Would Clinton consider The Huckabee Option?

March 31, 2008

That Hillary Clinton intends to stay in the presidential race for the next five months is no longer in doubt; the question now becomes what kind of race she’ll run between now and August.

On “Meet the Press” yesterday, David Brooks raised an interesting comparison.

“I think she should slow down the campaign, run what Mike Huckabee ran, a dignified campaign, not attacking her opponents, go through North Carolina and then get out. She really has very little opportunity to win. The Jeremiah Wright thing was big, the big scandal, the biggest thing Barack Obama’s faced really in months. It didn’t hurt him. We now have the polling results from poll after poll. It’s clear it didn’t hurt him. The voters were not shaken off him. The — Michigan and Florida are not going to revote, the superdelegates are never going to overrule the pledge delegates, so her chances are really small.”

From there, Brooks went on to say a number of things I disagreed with, including taking some cheap shots at Howard Dean, but the Mike Huckabee comparison struck me as fairly compelling.

It was about a month ago — which, lately, seems like a year ago — but throughout February and the first week in March, John McCain had built up an insurmountable lead in the Republican primaries. Mike Huckabee didn’t stand much of a chance, but he stuck around anyway, hitting the trail and making his case. McCain gently urged him to get out of the way, but Huckabee lingered, waiting. He didn’t do anything to undermine McCain or hurt the party, but hesitated before bowing out altogether until McCain officially clinched by crossing the delegate threshold.

It’s hard to know for sure what Huckabee hoped to accomplish, but I suspect he had two principal motivations: he wanted to demonstrate his skills as a candidate in case McCain would consider him as a running mate, and he wanted to be there just in case an unexpected scandal forced McCain from the race. If there were a surprise and McCain had to bow out, Huckabee would be the last one standing.

Given the hurdles in front of her, there are worse models for the Clinton campaign to follow.

The scorched-earth approach (or the Tonya Harding approach, or the kitchen-sink strategy, etc.) hasn’t paid dividends of late. Brooks seems right about this — Obama was hit with a major story that put his bid in jeopardy, but he seems to have successfully weathered the storm. His lead in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll has reached double-digits for the first time. All the while, Clinton’s negatives seem to be going up, not down.

With this in mind, Isaac Chotiner argued that the Huckabee Option has surprising appeal.

First off, it would engender some good will toward Senator Clinton within the party and among Obama’s supporters. Second, it would leave a better taste in the mouths of those who might consider backing Clinton in 2012 should Obama lose to McCain. And most importantly, it allows her to stay in the game in case something catastrophic occurs. Brooks and Peter Beinart, Tim Russert’s other guest today, both agreed that Clinton’s chances are no better than 5%. That seems about right. And a lot of that 5% can be explained by the possibility of a huge scandal — never out of the question in politics. Since she is not going to win without a giant event, what does she gain by an ugly, divisive contest?

A corollary point to this is about political junkies — myself included. It’s east to get caught up in by the day-to-day news cycle or the minor controversy of the week or the latest superdelegate endorsement. And this stuff counts, especially when perceptions are beginning to form and every last voter in Iowa may make the crucial difference. But right now — at least as far as the Democratic primary is concerned — these things do not matter. Clinton needs a major earthquake, and if she does not get one she will lose. So why not slow things down a bit, hope for a scandal to break, and then drop out if there are no game changers?

I’m not sure what “slowing things down a bit” would look like, exactly, but the gist of this sounds about right.

I’d just add that if Obama’s VP slot is at least somewhere on Clinton’s mind, embracing the Huckabee Option might be a good idea, especially if she’s willing to go after McCain and the GOP aggressively. I was chatting with someone over the weekend about possible Obama running mates and my friend noted that, historically, candidates want an aggressive running mate, willing to play the role of an “attack dog.”

If Clinton would consider a spot on the ticket, what better way to audition than to spend the next few (or five) months hammering McCain at every opportunity?

I suspect Huckabee also wanted to keep the religious right’s pet issues front and center during the campaign, hoping to influence McCain’s own platform. Most of Huckabee’s policy preferences differ significantly enough from McCain’s that he could draw that kind of contrast.

