The just-completed C-PAC annual meeting has–gain–shown us that we on the Right do not have a front-runner or even a plausible candidate to unite us as we head into the crucial 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

In fact, C-PAC demonstrated that the organized Right, which sold its soul to a faux conservative in 2000, G.W. Bush, and then supported him and an irresponsible GOP-run Congress as they partnered to bankrupt our public fisc and squander our moral and military advantage for six years, is now devoid of a true conservative who understands and believes in the principles that separate us from the squishy middle and the out-of-touch Left.

First, this C-PAC event shamed itself by inviting Donald Trump to speak. Who can take him seriously in a political context? He is not, nor has he ever been a conservative. How quickly C-PAC organizers apparently forget Trump’s support of and praise for both Bill and Hillary Clinton in all their campaigns–as well as the scores of other liberal Democrats he has financed in states where he buys their influence for his business interests. How quickly they also forget Trump’s sordid marital and sexual history.

This is someone to be listened to? Especially as he trashes the one candidate, Ron Paul, who has maintained steady and consistent principles for over thirty years?

Last Sunday we celebrated the 100th birthday of America’s greatest conservative leader, Ronald Reagan. But by Thursday we were listening to Donald Trump comment on public issues?

Do we need any more proof how far off the rails the Right has gone?

As for the other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates, it is clear none of them connected in any emotional way with the majority of conservative activists sitting in that hotel ball room over the weekend and who came to DC desperate to find a new leader.

Instead, the candidates demonstrated their ability to pander–and their scripted anti-Obama rhetoric–but noneof them–other than Ron Paul-touched the souls of the thousands of activists who are the Army of the Right.

A note about Ron Paul: he is indeed a libertarian more than a traditional conservative. But the key to Ron is his constant adherence to his principles no matter how many times he has been defeated or his ideas rejected. Ron is the Energizer Bunny of the libertarian right–and we on the Right all respect that perseverance, as we have all been rejected, humiliated and treated with contempt over time by the smug leftists who think they are smarter than everyone else.

It was poor form of Trump to come to C-PAC and dump on Ron Paul. And it shows that Trump did not know his audience—or did not care about their respect for Congressman Paul.

What is clear is that we do not have a candidate–yet-who can unite the Right and win a majority of the crucial independent voters. Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee and Barbour? It doesn’t look like any of them can do it. Nor can the others we have seen. They are lackluster and boring and without that special spark that could ignite a prairie fire that sweeps all across this land and then arrives in Washington determined to change the role of the federal government in our lives.

It may be that the GOP will again nominate a dud, ala McCain and Dole–and, frankly, both Bushes, who were uninspiring candidates who won because of other factors (Bush I won because Reagan was President and was handing the Oval Office off to Bush and Bush II might not really have won at all!).

If we do pick another uninspiring, inarticulate, unprincipled bore, Obama will win a second term.

But maybe–somewhere, somehow–in the next year a new candidate will emerge who can bring the passion of the Tea Party and the legacy of the Republican Party together and then give us a chance to save this country from the leftward lurch that threatens to bankrupt us all.

Lost in the ‘round-the-clock coverage of the Egyptian Revolution was the stunning announcement last week that the House GOP leadership was going to cut $32 Billion from the current budget.

Really?

This same GOP leadership—Boehner, Cantor and Ryan—had campaigned last year on the pledge of cutting $100 Billion.

Then, after the election, they scaled that back to a revised pledge to cut $50 billion.

And now they have—again—scaled that back to $32 billion in non-security discretionary spending. And this is in a budget projected to run a $1.5 trillion.

All they can find is $32 billion?

And there are no specifics about these cuts. (They promise to reveal them this week.)

At the other side of the conservative wing sits the Tea Party movement—and their demand to cut much, much more. Senator Jim Demint of South Carolina has called for $250 billion per year—for 10 years—for a total of $2.5 trillion.

Quite a gap, eh?

And there is certain to be quite an explosion on the Right when this pathetically-meager $32 billion dollar cut—some will call it a “timid sell-out”—is made public.

Here’s the rub: cutting government spending is very, very difficult. There are huge political and economic costs. Who is angered by these cuts? Which constituencies? Which lobbyists? How many government layoffs are created in an already tight job market?

