OJ: What is your opinion of Huckabee? At first glance I'd think you'd be a big fan.

I assume you didn't mention him because you don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination. Is that right?

BJ and Mrs. BJ are digusting slimes. Most fortunately, they are also atrocious liars. Each of them could be videotaped for a trial practice course demonstrating the mannerisms of a lying witness.

We should be embarassed that they enjoy so much popularity, a clear indication that the slimes among us wish to feel represented in government also.

The Reverend Huckabee can win the presidency, but finishing 4th or 5th in NH is tough to come back from unless you win SC, where Maverick and Fred are more thoroughly invested. He's also too unknown to withstand just the normal revelations about your record that sink all rookie candidacies.

A good presidency makes up for a lot of sins.

Like Carter in 76, Huck could be a bit of a wild card.

It isn't ONLY about that doped 6-8% swing vote that decides in the last 20 seconds (based upon their inabilty to process thoughts). Those are the morons that are effected by the grainy idiot ads placed by consultants.

The key is not to be too 'out there' (like Ron Paul) while being 'out there' enough to appeal to large numbers of disaffected voters that don't vote anymore.

Too many boneheads worry about slicing the pie, when the paydirt is to "make the pie higher." (Bushism)

I'll admit that the Union will survive Madame President Clinton, but it still gives me the creeps the way she skirts around issues. She figures she needs the pro-lifers so she mouths some pro-life things. When she's trying to get the pro-choicers she mouths pro-choice things. Lady, where do you stand on the issues? Is it too much to ask to get a straight answer? She reminds me of many of the corporate bigwigs I deal with who will speak volumes and yet say nothing.

There are those who would rather vote for the Hildabeast than the Huckster (Clinton-R). If the election were tomorrow, I would be in that group.

Agree on Hillary over Mitt. Agree on McCain over her.

Rudy is a toss-up. I think compared to her, he could be all warmth and charm in a debate, so I would give him the edge. Plus, he's the one candidate who would fight the press, which puts a lot of hard right voters in his column.

She might win 50 states against Huckabee. If you think Mitt has problems with evangelicals, wait until Huckabee gets in front of a camera to explain his version of liberation theology Baptist Christianity.

Against Fred, who knows? He could win 40, or he could go all uxorious and lose big. Hard to tell. He would out-idea her, but how is anyone going to know (with the media flying wing for her)? This is one election where the Evan Thomas tilt might just be worth 15 points. You can be sure they will try their hardest.

Yes, the point is that he's more like Bill than she is. He'd give us 8 more ears of Clinton governance. She'd give us 4 more years of Clinton melodrama.

Unless something happens to change things radically, I think the next president will be named Thompson. Least, by far, objectionable of the bunch.

Huckabee seems to be a fussbudget who would shut the keg off when things get rolling. Bill would grab the mugs and keep on pouring. Everyone winked at his adventures, partly because he was so shameless. Huckabee can't pull that off. So, he's really not that much like Bill. Hillary isn't, either - but that's another story.

Both of the Men from Hope are gifted Schlickmeisters. Like all qualities, that has an upside and a downside.

National security is always my primary issue in voting for predident. Hillary looks better in that light than either of the hucksters.

Any Democrat will be the best on National Security from a hawkish perspective, because perceived as weak they'd be forced to overreact.

Yes, Huckabee is only like Bill (and W) politically.

Any Democrat will be the best on National Security from a hawkish perspective, because perceived as weak they'd be forced to overreact.

Don't be so sure of that, OJ. Hillary and Bill are ruthless to the point of viscousness against their domestic political opponents. Thing is, their domestic political opponents won't shoot at them, and they know it. The Clintons, like all bullies, only hit those who they know will not hit back.

Against people with bombs and guns who make beheading videos, the Clintons will be much more circumspect, because those people might actually try to kill them. If one of their domestic political opponents then starts critiquing them as "weak on national security," they'll question his patriotism, and we'll get solemn editorials in the New York Times decrying the "irresponsible pseudo-dissent" of those who would criticize a president in wartime for partisan gain.

If you think bullies only hit those who don't hit back, you didn't go to my high or grade schools...

They don't hit those who can hit back effectively.