Alex is 12.
There are multiple problems.
McCain is the only candidate that I've heard speak about Iraq realistically (nobody else will even admit that we have any obligation there, it seems), and he's probably got the most integrity out of anyone running, but there are problems. He *is* a hard-line conservative, which might balance out assuming Congress stays Democrat, but he'll slow a lot of much-needed reversals of Bush policies. He's also old. He's currently 70, and would be 72 by the time he's inaugurated. At the end of his term, he'd be 76. Average male live expectancy in the US, I believe, is 73. His physical health will be a factor working against us. Reagan and Ford both lived to 93, but Nixon only lived to 81, Johnson only lived to 65, and Eisenhower only lived to 79 (Kennedy omitted for obvious reasons). All of them were iffy in their later years and Reagan may have experienced the onset of Alzheimer's before Bush's inauguration (although it wasn't diagnosed until '94). Carter, at the current age of 83, has been sounding rather batshit for the last couple years. Choosing McCain would be a genuine gamble, even if he *was* the absolute clear best option.
Clinton is a problem for the same reason Ariel Sharon was a problem over here: she's already spent years being criticized for everything under the moon, and everything she does will be interpreted through that context. The difference is Sharon, I believe, was a much stronger individual than Clinton is, but even he was only able to fix his image on a domestic basis. Clinton would have a much harder time.
Obama, so far as I'm concerned, is an image. He hasn't actually said or done anything, that I've seen, that's too revolutionary. He just looks like someone who would probably make a good president, and I'm not casting my vote based on looks. He'd make a great VP, but I don't have enough confidence in him for president just yet.
Guiliani... he's like the evil Obama. Basically the same story, I just really don't like his image. He's scummy, and underhanded. After the last 8 years, we can't afford someone like that. Hell, the next president *really* needs to be someone who can reverse the damage Nixon did to the White House reputation.
Edwards would be interesting, only in that he seems more French than the guy who just won the election over there. The chemistry between the US and France in that situation is just ripe with "Sitcom." Otherwise, he's mostly fluff. Obama with a somewhat weaker image, and somewhat better track-record. Those two would probably be great running together, but I'd seriously fear the result of an Obama/Edwards administration, regardless who ends up in which position.
So what does that leave us with?
No, not Romney. Ew. He was omitted because he isn't even worth mentioning.
Gore. Gore, right now, has the image, the track-record, and the vision to be an amazing president. He has incredible amounts of support before even throwing his hat in the ring, and he, more than anyone else in the last 30 years, has been about integrity and honesty. If you look at history like a poem, he's a mirror image of Nixon. VP to a basically consistently popular 2-term president. Eight years of political exile after a controversial Presidential loss, during which time a massive clusterfuck-type war was created, and finally a return to the White House, where one ruined the president's image, and the other, hopefully, would repair it. So, in closing, everyone should do the best they can to convince Gore to run.