November 29, 2007
11/29: Huck-A-Mania
Most conservative bloggers agree that Mike Huckabee won last night's CNN/YouTube debate, primarily due to his "genial," "funny," and "good-natured" personality rather than the actual substance of his positions. Bloggers also offered praise for John McCain, while giving mixed reviews to Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney and negative reviews to Rudy Giuliani. Many bloggers expressed surprise that Huckabee was able to avoid being the target of attacks for most of the night. With only 35 days before the IA caucuses and a new Rasmussen poll showing Huckabee surging ahead of Romney in IA, isn't it time for Romney to take Huckabee down a notch? Or does he fear that he will turn off Iowans by going negative?
GOP DEBATE: Talk About Mixed Reactions
The debate produced a fascinating split in the conservative blogosphere. Several bloggers (Richelieu, Jim Geraghty, Fred Barnes) felt that the preponderance of questions about immigration, guns, and gays made the GOP candidates look bad. Others (John O'Sullivan, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Matt Lewis, Ed Morrissey) believed that the YouTube questions raised important issues (such as immigration) that the MSM tends to downplay or ignore.
First, the critics:
NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Not the best debate. One of the worst, actually. Based on the tone and answers given tonight, you would think that the Republican Party seethes with a blistering resentment of immigrants, with only the briefest of pauses to distinguish between those who are illegal and legal. You would think that the only tax plan that they like is the Fair Tax, and that they would like to somehow eliminate all taxes and let somebody else figure out how to fund the parts of the government that are actually needed. Guys, I thought we were small-government conservatives, not no-government anarchists."
CampaignStandard's Richelieu: "What a depressing debate...a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar."
Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "It was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the 'surge' in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress. Instead there were questions...on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible...By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive."
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Machine-gunning immigration questions was an absurd way to spend the first 35 minutes of the debate...Lou Dobbs is making a fortune banging the anti-illegal immigration drum and talking up the threat of the North American Union. It is clear who had a great influence on this debate's design, and it wasn't a serious political journalist."
Other conservative bloggers didn't find the debate questions nearly that bad:
NRO's John O'Sullivan: "I can't help thinking that some of the sterner and anxious posts about it on the Corner and from Richelieu -- that stuff about it making the GOP look like a band of knuckle-dragging Know-Nothings -- are a little too pious. The debate was vigorous; some of the exchanges were very tough; and the audience reactions were boisterous. But it was all highly entertaining...And the clashes between the candidates on immigration (in contrast to the same topic as handled by the Dems) represented the real division of opinion between Americans on this topic."
NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Once again we watched a debate and saw we have some talent there on the Republican stage. Yeah, the questions could be silly or a CNN producer's caricature of what Iowa conservatives care about, but some of them happen to be important issues all the same. I would have liked more of a focus on the war, but all in all, it wasn't a disaster, especially for a YouTube debate."
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The real winner tonight was CNN, YouTube, the GOP, and the American people. Yes, there were some stupid questions. But there were also some very, very good questions on important topics such as immigration, that would not have been asked by typical MSM moderators."
NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "I am impressed by the questions. If they are representative, then the GOP base is concerned with the right things: immigration, taxes and spending."
Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "The folks at CNN and YouTube certainly matured in their presentation of their groundbreaking debate format since July...The questions, videos, and the candidates' responses were less goofy, less gimicky, more intelligent and relevant this time around."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The most apparent result was that CNN and YouTube did their homework. For the most part -- with a few glaring exceptions -- the network eliminated the silliness and stuck to substance. The questions hit hot topics and sparked some fierce debate. With a couple of exceptions, Republican fears of crypto-Democratic hit questions failed to materialize, and the candidates responded substantively to the rest."
