A.C.: One of the starting guns. I think BHO fired the first gun the day of the West Virginia primary when he accused Republicans of "trickle-down prosperity." Powerful line. But yes, I think Republicans are trying to lay the foundation for the security argument: "Is a guy who just paid off his college loans a couple of years ago really ready to deal with a dangerous planet?"

J.H.: But it's a tougher line than that, right? Not just that he's too green, but that he's an appeaser, even a sympathizer, with the jihadists and the terrorists. Same deal as with McCain's hammering him for his “endorsement” by Hamas. Does this not only foreshadow a substantive thrust for the fall, but also a really harsh tone?

A.C.: I think the point is not that he sympathizes with terrorists. No one would buy that. Rather, that weakness and inexperience and naïveté produce the same results in a dangerous world — old Neville proved that. I don't think America is eager for a campaign with a harsh tone. Democrats and Republicans can see that.

J.H.: We can explore that in a bit more depth in a minute, but first let me turn to the second headline: the Edwards endorsement of Obama. Does it matter? If so, how much and why? And is there any way you could see JE ending up on the ticket with BHO?

A.C.: Edwards on the ticket? Only if the Rezko thing gets complicated and BHO needs a lawyer. Just kidding. Edwards shows up to cheer the team to victory after the game is over. A profile in courage. I would think Edwards compromises BHO's authenticity, makes the ticket look more political, and his angry populism fights BHO's optimism. Wouldn't be my first choice. So I would highly recommend Edwards as VP for BHO.

J.H.: So who would be your choice — if you were a Democrat, that is? (Dare to dream!)

A.C.: Ted Strickland. Ohio. Right state. Says working man. Malleable enough to be shaped by the Obama vision. And passes the first test of a VP choice: does no harm.

J.H.: The obvious follow-up: Why not Hillary?

A.C.: The obvious answer: She is the anti-Obama. She sound-cancels his message, like a set of Bose headphones. He is the new, transpolitical Democratic Party, or trying to be. She is very much the old political Establishment. Plus, the rule is you don't let voters take their old girlfriend with you on your honeymoon. And there is that other thing — he might win this election. Four years can be a long time.

J.H.: Let's stick with Democrats for a minute, and with HRC in particular. Three questions: (1) Do you think she would be a stronger general-election candidate than Obama? (2) Would you be advising her to stay in right now if you were, God forbid, working for her? (3) What was her biggest mistake in this campaign?

A.C.: Whoa. Lots to talk about. Okay … (1) Stronger in a different sense, yes. She's got balls bigger than church bells. Also, beating the Clintons is not something Republicans have been able to brag about. She is more competitive on the electoral map in a traditional, "three yards and a cloud of dust" campaign; she puts Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan in play better than BHO does. However, in the 40,000-feet, high-altitude, soaring, "I have a vision of a better America" campaign, a nontraditional campaign, he is stronger. He's got a passing game. (2) Absolutely. Stay in. Why not wait till June 3 and see what happens? What's she got to lose? There is nothing else she wants. (3) Biggest mistake was [Clinton’s chief strategist] Mark Penn, author of the book Micro-Trends. He is a micro-thinker. In his book, he says there is no single America, just hundreds of little micro-slices. His strategy, if you can call it that, was to win a couple of slices, women and Hispanics — i.e., he had no big-picture strategy or message. Exit polls say Obama voters support him 80 percent because he is one thing: change. Hillary voters support her because she is change, experience, cares about people … all over the map. How you can run for president of a country you don't believe exists? If you look at the forest and only see the trees, you have a strategy problem.

J.H.: I can't resist following up on (1). I remember vividly drinking with you one night and listening to you talk about HRC’s balls — a memory that came back in a rush when steelworkers'-union president Paul Gipson said before Indiana–North Carolina that she had "testicular fortitude." You were arguing that night that HRC and BHO represented a strange inversion: She is the daddy bear, he is the momma bear. Do you think Obama needs to do more in the fall to show that he has cojones? And if so, what would you suggest?

A.C.: Perhaps we are getting a tad graphic for your kinder, gentler readers. A Clinton-versus-McCain race would be strength versus strength. An Obama-versus-McCain race would be change versus strength. Yes, BHO is going to need a few Sister Souljah moments. To demonstrate strength, he will need to stand up and speak truth to power, poke his finger in the Democratic Establishment's eye. Example: Marion Barry, D.C.'s former crack mayor, is now supporting vouchers for D.C. schoolchildren, in opposition to education unions and much of the Dem Party Establishment. Obama should join him. The Dem Establishment better start looking around to see which one of them he's going to throw under the bus as soon as the Denver convention is over and he takes the bus out of town.

J.H.: Our readers are anything but kinder, gentler (at least judging by the e-mail they send me), but we appreciate your concern. You mentioned the experience argument against BHO earlier. Do you think that's his greatest general-election vulnerability, even in a "year of change"? Or is it something else?

A.C.: Experience is an element of it. Perhaps a better word is risk. These are uncertain times. The law of the car keys: Before I give you my car keys, I not only want to know where you promise to take me, but can you deliver? Can I trust you to take me there? It is a big job. You have to be ready in a lot of ways. And there is one more thing. BHO says change begins from the bottom up. And he's brought that to politics. Good for him. "We are the change we have been waiting for." About that, he's exactly right. Now will he bring that same commitment to change the old, top-down, "we know what's best for you," industrial-age government in Washington? Can he shake loose of the old Dem Party power structure sufficiently? Does he want to? Is he too liberal to try? He hasn't yet. If he doesn't, he's not real change. He's just more of the same.

