I personally put some serious weight behind Obama's Government Openness campaign.
As for McCain, his history of occasional liberal "insanity" seems to me to indicate that while he might not be the most practically minded presidential candidate, he is more aware and willing to act on issues he deems important, most of which historically have shown themselves to be reasonably and morally fortified, if not always agreeable positions. He also seems to be the only candidate who seems to understand what we got ourselves into in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she has shown herself dedicated to the status-quo. Her quoted policies certainly stack up reasonably to Obama's, but I personally don't but much faith in the "issues" or candidate's proposed "policies". I put much more stock in perceived and demonstrated integrity, insight and understanding into domestic and foreign affairs, and leadership and diplomatic ability.
I can't honestly say that Hilary Clinton would be a BAD president, but I think she would be inferior to both Obama and McCain, or even to her own husband's legacy. Ron Paul I honestly think would have been a BAD president, and I'm pretty certain Romney and Huckabee would have both been mistakes. Still, any of the three front runners will be a step up...
Also, just because I want to:
GORE in '08!
The world elected him, we just have to accept him!
"Well, if I am not drunk, I am mad, but I trust I can behave like a gentleman in either
condition."... G. K. Chesterton
“questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself”