What the Huck! Could it really be all in a name?

I mentioned to a friend of mine that Mike Huckabee seemed to be surging in Iowa, and she laughed and replied dryly that America would never elect someone with the last name Huckabee.

It just doesn’t flow well. “Can you imagine having to say Huckabeeonomics?” she continued, referring to how easily President Reagan’s name could be transformed into Reaganomics.

Well for that matter, we’d have to write off Obama, I continued. You can’t have Obamanomics. These are serious issues to grapple with when choosing a president. We can easily say Reaganomics or Clintonian but what do we do with a Huckabee or an Obama?

It’s not enough to aim to write a new chapter in history. You have to sign that chapter with a name we can pronounce. :-)

Huckabee — finally a Republican heating up the Iowa race

Let's face it, the top tier of Republican presidential candidates were boring. No matter how long I watched them, I couldn't seem to get excited. I've blogged about the top tier Democrats and knew I should give their counterparts some attention but just couldn't bear it.

Then from out of nowhere comes a candidate with a big R on his chest (The R stands for Reagan, not Republican, of course.) who swoops down and tackles issues with a single bound. He doesn't sound scripted, focus group tested, or calculated. To me, he seems to have what the others have been trying desperately to manufacture. Authenticity.

Mike Huckabee is now surging in the Iowa polls because, I'm guessing, more than a few Republicans are taking him in like a breath of fresh air. Even with his silly Chuck Norris endorsement commercial, he created so much buzz and free media from pundits playing it, that it seems to be a shrewd strategic move. Each time one of the punditry elite played it to guffaw and then pick it apart, the good Governor Huckabee must have been chuckling to himself.

I had been hearing his name here and there and not really following him until I stumbled on this clip on YouTube.

Crisp and authentic. Even Wolf didn't know what to do with that kind of straightforward answer.

Can you imagine getting that kind of straightforward answer from any of the other top tier candidates? Mitt Romney is so manufactured. Him and his wife look like they have come straight out of a Ken and Barbie box. They smile pretty and on cue, and then cheerfully recite responses that have been carefully constructed so as not to offend or unnerve.

Rudy Guiliani. Well Joe Biden called his number in a recent debate. The only thing that guy has to offer in any sentence is a noun, a verb, and 9-11. And what some like me are scratching our heads and wondering is what did he actually DO on 9-11? Sure he was everywhere on TV filling a void left when the president finally managed the energy to scamper out of the elementary school classroom and promptly buried his head in the ground for the rest of the day (but that's another post).

But what did Rudy do? What lasting policy changes did he offer to make New York safe from another attack. What visionary new era did he usher in with his bold striking response. What is different in New York today than Sept. 10, 2001 because of his leadership? I can't think of a single thing.

If that wasn't bad enough, he is running for the nomination while he disagrees with the majority of his voting base on the issues they care most about. That's a winning strategy? I'm just counting down to the implosion that will end this ridiculous ride.

And finally that brings us to John McCain. I must admit that I liked Sen. McCain's maverick candidacy during the 2000 election. Then he was authentic. And then, for some unexplainable reason, the senator went and sold his soul to George Bush. He might have gotten a better deal from the devil.

McCain aligned himself with the administration on the most unpopular issue at the most inopportune time, and it didn't even resonate as a principled move (as I'm sure his advisers must have convinced him). It came across as a pathetic man selling out too much too late. He sold his soul and got nothing of value in return. He should be glad there is even a Wikipedia entry under his name because the rest of history will forget him.

Wait, I almost forgot Fred Thompson. That in itself is a commentary. So the Reagan heir apparent is like Reagan without the charm or governing philosophy or leadership acumen. He's like ordering coffee without the caffeine. Why bother.

Boring one and all. So thank God for Rev Gov Huckabee. Give 'em hell, Mike.

No debate about it, Wolf must go

If CNN wants more substantive debates, they ought to get Wolf Blitzer off the stage.

