A lot of New Yorkers may indeed have been sick of Giuliani in summer 2001, but some of us remembered what the city had been like before him, and so, to paraphrase John Foster Dulles: he may have been a son of a b****, but he was our son of a b****.

Look at the change in city budget, crime, quality of life (graffiti, panhandlers, window-washers/extortioners, hookers on 11th avenue, strip joints everywhere), etc. etc. and a lot of us would have voted to reelect Giuliani over say Mark Green or someone of his ilk who for all that appears would have brought back the great years under Dinkins.

Still, that doesn’t translate into supporting him for President, in my book.

Clinton: Too many Bushes and Clintons already. Didn’t we fight the Brits to get rid of hereditary monarchy? A two-term Hillary would mean two families had run the WH for 28 years. To paraphrase Cromwell, Gentlemen [and ladies], you have been here altogether too long. In the name of God, go.

Romney: What on earth is wrong with you? The hunter thing makes you sound like blowhard Al Gore inventing the internet. You’re not a good ol’ boy (thank goodness for that!)–you grew up on the wealthy side of the tracks outside Detroit and you’ve lived in Belmont Mass–not Southie and not Brookfield or North Adams. Don’t try to pretend that you drag out the old squirrel rifle on weekends and go out shooting varmints.

I think Richardson exagerrated his minor league baseball career.

Of the candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning, I like Edwards a lot. I also recently read Obama’s book, which he actually wrote, and I could easily see myself supporting him. I don’t care for Clinton, but I can’t tell you why other than that she’s a lousy speaker. But I’d vote for her over any Republican currently in the field.

As to Romney: I’ve watched him on TV, and as a person I like him. He doesn’t have the arrogant air of George Bush, and he comes across as more of a listener than the other GOP candidates. He’s politically too conservative for my tastes, though, and his pandering bothers me.

We’re talking in 2007. This is exactly when we should be talking about dark horses. 2008 is the most wide-open presidential race in several *decades*. Money doesn’t guarantee anyone anything. Three considerations:

–Where was Bill Clinton in March 1991? John Kerry in March 2003? Those were the last two nominees from a wide-open fields (no VP candidate and no son-of-a-president thing in their favor), and both came from behind. In Clinton’s case he was in no better shape than Bill Richardson is now.

–California is moving up its primary. This may increase money advantages, but it also makes the race a more wide-open contest. Connections with state party figures–made early on–are not going to matter as much in CA as they do in NH.

–We’re citizens, not gamblers at a horse race. Isn’t there any period during which we can talk about candidate’s qualities, regardless of current speculation on their chances, fundraising totals, etc.? For people deciding whether to invest a lot of time or money to devote to a particular campaign, the herd mentality may make some sense. But for ordinary citizens just *talking* about who they like best, it seems very strange to me.