[Verginius Rufus]

Hunter is definitely the best of the lot, but the media and the Republican Party refuse to treat him as a serious candidate.

Rudy has three Achilles' heels (a pretty good trick for a biped)--abortion, immigration, and his personal life. But he did clean up New York, and sometimes gives terrific speeches.

None of the "top tier" candidates is ideal (Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson). Any of them would be preferable to letting the Clintons back in, but is any of them electable?

Thompson is probably the most promising of the five, if he can start to give an impression of someone who could actually win. (But Ann Coulter doesn't seem to like him.)

[Will88]

“Rudy has three Achilles’ heels (a pretty good trick for a biped)—abortion, immigration, and his personal life. But he did clean up New York, and sometimes gives terrific speeches.”

Lol, more like five Achilles’ heels. I’d add gun control and gay rights. Many will not believe any backtracking from Rudy of those issues. He has a record on both.

[Norman Bates]

but is any of them electable?

The latest poll has McCain trailing Hillary just outside the margin of error in Massachusetts (50-45), while other candidates lag behind badly (next is Giuliani by 14 and it gets worse from there). And in five polls now Obama has never led McCain in Massachusetts. Obama leads everyone else there. Amazing but true.

Diagnosis: McCain is the most electable. But are conservatives willing to give him a chance? I hope so because frankly I don't see anyone beating Hillary but him. McCain may be a far from ideal conservative, but he's firmly right of Rudy, and is pro-life, pro-surge, and well-credentialed.