A brand new day for America

Governor Huckabee should stick to preaching, his vocation, not politics, his avocation -- and a dangerous one for a man of the cloth, both for himself and republican government. What we need first and foremost in this dangerous world is a first-rate commander-in-chief. Judging from the governor's public utterances, I'm certain I know more about foreign policy and military matters and am therefore better qualified for the role -- a sobering thought indeed.

Could it be that the rightwing and leftwing dinosaurs who live for divisiveness and the fundraising that goes with that, are going extinct? Let's hope. Obama looks good for the upcoming states. But unfortunately Huckabee is not exactly awash in money, and that could catch up with him in the big states to come. In any case, we can savor this evening.

I don't think 'the hope (Huckabee) has unleashed is palpable'. I admire his abilities. But he is a Baptist preacher in not only name but practice.

I am proud that he has shown post Bush Republicans (that would not mean most of the current powers that be) that America is not only fed up with this administrations ministrations, they resent everything the last few years have come to represent; profligate spending, ill-advised (how's that for an understatement) wars, DULL thinking when it isn't dangerous, the immigration (as in illegal) whirlpool under this jerk's watch. Need I go on?

McCain was robbed more than even Gore by Bush and that's saying something. In any case, I appreciate Huckabee, am very familiar with him as I spent most of his years as Ark. Gov. commuting to Fayetteville where my then love was in grad school. So I was privy to the (then obese) governor whom I heard speak multiple times. Impressive, those boys from Hope.

I saw GOP Chairman Mike Duncan on CNN, staying absurdly "on message." How he could deadpan after Huckabee's populist win that the future of the GOP is on the old shibboleths of less government, lower taxes and whatever else was in his litany is beyond me.

Mr. Sullivan either believes Obama walks on water or wants to go steady with him or both. Obama is by all accounts a pleasant enough fellow, but he's a typical machine Dem from Chicago. There's no great "new paradigm" going on there. His wife spent December begging noted deep thinker and uniter Al Sharpton for his so-coveted endorsement.

And my, my Michelle. What a pretentious poof-

Michelle Obama told Vanity Fair that Americans would have only one chance to anoint her husband, vowing “it’s now or never” and explaining “there’s an inconvenience factor there” and a “really, really hard” pressure and stress on the family that can only be justified if her husband can win the presidency and “change the world.”

She told a group gathered at a nursing home in Grinnell that “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.”

Yes, all bow and pray for Obama and Michelle's blessing. Anoint him!He's getting messy in grubby politics for US, not because he has an ego or ambition. Is this guy Billy Budd or Christ?

Obama would be more tolerable than Hillary, as he does not seem to be as much of an ideologue, but the fact that he has absolutely zero foreign policy experience is worrisome.

The race thing is interesting, as you will undoubtedly have people who will not vote for him because he's black, just as you will have people vote for him simply because he's black. Will these two mindless groups cancel each other out?

Obama was largely responsible for nearly doubling the turnout at the Democratic caucuses, and he scored a convincing victory in a stste which has never elected a black official to any office of consequence. He has also derailed the juggernaut of the Clinton campaign which had all the tools and weapons that have worked in past elections and has also surpassed the angry rhetoric of the Edwards campaign which has been the red meat of the Democratic Party's version of populism.

While Bug rants against his wife, he misses those facts.

There is a new paradigm going on.

What Rob G misses is that a huge portion of people are voting for Obama because they don't care that he's black.

Given that he couldn't have used ceetain restrooms in my hometown 40 years ago, that is a miracle.

I'd love to have a bottle of what Sullivan's swigging when I get the blues, but I don't see his argument at all. Clearly, if both maintain momentum, Huckabee and Obama reflect serious change within their respective parties--e.g., jettisoning of the old-guard, centrist gatekeepers.

I don't think they portend anything remotely like healing the divisions in this country. In fact, it's the opposite: the establishments pushed candidates to the center. Both Huckabee and Obama, soothing rhetoric aside, are hardened culture warriors, from even the briefest examinations of their records. Their respective enthusiasts aren't, for the most part, moderates either.

An Obama-Huckabee tilt in November would further polarize the country, I'm sorry to say. And the sad thing is, I thought the opposite as recently as a month or so ago.

I really detest the rhetoric of "uniting the country," no matter who is spewing it. A few thoughts, and please hear me out. (1) It seems to me most often used by liberals, and thus can be interpreted to mean, "Once we crush the conservatives and make them go away, we'll have a country unified around high taxes, gay rights, and abortion on demand." (That's stated a bit strongly, but you get the drift.) Thus, I'm especially cynical when purported conservatives use such language. (2) Is it really possible to unite the country, our country of about 300 million people of thousands upon thousands of religious and political persuasions? The only way the country gets united is by one side on any given issue giving up or at least standing down. (3) "Uniting the country" suggests a repudiation of a healthy democratic pluralism of ideas in favor of (The last time we saw a really united country, by the way, about 12 million were murdered in camps and about 38 million others worldwide lost their lives, and even within that Teutonic veneer of unity there were many brave German men and women who gave their reputations, fortunes and lives for the sake of dissent.) (4) It's a bit ironic to me how most politicians embrace "tolerance" and "diversity" while at the same time speaking of "uniting the country."

