First, this post is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of each of the presidential candidates. Rather, consider it a “Reader’s Digest” condensed version that deals with the key factors on each candidate that I am personally concerned with.

Second, I don’t pretend to be objective. The views on each of the candidates reflects my liberal/libertarian viewpoint. You don’t like it? Go post your own, or read someone else’s. Additionally, to conserve space I am simplifying each candidate’s position on issues. If you don’t like that, see the previous comment. And pass the salt.

Finally, the next president has a horrendous challenge ahead; to try to undo all of the damage caused to this nation during the past six years and the next two. George W. Bush is, without a doubt in my view, the single worst president in the history of our nation, and Dick Cheney the single worst vice president in the history of our nation. And folks, given some of our previous presidents and veeps, that’s really saying something.

The election of 2008 truly finds our nation at a crossroads. We can choose the tough road of rebuilding our reputation abroad and our democracy at home, or we can continue our plummet into autocracy. I am not saying this to be dramatic. George W. Bush has undermined our representative government at every turn, and politicized every decision. We must either band together as Americans (above political parties) or we can continue to tear ourselves apart until it culminates in a Soviet-like regime or collapse into civil war.

You decide, America.

Please note I have added a few people that have not announced their candidacy. It will save me the trouble if they do decide to run later. Note that those in italics have not officially declared their candidacy.

My general political positions will be coming in a near-future post, just so the reader can have some context on how I credit or debit the caliber of a person’s candidacy on that particular issue, though you may likely figure out some of my leanings on your own.

Republican Candidates for President

Sam Brownback (Kansas)
Here is the first of our candidates who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old. What a surprise that he is from Kansas. Not. On social issues, the guy is a neanderthal. He cites Jesse Helms as a role model. Greeeeeat. He does not believe in a woman’s control over her own body and is an opponent of gay rights. Not just gay marriage mind you (which I am ambivalent about), but rights for gays at all. He has questioned the death penalty and Bush’s wiretapping program, so he’s not a complete waste of human material. He has also lobbied to intervene in the Sudan (Darfur). However, Brownback is also a major advocate of the FCC’s tightening up of the airwaves. He also believes in policies that effectively hamper the United Nations, as opposed to strengthening it. Supports a flat tax and has no new or innovative ideas on energy policy or social security. The climate is not on his radar, but the Second Amendment is. Overall, Brownback rates a “F+”, meaning I think he would generally suck as president, yet would still be an improvement over the current idiot occupant.

John Cox (Illinois)
Brownback-light, but with less than 1% support. Not even worth being on the radar. Grade: F

Jim Gilmore (Virginia)
Supports making Bush tax cuts permanent. Pro-Administration on the war in Iraq. Another one whose web site doesn’t bother to talk about the environment, but does cater to those who worship firearms. Anti-gay rights… even opposes civil unions for gays, which I find to be a good compromise on the issue. No really new ideas, just more of the same neocon thinking. Grade: F

Newt Gingrich (Georgia)
A neocon’s neocon. Former disgraced Speaker who had to resign from Congress. Hasn’t had an original thought in years, and those he has had usually involve someone dying for offending the government. A petulant and petty man. Out of all of his positions, the only things that I could find that show even a modicum of humanity are hs support of “guest worker” programs and an acknowledgement that we are screwing up our environment. Otherwise, this guy is a washed-up joke as a presidential candidate. Grade: F-

Rudy Giuliani (New York)
Mr. Fear-Monger himself, who says that a vote for a Democrat is a win for the terrorists. Frakking knuckle-dragger. Ummm, Rudy? Who was mayor at the time of 9/11 and refused to do anything about WTC security? Here’s a hint: It wasn’t Ed Koch. My personal disdain for his recent comments aside… he supports flat tax and rejects nationalization of health care system. Yeah because, you know, our health care system is so envied around the world (yes, that was sarcasm). Totally pro-administration on the war, and looks ready to pick a fight with Iran. Supported a woman’s control over her own body, but now seems to be waffling on that. Giuliani is progressive on gay rights and has an enlightened position on gun control. Supports comprehensive immigration reform, but unfortunately supported school vouchers. This guy looks to be perhaps the most acceptable of the Republican candidates, but his mouth keeps getting in the way. That, and his support of the war. Grade: C-

Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)

All talk, no vote.

If you just listen to Chuck Hagel, the man is tremendous. He criticized the administration on Iraq far before other Republicans did. He mocked Dick Cheney’s assertion that the insurgency was in its last throes. He has also blasted the administration on the sacrifice of civil liberties in the interest of security.

Yet the man voted for the Military Commissions Act, the single most damaging piece of legislation to civil liberties in American history.

He has consistently voted on the side of the Bush administration despite his outcries against them. He has cast some votes showing his independence, such as being one of only two senators to strip the President of his authority to remove U.S. attorneys.

The man is an enigma, and that is not the first thing I desire in a president. There is speculation (generated by Hagel) that he might run as an Independent, possibly paired with New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

And that is likely the only way I could see Hagel becoming president. As an Independent, and not as a Republican.