GOP DEBATE II: The Plants Are Sprouting Up Like Weeds
After determining that several of the debate questioners were declared supporters of Dem candidates, conservative bloggers blasted CNN for inadequate vetting. As Ed Morrissey summarizes: "CNN and YouTube had weeks to select the questions for last night's debate...Yet within minutes of the debate, bloggers discovered what CNN missed -- that one prominent questioner flown to Florida by CNN worked on the campaign of a Democratic rival, and that at least three other questioners have declared support for Democratic candidates."
After initially praising CNN for its "coherent and well-framed" questions, Michelle Malkin discovered that Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, who asked the candidates a question about gays in the military, is a co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans group. Malkin wrote: "I take back my compliment of CNN. The politics of planting rules again. Sheesh."
Glenn Reynolds: "Once again, CNN demonstrates an inexplicable failure to background-check pro-Hillary questioners...Try Google, next time. It's not that hard!"
Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Serving as the host of an intraparty debate, CNN has shown itself unable or unwilling to serve as an honest broker."
While critical of CNN, Ed Morrissey doesn't think the Dem questioners ruined the debate: "Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don't think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees."
DEBATE GIULIANI: A Stumble?
CBN's David Brody: "I can't quite put my finger on it but he seemed sluggish tonight. He's normally pretty sharp but the energy level wasn't there. He operated as the human punching bag tonight with Romney attacking him, Thompson attacking him and even You Tube videos attacking him."
Ed Morrissey: "Rudy was a puzzlement. I understand his desire to fire back at Romney, but he chose a poor battlefield on which to fight. He used the 'sanctuary mansion' personal attack, expecting Romney to know the immigration status of other people's employees who did work at his house. Rudy did better later in the debate, but for at least the first half, he seemed off his game."
Matt Lewis: "Rudy was mediocre, but probably benefits from the fact that Huckabee and Thompson did well (presumably, their success hurts Romney). His closing line about the Yankees was humorous, but his opening skirmish with Romney about Romney's hiring illegal immigrants seemed personal."
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Rudy hit his stride in several places, but was overall, not as good as he usually is. He was confronted more boldly by voters on some of his socially liberal positions than he usually is by the press, and his answers were a little less than stellar. He made great points in places, but he took a lot of flack in the process."
DEBATE ROMNEY: Mixed Results
Hugh Hewitt: "Romney Won Debate And The Spin."
Scott Johnson: "Best performance: Mitt Romney."
Soren Dayton: "Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney? They looked bad. Bad."
Jim Geraghty: "The knives were out for [Romney] from the starting gun...The gays-in-the-military answer looks like yet another flip-flop...He didn't fall apart under this barrage, but every major candidate on that stage wants Romney knocked out first, and so he's got a big bulls-eye on his back from here on out. Easy to see his negatives rising week by week if every debate offers an extensive retrospective of his every flaw and position change."
NRO's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's performance is his strongest in the series."
Matt Lewis: "Mitt Romney was probably was the one who most under-performed tonight. He didn't seem 'on.' In addition, he often seemed holier than thou. Some of his answers seemed to be pandering. Other questions reminded us of his past record. And some of his answers -- like the one about the King James Bible and gays in the military -- just seemed odd."
Michelle Malkin: "Romney looked strong and energetic, with one stumble on the Bible question."
David Brody: "He started off strong by going after Giuliani on sanctuary cities and seemed to have the upper hand. Yet Giuliani's line about Romney's 'sanctuary mansions' was a dagger. Romney tried to recover but the damage was done...Another stumble came when he was asked about the Bible being the literal word of God. Romney first answered that it was the word of God. But when pressed to say whether every word was true, he hesitated. Hesitation doesn't score you points with Evangelicals in Iowa. Overall, a shaky night."
AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein: "For part of the debate, I thought Romney came off quite well, both in his initial exchange with Rudy and doing a better job of deflecting the flip-flopper charge on abortion. But I thought he got crushed by McCain on the torture question, though as I stated, he may benefit from the fact that the Republican base agrees with him. On the bible and South Carolina flag questions, I thought he stumbled, and reinforced the impression that he can't take a firm position on anything."