Public opinion polls show the American people support generalizations such as “we need to reduce government spending,” but when specific cuts are proposed, the majority is against each one, especially entitlement cuts and reforms (which, along with the Pentagon, is where 85% of federal spending is.)

Conclusion: there is about to be a major clash between the GOP Establishment and the Tea Party over government spending cuts. And this will be a world-class battle – and will spread into the 2012 GOP Presidential primaries.

This will get ugly – with the presidential candidates pulled to the right and thus opposing the party’s DC establishment.

What a mess.

Meanwhile, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue the President has pushed too hard in public against our ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It is one thing to privately have an American envoy urge Mubarak to resign; it is altogether a different matter to do it in public as Obama and Hillary have done. They have embarrassed Mubarak—and thus earned disdain from our long-time ally.

The result is our other Mid-East allies are aghast and furious. Jordan, Iraq, the Saudis, even the Israelis, and several others are openly questioning just how loyal a friend President Obama really is? They correctly see a headline-happy publicity hound—Barack Obama—who cares only about one man: Barack Obama.

There will be consequences—perhaps dire—to Obama’s readiness to dispatch an ally.

1.) President Hosni Mubarak is a goner. The only question is: does he leave on a private jet to enjoy the American aid money he undoubtedly squirreled away overseas for his private use—or does he try to hang on and thus leave in a body bag?

2.) Who and what comes next? Do the radicals—i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood—use this opportunity to seize power in the next national elections? (And, if they do gain power, do they then cancel/rig future elections so as to keep power?)

3.) Will Jimmy Carter and other like-minded types come into Egypt to certify that the next national elections are “honest”?

4.) Does the post-Mubarak Egyptian government honor the 30-year old Camp David Accords and thus continue to collect billions in aid from DC?

5.) Does this anti-government fervor spread to Jordan? To Saudi Arabia? To Syria? To Yemen? And what of the ongoing revolt in Tunisia?

6.) What does this portend for Israel? Are they militarily prepared to once again be surrounded by hostile Arab neighbors—with the militant Tehran regime fueling the fires of anti-Israel sentiment?

7.) In DC, does the Obama Administration have a handle of the Arab and Muslim world possibly crumbling in front of our eyes? Does Obama have a clear-cut American strategy? Does anyone believe that Obama and Hillary really know what they are doing in foreign policy?

8.) Can this anti-establishment fervor in the Arab world possibly topple the nuclear-armed government of Pakistan? Or is this a country-by-country phenomenon?

9.) What does this ongoing ferment do to the terrorist element inside Islam? Does it embolden them? Does it unleash more acts of terror?

10.) Or is this primarily a middle class revolt over horrid economic conditions and poverty for so many Arab youth?

11.) What can new Egyptian leaders do to alleviate the rotten economic conditions in the world’s biggest Arab nation? Yes, they can eliminate official corruption which is tolerated when the economy works reasonably well but is blamed when the economy falters. But what to do to get millions of Egyptians back to work? (What a task facing the next government!)

12.) A year from now what will the Arab world look like? More—or less—peaceful? Are we about to see a more secular, economics-driven Arab ruling mentality? Or are we going to see them retreat from modernity into Islamic fundamentalism, which doesn’t pay the bills but surely causes a lot of trouble?

Although it is way, way too early to even begin to think of 2012, it is possible that President Obama will not choose to run again in 2012.

In fact, there is a 30% chance of this.

Why?

Because he already has planted the seed of possibility that he will simply walk away and not risk a humiliating defeat.

Three times in recent interviews he has raised the possibility of “not running again” or, as he told Diane Sawyer this week, being a “good one-term President.”

Why would a new President already float the idea that he might just chuck it all?

Is it because he is scared of losing in 2012?

Or is it a ploy to look as if he is “above” politics?

Or is it something deeper? Is it that he is a diffident, emotionally distant man who does not really enjoy the rough and tumble of inside-the-Beltway politics?

Sure, he loved all the adulation as The One and The Messiah as he campaigned for President. But since his honeymoon ended last summer, he has had a rough “go”—what with his patriotism, brains, judgement, and citizenship questioned.