I should admit that I’ve never been a fan of Wolf’s. I find his penchant for the binary style interview — do you or don’t you, yes or no, will you or won’t you — is a bit pedantic. It doesn’t allow for the kind of discussion that serious and complex issues deserve. It doesn’t illicit any real new or revealing information. It doesn’t force interviewees to think or grow beyond their talking points. It doesn’t really do anything — except create sound bites. Which is why I say “IF” CNN wants more substantive debates...

It seems clear that CNN is more than happy with Wolf peddling his true or false, multiple choice quizes. If you recall, Wolf was criticized in the first couple of debates for asking “show of hands” questions. That’s right, during a debate for the leader of the United States of America, candidates are asked to identify their positions by a show of hands. I had a hand salute for him after that one.

To further exacerbate the problem, Wolf and company then rate debate performance against those ridiculous standards. The glaring example is when Wolf insists each candidate answer ‘yes or no’ to supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Now here is a complex issue, worthy of some thought and discussion, limited to yes or no.

The candidates who tried to demonstrate that they had given some thought to the complexity of the issue then were criticized for being verbose. Hillary Clinton, clearly learning that lesson in the last debate, came ready to play the game. She answers with the one word, “no”. She was then praised for concisely answering the question. But who is better off if an issue like immigration is relegated to a yes or no format?

That’s why I say, IF CNN wants more substantive debates...

Hillary Clinton, girl of convenience

She’s sugar and spice and everything nice, especially when she needs to differentiate herself from all the other boys in the race.

She, of course, is Hillary Rodham Clinton, lone female presidential candidate and leading contender for the Democratic nomination.

Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s convenient playing of the gender card but none struck me as more outrageous than a comment she made during her speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Iowa last weekend.

Here’s the line:

Now, we are getting closer to the Iowa caucuses. They are going to be earlier than ever before. I know as the campaign goes on, that it's going to get a little hotter out there. But that is fine with me. Because, you know, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'll tell you what, I feel really comfortable in the kitchen.

Huh? Did she really say that she felt comfortable in the kitchen? That kind of blatant pandering might have palatable if it weren’t for her famous line in 1992.

When she was defending her husband during his presidential run, the good senator said this:

I suppose I could have stayed at home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

Doesn’t sound like a kitchen dweller to me. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that, spending most of her adult life as first lady of Arkansas and the US, the only time she was in a kitchen was when the secret service was whisking her in and out of speaking engagements with her husband.

The kitchen is now convenient, as now her website portrays her as Mother & Advocate, First Lady and US Senator — in that order.

Speaking of her site, remember when she was asking for a theme song for her campaign? I know it’s late, but I’d like to formally offer one. Maybe she could come out of the kitchen long enough to hear it.

Obama: Our moment is now

I must admit that I had been becoming a bit disappointed at Barak Obama's performances lately. I remember how he started with so much energy and optimism. But lately his interviews and debate performances are showing the effects of senatorial speak -- lofty rhetorical and cumbersome explanations rather than the pointed and pithy that you need to grab headlines and generate interest. The interview and debate venues aren't his best formats.

But when he delivers a speech, you remember why he became so popular so quickly. I just finished listening to his speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner a few days ago. It's Barak Obama at his best and worth a listen.

Kucinich impeachment resolution killed but who’s the real kook?

Republicans know that Kucinich comes off as a kook, that's why, when he introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, they wanted Kucinich to be heard.

Democrats also know that Kucinich tilts on the kook factor. They'd just heard him admit in a televised debate that he believed in UFOs. And with that performance still relatively fresh on many mind's, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi wanted no parts of it.

And while we all snickered at the messenger, a message or two slipped past us. One, it was an issue worthy of debate. If anyone remembers the Washington Post's exhaustive series on the vice president, you would remember that there is fertile ground to plow on whether he stretched the boundaries of his power to circumvent the law. The series seemed to make it fairly obvious that the vice president is thumbing his nose at the constitution and doing whatever he pleases.

