Obama Strategy

Everyone has been whining about the tightening numbers and that Obama is not attacking enough and that he is going to lose and that he's like Kerry or Dukakis or whatever else they are whining about. I understand their concerns to a point, but this is getting pathetic. As I have said before, Obama will win and I believe he is doing a good job. The numbers were going to tighten. This is a Red/Blue country. Obama is still leading by 3-7 in the composite. There was no way a black Democrat was going to walk all over the old white POW. It's almost like people are pretending or intentionally ignoring the dynamics of this race. Obama has the right idea here and let me tell you why.

VP Speculation

I called that Obama would make his selection before the Olympics. He didn't and there is a strategy behind it. What has everyone been talking about for the past two weeks? What does CNN, AP and every other blog write about everyday? They speculate who his VP will be. They write about people speculating about who it will be and they speculate about people speculating who will be the VP. This is free and easy coverage. Obama has thrown so many names around as well. He's listed people from Indiana, New Mexico, Connecticut, the military, Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas and many other states. This inclusion plays well to the voters in those states. It shows that Obama is in-line with their worries and their issues. I don't even want to speculate anymore. I will wait for my international text from the Obama camp and then I will go with it. When the announcement is made, it will be all the news for the week. McCain will try to pull something slimy, but it won't stick. This speculation has served him well.

Attack Strategy

This is the one that has the Kossacks and all the other liberal netizens up in arms. "Why is Obama doing this?!!", "He needs to fire his press team!!", "He's worse than Kerry!!" and my personal favorite, "Obama just lost the election!!!". All bloggers assume their wisdom is the best and therefore feel like they can write posts that seem to be talking AT Obama. I do not do that. I talk to myself. Obama has the right strategy on this and the primary season tells us why. Like all GOP strategies, they chose the short-sighted path and tried to interfer with the Democratic primary so the Dems could kill their chances of unifying before convention. They realeased the all the Wright, Rezco and Ayers stuff hoping that Obama would be so bruised and the Hillary hate would allow for a smooth McCain victory. The Wright stuff hurt, but Obama has now cruised past it. If McCain brings it up again, it will only seem stale and a little desparte. It would not be as effective.

This is what Obama was thinking. Let McCain dish out his first round of garbage (of which possessed no substance), endure it and refute it to around convention time. Obama's theme has been more positive, so his convention needs to reflect that. But after convention, the negative ads will start rolling out and the money is going to pour in. He let McCain go first and now McCain's attacks are getting old and most people think that it is a poor reflection on McCain's character. If Obama had started releasing a lot of McCain=Bush ads now, by October that would be stale and not as effective.

The branding starts now. Obama planted the seed and took the high road first. Sure he might have lost a couple points now, but he's only got one place to go.

Here are his new ads airing this week.

Obama's VP will be Clark

I have already made one ballsy prediction this season, and now I am going to make another. The ticket will be Obama/Clark. I am confident about this and while many people have said that no one seems to be talking about Clark anymore, I am certain that he will be the nominee.

That once long list has dwindled down to a short one which features less than ten names. Those names are most likely Bayh, Kaine, Biden, Hagel, Clark and Sebelius. I know that Strickland, Rendell, Casey and Clinton have been tossed around, but they were never in serious consideration. We need Strickland to hold down Ohio for us and Rendell and Casey and doing fine in PA. Hillary Clinton would have none nothing for the ticket and would have only fired up the Right. So why not the others?

It shouldn't be Evan Bayh. While we can't ignore his votes against Bush's Supreme Court nominees and his Senate position in a traditionally Red state, he has sided with the GOP too many times on key progressive issues. Yet, the biggest problem with Bayh is that he aggressively supported the invasion of Iraq. He was an outspoken proponent and was hand-in-hand with McCain and Bush. This would be a huge liability for Obama. It is not worth opening himself up to these kinds of attacks just for the the possibility that Indiana might vote for Obama. Bayh would alienate too many Dems and give the left too much ammo. Obama has run on an anti-war and sound judgement platform. Bayh kicks that image in the face. And he's a puss, so Bayh is out.

