Yet, I can’t help but feel sorry for Hillary at this point. You read that right, folks. I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. And, surprisingly, the straitjacket is very comfortable. And the men in the nice white coats bring me all sorts of wonderful drugs!

Seriously, I’m wincing as each new story about Hillary and her campaign comes out because it’s becoming clear that her campaign is the worst one a Democratic candidate has ever run without hiring Bob Shrum. Overspending, bad post-Super Tuesday strategy, awkward lines about “35 years of experience” and “change you can Xerox,” and Bill’s ill-advised and ham-handed forays into racial politics notwithstanding, Hillary seems to have counted on being granted the Democratic nomination by virtue of…well, being Hillary.

Part of this expectation stems from the fact Hillary has never had to run a campaign in a competitive race until now. In 2000, her chief competition, Rudy Giuliani, dropped out due to cancer, leaving Rick Lazio to pick up the pieces, but not the Senate seat. Then in 2006, the Republican who ran against Hillary had less of a chance than John McCain does of being caught in a sex scandal. Okay, bad example, but Hillary has been pretty much untouchable in her Senate races. Now, with Barack Obama making waves like Michael Moore doing a cannonball into the ocean, Hillary’s finding out the hard way that she’s not nearly as untouchable as she has been.

Perpetuating this problem has been the people Hillary’s campaign has been hiring. Get this. Democratic media consultant Mark Penn has already received $3.8 million from the Clinton campaign…and is owed even more. And when you consider over the stretch of the past 11 caucuses and primaries as of the date of this writing that I’ve tied Hillary without spending a dime, we can see how well that money’s been spent. Combine with this the legion of yes-men surrounding Hillary, but not really offering sound advice, and you have a candidate dangerously disconnected with the American people and reality. And when you consider the Democrats ran Al Gore and John Kerry, that’s saying something.

At this point, it looks like there are more people looking to make as much money off the Hillary campaign while it’s still viable than there are people willing to help it success. And, yes, that includes Bill. For 8 years, Bill was the center of the political universe as President, and he’s never let that go. So, when Hillary started her campaign, it was his chance to get out in front of the people and press the flesh. And he was meeting people, too! Seriously, though, Bill was brought on to try to rekindle the Clinton magic and have it rub off on Hillary. (Is it just me, or does just about every phrase imaginable turn into a sexual innuendo when you talk about Bill Clinton?) As it turns out, even Bill had ulterior motives when stumping for his wife, namely to get himself back in front of people who love him. And to score with women, and not in the political sense, if you know what I mean.

This is why I feel sorry for Hillary. In spite of everything she’s pulled, lied about, lashed out at, and hid from, she’s still human. Or at least, I think she’s human. I mean, I haven’t done DNA testing on her to be certain, but I’m making a reasonable guess here.

In Greek tragedies, the protagonists always had a fatal flaw that would eventually come back to bite them in the back side. In this case, Hillary’s Achilles’ Heel was the fact that she made Howard Hughes look gregarious while on the campaign trail. We never really got to see the “real” her. Granted, that’s like wanting to see Pamela Anderson’s real breasts, but it’s still pretty important. Voters need to feel a connection to a candidate for them to truly get behind them. With some voting blocs, she had that connection, but not because of anything she did. Rather, it was because of identity politics or the prospect of getting Bill back in the White House to stick it to the Republicans. That sort of support proves to be a mile long, but only as deep as the memoirs of Hillary supporter and former porn actress Jenna Jameson.

But before you think I’ve gone completely soft here, I have to say that I don’t completely feel sorry for Hillary. The reason is that each and every one of these mistakes Hillary and her campaign have made is a choice. Hillary’s campaign is choosing to spend a million dollars a month on bad advice. The campaign chose to believe the nomination would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. The campaign chose to spend all sorts of money to make Hillary look Presidential in the early states, which is leaving her short of money now. But instead of learning from the mistakes, she continues to make them. That’s the sign of someone not ready to be President.

Let me leave you with a final joke. What’s the difference between Hillary’s campaign and the Titanic? The music was better on the Titanic.

I was thinking about this recently when pondering over why people saw Hillary Clinton and John McCain as the frontrunners for their respective party’s nominations. (Okay, so it was more like yelling and cursing than actual pondering, but you get the idea.) Neither one has the ideological stuff to be considered a true Democrat or a true Republican. So, why would these two non-traditional politicians be so popular with the traditionalists in their respective parties?

We’ve become Bizarro World.

Let’s start with Hillary Clinton. She’s voted in favor of the Iraq War (even though she’s come out later and said she’s against it now, kinda-sorta), which doesn’t put her on Cindy Sheehan’s Christmas card list. She’s in favor of at least some tax relief for middle and lower class people. She’s a feminist icon who has let her husband, Bill, walk all over her and has kowtowed to the traditionalists who want her to be more ladylike. By all standards, Hillary Clinton should be falling so far behind in the polls that Dennis Kucinich would look like William the Conqueror.