Both Barack and Michelle Obama—going all the way back to the 2007-2008 campaign—at times acted as if it was a step down for them to deign to run for the Oval Office. She once said in 2008, as things were getting rough with the Clintons, that this would be the “only time” the Obamas would go through this.

Now, in office, President Obama says, “It’s better to be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Hmmmm… A “good one-term president” will get re-elected and thus have a chance to be something Obama never mentioned: a great two-term president.

So far Obama is not even a mediocre one-termer. He is on track to be a failed one-termer; another Jimmy Carter.

He does have time to turn things around. If the economy improves and if the unemployment rate drops substantially he can get re-elected.

He will—no matter what happens—be able to get re-nominated. An African American Democrat President can not be defeated for the 2012 Democratic nomination. Talk of a Hillary Clinton challenging Obama in the Democratic primaries is pie-in-the-sky. Ain’t gonna happen.

But what might happen is this: when 2012 begins and unemployment is at 9%, polling shows Obama in deep, deep political trouble. In polls he loses head-to-head match-ups to several Republican candidates. Democrats are panicked—especially after huge 2010 mid-term losses in the House and Senate. There is a sourness in the political system and among a nervous electorate.

In the midst of this, Obama surprises the nation by announcing that he will not run again; he says, “I want to devote this year to governing, not campaigning.”

It might happen.

A 30% chance it will happen.

It has not been reported—yet—but look for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to follow President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lead and go to any length—even to alter Senate rules—to pass the health care reform bill with the public option included.

This will happen because the Democrats—led by President Obama—feel they absolutely must pass this bill with the public option included.

They believe that a failure to pass it will mean a failed, one-term Presidency and the loss of Congress.

Ironically, passing it may result in exactly what they dread.

They are misreading the 1994 Congressional debacle after the failure of Hillary Care. And Bill Clinton is helping them misread what happened back then. He just went to the Senate to urge them to pass this bill.

Their belief is that the failure to pass any bill is what cost them control of Congress. So they are determined to pass a bill this time—no matter the political cost to get it passed.

(Their misreading of history is typical of liberals. They didn’t lose Congress because of no health care bill; they lost it because they were seen as too entrenched, too corrupt and too arrogant. The same thing happened in 2006 and 2008 to GOP control of Congress.)

Let us examine what has already happened in the past week:

In the House Pelosi and the Left did something that shows us just how desperately they want to pass this public option: they abandoned one of the Left’s foundation principles—government funding of abortions for poor women.

Yet the liberals were willing to sacrifice that basic tenet of liberalism in order to pass this health care bill.

What does that tell us?

That Obama, Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid will pull out all the stops to pass this bill with the public option included.

This public option is code for National Health Insurance—or Single Payer Plan—with the Feds paying for it all and running it all.

This is a key component of the Left’s long-held Utopian Plan: cradle to grave health care coverage to go along with Federal control of much of what used to be called private enterprise; the government determining salaries of CEOs; the Feds overseeing all education with Washington clearing all the material taught in schools, including textbook content; DC regulating the content of the Internet—and taxing it, too; and the FCC sticking their fingers into Talk Radio to mute conservative voices.

Barack Obama has had it in for private health insurance companies ever since they denied cancer coverage to his dying mother. His obsession with putting them out of business because of how they treated his mother is equal to G.W. Bush’s obsession with getting Saddam because of what the Iraqi leader did to his father.

So it all comes down to the upcoming debate in the U.S. Senate.

If they can get 60 votes for the Public Option, then they can break the filibuster and pass the bill.

But, as of today, they cannot get those 60 votes.

However, if they can get 51 votes—and it looks like they might be able to as of now—they will use this obscure parliamentary maneuver, nick-named The Nuclear Option because it blows up the Senate, destroys Senate precedent and destroys the ability of Senators to ever trust each other again.



The Nuclear option is best described in Wikipedia: “In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since.”

So all the talk by the Republicans and Senator Joe Lieberman that they will run a filibuster to prevent a bill with the public option might be all for naught. Harry Reid—with desperate prodding by Obama and his bulldozer chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel—will use this tactic to ram their sacred Public Option through the Senate and proclaim victory.

One other factor to consider: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in serious re-election trouble next year in Nevada. He will want something to run on. Proclaiming himself an “the Majority Leader who gave all of you health care!" may be what he believes wins him another term in the Senate.

