There is really only one way for McCain to close the gap on Obama before the general election. McCain must (and will) launch a sustained attack on Obama using words like “terrorists”, “imminent danger” and “commander in chief.”   

Obama will win New York, California and Illinois in the general election. These are in the bag. McCain will win Texas, Florida and Ohio. Pennsylvania and Michigan are wild cards at this point. Virginia may in fact be this year’s Florida in the general election. In other words, it may become the large swing-state that matters (can a state be both red and swing?).

But even if Virginia can be contested, if McCain takes Pennsylvania, it may be the ballgame... Unless Obama can pull off what he did in Iowa and Mississippi in two or three more traditionally “red” states.

What
will ultimately draw voters to McCain is his military expertise and
unabashed hawk-like confidence. An enormous amount of Americans want to
know that their president will indeed launch a counterstrike if
necessary. These folk seem to think that the fear of retribution will
deter terrorists from attacking (as if suicide bombers generally avoid
actions that put their lives in danger). According to this philosophy,
being gun-shy isn’t a luxury that an American president can afford.
McCain will continue to play up this angle and do so adeptly.

On the left, Americans want to know that their president will not take preemptive military action that will risk lives and billions of dollars unnecessarily. Most of this contingent wants military action to be a final option once all other avenues have been explored and found to be dead ends. Obama has done better with this group than any other Democrat in the past twenty years. His success with this talking point hasn’t even been deterred by his cowboy bravado with regard to Pakistan. He keeps saying that he’ll scour the caves of Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and send a precision air raid. Peaceniks still fawn over him.

Obama
can’t shift his message for fear of alienating the left. Moreover, I
don’t believe that he would do it even if politically advantageous. He
really does seem to believe that war is a last resort. More
importantly, even if he did start talking Hawk-ese, he’d never be able
to outdo McCain. McCain is a West Point man. Obama is a Harvard man.
You can’t be one and pretend to be the other.

Enter Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander for NATO Europe

The
best solution for Obama is to secure a running mate that fortifies his
greatest weakness. Normally this is done by regional analysis. Past
candidates who needed to pluck a Southern state have chosen candidates
from that region. But this year, it would be wiser to select a running
mate that fortifies the nominee ideologically. Obama needs a vice that
is a West Point man.


Not only is Wesley Clark a retired (albeit youthful looking) four-star general, he was the… it’s just fun to write it… Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Europe.
You’ll forgive me for writing it again (say it aloud as you read): the
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Come now, you have to admit that any
official title with the descriptor “Supreme” in it is worth some
political currency.

Sure, Clark has his peccadilloes. He’s been inconsistent with his position on Iraq. He’s made some enemies on the other side of the aisle. Who hasn’t? Clark was the valedictorian of his class at West Point (has a certain ring). He was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford (daddy likes). He speaks Russian fluently (take me home).

One
could hardly imagine a politician with more foreign policy expertise.
And, by whatever quirk of fate, he is a Democrat. Indeed, he ran for
president last term but didn’t receive the nomination. This is
unfortunate because he was the only democratic candidate that had the
chops to out-hawk Bush from the left.

Obama desperately needs this kind of military clout. Mrs. Clinton, for all of her strengths, cannot provide this.

There
is one minor glitch here. Clark is in Clinton’s camp and has been
rather public about his support for her. But, given that Mrs. Clinton
herself is still considered a viable candidate for VP, I see no reason
why Clark should be off limits.

An Obama/Clark ticket would secure two or three more traditionally red states. Clark can assuage the fears of those older voters that aren’t quite ready for a president with a Muslim name. It may help Obama in Pennsylvania and Michigan. But, more importantly, it will put several Midwestern states into play.

Icing
on the cake: Clark was raised and lives in Arkansas. Obama did horribly
in that state in the primary (for good reason: Clinton and Huckabee
have strong ties there and soaked up most of the votes). If he could
bag Arckansas, Obama could win every southern state between Texas and
Florida. This would easily offset a loss in Pennsylvania.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania is delicate business. What’s good in Pittsburgh may not be good in Philadelphia. A simple faux pas on gun control can lose you half the state. It would take a political gymnast to appeal to both ends.

Mr.
Obama, instead of jumping into the Pennsylvania quagmire (again), why not aim
at two or three more red states? Wes Clark is your man for that job.
Oh, and he might actually be a handy resource once hope becomes reality. CCO