Chris Green asked what matters to me.

I gave a response in the comments, but think there's just a bit more to be said regarding what I think is important in a political candidate.

A candidate -- regardless of the position they seek -- needs to demonstrate a combination of modesty, humility and above all restraint. Such qualities are very rare in anyone seeking office, and are thus highly prized. But they didn't used to be so uncommon.
One of the reasons I was so intrigued by the Fred Thompson campaign was that he seemed to have those qualities in abundance.

Greatest among them was restraint -- both personally and politically. And as Andrew Ferguson writes, restraint was once the common denominator of politics:

The traditional restraint of old-time presidential candidates wasn't arrogance or sanctimoniousness, the twin accusations that wised-up politicos made against Thompson during the campaign. There was a philosophical component to it too: By not seeming overeager--no matter how eager they were--candidates paid tribute to the democratic idea that political power is best sought, taken on, and used reluctantly. It was also a matter of seemliness, and Thompson, alone among recent candidates, felt its pull. In his stump speech he often mentioned George Washington, once a staple of political rhetoric for his willingness to walk away from the power that was thrust upon him. Today Washington's restraint seems nothing more than an archaism. And by extolling it Thompson sounded merely odd.

Yes, he seemed odd, and he paid a terrible price for not kissing every toddler, wearing every silly hat, or promising every voter a chicken in each of their pots. Those who remain in the race lack even the pretense of restraint. Does that disqualify them from holding office? No.

But I hold no illusions that any of them embrace, let alone understand, the concept of limited government...or the consequences of unrestrained political power.

And you know what? I wouldn't trust any one of them to babysit, either.