In sum, this Nuclear Option is coming. Get ready.

Most people seemed to have missed the point of North Korea’s kidnapping, trying, and sentencing-to-twelve-years-in-a-labor-camp of two young female journalists: it is totally and entirely to gain leverage over Washington with a brand new Administration in place.

Kim Jong Il learned from his father, Kim Il Song, who pioneered the technique, that the quickest way to get DC to pay attention to you is to hold Americans as prisoners. Why? Because we care!

And if the two are women—and journalists—well, that is just to good to pass up!

Look how much coverage this story is receiving. Plus, Al Gore is involved - and Pyongyang probably feels the Former Vice President can get into the Obama Oval Office and cut a deal.

What does this rogue regime want?

Duh. Money—and lots of it. In cash. In bags and suitcases.

Plus an admission of guilt by the two journalists—accused of spying—and who clearly were NOT spying. But the truth and reality are irrelevant when dealing with this crazed North Korean leadership.

Just two weeks ago we saw them launch a series of rockets—all aimed at attracting attention to themselves at a time when President Obama was focusing on Iran and the Muslim World. Kim Jong Il—like the petulant, spoiled child he has always been—is saying, “Hey, world, pay attention to me!!!

And, thanks to the news media aspect of this story, the White House has been forced to pay attention to it. Just yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about it at a State Department public event. And when that happens, it forces an issue onto the political radar screen.

This story is almost identical to the Iranian-American woman tried and held recently in Iran. She was just released—whether for under-the-table money or concessions we will never know. Or perhaps it was Tehran trying to keep lines open with the new Obama Administration while talks are ongoing about their nuclear programs.

But that woman was seized for a reason—and released for a reason. And nothing any government official on either side says publicly is the truth.

The same for these two unfortunate female journalists - who may have not even been in North Korea at allwhen thy were kidnapped.

Pyongyang has regularly “stolen” people from South Korea, Japan—and, of course, in the most famous incident of them all, they kidnapped the crew of the USS Pueblo in early 1968 and held them in brutal conditions for ten months.

In the end, they forced President Johnson to admit that we violated their territorial waters (we didn’t)—and we also (secretly) paid $50million in cash. That has never been admitted to by any US Government official.

This present stand-off will result in a very similar solution. Figure it will happen within a month or so. There may be a trip—perhaps by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson who has had past success with that regime.

But rest assured: those two women will be home this summer.

And Uncle Sam is going to pay—big time—and off the books for their release.

Well, the holidays are over and New Year has begun so let’s get back down to business. Here are the 2009 predictions - in no particular order:

• The economy has not yet reached rock bottom. More dislocations will occur in 2009; more bubbles will burst; credit cards and further home mortgage problems come to mind; and more scandalous behavior will be revealed - from Wall Street to Washington DC.

• The world economy will follow our’s and plummet to the worst degree since the 1930s.

• We may not begin the long climb back upward for several years to come.

• Politically the economy is everything in 2009 - and will be the main focus of the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress; all other legislative activity will be put on the Back Burner until there is an up-tick in the national economy;

• President Obama will prove to be boringly staid when it comes to bold economic initiatives such as suspending the capital gains tax for 3-5 years; instead he will opt for traditional Democratic spending measures, i.e. “Infrastructure” repair and new roads and bridges; these measures will do nothing to juice an ailing economy or to hire people - especially in the short-run;

• Obama will also expand the federal Government’s payroll - as if that is a cure for what ails the American economy; his team will boast of new “jobs” but that is a false statistic; the real stat is new private sector jobs - and we are hemorrhaging those jobs monthly right now;

• Obama will not be blamed for the continuing - or worsening - economy for his first year in office. But by the end of 2009 the economy becomes his - for better or worse;

• He will have a substantial honeymoon; there will be a world-wide collective sigh of relief once G.W. Bush is out of office; in fact, once Bush leaves DC, we will not see or hear from him for several months. He will not be able to sell his memoirs either. His lecture appearances will be few and far between.

