Handicapping the Presidential Horserace

I'm bothered. There is a divide I don't like to see between right wing religionists and a right wing secular humanist (atheism) wing.That divide is deep and it is driven by fear of a "Christian" becoming president and leading by the principles of Faith and the word of God. Horrors.

To the secular atheists Romney and Huckabee are as frightening as they are reassuring to people like me.That only leaves Thompson McCain and Giuliani.

Here's the handicap on the horse race as I see it:

Clinton beats Thompson, Giuliani and Romney but loses to Huckabee or McCain

Edwards Beats Thompson and McCain but loses to Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee, therefore he's dead meat.

Obama Beats Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, toss up with Romney and loses to Giuliani.

It has to do with the center vote. Who gets the center and attracts the attention of the middle on the other side will win.

The polarization against Hillary is so powerful on the right and some of the middle and even some of the left, Huckabee wins as a moderate when you count the "hold your nose vote".

The Edwards fiasco is such that we can only thank him for the barrel he provided in which to shoot the fish he really is. He has zero chance of winning, his negatives in the middle and right are huge and tepid support from the left except for the fringe left which reaches for him out of desperation. He can join Fred Thompson in the Toaster.

OBAMA is the wild card. He gets all the left, Much of the middle and some of the value voter right wing therefore beating everyone handily; except Giuliani. Giuliani can beat him on national defense and terrorism. Particularly if there is a rising threat somewhere. Or one can be created. Obama's weakness on defense is a huge heel of Achilles for his winning outright. On the other hand Giuliani is cursing that darn surge thingy that worked in Iraq. I know you on the left haven't noticed that it worked because as soon as reports started coming in that it did the MSM went silent.

Troops can come home, Iraq becomes peaceful, maybe Iran calms down and oil prices drop like they have already begun precipitously to do. Bad news for Rudy, good for Obama. "Darn That GWB", I can hear Rudy clear over here.

The circus has only begun, I just hate that as a primary voter I get no primary vote in Illinois. Rumor has it Illinois is an actual state with actual voters who actually have opinions. Except when it comes to Presidential Nominee Choice. The whole dog and pony show is all over by the time they get to us. Oh, to be from Iowa and New Hampshire. Well, not really.

So, with cigar firmly clenched in teeth and gray fedora on my head I'm here to sell my "Tip Sheet" on the horse race as I see it at this point.

What think ye?

IF you are a good handicapper, how do you handicap this race?

My list from as an apolitical viewpoint as I know how to be are:

Clinton, Huckabee, Gulliani, Romney, Obama and no one else. I think any ONE of those 5 would do OK for different reasons as President of the USA. It's going to be one of them. Not the same reasons why but they all have compelling reasons for the American people to elect them.

I think there are compelling reasons NOT to elect the others: Ron Paul (crazy tinfoil hat type), McCain (beginning to dodder and doesn't own a political compass), Edwards (the slimeball factor), Thompson (who is doddering already).

And there are a couple who might have made a good president but have zero chance.
Biden, Hunter

You goes with what you gets. We ain't getting what I hoped.

All bets are off however if from the left or the right any sort of 3rd party challenge is made. Either way it's a guarantee of victory for the other side. Think Nader and Perot. We wouldn't have had Clinton or GWB as Presidents without them. That would be variously good/bad news for all and some of us as it was in the past.