I can honestly say I am not looking forward to the next presidential election. Though I welcome the expulsion of President George W. Bush from the White House as much as the next liberal, I cringe a little when I think about the candidates who could replace him.

1. Mitt Romney
I think Mitt Romney is probably the most wishy-washy candidate in the mix. He should realize that people have noticed how much his political positions have changed.
For example, in his 2002 run for the governorship of Massachusetts, he vowed to protect a woman's right to have an abortion. Now that he is running for president, he has suddenly declared himself anti-choice. Wow, that's not suspicious at all.
Though people tend to become more conservative as they grow older, this complete reversal seems too extreme to be sincere. Abortion is an issue many people feel strongly about; they do not suddenly change their minds about it. Romney should have paid closer attention to the 2004 election. He probably would have noticed that candidates with inconsistent views don't win elections (cough John Kerry).

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton
I would love to see Bill Clinton become the first First Gentleman. However, my desire to see him regain "political importance" is not strong enough to compel me to vote for his wife. I can't help but feel her political success is a result of riding her husband's coattails.
Though I agree with many of Clinton's political views, I just don't think she has a chance in the next election. She is such a polarizing figure; many people harbor intense hatred for her, making her particularly vulnerable to strong political attacks.
Clinton would have a difficult time uniting the country, and in a time when the United States lacks respect internationally, it is particularly important our leaders enjoy strong support at home.

3. Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani seems like a relatively good guy despite his involvement in a couple of scandalous affairs. Then again, what politician hasn't been embroiled in some sort of controversy at one point or another?
My main problem with Giuliani is he seems a little too hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Giuliani strongly supports Bush's handling of the war in Iraq; he might need a reality check because in case he hasn't noticed, the United States is not doing too well. Perhaps Giuliani thinks violence and instability in a volatile region are signs of success, but most Americans do not see the current situation in the Middle East through Giuliani's rose-colored glasses.
In addition, Giuliani surrounds himself with prominent neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz, who favors military action against Iran. Does the country really need to become trapped in another Middle Eastern conflict? Enough people in that part of the world already despise the U.S., and adding to that number will only decrease our security.

4. Barack Obama
Barack Obama appeared in the national spotlight after delivering a very eloquent speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Since then, an unprecedented amount of hype and excitement has surrounded Obama.
However, Obama has not had enough time to truly prove himself worthy of the excessive attention he receives from the media. He has served in the U.S. Senate for a mere three years and has not really done anything particularly out of the ordinary.
While extensive experience does not necessarily equate to being a better candidate, Obama is just a little too fresh and green. Serving another term in the Senate will certainly toughen him up and allow him more time to build his resume.
The presidential candidates in next year's election represent a wider spectrum than ever. It's encouraging that not all of the frontrunners are the rich, white, old Protestants that usually dominate the American political scene.
However, none of the major candidates are delivering messages I find particularly appealing. Then again, it is highly unlikely that someone with the perfect blend of qualities will appear this late in the game.