Offering to buy, or offering for sale, which comes first!?

So you want or need to buy a new house, but you must sell your current house before you can close on the new one. Do you wait to try to sell your house until you have a contract on a new house, or do you wait to make an offer on a new house until you have a contract on your current house? This is a bit of a puzzling question in the current market, and two of my clients are currently wrestling with this enigma.
Option 1 - offer to buy first
- PRO - as a result of first negotiating on the new house, you can more precisely price your existing home because you know what you "need" to get out of the sale.
- PRO - you don't have to wonder if the house you love will still be available once you have a contract on your current house.
- CON - you will likely have less negotiating ability since your offer to buy is contingent upon your current house selling.
- CON - even if you negotiate a deal on the house you hope to buy, the seller will likely include a kickout clause, which means you might not end up being able to buy the house after all!
- PRO - you'll know exactly how much you can spend on your new house, because you'll know what you will get out of your current sale.
- PRO - you'll have lots (hopefully) of negotiating power on the new house, since you will effectively be making an offer sans home sale contingency.
- CON - if there was a house you had your eye on when you first started offering your current home for sale, it's possible that it will already be sold by the time you have a contract on your current home.
- CON - if you don't have a replacement house picked out, you may feel pressured to select a less-than-perfect new house because you don't want to lose the buyer you have for your current house.