RedState's Ben Domenech: "As for Mitt Romney -- both Bill Bennett and Kate O'Beirne think he did well. I have a really hard time seeing that. I think he got the better of the first exchange, but seemed to be getting his questions at a bad time (either having to echo those who came before or defending his Massachusetts record for the umpteenth time) throughout the night, and I think it was certainly not a helpful night for him."
DEBATE HUCKABEE: It's (Past) Time To Stop Ignoring Him
AmSpecBlog's Jennifer Rubin: "Huckabee won the night. He has mastered the art of appearing engaging and almost sweet but resolute on social issues. In a 90-second debate answer he sounds perfectly solid on other subjects like taxes. Remarkably, except for a minor scuffle with Romney on college scholarships for illegal alien kids, no one went after him. The time has passed where the other contenders can just hope he'll go away on his own and I suspect they will come after him next time."
NRO's Byron York: "I suspect that [Huckabee] has helped himself more than any other candidate on stage tonight. He's clearly on the rise in Iowa and South Carolina, and perhaps elsewhere, and my guess is that people who are considering supporting him liked what they saw tonight."
Kate O'Beirne: "[Huckabee] stands out on stage (and seemed to get more than his share of time tonight) not because of the substantive content of his answers but because he is refreshingly witty and seems extremely good-natured. People like the guy. Mitt Romney had a really good night, but it would have been even better if Huckabee hadn't had such a good one too."
David Brody: "It was Mike Huckabee who may have had the best night...Whether you agree with him or not, it seemed like every issue he talked about Wednesday had a well thought out, coherent argument behind it. When he speaks, the tone and words flow harmoniously...Huckabee really didn't come under attack tonight...It was a night where Huckabee could have been a major target. Instead, he continues to move right along."
Jim Geraghty: "I don't necessarily like how his candidacy is turning into a litmus test for the strength of social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. But time and again, he's the smoothest, funniest, most natural campaigner on the stage, and that goes a long way."
Ed Morrissey: "Who won among the candidates? I'd have to lean towards Mike Huckabee. He steered clear of personal attacks, allowed his natural personality to emerge, and used his sense of humor to great effect. If people wonder why Huckabee has made a major move in Iowa, they saw why."
Fred Barnes: "[Huckabee] knows how to conduct himself in TV debates. He's genial, funny, extremely likable, and not very substantive. He seems to understand that a CNN-You Tube debate is not a serious forum at which serious people discuss serious issues. So he doesn't get worked up, and this posture works."
Matt Lewis: "Mike Huckabee is such a good debater that even when he's mediocre, he's still pretty good. As always, he did well and was humorous ('Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office...' was a great answer)."
Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Huckabee actually won. I wasn't a fan of his previous debate performances, but he dialed down the schtick. This was a debate performance he needed at a critical time."
Mary Katharine Ham: "Who Won? I'm giving it to Huckabee. He's always good in debates, always well-spoken. He parried attacks on his fiscal record well, deflecting with a lot of talk about the Fair Tax. He also got the chance to point out that he had signed the no-tax pledge, which is better than several others have done. He's riding a high, he came across as sensitive and smart, and was able to obscure his non-conservative record."
Red State's Erick Erickson: "Mike Huckabee scored the debate points on rhetoric and is the winner of this debate. He did really well. He showed up Romney. He showed up Rudy. If Mike could convince me he's actually a free market guy, I'd be tempted."
DEBATE MCCAIN: We Respectfully Won't Vote For You
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator McCain is making a dignified exit from national politics, and though I disagree greatly with his policies, he is a great American."
Philip Klein: "Even if you disagree with him on his position on torture, it's hard not to respect where he's coming from. He also came across as a real grown up on the stage...The trouble is, McCain still seems to rub a lot of conservative voters the wrong way. At the Values Voters Summit, I thought he gave a masterful speech, during which he made an emotional case against torture, but the audience members I spoke to after had a different view."
Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain was strong on spending and the war, and decent throughout, but came across as a little more dour than usual. I could have used just a bit more of his jokes, which are usually good, to lighten the tone. Many of his answers were moving, but won't necessarily play well with his audience -- immigration and torture, specifically. Conservatives will continue to respect him, but he wasn't working it for me tonight, except on the war and spending."
Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'"
David Brody: "McCain is always sharp on the war yet Ron Paul stood up to him. McCain's best moments were in that context."
Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "John McCain was strong on Iraq, as he always is, though he reached a bit by trying to engage Ron Paul on the issue. His answer on waterboarding will probably resonate with even those people who disagree with him."
DEBATE THOMPSON: It's Probably A Bad Sign When Your Best Debate Moment Is Your Ad
David Brody: "Fred Thompson's best moment was probably his campaign commercial where he slammed Romney on abortion and Huckabee on taxes. But he seemed to be more in the background tonight. If Thompson wants to make a serious move, he'll need better debate performances in the future."
Campaign Standard's Terry Eastland "The best performance wasn't turned in by one of the candidates. No, the Oscar goes to that Thompson ad. It doesn't introduce Thompson -- he doesn't even speak. The ad features Mitt Romney when he was pro-abortion rights, and Mike Huckabee when (as governor of Arkansas) he was agreeable to increasing various taxes. The ad closes by pitching Thompson as the authentic conservative in the race. It's a well-done ad, and it indicates how Thompson believes he can pull off a top-three finish in Iowa: attack Romney and Huckabee (the two are atop the Iowa polls) where they have evident vulnerabilities; get them on the defensive; force them to explain themselves."
Stephen F. Hayes: "Fred Thompson clearly sees Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as his main competition. He chose to use his 30-second YouTube spot to show old footage of Romney supporting abortion rights and Huckabee backing tax hikes. It was incredibly effective, mostly because of the way Thompson handled himself afterwards. When the video was finished, Anderson Cooper asked: 'What's up with that?' Thompson laughed heartily and said: 'Just wanted to give my buddies a little extra airtime.' Then everyone else laughed."
Matt Lewis: "My bet is getting this negative information out is a lot better use of his time than merely putting out some puff-piece."
Patrick Ruffini, who watched the debate from the hall, had a different take: "Fred's attack spot was off place. Giuliani won the battle of the YouTube ads."
Jim Geraghty agrees: "Thompson gets 30 seconds of free time, and uses all of it to showcase quotes from Romney and Huckabee? I just don't think it reflected well on him."
Ed Morrissey: "Fred Thompson did well enough to get a wash, but he needs to start doing something impressive. While his answers were fine and supportable, none of them were particularly memorable. He's the kind of man people want to support if he'd give them something to work with, but thus far, he's more analyst than candidate."
Jennifer Rubin: "Thompson was fine but sort of invisible which is baffling for a professional performer. I like him more and more as the campaign goes on but find him incapable of projecting the energy and dynamism a president or a presidential candidate requires."
Thompson supporter Erick Erickson is starting to worry: "I think Fred held his own. He did well. But he did not shine and he needed to. I did think his YouTube clip made the point he needed to make. If Fred doesn't do something soon, though, and soon as in in the next two weeks, I think he'll flat line. Don't make me have to find a new guy, Fred."
HUCKABEE: Dems' Worst Fear?