John McCain isn’t much better. He’s voted against the Bush tax cuts. He’s called for closing down Gitmo. He’s supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In fact, on just about every “conservative” issue, McCain’s been on the other side with the mathematical certainty only equaled by the likelihood that at some point during the day Ted Kennedy will be drunk. Look up the definition of RINO (Republican In Name Only) in the dictionary, and you’ll find McCain’s picture.

None of this explains the “why,” though. Personally, I think it has everything to do with the make-up of American society right now. To say Americans are indecisive and intellectually inconsistent is like saying the Miami Dolphins had a bit of a slump this season.

To that end, Hillary Clinton and John McCain represent the kind of Democrat and Republican many Americans want them to be. Instead of having strong convictions that won’t be compromised except under the most extreme of circumstances, they’re both squishy and will let circumstance dictate their positions. And if our convictions are anything like our waistlines, we’re not much better. Most of us know deep down inside that we’re walking contradictions at best, so in our minds, by not demanding more of our political leaders, we’re protecting ourselves.

But that kind of protection has a price. (Usually, it’s somewhere around $49.95.) By not dealing with the reality of a situation, we risk inventing a false reality that prevents us from taking the action we need to take to remain safe. It’s like those anti-bacterial hand lotions that people use. We think we’re protecting ourselves against illness when, in fact, we may be hurting ourselves by killing off the “good bacteria” in and on our bodies. Then, when a flu bug that your body isn’t ready for hits you, all the anti-bacterial lotion in an obsessive-compulsive’s medicine cabinet won’t help you.

Now, apply this to the Presidency. A wishy-washing, indecisive, contradictory leader can be considered popular and competent if we’re all holding him or her to standards so low an ant could limbo under it. But if there’s a major crisis, like…oh I don’t know…Imadinnerjacket deciding to nuke Seattle just to prove he doesn’t have nuclear weapons, those qualities we liked about the leader become hindrances. And nothing will make your approval numbers sink more than watching a major American city known for grunge music, professional sports teams who choke like Mama Cass around ham sandwiches, and Starbucks be turned into a Grande Nucleo-Latte.

At times like these, we need strong leaders. The economy is shaky, terrorists still want to kill us for being Americans, and somewhere down the road, Jennifer Lopez will put out another CD. Who do we want to lead us through these times: someone who has an internal GPS formed by principle, strength, and moral courage, or someone whose principles, strength, and moral courage is tested by that age-old question “paper or plastic”? I can’t speak for you (mainly because I don’t know what all of you sound like), but I’m going to go with the first option. I may not agree with where we’re going, but at least I know there’s a map being used so I can get the heck back to where I started from.

With people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton, you’re lucky if they can lead you across the street to a neighbor’s house without heading through Nebraska, Timbuktu, and every Shoney’s east of the Mississippi. Although I do have to say Shoney’s has a pretty good breakfast buffet, so it might not turn out to be completely bad after all.

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.

For the people who believe CNN is the epitome of fine political reporting and analysis, that was sarcasm.

Is it just me, or have the media done a horrible job covering this election? Reading the online newspapers and magazines and watching the cable news coverage has been more painful than watching any of the recent “American Pie” sequels, but with many more exposed boobs. I know journalistic standards have declined in recent years, but there’s a big difference between declining and devolving. And from where I sit, the New York Times is only a couple steps up from the Weekly World News as far as
journalistic quality.

Part of the reason is what the media do every time there’s a national election. In order to generate interest in the coverage, the media love to set up a horse race mentality. Which candidate is ahead? Which candidate is starting to fall back? Which candidate will be turned into glue at the end of the election?

Take the recent coverage of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, for example. After coming in third in Iowa, reporters were wondering if Hillary would keep going. Likewise, after a first place finish in Wyoming and two second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, these same reporters said Romney had to win Michigan or else he’d drop out. And in both cases, the talking heads and political experts nodded in complete agreement. One tiny problem, though: Both Clinton and Romney were leading in the
delegate count when the “experts” were saying Clinton and Romney were done! That’s like calling for a retreat when you outnumber the opposing army 1000 to 1. Then again, that’s the way the French Army does business…

Another reason for the bad media coverage of the election so far is because of the nature of the business itself. Being in the media, even as a special correspondent, can be highly competitive and bitter. It’s like divorce court except that the people who don’t get on camera don’t have to give up half their stuff to the one who does. Once one gets “discovered” as a reliable source of information, it gets frightfully easy to create a psychological echo chamber where they stroke their egos like
Pee Wee Herman at a double feature. And with analogies like that, it’s no wonder I don’t have a problem with people asking me to appear on camera for political analysis segments.