Kaine would bring outside-the-Beltway credentials to the campaign. The relationship the two share would seem to fit with Obama's desire to find people who can tell him that he's wrong sometimes. And the governor probably would bolster Obama in Virginia, where the campaign is making an all-out push, but I'm not so sure that adding Kaine to that list would add anymore success to Obama's VA bid. He's probably going to win there and then Kaine would be a waste. Furthermore, Kaine has no foreign policy background, and as a first-term governor, he may add to voters' concerns about Obama's experience. Kaine seems to be popular in Virginia, but he has had trouble dealing with Republicans and has no single defining achievement to point to on the campaign trail. Kaine does not help on any of Obama's weaknesses (foreign policy and experience), so Kaine is out.

Sebelius seems like she would be the perfect candidate. She's pro-choice, anti-death penalty, supported legislation allowing children of undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition rates at colleges and criticized Bush for unilaterally deciding to send the National Guard to the border. She opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. She supports Second Amendment rights. She vetoed the voter id law in her state. She's good on health care, including for seniors. She's also good for the ticket since she’s obviously acceptable to Republicans having been twice elected Governor of the normally Republican state of Kansas. In other words, she might even take votes from McCain and put Obama over the top (although I believe he's a shoo-in at this point anyway.) This all sounds good, but the catch is that she's not Hillary Clinton. Will the Hillary voters accept another woman as an option? This is something that Obama must consider. Also, the easy criticism is that the Democratic ticket becomes a double-dose of inexperience at the national level. Neither Obama nor Sebelius have enough experience. But when reality sets in, the bottom line will be, contrary to what I repeatedly said and believed during the entire primary campaign, the devil you know actually is worse than the devil you don't. I'm now ready to buy that pig in a poke. A candidate like McCain with bad foreign policy and domestic views is worse than a candidate with good views who may need a little on the job training. Obama and Sebelius are a far better choice than McCain and another four years of Republican rule. We'll see.

Hagel is a Republican. I wrote about this yesterday. Hagel is out.

Biden would be a great attack dog and an excellent foreign policy addition, but it does not bode well for Obama's change meme. An old white guy that is tough on crime and terror does not fit the mold. Biden is out.

So, that leaves one man for the job: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark. I have written about why Clark needs to be the VP here, here, here, here, here and here. Still, no matter how much I think that he should be the nominee, it wasn't until I read the line up for the DEM convention that I decided it would be Clark. The Vice Presidential candidate speaks at the Democratic Convention on Wednesday night. The theme that night is "Securing America's Future." So the VP candidate is someone who fits with that theme. Also, according to another report I read elsewhere, military veterans are part of the night's theme. Could Gen. Wesley Clark be back in the ballgame? His organization is called "Securing America's Future", the same name as the night's theme.

Is it a tease? Doubt it. Expect Wes Clark to be the VP.

Russia Halts

While Russia might have called an end to their offensive in Georgia, that certainly doesn't mean that the McCain camp isn't getting ready to flash images on the six-day battle in the next line of ads with some Red Scare-era tallking points backing them up. If Obama wants to fight that well, he needs to highlight the the inability for the US to help due to the uneccessary strain from Iraq and play up his potential role as a dimplomatic President. Again, Clark is perfect for the VP spot. He's got experience all over the map.

Georgia-Russia Primer

For those of you not totally schooled in the particular region, here is an excellent primer and the following is an interview with Col. Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force Colonel. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. His recent posts on Georgia have appeared on the blog NewsDissector.org

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about this area that probably most people in this country have never heard of before.

COL. SAM GARDINER: Yes. It’s very interesting that it is probably what some analysts have called an area of frozen conflicts. After the Soviet Union dissolved, there remained areas in which, despite the fact that new states were created, there were tensions. One of those is the Ossetia or South Ossetia, which is where we’ve seen the fighting, and the other one, inside Georgia, is Abkhazia. There were agreements signed in the early 1990s that sort of solidified these as semi-independent territories. In one, there is a UN peacekeeping force, and then in South Ossetia, there is essentially independence, and, you know, they sort of ran their operations separate from the Georgian government. And then, tensions began to increase over the past few months, because the president of Georgia has promised to retake—his words—retake the—particularly South Ossetia. That was a problem, because, by now, 90 percent of Ossetians there were holders of Russian passports. They had voted to become part of the Russian Federation. There was clear movement in the direction of this enclave, closer and closer ties with Russia. And then, last week, almost without announcement, the Georgians launched a strike into Ossetia with the apparent objective of putting this back under the Tbilisi control, back under the control of the Georgian government. The Russians responded, responded probably in a way that was a great deal surprise to the Georgians, probably was also a surprise to the United States. And as of this morning, the Georgians seem to have pulled out of South Ossetia and the Russians have control of the capital city and are beginning to put in humanitarian aid. The one issue left up in the air has to do with the other enclave, Abkhazia. There was a small portion of that enclave that was controlled by the Georgians. It was called the Kodori Gorge. Operations were launched there yesterday, some on Saturday night, in attempt to dislodge the Georgians and turn that territory over and completely make it independent from Georgian control. So, this morning, the fighting seems to be waning, although there are reports of still air strikes going on. It appears as if we have gotten through the heavy part of the fighting, but certainly not the important strategic consequences.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about significance of this, in terms of nuclear warfare in Russia? Do we have anything to fear along those lines?

