…but he would lose to a Democratic competitor by double digits.
In head-to-head matchups — the first [poll] to include Huckabee — the former Arkansas governor loses to Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by 10 percentage points (54 percent to 44 percent), to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 15 points (55 percent to 40 percent) and to former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina by 25 points (60 percent to 35 percent).
My only surprise here is John Edwards’ lead, especially since he’s behind Obama and Hillary nationally. I’ve always liked him, but can’t figure out why he’s so far ahead of Obama in a matvchup against Huckabee. I know why he’s ahead of Hillary – because there’s a visceral reaction to any Clinton from the right. But Obama? I don’t get it.
**Clarification: I guess my question is this: Why is Edwards first in this poll, but third nationally among Democrats? Is there something about Huckabee?
Billy K
No, there’s something about Edwards. He’s the only southerner of the Dem group tested.
ryan
Edwards regularly polls ahead of Obama and Hillary in head-to-head matchups with Republicans. These Huckabee numbers particularly emphasize that, for some reason, but, generally, this sort of thing isn’t new.
J. Michael Neal
Edwards does better than Obama and Clinton because he’s a southerner. For better or worse, and mostly the latter, the South is a place where there are a significant number of people who can’t bring themselves to vote for someone who isn’t one of them. “Them,” by the way, is not synonymous with “American,” though it may be synonymous with “real American.”
I’m a big Edwards fan. That’s where my donations have gone in each of the last two primary cycles. Regardless, I’m not under any delusion as to why he polls better nationally than the others in a general election setting. I also don’t think that it means much with regards to the electability of any of the three of them.
Dreggas
frees serial rapists based on CDS
Claims god wants him to win
Claims he talks to god…and god responds
wants to isolate aids patients much like they did with leper colonies
believes wives should submit to their husbands and signed onto a news paper ad stating as much.
doesn’t believe in evolution.
believes adam and eve were actually real.
Is a southern baptist minister who got into politics as a means of saving souls and fighting to put christ into the country and into gov’t
Gee ya think there’s a reason we don’t all heart huckabee?
sujal
I don’t understand the reaction to the Clintons. Seriously, why are they hated so much by the right? Monica Lewinsky doesn’t count, nor does any alleged crime that was never proved after being investigated by Congress or a law enforcement group or lawyers armed with subpeonas through a discovery process.
Anyone? I’m being serious. I don’t get it.
Sujal
Dreggas
Oh. My. God.
I swear when the Great Cthulu rises from R’lyeh I am going to dance for joy.
Jake
Yep, it’s the Dueling Twangs thing. Plus, as Dreggas points out the more you know about Huckabee the scarier he gets.
Michael D.
There is always a reaction like that to people who are very successful at what they do, particularly if you think you’re better than them, and they consistently prove you are not.
douglasfactors
November 1992.
Jen
I don’t think it’s because he’s Southern, I don’t think Edwards would carry the South, unfortunately, and the poll says Edwards leads *all* the leading Republicans in a head to head matchup. That is a weird phenomenon. The only explanation I can offer, which is pure guesswork, would be that Edwards does have more of that populist-common man touch, despite the haircut. I would guess that independents who are pretty well disgusted with both parties might see Edwards as the closest thing to an outsider, a people before party kind of guy. I don’t know, though.
Personally, I love the infighting in the Republican tent. I like to see Huckabee surging ahead, it just illustrates the rifts and the complete lack of direction these guys have.
Michael D.
Dreggas: As I said in my last post, re: drugs:
Or in this case, see Christmas.
4tehlulz
I’m sorry, but no. He only gets 5% more of the vote than Clinton or Obama. That’s pretty much in the margin of error.
The only thing you can take away from this is that any of the three would kick Huckabee’s ass.
Jake
I notice it doesn’t require Christians to reject bigotry and persecution against non-Christians and a few hundred years of nasty behavior becomes “Spreading Western Civilation (and small pox)!”
Fucking fuck. You need to put a “BP Spike Warning” when you link to stuff like that.
4tehlulz
To simplify what Michael said, they hate him because (and Hillary by extension) because he’s a white-trash interloper.
wasabi gasp
Edwards has a white penis. Duh.
Taxes
God
White Penis
taoless
Not to point out the 500 lb gorilla in the room or anything, but does anybody but me wonder if maybe Edwards does better in the national polls than among Democratic Primary voters because he’s a, um, white man?
douglasfactors
Huckabee’s national head-to-head numbers might refect a lack of name recognition.