The other reason I can think of for the declining media coverage is us. Most Americans today don’t want to take the time to stay on top of the political ins-and-outs because we have more important things to do, like being entertained. I’m surprised we haven’t seen the following exchange on a cable news network:

ANCHOR: Welcome to CNN’s coverage of Election 2008. I’m Antonio Cabrera, one of the top 16 finalists on the fourth season of “American Idol.” Tonight, we’ll be discussing the candidates’ plans for illegal immigration, but first let’s go over to Carmen Electra, who will give us the latest poll numbers. Carmen?

CARMEN: Thank you, Antonio. We talked to a bunch of people and of those people surveyed, Mitt Romney still leads the rest of the candidates in the “Candidate I’d Most Like To Have a Three-Way With.” Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go visit my new boyfriend, Thomas Lindaman, so I can strip and sexually pleasure him for a week.

Okay, so I made that last part up. Sue me.

The Founding Fathers intended for our government to be interactive, which means we have to do our homework. Relying on the media right now to do our homework for us is like cribbing off the dumbest kid in the class: you may get the occasional correct answer, but it will be completely by accident if you do. Most likely, the media won’t get any better at reporting and analysis because they have no desire to get better, so it’s up to us to get smarter about the process. I know it can be boring,
but it’s what we need to do.

At least until the new season of “Survivor” starts. Then, all bets are off.

Yet, to hear some people out there, the Iowa Caucuses are some sort of monstrosity that threatens the fabric of our democracy. (Of course, if we had a democracy, we might have a reason to be worried.) People from California to Florida, New York to Los Angeles, have questioned why Iowa gets to go first in the nation and have had some not-so-nice things to say about the Hawkeye State in the process. Californians have even said that they should go first in the nation because of their size and, thus, political significance. Since Californians are the ones complaining the most about the Iowa Caucuses, the majority of this column will address their complaints about them.

One of the major complaints from politically minded Californians is that Iowa doesn’t represent the racial diversity of the nation. To them, Iowa is predominantly white, culturally homogeneous, and out of touch with the rest of the country. That’s as may be, but those same descriptors could be used to talk about another part of the country, one that’s equally white, homogeneous, and out of touch.

That’s right. I’m talking about Beverly Hills.

Furthermore, since when is a state’s caucus or primary required to reflect the racial and cultural diversity of the country? Race and culture play some role, but the larger role will be played by political ideology. For example, right around Berkeley, I’m pretty sure there’s a greater than average concentration of white kids who think socialism is the best socio-economic system out there (so long as Mommy and Daddy keep sending the tuition checks). Applying California’s exclusionary mindset in this case, the entire city of Berkeley, California, could be discounted from the California primaries because it doesn’t reflect the ideological leanings of this country. Then again, I’m thinking the California Republican Party wouldn’t have any complaints about that.

Another common complaint is that it’s not fair that a small state like Iowa has so much power over the process because many campaigns shut down if they don’t fare well in Iowa. The argument here is that Californians go so late in the primary season that they don’t get the same choices Iowans get, so in order to be fair in their minds, they should go first so Californians would have a wider field from which to choose. With this election, though, I’m thinking it’s like choosing between a dog poop sandwich and a bear poop sandwich.

The main argument against this notion is campaign cash. Say Hillary Clinton wants to run a 30-second television spot in Sacramento, the capitol of California. It’s going to cost more to run the ad in Sacramento than it will in Des Moines, the capitol of Iowa, because Sacramento is so much bigger. Same thing with radio and print ads and mass mailings. In short, if California were to go first, it would cost campaigns more to accomplish the necessary tasks to run for President. Some smaller, lesser-funded campaigns would either skip California altogether or fold up shop because they couldn’t spend the money to be competitive, which means…Californians would pretty much get the same choices than if those candidates dropped out after the Iowa Caucuses.

The other knock against this argument is political. You have to wonder if the Californians complaining about the potential field of candidates being whittled down after the Iowa Caucuses support second and third tier candidates. If you do, God bless ya. If not, you’re a flaming hypocrite (or you will be if you spontaneously combust). Supporting the candidacy of someone like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel to participate in California’s primaries without giving them your financial or volunteer support is like a doctor saying he can remove the tumor from your brain, but he’ll have to cut off both legs to do it. But as Governor Schwarzenegger might opine in this case, “It is naht a toomah!” (One hundred Bottom Line points if you got that joke. Two hundred if you got that joke and are ashamed to admit it.)