• It will be Jeb Bush who will be the Bush most in the news in 2009 as he contemplates a US Senate run in 2010; and Jeb’s presence - yet another Bush! - will bedevil the GOP for years to come;

• If Jeb then tries to run for President in 2012 or 2016, it will divide the GOP; true conservatives will never again accept another Bush - so the conservatives will fight it out to settle on one candidate to stop the Bushes from yet again seizing control of the GOP;

• There will be more of the usual political scandals in DC - and in Cook County - but none will even touch Barack Obama;

• Instead, what will take Obama down a notch will be a combination of his heretofore un-reported personal hubris and his total inexperience in national and international affairs;

• His collection of his own Team of Rivals is a sign of his personal acknowledgment that he really is unprepared to be President - so he hired everyone else who ran for the job, figuring that all he has to do is to manage these people and some how, some way their will find the right answers;

• Hillary will be a loyal soldier - for a while; but before the first year is over she and/or her husband will be revealed to be out for themselves; so what else is new? Believe this: they still have their eyes on returning to the White House;

• Blago will not go down easily; he will be governor for at least another 5 months; and he may not go even then; and if and when he is forced to leave, he will try to take some Big Names down with him as negotiating leverage;

• Harry Reid will be seen as a total dope, a fool and an idiot;

• Caroline Kennedy - despite a myriad of reasons not to be appointed to Hillary’s Senate seat - including the fact that she cannot string three words together without inserting a “You know” and an “um” and that she has never shown any interest in matters of state nor has she donated money or even bothered to vote in half the elections over the past 20 years - will in fact be named by Governor David Paterson as soon as Hillary resigns her seat. This will be a disgraceful appointment - if made - and will undermine Paterson’s heretofore ‘independent’ image; in other words, the fix is in;

• Charles O’Byrne, the defrocked gay Catholic priest who didn’t file his taxes for 5 years and who has been an intimate of both the Kennedys and David Paterson, is the key intermediary - and after the appointment is made this connection will again be revealed;

• Bernard Madoff will try some sort of insanity/mental illness defense. And it won’t work.

• More than the reported $50 Billion will be the final total in this Madoff Ponzi scheme.

• And others were in the “know.”

• And some more Big Names will yet surface as victims - they are desperately trying to hide as it is embarrassing to reveal how stupid these supposedly-smart investors were;

• As for Wall Street, we have not heard the end of their malfeasance and incompetence; more revelations are to come about disgusting financial remunerations even after the massive taxpayer funded bailouts;

• The New York Giants will - for the second year in a row - win the Super Bowl;

• A prominent cable TV host will be revealed as having an ongoing affair.

• 2009 will be some year!

If the Kennedy Mystique and Money do not overwhelm New York Governor David Paterson and convince him to appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary’s term, a gay, disgraced, former Catholic priest will.

(Former) Father Charles O’Byrne is the hidden player in this saga who will broker this deal.

How?

O’Byrne is unusually close to both the Kennedy Family and Governor Paterson. In fact, he was the New York Governor’s Chief of Staff (entitled Secretary in New York political parlance) for the past year until it was revealed that he had not filed tax returns for five years. That scandal forced him from the job amid revelations of “chronic depression” and cash payments to gay lovers. But he remains an extraordinarily influential Paterson adviser.

O’Byrne also has served as an “inside spiritual adviser” to the Kennedy Family for years - and conducted several weddings for them.

This behnd-the-scenes two-way connection is the real reason Governor Paterson will appoint Caroline to the Senate.

It is, of course, a total farce that she would even be considered for this Senate seat.

Despite the spin that she has been involved in issues for years, the plain fact of the matter is that she has been a Park Avenue Society Mother and Wife - and has had nada to do with any public issues.

If her name was just Caroline Schlossberg - which it used to be but that married name has suddenly disappeared - with the exact same resume, who would possibly think she could be appointed to this soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat?

Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy to this seat in 2000 actually helps Caroline by creating a recent precedent for a liberal female rookie to parachute into New York State - replete with instant entourage and a pre-packaged Listening Tour. Already Caroline has started traveling to foreign lands (for her) - upstate New York - and is surrounded by aides and handlers with one assignment: do not let her suffer the fate of the mouthy Sarah Palin and thus talk herself into trouble.

Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo will see this circus this week.

And all along you can bet that Team Paterson is watching and waiting - for a mistake or a reason not to pick her. Paterson - who has not yet been elected statewide on his own - is acutely aware that in this deteriorating economy he could rapidly be blamed by an angry electorate for the rotten condition of the New York State economy. And, even though today it seems unimaginable, it is possible the New York State GOP could re-appear out of somewhere and field a candidate to take him on in 2008.

