Last night, M. Simon touched on an important theme in American politics when he opined that Barack Obama,

has come off as weak. And as I pointed out in Midway for Obama, Americans do not elect weaklings to office.

Most Americans grasp intuitively that like any bully, our terrorist enemies understand -- and fear -- one thing: STRENGTH. Weakness, OTOH, emboldens them, and they have nothing but contempt for those perceived as weak. (Hence the series of attacks through the late 1990s.)

What that means is that voters who are concerned for the security of this country can be expected to look at which candidate is the stronger, and which is the weaker. I think it's fair to say that in this race, the contrast is so shockingly apparent that anyone can see it -- even a leftist.

No wonder the left is so furious. It's as if (in psychological terms) they hope their anger will become a form of strength. But I don't think it will, and not just because they're supposed to be keeping their angry leftist wrath in the closet until after the election, but because leftist "strength" is based on intimidation tactics, and most people (especially ordinary voters) see intimidation as a bullying tactic. Bullies may seem strong, but their strength tends to limit itself to targeting people weaker than themselves, or who for whatever reason find it expedient (or, in the case of large companies and boards, not cost effective) to cave, or simply not stand up to them.

When a strong person stands up to them, they'll find another target -- in much the same way that a burglar who knows a homeowner is armed because of an NRA sticker (or, a United States Marine Corps sticker) on the door would do well to choose the house with the peace symbol instead. (Similarly, a home with no dog is more likely to be hit than a home with a dog, and a home with a larger, tougher dog is less likely to be hit than a home guarded by a teacup poodle.)

But what about Obama's ties to Communists like Frank Marshall Davis and Communist terrorist Bill Ayers? They're strong, aren't they? In terms of signs, isn't that more like having a hammer and sickle on your door than a peace symbol? If you were a burglar, which house would you target? The peace symbol house or the commie hammer-and-sickle house?

I think most rational burglars would target the peace symbol house. Which may be why when push comes to shove, pacifists like to have the hard left behind them. (They may deny it, but their commie compatriots offer them at least an appearance of the strength they lack.)

They can pretend that it's all about peace, but it's really all about fear.

However, if the choice is between the hammer and sickle and the NRA/USMC sticker(s), I think most burglars would choose to invade the former instead of the latter, because in spite of the "sign" of strength, they're still less likely to be armed. (And less likely to know how to shoot.)

It's all hypothetical, but that's what I think.

It's 3 a.m. You're the burglar. You decide.

MORE: Error corrected with thanks to Stewart's comment below.