Which candidate was best for the US

I did not follow the Mexican election very closely. I knew enough to know it was between the status quo and a Hugo Chavez type. The winner is labeled conservative, but I certainly have some doubts. The loser would have brought the leftist encroachment of South America to our doorstep. If he were to have been elected by the people that would have been what they wanted. Much of the world would have cheered because they seem to be enamoured with leftists and it would have been yet another headache for Bush to deal with while they criticize him.

The question is which candidate was best for the US? Actually if the leftist had won, it would have been an easier sell to seal our southern border. The radical side of the extreme left is too unpredictable to be allowing just anybody to be sneaking into our country. The other candidate labeled conservative probably has the best chance at economic reform. If Mexico's economic condition improves enough, it could reduce the need and desire for so many to come to the US illegally.

The biggest problem in Mexico is the corruption. That is a hard obstacle to defeat once entrenched. The deep poverty of Mexico is also an obstacle. There is an overabundance of unskilled labor and it takes a skilled labor pool to make a difference. Where socialism would try to take on the task creating skilled laborers, capitalism would attempt to provide enough incentive to encourage individuals to make the sacrifices to become what they need to become.

In any case, the conservative has won. I fear he will be a Vicente Fox clone. I hope he succeeds in making a difference for the better. That would be good for Mexico and good for the US.