This is not my formal prediction of the winner.  That comes on January 1, 2008.  Traditionally, on New Years Day of a presidential election year, I predict who will be the next president. 

I’ve been right most times – except in 2000 when I predicted Al Gore.  Technically, I got the popular vote right.  My biggest prediction was 1992 when I declared that “the unknown governor from Arkansas” would win.  Granted, 1984, 1988, and 1996 were mid-term givens.  However, I nearly waffled in 2004 and picked Kerry.

Today I will pick the two nominees – and their running mates.  This is purely based on what I think the public, the media, and the political parties will do.

It will be Hillary vs. Mitt

Yes, both have plenty of obstacles to run around and avoid.  But these two seem to have the right factors to grab their parties’ nominations.

Hillary is clearly the Democratic front-runner.  Granted, she is a lightning rod.  But by drawing an equal amount of admiration and hate, she is still in the driver’s seat.  Remember, she only needs one vote more than 50%.

Hillary’s problem in the early stages of her campaign is that she is running for the overall election, not just the nomination.  She is steadfast on her stand on the war in Iraq – that is very centrist.  And criticism of her stand on the war is waning.  Possibly the complexities of her stand are now making sense to many more voters or it was yesterday’s attempt to paint her as someone out of step with Democrats. 

Like her or not, she is the only candidate that is running for the office and not for the nomination right now.  Sure, her campaign war chest allows her to do that.  But clearly, she is running on the inside track in these early stages of the race and most Dems will be looking at someone who can win the overall race when it gets to primary time.  And if we look closely at the Democratic Party, it is not entirely made up of extreme lefties trying to make a point.

Barack will give her a run, but ultimately Democrats won’t want a neophyte on foreign affairs issues.  His campaign ends in California.  His ethnicity will be a problem.  I heard a number of folks say, after watching him in Selma last week, that he tends to put on his “black mannerisms” when he is with a black crowd while being different with white crowds.  A little racist for sure, but you can’t stop folks from how they’re thinking when they cast a vote.

Let’s look at Mit.  Sure, he lags in the polls.  But the GOP will ultimately see Rudy and Newt as Reverend Haggards -- in the straight sense.  They both have moral and ethical issues with the Christian wing of the party.  Kate O’Bierne, from the National Review, made the great and ironic comment that the GOP candidate with only one wife is the Mormon.

For McCain, the nomination will fade on Iraq and his age.  Johnny Mac is too entrenched with the surge and, unless it works to perfection, most Americans will attach him to it.  Americans will also be uncomfortable with a 72 year old President who has been unhealthy.

	Whereas, Mit has the money, he’s young, and he appears to have no ethical or moral dilemmas.  He has only has one small task -- convert the GOP and its Right-Wing Christians.  And he will eventually make them realize that a follower of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has nearly the same goals and aims of most Christian evangelicals.   And to prove his point further and allay any fears of a Mormon take-over, Mit will choose former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as his running mate.

	Who will Hillary choose?  New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.  A former Energy Secretary, Richardson will be a guiding force on the second biggest issue of the campaign – energy independence.  Richardson has his ethnicity, too, possibly being the first Hispanic on a the presidential ticket.
If I’m right, you will see this column again.  If I’m wrong, I know some of you will remind me.