If I had written this blog at the moment it first occured to me, I would have been ahead of the game, rather than an apparent bandwagon jumper.

When I first saw the trailers for the new show "Commander in Chief" starring Geena Davis, its intent was rather apparent: softening up the American public for Hillary Clinton's planned 2008 White House run.

Of course, there are differences between Davis' character and Hillary: Davis plays a rather centrist figure thrust into the role of president after being elected as veep and having her boss die on her two years into the term. Hillary is unlikely to accept the role of "second fiddle"; a role she feels she already played for eight years under former Groper-in Chief Bill, and is one of the most leftist members of the Senate.

But if last year's elections taught us nothing, it's that Americans are highly unlikely to accept a President who hails from the furthest feather of the left wing. They want a centrist, and, failing that, a conservative, to lead, with the exception of pockets of the nation whose voting integrity seems to be questionable, to put it succinctly.

Hillary is most definitely NOT a centrist, and is about as likely to embrace the far right as Fred Phelps is to take the role of grandmaster in a gay pride parade. And therein lies the rub.

To make Hillary acceptable, the perception MUST be that she IS a centrist. And so, by creating a character who has those qualities, TV producers can use the gullibility of the American people to persuade them that there is any resemblance whatsoever. Expect the show's content to slowly move towards issues that will form a substantial portion of Hillary's '08 platform. Any resemblance between the two, however, is purely coincidental.

Oh, and, one more thing: "Commander in Chief"'s primary role is played by a MENSA member. I don't think Hillary qualifies.