Personally, I think the main reason some Californians have a problem with the Iowa Caucuses being first in the nation is because of ego. Some online commentators have said Iowa should “get over themselves” and let someone else go first for a change. The problem with that view is that Iowans by nature aren’t egotistical. We get the job done without a lot of fanfare and then move on to the next job. Granted, not all of California is the Bizarro version of Iowa, but when you consider that the entertainment industry, an industry notorious for having so many ego trips it gets frequent flyer miles, is based in California…let’s just say that Californians should be the last ones to tell Iowans to “get over themselves.”

Simply put, the bulk of the arguments some Californians have made against the Iowa Caucuses being first in the nation are bogus. Granted, it’s only a minority of Californians who are making the waves in the first place. Most of the rest of them are just surfing on them. So, for now, let’s just leave the Iowa Caucuses as first in the nation. It’s not going to hurt anything if we do. Besides, after California gave the nation Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein, I think they owe us big time.

New Media Alliance Television (www.nmatv.com)

New Media Alliance Blogs (www.thenma.org/blogs)

www.therealitycheck.org

In looking over the current crop of candidates for President, I noticed there was a lot of work to be done. And considering I was named one of Barbara Walters’s 10 least interesting people of 2007, I know a thing or two about image. So, I’m offering some of the candidates all the help I can give them to help them stand out from the rest of the pack.

Hillary Clinton: Let’s face it, Hill, you have a bad public image. Your biggest problems are that you are seen as indecisive, dishonest, and distant. Although this makes you perfect for the U. S. Senate, these will kill you on the campaign trail. To help you, I’ve come up with a political ad to turn those negatives into positives. Picture if you will a series of pictures of people looking confused. Then, an announcer says, “Confused about how to vote this year?” Then, the scene flashes to a still picture of you smiling. The announcer continues, “So is she.” The finale: “Hillary Clinton: Just like you.”

Barack Obama: A Los Angeles Times columnist called you “Barack the Magic Negro” a couple of months ago to deride you. If that isn’t an excuse to start doing magic tricks while giving your stump speech, I don’t know what is! Imagine the cheers and gasps from the crowd as you sawed a lovely female assistant in half while talking about what cuts you would make to the federal deficit. I’m telling ya, the people would be eating right out of your hand!

John Edwards: This one’s going to be tough. How can you make a trial lawyer with the smarmy charm of a used car salesman attractive? Start touring again with John Kerry. Let him warm up the crowd by giving a 10-15 minute dissertation on voter fraud in 2004 and throw in a number of references to his being in Vietnam and the people will be begging for you to come on and speak to them. To paraphrase something your hairdressers have seen on shampoo bottles, you could call it the “Blather, Wince, Repeat” strategy.

Mitt Romney: Sure, you seem like you have everything under control, but even you could do with an image makeover. Pundits have compared you to a Ken doll, and it’s not hard to see why. If Ken didn’t love his Starbucks in the morning, he could pass for you. But therein lies the way to remake your image. You need to separate yourself from your plastic counterpart, and I have the way to do it. Your new slogan: “Mitt Romney: Ready to Lead AND Anatomically Correct!”

Rudy Giuliani: Marital infidelity. Multiple scandals while in office. Social liberalism. Not exactly the best trifecta to have for a Republican candidate to have, but we can turn those negatives into positives by playing up the comparison to Bill Clinton. Imagine the slogan “If you liked Bill Clinton, you’ll love Rudy Giuliani” on a billboard. Heck, play up the comparison and come on stage with a cigar and an intern wearing a beret and a blue dress. And the Clintonites can’t say a thing about it, which makes you pretty much unstoppable in the general election.

Mike Huckabee: Dude, just because you’re in the same family doesn’t mean you have to wear matching clothes for a family picture. Drop out of politics and open up a national chain of TGIFriday’s-style restaurants called Huckabee’s. Oh, and if you stay in politics and someone asks you about the son who was fired by the Boy Scouts for choking a dog, tell them you were going for the Michael Vick endorsement.

Fred Thompson: Your image is perfect the way it is. Now would you quit glaring at me like you’re going to punch me???

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich: You may be wondering why I put you two together, considering you’re at opposite sides of the political divide. My plan for you both is to join forces and tour the country together. You’re practically photo negatives of each other as it is, so why not combine forces? And the upside is that collectively you’ll be able to break 0.0000000000001% in the polls! Talk about a surge!

Although many “image consultants” charge tons of money to help the rich and famous, I won’t charge you candidates a dime. And after reviewing my suggestions, you might still complain about paying too much.

A couple of local news stories about the holiday season caught my eye recently. One involved shoppers who made their way to the local temple to needless avarice with a food court (more commonly called “the mall”) at midnight the day after Thanksgiving to start their holiday shopping. The other story dealt with a woman who had expensive holiday decorations in her yard demolished by unknown assailants. In both cases, the media treated the mad holiday buying rush and the putting up of holiday decorations that cost more than the Gross National Product of Paraguay to put up and run as “the holiday spirit.”