I guess I don't care about 'uniting the country' except by converting those who disagree with me politically through argument and dialogue. Other than that, I'd rather spend my time winning.

Larry, thanks for taking me seriously. I do appreciate it. My point wasn't to suggest Dems are Nazis (a group which gets used much too frequently given the singularity of their evil), but to use reductio to suggest in a most striking manner that "unity" ain't always all it's cracked up to be.

What you've written is very helpful to me. I just wonder if (1) there are more than 1 million Americans nowadays who could think of unity in such sophisticated terms; and (2) if given such diversity in our populace, that any sort of unity beyond a gentleman's agreement on a baseline libertarianism or states-rights sort of conservatism is possible.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

Re: "the rhetoric of "uniting the country," no matter who is spewing it. A few thoughts, and please hear me out. (1) It seems to me most often used by liberals"

Choke!

Ever hear about George ("I'm a uniter, not a divider") W(armonger) Bush?

Re: "taxes, gay rights, and abortion on demand." (That's stated a bit strongly"

Nope. It's simply worded absurdly. Besides, don't gay citizens deserve rights? I sorta thought the Constitution "guaranteed" them. Guess not. At least in a conservative world, eh?

"Is it really possible to unite the country, our country of about 300 million people of thousands upon thousands of religious and political persuasions?"

Except in the America you have, only ONE of those religious persuasions seems to count any more. (eg. Romney not being "Christian" enough)

"It's a bit ironic to me how most politicians embrace "tolerance" and "diversity" while at the same time speaking of "uniting the country."

Sorry, but the "irony" escapes me. Why won't the right be tolerant? Why do they reject diversity?

"My point wasn't to suggest Dems are Nazis"

Sure, Irenaeous. Why else would you make that particular comparison then?

The results from Iowa were not necessarily surprising, and they were certainly moderately refreshing.

The historic nature of this race, with serious women, African-American and Hispanic-American contenders on the Democratic side and a greater variety of white men than usual running on the Republican side is certainly fascinating and entertaining.

Personally, I worry that Barack Obama may be the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Although I was a registered Democrat until just a couple of years ago until I got fed up with the Democratic Party and registered Republican (I'd probably be considerd a RINO, but I would vote for a true Teddy Roosevelt Republican if there were one in the race), I think I might prefer John McCain to Barack Obama.

And I certainly prefer Hillary Clinton to Obama. I want a policy wonk in the White House again. I want someone who cares enough about the details of running the country and representing America in the world to master those details.

I saw Mike Huckabee on "Meet the Press" recently. Until I heard many of his views, which I regard as extremist, I was infatuated by his down-to-earth, authentic manner. He is likable.

But anyone who thinks, as Huckabee said to Tim Russert, that the way to end abortion in the U.S. is to ban it doesn't have my vote (a ban won't end abortions, just increase the body count and empower and enrich quacks). To seriously change hearts on abortion, we have to forget about the laws and talk and listen to each other.

I think that pro-life people make many excellent points. I'm not for overturning Roe vs. Wade because I think abortion should be "legal, safe and rare" in all 50 states. I also think Roe vs. Wade was a very unsuccessful ruling by the Supreme Court because it didn't end the abortion debate, only polarized it more. However, we have to begin where we are, and I don't think overturning settled law is the way to start. Anyway, my two cents.

Rob G: You may be the last American to remember Marcuse. Few lefties actually read him.

"While the Left says to everyone, "You'll be tolerant or else! (oh, and by the way, we're allowed to be intolerant of you.)""

In what way are conservatives not tolerated?
Are you being lynched?
Are your churches being forcibly closed or burned?
Are you denied freedom of movement? Medical care? Voting rights?
Are your children being forcibly marched into public schools?
Are you forced into gay marriages and abortions?
Your businesses closed by government fiat?
Have you suffered a Krystal Nacht?
Are your books burned?
Are you refused housing, public accomodation or employment?
Are you being rounded up and shipped to camps?

Did this happen under Clinton and Carter? How, pray tell, did you reclaim the reins of government under such dire hardship?

Please detail the ways you are not tolerated. Not a chip on the shoulder sense of victimization, Right-wing Oprahism, but real intolerance, such as mentioned above. And please explain how the MM has managed to cover all this up!

"You may be the last American to remember Marcuse. Few lefties actually read him."

Maybe so, but the 'long march' through the universities has been very successful, whether its heirs and benefactors remember Marcuse by name or not. He and his fellow travelers' ideas still motivate the Left.

"Please detail the ways you are not tolerated."

It's only beginning, Elizabeth, with PC on campuses and speech codes, and laws against 'hate speech,' etc. Give it some time - "soft totalitarianism" is on its way.