Hillary, Obama, Giuliani, Romney: Nope

Let's face it; it is extremely unlikely that Hillary Clinton will become the 44^th President of the United States. Trumped up assertions about Hillary's ability and commitment; a revisiting of Bill's Folly and her acceptance of it; and other hyperbole around her inability to make decisions and lead will see to that sometime next year. America has not evolved far enough toward the "middle" politically or religiously, to allow this to happen. Also, the statistics do not favour a woman becoming President (more on this later).

So, how, you ask, do I come to this conclusion and what does the political landscape hold in store for the American electorate in 2008? The following is a moment in time snapshot of the pragmatics of electing a President.

Returning to Hillary: despite the groundswell of forgiveness and support for Bill Clinton since his unceremonious departure from Office, whilst in Office Bill was despised by the Right as being a philandering, ineffective, ne'er do well; and vilified by the Left as a liar and "let-down". While both are extreme, the subtle overture of validity does lie somewhere in the middle. Overtures, regardless of validity, often become hard and fast reality when spun. We saw this with the Grand Old Party (GOP) charges that John Kerry was a "flip-flopper", during the last election.

Have we heard anything from the GOP about Bill and his antics or Hillary's acceptance of the situation? Nope. Will we? Yep? It's just not strategically the right time to bring out the gloves. Also, it is important to think about why Hillary is "Hillary" and not "Hillary Clinton". The associative disconnect with Bill is more than a coincidence by the Clinton handlers.

The Republicans

First, let's review the landscape and the way the GOP strategy and Public Relations (PR) machine works. First, Republican strategists are not at all concerned with the so-called "debates" and goings-on up to this point. They realize that candidates are not going to say anything too extreme for fear of placing themselves in the "loser" category at the outset of the campaign. If candidates decide to go out on a limb, then "those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

One needs to understand that the political parties are well-established, sophisticated, and highly strategic entities who have a long-term end-game strategy in mind (with the GOP and "Rove-ites" holding a decided edge in that department over the Democrats). The GOP PR machine will ramp-up quickly in January and February right through to November, unless they see a strategic attack opportunity before then. If a strategic opportunity arises, they will capitalize with full force. Until then, it's all window-dressing, sound bites, and nebulous promises. Less strategic in their approach, the same can be said of the Democrats in this regard.

Mitt Romney is Mormon. Stark introduction, I know. But Mitt's religious affiliation is still viewed as a fringe sect by the religious Right and by the mainstream base within the GOP. So, despite a choreographed early lead, he will be "out" at some point.

Rudy Giuliani supports "freedom of choice" and can't hold a marriage together - these two points detract significantly from his leadership aspirations. In particular, his views on abortion are diametrically opposed to those of his faith - the Roman Catholic Church. Will he be sidelined by the religious Right? It will be interesting to see if the religious Right and Catholics (the latter representing up to 30% of the voting public) will hold their noses and place and "X" in the Giuliani box coming Election Day.

It is possible Giuliani's liberal approach to abortion is a strategy designed to lure undecided Democrats. It is also possible that in the back rooms, information and philosophical underpinnings are being sold as something entirely different and that he indeed is closer to his faith than is being portrayed. Nevertheless, despite these blemishes, Giuliani can still get the nomination. After all, America wants a crisis-oriented leader, and irrespective of whether or not he actually is able to, the perception is that he did show leadership and hope during the 9/11 attacks.

On the other hand, John McCain has come out too strongly for the War in Iraq, and has misjudged the American sentiment in this regard. Too bad, really, as McCain could have been a contender with his moderate views; many of which were appealing to Democrats as well as moderate Republicans. Unfortunately, his campaign has been mismanaged. One comment to John and his handlers: "stop with the fake voice and tonality - it makes you sound disingenuous at best and outright phony at worst." John still has a shot, but he'll need to rework a couple of his campaign strategies, and soften his approach on the War if he is to become a serious contender.

So, whatever the portrayal of GOP candidates on CNN and the other major media networks over the next few months, make no mistake, the decision has all but been made by the GOP and in the Boardrooms of corporate America as to which GOP candidate will be nominated and sold to the American public. As I have said previously, the rest is window-dressing. The GOP strategy has already been worked out in finite detail prior to Karl Rover's departure and well in advance of the current campaign. Details including funding, timing, messaging, targeting, and tactical factors are already in place. If you believe anything to the contrary, you kid yourself. American politics is as much a War as any military engagement; in fact, even more so.