As you might have figured out by now, my annual call for holiday season sanity is directed at the media. What you guys and gals have been pushing as “the holiday spirit” is anything but. In fact, aside from “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” you’d be hard-pressed to find anything that comes close to addressing the true holiday spirit. No, not even the “very special episode” of “Two And A Half Men” where Charlie Sheen’s character learns the true meaning of Christmas from three scantily clad Playboy Playmates representing the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future. Either that or the Ghosts of Blondes Past, Brunettes Present, and Redheads Future, I’m not sure which. But I do see Charlie’s incredible wit as he delivers his next line, “Ho ho ho.”

The same media that give us “A Charlie Brown Christmas” are the ones who have sold us on an impossible ideal: finding “the perfect gift.” This reduces the holiday season to an odd game show combining “Survivor” with “Supermarket Sweep” and more than a bit of “American Gladiators” mixed in for good measure. (Say, that would be a good idea for a show! Glad I thought of it!)

And here’s the funny part: you can never buy the perfect gift, EVER! As a Christian, my “perfect gift” gets delivered right around Easter when I remember that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive my sins. When was the last time a PlayStation 3 did that for anybody? Never! And do you know why? Because it’s an inanimate object, silly!

Another recent phenomenon created by the media to try to tap into “the holiday spirit” is the 24-hour-a-day-holiday favorites format adopted by some radio stations starting in, oh, November. Granted, with some radio station formats, this might work. If you’re a heavy metal station that plays Metallica? Not so much. It’s quite a shift from “Enter Sandman” to “Here Comes Santa Claus” done by the Ray Coniff Singers. But again, the media don’t get it. I like holiday music as much as the next guy, but I don’t need to be hearing it all day every day until Christmas. Throw in “White Christmas” between spins of Madonna’s “Borderline” and Sheryl Crow’s “All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun” and you’ll keep me listening without looking for the closest garland with which to hang myself.

I’ve spent a lot of time talking about what doesn’t constitute the holiday spirit, so let me take a moment or two to tell you what does, in my opinion. It’s the laughter of children playing in the snow, having the times of their lives. It’s the small child trying to wait up for Santa to arrive and falling asleep in his mother or father’s arms. It’s a feeling of joy as you sing holiday songs, religious or otherwise, and enjoy the company of those around you. It’s being with family and friends to share best wishes. It’s the sense of peace as we take a moment to count our blessings.

See? Not a one of those has to do with buying something or showing off decorations. These activities can be part of the holiday spirit, but they shouldn’t supplant it. At the end of the day, anything you buy will wear out or break, but the memories you make right now are what will last for a lifetime. And real life has much better graphics…so I’ve heard.

So, if there are any media moguls or big shot producers reading this, let me be blunt. You guys don’t get the holiday spirit because you’re focusing on the wrong things. Showing shoppers running into a mall at midnight or suggesting that people need to go all out with holiday decorations to get into the holiday spirit is misleading, much like positive reviews for any Jennifer Lopez movie. I don’t expect you to change overnight, but I would like you to try to change. If Bill Murray can do it in “Scrooged,” you guys can.

www.thenma.org/blogs
www.nmatv.com
www.therealitycheck.org

Seriously, who gives a flying handshake about Hillary planting questions in the audience? At the risk of sounding like a teenager getting caught doing something I shouldn’t be, everybody or just about everybody does it. George W. Bush has done it. FEMA did it not too long ago. And Hillary’s done it since she announced she was running for Senate in 2000. It’s no big deal. And for the record, no, I wouldn’t jump off the side of a cliff just because everybody was doing it.

There are three reasons politicians are planting people and questions at campaign stops. One, it makes them look far more intelligent on issues. Two, it helps them craft an overall message for each stop and make it look like it just happened to be that way. And three, it cuts down on the likelihood that they’ll be surprised by…an honest question! Ultimately, each reason revolves around the politicians’ ego, which they prize more heavily than Gollum treasured Frodo’s ring from “The Lord of the Rings.” And while we’re on the subject, doesn’t Dennis Kucinich kinda look like Gollum? I’m just sayin’…

Politicians today think they have to try to be all things to all possible voters, especially when those politicians are leading in the polls. Hillary Clinton’s doing this as we speak, meeting average people and trying to convince them that her fake sincerity is genuine. I’ve seen Hillary on video at some of these events and she gives off a vibe like she would rather be on “The O’Reilly Factor” answering questions from Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, and Ken Starr than shaking hands and kissing babies. And when you’re running for President, you really shouldn’t be trying to make voters dislike you. Look at what it did to Al Gore and John Kerry.

