My opinion is worth so many beans, but several people have asked in different discussions who I support in the primaries (this question is usually asked by the people who support the ones that I trash). But I don't just throw in behind one candidate, I really like to think about what recommends each one. So here's my sum-up.

(Keep in mind that I am a leftie, but that doesn't mean I can't see the strong points of a conservative)

Rudy Giuliani

He's my least favorite in this race, for a bevy of reasons. I am bothered by the fact that he is a scumbag who intentionally publicly humiliated his wife, which is about 5x worse than plain old adultery in my book (I could forgive my husband for cheating, I could never forgive him for publicly ridiculing me).

I think that most of what makes him a strong candidate is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. His leadership at 9/11 wasn't all that great. What, he's a great leader because he didn't break down and start crying like a woman? That's the least that was expected of him. He had serious lapses in leadership that may have caused more lives that day :

1. He located an emergency control center with massive unsecured fuel tanks in the place in New York most likely to get hit by terrorists; those tanks were one of the main reasons Building 7 was destroyed
2. One of the principle lesson learned in 93 was that fire and police needed interoperable communication systems. Giuliani had done nothing to improve the communications ability of New York emergency personnel. Firefighters in the building did not get the order to evacuate because of utterly preventable breakdowns in communications.
3. Giuliani did not do due diligence in protecting all of the city workers and volunteers clearing the rubble

Also, Giuliani has a frightening authoritarian bent. The first thing he did after 9/11--before lifting a finger to try to better coordinate rescue efforts at Ground Zero--was to try and postpone the upcoming elections so he could be mayor longer. That's a BAD instinct for someone who wants to be a leader of the free world. We always need to guard first against tyranny. I also don't like how he decided laws didn't apply to him, and would use Bernie Kerik to wiretap anyone who pissed him off, or would use other underhanded methods to take people out. It's like the Clintons on crack.

He has a long history of taking credit for things that aren't his doing. Most of the 'cleaning up' of New York City was accomplished under Dinkins, not Giuliani. He kept some of Dinkins staff just long enough to finish up their projects--like the Disneyfication of Times Square--and then fired them for stealing his limelight.

He's a bad guy, and most of his accomplishments are appropriated from others or aren't really there.

The attachment to Giuliani is entirely emotional. He makes us feel a certain way, because of the emotion of that day. I don't like candidates chosen on emotion.

Because most people vote on emotion, I think he has a good chance of winning the primary.

Mitt Romney
He's a bit too coiffed, like Edwards. He rose significantly in my estimation when he said he liked Orson Scott Card.

I don't like how conservative Mormons tend to be, but I got to say, the Mormons I have dealt with in my life have all been remarkably decent, forthright, and pleasant people. I think the religion is a bit wacky, but they clearly have something going on.

He did a good job running a populous state, so he's got the competence. He's not a raging ideologue, which is good. He has the ability to be diplomatic. And though he's been fudgy on the abortion question, I think he's one of the more honest candidates.

I think he has a good chance of winning the primary.

John McCain
Always liked McCain. Compelling story. Think that he could do an excellent job with national security. People who have served in war have historically been much more hesitant to go to war (since they don't sugarcoat the horror that war is, as many who cheer from the sidelines to), so as a pacifist, ironically, I am always drawn to military men. He has shown immense strength of character throughout his life, and he is not beholden to some of the powerful special interests on the right that I find distasteful.

He won't win, though. He won't toe the line closely enough. Republicans want a party man, and apparently, decades of service to the party isn't enough without slavish devotion to the platform.

Fred Thompson
Why does anyone like this guy? He's a high-powered DC lobbyist who plays the roles he needs to play to get votes. Starting when he put down his forkful of filet mignon to come down to Tennessee, rent a pickup truck, and play the role of the populist, which he invented from whole cloth. He doesn't even remember what he did in the Senate, which is not surprising, considering the minimal effort he put into the job. He was an especially unaccomplished Senator, unable to keep control of his own committees and often making bizarre ad unfounded public statements.

He's the most artificial of any of the candidates on either side. I can't see why anyone would want to nominate a B-actor with no political accomplishments (TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Reagan in almost every way--Reagan had real vision and political accomplishments, he wasn't just an actor who discerned what role would win him the ofice).

I am starting to bore myself. I will continue what I think of the Republicans, and then the Democrats, later.