I really don’t see a Democratic parallel insofar as the policy aspect goes. Obama and Clinton are very different candidates, but overall their policy positions are much more similar than different. I know many people will jump in now to tell me they’re worlds apart on issues A, B, and C, and it’s true there are some measurable differences, but they don’t represent the kind of wide chasm that exists between Huckabee’s and McCain’s philosophies (in McCain’s case, the philosophy of the day) of government. So Clinton can’t credibly make that kind of argument for staying in.

  • I also think Huck wanted to make sure he was ahead of Romney in delegates when he got out. It had gotten pretty personal between the two of them.

  • Given her campaign’s financial situation, there may be no other option other than to “slow down”. It’s the tone of her campaign that has to change however.

  • Giving Clinton the VP slot would give the DLC mouth-to-mouth resuscitation just when we’re almost rid of its noxious influence. I hope that Obama chooses a good strong populist and that whatever is left of the DLC after November goes over to the Publican side, its true home.

  • I had the same thought as Erik. Huck was looking to move into a clear second place finish to stick it to the Mittster.

    But on the larger point here, if Hillary and her surrogates can keep it civil and, more important, spend more time attacking Republicans rather than praising them, then it would be great to have her stay in the race. It would keep registrations coming in, and fundraising up, and keep the media spotlight on our side. All great.

  • I think smiley hit the nail on the head: she can say whatever she wants about going all the way to convention, but there is one big factor that is almost entirely out of her control. If she runs out of money, she is done. And unless she gets a sizeable win in Pennsylvania, I think the money will dry up pretty quickly.

  • If Clinton does not change the tone of her campaign and Obama stumbles due to some unforeseen problem Obama delegates could simply support an alternative candidate – Gore, Biden, Edwards, anybody but Clinton.

  • Maria, i agree.

    I don’t see the parallel either, frankly. Huckabee – if you subtract the guns and God – was giving an atypical Republican message. I think that much of his motivation was to show the social conservatives that you can be socially conservative without the big-business worship. That and he had personal reasons.

    I don’t think the Huckabee option will work for two reasons. First, the candidates are close (at least right now) on policy, so the only distinctions to draw are those of the character attack. Second, Clinton’s whole argument is that the race is a dead-heat. Huck was getting blown out; he was just getting his message out…and perhaps laying the groundwork for 2012.

    But mostly, i don’t see Clinton as capable of doing this the right/good way. So i can’t support her staying in.

  • Clinton can’t be on the ticket, because if she is, the Republicans play the ad of her saying that she and McCain are the only two candidates who’ve crossed the commander-in-chief threshold. That idiocy was the day she walked away from the vice-presidency.

  • If Clinton would consider a spot on the ticket, what better way to audition than to spend the next few (or five) months hammering McCain at every opportunity?

    Had she taken this approach from the beginning, her campaign might be in much better shape today. Instead of trying to convince everyone that Obama can’t beat McSame, she should have been demonstrating how she would. This is where her campaign theme has been less than coherent. She positioned herself as the ‘inevitable’ candidate, but took few, if any, swipes at her ‘inevitable’ opponent – preferring to mud-wrestle a fellow Democrat.

    As it stands now, her only way of securing the nomination would leave such an awful taste in enough peoples mouths to give McSame a real shot at winning in Nov.

  • She can’t run a dignified campaign, She uses Ferraro, Carville & Slick Willy to say the nasty things she can’t.
    She lies and embellishes continually while whining about every little snide remark from the other side.
    I would love a woman president but someone like Janet Napolitano not Hillary Clinton.

  • Would Clinton consider The Huckabee Option?

    She really doesn’t have a choice. Her negs are up. The polls are going sour. She is in the red. Superdelegates and starting to look at her like a right-wing troll. She’d have to be dumb or evil not to shift strategies fast.

    The most potent observation by Brooks is this half sentence: It was about a month ago — which, lately, seems like a year ago ….

    Actually 2 weeks seems like a year ago. The media narrative on Clinton has shifted so rapidly underfoot few have noticed it. Two weeks ago, only elite bloggers and commenters were talking about Clinton’s hopeless math. Within that span, the narrative has penetrated deeply into main stream.

    So the real question is: Where will the narrative be 2 or 3 weeks from now? My guess is: Not only can’t she win but she is willfully destroying the Dems chances in the Fall. That shift will be the final stake in her candidacy. Once you are painted as a destructive troll by big media you are flying the death spiral.

