What choice do voters have?

Don't ya just love it?

The political conventions are months away, but for all intents and purposes, it's all over now.

On that basis, we should just junk the November election and call it quits as far as further campaigning is concerned and plan the inauguration for next week.

Oops, can't do that. George Bush is still president, and he will be until January 2009. Like it or not!

My apologies to Ron Paul: I know you're there, but as far as mainstream media are concerned, you're toast. You're still in the race, but the media have buried your campaign.

As for Mike Huckabee – he's still there too and media love him, so he'll hang in as long as he's useful to McCain. What job he gets after that? Stay tuned.

As far as polls and general consensus go, there are only three names left in the running – McCain, Clinton and Obama.

And according to those same polls and general consensus, there's barely a stitch of difference among them and the discussion centers on which one would do the least damage to the country.

Conversely, other discussions center on which one would damage the country so badly that the other party would win the next time and have a lock on Washington for decades.

The general election isn't until November, and to hear mainstream media tell it, it's all over but the celebrating. Yet, they're sharpening their knives and salivating over a McCain candidacy and have all but said they want Clinton and Obama to run on the same ticket.

There's as much chance of that, as a snowball in hell. Then again, given the turn of events in this presidential election free-for-all, nothing would surprise me.

But even the remote possibility of that, puts more pressure on the issue of who will be McCain's running mate. I've heard the names of the "drop out candidates" being resurrected for the veep position – Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter, Tancredo, even Romney.

Given McCain's ego, I doubt he'd go with them. Which is a pity because a huge portion of the conservative wing of the Republican Party is seriously considering sitting out the election because they do not like John McCain and don't want him as president.

However, they might overcome their distaste for McCain if he were paired with someone who is, without question, a conservative Republican. It's thought that would balance against McCain's flipping and waffling and pandering to Democrats.

I can dream, can't I?

Aside from McCain's clearly non-conservative positions over the years and his proclivity to "cross the aisle" and do business with the Democrats on issues that savage the Constitution – which is bad enough – there's wariness about his volatile, nasty personality and, quite frankly, a question of whether he can be trusted.

In his CPAC speech last week, he referenced the border problems and said he would close the border. But he made no mention of what he'd do after that. There's legitimate concern the amnesty bill would return and that as president, McCain would sign it.

He says he learned his lesson on illegal immigration after the big protests. Do you believe him? Do you trust him? A lot of people don't.

His speech didn't do much to reassure people, although he tried. Antagonism against him was more than evident in the boos and lack of smiles, despite his efforts to frame himself as a real conservative. He referred to the times he "strayed" from the political reservation but claimed – essentially – that he didn't mean it.

Come on, John. You're a little old to be using that ploy. Do you really think you can win conservatives back by saying you didn't mean it and that underneath it all, you're really a Reagan acolyte?

This effort of politicians to drape themselves in the mantle of Ronald Reagan is more than tiresome; it's insulting. Ronald Reagan didn't build the "church of Reagan." He framed his political beliefs and his actions as president and as a real conservative because that's what he was. I don't believe he wanted future politicians to take on his persona and pretend to be him.

That would be impossible. But what they can do, and what he would have wanted, is position themselves within, and remain loyal to, the tenets that define conservatism –smaller, limited government, strong national defense, a balanced budget and cultural support for strong families.

The other thing he would want would be support for conservative congressional candidates. That would help a GOP president and force some congressional balance for a Democrat one. It's a critical issue.

Republicans are conflicted. Some will vote for the Democrat candidate; some grudgingly will vote for McCain, and some won't vote at all.

Not voting would be a mistake. They should vote out entrenched incumbents especially liberal Republicans. If there are no candidates, find someone qualified who'll run and stay true to their philosophy when elected.

I've preached that for years – regardless of the presidential candidates. Congress is vital. Pay attention to those candidates. Get the right people in and the bad ones out. Term limits is a good idea, whether by law or by elections. It works – if we use it.

As for this election, I've never been so politically uninspired because the choices are so dreadful.

Hillary Clinton would be a replay to the nth degree of the first Clinton tour, but with more venom.

Barack Obama would present a multitude of dangers to the country, especially his lack of experience, lack of conviction and lack of a cogent platform.

And John McCain? Well, McCain isn't a real conservative Republican, no matter what he says. You can take that to the bank

What's a girl to do?.

Related special offers:

"Hillary! Uncensored" DVD

"Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton"

"Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton"

"I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words"

"Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists"