Now that all the dust is settled, it appears that the American presidential primary is headed towards an actual  semi-final round next Tuesday, and while I will not be able to vote then (I will be voting the following Tuesday), I know that many of you will be and I think the timing is right to throw my two cents into the wishing well of public discourse and see what happens.  That said, I will just give a little run-down of the four candidates in alphabetical order and describe what I have seen and how I feel about it.

Hillary Clinton:  I think it is fair to say, given her Senatorial record, that Clinton has the tools to be an effective President: work ethic, intelligence, and an ability to bully, intimidate and perservere in order to accomplish her agenda.  Her campaign is the least surprising of the four remaining viable candidates.  She has the abilty to get a lot of votes and to turn off a lot of people simultaneously.  We all knew this way ahead of time.  However, I do believe that the way a candidate's campaign is waged is good indicator of how their administration will be run, and I remain deeply unimpressed with Senator Clinton.  Like President Bush, she has relied on subordinates (and her husband) to smear and muddy and thereby depress anyone who actually believes in the process, all the while disingenuously avoiding all responsibility  for said attacks.  To me, the low point came in Bill Clinton's reference to South Carolina as a place where Jesse Jackson won twice, intentionally implying that Senator Obama is a niche candidate for black people.  It is just that both the Kennedys and Toni Morrison endorsed Obama the very next day, thereby removing the mantle of the New Frontier and the "first black president" and bestowing them on a more deserving candidate.  Her candidacy so far has showed us, if nothing else, what sort of drama would be brought back into the White House if she is elected.  After eight years of Bush, I honestly think that another Clinton presidency would be very bad for the nation.  Plus, she voted to give Bush authority to go to war in Iraq and after witnessing the collapse of every rationale for that war, nevertheless did the exact same thing last year in regard to Iran.  However, many of my friends see a different side of her than I do - and if you are one of those,  certainly won't hold it against you.

John McCain: The biggest surprise of the campaign by far.  A month ago or less, he was written off as dead.  Now he is the probable Rebulican nominee.  On the war, he is the same as Clinton, but worse. His hawkishness scares me, but at least I know he believes in it personally and would go over there himself if he could, rather than just sending other people's children.  I also am greatly in fear of more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, as I feel that the choice agenda in America is already in jeopardy.  That said, he would immediately end our policy of torture - that is a big plus.  I also greatly respect the fact that McCain is an inveterate truth-teller.  I mean, he goes to Michigan and tells a bunch of auto workers that "the jobs aren't coming back."  He also campaigned in florida (home of the some the nation's worst foreclosure rates) and said that "the economy wasn't really his strong suit."  Wow!  you really do have to love that in a candidate.  To tell you the truth, even though I disagree with him on many fundamental issues, I really do like the man and feel he would be an acceptable, if a little scary, four-year president.

Barack Obama:  Does Senator Obama tell the truth?  Who the hell knows!  His speeches aren't so much statements as they are inspiring messages of unity and hope.  On the issues, he resembles Senator Clinton greatly.  The distinction, which is large, is one of tone.  Obama's message is not a list of proposals of what he (or the government) will do for you, but rather what we as a nation can accomplish if brought together by a profound message and belief.  I have to admit, that stirs me up a little.  While Clinton may be able to accomplish her agenda through bullying and trickery (the oldest tools of politics), Obama seems to be able to accomplish them by actual persuasion.  I'm voting for him and I hope you do too.

Mitt Romney:  How did a transparently disingenuous, socially liberal (at least two years ago!), patently pandering ex-governor of Massachusetts, of all places!, get this far in the Republican primary?  He has an uncanny ability to come in second in every primary and he has a whole lot of money.  That helps.  The primary electorate (particularly Republicans) have a long history of rewarding base pandering.  That helps as well.  He is not going away and may still do better than expected on Tuesday.  He has a long-track record of being an effective leader in business-type situations.  I'm not sure if that translates very well to the presidency.  It might.  Regardless, Romney is the very epitome of insincerity and i feel would be a very bad choice for president.  Please, if you are a Republican, do not vote for Romney.