Surveying the Presidential candidates whose hats are currently in the ring on both sides of the aisle, I have to tell you I am resoundingly underwhelmed. Again.

I think the last time I was actually excited about a candidate was Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Since his second term ended in ‘88 we have had a steady sucession of lesser-of-two-evils, hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-one-of-them choices. 

In ‘88 we had George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.  Bore and Boring-er.  The only excitement that year was Dukakis’ silly tank driving stunt.  In 1992 we had Bush, Clinton and Perot, the three stooges. Four years later we had Clinton and Dole.  Bob Dole is a genuine war hero, a very decent human being and an extremely funny fellow, but he was already too old and even in his prime, he wasn’t Presidential timber.  In 2000, we had the epic pairing of George W. Bush and Al Gore, which begat hanging chads and butterfly ballots.  In 2000, the Democrats decided to go an all new direction.  Instead of Ivy League educated elitist white guy Al Gore to pit against Ivy League educated elitist white guy George W. Bush, they went with John Kerry, (wait for it…) an Ivy League educated elitist white guy.

Now to this year’s all new crop of POTUS wannabes.  First the Democrats–

Hillary Clinton: She gives me the creeps.  And from her off the charts negatives, I see I am most decidedly not alone in that feeling.  Don’t know which is more scary, her total lack of sincerity, her laugh or her big government policies.

Barack Obama: The closest thing to a candidate that can generate real excitement. But he hasn’t even completed one term in the Senate.  It is very possible he will be the first African American President. But not in 2008.

John Edwards: $400 haircuts. ‘Nuff said.

The supporting cast: Joe Biden: Snore. Chris Dodd: Double Snore. Bill Richardson: I don’t think so.  Kucinich and Gravel: The Wacko Factor.

And the Republicans–

Rudy Giuliani: He was magnificent as NYC mayor in the days after 911, but he has to bring more to the table than that.  Not exactly a great orator or a captivating personality.

Fred Thompson: His much-awaited entry into the race fizzled almost immediately. We’re used to seeing him as the witty, erudite DA on Law and Order.  Let’s face it, with no script, Fred is a dud.

Mike Huckabee: Comes across well most of the time, except for his dumb comments to the NRA. But as President?  Thanks for playing…next!

Sam Brownback: We’re not in Kansas anymore…

John McCain: Too old, too grumpy, too many missteps. Plus he recently confessed to being a Baptist when everyone thought he was an Episcopalian.

Mitt Romney: I didn’t think anyone could give me the creeps more than Hillary.  Enter Mitt Romney. Ewwwww.

The supporting cast: Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter: Again, The Wacko Factor.

After taking a good hard look at all of these candidates, I am throwing my support behind None of the Above.  Clearly the best choice at this time.

Although I have to tell you, I do see a candidate on the horizon that I could get really excited about: Stephen Colbert.  Why, I ask you, would you support an actor who plays a District Attorney on TV when you can support a comedian who plays a political commentator on TV?  Tell me which of the above candidates could match this logic:

I know why you want me to run, and I hear your clamor. I share Americans’ nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn’t yet fled to Guangdong. And I don’t intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for 15 million. Cash.

There’s a lot that can (and probably will) happen between now and November 2008 to change the dynamics or even the cast of characters.  Just ask Howard “YYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH” Dean.  But as of now, I’m backing Colbert.  Or None of the Above.  Same difference.