Since I’m not an American I think it’s a bit awkward for me to come out and endorse any one candidate. At least, I can’t endorse someone like some of my co-bloggers have done. Marc Moore has endorsed Mike Huckabee, Jason has endorsed two candidates of both parties (Obama and Thompson), but I can’t “endorse” someone as such, but I think that I am allowed to tell you all whom I should vote for if I were American.

Now, I published a post about this matter several months ago already, at the old blog. I realize, however, that we’ve lost some readers and attracted other, new readers, meaning that quite some of you have probably not read that post. Therefore I’ll republish that post here.

At a certain point in campaigns, I believe that bloggers should endorse candidates (if they have a bias). Since I’m not American, I can obviously not ‘endorse’ someone – well I can, but doing so would be silly. I leave it up to my co-bloggers who are Americans to announce who they support and why. However, I think it would be honest of me to inform you all about my ‘bias.’ To do this, I thought it would fun to play a game: “what would I do if I were American?”

What would I do if I were American? Who would I support? It’s a difficult question: my problem is, basically, that there are too many good, but not good enough candidates out there. They all have their flaws. Not just minor flaws, but big, huge flaws. I like Mike Huckabee but don’t like his pandering to the religious right. I like Mitt Romney, but I can say the same about him. John McCain: great candidate, with a lot of experience. Sadly, however, he doesn’t have a whole lot of energy left. He always seems tired. You could say the same about Thompson, but that would be a compliment for him; he doesn’t look tired, he looks as if he’s a sleep. All day long. Giuliani: great, energetic candidate. One heck of a debater. Fiscal conservative, socially more liberal and isn’t afraid to say so. Downside: too hawkish (even for me), and too supportive of exanding the power of the executive. That’s not even to mention, say, Gitmo.

On the Democratic side we’ve got Richardson: very experienced, could appeal to centrists. Sadly he doesn’t have enough money to compete and he made some very serious gaffes. John Edwards; well, I would never consider voting for him. Barack Obama: a great uniter, a great, natural politician and speaker. Can inspire many, will be able to bring the country together. Downside: not very experienced and too liberal on some issues and he doesn’t seem to understand foreign policy well. A good VP, eight or even four years later a good president (after he has learned more). Hillary Clinton: probably the best politician in America today. I like her view on foreign policy. She’s a hawk, but prefers diplomacy. It’s likely that if she wins she’ll rule like her husband did who, no matter what conservatives in America say about him, ruled like a Centrist and was fiscally very responsible, almost… conservative. Having said that, compared to her husband she seems to be a bit too willing to hand out money.

As I said, they all have their flaws… but they also all have their strengths. Thinking about it for quite a while now, I think that I’m able to answer the question I asked earlier in this post in a way that’s a bit… dull, but it’s honest: I’m pretending that if I were American, I could vote in both the Democratic and Republican primary. In the Democratic primary then I would vote for…

Hillary Rodham Clinton. She’s got the experience. She’s got the contacts. She’s got a great staff. She’s got the knowledge. She’s famous and loved throughout the world. She’ll rule more fiscally conservative, I am sure, than most American conservatives think. All in all, a tremendous candidate.

In the Republican camp the choice is more difficult, simply because I agree more often with Republicans than I do with Democrats. In the end, the choice – for me – would be between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. I would, then, go for Romney. The reason? I don’t care about him being a Mormon, but I do care about his background. Giuliani ruled over a city, Romney ruled over a state. Romney did great during the Olympics in Salt Lake City. He graduated with terrific grades from one of the most prestigious Universities of America. Furthermore, I like how he develops policies. Back in July I wrote:

One of the Romney’s main strengths, and red lines throughout the book, is the so-called Bain-way. Bain is a “Boston-based consulting firm whose name has become synonymous with excellence in the consulting field,” and it is here that Romney started his – incredibly successful – professional (business) life. The Bain-way is a way to develop good, sound plans by looking at an issue from all possible sides, and by attacking every proposed solution until every weakness has been exposed and destroyed. One of the ways of doing this – which Romney constantly does – is by bringing experts in a particular field in the same room with each other, who often disagree with each other, and letting them debate each other until a consensus is reached.

And:

Best of all, after Bush’s presidency, is that Romney is his own fiercest and most relentless critic. As Hewitt portrays him, Romney constantly tries to improve himself and his own views by constantly challenging himself / them. As such, Romney practices what Pete Abel and Andrew Sullivan call “the politics of doubt.” Romney, unlike Bush, does not believe that he is infallible, nor does he believe that God constantly tells him what to do. In short, Romney is a completely different kind of leader / politician than George W. Bush is.

I don’t think that Giuliani is anything like that. Giuliani is quite authoritarian. Romney is more of a negotiator, a diplomat if you will. He can work with Democrats, which will come in handy considering that chances are that the Democrats will form the majority in Congress next year, just like they form now. Perhaps even with more seats.

So – for what it’s worth. Do with it what you want.

But I thought that pointing out my biases would be honest to all of you and… perhaps the post makes you think a bit about your own choice.

So, to finish: who do you endorse?