First a disclaimer: I am a registered democrat, so I will likely not be voting for Mike Huckabee.

That said, even though I don't happen to agree with his politics, Mike Huckabee is a breath of fresh air in the ordinarily stuffed-shirt fraternity that make up career politicians. His humor is neither clownish nor buffoonish, rather it is timely, wry, and often self-deprecating. He is clearly not one to take himself too seriously. My opinion is we could use a lot more like him on both sides of the aisle.

I can agree.

Mike Huckabee is not what he seems...watch his mayberry demeanor change when faced with criticism. he becomes very pointed and very mean. I don't particularly want a "breath of fresh air" who does'nt know what the NIE is.

Speaking of facial changes in the face of criticism, watch Hillary. Oooh! not good.

I suggest YOU watch Hillary...she ought to be easy to see from the Oval Office.

I already saw Hillary from the Oval Office in the 90's..oh wait that was Monica ;- ).

Anyway, Hillary certainly remains the front runner from both parties to make it to the White House, from what I can see. I think she'd be a very good administrator, a boring but effective statesman...er...person and do her best to make the US a good place to live.

But she is still thin-skinned, cliquish in her social patterns and combative and let's face it....that shows on her face sometimes.

How did you like it compared to the view fom the Oval Office TODAY? Oh...gee...I guess a Clinton-hating backbiter like you has been living up Newt Gingirch's ass so long you've forgotten the way out to see anything. So I guess any criticism of the Clinton's coming fron YOU, would really be coming from Newt's asshole huh?

Clearvoice, what does that mean? How is Newt Gingrich involved here? You certainly have an anal way of perceiving politics.

I never voted for Bill (I abstained those years) because even before his first term I felt his lying, slick Willie side would be a problem. I could conceivably vote for Hillary though. Her personal faults are less damning and embarassing for the nation as a whole.

"You certainly have an anal way of perceiving politics."

I just consider the source...I bring up Gingrich...he has relevance here because you sound just like him. You both seem to have a disconnect where the Clintons are concered. I have my theory as to why...which I will keep to myself. At this point I will say, however, that after reading your character assasination of the Clintons on the most personal gounds, one can easily see that you have no idea how to be critical without being disinginuous,.

How sad.

bsharporflat:

I already saw Hillary from the Oval Office in the 90's..oh wait that was Monica ;- ).

Anyway, Hillary certainly remains the front runner from both parties to make it to the White House, from what I can see. I think she'd be a very good administrator, a boring but effective statesman...er...person and do her best to make the US a good place to live.

But she is still thin-skinned, cliquish in her social patterns and combative and let's face it....that shows on her face sometimes.

I must say that I am impressed with your ability to step away from partisan hackery long enough to give what appears to be an honest assessment of Hillary. She is not my first choice for POTUS, but I do think that she would do an adequate job and would do so with the best interests of America at heart. Her personality does grate on me sometimes. I cringed at her response in the recent debate to the question put to Obama about using ex-Clinton advisers. She should lose the "cackle". I like Biden, but I think that Huckabee would also make a good President. It's fairly easy to find personal fault with anyone when they're put on a pedestal by the media. I doubt that we'll ever get a perfect candidate for the job from either party.

As to Hillary's tone and temperment...I don't feel these issues are germaine or relevant. We've had two go-rounds of a man who was originally dubbed as "genial" and a "lovable bumbler"...now the nation is screaming for his blood, so shrillness brittleness or cackling are pretty much useless BS to my way of thinking, as are the people who continually harp on these trivialities. After all, I'm not electing a dinner-party companion, I'm electing a president.

Clearvoice,

your description of Bush, even when you are ostensibly trying to present his positive side, shows you to be far more interested in personal character attacks than me when dealing with your political preferences.

C'mon, get out of battle mode for a minute and accept the Clintons have faults just as Bush does. Wouldn't you see the world more clearly if you didn't divide it into devils and angels?

your description of Bush, even when you are ostensibly trying to present his positive side, shows you to be far more interested in personal character attacks than me when dealing with your political preferences.

I quote the media...and his ahem...public at the time. And no, I will not play the Reich-Wing game of "i'm-dirty-but-your're-filthy"­­...I don't believe the Clintons started a war on false evidence, used the DOJ as their own personal law advocates, ran secret prisons, tortured in secret and destroyed the evidence, denied heathcare to children, or were caught pandering in bathrooms. On the contrary...what YOU don't notice is staggering.

Clearvoice I think you are confused. I noticed all those things about the Bush administration and more. Why are the Clinton's immune to your critical gaze? That is the question.

The question is why YOU pin a target on them. Your carachter assanition and petty attack is pathetic and tired. When called on these ploys you revert to this fake psedo-reasoning. Your tacitcs are right out of the Rovian playbook. Do you think we are ignorant of them? Are you deluded enough to believe they have merit? If you are of the impression that lampooning the Clintons is a fresh or effective approach, I suggest you just take a look at the the RepubliKLAN field....a good hard look.