This will change soon enough.
wasabi gasp
More like the 500 lb white penis in the room.
Jen
Well, the white man thing is certainly possible, I haven’t read any of the reasons for why the polling is going that way, but if you were a “taxes / god / white male” type of person, I’m inclined to think you’d vote Republican.
That said, I think it’s entirely possible that Democratic primary voters are kind of giving “bonus points” as it were, to Clinton and Obama because they would be making history, and that the nation as a whole wouldn’t do that. That seems to me to be a little different formulation of the race/gender thing.
FearItself
wasabi gasp and taoless have hit it exactly.
Especially the “Duh.” How is this even a question we can take seriously when the answer is so obvious?
TheFountainHead
While that 5% may not be indicative of anything at all, given the margin of error, it’s possible it’s a result of all the reasons stated above me. Edwards is white and southern, Obama is black and not. Edwards has a penis and good looks. Hillary is ugly.
Punchy
Edwards popularity vs. The Cligina and The Negro?
Two words: male cracker.
Really, if you’re from Mississippi, it is just that simple…
Abe Froman
But could anyone kick Chuck Norris’s Ass. I hear he endorses Huckabee and well Chuck Norris is not someone I want to be messing with.
twitch
Well, Punchy and others have stolen my thunder.
It is just so obvious that a significant portion of the electorate doesn’t feel comfortable with a woman of any race or a black man as Chief Poobah. Speaker of the House, absolutely. Secretary of State, sure. Vice president, okay but getting a little too warm in here. President, you mean I have to take my orders from her/him? You got to be kidding! This is how many whites, a good number of men, and tragically, more than a few women will vote. It’s not even what they say to the pollsters, since many are too ashamed to admit it. But it’s how they vote in the privacy of the booth. Still, that’s little reason for the Democrats to duck the issue by nominating Edwards. Why? Because both Clinton and Obama have a very good chance of winning, so it’s not pissing into the wind to nominate them. Voting for Ralph Nader in Florida or Ohio in 2004 — now that was pissing all over yourself.
Snarkilicious
I’m pretty sure it is indeed that “racist/sexist” vote, (as others have noted) southern or not.
The ’08 election *seems* to be the best opportunity for a woman or african-american to be elected president. At least, so far. Everything could change within the next year, so the question is “play it safe with Edwards” (and peel off some of that cracker vote to add to the margin) or “go for broke” with Obama or Clinton.
I’m undecided, but let me say that the whackier and more dangerous the GOP candidate (I’m lookin’ at you, Rudy), the less I’m inclined to go for the “safe” option.
Snarkilicious
damn…I meant to say, the more dangerous the GOP candidate the MORE I’m inclined to support the “safe” option.
Dreggas
Oh I know, but can’t you just hear Stewart Smalley now? Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it people like me!
Chuck Butcher
White and male have something to do with it, also, while when questioned about faith Edwards will talk about it but he does not make it a center piece, while Obama & Clinton do. Populism will resonate with independents. No, I don’t think the 5% is meaningless at that percentage, since what the marging means is 0-10.
The Other Steve
Edwards polls much better in states like Oklahoma, than he does in states like Ohio.
So on a national poll, the south is skewing the data considerably. The big question is whether or not Democrats want to win bad enough to capitulate to the inner racism by choosing Edwards.
Although I suspect Edwards would probably end up losing in the general because he’s a weaker candidate overall.
Chuck Butcher
I meant to add that a Huckabee/Edwards race with Edwards waxing the Huck might actually be good for the Republicans, they might figure out what value the Value Voters have. There is not a chance they’ll learn anything from a narrow Clinton victory and Obama might well not, either.
Tony J
He won two elections and remained overwhelmingly popular with the electorate despite the best efforts of the GOP and their fellow-travellers in the MSM. She was his wife, and, should she be the Democratic candidate, will probably be the next President of the United States.
While they’ve got George Walker Bush, two very dodgy elections, the current menagerie of GOP wannabees to and the nagging realisation of their own essential worthlessness to get all emo about.
Shorter – They hate them because they’re there.
Incertus (Brian)
The big three all lead Huckabee by such wide margins because Huckabee is still largely unknown outside the junkies like us who have been following the election stuff since December of 2004. Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have solid name recognition, for various reasons. As others above have noted, Edwards probably gets a national bump against an unknown Republican because of the white penis factor, but loses that advantage in a primary poll, because it’s less of an advantage there.
