Any Democrat would be better than Cheney (image not included) and his sock-puppet (image included). Probably even John McCain would be an improvement on the current subministration.
Happily, I'm Canadian, so I don't have to make a decision concerning whom to vote for in the eventual Presidential election. I don't have to listen to political candidates mention God or church attendance, let alone invoke God's blessings. I also don't have to endure the interminable, expensive political process that has too recently generated such a lamentable record of choosing the biggest possible idiots.
However, I'm leary of obvious political buzzwords such as "change, freedom, liberty, progress, transparency" (another Regressive Conservative lie), etc. To quote arch-slime Bob Rumson's celluloid slogan from The American President: "Does America want the Pride back?
"Pride"? Now there's a meaningless buzzword that, coming from a Republican, probably signified arrogance and bigoted authoritarianism.
"Change" is not a political policy, it is a directionless suggestion of better things to come. . . . a buzzword. A change of administration will inevitably guarantee change – after all, Georgio Dubaya Borgia brought change.
I don't think that sex or skin color should affect one's vote for or against a candidate. A democracy should be a meritocracy, so only experience and constructive ideas should count.
I'd vote for the least religious candidate, or for the candidate whose long-term pastor (former) is not dubious in the extreme. Low levels of religious delusion might, of course, be difficult to determine in America, where lies about religous conviction are mandatory in political life.