God, this is so typical of the main stream media (MSM). If you want to kill a candidate's chances in the primarys and he's likable, you say "he's too light" if he's dour and serious, "he's unreachable and out of touch."

Not enough experience? Hmmm, I remember not too awfully long ago when we had a President who's only previous experience had been several terms as Governor of Arkansas.

I think that's called "Irony."

While many will say Clinton was a horrible President (Myself included!) it won't be said by the MSM. Oh no! Bill was a Dem so it was perfectly acceptable for him to go on MTV and play his sax, joke around, and discuss his choice of underwear with hot young co-eds but let a Republican fire off a few fast one-liners and he's obviously unfit for office.

Huck ain't perfect but then again, neither are any of the other candidates out there. I see no reason to call him any less qualified than any of the rest.

If you want inexperienced, how about Hilly and Barak (I'm not a Muslim!) Obama? Huck's been in the political game a lot longer than both of them put together but we don't hear the MSM hollaring about how light in the drawers they are.

Why?

If you think some jackleg preacher named Huckabee is going to get elected president, you're out of your tree.

Did I say anywhere in that post I thought he was going to get elected? Did I even say I was going to vote for him? No, I did not. Nor did I imply it. You simply assume. Which, if I may say is a habit of the intellectually lazy.

I did however, point out the obvious one-sidedness and partisan politics of our Government's Fourth and most powerful Branch. The Mainstream Media.

We get to vote, they get to choose who we vote for.

The MSM was making a big deal out of Jennifer Flowers up until Ross Perot fired up his campaign.

Funny how you think the MSM is actually picking the president, but look who is in office...an inexperienced former governor.

You think Clinton was a pretty bad president, but he didn't cost us 4,000 of our soldiers, over $1 trillion and whatever respect we had around the world by starting an unnecessary war and when he left office there were a lot fewer people unemployed and fewer people looking at being evicted from their homes. Oil was $25 per bbl and the national debt was about half what it is today.

Bill Clinton was a lousy President and even if Bush were to go down in history as the worst President we have ever had (I don't think he will, in time I think he may just be regarded as equally as lousy) its not going to magically change the fact Clinton sucked.

No he "did not cost us 4,000 lives in Iraq" he did however allow Hussein to toss out the UN in 98 without so much as a wimper after sabre rattling for his entire Presidency. He did nothing as we were attacked over seas on countless occasions. He did nothing in response to Iran's bombing of Kovar towers except send Allbright over to speak to them which several historians consider the dumbest approach to Iran since they took the Hostages. Clinton lost us plenty of prestige overseas especially with a group of people who learned to fly planes but not to land them if ya get my drift. Couple that with the "Agreed Framework" and he did a bang up job. I am not even going to get into his "mission creep" in Somalia.

Your blaming Bush for the Sub prime mess? I guess I should not be suprised he is blamed for everything.

"If you think some jackleg preacher named Huckabee is going to get elected president, you're out of your tree. " Seirously why are you so angry? "Jackleg Preacher"? Sounds like your jack boots are little to tight.

soon. Your politics are straight out of el Rushbo and Savage Nation. I have been reading your stuff now for a few months and am astounded at your conclusions. When we finally throw these right wing idiots out of power, perhaps we can move in a positive direction again as a nation. With the group you seem to support in power over the last 7 years, hell is too kind for the mess they have created. Ideology should never be the basis for policy, it never works.

I love how people name drop, they mention Rush and "Savage" (whatever the hell that is) and then act as if they have made some sort of point.

Here is to hoping by some miracle of god that someday you have one.

Pay attention, I didn't say the MSM was picking the President, I said they are picking who we get to vote for.

Just like they always do.

I love how some people like to pretend everything is Zero Sum. None of these problems existed prior to Bush entering the White House. Oh no, Everything was peachy hunky dory right up till then and nothing Clinton did could possibly have aggravated the situation.

I have no use for Bush. The best thing I can say about him is, if he cheats on his wife at least he's discreet about it and I don't have to hear about it every damned day.

However, to be FAIR and HONEST, the situation in the Middle East has been waxing and waning for 2,0000 years. It will continue to do so as long as humans live there. Blaming Bush alone for what's going on over there today is like watching the guys on 1st and 2nd shift screw up everything they touch all day long, saying nothing, and then firing the guy who works 3rd shift as soon as he shows up for work.

The War in Iraq has only one purpose today, and that is to fatten the bank accounts of the King makers and Power Brokers. If it costs the lives of a few thosand lower middle class and lower class kids, why should they care?

