When Republican political strategist Mary Matalin predicts that the 2008 presidential nominations won’t come down to whoever-has-the-most-bucks winning, you have to wonder who’s been spiking her Kool-Aid.

Of course, she also believes that history will rank George W. Bush as a great president, so you know to take her assessments with deep skepticism.

She recently told a Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce luncheon audience that “if you’ve got a message, you don’t need money.” But if you’ll recall, Bush had a message. Uniter, not divider, anyone? Restore honor and dignity to the White House?

An appealing message might win votes, but it takes ideas and skills, good sense and good instincts, convictions and the courage of them to lead. And by that I mean lead toward improvement and the greater good, not just over a cliff.

But if you believe the assessment of presidential historian Michael Beschloss, ours has devolved into a presidential selection process unlikely to elevate that kind of leader to the top office – and those with the most power to change the system have little incentive to do so.

During a meeting last week with the Star-Telegram Editorial Board, Beschloss said that today’s campaign system, drowning in cash and driven by TV commercials talking to one another, undermines our ability to determine which candidate has the capacity for great leadership in a crisis. And Americans’ cultural obsession with winning makes tough decisions, with politically perilous consequences, tough for presidents to make.

The 1968 campaign, for example, put candidates through primaries, caucuses and other state selection events that brought them close to voters in a variety of settings over a reasonable period of time. Forty years later, we line up an array of hopefuls before TV cameras and ask them to “raise your hand” in answer to questions, as though they were in a deodorant commercial instead of supposedly elucidating their qualifications for leading the world’s only superpower.

“We should be exposing these people and knocking them off balance so we can see what they’re like,” Beschloss said.

Instead, it takes $100 million for serious contention, the process effectively will wrap up with the plethora of Feb. 5 primaries, and the biggest war chests will win the parties’ nominations.

“The Founders would be disgusted, and they should be,” Beschloss said.

What’s a voter to do? For starters, jump off the bandwagon. Support Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney if you will, yet not because they’re skilled fundraisers but because they’re skilled problem-solvers. Be charmed by Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani, but support them for real management ability – not for savvy in front of a camera. Get beyond John Edwards’ extravagant home and haircut to examine how he would choose among worthy programs not all of which the federal treasury can afford.

Listen to former Sen. Bill Bradley, whose thoughtful, ideas never got the traction they deserved when he ran for the 2000 Democratic nomination. In “The New American Story,” Bradley calls for an infusion of honesty and boldness, for a candidate to put forward a plan ranking problem areas that matter most to most Americans – the economy, foreign oil dependence, pensions, the environment, health care and education – and offering ways to pay for solutions.

“I believe that the American people not only want such a campaign but also want such a government, one that addresses their principal daily concerns in a way that gives them hope – and then delivers on its promise,” Bradley writes.

Optimistic, sure, but it’s what we ought to be demanding by the way we vote.

Something Matalin said stuck with me: “Change is certain; progress is not.”

Challenge or warning? We ought to treat it as both.