But I think that in 2008, barring some really whacked-out scenario, any of the Democratic Big Three win in a walk. This will be another party election, as opposed to a candidate election.
TheFountainHead
Maybe I’m just too young to know any other kind, but what does a candidate election look like?
J sub D
Oprah would chew up Chuck and spit him out.
delaney
Thank God people brought up the white-cock factor. Seriously, I’m a Democrat, I’ve been reading Democratic blogs for ages, and I’m absolutely stunned by how blinded everybody is to the role prejudices will undoubtedly play in the general, should Obama or Clinton be nominated.
I’m a woman, yes. A Southerner, too. But if people think racism and sexism are Southern problems, they’re kidding themselves. We may be more upfront about our foibles and petty hatreds, but that doesn’t mean other regions are nursing the same.
That said, thanks to Bush, I must disclaim: if there were any election in which a woman or a black man could win the presidency, it would be this one. But I’ll be honest: I’m not anxious to take that risk with so much on the line here. If the history of women’s suffrage versus the suffrage of black men says anything, I’d wager a black man gets elected before a woman, too.
delaney
Way to screw up my thesis: that doesn’t mean other regions aren’t nursing the same prejudices.
Jake
Unless it had been a while since her last meal.
Sorry!
qwerty42
Tony J hits it with
I think it is deeper than that. Clinton ran rings around his opposition; even when accepting their proposals, he would make changes and present them as his. The Republicans, particularly the hard ideological ones, went crazy over this. Some (I believe Dole for example) saw what he was doing, but were unable to prevent their members in the House (especially) from adopting increasingly strange and unappealing measures. That Clinton was paying down the deficit (a traditional Republican issue) only made it worse. Contrast what Republicans said about intervention in the Balkans (and withdrawal from) with what some of the same are saying now WRT Iraq. I believe their anger was (and is) not altogether rational – Clinton was an early member of the DLC and had differences with the Democratic establishment of the time, but he had the number of his opposition. I think the final straw was his ongoing popularity.
Oh, for bonus points, does anyone remember the phrase “the failed Clinton presidency”? It became a kind of invocation.
Incertus (Brian)
I think Clinton in 1992 was a candidate election. It wasn’t like the Democratic party was particularly ascendant at that point, the Republicans had held the presidency for 12 years, but I don’t remember there being Republican fatigue. I’d say Bush/Gore was also a candidate election, as opposed to a party election.
But in 2006, there was a decided push to put Democrats in office, no matter the candidates, at least in certain parts of the country. Popular incumbents went down simply because of the R after their names–Lincoln Chaffee is a prime example of that. And I think we’re headed for another one of those, because Bush has succeeded in making the party stink like a 7-11 burrito fart.
Zifnab
Yeah, that bird never really took off. Not that the sheeple of Republicanstan didn’t try.
Clinton pouched Republican territory. He was a red-stater with his eye on a balanced budget and reformist mindset. Add to that his humble background – a trailer park kid with no old money connections who had to break into the Good Old Boy’s Club from the ground up – and you get to see why the old money aristocracy despised him. Republicans weren’t supposed to lose in ’92, so soon after Reagen’s Glorious Reign, much less to a two-bit hick. They sure as hell weren’t supposed to lose in ’96, after the Gingrich Revolution of ’94. Clinton kept beating the Republicans, and that sent them over the edge. His wife, the target of jabs and jeers since he was Governor, was supposed to be the “brains” behind the operation and she clearly had political ambitions. So she was the natural next target of the Republican Smear Campaign.
This all comes down to the “Do Anything To Win” party politics of the GOP. They hated the Clintons because the Clintons wouldn’t let them win. The end.
Richard Bottoms
The Democrats are going to kick the GOP’s ass to Alpha Centauri next year.
ThymeZone
Dems pulled off a well planned and well funded attack on seats in 2006, by finding and supporting strong candidates and focussing on the issues. One of the best-run operations I’ve seen. I fully expect to get another round of similar gains next year … or better.
Kynn
It’s cute how naive Michael D is.
Anyone who said “because he’s a white male and the others are not” is, at least, living in reality.
p.lukasiak
Anyone? I’m being serious. I don’t get it.
Clinton oozed populist appeal (even if his policies were less than populist) in a city where the media is elitist, and sets the standard for “success” and “failure”. It wasn’t so much that Clinton wasn’t “one of the Villagers”, its that he showed no interest in becoming one — and the Village need a President to want to be part of their “exclusive” club to validate their own feelings of superiority.