So, Paterson has to be seeing that a Kennedy-Paterson ticket in 2010 is almost un-beatable.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Paterson and urged him to appoint Caroline. Obviously President-Elect Obama owes Caroline Big Time for her timely endorsement last winter and her Veep Selection work.

Paterson - and New York - need federal money pored into the state as the Wall Street Melt-Down has deprived the State and City of billions in tax revenue. Who better to go to Reid and Obama and plead for it than Caroline Kennedy?

On the other side of the ledger, Paterson is hearing from every other Democratic politician in New York - and they are all aghast at the thought of this dilettante cutting the line and getting this plum job.

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the son of the former Governor - and a former first cousin by marriage of Caroline’s - is the other most prominent name rumored for this Senate slot.

There are also several female Representatives and up-staters who want the job.

If Paterson picks Caroline - yes, it will help him get re-elected/elected in 2010 - but it will infuriate virtually every elected Democrat in the state.

So Paterson will wait a while for Hillary to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate - sometime in late January or early February. She will then resign the Senate seat. And Paterson will have to make his decision.

Does he deny the Kennedys - and Harry Reid - and Barack Obama?

Or does he tell members of his own party in New York that he is bypassing them all just to pick a Big Name?

When Decision Day comes, Governor Paterson will not be alone in his deliberations; his long-time mentor and aide, Father O’Byrne, will be brokering this deal to help both the Kennedys and the Governor.

Look for Caroline Kennedy to get the appointment - thanks to O’Byrne.

The political word was set on its ear last week by the report that Caroline Kennedy might be interested in being appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in New York.

Clearly the entire Kennedy Family is putting a major push on to get New York Governor David Paterson to appoint the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

Bear in mind that Caroline has never done one thing politically in her life until endorsing Barack Obama earlier this year.

But, because of her last name and her family’s history, she can call Governor Paterson just “for informational purposes about the Senate” - or so we are told by the Governor himself. I know major political figures in New York who cannot call the Governor and get him on the phone - but Caroline Kennedy can get him to explain to her rudimentary facts about what the Senate does and how this selection works!

Caroline has three children who are almost grown up and, according to a source in yesterday’s New York Post, “She’s looking for a mission in life. Preferably in politics.”

So someone from a “royal” political family - in the midst of a mid-life crisis - can just choose whether or not she can be a US Senator. Wonderful. Only in America.

This is, of course, a total farce. Serious people who have worked in the political vineyards are aghast at this recent trend in American politics: the Bushes, the Clinton and the Kennedys all have dominated national politics because of the power of name ID.

In politics today you have to buy name identification through huge and expensive amounts of TV and radio advertising. But if you already have a famous last name, i.e. a Bush, Clinton or Kennedy, then you have already leap-frogged ahead of regular, normal politicians. (Or you could be like Barack Obama: the national news media, book publishers, and the political establishment gives you national name ID - even though you have done nothing to earn it.)

So Caroline Kennedy, in the middle of a mid-life crisis, gets up one days and muses that she might just want to be a Senator. So she calls Governor Paterson, this incredibly busy man faced with massive budget problems and an economic meltdown on Wall Street which is costing the state a huge loss of tax revenue - his staff puts her right through of course because she is “Caroline Kennedy!” - and she then asks him to brief her on what exactly is involved in the naming of Hillary’s replacement.

Incredible.

These people think these jobs are theirs by right. Not merit. Whatever happened to doing it the “old fashioned way” - earning it?

Let’s be clear about something: Hillary Clinton would not have been a senator nor a presidential candidate nor now the Secretary of State-Designate if she had not been married to a former President. Period. For all her ‘feminist’ positions, she has risen up the ladder of the law (Rose Law Firm) and politics because of one thing and one thing only: she was Bill Clinton’s wife.

And when she has been allowed to run something on her own - health care reform in 1993-1994 and her 2007-2008 presidential campaign - she proved to be an incompetent, inept, failed manager. Period. But, oddly, few in the media write that, do they?

Similarly, Caroline Kennedy has done nothing to warrant her consideration to be a US Senator. Nothing at all. And yet it seems as if she asks for it she will get it.

