If one were to believe the prognosticators of the drive-by media, we can forget about the Republican primary contests, forget about the 2008 General Election, and proceed to inaugurate whichever radical Democrat can garner the most money and the most support from the left wing lunatic fringe. If the pundits are to be believed, none of the candidates currently seeking the GOP nomination have a snowball’s chance of getting elected, so we might as well accept our fate… such as it is.

But not so fast. To believe that the outcome of the 2008 election is essentially a foregone conclusion, that the people will return a Democrat to the White House in January 2009, one must believe that the American people are prepared to elect: a) an inexperienced young black man with Muslim roots, b) an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer, or c) a potty-mouthed female carpetbagger.

Are the American people prepared to elect a capable and competent African American? Of course. If either Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or former Secretary of State Colin Powell were to seek the presidency, white Republicans in large numbers would support them and the people would elect them. But are the people prepared to elect a political novice who attended Muslim schools; whose middle name is Hussein; who has no experience in international affairs; who suggests that, as president, he’d be prepared to invade Pakistan; who refuses to wear an American flag on his lapel; and who stands rigid, his arms and hands at his sides, when our national anthem is played? Not likely.

By far the most dangerous… and the most viable… of the leading Democrat candidates is former Senator John Edwards. Edwards made a fortune as a trial lawyer using junk science and emotional summations to convince juries that, in medicine, there is no room for anything less than 100% positive outcomes.

When Edwards ran in 2004, during his first term in the U.S. Senate, he raised more than $31 million, an unheard of accomplishment for a political newcomer. However, much of that money was the result of illegally "bundled" contributions raised in plaintiff’s law firms across the country. No one knows, as yet, the extent of the illegal fundraising because the scope of the crime, involving thousands of bogus donors, is far beyond the investigative capacity of the Federal Election Commission. Now Edwards is back for yet another try and his fundraisers apparently remain convinced that the laws are meant only for others… not for a super-slick trial lawyer who can find ways around the law.

Finally, are the American people prepared to elect a capable and competent woman to the White House? Yes, of course. Republicans have produced a great many women of real talent and ability… elegant and distinguished ladies, women of high moral character, highly experienced in foreign and domestic affairs, and strong on executive ability.

Democrats, on the other hand, have produced quite the opposite. The most prominent Democrat women all appear to be "ethically challenged," short on executive ability, and long on partisanship. They display public personae more conducive to mud-wrestling than to the Oval Office.

The current Democrat frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a woman with more baggage than Samsonite. She is currently a defendant in the Peter Paul fundraising scandal in California (the single largest illegal fundraising crime in history), she was recently forced to refund $850,000 received in a "reverse bundling" scheme operated by jailed Chinese businessman, Norman Hsu, and she is currently implicated in what appears to be yet another "reverse bundling" scandal in New York’s Chinatown where hundreds of minimum-wage busboys, dishwashers, and waiters have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaign.

So what is the source of that money? Did it originate in the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army… like much of her husband’s illegal reelection money in 1996?

In the most recent Democrat presidential debates in Philadelphia, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) bluntly stated that, as president, he would bar all Chinese imports into the United States. It was the perfect opportunity for the NBC moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, to ask Mrs. Clinton if she would make the same pledge… but they didn’t. If she is ultimately the Democratic nominee her Republican opponent won’t be nearly so squeamish.

Most current polls tell us that roughly half of potential 2008 voters say that they would not vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstance. The remainder are either strongly for her or leaning toward her. All her Republican opponent must do is to move enough of the Clinton-leaning voters to the right to push the anti-Clinton column to 50%, plus one… not a huge task against a candidate with her soiled laundry.

In spite of what the pundits might say, the American people are not prepared to elect an inexperienced young black man with a Muslim background, a narcissistic ambulance-chasing trial lawyer, or a potty-mouthed shrew who brings nothing to the presidency but an impeached and disbarred ex-president who remains popular among rank-and-file Democrats.

The Democrats and the radical left present us with a trio of exceptionally flawed candidates. So, take heart America, get out the ball gowns and the tuxedos and send them off to the dry cleaners. There’ll be a Republican celebration in Washington in January 2009.