So, Junior High School social dynamics kicked in — if someone doesn’t want to be a part of the top social clique, that person is immediately demonized as being unworthy of inclusion.
Add to that a hyper-partisan GOP which was more than happy to tear Clinton to pieces to advance their own agendas, and you had the perfect storm…
(oh, and btw, I don’t buy the “margin of error” excuse as a reason for the disparity between Edwards and the others; when you have Huckabee as a constant, the margin of error when comparing various Democratic candidates performance is much smaller.)
The Other Steve
I caught part of a one hour talk with Norman Ornstein today on NPR. Ornstein is with AEI, but he tends to be pretty open-minded.
I have to listen to the whole thing again, but the part I caught in the car today basically was about the entire failure of the GOP to deal with modern issues. He made some very good points. I was invigorated listening to the GOP failures, and how readily and easily it would be for a Democrat to stand up and make the point.
ThymeZone
It’s just a hunch, but I think we could be seeing a complete collapse of the GOP as a viable entity next year. They have nothing but reactionary nonsense at their core at this point. Their presidential darling is a 6000-year-old-earth apologist, for crissakes.
Even the borderline stupid people are going to walk away from them. They can’t govern, they can’t handle the world, they can’t get anything right.
Anne Laurie
Mostly, I agree that most of Edwards’ advantage in this poll represents his white maleness, with a dollop of he’s-also-southern. But some small part of his edge might be that both Clinton and Obama have managed to piss off the hardcore leftists of the Democratic party. Come November 2008, there are a lot of people who’ll pull the lever for the Not-A-Republican ticket regardless of the actual nominee, but right now there’s a bunch of dependable Dem voters who are cranky about Hillary and Barack for reasons beyond their chromosomal challenges. And the people most inclined to vote *against* Huckabee already — those of us who know him as a greedy, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-intellectual bible-thumper “with a fistful o’ gimme, and a mouthful o’ much obliged” — are the ones least enthralled with HC or BO as the perfect embodiment of real Democratic values.
kirkaracha
Whitewater investigation: six years, $60 million.
9/11 Commission: one and a half years, $3 million (initial budget; the commission later requested an additional $8 million, which the administration resisted)
David Hunt
Nothing’s final until the concession speech. I don’t mean to be as snarky as that sounds, but the primaries haven’t even started yet. At this point in 2004 everyone “knew” that the race for the Democratic Nomination was between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. We all know how that turned out. Plus, God only knows what horrific skeleton could come leaping out of the closet of whoever gets the nomination(s). I’ll admit that I can’t see how Hillary Clinton could have any dirty laundry left un-aired after living under a microscope for 16 years, but I’m not relaxing until whichever canidate I hate more is telling his supporters that “We’ll get’em next time.”
Also, even the Republicans getting utterly obiterfucked will not mean getting rid of them unless it leads to the rise of a viable third party. If that doesn’t happen, it’ll be the same D vs R BS in 2010. Personally, I’d love to see at least three new viable parties pop up, but I don’t believe that we’ll see even one. I’d love to be proved wrong on that, but I’m not expecting it.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
That makes as little sense as asking the reverse about Bush and the left (name a leader whom the opposition party doesn’t vilify), but I’ll give it a shot.
Whatever hate exists for Bill Clinton, outside the “he beat my guy” factor, isn’t really policy-based, it’s personality-based. Clinton was president for eight years and, after the disastrous first year of “don’t ask” and HillaryCare, he decided the best thing for him was to do as little as possible. After Hillary-care was defeated, there was little difference in policy between Clinton and a moderate Republican. So I don’t think it’s much to do with policy.
To the GOP, Bill Clinton is the epitome of the politician (in the oily, smarmy sense of the word), with a fake smile or a fake tear or a fake anecdote or a fake accusation at the ready, depending on what he needed at the time. His opponents saw him as a lying, manipulative salesman who only cared about sitting in the Big Chair, not what he was doing while he was sitting there.
Personally, I’d rather have a Democrat who doesn’t want to do anything but impress chicks over a Democrat who actually has leftist convictions… which brings us to Hillary.
