Next year, for the first time, I’ll be voting in a presidential primary. In 2000 and 2004, I was a New Jersey resident, and the state’s primary wasn’t until June, so there was no point. But the 2008 New York primary is going to be on Super-Duper Tuesday, so my vote will finally matter.

Knowing that I’d finally have a chance to vote in a primary that mattered, I finally registered as a Democrat over the summer. In the past, I was reluctant to do so because I prided myself on my independence. But I realized that I’ve never voted for a single Republican in my life (except for Mike Bloomberg in 2005, which barely counts, and he’s not even a Republican anymore), so I figured it was time to finally declare — especially if I could vote in an election that mattered.

Therefore, for the first time, my decision on whom to support for the Democratic nomination will not be merely theoretical.

I’ve taken several online quizzes that purport to match you to the candidate who holds positions closest to your own (this is one of the slickest; here are two others), and my closest match keeps coming up as Dennis Kucinich. But there are other factors to consider, such as a president’s political savvy and his ability to get legislation passed. If I thought Kucinich had either of those, or if I thought he had even a wisp of a chance in a general election, I might vote for him. But he doesn’t and I won’t.

The choice really comes down to Clinton vs. Obama vs. Edwards.

Clinton is the best prepared candidate in the race. My concerns are that (1) she represents business as usual, and (2) there’s a whole Republican attack machine ready for her candidacy.

The Republicans seem to relish the thought of running against Hillary. On the other hand, paradoxically, her campaign seems like the one most ready to fight back against the Republicans. So it really comes down to this question: when you pit the Republicans’ powerful anti-Hillary fervor against Team Hillary’s powerful campaign skills, which wins? I’m not sure.

The main alternative to her is Obama, for whom Andrew Sullivan and Frank Rich both make convincing arguments. He could possibly transcend the culture-war arguments, and the Republicans might have a tough time in a campaign against him. On the other hand, does he have the political savvy necessary to get an agenda through Congress and to handle foreign policy? Maybe.

What makes me most skeptical about Obama is that he seems clueless about something like Social Security. Paul Krugman, whose opinion I respect, says that Obama has been played for a sucker on that issue. If that’s true, it lowers my confidence in him.

Still, I’ve been leaning more toward him lately instead of Clinton. We’ll see.

As for Edwards, he’s in the mix for me only because I’m not totally satisfied with either Clinton or Obama. I liked Edwards a lot back in 2004, and I like him a lot now. He seems like a true economic liberal. I’m just not sure he’s the right man for the times.

Whoever I pick, it’ll be nice to know that my primary vote next year will finally count for something.