COL. SAM GARDINER: Absolutely. Let me just say that if you were to rate how serious the strategic situations have been in the past few years, this would be above Iraq, this would be above Afghanistan, and this would be above Iran. On little notice to Americans, the Russians learned at the end of the first Gulf War that they couldn’t—they didn’t think they could deal with the United States, given the value and the quality of American precision conventional weapons. The Russians put into their doctrine a statement, and have broadcast it very loudly, that if the United States were to use precision conventional weapons against Russian troops, the Russians would be forced to respond with tactical nuclear weapons. They continue to state this. They practice this in their exercise. They’ve even had exercises that very closely paralleled what went on in Ossetia, where there was an independence movement, they intervene conventionally to put down the independence movement, the United States and NATO responds with conventional air strikes, they then respond with tactical nuclear weapons. It appears to me as if the Russians were preparing themselves to do that in this case. First of all, I think they believe the United States was going to intervene. At a news conference on Sunday, the deputy national security adviser said we have noted that the Russians have introduced two SS-21 medium-range ballistic missile launchers into South Ossetia. Now, let me say a little footnote about those. They’re both conventional and nuclear. They have a relatively small conventional warhead, however. So, the military significance, if they were to be conventional, was almost trivial compared to what the Russians could deliver with the aircraft that they were using to strike the Georgians. I think this was a signal. I think this was an implementation on their part of their doctrine. It clearly appears as if they expected the United States to do what they had practiced in their exercises. In fact, this morning, the Russians had an air defense exercise in the southern part of Russia that borders Georgia in which they—it was practicing shooting down incursion aircraft that were incursion into Russia. They were prepared for the United States to intervene, and I think they were prepared—or at least they were wanting to show the United States that their doctrine of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if the US attacks, was serious, and they needed to take—the United States needs to take Russia very seriously.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Colonel Sam Gardiner about this war that is taking place. Would you call it a war, Colonel Gardiner?

COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, you know, I like that term, and I wish I had invented it: it’s called "frozen conflicts.” It is in resolution of a conflict that’s been around for seventeen years. It was pushed off-center by the Georgians. Even the Georgians were reluctant to declare war. They declared a state of emergency. Certainly, the Russians haven’t declared war. In fact, I guess I would say, Amy, you know, with our war on terrorism, I don’t even know if there’s a definition of “war” anymore. Probably it’s best to call it a very serious conflict that could have been escalated.

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the pipeline that is there?

COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the United States, beginning about ten years ago, obviously saw the vulnerability of the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. So the United States pushed very hard to set up a pipeline that went from Baku in Azerbaijan, taking out the Caspian Sea oil, to a port in Turkey, Ceyhan. That oil pipeline carries about one percent of the world’s oil supply. Two weeks ago, that pipeline was blown up in a Turkish area by the Kurdish rebels that the Turks are fighting. There were reports that the Russians had bombed this over the weekend. Reports this morning, however, say—suggest that there hasn’t been an interruption, except that Azerbaijan has shut off flow in the pipeline. So this interferes with a major flow of oil to the economies of the West. It’s an important source of the oil flow.

AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Gardiner, I also wanted to ask you about the presidential candidates’ responses to the conflict—Senator Barack Obama and John McCain—the report coming out about John McCain’s adviser, Scheunemann—

COL. SAM GARDINER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —who helped a US firm win a Georgian energy firm deal while lobbying for Georgia’s NATO membership.