    There are really only two choices then: She can make nice and live to fight another day, or she can crash and burn. Either way she loses the nomination.

  • By all means, take this useful advice from the great friend of all Progressives, David Brooks.
    The Obama camp does NOT have the nomination, and cannot win it at this point on the basis of the votes. It will be up to the delegates. Now we will see politics in play, which is something the next president had better be very adept at. My money is on Mrs. Clinton..

  • I don’t think Hillary is going to run out of money. There are enough people (both Rep and Dem) threatened by Obama’s disregard for the moneyed interests. It’s one thing to talk about regulating lending institutions, for example. It’s another to actually try to do it. And by throwing out names like Greenspan and Rubins, Hillary made it clear to the conoscienti that she she would go easy on the evil-doers.

    But I think we are also underestimating the threat of scandals. Although it seems the Wright issue did not hurt Obama, it did for a while. I think this shows a certain shallowness and fickleness of the voters, as well as the power of the media to manipulate through distortion. When McCain had the NYT story about the lobbyists and a few paragraphs about an affair, the media bent over backwards to flagellate themselves, thus minimizing the damage to McCain. But for a moment Romney regretted his decision to drop out. Had it been Obama instead of McCain, it would have been a gold mine to Hillary. Meanwhile, I don’t think Huckabee ever really saw himself as a serious contender. He’ll be happy with a TV show.

  • Isaac Chotiner argued
    “Clinton needs a major earthquake, and if she does not get one she will lose. So why not slow things down a bit, hope for a scandal to break, and then drop out if there are no game changers?”

    I’m not sure what “slowing things down a bit” would look like, exactly, but the gist of this sounds about right.

    What Clinton (and her husband) need to do is stop saying, suggesting or implying that McCain is better qualified or would be a better president than Obama. All that does is make people wonder whether her own ambition is more important to her than a Democrat winning back the White House.

    This doesn’t mean she should stop campaigning. But the focus of her campaign should shift to trying to demonstrate that she is better than Obama at attacking McCain.

    Once Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, the corporate-controlled media will take over the mission of trying to discredit him.

  • Having Hillary on the ticket would not be a wise move on Obama’s part..I remember when Cinton chose Gore as his veep choice in 92. To parphrase Clinton he said he chose AL because he got along well with him and Gore represented his campaign theme of change. Al Gore was a metaphor for Clinton as Dick Morris says. When JFK chose Johnson as his running mate in 1960, it probably cost him his life. Don’t make the same mistake, Obama. Stay true to your principles of what your campaign is about, changing the way politics is normally conducted in America. And no one represents the old top town, elitist way of doing politics on the Democrat’s side, than Hillary,

  • The reason Jeremiah Wright didn’t hurt Obama so much is that 48% don’t even know who he is according to last week’s NBC/WSJ poll!

    Obama was very quick to change the subject from Wright’s extremist views, and forced the media spotlight on Clinton’s gaffe’s instead. Race is such a touchy subject that Clinton wasn’t able to use this against him, just look how she was attacked for answering a direct question about what she would have done!

    Doesn’t it strike you as odd that David Brooks, a right wing pundit, is pushing for Clinton to be more dignified in her defeat! He knows as well as Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican machine that Reverand Wright will hand the election to McCain in November, so of course they want her to lose the Nomination to him.

    The polls go up and down, and if you look at the trend over the past several months, it is no different now than it has been all along. Next week, it might be Clinton ahead by 10 points, but I suspect at that point there will be no mention of the polls in Obamaland.

    Since 48% of us don’t even know who Reverand Wright is, it will do that much more damage when everyone learns exactly who he is and his very close relationship with Obama.

    In addition to his many speeches in which he said things like GD America, there was also a mention (no headlines though) of the following late last week on CNN:

    Link to this story on CNN

    Bulletins from Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 2007 include comments — reprinted from other sources — that maintain South Africa and Israel worked on “an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs.” They also quote a historian who said that “what the Zionist Jews did to the Palestinians is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews.”

    The articles appeared in a church bulletin section called the “Pastor’s Page,” and include one that originally ran in The Los Angeles Times. That article was written by a senior official with Hamas, which the U.S. government considers a terrorist organization.