Second, Democrats, knowing all these facts, did nothing. That's right, in an effort to avoid the label of a do nothing congress, they sent the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee where everyone agrees it will do — nothing.

For those of you who missed the resolution, here is a Cliff Notes version:

Vice President Cheney should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors:

Article 1: He purposely manipulated the intelligence process to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He did this to deceive the US citizens and Congress and justify using our military in a war against Iraq that has damaged our national security interests.

Article 2: He purposely manipulated intelligence to deceive America about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify his war.

Article 3: He openly threatened aggression against Iran without any real threat to the United States. He has done so while proving he has the capability to act on those threats.

Anything really kooky there? The resolution documents each of the articles of impeachment with a bibliography of references, not that we need it. A simple Google search can confirm most of the facts. But Kucinich is a kook. How can anyone take him seriously?

Meanwhile, I think Dick Cheney is having the best laugh. Who are the real kooks here?

Payoff to be an ally in the war on terror, $10 billion. Thumbing your nose at your benefactor, so you can stay in power. Priceless.

You'd think that for $10 billion you could get a guy to listen to you. Apparently not if it is the United States' $10 billion and not if that guy is Pakistan President Musharraf.

In the midst of the chaos that resulted from Pres. Musharraf declaring martial law and suspending the constitution, the media is reporting that the United States has paid the country more than $10 billion to help fight the war on terror.

As the situation developed, Pres. Bush refused to speculate about whether he would send more money to Pakistan. That's right, he's not sure if he will send more money to the dictator who he can't influence.

It gets better. The Washington Post reported today that "Even as Bush said Musharraf's actions 'would undermine democracy," he also emphasized that the Pakistani president "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

Let me get this right. He has suspended the constitution, instituted martial law, jailed the politicians and lawyers who disagrees with him, and declared himself the defacto dictator and we think his actions might undermine democracy. And of course, we are depending on him to help us fight extremists and radicals.

Why such careful treatment you might ask yourself? The Bush administration believes that Musharraf is a key ally in helping the United States combat terrorism:

I now interrupt this blog post to present to you the dictionary.com definitions of Terrorism.
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. A terroristic method of governing.

Ok, back to the post about the ally in the war against terrorism who suspended the rule of law, jailed dissenters and used violence to enforce his authority.

Of course Pres. Musharraf was happy to stick his hands into our pockets and promised to play along in the terrorism game. Now comes time for him to give up power as he promised us he would, and he changes his mind.

Wait, a dictator who doesn't willingly want to give up power??!! Who could have seen that coming? And of course with the $10 billion military buildup and a benefactor who can't get his attention, he doesn't have to….

Hollywood writers’ strike? Who wrote that one?

Ok. In what must be the worst advice since someone told OJ to bust into a Las Vegas hotel to get his stuff back, Hollywood writers decided to strike. Hollywood on strike? Really? You think they could have written a better plot for themselves. (No more lukewarm latte's!)

Teachers strike and you wonder who will educate the children. Garbage men strike and you wonder about sanitary issues. You can even feel sympathy for an auto worker striking, as he has to navigate his shitty Ford back to his Detroit trailer park.

But a Hollywood writer? What will happen if they strike? We'll have...Gasp...no TV!! The horror! The tragedy! What's next, cigarette factory employees holding out for better health insurance?

Get a grip guys. You work in Hollywood. You're bickering over royalties. Get better agents and get over yourselves.

Dems, don't count out the white man yet

Hey Dems, here is a prediction you won’t hear every day. While all the other pundits are focused and frothing over the Hillary vs. Barak battle for the nomination, John Edwards will come straight up the middle and overtake them both.

Hillary is too divisive. Barak is too inexperienced. In the end, voters will survey the most diverse group of candidates and, for “legitimate” reasons, go with the white man. Of course, it will spawn a chorus of “Was American not ready?” stories. John Edwards will be forced to pick a minority (Barak Obama) to preserve the narrative.

Breaks my heart, too, but call me a cynic.

Edwards/Obama 08. You heard it here first. Sorry Hill and Bill.