J.H.: Okay, a final Obama question before we turn to your party's guy. You've been involved in a few racially charged campaigns — the Helms-Gantt North Carolina Senate contest in 1990 comes to mind. Do you think Obama has put Jeremiah Wright behind him? Or do you think the reverend will be a salient issue in the fall — something that Republicans will capitalize on in the way that many hope or fear?

A.C.: According to exit polls in West Virginia, when asked if Obama shared the views of Reverend Wright, 65 percent of Clinton voters said yes. That ball is in Obama's court. He has yet to define his own values and view of America. By the time we get to the general, you are going to see a much more Reagan-like "American Optimist" Obama, as we did in the beginning of this campaign. He'll be talking about faith, family, and wearing four flag lapel pins.

J.H.: Fair enough, but it kind of elides the question. To what extent do you think the GOP (and/or its allies among the independent-expenditure 527 committees) will thrust Wright into the middle of the campaign, regardless of how much Obama does to try and take the patriotism question off the table?

A.C.: Senator McCain has said he won’t. I believe him. And that's the right thing to do. That issue has already been more than sufficiently litigated by HRC and the news media in their noble efforts to educate the American public. What is there left to say? You would have to be hiding under a pretty big rock not to have heard about where BHO went to church for twenty years. He has said those are not his beliefs — but not sufficiently defined what his beliefs are. I'm sure he will. Will some 527s take a whack at it? I'm sure they will because they can raise money doing so. So they will raise the issue like HRC did. It will whip the news media up into a froth, but be irrelevant to the campaign.

J.H.: "Noble efforts" of the media — you are one funny dude!

A.C.: Take my candidate, please!

J.H.: Speaking of whom, let’s turn to McCain. If this is a "change election," as we are constantly told it is, how does your guy deal with that? How does McCain leverage his undeniable experience in an atmosphere where other virtues/selling points are valued far more highly?

A.C.: McCain benefits from his legacy as a maverick. He is change. These guys are running for president. The test this election is, are you going to change WASHINGTON? McCain is accurately perceived as a guy who has fought the Washington Establishment tooth and toenail. In the marketing world, we would call McCain a transformational brand. Obama has made a powerful case for change … in politics. But is he actually talking about changing Washington? Will the Dem Party let him do that? Do they want to? If he doesn't propose bringing real change to Washington, i.e., taking money out of that industrial-age place and governing bottom up, then BHO is just “trickle-down government,” more of the same.

J.H.: So you believe that Democrats won't be able to rebrand McCain as a Bush clone, as they plainly plan to do — and in which cause they have some evidence to work with?

A.C.: I worry they will be able to do that. BHO may have half a billion dollars to work with. Plus the undying love of a great portion of the Fourth Estate. He doesn't have to win that argument, he may only need to raise the noise level sufficiently so that McCain is on defense and can't get his message through. Then the Democrat's advantage on the generic ballot kicks in, America preferring Dems to Republicans in this election by a dozen points. Ouch. That could hurt.

J.H.: Glad you brought up the money …

A.C.: I'm a media guy. We think about that occasionally.

J.H.: Yeah, the implications of Obama having four or five times as much dough as McCain are pretty daunting for your guy. If the Dems decide to spend millions in states that McCain has to win — Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, etc. — forcing him to spend scarce resources just to hold them … hoo boy. That’s an ugly picture for the GOP.

A.C.: Yes, I think most Republicans have noticed that. Obama can spread out the field. It is an undeniable advantage. So it’s up to Republicans to compete. Nobody said this had to be fair.

J.H.: What does McCain do about the age issue?

A.C.: It is a real problem. I don't know how Obama is going to explain his youth and inexperience.

J.H.: Again with the comedy. If I got you good and drunk and asked whether there was any way an incumbent party could hold the White House in the face of right track/wrong track numbers that could be 10-90 by the time of the election, could you honestly say — in absence of calamity, act of God, etc. — that the answer was yes?

A.C.: I didn't say it was going to be easy. And if you had asked me a few months ago if McCain was going to be the Republican nominee, I would have said the same thing!

J.H.: Who should McCain pick as his VP — if he decides not to pick your former client Mitt Romney, that is?

A.C.: I believe John McCain disagrees with George Bush on many things but respects him greatly for this: He's stood alone when necessary and kept the country safe. McCain himself has stood alone, when it has counted, to do the same and ensure the right outcome in Iraq. I cannot imagine he would pick a VP who could not, in his eyes, pass that test of strength. My pick: John Thune [the Republican senator from South Dakota]. But who knows? That's the fun of the NFL draft!

J.H.: Care to give candid odds on McCain pulling this thing off?

A.C.: Advantage Obama, 60-40. But I've been in campaigns that have won with a lot worse odds than that.

Related: John McCain Knows There's a War On, But Does He Know Which One? [NYM]

For a complete and regularly updated guide to presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain — from First Love to Most Embarrassing Gaffe — read the 2008 Electopedia.