Now that Sen. Barack Obama has become the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for president, the media and punditocracy has focused their attention on the veepstakes. Speculation about Obama's running mate reveals an enormous deficiency in the Democrats' standard bearer. Most suggest that Obama needs someone with a military background, such as retired General Wesley Clark or Sen. James Webb to "balance the ticket."

However, it would take military men like George S. Patton or Douglas MacArthur to make up for Obama's shortcomings on national security. I find it amusing that Democrats find no hypocrisy in essentially turning over the responsibility for the country's defense to a vice president after having so loudly complained about Dick Cheney's influence in such matters over the past seven years.

Obama touts the fact that he was against the invasion of Iraq from the start. However, when Congress authorized President Bush to take military action in 2002, only the extreme left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party was opposed. Obama may claim that he was prescient about the difficulties of such an endeavor, but it was more likely that he was merely parroting the statements of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and William Ayers who see America's military as a symbol of oppression and imperialism.

In his recent role as a commencement speaker stand-in for ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy, Obama exhorted the graduating seniors to serve their country in a variety of ways and professions but failed to mention the U. S. military as an option. Obama has not once risen to the defense of America's men and women in uniform against the lies and smears coming from his Democratic Party colleagues and supporters. It took Obama nearly a year to speak out about MoveOn.org's attack ad on General David Petraeus, the architect of the stunning turnaround in Iraq. Obama has not even bothered to visit Iraq since 2006.

Obama applauded the misguided and overreaching Supreme Court decision that gave constitutional rights to foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo and diminished the power of the president during wartime. In a recent speech Obama spoke of bringing a gun to a knife fight, yet he was only talking about campaigning, not foreign policy. In the international arena, Obama has pledged to send diplomats instead of soldiers to challenge regimes seeking nuclear weapons and supporting terrorists.

While Obama tries to cast himself as the second coming of John F. Kennedy, it is important to note that the Soviet Union perceived the successor to President Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander during World War II as weak. The botched Bay of Pigs operation encouraged Soviet aggression around the world, including building of the Berlin Wall and the placement of missiles in Cuba.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama desires the presidency, but does he want to be Commander in Chief? It is clear to all that he lacks the experience to command the most envied and feared military in the history of the world, but voters should question if he has the will to do so.

What makes anyone believe that President Barack Obama would send bombers or troops to fight those he has more in common with than the bitter Americans who cling to their God and guns he swore an oath to protect?

You can read more from Jeff here.