With strong political cross currents working against Republican presidential candidate John McCain, and with Senator Obama cast as the 'transformational candidate,' the Illinois senator should be coasting to an easy victory.  The problem is that the headwinds of the Iraq war, the economy, and the housing and financial 'crises,' are issues that have been whipped into an emotional froth by the media, and forced to remain on stage far longer than productive for Democrats.

Americans have always been ambivalent about war because of the huge costs in blood and treasure.  But once we've engaged the enemy, with the notable exception of Vietnam, we've fought to victory.  That's largely a matter of political momentum, abetted by national pride, both of which are playing against Senator McCain.  That stated, by the same margin, Americans who say they want us out of Iraq, understand we must stay if leaving means a regional implosion.

Although President Bush is a lame duck, he's vowed to veto the politically motivated legislation that Congress will vote on today, to 'rescue' the housing markets.  For all his ill-advised tinkering with markets, Mr. Bush apparently understands that the housing market has already begun a broad correction, and the same goes for the economy and our financial markets, all well before the 'stimulus' checks were delivered.

Add to this mix the fact that Obama has obliged both Clinton and McCain by repeatedly proving he's a political novice, not to mention the glimpses we're getting of his wife, Michelle's remarkably divisive rants, and you have a formula for yet another Republican victory in November.

What's lacking in both Obama and Clinton is the kind of 'new Democrat' platform that President Clinton ran on.  Both these candidates have pledged higher corporate taxes, with Clinton vowing to "take" the profits from the oil companies, and oil company executives have responded by saying they'll have to dramatically reduce research and development:  Do Obama and Clinton think that will reduce our price at the pump?

In the arena of health care, they've pledged some version of a government sponsored program, which is a slow march towards European style socialist models, which can only drive up costs and inhibit access.  On social issues, both candidates are avowed supporters of partial birth abortion, which former Democratic intellectual heavy weight, Senator Patrick Moynihan correctly described as "infanticide."  Moreover, both have an elitist's understanding of the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't advance the ball beyond Senator Kerry's laughable duck hunting photo-op.

The list is endless, but it highlights the central facts in this election:  The left has two candidates who are mired in the old-style Democratic policies of race and gender, which oppose free markets that, as Jack Kennedy said, "raise all boats," are skittish about a robust military, and are convinced that interminable diplomacy is the best antidote for the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad.

These are battles Republicans will be glad to join.

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?