Mark Daniels endorses a NY Times article by Tom Friedman:
In a country where it was unpopular to support the war, Blair has been Mr. Steadfast. Blair’s reward has been that irrespective of their feelings about Iraq, Britons still seem to back Blair and his Labour Party. … Blair took what he saw as a principled stand on foreign policy and is apparently on the brink of reaping electoral rewards for it.
The difference in perception between the US (in which Mark’s viewpoint seems to be fairly typical) and the UK is amazing. If Labour lose the election, it will be in no small part a legacy of the Iraq war, not so much because people have strong feelings about the war itself but because Blair is simply no longer trusted, for having taken Britain to war on a false prospectus (not the only issue that has contributed to the climate of distrust, but an important one). Fairly or unfairly, the idea that Blair is a paragon of principle would be laughed at by just about everyone I know. The Conservatives abandoned their jibe “vote Blair, get Brown” when it became clear that most Labour supporters thought this was a rather good plan.