COL. SAM GARDINER: I must say that I have not heard a lot of good words from the McCain campaign about how to deal with this. It’s painful that the standard answer one gets is the testosterone-based foreign policy that we’ve seen for the last eight years. This is a very complex situation. And John McCain has said earlier that he wants to throw Russia out of the G8. That is absolutely the worst thing the United States could do. Russians have been saying—and the White House has not been listening—“We are a major player, and you have to listen to us.” This is the way the President said the Chinese are major players, and we now listen to them. The Russians have been saying that. The White House has ignored that. I also would say, on the other hand, that this is one of those situations where Obama’s talk about it is probably not a good solution, either. The United States made some errors when it left the impression with the Georgians that our support somehow meant they were free to undertake this operation. That was clearly a bad idea that we communicated with them. The other thing that is significant here is, there is an Israeli dimension to the problem. Israel has been training and supplying the army of Georgia. That’s caused some tensions within Israel, because there are those who believe that this just encourages the Russians to provide conventional arms to the Iranians. Israel has talked about it over the weekend, decided not to stop providing arms to the Georgians. It isn’t over. There are a lot of strategic things that are going to fall out of this. Probably most important is that it’s not now Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, it’s now Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran that our new president is going to have to deal with.

AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Sam Gardiner, I want to thank you for being with us. We’ll certainly continue to follow this conflict. Colonel Gardiner, retired Air Force colonel, has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, as well as the Air War College and the Naval War College

The region is just waiting to implode, so please take the time and get aquianted. I fear that this issue might dominate the November election, unless, of course, Obama comes out firing first.

Step 1: Nominate Gen. Wes Clark...

Is Obama leaning towards Clinton?

The Media seems to think that this could perhaps be suggesting that Obama is leaning towards Clinton as his running mate. I would be fine with that as I think that the Media might have burnt any chance Wes Clark had by inaccurately reporting his comments about McCain.

"Barack Obama stoked vice presidential speculation Wednesday with an unannounced stop at the Washington law firm of a search team member and then a flight to New York fundraisers with potential pick Hillary Rodham Clinton and a second vetter. I'm not going to tell you" any details, the smiling likely Democratic nominee told reporters after spending more than two hours inside a downtown Washington office building where attorney Eric Holder, a member of his vice presidential search committee, has offices."

The Media narrative now is that Obama is moving to the center. He is. The Media is, of course, ignoring the fact that every single nominee moves to the center after a very partisan primary. Don't be fooled. Regardless of the truth, in politics perception is everything and oftentimes supercedes the truth. Today Obama voted for immunity for the telecom companies on the wiretapping vote which is under FISA. I am upset that he did this, but he is being caustious so as not to be branded "soft on terrorism". Again, I'm pretty upset with him over this, but it is in no way a deal breaker for me, nor should it be for any Dem. Luckily, Hillary voted against it along with 28 other Senators. This vote will hurt him a little, but he is banking on the fact that the liberal voting bloc will support him way before jumping to McCain. He's probably right, but it's a risk.

If he throws Hillary on the ticket, it will balance it out enough to appease the voters. But more than that, she will keep him on a more liberal track. He might need this while getting settled in the White House.

My question: Is Obama is waiting to reveal his VP choice later in the summer so that he can get a bounce AFTER the GOP and the Media has used up a lot of their ammo? OR is he waiting to see what the ammo is and then pick accordingly?

The Effectiveness of the "Swift Boat"

The "Swift Boat" of 2004 was much more potent than the one in Vietnam and is proving to be more potent than the current 2008 version. I say the 2008 version, but I must qualify that designation. To be fair, there has not been a "Swift Boating" yet. A "Swift Boat" does not look anything like what this past week has produced. And furthermore, I think that the current state of the MSM and its somewhat hostile relationship with the increasingly relevant blogosphere is proof that there will be more oversight, more accuracy and perhaps even some elements of professional journalism. I said "perhaps".


This theory hinges on the assumption that the Media is torn as to who their true darling is and how much the left blogs can keep the Media, and therefore campaign reality, in check. We can already see the apprehensiveness in what and how the Media will report such smears. At the start of this Clark issue, they began as they usually do: Report an out-of-context clip that makes it seem like a below the belt shot was taken at their long-time darling, St. McCain. However, when Clark did not back down from the multi-fronted attack, the liberal blogs went into action and when others started agreeing with Clark, the Media was forced to look at how they reported the story and, in a slight instance of journalistic integrity, they started running the entire or at least more accurate story WITH context. This, with the exception of Fox News, is an indication of why the Swift Boat of 2008 isn't nearly as detrimental than the 2004 model. For it to work again, there has to be a complete lack of even minimal journalistic skills and a breakdown of the left blogosphere. I simply don't seeing either of those two conditions being met.