While Bill was the smooth talker, Hillary seems to be more the shrill, whiny moonbat who actually seems to want to do something with the Presidency to which she feels entitled. I personally think she’d adopt Bill’s “Don’t Do Anything” policy if elected and that her end goal is November 4, 2008, not governing after that date, but others disagree.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I’m sure a lot of them don’t particularly like the philandering sexual predator thing, either. So there’s that, too.
Incertus (Brian)
I don’t think so. Our system has been rigged as a 2-party system for a long time, and any imbalance in it tends to work itself out over time. The Dems may become dominant for a while, but it won’t last.
just sayin'
Another thought on the candidate vs. party election thing – 1980 felt like it was more about the candidates than the parties to me. A lot of people who didn’t think of themselves as Republicans voted for Reagan that year, then started to think of themselves as Republicans over the next few years.
Gary D
It hasn’t been mentioned yet so I will throw it in that the Democratic establishment doesn’t like Edwards because he is a populist outsider. DLC and the consultants and the lobbyists hate that.
He also has the Southern white penis thing going for him.
The Other Steve
Ok, EEEL… Please explain why you love GW Bush.
He’s lying, manipulative salesman who feels entitled to sit in the big chair. Everything you just claimed to hate.
ThymeZone
You’re right. They’ll suddenly sell out to superstitious crazy people, start opposing science and the process of law, and fuck up every federal agency so that nothing works.
Yep, just like they did last time.
The Other Steve
You are correct. The GOP might split off into the party of God, and the party of Big business, but eventually one of those will over take the other and there will be a realignment.
Llelldorin
If the Republicans were to collapse, I suspect the Dems would fission into two parties. When the party of Barbara Lee is the party of John Cole, you can’t but wonder if the party might be a tad too broad to be effective.
RSA
It’s odd that intelligence, competence, and a belief that government can work don’t come into the picture, which I think are some of the biggest differences between Bush and Clinton. I hope it’s a very long time before we elect another incurious, anti-intellectual, idealistic incompetent as President.
qwerty42
EEE&L says
And to add to it, he remained extremely popular throughout. I have to admit that if I thought that way about him, it would be galling to have him remain popular with the general public. Such popularity and affection would seem irrational; not based on any thought or analysis. So perhaps “BDS” was preceded by “CDS” — only GWB does not have that popularity with the public (but does have passionate followers among the “base”). Quite a while back, Marshall Whitman mentioned how (when he was working with the Republicans) there was a feeling Clinton could always outsmart them – somehow. I can’t find it anymore, but it was an interesting observation.
John O
It isn’t all that hard to figure out. Edwards is Southern, by most straight or gay standards good-looking, at least age adjusted; he’s articulate, knows how to make a case, he’s still married to his first wife, not very personally abrasive or “cold,” and is fighting for a lot of stuff even poor GOP folks can get behind. He’s the guy that most wants to piss of the establishment, which is why he’s in third. He’s as much a threat to the Corporate Media as anyone.
In short, he doesn’t offend as many people as the rest. It’s irrational to some degree, and visceral to a larger degree, but what is different about that when it comes to an electorate that elected Bush The Lesser the SECOND time?
Plus, he’s not an uppity negro or emasculating bitch.
*sigh*
This country is in deep, deep trouble.
John O
I’m sort of irritated, in fact, that for pure political reasons if for no other reason, the Dems (I’m not of of them, though I realize I have to vote for all of them in ’08) haven’t given Edwards more support.
Hillary is Corporate, Obama wants to “reconcile” with a party with whom it is pretty well established to be unreconcileable.
Me, I want a fighter. I want someone to counterbalance the crushing weight of 8 years of GOP policy, for at least a while. I want someone a huge number of people in this country doesn’t hate for no rational reason whatsoever. I want someone who doesn’t drag the down-ticket down.
That’s why people think I’m crazy, I guess!
Peter Johnson
His approval ratings stayed high. But his favorability ratings were much lower. So I wouldn’t say he was popular. He was the class nerd whose work everyone admired but who was personally despised by most of the class. That’s true of Gore even moreso. If he had won in 2000, I suspect he would have lost in 2000. His approval ratings might have been higher than Bush’s were at the same point even, but the public’s personal distaste for his wonky ways would have doomed him at the election booth.
Peter Johnson
You’d look good too if you hired a personal trainer and blew hundreds on hair care. It’s not that hard.
Peter Johnson
“would have lost in
20002004″fixed
Blue Shark
…Two southern white guys
…Edwards is not a woman.
…Edwards is not Black.
