On a trip last week to Santa Fe New Mexico, we saw a bumper sticker that read, "Peace is Patriotic."  Beyond the fact that it's a transparent case of defensive politics, it tells you nothing about the nature of peace and how it is achieved.  Moreover, we're left to conclude that peace is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the world, and that all we must do is purchase it the way we would any other commodity.

Let's begin with the argument that patriotism itself has been caught in a civic and cultural crossfire.  The fact that its definition is more politically malleable than anyone might have suspected is disturbing.  For the left, love of country begins with holding it accountable in ways they would never consider for the world's dictatorships.  Indeed, they bring a level of moral scrutiny to America that is conveniently withheld for Castro's Cuba or Chavez' Venezuela.

But, beyond that, anyone who has the temerity to suggest that winning a war is patriotic and withdrawing prematurely isn't, is excoriated as bastardizing the term.  However, when a word is tortured into service and forced to take on the contextual coloration of the author's political motivation, it ceases to have the universal meaning it once had.  That's not to say one can't be patriotic and be critical of U.S. policy, only that a reflexive desire to join the chorus of criticisms against America, as many on the left have, seems at odds with the tenets of patriotism.  The latter admits our nations foibles but correctly asserts that, without qualification, America has been a force for good in the world.

That's why you rarely see liberal bumper stickers that include an American flag, because not unlike the lapel pin flag, the left is just not comfortable about flaunting their patriotism.  That's because they want to reserve the right to condemn America, which they seem to gleefully do at every opportunity.  Michelle Obama's recent comments are a case in point--no, not just the fact that she said this was the first time she was proud of her country, but her wholly inaccurate characterization of America as a nation that remains fundamentally flawed--paraphrased, but that's the core message.

That takes us to the 'peace' part of the bumper sticker.  That's another word that has different meanings for different people.  For the left, it's something that exists as surely as oxygen, and it's just as important.  For the right, it's something that's purchased at a price, often a very high price, and it's only guaranteed by those willing to make perpetual sacrifices.

That recalls another bumper sticker:  A B-52, which creates a kind of 'peace sign,' which reads:  "Peace Through Superior Firepower."  You see, for the right, belligerents are a timeless and noxious lot, whose amorality is imposed by fiat on those around them, whether it's a Stalin, a Kim Jong Il, or a Saddam Hussein.  The only thing stopping them is a superior power with a threat that is real.

Therefore, although 'peace' is something we should all strive for, it must be within a context that includes a candid reading of reality:  Whether it was Hitler moving his army into the Rhineland or Napoleon taking the Spanish peninsula, if there's no one there to stop them, they'll do it.

So, the left can expound on the virtues of peace, because it's a right purchased by the blood of our military over the decades.  But, when it comes to the practical matter of safeguarding the peace, it's best left to people who understand that it's a fragile thing that is only maintained by military might.

Do you think that's something Senator Obama truly understands?

As we're all aware, people's mastery of life's learning curves varies dramatically.  In politics, the variability is even greater, not just because they're unpredictable, but because with politics, the common sense we typically bring to routine challenges is often checked at the door.

That seems to be the case with the Democratic Party's approach to the Clinton-Obama conundrum.  Recall that the apparent reason for the super-delegates was to ensure a fully democratic outcome.  The real reason, of course, is to prevent a George McGovern from making it all the way to the nomination--read, gallows--and, in that regard, the super-delegates are a paradoxically un-Democratic phenomenon, especially for the party that lectured the nation in 2000 about fair elections.

On the cusp of two critical primaries--Indiana and North Carolina--the party is riven with indecision and anxiety, as well it should be.  The fraying of the Obama image and the emergence of unsightly contradictions and unconvincing explanations, juxtaposed with the notion of another dual-Clinton presidency and the reanimation of Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, Travelgate, Filegate, and a myriad other problems, has party leaders wringing their hands.

The current received wisdom is that if Obama maintains his lead--and, perhaps, even if he doesn't--he'll get the nod.  If he doesn't, the party will implode and the black vote will be a political meltdown with lasting implications.  Concurrently, many Democratic analysts are convinced Obama can't win against McCain, that recent revelations--including his remarkably clumsy responses--will haunt him like a bad performance in a major motion picture.

All of this seems corroborated by Obama's appearance on Sunday's Meet the Press, which was an extended interview that his campaign hoped would put all doubts to rest.  Instead, and despite the fact that Russert failed to address most of the problematic revelations of the past few weeks, Obama's performance was lackluster and his explanations unpersuasive.  The lengthier his explanation, the more eager he seems to acquit himself, and that comes off as politically unsophisticated, as though he doesn't quite understand the value of complete candor--the way McCain does.

He can explain why he sat for two plus decades listening to Reverend Wright's vicious diatribes, and he can put a fine gloss on his relationships with Tony Rezko and the unrepentant terrorist, William Ayres, but it just doesn't add up. 

The reason Obama will lose in November is that he and his party have completely misappraised the American electorate.  Simply stated, the average American is slightly right of center, and the ones who are in play fit neatly into that category.  They may want change, but it's incremental change they want, not the fundamental change Obama, and, to a lesser degree, Clinton, are offering.  Indeed, polls indicating people are unhappy with the direction of the country aside, by large margins Americans say they're pleased with their individual lot in life.

It will be yet another example of the ingeniously naive way in which the left in America has misread the nation, and, with the appointment of three Supreme Court justices in the balance, the timing couldn't be better.