BUT!!!

Be honest with yourself and try not to pretend all those War Profiteers are Republicans/Conservatives.

Believing in the whole Democrat/Republican Liberal/Conservative schism is playing into the hands of the Power Brokers. It keeps you dumb and powerless. Rise above it!

Rise above it to where? Exxon and Haliburton are Democrats? Blarkwater and the other mercenaries are Democrats? While the military-industrial complex could probably tolerate Hillary Clinton, they are certainly overwhelmingly Republican. Those are facts, and trying to "rise above them" in an attempt to be supercilliously nonpartisan looking down on the partisan rabble is simply silly. It certainly doesn't make you smart and powerful.

Non-partisan? No, I really don't think of myself as such. If I had to label myself, I guess I'd say I'm a Conservative Constitutionalist and an Economic Socialist. Frankly, whatever you choose to call me, in the end it all adds up to me being a Disenfranchised American. There is no political party interested in fixing the problems I believe to be important. (Illegal Immigration, Health Care, Exportation of our production capability, Corporate Run Warfare, etc.)

Yeah, Halliburton has strong ties to the Rep party. So does Blackwater. But if the Dems win every election they run for next November, do you really believe those guys are going to be tossed out on their ears? Really?

Even if the Dems could magically extricate Halliburton, KBR, and friends from the Middle East (and they can't.) those entities would be immediately replaced with an almost exact copy under a different name familiar to, in many ways identical to, and completely approved of, by the Democratic Party. Same song, different verse.

So what changes? Does the same system become more ethical when run by Tyrant A than when run by Tyrant B? If you switch out your hired corporate thugs at half time, is it a whole new ball game?

I don't think so.

Clinton had his faults, but I find it interesting that you would think his failure to bomb somebody after Khobar towers or the attack on the embassies is worse than Ronald Reagans failure to do something after the Iranians killed 241 Marines in Beirut....to say nothing of the fact that he did nothing to retaliate against the Iranians for holding our embassy personnel for over a year. Remember they were released even as Reagan was sworn in. Carter couldn't attack for fear that the hostages would be killed. What was Reagan's excuse?

The Saudi's did round up the people who planned the bombing of the American compound and beheaded 4 of them. The Saudi's also captured several people who took part in the Khobar towers bombing. We suspect that they had support from Iran. We don't know that for sure, do we? If so, why hasn't Bush acted?

Bush took office and was handed the proof of Bin Laden's part in the bombing of the USS Cole. What did he do? Clinton was only in office for about 45 days after the FBI confirmed Al Qaeda had a hand in the bombing. Clinton turned the evidence over to Bush.

Sorry bubba. I have my complaints with Clinton, but they don't rank him anywhere near as bad as Bush and his assault on our liberty and our honor.

By the way, Bush deserves the blame for the subprime mess because he claimed credit for the increase in home ownership....he can't have one without the other.

I say that only because I hear the same tripe on the radio, verbatim. Since I doubt they take their cues from you, I can only assume you listen to them or are somehow connected to the entertainment industry as a writer of some sorts. Look Sicko, conservative ideology is doomed. It had its hey day with Ronnie and then we all figured out it was a goddamn joke. The only reason we are still worrying about it is that the right stole a couple elections.

Where did I say that Bush alone is responsible for all that is wrong in the Middle East.

Bush is responsible for the results of the invasion of Iraq and the failure to deal decisively with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We stayed involved in Afghanistan until it was time to pull troops out to invade Iraq.

The resulting destabilization of Pakistan is also part of Bush's gift to the world. The terrorists are closer to having an atomic weapon now than ever before.

There are people who play both ends against the middle, but there are also good people on either side.

I would like to see Biden win the White House and would hope that there is a job for Chuck Hagel.

The Iranians held those hostages for 444 days and if Smilin' Jim had gotten re-elected, they might have spent another four years in there. They were released even as Reagan was sworn in because the Ayatollahs KNEW the Marines would be on their way the next day if they didn't. What further action on Reagan's part was needed? If he'd taken any military action at all, the MSM would have been screaming about revenge and the UN would have been on his rear like a pitbull on a poodle.

middleview, I agree whole heartedly with your laying the blame for the sub-prime debacle at GW's feet. That's exactly where it belongs.

However, when you lay the blame for the deaths of 4,000 servicemen squarely at Bush's feet as you did above, the implication of singular responsibility is pretty clear. If that's not what you meant, you should have been much more clear.