Re-Ordering An Ordered List From Dec 17th, 2007

Way back when, I gave an ordered list of my preferences for presidential candidates. The voters in the states that have voted so far, seem to have disagreed with me pretty strongly. Here's the old list:

1)Fred Thompson
2)Rudy Giuliani
3)Mitt Romney
4)Hillary Clinton
5)John McCain
6)Barack Obama
7)John Edwards
8)Mike Huckabee (yes, he's that contemptible)

Now, the revised list:

1)John McCain
2)Mitt Romney
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton

Why the revision? Simple, McCain is bad in many ways, and has all the habits of someone who spent too long in the Senate, but that doesn't mean he would be a bad president. Romney would still be a fine GOP candidate, and most likely a fine president, but I have come to accept that McCain wouldn't be nearly as bad as I feared back in December. McCain is better positioned to shrink government, appoint justices who believe in the consitution, and fight an aggressive war on terror. As a Senator he was always the "Maverick" Republican that the pressed love to get soundbites from trashing his fellow Republicans. As a party leader, and president, the press won't like him much anymore, and he'll probably govern more conservatively as an executive than he did as a legislator (at least that's my hope). If "shamnesty" does pass under McCain, that won't be a disaster for this country, we can absorb another wave of laborers from Mexico, and given the heat he's taken during the campaign, the next iteration of the McCain-Kennedy bill will likely be much tougher with regards to enforcement, so it won't be all bad.

Romney is still an attractive candidate, though something of a cypher. In that way he's similar to Obama. Romney 'looks' presidential, and a lot of times, that's been enough to get folks elected. There's no doubt that he'll work hard, bring an active intellect to the job, and find ways to work with people on both sides of the aisle. He would also be a stronger candidate to oppose Obama, should Obama manage to get the Dems nomination, but I think either GOP candidate will easily defeat either Dem candidate, so electability shouldn't enter into the argument.

Obama, is still The Obama, he that will wash away all our sins. That may be enough to grab the nomination away from Clinton, but it won't be enough to win the general election. The Obama is everything you want him to be, and nothing. He'll be your mirror, only he doesn't reflect back who you are, he reflects back who you wish you were. But from a policy standpoint I still get a strong, that Democratic president from the 70s who shall not be named vibe from him. And that should be enough to scare anyone. Add to that all the Kennedy talk, and he embodies all that is wrong with the Democratic party, and suggests he would be a disaster as president. Despite all that, he's still preferable to another Clinton administration.

Clinton has slipped behind McCain and Obama in my rankings for one main reason, her husband. It is becoming clearer with every passing week, that they have every intention of being a co-presidency again. It's a horrible idea, will further divide this country into two polarized camps, and make a mockery of the constitution. She'd mix all the paranoia of Nixon, but with an even extra large dose of maternalism/paternalism. On the plus side, if she were to be elected, she'd tear her party apart, on the negative side, she might also rip the country apart in the process. She's the biggest risk to our security and prosperity over the next eight years. It didn't seem that way a few weeks ago, but that seems pretty clear to me now.

Thankfully, Huckabee has fallen off the map, his win in Iowa hasn't been followed up anywhere else, and he won't be a factor after Super Tuesday. I'd still rate him behind Clinton if I were to bother including him in the rankings.