For the Republicans, Mitt Romney is just as slick. He has all the things Republicans look for these days: conservative bonafides, good looking, good looking family, articulate, smart, religious, and on the right side of important issues like illegal immigration and the war in Iraq. He’s good…maybe a little too good. He reminds me a little of Bill Clinton in that he has the right combination of good looks, seemingly sound policies, and charm to go far in politics. But unlike the former President, Romney seems to be able to keep his pants on around the steno pool.

The funny thing is that most voters today don’t expect our politicians to be perfect. We want somebody who knows what he or she is doing or at least appears to know what he or she is doing. We see politics the same way people see making hot dogs: we don’t need to know how they’re made, so long as they cook up nice, big, and juicy on the grill. Most politicians have completely misread the tea leaves on what voters want out of a candidate. We don’t want you to run for God; we want you to run to be the leader of one nation under God. Besides, the position of God has already been filled by George Burns.

Right now, there are three candidates who I feel are genuine (which means they probably won’t get their respective party’s nomination) and they are Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. Each man speaks to what make this country great, and even though I don’t agree with all of their positions, I walk away from hearing them thinking, “There’s a man who I could vote for.” Then I think, “Why don’t the other candidates pick up on what these guys are doing and start being more open and honest with us?” Then I think, “You know, a burger sounds pretty good right about now.” Then, I go off to get a burger and forget why I was thinking about politics in the first place.

So, I urge Mitt, Hillary, and the rest of the disingenuous cavalcade of politicians to drop the act and be straight with us. We don’t expect you to know all the answers, but we do expect you to know where to find them if you don’t know. In the end, that’s really what matters. We don’t expect you to be perfect, just good enough. And given that we let Bill Clinton lead us for 8 years and came within a few hanging chads of electing Al Gore President, that bar is set pretty low.

New Media Alliance Television (www.nmatv.com)

New Media Alliance Blogs (www.thenma.org/blogs)

There are those who say we’re ready for a woman to lead because we need a change from the “good old boys network” that controls government. Of course, this point is negated by the fact that many of the same people who say Washington is run by white men keep voting white men into office, thus continuing the problem. And who says America isn’t smart?

There are others, like me, who have no problem with women leading, but it has to be a competent woman. Seriously, how would you like to wake up the day after Election Day to hear a newscaster say, “In an election year full of firsts, we have the first woman President-Elect, and her name is Paris Hilton”? Although it would make for some interesting press conferences and the possibility of the first Presidential sex scandal with video tape, I wouldn’t want a woman who thought WalMart was a nightclub to be in control of our vast military arsenal. Just the possibility of her nuking Nicole Richie or the paparazzi should be enough for us to give serious thought to having a woman President.

Okay, I know Hilton isn’t the typical woman, so let’s go with two prominent current female leaders to get an idea of how a female might lead: the aforementioned Hillary Clinton, and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In Clinton’s case, people say she’s shown great leadership skills. Let’s take a look at what she’s done since being elected New York State’s junior Senator. Hmmm … she’s sponsored or supported legislation and got to run the Senate for a day.

Well, I’m convinced. I’m as qualified to be President as Hillary is.

Then, we have Speaker Pelosi. Since taking the reins of the House in January, she’s accomplished…well, we’re not quite sure. Again, it depends on who you ask. To hear Pelosi talk, they’ve accomplished so much, but the Republicans blocked her from doing more. And what has the Pelosi House accomplished according to the Congressional record? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60 bills were passed to the Senate for consideration, with the bulk of them being for the naming of post offices. Sure, they passed ethics reform and a minimum wage increase, but when the bulk of your success comes from naming post offices, it’s hard to say you’ve been a successful leader.

One has to wonder how much of the current “it’s time for a woman President” sentiment is based on factors other than qualifications. As I stated my previous column “Qualifications? She Don’t Need No Stinking Qualifications!” Hillary has been given credibility in some segments because she’s a mom and has “the Mom Voice” to get people to believe her. Beyond that, there are other possible motivations. Many women have said they will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. For men, the motivation is possibly more basic.

Men like sex.

Ladies, trust me on this, there are men out there who will say and do anything for sex, even if they don’t mean a word of it. Case in point: Bill Clinton. Say the right words with the right amount of conviction, and some men can seduce just about any woman. (As my social calendar reflects, I’m not one of them.) Oh, sure, there are men who feel genuinely guilty at men running government for so long, but there aren’t that many men these days looking to Alan Alda for man advice.

