A Vatican reporter last week said John Paul was the perfect pope for the television age, "a man of images." Think of the pictures of him storm-tossed, tempest-tossed, standing somewhere and leaning into a heavy wind, his robes whipping behind him, holding on to his crosier, the staff bearing the image of a crucified Christ, with both hands, for dear life, as if consciously giving Christians a picture of what it is to be alive.

Benedict, the reporter noted, is the perfect pope for the Internet age. He is a man of the word. You download the text of what he said, print it, ponder it.

Now Benedict comes to America, his first trip as pope. The highlight in the Vatican's eyes is his address to the United Nations. No one knows what he will say. He will no doubt call for peace, for that is what popes do, and should do. Beyond that? Perhaps some variation on themes from his famous Regensburg address, in September 2006.

There he traced and limned some of the development of Christianity, but he turned first to Islam. Faith in God does not justify violence, he said. "The right use of reason" prompts us to understand that violence is incompatible with the nature of God, and the nature, therefore, of the soul. God, he quotes an ancient Byzantine ruler, "is not pleased by blood," and "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature." More: "To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm." This is a message for our time, and a courageous one, too. (The speech was followed by riots and by Osama bin Laden's charge that the pope was starting a new "crusade.")

International adoption by celebrities in recent years has called attention to this serious problem. Whole generations are growing up without parents, or face a home environment that is unable to sustain them in a healthy way, and are in desperate need of adult guidance. However, international adoption is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way of helping these children. Funding and supporting orphanages that will keep the children in their home countries, near their remaining family and surrounded by their culture is a great way to ensure the children grow and develop into healthy contributing members of society. By providing health care, education, clothing and food for these children we are giving them a foundation by which they can prosper and give back to their communities.

Republicans mean to win in 2008, they will have to separate themselves, gently but unmistakably, from the Bush Doctrine. While honoring the president and all that he has achieved in the overall war on terrorism, candidates would be well advised to find new language in which to cast the war against the jihadists. The truth is that the punitive and preventive war components of the Bush Doctrine remain vital to national security and eminently defensible before the voters. But so identified is the Doctrine with democratization and the war in Iraq that it is doubtful whether Republican candidates could persuade the electorate to discriminate neatly between the Doctrine's parts. Within its global campaign for democracy there are reasonable, modest initiatives that might be preserved, too, but so wrapped up are these with the overall discredited tone of idealism that it will probably be hard, once again, to distinguish them publicly.

Might it be possible to endorse the whole Bush Doctrine but promise to interpret it in a less militant and more cautious way? The paradox -- interpreting it more moderately than its author did -- would prove awkward. And does any candidate want to keep reminding the voters of his connection, his dependence on George W. Bus

But despite the prevailing opinions of media commentators, the female vote isn't necessarily a slam-dunk for Hillary. To gain the votes of most women -- the not-so-famous, so to speak -- she'll have to fight for it, just as other candidates, Democratic and Republican, have done since political pundits began pontificating on the "gender gap."

Historically, male and female voting patterns have differed because of competing visions over the proper role of the government. In recent years, a slight majority of women have tended to prefer a larger government with more services -- and therefore have voted for Democrats. Meanwhile, a majority of men have voted Republican, preferring a smaller government with fewer services.

But the gender gap has started to shrink. In 2000, Al Gore won the women's vote by 12 percentage points. By 2004, however, John Kerry won the women's vote by just three percentage points, as President Bush improved his standing among female voters dramatically.The fact is that women are wealthier, healthier and more independent than ever before. And free market policies have much to do with the strides American women have made.