The Presidential Nominees Will Be . . .

This weekend I'll have a column on Saturday and one on Sunday. I'd love to hear from readers on their "guesses" -- and that's all they can be at this point -- on which candidates they (i.e., you) think the eventual nominees will be. There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.

What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.

Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.

On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney.

I started out many months ago by. endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain.

In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions. What are your own thoughts?

If I had to bet the farm today, my guess would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.

The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:

I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.

It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.