Once we strip away the possible motivations for voting for a woman for a powerful political office, we should be left with a central question: How will she react in a stressful situation? (For the record, “Is she hot?” came in second.) This is where women succeed or fail, depending on their character. We know how former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher reacted to the Falkland Islands situation and Cold War, and I think it’s safe to say she handled herself well in both cases and in others not mentioned. Compare that to how Hillary and Pelosi have reacted under less stressful situations, which has been to blame Republicans and others for their failures. Quite the difference, but one that cannot be overlooked when we consider whether we want to pull the lever for Hillary in November 2008. (And, men, if you’re doing that too much, you’ll go blind.)

Perhaps the biggest hindrance to women becoming the head of our government is themselves. Those who have put themselves forward as leaders have been his or miss (or to be more politically correct, Ms.), which makes it that much easier for voters to ignore the female candidates and go with the male candidates. Ladies, if you want to be seen as credible leaders, you have to have some success being leaders. This means, of course, watching how women political leaders like Hillary Clinton and Nancy
Pelosi handle themselves and address important issues that arise.

Then, do the exact opposite.

New Media Alliance Television (www.nmatv.com)

New Media Alliance Blogs (www.thenma.org/blogs)

By the time you read this column, we will be close to one year out from the 2008 Presidential elections. And that means two things. One, we’ll be bombarded with political ads for the next year. And two, we’ll have people trying to play Carnac the Magnificent and predicting who will win the nominations for the two major parties. I’ve always found these exercises in speculation to either be an exercise in wishful thinking or a rehashing of the screamingly obvious so that the person doing the
predicting looks like he/she has a clue. It’s pointless, ridiculous, and nothing more than an ego stroke.

Which is precisely why I’m doing it.

So, allow me to throw my rhinestone-studded turban into the ring and give you Tarmac the Magnificent’s Utterly Awesome and Quite Possibly Utterly Inaccurate Political Predictions for 2008!

Democrat Candidate for President: Hillary Clinton. It’s Hillary’s race to lose. Her opposition ranges from the absurd (Joe Biden) to the out there (Dennis Kucinich) to the inexperienced (Barack Obama) to the uninspiring (Bill Richardson) to the unknown (Mike Gravel). Unless Hillary really messes up at the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary, she’s the candidate to beat. And even if she does pull a Howard Dean, she might still have enough pull within the Democratic National Committee
that she could get the nomination anyway. But she’s doing it…for the children!

Democrat Candidate for Vice-President: John Edwards. A lot of people are saying Obama’s the one vying to be Hillary’s Robin to her Batman, but I don’t think the two of them can co-exist on the campaign trail together. Instead, Hillary will be going for someone with the qualifications she’s looking for in a VP: dishonest, unscrupulous, legally slippery, greedy, and easily cowed by a woman. Hel-LOOOOOOOOOO! If that’s not John Edwards, I don’t know what is!

Wild Card: Al Gore. With a Best Documentary Oscar in one hand, a Nobel Prize around his neck, and a free hand to take big donations from Buddhist monks who have sworn an oath of poverty, Gore has the ability and the groundswell of support to make a run at Hillary for the Democrat nomination if he so chooses. With his global warming movie getting him at least some level of personal validation, he may be ready to run again in spite of his protests to the contrary. After all, if Gore can take
credit for the taking the initiative in the creation of something that was already in existence before he was elected to the House of Representatives, he might be playing fast and loose with his plans to run.

Republican Candidate for President: Rudy Giuliani. Yeah, yeah, Rudy’s as much like Ronald Reagan as Jimmy Carter was, but he has more of an upside than strategists think. Sure, he has multiple marriages and that whole odd habit of crossdressing for “the religious right” to blast him over, but what he loses from the fringe on the right he more than picks up from the moderate and liberal Republicans, as well as perhaps Independents (like your humble columnist) and even conservative Democrats who
don’t want to pull the lever for Hillary. Plus, he puts a lot of states in play that wouldn’t be. Besides, do you seriously think the majority of Republicans are going to sit and pout if Rudy’s running against Hillary? If so, I have some swamp land in the Sahara I’d love to sell you.

Republican Candidate for Vice President: Fred Thompson. For all the hype surrounding Fred’s entry into the 2008 race, his performance so far has been less exciting than Joe Lieberman curling with Ben Stein. But he would bring to the ticket a more conservative bent, which should appease enough of the “religious right” to quell questions about Rudy. Plus, he’d be a shoe-in to win the Vice Presidential debate with Edwards. All he’d have to do is just glare at Edwards and he’d be bawling for his
mommy before he got through his opening comments.

Wild Card: Mike Huckabee. Ignore the fact that his last name sounds like a national restaurant chain where you’d find junk on the walls. Mike Huckabee brings some impressive conservative credentials to the table. A good performance in the Iowa Caucuses and/or the New Hampshire Primary and there might be another winner from Arkansas, and this one might actually be faithful to his wife!

