Presidential Prediction, Take I

I'd like to preface everything I'm about to say by stating that I think all remaining candidates (except Ron Paul) are exactly the same. The policies, voting records, etc. of Obama, McCain, and Clinton are virtually identical, with the exception of health care. Basically, this fall we have a choice between more war and some brand of socialized medicine or just more war.

That said, on the heels of Admiral Fallon's "resignation" from Central Command, I'm inclined to agree with the talking heads and various online news sources that this story carries with it larger implications for the general election next fall.

Many, many, many outlets are pointing to Fallon's well-documented disagreements with the Bush Administration and their officials (he once called General Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit") as evidence that America is heading towards armed conflict with Iran. According to them, Fallon served as the last vocal opponent to further American aggression in the region.

If the above is true, and we are indeed headed for some form of conflict with Iran, then I've got to believe that American voters will respond accordingly. Whatever issues so-called conservatives have with McCain will be brushed aside, especially if Bush attacks Iran before the end of his term. The promise of new conflict brings with it the the fear of those big, bad terrorists hiding under your bed (they took over for those commies during the cold war) will get you if you don't cast your ballot for someone with foreign policy experience, whatever that means.

By contrast, the Democrats can only counter with Clinton. Although she's no "war hero" as is the case with McCain, she did vote in favor of the Iraq war and has voted in favor of funding until last year. I'm inclined to believe Clinton's (and Obama's) vote against funding the war in 2007 is more of a political stunt than rooted in conviction. There's no way either Clinton or Obama truly oppose the war...both are polished, experienced politicians who have played their cards brilliantly in order to capture the anti-war vote.

So, in a nutshell, here's my prediction:

1. If we attack Iran before the end of the Bush's term, or there's significant risk of war, McCain wins.
2. If the risk of war is not significant enough, Clinton wins.

Obama is out. His perceived anti-war stance (although not genuine in my judgment) is enough for the Republicans (and moderates) to paint him as too weak on foreign policy to risk placing in the White House for four years, especially given the "instability" in the Middle East. The anti-war movement is not strong enough to sway the general election, especially because it has thumbed its collective nose at the only non-interventionist in the race. Anti-war voters will vote for Obama regardless, but it will not be enough. Besides, given his age, there's plenty of time for Obama to change and re-change his position on war...if you believe he's wavered at all, that is. He can start by actually voting in the Senate instead of marking "NV" as often as he does.

Of course, my track record of predictions is abysmal at best. If all the candidates are the same, as I believe, then it really doesn't matter who wins. But still, I can't resist the temptation to pick the winner.