On the left side of the blogosphere, Open Left's Mike Lux is impressed by Huckabee's Iowa surge but scared by what he perceives to be Huckabee's general election strength: "I am always pleased when populist economics shows up in a political campaign, even when it comes from a Republican and even if the candidate's policy prescriptions generally suck, as is the case with Huckabee...I am also thrilled at the idea of an all-out civil war between the Christian fundamentalist wing and the economic-royalist wing of the Republican Party primary with Huckabee and, say, Giulani, as the two finalists after the smoke clears from the early states would definitely set such a conflagration off...But what scares me the most about Huckabee is that I just think he is by far the best general election candidate on the Republican side. Unlike Giuliani, McCain and Romney, he unites and excites the GOP voting base. Unlike Thompson, he is a thoughtful and articulate candidate on policy, and has real accomplishments he can point to from his time in public office. He's warm and charming and optimistic, and doesn't sound like the hardliner he is on social issues. Watching him charm and entertain Stewart, Colbert and their young, urban, liberal audiences was astonishing to me."
DEM FIELD: It's Back To Iraq
It felt like deja vu in the Dem race yesterday, as Bill Clinton's claim that he opposed the Iraq War from the start returned the war to the front of the debate and "ignited a kind of research war" between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wonders why Bill Clinton chose to make this dubious claim about Iraq: "Mr. President -- your wife is going to be in Iowa tomorrow. She is supposed to talk about health care. You don't want to step on her message by claiming that you opposed the Iraq War from the beginning! We're in the era of instantaneous fact checks...within 10 minutes of your comments, they're everywhere, and if you want to walk them back, it's not like calling Ron Fournier to walk back an AP story!"
TPM's Greg Sargent analyzes the significance of the flare-up: "Hillary has often said that she voted for the war because she wanted to give the President more leverage against Saddam Hussein, something she said at the time would make war 'less likely'...But if at the time you had figured out that Bush and Blair were going to war no matter what happened, as many argued, you understood that placing trust in Bush and Blair -- and hence authorizing Bush to use force -- was the same as supporting certain war. The Obama campaign is largely premised on the notion that the Clintons -- and Hillary, in particular -- should have figured this out, and that her failure to do so should be a factor in deciding whether she should be President. If you view our pre-war history through this prism, as Obama does, whether people said they opposed the invasion, as Bill did in certain venues, was in many ways beside the point. In this view, the only thing that constituted genuine opposition to the war was an unwillingness to grant Bush/Blair the trust or authority to wage it."
Bill's claim opened some old wounds for Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Maybe my memory is faulty, but in the run up to the invasion liberation of Iraq, I remember hoping that both of the Clintons would say something -- anything -- as W. drove the car off the cliff. They never showed up...What the hell are the Clintons thinking? Hillary's weakness is Iraq. So Bill steps in it...on Iraq?"
OBAMA: Failing To Make The Case?
On a similar topic, Washington Post columnist Peter Beinart analyzes Barack Obama's inability to use HRC's war vote against her: "Recent American history is littered with candidates who were right about war and weren't rewarded at election time...So what's Obama to do? He has to convince voters that his original antiwar stance still matters, that it's the key to understanding what makes him and Clinton different now. That's why Obama keeps trying to connect Clinton's Iraq vote to her recent vote designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, suggesting that once again she is giving Bush the green light to launch a war. Unfortunately for him, history doesn't generally repeat. The Iran resolution was rewritten to avoid any suggestion of military force precisely because Senate Democrats don't want to make the same mistake twice."
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias calls Beinart's analysis "very smart" but complains: "When [Obama] tries to engage in an intra-party argument about foreign policy, people like Peter Beinart...ignore what he's arguing in favor of making arguments about why his arguments aren't penetrating...it seems to me that the role of a journalist who's attuned to the small ins-and-outs of these debates is precisely to convey to readers things they might not otherwise pick up on, not to merely explain that people aren't picking up on stuff. And there's the rub, the differences in the positions Clinton and Obama have staked out have been subtle, but the differences keep lining up the same way."
CLINTON: Not Winning The Hearts Of Netroots
Yglesias, who's becoming one of the blogosphere's most frequent critics of HRC's foreign policy views, examines HRC's positions and concludes: "I think all the evidence points in one direction: Obama would pursue a more restrained foreign policy, more inflected by the strains of realism and internationalism that have come to predominate among the dovish camp in American politics whereas Clinton would pursue a more militarily expansive one, more in line with the thinking of the establishmentarians who got us into war with Iraq and have since come to kinda sorta regret but don't really think they were wrong."
