When we look at the candidates for president, there are different ways of judging their electability. The most obvious is political talent. Fred Thompson, for example, has very little political skill. He simply doesn’t have the ‘fire in the belly’ required to win a presidential race. On the Democratic side, Senator Dodd suffers from a charisma deficit that prevents him from rising to the top tier of candidates. This is a shame, because Dodd and Thompson are probably the best people to run the country (from their respective parties) at this time. If I had a vote in the Iowa caucuses, my first choice would be Dodd. If I voted in the Republican caucus, my vote would be for Thompson. But neither of them are going to last long in the campaign, as voters sense that their lack of political talent makes them a risky pick for the general election.

Another criteria is policy. There are policy positions that can make you unelectable. Mike Huckabee’s tax plan is a deal breaker. Ron Paul’s desire to abolish the Department of Education, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, and to withdraw our troops from Germany and South Korea are all too radical to withstand sustained scrutiny in a long presidential campaign. The media will not take these positions seriously. Dennis Kucinich and (to a lesser extent) Bill Richardson have taken policy positions that threaten their electability.

Character is another factor that influences electability. Rudy Giuliani’s serial tax-financed adultery, shady business dealings, and loose connections to organized crime would be crippling in a general election. Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping on issues like abortion and his exaggerations about his biography combine the worse aspects of Al Gore and John Kerry. John Edwards is vulnerable (whether we like it or not) on the charge that his populism is insincere. It’s not just expensive haircuts…it’s his huge home and his work with a hedge fund. Edwards’ populism is also pushing the edges on policy of what is possible in American politics. His anti-corporatism assures that the corporate press will be hostile to his campaign from start to finish.

Another consideration is age or inexperience. John McCain would be the oldest president ever elected, and we all saw how Ronald Reagan deteriorated mentally in his last two years in office. If we are looking for foreign policy experience, the only top candidates that have a decent resume are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. By this I mean, they are the only ones that have been immersed in foreign policy for a number of years and know a lot of foreign leaders. Of course, Biden, Dodd, and Duncan Hunter have a lot of years of experience in Congress working on international affairs. Bill Richardson has the best resume on foreign affairs, but he has poor judgment (as seen just this week, on Pakistan).

Another factor in electability is the ability to raise money. Those taking public financing, like John Edwards, may find themselves short on money between the day they secure the nomination and the day they become the official nominee (at the convention). A well financed opponent could use that time to define the race in their favor.

Race, gender, and religion are all factors in electability that will weigh most heavily on the campaigns of Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, and Romney.

A factor related to political talent is likeability. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama lead the field in this category. Hillary Clinton and Alan Keyes are taking up the rear.

When we look at the candidates, all of them have weaknesses. The only Republican that passes enough tests to be a viable candidate in the general election is John McCain. He has the age issue and his fundraising sucks, he has some problems with the Republican base, but he is the Establishment pick and he has the experience.

On the Democratic side, only Kucinich and Richardson are truly unelectable, i.e., they would lose to almost any conceivable Republican opponent. For Kucinich this is for lack of political talent, lack of likeability, lack of fundraising, poor media relations, and policies that are out of the mainstream. For Richardson, it is lack of political talent, lack of fundraising, and poor judgment leading to policies far out of the mainstream.

Dodd and Biden, while they could beat any Republican, are not going to be the nominees.

That leaves Clinton, Obama, and Edwards as the only possible nominees, and they all have their electability problems. For Clinton, the biggest problem is high negatives. For Obama, racism and inexperience. For Edwards, it’s a hostile corporate press. I honestly think that Obama will have the easiest ride of the three. It’s remarkable, but the (partly) African-American is the MOST electable candidate in the Democratic field. Yet, that fact is not decisive because all Democrats (except Richardson and Kucinich) can beat all Republicans (except McCain). If the Republicans nominate Romney or Huckabee, the Democrats will win the presidency no matter the (plausible) Democratic nominee.

However, the upside potential is different. Both Edwards and Obama have the potential to win a landslide election and bring in larger congressional majorities in the bargain. Clinton probably cannot do that. She can win, but I can’t see her breaking the red/blue divide.

I have ideological reasons for opposing the Clintons, but I also have electability reasons. I think Clinton is the only one of the top three that is likely to lose to John McCain. That makes my decision a choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama. That’s a subject for another diary.