Just to pick at the swipe at Ortiz while we're at it: why does DH disqualify him (as well as Edgar)? It's an official position, and has been for what? 30-40 years now? It's not going anywhere. With his bat, he'd play 1B if there wasn't a DH position, but why would playing mediocre 1B make him any more desireable at a HoF candidate? If, say, Prince Fielder was up for a vote tomorrow, would anyone discuss his fielding abilities? Not so much. Ortiz hasn't been a disaster when he's played the field (actually, really not bad at all), but he plays for a AL team, so doesn't HAVE to.
From a hitting standpoint, he pretty much fits all the criteria. Power, average, RBIs, face of the franchise, one of the 'most feared' hitters of the era (the usual metric used for judging hitters). Perfect narrative with all of those 'big moment' stories that people use to convince themselves mediocre candidates are better. MVP votes over multiple seasons (should have won over ARod that year!), 3 WS Rings, WS MVP this year when he batted somewhere just north of .750 AVG. Part of the 2004 Red Sox team that broke the 86-year drought... I mean, can go on like this a while, but everything's there.
Has one more year on his contract, and is 69 HRs from getting to 500. If he has his regular year (.300, 30HR. 100RBI), he'll likely get another year added on, and can't see him retiring without getting his 500 HRs.
At that point, what argument can you really use to justify keeping him out? If all that you have to point to is that he DHed, i dunno. Especially when you keep touting other inferior players. DH is a real position, and has been for a long time. It's time for Edgar to get in, and when Ortiz hangs it up, he should be a shoo-in as well. At the end of the day, if you're a pitcher in a 1-1 game, bottom of the 9th, pick any batter from 2003-2013 you'd LEAST want to face in that situation. Ortiz is going to feature very highly on that list. Based on personal prefernce, may not be #1, but out of the thousands of names to pick, he'll be top 5-10 on pretty much every list. Kinda how you should be picking HoF candidates, instead of just people with counting stats who were mediocre for 20 years.
Can argue about the Mitchell Report if you like, but with the caveat that a lot of things got people on that list, not all just straight-up steroids, and we don't know who was doing what. That was also before Ortiz's HoF-worthy years, so almost all of his stats have been firmly in the Testing Era. Not that people aren't still doing things, just that more and more testing going on, and he's never been popped outside of that report. Not saying I think everyone in baseball is perfectly clean, or that Ortiz is an angel, just that I'm sure he gets tested plenty and nothing has come up.
That, and I think we're nearing the point where you have to let it all go and just start letting in the Clemens and Bonds of the world. In that era, EVERYONE was cheating, basically. And there wasn't shit for testing, so how do you throw one person out when the 3 guys next to him were also doing it? And the batters get dinged for being obvious with HRs, but not like the pitchers weren't juiced as well, so the whole thing was effed up. Either all in, or blank the whole era until after the Mitchell Report. Just because no one has every SAID anything about so and so doesn't mean anything, as we didn't even hear about the OBVIOUS ones until years later. And there are already more than a few definite users in the Hall.