McCain. Obama. Giuliani. Clinton. I think I've read those four names more times over the past two weeks than any others this side of Michael Richards. Why? They're the most notable 2008 presidential hopefuls, of course. And everybody wants to know who this week's favorite is.

The confetti was barely swept off the floor Nov. 8 and the speculation had already begun.

A week ago Sunday, the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a huge story weighing the pros and cons of every likely candidate in the field. There were 20 in total.

Cable news networks may as well start setting Vegas-style odds and giving their hosts elaborate props like giant, lead-pipe locks. It's just that bad.

MSNBC and Fox News are effectively turning the political world into horse-racing with uglier thoroughbreds. Interviews with possible candidates have become unbearable.

The media simply cannot have a conversation with coy nondeclarees like Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., without it turning into a childish game of "are you in or out?"

"Senator, are you planning a run at the Whitehouse?" Tim Russert might ask on "Meet the Press."

"Tim, as I already stated that's a decision I'm going to make after some careful soul-searching and discussion with my family," replies Obama.

"So your family and/or soul could really swing this thing?"

"I believe so, Tim."

"If you were to look back at other decisions requiring the same sort of soul-family hybrid; have they generally been yes decisions or no decisions?"

"I'm not sure I understand the question."

"I'm asking do you have a family and soul likely to tell you to run for president or not to?"

"I don't know, Tim. That's why I'm asking them."

"All right, your family isn't here, so I'd like to direct this next question only to your soul. Now, remember, I don't want Barack to answer. ... Are you running for president?"

"Well, ahh ... Tim, you sly dog, you almost got me there."

Yes, it's absurd, but not far off. And it's not much better elsewhere. I was reading a story recently about Sen. John McCain's stated position that the United States will require more troops to win in Iraq.

Virtually the entire analysis of the piece was dedicated to speculating how this decision (perceived by the author to be unpopular) would affect McCain's presidential aspirations.

McCain's position was only applauded for as good strategy and only chided as difficult to explain away.

However, "as voters and the press start to look at him as a president-in-waiting, will they start to penalize him," for failures in Iraq, wrote John Dickerson in the online magazine Slate.

Have we gone totally nuts?

The only and I mean only consideration should be: does this policy make the U.S. and the world safer? The media seems to have forgotten this fine point.

Look, I'm not saying in 2006 we shouldn't start thinking about who will be president in 2008. It's important. But let's try not to forget where our actual concern for the well-being of the country ends and our desire to see McCain wrestle Hillary Clinton in a steel-cage grudge match begins.

Incidentally, I like McCain at 5 to 1 odds in that matchup. Who wants some action?

TJ Greaney is a staff reporter for the Southeast Missourian.