I thought that it was about time I threw out my 2 cents on those that are running for President in 2008. Keep in mind, this isn’t an exhaustive analysis of each individual candidate but rather a quick list of them in order of most to least favorite.

First, the Democrats:

A favorite? They’re Democrats; there are no favorites here. In all seriousness, there is no way I would ever vote for anyone of these people in a million years. In fact, unless the entire Democratic Party basically reversed course on all of their stated goals, I will never vote for any Democrat ever. To quote a friend of mine, “when I see the ‘D’ next to their name, it means ‘disqualified.’” If I drank, I’d drink to that!

A few points though: Hillary Clinton is obviously the front runner for the Dems, with Barack Obama in 2nd, and John Edwards in 3rd. After that, really no one else matters. Here’s the question, though. Even with the political climate of late (one that hasn’t been all that friendly towards Republicans), are any of the Democratic candidates really all that electable? You have a woman, a black man, and a sort-of-metro-sexual-wimpy guy as the front runners. Now, I don’t think I could ever get excited about a guy like Edwards (even if he was on the right side of the isle), but I don’t have any real problems with a woman president (though I confess it may take some extra convincing), and I certainly have no dilemma with a black President (or a person of any other ethnic race – I’m not a racist, for Pete sake). However, it doesn’t matter what I think, though, the issue is whether the American public in general is really ready to pull the trigger and vote for the first woman or black president? Or on a pretty boy like Edwards? I just don’t know. Hopefully, the American public won’t let things like gender or race make the decision for them, but rather let record and past voting history doing the talking, because if the average American were to really scrutinize the beliefs of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, they wouldn’t have a snowballs chance in you know where of sitting in the oval office come January 2009…which is obviously a good thing.

Now, the Republicans:

1st Tier:

Fred Thompson: He is my first choice. Why? He is currently the most consistently conservative candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination. Period. He may not have the charisma of Huckabee, or the name recognition of Guliani. He may not have the polish of Mitt Romney, but he is running on conservative principles, and he has always run on them. He doesn’t have to cover up, or pretend, or avoid parts of his record to give himself the appearance of a true conservative. He’s a conservative guy through and through, and he has always been. He’s also put forth workable, attainable, real world ideas for today’s issues as well. He’s running his campaign on ideas, not hype, and they’re good ideas. The knock on him is that he’s not hungry enough for office, that he’s too lazy. Please. You don’t decide to run for President of the United States of America if you’re lazy. Rush Limbaugh recently made some great comments about this very issue, and though Rush didn’t officially endorse him, he might as well with what he said. Come on conservatives! If Rush’s on board with Fred, what are you waiting for?

Mike Huckabee: He is my undisputed 2nd choice. I’ll be honest; Huckabee is probably the most likeable of all the candidates. He’s smooth, witty, and has great presence about him. I could get enthusiastic about a Huckabee presidency. The reason he’s only my 2nd choice, though, is simple: his record is not as conservative as Thompson’s. That’s it. He raised some taxes, wasn’t all that tough on illegal immigration, and doesn’t seem to be steadfast on reducing the size of the federal government. That being said, he’s solidly conservative on social issues, and he’s a born again Christian and former Baptist minister. He’s also a Governor, and traditionally Governors do better than Senators when it comes to running for President. I like the Huckster; just not as much as Fred at this point.

2nd Tier:

Mitt Romney: Hmmm, after Thompson and Huckabee it’s honestly a crap shoot for the next tier. I would probably take Mitt Romney third right now. He’s talking a good, conservative game, but how much of it is canned, political talk, and how much of it is genuine? That remains to be seen. Also, how could a hard-line conservative be elected governor in the state of Massachusetts? It raises some questions. Ironically though, Mitt’s seemingly biggest hurdle, the Mormon thing, doesn’t bother me; I’m not electing a personal, spiritual guide, but a President. Plus, Mormons are generally very conservative in nature. That being said, I guess I just don’t get warm fuzzy’s when thinking about Mitt; I’m just a little suspicious of him.

John McCain: McCain is solid on defense issues, and has been consistently pro-life throughout his career, but he seems to get a kick out of bashing other Republicans to the media, which makes him seem disloyal. He is horrible on illegal immigration, and not to sound superficial, but he is really old too. George Bush looks like he added 50 years of age since he took office 7 years ago, could McCain handle that? I don’t know. He also has a lot of baggage, and is someone that has rubbed conservatives (and me) the wrong way on several different occasions.

3rd Tier:

Ron Paul: Libertarian loon. Nuff said. Not that he isn’t ok on some things, but he’s too “out there” on too many other issues for me…like being an isolationist. It sounds all nice and pretty, but it’s so impractical it’s ridiculous. His commitment to his ideals is admirable, but he just doesn’t have a realistic enough approach to deal with the problems of the day.

Rudy Guliani: Not my favorite guy. The only explanation, to me, as to why he has led in the polls for so long is name recognition. He is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-illegal immigration, and has a sleazy personal past. The only thing that sets him apart from the Democrats is his understanding of the war on terror. Nominating Rudy as the Republican candidate would be a severe blow to the social and Christian right, and honestly, I think he would get blown away in the general election for lack of Republican turnout. While I’ll support whoever becomes the Republican nominee to avoid someone like Hillary taking the reigns, I’ll admit it would be mighty hard to pull the lever for Rudy.

Not a Chance Tier:

Duncan Hunter: Duncan is actually just as conservative as Fred Thompson, maybe even more, and I would love to have him as President; his problem is that he doesn’t have a chance to win, which is a big problem.

Tom Tancredo: He’s got the same problem as Hunter. No shot to win. He’s a great guy, and a great stickler on illegal immigration, but you have to poll over like 1% to get my vote.

It should be interesting how this thing all shakes out. At this juncture there is so much speculation, and if you don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire or some of the other states that have early primaries, you may not even have the option to vote for your favorite candidate. So many candidates drop out early when it becomes apparent that it isn’t going to happen for them. The real question for the Republicans is this: if a guy like McCain, or Thompson, or Romney drops like a fly after the first few states, who will their supporters then latch onto? Who knows, and if you’re not a political junkie like me and don’t give a rip whose running in the primary, that’s fine…just promise me you’ll vote for the guy with the ‘R’ beside his name next November in the general election. Remember, ‘D’ stands for disqualified.