We don’t elect our leaders on a single issue. We elect them on feelings and several positions. Their charisma and where they fall in the political spectrum – and where we fall – guides our votes. Winning on a single issue is rare.

However, losing on a single issue? Welcome to the Presidential Election of 2008.

It’s been pretty clear to me for quite some time; and I’m not the only one. The nation expressed its will last November and restates it every time a pollster goes into the field. The President is toast and his party, if it doesn’t abandon him and his war, is not far behind.

The nation has spoken; the smart ones acknowledged it a long time ago. We botched the Iraq thing. We shouldn’t have been there; we shouldn’t have crowed victory from the deck of an aircraft carrier; we shouldn’t have defied the world community; we shouldn’t have increased troop strength; and we should have started developing an exit strategy long ago. The list of mistakes in the prosecution of the war is also endless, but we’ll let the military guys enumerate those. For the moment, suffice it to say, George Bush lost the American people long ago and is doing nothing to regain their confidence. It isn’t even a question of whether it’s too late for him to acknowledge his errors and begin to end the war, cause he’s just not going to do that.

I’m not writing to debate the merits of this terrible war – regular readers know where I stood before the whole thing started. I’ve provided this as background as to why I believe this nation will elect a President and Congress clearly committed to end the war. Period. Or, to restate the politics of it, unless you are committed to withdrawing our troops and ending the war quickly, you’re not going to be the next president. And if you’re running for Congress and don’t share in this view, you had better be in a very, very red district.

So if you’re going to figure who is going to be the next President, look for one who is anti-war today. Past history is not too important – we Americans are a tolerant bunch. Me, I was anti-war before Congress was misled into their terrible vote. I remember sitting on the couch in my office the night before the vote, arguing with Gary Ackerman and Albany area Congressman Mike McNulty, both Liberal Dems. Gary has traditionally been far left of the mainstream and I couldn’t believe he’d vote to authorize war.

“If you knew what they told us [in a confidential briefing], you’d understand our vote,” they told me.

I’m leaving that statement and moving on because I’m writing about how we’re going to select the next president not about the sad past.

Republicans? Who in the race is committed to getting the hell out of Iraq? Watch and listen to them. If they are not yelling end the war and putting forth a withdrawal plan, they too are over the precipice with George Bush.

The yardstick here is not how to withdraw or an exact timetable but a clear commitment to end the war and bring our boys and girls home with dispatch. The GOPers have to make their positions known before the end of this year if they want the people to buy their position.

So watch Fred Thompson and listen carefully; see if he doesn’t break with Bush clearly, boldly, decisively and quickly. He may win the Republican nomination but his chances are no better than John McCain. Trust me, this country is not electing a pro [Iraq] War president.

It appears that every Dem in the country – certainly the candidates – are aboard the get out of Iraq train – with the exception of Indepencrat Joe Lieberman, and he’s not running this time.

So it’s pretty clear to this writer, the whole slew of Democratic candidates are acceptable based on this single issue test. It also has been apparent for quite sometime that Hillary will and should be her party’s candidate. I believe it was in my New Year’s prediction column – a half a year ago – that I said it will be a Hillary – Obama ticket – yes in that order.

There is one more voice to be heard – and this writer is certainly not writing it off. Mike Bloomberg is a player – a serious player – in the presidential game. I’m certain to be one of many to pen more columns on his candidacy, assuming he remains in the game. So for the moment suffice it to say that the political math of this nation includes a not-too-improbable permutation that a third party candidate can win it all. Mike Bloomberg has everything that’s needed to be that person and more (at least from the dollar point of view).

Take that analysis from someone who has been following and commenting on the game for more than a quarter of a century and was almost ready three months ago to position the Tribune to be the first paper in the nation to endorse Hillary. Yes, she is my candidate. But I gotta tell you, Mayor Mike gives us all reason to step back and take another look. No, I’m not abandoning our Senator, she’s my candidate. However, should Mike Bloomberg become a candidate, he has certainly proven he is an able and competent contender – we’d have to consider the new picture.

However, remember that issue – getting out of Iraq? Where is Mike Bloomberg?

So we’ve come all these 900 words to tell our readers that if Mike Bloomberg is serious about being the next President of the United States, watch in the next several months for him to assert his position on the war in Iraq. And if he doesn’t tell the nation that Bush is dead wrong and it’s time to bring the troops home now, you can write him off.

And if he does as I expect and joins the chorus of Americans chanting to end the war, it becomes more and more likely that come January 2009 a New Yorker will be moving to Washington.

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.