I traded notes recently with the op-ed page editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch regarding a new essay I wanted to submit for publication. Unfortunately, he and I never reached consensus on the copy because he maintains a strict rule (understably so) against unsolicited op-ed submissions that endorse or critique particular candidates — and, try as I might, I could not develop a piece pegged to the Feb. 5 Missouri primaries without going down the endorsement/critique road.

If anything useful came out of that exercise, it was the realization that (despite lingering doubts) I have effectively made up my mind about the presidential candidates I prefer in the primaries, as well as the candidate I will most likely vote for in the general election.

My primary choices won’t surprise regular readers: John McCain for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats.

I was briefly intrigued by Hillary Clinton (for her pragmatism) and Ron Paul (for his unrelenting focus on liberty) — but I have soured, of late, on both of them. Paul alienated me because his fresh voice gave way to libertarian lunacy and his “excuses” for racist material (published in a newsletter bearing his name) rang hollow. Clinton lost me because I think she’ll do more to expand executive power than Bush ever did; plus, I’m finally ready (like many other voters) to disengage from the Clinton-Bush dynastic merry-go-round.

Of course, I won’t pretend that McCain and Obama are perfect candidates. They’re most certainly not.

In the concluding paragraph of his recent essay for The Atlantic, “Goodbye to All That,” Andrew Sullivan wrote: “At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.”

In the balance of his essay, Sullivan suggested that Obama is the only candidate reasonably capable of serving as this “bridge” – with a passing acknowledgement that McCain might be. I largely disagree on the latter point.

As much as Clinton or Giuliani, Edwards or Romney, McCain is an imbedded soldier of the conflicts to which Sullivan alludes — conflicts that started in the late 1960’s, when rebellious Boomers divided into opposing groups of free-thinkers and establishment-protectors and subsequently refused to discard their polarizing genres, even to this day.

Rather than elect to the nation’s highest office yet another descendent of that divisive history, I agree with Sullivan’s first instinct: We would benefit from someone who can transcend this history — and Obama, not McCain, is the best candidate in that regard.

On the other hand, as much as I question McCain’s ability to lead us out of the wilderness of our culture wars, I question Obama’s ability to effectively manage foreign affairs. In the definitive piece on his foreign policy views, Obama wears his naïvete on his sleeve with repeated promises-sans-process. For instance: “…I will rally our NATO allies to contribute more troops to collective security operations and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization capabilities.” That’s great. But how?

Thus Obama seems the wide-eyed child to McCain’s seasoned adult. That’s not to say Obama is devoid of talent on foreign policy. He is not, no more so than McCain is devoid of talent as a bridge-builder on certain issues. Rather, in both cases, each of these men is strong precisely where the other is lacking — with their respective flaws perhaps most glaringly evident when they’re contrasted with each other.

Naturally, some will argue, “That’s what a good VP is for; to balance the ticket.” And I agree … to a point. However, assuming an Obama v. McCain contest in the general election, I’m going with McCain.

While I would probably vote for Obama versus any of the other Republican hopefuls, McCain holds my loyalty for two reasons: I’m convinced the foreign-affairs cauldron in which we’re now immersed requires a seasoned, steady hand in the captain’s chair as well as the co-pilot’s chair. I also think McCain would be a solid (albeit incomplete) step toward the larger reforms we need in order to return the GOP to its root principles of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and enlightened foreign policy. In other words, a McCain victory in 2008 would signal the first hours of the final days of the imposters that GOP voters allowed in the door in 2000.

McCain decries torture while the imposters excuse it. He fights pork-barrel spending while they enable it. He calls for policies to combat global warming while they deny it. He seeks reasonable compromises on immigration policy while they stoke fear and prejudice. (Not enough? Here’s another great reason to vote for McCain: He makes the imposter-boosters foam at the mouth.)

In closing, my best wishes to Senator Obama during the primaries, but once November gets here, Senator McCain gets my vote, regardless of what happens in Michigan tomorrow.