Open Left's Matt Stoller offers what has become a standard netroots critique of HRC: "Clinton believes that if you prepare, present the evidence, and work the system, you will win. She has to believe it, because her entire career is premised on huge barricades between insiders and the public that are larger than the barricades between Republicans and Democrats. She may wish in her heart that the world worked differently, she may wish in her heart that making a strong progressive case to the public would bring great change, but she doesn't operate that way. She offers jobs to Colin Powell, a man who helped destroy Bill Clinton, she ratifies the Iraq war and refuses to consider her own huge and obvious complicity with the last seven years of our foreign policy. It's a huge problem."
EDWARDS: Is This The Beginning of Second-Choice Speculation?
The Chicago Tribune's The Swamp reports that John Edwards prefers Obama to HRC:
"The differences between Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself," Edwards told reporters after receiving the endorsement of the progressive group Caucus for Priorities, which seeks a reallocation of defense dollars into social programs.
"Down the line," Edwards said, on issues such as "What we would do in Iraq? What we should be doing about Iran. What we should be doing about corrupting influences in Washington and a broken system, (there are) really big differences between Sen. Clinton and myself."
Open Left's Chris Bowers is surprised by Edwards' statement: "Of all the attacks I have seen so far in this nearly year-long campaign, the latest one from Edwards might be the most interesting of all...Iowa is very close, so close that even a minor deal like the one Edwards and Kucinich made in 2004 could swing the state. Even leaving potential caucus-day deals aside, if both Edwards and Obama were to start attacking Clinton instead of each other, or at least if they were to start attacking Clinton more than they were attacking each other, then Clinton would be in real trouble in Iowa. For Edwards to come out and basically say that he prefers Obama to Clinton is one of the most unusual moves I have ever seen from a presidential candidate. If Obama were to say pretty much the same thing, then Clinton would be in real trouble in Iowa. Not only would she face attacks on several fronts, but it could also exacerbate her problem as a second place choice, where she already finds herself in third."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Online America Vs. Offline America
Jim Geraghty questions the usefulness of YouTube debates:
"Talking before the debate with an adviser to one of the Republican campaigns, we wondered if one of the themes that might come out of the evening was the difference between Online America and Offline America. I'm a guy who spends probably way too much time on the Internet, so I guess I'm part of the online one. But the kind of people who hear about the YouTube debate, and who go and get a web camera or digital recorder of some kind and record themselves asking a question and then hope that it gets used...it's a certain kind of person. Engaged, probably passionate, perhaps outspoken, enjoying the spotlight. Perhaps a little smug admiration in their own self-evident cleverness. I'm not certain that this pool of voters is brimming with GOP primary voters...Before this debate, I was in Patrick Ruffini's camp, in that I thought a YouTube debate was worth trying. But afterwards, I'm skeptical that this needs to turn into a new campaign tradition. The freakishly-bizarre-to-valuable-question ratio was all out of whack, much worse than the Democratic debate, I would contend."
LEST WE FORGET: Huck The Rock Star
The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg links to a YouTube clip of Mike Huckabee laying down the bass line on Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird" and analyzes Huck's stage presence:
"He's got that little leaning-back thing going. And that little upward gesture with the guitar neck. Cooler than your average former Republican governor -- maybe even as cool as your average former Arkansas governor of either party. If Huckabee's star keeps rising, a fierce debate over his chops versus Bill Clinton's will inevitably erupt. I don't propose to take sides; unless you're an expert, it's hard to compare tenor-sax apples to bass-guitar oranges. Clinton has the shades and the hair, I know that much. But if you close your eyes and open your ears Huckabee more than holds his own, in my unschooled opinion."
Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 29, 2007 01:03 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
