It seems to me that Mitt Romney is probably the least of all evils, that is if you're not including the respectable Jon Huntsman, in the GOP race. Ron Paul is as immoral as he is consistent in his political philosophy, and Bachmann only lacks her colleague’s latter faculty. While Perry seems sane in comparison to those two (though he is only millimeters along on his ten mile hike to sanity), he's also ten times the slimy politician Paul is, and nearly as unprincipled as Romney. The others form a continuum from "egregiously horrible” to "merely horrible", with Bachmann and Romney representing each end of the spectrum respectively.
Jon Huntsmen seems to be far above the fray in almost every respect, it's a shame that he has about as much of a chance of winning the nomination as Bachmann has in discovering sanity. I’ve yet to hear something from Mr. Huntsman that causes my “irrational charlatan” sensor to light up. While I disagree with him on a great many things, the distance chasm that separates our beliefs is not nearly as vast as it is with his loathsome colleagues. However, this fact is not the reason I’d support him over Paul, Romney or any of the other GOP candidates, it is his principled and rational character that leads me to believe that his election as President would only be slightly (10 times) less desirable than the re-election of our current president.
Obama seems to have nearly all the right ideas, more than enough intellect and principle, and certainly enough ability and good-will to live up to our expectations. What he lacks is the resolve and courage to face the stern blockade to progress that is the GOP and its grotesque cancerous appendage, the tea-party. And while I would prefer to have him re-elected, and while I will certainly vote for President Obama again (almost certainly), Jon Huntsman would be an exponentially better president than the goons he’s running against.