Hopefully Governor Paterson, a good and wise man who has lived a difficult life due to almost-total blindness from early childhood, can somehow escape the pressure being applied on him by Teddy Kennedy and Robert. F. Kennedy, Jr., both of whom are out actively campaigning for Caroline’s appointment.

If he succumbs to this pressure, we will see the so-called mainstream media slobber all over Caroline Kennedy and treat her as if she is the Second Coming. Her lack of experience and knowledge will be extolled as a virtue. And any mistakes she makes will be glossed over.

(No wonder so many people can’t stand the newspapers or TV anymore. And no wonder the media is going broke, too. Their bias has turned off so many readers and viewers.)

America was created as a rejection of inherited power. Yet, somehow, we keep drifting back to it.

OK. The Olympics are dominating things but let us ‘run a few trial heats’ of upcoming political events:


1) Veep Choices:

Because the polls show that the race could go either way, neither McCain nor Obama needs to throw a Hail Mary desperation pass such as picking someone from the other party (Hagel or Lieberman). So they will both play it safe. Predictions: Obama will pick Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and McCain will pick former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney.

Bayh is a bore, but a good-looking, moderate safe bore who will not make mistakes. He puts normally safe-for-the-GOP Indiana in play and thus stresses McCain’s electoral map and limited campaign budget. Bayh was for the War in Iraq and chaired Hillary’s campaign in the Hoosier State so he should help bridge the gap within the Democratic Party. He also is a moderate which will take the Leftist Edge off Obama a bit.

Romney solidifies the GOP and gives McCain a real shot at stealing normally-Democratic Michigan. Romney was vetted during the primaries and improved as a candidate. He is not a great choice - some on the Right will object over his Mormonism and flip-flopping - but there are no perfect choices this year for McCain. Romney will follow the script that Steve Schmidt gives him. He is a total political chameleon; he was once against McCain and now will become his most enthusiastic supporter.

Neither Bayh or Romney will hurt their tickets and both may give them a state their ticket would not have otherwise won (Indiana for the democrats and Michigan for the GOP.)



Democratic Convention:

1) Hillary is still looking to cause trouble. She and her hubby simply cannot fathom that they lost to an upstart like Obama; they are reveling in Obama’s poor poll performances since June. They are hoping McCain wins in November. Thus their speeches in Denver - while having some pro forma praise for Obama and condemnations of Mccain - will really be the Clintons’ first campaign speeches of the 2012 presidential campaign.

And the media will love this discord!

Obama needs to get on this and prevent trouble - or else show he is a helpless incompetent who cannot even run his own party.

2) Team Obama needs to create the right atmosphere and TV image in Denver. What should that be?

At the 2000 the GOP Convention in Philadelphia Team Bush set out to “sell” Compassionate Conservatism. How? By putting dozens of little African American kids on the stage. This was not an attempt to get the black community to vote for Bush; that constituency always votes 90% for the Democrats. No, this was a reach-out to moderate suburban whites and to show that Bush wasn’t a harsh, hate-filled conservative, as the so-called MSM always portrays them/us to be.

Similarly this year the Democrats need to craft an image aimed at their weakness: middle-class and working class white voters who are resistant - so far - to Obama’s sales pitch.

So they need to aim at that audience in Denver.

They need to calm down middle-of-the-roaders who have grave doubts about Obama, his exotic background, his wife and preacher and all the Muslim stuff floating around.

He needs to assure people that he is a mainstream guy - not some whacky Ivy League Affirmative Action Egg Head who cannot relate to average people.

So they need a stage filled with those voters. They need the media to interview those voters in Denver and to hear enthusiasm for Obama. They need to stage-manage this thing - all aimed at so-called Reagan Democrats - and to convert a high percentage of them into Obama Democrats.

If he can do it, he will win in November. If, however, he fails to do this he will lose in a year that almost any other Democrat would have won.

3) The GOP Convention: McCain needs to give a better-than-expected speech. You can bet Schmidt and crew will drill this into McCain through multiple rehearsals until he gives a - for him - damn good speech.

That is all he has to do.

Because it is now becoming clear: 2008 has become a referendum on Obama when it should have been a referendum on Bush/McCain.