No no, I agree with you that it in no way is a response to Hillary falling. But Huckabee is still a very dangerous person

What happened is that the Jesus Freaks had enough of being ignored by the Republican party. They would vote for Osama Bin Laden if he came out strong enough against abortion, gays, evolution, and Mexicans. They tried to throw in with Fred Thompson until they found out he had died four years ago. The only option left is the TV Preacher. They sure as hell ain't gonna vote for gay-loving abortionist from New York City or a Mormon cult leader.

The TV preacher hasn't set foot in Iowa in over a month. This has nothing to do with him per se. It's an intra-party jihad.

Don't worry. Mainstream Republicans aren't going to let the TV preacher get the nomination anymore than mainstream Democrats would nominate Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, or John Edwards.

C'mon Shaun those interactive polls are crap and that has been mentioned several times.

Ahem. Why don't you trot out something other than an internet poll? Good grief.

Here are today's Quinnipiac numbers in three key swing states:

Florida

50% Clinton
35% The TV Preacher

Ohio

45% Clinton
38% The TV Preacher

Pennsylvania

48% Clinton
37% The TV Preacher

The TV preacher's rise is the Jesus Freak wing of the Republican party thumbing their nose at the party. It would be like, god forbid, the Nadarite netroots had enough numbers to nominate Kucinich or Edwards in the Democratic Party.

lovely.  The online polls again.

SteveM rightly pointed out that Hillary beats Huckabee's pants off IN ARKANSAS.  The head-to-heads weren't even remotely close in that state.   Therein lies the crux of the issue.

BTW, yesterday's Quinnipiac puts a damper on your thoughts.  Hillary beats all GOP comers in the pivotal states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio by healthy margins, with Obama not looking all that great.  That is a major concern, as we MUST win two of these 3 states to have a realistic chance to win the White  House.  Obama shows extremely weak in Florida, also quite weak in Pennsylvania, which must be a major worry to the party establishment at this point.

But you forgot this very important disclaimer for that poll (emphasis NOT mine):

** Note: This survey used a non-probability sample. Respondants had previously volunteered to be interviewed online.

You're really seeing Huckabee at his peak in my opinion.  He's had the benefit of a honeymoon, with the negatives still lurking just below the surface.

I disagree for two reasons:

1. Huckabee is closest to the modern crazy right (evangelicals, as opposed to the old-school Ron Paul crazy right).

2. the Republican party is disciplined, they will show up for their nominee.

I never bought the idea that Mr. Chicago Rules couldn't play dirty. He signaled that early on with the Geffen interview and his campaign's Lincoln Bedroom shots. Took him a while to land any punches, but he has it together now, and the refs are with him.

A 'wax museum of failure.'

I couldn't disagree more. I think it will be a very tough campaign and it's going to take more than the Democrats have been able to muster in 2000 and 2004 to win the White House.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the Republicans know how to run a brass knuckle national campaign and the DNC/Democratic strategist are mostly weak as water. The DNC doesn't even have a halfway decent microtargeting voter database operation and they are broke.

Clinton had to build her own, which is what the unions and the womens vote organizations used in the 2006 midterms.

i keep thinking democrats would learn.  after all, george bush ran as a COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE, on the issue of education.  sure, hard-core dems will see the race as you called it, but most voters won't.  democrats get no credit from the voters by telling them they fscked up last time around.

that you think republicans can't win really shows a lack of imagination.  it's very easy to see how republicans put together a path to victory if hillary is the nominee.  any race that hillary is in is all about her.  not bush.  not bill.  her.  some of us think that's good, some of us think that's dangerous.  but it sure seems to me that republicans are chomping at the bit to run against her...

It's basesless and moronic.

and robert gibbs was tied to.......?

paul begala was caught bragging about bringing dean down. and a clinton staffer was working in concert with sharpton to develop attacks against dean. shawn and mollie already pointed to the clintons bringing in wes clark to act as spoiler. something wes himself admitted to on charlie rose after he closed down his campaign.

re kerry, looked to me like he didn't want to win. he was just biding his time, going through the motions. oh, he enjoyed the attention and press after he was made nominee, but he didn't put up much of a fight.

so you think the clintons aren't power hungry? (shrugs) okay.

just for the record, i didn't begin to sour on the clintons until after the midterms in 2002.

He's been through the Dumond thing before.  Twice.