Here are my current (extremely lukewarm) preferences for presidential candidates in both parties, confining myself to the declared major candidates*, from most to least preferred:

Dems:

1. Richardson
2. Edwards
3. Obama
4. Clinton

GOP:

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Guliani

At this point none of the GOP candidates rise close enough to the level of sanity on foreign policy for me to consider voting for them in a general election, but Romney strikes me as the most rational. Or, at least, he’s demonstrated a certain … flexibility, which leads me to think that he would be more likely to bend with the prevailing wind on Iraq, etc. Contrast this to McCain’s rather frightening “Damn the torpedoes!” approach.

As for the Dems I would consider pulling the lever for Richardson, Edwards, and Obama, but probably not Clinton. Richardson has made what I regard as some very good statements on Iraq and has an overall foreign policy savvy that seems both realistic and constrained. Edwards has said some good things, though I’m not completely sold. Obama is still a bit of a cipher in my view, and I’m not convinced he’s had enough experience for the job. HRC is an unapologetic war-hawk and executive power aficionado, so I feel no pull whatsoever to vote for her.

So, given the above, if on election day it comes down to either Richardson, Edwards, or (possibly) Obama vs. any of the three above Republicans, I would probably vote Dem. If it ends up being HRC, I will almost certainly vote third-party.

This all assumes that no other serious contenders (Hagel, Gore) jump in to complicate matters.
—————————————————–
*I admit the possibility that Huckabee, Tommy and/or Fred Thompson, and Brownback could potentially become major contenders, so their exclusion is somewhat artificial; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, God bless their peacenik hearts, don’t stand a chance.