…Edwards is not a religious lunatic (just sayin’)
…Ergo 25 points in a match up with Huckabee
DR
Easy…
Republicans are racist, sexist assholes, so the very idea of a woman or a black man as president is enough to send them in droves to the polls…
But Edwards, a white male, they can live with…
John O
I do look good, Peter, and have none of the above.
But I’m not running for POTUS, suspect most if not all of them have makeup and hair people, probably most of them exercise at least a little, and I can’t for the life of me see why any of that would matter, especially to someone out here on a smart blog.
Unless you’re part of the “no trial lawyers” crowd. Or superficial in the extreme.
John O
DR posted a much more concise version of all I’m tryin’ to say when it comes to general electability.
This is why the Dems will blow it, if even THEY can. The country is starving for a Dem they can tolerate, and Barack and Clinton aren’t it, for substantial numbers of voters.
It’s all very weird and disconcerting.
Tractarian
Forget about race and gender. America is ready to elect either a woman or a black person as president.
So… here are the real reasons Edwards does well in national polls against Republicans:
1) Edwards is not named “Clinton”.
2) Edwards is not named “Obama”.
That is all.
Anne Laurie
“We” Democrats are kinda drawn to the possibility of electing the first woman or the first non-White president, even if Hilary and Obama as individuals fail to excite us. The perception for a long time was that Obama was “actually running for VP”, although if it were ever true then the Winfrey endorsement probably killed that idea. Of course Hillary was never going to settle for less than the top of the ticket, but “her people” probably assume that Edwards is still willing to take the under-card spot.
Of the electable Democratic candidates, Edwards is the one whose actual platform so far most closely matches my ideal, and I’m probably representative of a big chunk of reliable voters (middle-aged cradle-Dem woman who’s ‘moved up’ from a blue-collar background to as solid a middle class position as one can get these days). If Edwards keeps stressing universal health care, he’s going to be hard to beat. If he takes the bit in his teeth, ignores the Conventional Wisdom, and starts talking about a Works Project Administration for our century, he’ll be unbeatable — if he isn’t assassinated first.
John O
Anne Laurie, will you marry me? :-)
I am a middle-aged man who grew up on…the other side of the economic tracks, to put it softly.
You never forget what it is like to worry about money. Or your loved ones.
Never.
John O
Hillary can’t choose Edwards as her VP, mostly for self-image related reasons.
She’ll reinforce her tough-gal cred with someone like Clark, or, if she’s really being cynical, Richardson.
She’s too much in the tank of Big Money to choose Edwards.
qwerty42
PJ says
I haven’t seen any numbers recently, but I believe Kaus quoted some on Bhtv a while back to the effect that he still had very high favorables, so I don’t believe “personally despised” is altogether correct, though it may be in some circles. However, those numbers may be a reflection on what has happened since. It is still true that it is difficult for many of the more committed Republicans to accept that he was (and remains) popular, particularly as they regard him as a scoundrel.
Gore 2000? (well, I could say that Gore won that, but …) and you may be right that he would have lost in 2004 over his general wonkishness, but considering he had won the popular vote in 2000, and would have been presiding over a cleanup in Afghanistan (which he supported) and not an insurgency in Iraq (which he opposed). And would have done this with friends and allies (and presumably not been suckered by Putin). We would be looking at a very different set of circumstances (somewhat like the SNL episode which considered what would have happened if Custer had B-52s at the Little Bighorn, and yes I looked for a link but could not find one, drat). So I think the situation for 2004 is uncertain. I do not doubt he would have faced intense opposition; how extensive that might be is difficult to say.
John O
LOL.
How about a vote, or even a debate, between Bill the First and George the Lesser?
No notes. No time limits. No questions about anything but policy.
Here’s the difference between Bush Derangement Syndrome and Clinton Derangement Syndrome: The latter would vote for Bush the Lesser against Clinton the first in an imaginary 2008 match up.
‘Nuff said.
John O
I remember when all the talk of Clinton’s “legacy” was the rage, and it was all Monica, all the time.
Even then, I argued that one’s legacy had an awful lot to do with what comes later.
No one, NO ONE, has done more for Clinton’s legacy, and I hated him on civil libertarian grounds among others, than Bush the Lesser.
GuyFromOhio
Is there something about Huckabee?
Once a theocrat, always a theocrat.
eric
it might be the non-white maleness of both Hillary and Barack. God knows I hate them for it.
John O
“Adam and Eve were real people.”
