate's list of stated priorities this election. The few who have maintained that the issue is less important than domestic concerns have been sharply criticized by opponents and even targeted for defeat by the national parties.

"Despite public assertions by Republican and Democratic leaders that the war should not be exploited for political purposes, candidates seem to feel compelled to evoke the struggle, and all the patriotic symbolism it entails," The Washington Post's Helen Dewar wrote in July.

President Bush has enjoyed broad public approval and loyal support from fellow Republicans for his execution of the war in Afghanistan. Most Democrats have also pledged support for the war effort, focusing their criticism on the faltering economy and other aspects of the president's domestic agenda.

Since the fighting in Afghanistan has cooled down, the nation's attention has turned to the more complicated question of Iraq. Whether to attack Iraq -- and whose support the U.S. needs or doesn't need before doing it -- is a growing issue. Most U.S. allies have expressed opposition to unilateral military action, and some members of Congress are calling for more information and deliberation as the Bush administration continues to defend the importance and legality of its "preemptive strike" doctrine.

The administration has said it welcomes debate on the subject, and has provided classified briefings to congressional leaders. The president continues, however, to advocate "regime change" in Iraq and several plans for a military operation against Saddam Hussein have been leaked to the press. In late August, Vice President Cheney repeated the government's belief that delaying action on Iraq could have dire consequences for the United States. In September President Bush asked the United Nations to take action against Hussein for his refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions.

The U.S. and its allies are also continuing their worldwide pursuit of groups and individuals accused of involvement in terrorism. The FBI has arrested alleged terrorists inside the United States and abroad. The Bush administration has said that members of al-Qaida are hiding throughout Europe and Asia and has explicitly accused Iran of harboring members of the terrorist network.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians also has major political implications in the U.S., as Arab allies of the United States have pressured the Bush administration to continue attempts to mediate the clash. Some Arab countries have made U.S. involvement in the Middle East a condition of support in other areas of U.S. foreign policy.

The administration has tried to balance its stance on terrorism and the United States' historic support of Israel with the need to maintain some type of relationship with the Palestinians. As of late summer, the level of violence in the region had decreased, but an attempt to negotiate the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank failed. In late September, Palestinian suicide bombers struck in Tel Aviv and northern Israel, and Israeli troops again occupied the Palestinian Authority's headquarters.

Domestically, the Middle East conflict has had an influence on some political campaigns. In a few races, candidates have been accused of accepting donations from Arab or Palestinian groups allegedly involved in terrorism and have paid a price at the polls.

Homeland security -- who will provide it and how to improve it -- is another hot issue on the campaign trail. The unprecedented Sept. 11 attacks have caused nearly all states, municipalities, institutions and organizations to confront the security issue. The effect of the attacks on industry -- especially the airlines -- continues to be a concern for policy-makers and citizens alike. Such issues have focused attetnion on the sometimes-strained relationship between federal and local public safety agencies.

In mid-July, the Bush administration unveiled a broad new homeland security strategy that called for a much larger role for state and local governments and the private sector in combating security threats. The plan also included more federal authority for directing and coordinating security efforts under a new agency.

The plan further advised businesses to boost their security spending to $110 billion annually -- double what was spent the previous year. It also called on state and local governments to increase spending for the equipping and training of public safety personnel at a time when many states face huge budget shortfalls. The administration promised to award $3.5 billion in grants to state and local governments to help defray the cost. Many state officials have asked for more funding.

The complicated issue of civil liberties versus security has also become a matter of concern for both voters and politicians. Disputes about the rights of citizens, immigrants, and visitors continue to be debated and mediated in the courts and in public forums. In August, separate federal courts chastised the Justice Department and two of its agencies, the FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for requesting more authority and for operating in secret. The government argued that it needs to protect sensitive information and investigative methods that are vital to the security of the country.

"Legal challenges to Bush administration security measures since Sept. 11 are just coming to judgment nearly a year later, but the early going has produced more defeats than victories for the government. In a handful of cases, judges have cast skeptical eyes on administration arguments that threats to national security justify maximum secrecy or a lessening of previously recognized freedoms," Anne Gearan of the Associated Press wrote in late August.

Despite setbacks in the courts, the administration continues to enjoy the approval of a supportive citizenry, and defenders of the president have been quick to point out that historical precedent supports the curtailment of some freedoms during wartime.

--By Jason Manning, Online NewsHour