No. (BUT MAYBE THIS ONE SHOULD!) But two wartime presidents gave up seeking a second term due in part to their inability to achieve victory in the wars they were fighting.

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson, who had been elected with 61 percent of the vote in 1964, decided to not seek the Democratic nomination because his war policy had become so divisive and unpopular.

In 1950, President Truman, facing a stalemated war in Korea, decided to not seek a second term.

But a drawn-out war is not necessarily a predictor of certain defeat. With the Vietnam War still going in 1972, President Richard Nixon was re-elected with 61 percent of the vote over Democrat George McGovern, who advocated withdrawal from Vietnam.

Franklin Roosevelt won in 1944 over Republican Tom Dewey, even with U.S. combat deaths surpassing an average of 6,000 per month and Abraham Lincoln, running against Democratic peace candidate George McClellan won a second term in 1864, with Union combat deaths running at nearly 2,300 per month.

I think it's a safe assumption that the reason that the incumbants who ran for a second term and won while in war time is that war unites the country. I am betting that this will not be the case this time. One of Bush's primary slogans was that he was going to be a uniter, not a divider. The Iraq war is about as divisive a war that there could be.

Kerry will have to demonstrate that he is a uniter, not just a partisan who is critical of the Bush administration.

The selection of the Vice President may help Kerry's ability to unite. However, I think the VP of a Kerry Administration will not have near the impact that Cheney has on the Bush Admin.