Huckabee is just the latest version of the GOP’s favorite candidate, “None of the above.”
MNPundit
I have a very, VERY hard time not hating people who feel this way.
The Other Steve
And John Edwards is a solely owned subsidiary of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
The guy is a snake.
John O
THAT’s what I wanted to hear, The Other Steve!
But what does it mean? Can you please offer a case he won in which you and I were harmed?
Because that would be informative.
I know plenty of “all trial lawyers are evil” people. Sadly, most of them are enthralled with myth. Nobody likes ’em until they need one. I will hope that you never do, for your sake.
John O
True story of one of those, “All trial lawyers are evil” people. Of course, this guy was a CPA/Comptroller at a Big-Eight Accounting firm before he decided “business” was for losers and became a highly respected Neurologist. Let us concede he is not speaking from intellectual ineptitude.
Trial lawyer derangement syndrome, second-handedly told to a wonderful wingnut pal of mine.
C. is the doctor/accountant.
John O
Time to go night-night.
Enjoy. I’ll check in tomorrow for The Other Steve’s insightful analysis of why all trial lawyers are evil.
jcricket
Just like the “get the government off our backs” and please eliminate welfare and taxes folks are always the first in line when a disaster hits their area.
It’s pathetic.
The Other Steve
Simply pointing out that the majority of his campaign contributions come from lawyers.
It’s no less insightful than your Hillary is corporate comment. Edwards is a perfect example of the old Tsongas quote of a guy who pretends to love jobs, but hates the companies that create jobs.
The Other Steve
Time to go night-night.
Enjoy. I’ll check in tomorrow for Jone O’s insightful analysis of why all corporations are evil.
Ian from Ann Arbor
I’ll put my money on Huckabee, simply because his FairTax is on the launchpad.
Renown economist, Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, has stated (9/26/2006),
“Yes I think [the U.S. is bankrupt] because if you look at our long term fiscal obligations and compare them with our tax receipts that are projected to come in, you end up finding the difference in present value is equal to $63 trillion. This is according to an update of a U.S Treasury study. So it is not an academic study but rather a government study.
“To come with $63 trillion in present value, you would have to have an immediate and permanent roughly 70 percent hike in federal corporate and personal income taxes. Alternatively you could immediately double the payroll tax. So we are talking about gargantuan adjustments here, huge problems that we are facing, and a lot of this has to do with the fact that the society is aging. We are currently facing 33 million people over 65. But when the Boomers retire there will be about 77 million people over 65. And we are currently handing out per old person roughly $30,000 on average in Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid benefits. But when the Boomers retire we are going to be paying them a lot higher level of benefits because these benefit levels continue to grow much more rapidly than wages per worker. So think about 77 million Baby Boomers getting roughly $40,000 per head, and you see the magnitude of the problem. We are talking trillions of dollars. $44,000 times 77 million is a very big number. It is in the trillions, A couple trillion dollars a year in obligations. So I do not think it is an exaggeration to say the country is bankrupt.”
Kotlikoff believes that Huckabee’s FairTax is the vehicle to derail economic meltdown.
And Kotlikoff is in good company.
Spider97
Just wait until Jesus decides to focus on the Huckster’s *general* election campaign!!
I think Edwards polls strong against Republican contenders for a few reasons. First, he’s the only Southerner, which is going to help him. Second, I don’t know if people fully realize the strong left turn he’s taken since 2004, when he ran pretty much as a centrist. That John Edwards is long gone, but there’s still a widely held perception of him as a Southern moderate in the Bill Clinton mold.
skip
Since Ptolemy isn’t available this go-round, the next best thing is a candidate that thinks the universe is a few years old. We can’t afford to be picky.
Slogan: “Huckabee stands for strong tribal values!”
The Other Steve
So the Fair Tax is all about making sure we get some taxes out of the old folks?
Interesting…
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Easy — I don’t. Try to turn your nuance switch to the “on” position, TOS. Not everyone who thinks you are retarded loves Bush.
I don’t hate anybody. Love, man… love is the answer. I think Bill and Bush are quite dissimilar — Hillary and Bush have more in common, I think, but she’d have to win to find out what her motivation to be President might be.
John O
The Other Steve:
So? Is your premise like my pal’s that all trial lawyers are evil?
As a practical idealist, I am sane enough to know that to run for POTUS, you gotta get some large whip-out from SOMEONE, unless you have your own like Romney.