It is not a fantasy. Well-intended conservatives have become the best allies of the arch-liberal Marxist from New York. If she so much as nods, we conservatives provide free advertising by running around burbling her name to any reporter or talk show host who will listen.

She doesn't even have to actually say or do anything. A hair doesn't fall from her well-coiffured head that doesn't make the "A" section.

Her first name alone has been mentioned in the press over 7,500 times this month. If she could only charge royalty fees, she wouldn't need another campaign fund raiser ever.

She has reached name brand status. Any advertising agency on Madison Avenue would kill for the credit of building an account's name recognition to these mighty heights in just 10 short years.

As a communications professional, I have to give her and her handlers credit. If they had to pay for their media mentions, it would be a ten-figure number. We are at least half of the problem, maybe more. Our side has given them multi-millions of dollars in de facto advertising for free.

What are we thinking?

No one needs to worry about the really red states or the blatantly blue states. That's settled business. It's all of those purple people out there that we need to worry about because they could tip the balance. We don't need to contribute to the bluing of the purples.

As the old adage goes: There's no such thing as a bad story as long as they spell your name right. We don't need to build the brand recognition of She-who-must-not-be named. As repeatedly proven by a popular work of fiction using pseudonyms, like you-know-who, takes some of the energy out of the darkest characters.

Face it: Any time she is perceived as being attacked or vilified, her approval numbers actually seem to increase. So why don't we give her a good old fashioned shunning, starve her of media oxygen and cease contributing to this "product's" front-of-mind awareness. She has enough shelf space, end caps, kiosks and product placement.

Okay, if we absolutely cannot resist the urge to talk about her, why not use descriptives? The Christian Science Monitor in a recent story said, "To some voters, she is a ruthless Machiavelli-in-a-pantsuit who will do anything to resume residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave." That's a little stronger than my first inclination, granted, but it could be headed in the right direction.

Jill S. Farrell is a conservative communications and media relations professional.