Independent Candidate for President: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way…

Winners of the 2008 Election: Giuliani/Thompson. Wishful thinking? Not so much. Clinton/Edwards will have to appease the freak left, the faux left, and the moderate left on almost a daily basis. Edwards may be a slick talker (anybody who claims to channel dead children has to be), but Hillary’s vote on the war and inability to come up with a legitimate lie…I mean explanation won’t do much to appease the Code Pinkos, the Daily Kos-monauts, and the MoveOutOfOurParentsBasement crowds.

On the other side, Giuliani/Thompson would have some trouble with some elements of the Republican Party, but not to the extent of Clinton/Edwards with the Democrats. Not to mention, Rudy and Fred both know how to handle the media. With a media hostile to them and being so far up Hillary’s butt they can search for polyps, this will be key. But the thing that puts them over the top is the fact you don’t have to dig past layer after layer of spin, lies, and half-truths to get to who they are. Rudy
and Fred are genuine for the most part (or if not, they fake it really well). Clinton and Edwards? They ooze dishonesty, which will turn off voters and give Giuliani/Thompson the victory.

And on that note, I think I’ll put the turban away and put this piece in a sealed mason jar on Funk and Wagnall’s back porch.

New Media Alliance Television (www.nmatv.com)

New Media Alliance Blogs (www.thenmaorg/blogs)

Breaking it down by issue is even more mystifying. Her approval rating on handling health care is 66%. This from a woman whose first attempt to reform health care was more secretive than a CIA reunion at an adult book store. (Provided, of course, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame aren’t on the guest list.) When it comes to voters who want strength and experience, people polled gave Hillary a 62% rating. Wait. Hillary has strength and experience being President? Considering who she’s married to, I might have to give that one to her.

Furthermore, 45% of the people who wanted new direction and new ideas said Hill was their gal. She was even seen as inspiring by 41% of the people polled. The first question I asked was what drugs these people polled were on. The second question? Where could I get some for this weekend?

Hillary’s image of being a leader and a visionary perplexed me more than when I tried to figure out the plot to “Eyes Wide Shut.” By just about every objective measurement, Hillary falls shorter than Mini Me’s attempts to set the long jump record in the Olympics. So, why is Hillary seen as a leader?

Because she’s a mom.

Growing up, my mom would ask me to do things that I didn’t want to do, like clean my room, wash the dishes, or mow the lawn. And being the precocious (read: pain in the butt) child I was, I would always ask “Why?” And eventually, my mom would end that line of questioning by saying in her “Mom Voice,” “Because I said so.” Hillary is the only woman in the Presidential race right now (if you discount John Edwards), and as a mother (and, no, I’m not missing a second word after “mother” here), she has the “Mom Voice.” Why is she an expert on foreign policy?

Because she said so.

Why is Hillary bringing experience to the table when she’s never held the job of President of the United States?

Because she said so.

Get the picture? It doesn’t matter whether Hillary’s accomplishments are as truthful as Al Gore’s claims during the 2000 election. The fact she says she’s done them makes it so to her and her followers. You know, that’s right on the borderline of being a religious cult. Once Hillary starts coming out in sequined pantsuits asking for money, then she’ll qualify.

But there’s a problem with this sort of approach. Eventually Hillary will be expected to do at least some of the things people believe she’s capable of doing. Then, all the belief in the world won’t make you competent. Remember the episode of “The Simpsons” where Homer stops a nuclear meltdown using Eenie Meenie Minie Mo? Unless Hillary is as good as she and her supporters say she is, we might see her using the same method to resolve international problems. And when we’re dealing with a group of people who want us dead merely because we’re Americans, we need someone who can do the job.

Granted, there is no training program prior to someone becoming President. Besides, seeing the leader of the most powerful country in the world wearing a paper Trainee hat just doesn’t get an Administration off on the right foot. Having said that, there are jobs, like being the Governor of a state, where basic skills that translate into daily tasks involved with the Presidency can be developed. Unfortunately for Hillary, being a former First Lady and a current Senator aren’t jobs that translate that well. One is more of an illusory role, one that doesn’t have a lot of power behind it and hasn’t for years, one that doesn’t require showing up every day to do. But enough about being a Senator.

Hillary has gotten away with being held to a lower standard than other candidates because she sounds and looks like she knows what she’s doing and nobody’s questioning it. But, with everything going on in the world today, we should be. We can’t let just anybody waltz into the Oval Office and start making decisions. If they did, I’d be President right now, and we don’t want that to happen.

Hillary has skated on reputation for long enough. It doesn’t matter how many people surveyed say she’s qualified to be President, I’m afraid I’m going to need a bit more evidence. But, Hill, I promise to give you the same consideration I gave to your husband … after I became a conservative Republican, that is.

New Media Alliance Television (www.nmatv.com)