Grade: C-

Mike Huckabee (Arkansas)

Another of our “intelligent design” chuckle-heads.

He is self-described as pro-life, pro-family values, and pro-Second Amendment. He is clearly positioning himself to try and capture the religious wacko wing of the party. He supports canceled abstinence education programs despite the fact that they were completely ineffective. Supports flat tax. This man is a domestic disaster waiting to happen. Grade: F

Duncan Hunter (California)

Wacko right to life, introducing legislation to extend rights to a person at the time of conception. Pro-gun. Cites the fact that the U.S. has not been struck since 9/11 as “proof” that we are on the right track with regard to the “war on terror”.

Described by one colleague as the “John Wayne” of Congress. Um, John Wayne was a draft dodger who overcompensated by being an extreme right-winger. Thanks, but we’ve already got two of those in Bush and Cheney. Yeah, Hunter served in Viet Nam, but still fits the John Wayne profile pretty well. Grade: F

John McCain (Arizona)

The ultimate chuckle-head and flip-flopper. He was against the Military Commissions Act before he voted for it. Same with Bush’s tax cuts. This guy hasn’t met a position he couldn’t abandon in order to curry favor with the wacko wing of the Republican Party. Now he has embraced Dubya’s war, and served as the President’s personal pitbull in justifying the unjustifiable. Like this man is going to suddenly grow a spine as president? His positions on issues show a man capable of being independent, but his conduct during the presidential race has demolished any credibility he once had as a “maverick”. Grade: D-

George Pataki (New York)

A liberal on social issues in most cases, but against open enrollment in public higher education. The man was a disaster of a governor in New York, trying to be a “Rockefeller Republican” but instead maintaining the status quo for decision-making processes that he had attacked as a candidate. Grade: D-

Ron Paul (Texas)

Supports reduced government spending. Is opposed to international bodies such as the International Criminal Court. Attacks the Bush administration as having lied to the American people - very pragmatic in understanding the long-term harm being done to U.S. interests. Would secure borders but is not progressive on immigration. Very concerned with civil liberties being lost under the current administration. Libertarian but with way too conservative a social slant. Militantly anti-choice and anti-Affirmative Action. Grade: D-

Mitt Romney (Massachusetts)

Has flip-flopped on abortion to gain conservative support. Is a paper tiger on defense, saying in the second debate that we should “double Guantanamo”. Opposes civil unions and supports “protection of marriage” - somewhat of a departure from earlier stands. Although Governor of a state with a progressive health insurance policy, Romney vetoed important parts of the plan, including vetoing dental and vision coverage to the poor.

Simply put, the guy is frightening. He seems to have no substance, no principles, and would end up going to the highest bidder on most issues. Grade: F

Tom Tancredo (Colorado)

The third member of our “intelligent design” group, meaning he has very little intelligence. Not progressive on immigration. Pro-gun, pro-Iraq War, pro-flat tax. Not progressive on education and agriculture. Social conservative to the extreme. If he becomes president, I move to another country. Of course that applies to any of the people in the “F” range. Grade: F

Fred Thompson (Tennessee)

Pro-gun, anti-choice, and still questions the impact of humans on global warming. And we thought all the dinosaurs died. I like him as an actor, but his delusions of presidency are just that. Grade: F

Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin)

Anti-abortion choice. OK’d firing of employees on basis of being gay. Supported vouchers for private schools in Wisconsin. On campaign has been an instant gaffe machine. Horrible governor of Wisconsin…managed to lie to Congress as governor and was as honest as Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan in Illinois (that’s NOT a complement). Supports Iraq War. Not progressive on immigration. Pro-gun to the point of idiocy. Grade: F

Democratic Candidates for President

Joe Biden (Delaware)

Supported continued funding of Iraq War. Developed partition plan for Iraq. Common sense approaches to health care, energy independence, and the environment. Instant gaffe machine… just add words. Good voting record on military issues and civil liberties. Opposed Military Commissions Act, but re-authorized the Patriot Act. Grade: B-

Wesley Clark (Arkansas)

Pro-choice. Pro-Affirmative Action. Called for repeal of Bush tax cuts. Has actively opposed any preemptive attack on Iran. No voting record, and caused some controversy while serving as a four star general. Grade: C+

Hillary Clinton (New York)

Against education vouchers. Supports Kyoto protocol. Enlightened view on free market capitalism. Supports universal health care. Opposed NSA spying. Supported comprehensive immigration reform. Supports stronger U.N. Pro-choice. Pro-death penalty. Opposes same-sex marriages but supports civil unions. Supports gun control. Initially supported war in Iraq but has become vigorous opponent; voted against continued funding of Iraq war. She generally has great positions and, like her husband, is a policy wonk. She also stinks of being incredibly political in terms of her decision-making. But so was Bill, and he got an awful lot done in his two terms. Grade: A-

Christopher Dodd (Connecticut)

Introduced the “Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007″. Supports gay rights. Progressive environmental stand. Advocated for FMLA legislation. Pro-gun control. Progressive views on health care. Vigorously opposes Iraq war. Involved in “Waitress Sandwich” controversy and seems to ingratiate himself with special interest groups. Grade: B

