Who Should Christian's Have Voted For in 2008?

So I was reading this book. The book was written by a fairly well known evangelical pastor. I actually know the guy, but that's neither here nor there. In 2008,he informs his readers, he voted for Barack Obama. And he wasn't the only evangelical Christian to do so. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I would be curious to see if more Evangelical Christians went Democrat in the recent elections than ever. (post moral majority) Here was this Pro-life/family values pastor reasoning. (I'm being slightly unfair by paraphrasing, but I feel its necessary for brevity's sake)
Having concluded that God no longer forbids nor demands that Christian's vote, he decided to use that freedom to vote. (This is, I think, a good way of approaching this issue as a Christian). Having also decided that The United States of America is an earthly kingdom that is not the kingdom of God, he must vote according to which candidates position is more in line with Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God, realizing of course the extreme improbability that any candidate would completely embody all Jesus' vision. (Discerning, and commendable). So while he believed that Jesus would've been Pro-Life (I presume, and presume he would've agreed) and would've thought that homosexuality was a sin, the presentation of Jesus' political attitude spelled out in the Gospels was about social justice, help for the poor, downtrodden, and outcast, enemy love, and a generally pacifistic attitude, something that is at least by first appearances, not Republican. So he decided that although President Obama, was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage,(unlike Jesus presumably) that he was also pro-people, and pro-diplomacy, and pro-little guy, like Jesus, that Obama was the obvious candidate, and he could excuse the pro-choice thing basically because the Gospels don't address it.
This seems to be the natural way to approach the issue as a Christian. We're awaiting the kingdom of God, realizing that America is not the kingdom of God, exercising our right to vote, we make the decision based on the information we have, according to the candidate that best lines up with Jesus' political perspective which we glean from the Gospels.
Now I'm going to give this Pastor the benefit of the doubt. I am going to assume that he doesn't believe that voting is his final contribution to politics. But voting is a contribution. However, I want to point out that regardless of political party, whether the candidate is running on a Republican or Democratic ticket, he is not running for an office that is elected by God to represent His Kingdom. You cannot vote for King Jesus. He is never on the ballot.
But while being convinced, as I think is this pastor, that the American Government is not the Kingdom, I'm not sure that the Democrats best represents the Gospels. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in talking about this, we're trying to bridge gaps that are not close to each other. The difference between the kingdom of God and the American Government (A kingdom of man) is a more fundamental difference, than the difference between Republican or Democrat. The Christian vote just doesn't exist.
In order to showcase the fact that the Christian vote doesn't exist, I will now ask questions that throw wrenches on the issue. It's not as simple as: Republicans believe this. Jesus doesn't. Democrats believe this: Jesus does too. What would Jesus think about about big government? What would Jesus think about welfare and social programs? Jesus asking us to care for the poor is not the issue at hand when it comes to who we should vote for. Democrats would like you to believe that Republicans don't care about the poor, but the real issue is that Republicans believe that small government is better for the poor. Whether they're right or not is another issue. Jesus wasn't advocating state welfare, nor was rallying against it. It was a completely different atmosphere. But the main thing that Jesus was rallying for politically was that oppression is the natural outcome of any man-made political endeavor, no matter how well-intentioned the original idea, whether it be Rabbinical, the Pax Romana, or the Declaration of Independence, but also that any direct revolt is as worldly and man-made as the existing political power and is doomed to the same fate. The kingdom of God is like a small, insignificant mustard seed at first. You don't notice it's growth until all of a sudden, it's an all pervasive tree, casting it's shadow over everything. That's the kingdom we represent as Christians as we wait. As such we fight for social justice, the equality of all people as image bearers of God, the right treatment of God's creation, all things Democrat, but we don't like laziness, nor can we stand for a system that enables thievery in the name of welfare. All things, Republican. We consider the pro-life issue an issue of social justice, the physical life of a human being taking precedence over the free choice of a human being. Republican. We don't believe the government can solve our problems, definitely not Democratic, but not all that Republican either. Granted everything I said in the last paragraph is stereotypical, sharply rhetorical, and just plain polemical. There is room for interpretation. We can discuss that. But does not my point still stand that it is impossible to stand with any party absolutely and at the same time call ourselves Christians? And more importantly, there is almost no way that Christians can call any vote for a candidate an expressly Christian vote except by appeal to conscience.