McCain has also limited himself insofar as that he condemned the 2004 Swifter's, but is now accepting their donations while at the same time demanding that Obama "cuts Clark loose". In effect, he has renounced and distanced himself from attacks that are deemed a "Swift Boat", so when his surrogates get ready to release The Case Against Barack Obama where will he stand? The last thing he needs (or just the thing that Obama needs) is to be further labeled a flip-flopper and especially not in this case where his ethics will be called into question.

While many pundits still have man-crushes on John McCain, I think that Obama's darling status rivals it well and will give us a glimpse into the Media's true role. It will get worse I'm sure, but we need to do our part to make sure that the Media does theirs.

A More Complete Picture

The Clark/Webb-related events of the past few days have opened a door and given the public a more complete idea of who McCain is and how he deals with people and unfriendly situations. As his experience was called into question by more senior military officials (something that has not been done publicly), we were given a picture of an aging, whiny man who is so arrogant that he expects and demands respect from everyone and if he doesn't get it, it leads to openly erratic behavior. Is John McCain sooo "delicate" that he can't take criticism even when it is accurate and well said? Does he have to rely on Fox and shallow expressions and claims of patriotism to bite back? Why can't he handle criticism? More importantly, how will he react when entire nations will be openly criticizing him, if he can't even handle it from a few individual people?

By reacting the way he has and certainly continuing it after Obama said, "Enough!" with the whole thing, McCain made the horrendous error of demanding that it was time to "cut Clark loose". Obama will do no such thing. Now, Obama has earned hand and McCain looks like a whiny old man. Having Clark and Webb highlighting these weaknesses in a backwards and illogical world where Obama can't because he didn't "serve", is just what Obama needs. McCain's reaction is a product of over a decade of favorable Media coverage, a lifetime of demanding his ass to be kissed and very little public criticism. Clark was dead-on when he suggested McCain was "untested", but now it also includes national public life.

Wait. I spoke to soon. He was "tested" by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega on a diplomatic mission in 1987.

"McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention," Cochran said in an interview with The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss. "But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever ...

"I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, 'Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.' I don't know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy ... and he just reached over there and snatched ... him."

And that was on a diplomatic mission. McCain has to be the alpha male and bully in every situation and this is not what we need. We're just finishing up with a non-physical bully, and now McCain thinks we need more PLUS a little extra.

The bigger issue is not whether I think McCain is a sissy that can't hack it. I do and he can't. The once-hidden image of a hotheaded bully that rose in politics because of family connections and physical threats is back on the table and now that the majority of the MSM has openly displayed reluctance to let McCain off the hook and rail into Obama, he might be in some trouble.

My Question: We have already heard the word "Swift Boat" hundreds of times in the past few days and the sound of that raises hairs on the backs of Democratic voters because we know how slimy the GOP can be. However, the media has been heavily criticized this season and felt threatened by blogs, forums and youtube and have forced themselves to be slightly more objective. So will their fear of further criticism cause them to label all baseless smears as a "Swift Boat", therefore putting them to rest before they get to the point they did last election?

Clark Does Not Back Down

This is beautiful. They keep proding, but he just stands strong. I think I have a man-crush.

Clark on "Face the Nation": Dead On!

A commentor posted this on my the previous post,

"I was actually watching Face the Nation when Bob (Slimebag) Schieffer bated Wes Clark with the question, almost taunting him, along the lines of "how can you say that John McCain is not more experienced" (Jimmie Hendrix was "Experienced" also) because of his military/POW service/confinement. Wes Clark replied with great aplomb and equanimity that flying in a jet, being shot down, and being a POW is not a requirement to be a good president. Again, context is all, and if folks had just heard the line of questioning leading up to that fair response, they would not be beside themselves, and that includes Barack Obama!"

I had not been able to find the clip up until today and the previously available text just didn't suffice, but after watching the entirity of the interview or at least the segment in question, I am shocked by how little Schieffer understands his role as a journalist and how the much St. McCain still is the media darling. The media has blindly accpeted the McCain camps flawed interpretation of this interview to create contravesy where there is none.