The Democrats

So, let's return to my original assertion that it will be extremely unlikely that Hillary will become the 44^th President of the United States of America. How do I come by this starkly definitive statement?

Let us look at the statistics. Of the 50 States in the union, only eight have female governors presently in office. This means that women represent only 16% of the total gubernatorial incumbents. In fact, only 29 women have ever sat as governor. Also, there are 16 women currently sitting in the US Senate (an all-time high). The growth in numbers is significant, but also represents only 16% of the 100 available Senate seats. Is it coincidence that both are 16%? Let's look at Congress. Currently 87 women hold seats in the 535 seat House of Representatives. What does this work out to? - 16.3%. Are we getting a clear picture yet? Yes, women have made great strides, and while electing a woman for President may quite probably be the best decision America has ever made, is it reasonable to expect that this will happen? At this point, no.

Now, granted, affirmative action advocates will commit a resounding "yes" to the question, and go on to extol that the role of women has been increasing over time to the present day highs. Also, that the percentages are not reflective of "ability to do the job"." To this, I emphatically respond with a, "Yes. I agree." However, I am not talking about increases in representation over time. I'm talking about the probability that a woman will be voted into the highest political office in the land during a time of near perpetual national crisis. Let's be real, Americans have only looked toward men as Commander in Chief - period.

At issue, is not whether Hillary is competent, smart, accomplished, experienced, a leader, or even able to do the job; it's about where the United States is currently at in its socio-cultural and political evolution to accept gender equality as it relates to leadership, skills, and competency. The nuance is subtle. As indicated, Hillary may very well indeed be the best person for the job, but the electorate's perception and attitudinal evolution is more important than the reality coming Election Day. It may be possible to spin another 10% with targeted communications planning, but at 26%, that is isn't enough to do it. Lastly, let us not forget the tarnishing strokes of "Bill's Folly", which will most assuredly emerge during the heat of the campaign in 2008. Let's remember, Democrats are debating Democrats and Republicans, Republicans. Attacks and airing dirty laundry is currently at worst trumped-up and contrived, but certainly remains innocuous and at a minimum.

Barak Obama. On paper, and despite some charges of lack of experience, Obama is a very sound candidate. He possesses a unique vision and view of the United States that is required of a leader. His view of leading by example rather than force is a 21^st Century view of the US and internationally; and one that needs to be leveraged if America is to maintain its geo-political-economic position and pre-eminence (contrary to what Wolfowitz and his supporters believe). There is one major problem, however, that is, there have only been two African American governors in the history of the United States since Reconstruction; only five African Americans have ever sat in the Senate, and only 122 have ever sat in Congress (some elected, some appointed). These statistics do not bode well for Obama and his supporters (of which, admittedly, I am one).

The Whole Ball of Wax

So what choices are left? Political pundits are several steps down the line from this minor analysis, so the average American voter should start thinking about who represents them and who can lead them out of their current quagmire.

Do not look to Hillary or Barak as saviors. While they may be the best qualified or have the vision to do the job, it's all about winning the Presidency and not just the Democratic nomination. The Democrats will need to have a "bench strength" much deeper than these two frontrunners in order to get the job done. Alternatively, the GOP appears to be floundering, but clearly they have a strategy in place that will rollout in due course. If they had anyone who could surface, then we will likely see this in the coming weeks. Do not be surprised if the GOP candidate is moderate; appeals to the religious Right; and comes from the corporate sector; whoever that might be.

A word on religious affiliation: the vast majority of Presidents have been Christian (e.g., Episcopalian, Unitarian, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian). Lincoln was undecided and was assassinated in the fourth year of his presidency. John F. Kennedy was the only Catholic amongst them, and was assassinated two years into his term. Giuliani is Catholic.

Whichever candidate claws through the nomination process and is eventually elected to the highest office in the land, he/she needs to embody a principled approach; a scientific and rational approach to progress; and a commitment to advancing the American agenda as world leader - not through force, but through example. It is time for one person to emerge from the proverbial pack. To take the reins and inspire America to be what it wants to be and can be. Good luck America.