Here are my current (extremely lukewarm) preferences for presidential candidates in both parties, confining myself to the declared major candidates*, from most to least preferred:
Dems:
1. Richardson
2. Edwards
3. Obama
4. Clinton
GOP:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Guliani
At this point none of the GOP candidates rise close enough to the level of sanity on foreign policy for me to consider voting for them in a general election, but Romney strikes me as the most rational. Or, at least, he’s demonstrated a certain … flexibility, which leads me to think that he would be more likely to bend with the prevailing wind on Iraq, etc. Contrast this to McCain’s rather frightening “Damn the torpedoes!” approach.
As for the Dems I would consider pulling the lever for Richardson, Edwards, and Obama, but probably not Clinton. Richardson has made what I regard as some very good statements on Iraq and has an overall foreign policy savvy that seems both realistic and constrained. Edwards has said some good things, though I’m not completely sold. Obama is still a bit of a cipher in my view, and I’m not convinced he’s had enough experience for the job. HRC is an unapologetic war-hawk and executive power aficionado, so I feel no pull whatsoever to vote for her.
So, given the above, if on election day it comes down to either Richardson, Edwards, or (possibly) Obama vs. any of the three above Republicans, I would probably vote Dem. If it ends up being HRC, I will almost certainly vote third-party.
This all assumes that no other serious contenders (Hagel, Gore) jump in to complicate matters.
—————————————————–
*I admit the possibility that Huckabee, Tommy and/or Fred Thompson, and Brownback could potentially become major contenders, so their exclusion is somewhat artificial; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, God bless their peacenik hearts, don’t stand a chance.
A Thinking Reed 
If Kucinich is in a primary in PA and I am registered as a Democrat at that time I will certainly vote for him.
If Ralph Nader jumps in I will end up voting for him in the general election. Even if not, I will almost certainly vote for a minor party candidate for President. If not, I will vote a blank ballot for that office.
I will not vote for a duopolitan, and I will not vote for anyone who is too hawkish for me, though of course I would prefer any Democrat to any Republican. Lightly gloved capitalism is not as awful as the bare-knuckled variety.
Brownback has plenty of time to make his conservative credentials known. Rudy and Romney have peaked.
“Go ahead, throw your vote away”
-Kang
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
P.S. Gaius, Nader has suggested he may jump in if it looks like HRC is going to get the nomination: http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/03/ralph_nader.html
Of course, Gingrich might enter the fray . . . Lord help us!
I’m a big fan of Richardson, though he has as much star power as Wilson Phillips as compared to the Bonos and Madonnas that are in the race . . .
I still like Richardson, even though he made some odd comments about his non-existant MJB career early in the campaign. His fund-raising hasn’t been stellar though so he may end up more as a VP prospect than a leading-the-ticket guy.
He does have the distiction of having been called a “fat sissy” by Don Imus for several weeks. That might be an advantage in the current climate.
MLB that should be
I’m not sure why you are listing Richardson as a top tier candidate. He keeps scoring lower than Kucinich on national polls! The GOP isn’t fielding anyone I could conceivably vote for this election cycle. My choices in order are Kucinich (it is still FAR too early to count him out; his Iowa ground game is good and he is well on his way to raising $50 million with ZERO corporate money–that could make him a real contender); Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Clinton. I will vote for the latter only to prevent a worse GOP candidate –and only if we in the peace movement have pushed her considerably from where she is now. I think she has very little chance of winning the general election and I think she would be a very bad president.
I think and Edwards-Obama ticket (with either on top billing) would be so unstoppable that I hope that at some point in the race, each gives this considerable thought.
Michael, you may have a point about Kucinich vs. Richardson. I guess I just see Richardson as a more “serious” contender because he has a more presidential resume. However, I do have a soft spot for K., not only because of his positions on war & peace but because he’s the only candidate I’m aware of who has staked out a good position (or, for that matter, any position) on animal welfare issues. In fact, if I was a registered Dem I’d be strongly tempted to vote for him in the primary.
I haven’t picked my vote for the primary yet but it will likely be Obama. I prever Kucinich but I think all the progressive voters need to vote to block Hillary which means Obama or Edwards.
An Obama / Edwards combo ticket is an easy win for the dems. I think either one could be the headliner and win. But unfortunately I think Hillary will win the nomination and then loose to Gulliani. I don’t like it, but that is my pick. It is the only scenario for a dem loss and I fear it will happen but that is my “glass half empty” view of the world. I hope I’m wrong.
Pingback: Iowa « A Thinking Reed