John Edwards (North Carolina)

Supports abortion rights. Progressive environmental views. Progressive stance on immigration. Detailed plan on universal health care. Apologized for voting to approve Iraq war and is a staunch advocate of ending the war. Against same sex marriage but supports civil unions. Advocated rolling back Bush tax cuts. Supports death penalty. Grade: A-

Al Gore (Tennessee)

Most enlightened candidate on the environment. Extremely critical of Bush administration’s foreign policy and invasion of Iraq. Pro-choice. Pro-Affirmative Action. Favors civil unions over same-sex marriages. Progressive fiscal positions. Pro-gun control. Grade: A

Mike Gravel (Alaska)

Proposes to eliminate IRS and income tax, replacing it with national sales tax. Proposes socialized/not for profit medicine. Opposes imperialistic U.S. foreign policy and would end American presence in Iraq. Opposes Military Commissions Act. Opposes torture. Progressive environmental views. Favors full civil rights for gays, including marriage. Favors decriminalization of marijuana. Pro-choice. Pro-gun control. Opposes death penalty. Grade: A-

Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)

Supports universal health care program. Progressive education platform. Opposes U.S. military action in Iraq. Would withdraw from WTO and NAFTA. Would repeal U.S. Patriot Act. Would abolish death penalty. Would create a U.S. Department of Peace. Would ratify ABM Treaty and Kyoto Protocol. Pro-choice. Would end the war on drugs. Would legalize same sex marriage. Would ban hand guns. Progressive environmental platform. Grade: B

Barack Obama (Illinois)

Opposes education vouchers. Supports Net Neutrality. Supports universal health care. Would end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Progressive immigration stance. Pro-choice. Supports civil unions over same-sex marriage. Pro-gun control. Grade: A

Bill Richardson (New Mexico)

Pro-choice. Opposes war in Iraq, calling for exit of U.S. troops. Calls for Congress to de-authorize the war. Supports universal health care-type system. Progressive energy policies. Progressive environmental positions. Progressive immigration stance. A bit of a gaffe machine. Grade: A-

Major Third Party Candidate for President

Ralph Nader (Connecticut)

Pro-Affirmative Action. Would repeal Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Would legalize marijuana and end war on drugs. Progressive stances on environment, health care, taxes, immigration and U.S. influence. Has not articulated sound ideas for national defense beyond peace initiatives. Grade: B

Wrap-Up

So let’s look at where each of our candidates ended up:

“A” Grade

Al Gore, D
Barack Obama, D
Hillary Clinton, D (A-)
John Edwards, D (A-)
Mike Gravel, D (A-)
Bill Richardson, D (A-)

“B” Grade

Christopher Dodd, D
Dennis Kucinich, D
Ralph Nader, I
Joe Biden, D (B-)

“C” Grade

Wesley Clark, D (C+)
Rudy Giuliani, R (C-)
Chuck Hagel, R (C-)

“D” Grade

John McCain, R (D-)
George Pataki, R (D-)
Ron Paul, R (D-)

“F” Grade

Sam Brownback, R (F+)
John Cox, R
Jim Gilmore, R
Mike Huckabee, R
Duncan Hunter, R
Mitt Romney, R
Tom Tancredo, R
Fred Thompson, R
Tommy Thompson, R
Newt Gingrich, R (F-)

Thus, in the end analysis, there are six people (Gore, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel and Richardson) I prefer for president, based on their views on various issues. Of these six, Gore and Obama are slightly ahead of the others.

My strong preference is that Al Gore run for president in 2008, and I will actively engage in supporting a movement to draft him. Recognizing however, that he may well sit out the race, I would then offer my support to Barack Obama. There are a lot of things to like about Obama… his views, his character, his spouse and his candor being at the top of my list. He might well be the right person in the right place at the right time for America.

That said, I am dubious as to his ability to win the Democratic nomination. The Clinton machine is a good one, and I hold no dislike for it. If Obama were not running, Hillary would undoubtably have my endorsement. I like Hillary, and am relatively convinced that she will win the general election if she is nominated. I am similarly convinced though that Obama would also win a general election if he got the party’s nod, and would likely have an easier time than Hillary.

I like John Edwards as a candidate and I thought he handled himself well as a vice presidential candidate in 2004. He has a solid campaign infrastructure, but I think he will find it hard to compete with Hillary and Barack. Mike Gravel is likable and wise, but almost completely unelectable (one reason why I like him), and while I like Bill Richardson, I am not certain that he would survive the daily scrutiny of a presidential campaign at this point. None the less, any of these six would have my support if they were to receive the Democratic nomination. And it would be even better if two got paired up on a ticket. Can anyone say Gore/Obama?

Finally, I am including relevant links to the campaigns I like on the left sidebar. Please support the candidate that best meets your hopes for America. If you find yourself supporting a candidate who falls into my “D” or “F” range, might I suggest that you mail any campaign contribution that you might otherwise have made to the future George W. Bush Defense Fund? He’s going to need all the help he can get.

I look forward to your comments.