1.  Evan Bayh - works well with the opposition.  Has been much respected in Indiana for a number of years.  He's well mannered and considerate.  A pro's pro.

2.  Al Gore - a bit wishy-washy, but I think he's sincere and is likewise a realist with regards to working with all types. 

3.  Hillary - unfairly demonized by the right, but she would automatically be a very divisive candidate and I think would have more difficulty getting things accomplished. 

4.  Lieberman - too much lost credibility, and I don't think he's forceful enough to play the role of President.  Credibility within his own party is shot. 

5.  Obama - an intriguing man with a great back story.  But he's not really shown us much yet, and even his best ideas seem vague to me at this point.  I'd like to see how his record holds up for 1-2 Senate terms before rendering further judgement. 

Not - John Edwards.  Watching ten minutes of his "debate" with Chaney two years ago showed me that he's more empty suit than idea man.  I didn't get a good impression of him at all, and he was nearly as slow thinking on his feet as is GWB. 

I don't want to see government leaders trying to create "programs" that tackle poverty.  Work on creating economic conditions that allow people to get themselves out of poverty.  John Edwards and many other Democrats seem to have a sort of messiah complex about the issue that, in my opinion, sometimes leads to cures worse than the disease. 

If the Congress stays in Democratic hands, I'd really like to see a centrist, fiscally conservative Republican in the White House, i.e. Rudy G.  Instead of Mitt Romney, I think Gordon Smith would make an excellent candidate if he didn't come from such a small state.