Here you go. I title it, "Barack Obama is more ready to be President than Barack Obama." You'll see why.



Again, Obama would be so foolish not to ask Clark to be his VP. Obama often claims that he has superior judgement, well, here's his test.

Clark Attacks

Yet again, Wes Clark is proving that he wants the VP position and he's got the balls to attack McCain on his only strong point.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Keep them coming Clark.

My question: While I agree that McCain uses his service and time as a POW to somehow justify his credentials, will this kind of attack usher in a new theme to this campaign? Specifically, if these attacks continue, will this campaign become less about the issues and concerns of the voters and more about patriotism?

Obama / Clark team up...kind of

Obama formed a Senior Working Group on National Security who will meet regulary to talk about how to fix the mess that Bush has left the world to clean up.

“Each individual here today has provided extraordinary service to our nation in the executive branch and Congress. Several have been advising my campaign for some time. We’re also honored to be joined by some of Senator Clinton’s senior advisors. In the months to come, we’ll be reaching out to others, as well as leaders in Congress,” Senator Obama said. “The stakes in this election could not be higher. John McCain wants to continue George Bush's foreign policy which has made us less safe, less respected, and less able to lead the world. It's time to change course. It's time to end the war in Iraq responsibly, refocus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and renew our global leadership so that we can tackle the huge challenges of the 21st century.”

Who are they?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Senator David Borenformer Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Secretary of State Warren Christopher
Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor
Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Secretary of Defense William Perry
Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner
Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor

Pretty powerful team, huh? Can McCain trump this team? Of course not, but I was a little concerned as to where Clark was. It turns out that this was made up of people with civilian national security experience.

"...he will also meet with a group of nearly 40 retired Admirals and Generals to discuss the state of our armed forces, and the challenges facing our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. This meeting is part of an ongoing dialogue between Senator Obama and current and former military officers of various ranks and views."

Was Clark there? Yes he was and he was sitting next to Obama when he met with the rest of the retired officers.

I think that what Obama is doing since becoming the nominee is outstanding. He is bringing in the best minds to join his. Now, all he needs to do is select Clark for his VP.

*** I will keep on stressing the importance of Clark until Obama has selected a VP. ***

We need Clark NOW!

WaPo reports that Independent voters are split between McCain and Obama. The article is quite telling as to how much Obama appeals to all people and most of all, just how much he needs an experienced military running mate, like Wes Clark.

"In the first Washington Post-ABC News poll since the Democratic nomination contest ended, Obama and McCain are even among political independents, a shift toward the presumptive Republican nominee over the past month. On the issues, independents see McCain as more credible on fighting terrorism and are split evenly on who is the stronger leader and better on the Iraq war. But on other key attributes and issues -- including the economy -- Obama has advantages among independents."

As I have been saying, there is not a single issue that McCain is "better" on than the issue of military matters. Even so, this poll says that McCain is "more credible on fighting terrorism", but independents "are split evenly on who is the stronger leader and better on the Iraq war". If I were John McCain, I would be seriously worried. He is not testing better on who is a stronger war time leader.

Take that stat and then factor in...

"...Obama has significant advantages. He leads by 34 points as the candidate who would do more to bring needed change to Washington, by 18 points on empathy, by 15 points on standing up to lobbyists and special interests, and by 13 points on better representing people's "personal values."

Still, there seems to be a large amount of Dems who want Hillary on the ticket. But would Hillary on the ticket give Obama a boost in any way?

"As Obama considers possible vice presidential running mates, Clinton remains atop the list: Unprompted, 46 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents pick her as their top choice, and no other Democrat breaks out of single digits. But it is unclear from the poll whether Clinton would help or hurt Obama's chances." About two in 10 said her placement on the ticket would make them more apt to support the Democrats, but about the same proportion said it would push them toward the GOP. Most said it would not make much of a difference either way."

As the article says, it might get a few of those women who swore off Obama to come back to their senses, but it would not help him against McCain. He does not need her help on domestic issues (on the front end). He needs help in an area that she does not offer anything: foreign policy and military affairs.

One option: Wes Clark.

Obama needs to get Clark in there as soon as possible. The sooner he defines the full image of what he offers for the fall, the sooner he can start framing McCain as the military lightweight he is.

My question: Are the two camps waiting for the other to announce a VP choice so they can respond with an announcement and dominate the news?

Change the story, win the election.