    Obama denounced the articles this week, telling the Jerusalem Post that the church was “outrageously wrong” in reprinting the pieces…

    …One of the church bulletins that came to the fore Thursday, from July 22, 2007, includes an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas. “Why should anyone concede Israel’s ‘right’ to exist?” he wrote.

    These “bulletins” were up on his church’s website, you know, the one he went to for 20 years, several months after he had announced he was running for president, and apparently after Reverand Wright admitted that Obama may need to distance himself from him.

    In case you think Hamas is a ligitimate organization, remember that they are and always have been a terror organization. In addition to the hundreds of Israelis they have murdered, you can search this page for Hamas to see how many of our own people they have murdered over the years.

    Personally, I think Clinton’s exaggerations pale in comparison.

  • Luke said:
    NON-BLACK VOTERS ARE SICK OF EVERY BLACK POLITICAN/SO-CALLED RACIST PREACHERS DEFENDING THE RACIST OBAMA AND WRIGHT. Blah, blah, blah FARRAKHAN blah, blah BLACK RACISTS blah blah BIASES LIBERAL MEDIA….

    Congratulations, Luke. It’s not easy to convey bulging eyes and foaming at the mouth in written form. Um… were you taught how form grammatical sentences and use paragraphs before you dropped out of the third grade?

    Don’t let the door catch your sheet on your way out.

  • By all means, take this useful advice from the great friend of all Progressives, David Brooks.

    We would’ve consulted with other great friends of progressives like Richard Mellon Scaife, the American Prospect, NewsMax, Drudge and Fox News, but the Clinton campaign was too busy chatting them all up.

  • What I miss in this deliberation is the use of the F-word: Florida.

    The Democrats are walking into the trap of alienating their constituency there by not solving the delegate problem (that was caused by the state’s Democratic leadership, not the voters) IN A BLOODY SWING STATE.

    Sorry for shouting.

  • I disagree with your opening premise CB, I think it is in doubt that she plans on going all the way to the convention. Having sat back for a day and reconsidered the Politico story about all the Clinton campaign debts, I think the bravado about putting it all on FL/MI at the convention was to reassure her campaign donors that she isn’t dropping out. Her campaign is cash-strapped and donations aren’t going to get better, at this point I’m guessing they are just hoping to limp to Pennsylvania without letting up on the schedule and showing monetary weakness. She doesn’t have much longer, too many people who actually pay attention (which we assume most donors do) are increasingly disgusted with the tone the Clinton campaign is setting.

  • BTW, are you going to do a post about Clinton supporters challenging Texas caucus delegates en masse over the weekend hoping the Obama people would give up and go home rather than go through hell just to get accredited? Every time you think the Clinton people can’t get more anti-democratic, they find a new low.

  • There’s no graceful exit left for her. She’s gone out of her way to burn the Obama bridges, not realizing that they were her own bridges going up in smoke. She’s praising McCain on a level equal to Joe Lie, so maybe we can just call her “Fibber Hill” and be done with it.

    A bit OT, but it plays into the “on-to-convention” gambit she’s using: There’s a lot of noise out there right now that “28% of Hillary’s supporters will back McCain if Obama wins the nomination. this translates to pure bullsh** on the part of the Hillary folks; it’s a simple case of “gimme-what-I-want-or-else!”

    Well, guess what? If I take 100% of Obama’s numbers, then add all of the GOP numbers that hate McSame with a horrid passion—and THEN add the 72% of Clinton supporters who aren’t threatening to destroy the Republic if Hillie Antoinette doesn’t get her cake, then it’s a moot point. Obama blows McSame out of the water, because all the polls are still based on a matrix of showing Dems as divided between Clinton and Obama. None of those polls are calculating 72% of Clinton’s support—the clear majority who won’t bolt if their candidate doesn’t win—as support for Obama in the general election.

    Besides—the last time some “irate folks from Arkansas” came into Pennsylvania, they were with Bobby Lee. Most of them were left face-down in the dirt of Gettysburg.

    Hillary—meet your Gettysburg….

  • Speaking of Reverand Wright and his re-printing of Hamas rhetoric on Trinity’s website…

    Here is the actual article he posted from Hamas

    I know, Clinton is not running against Wright, he is only a surrogate, right? We can’t judge candidates by their surrogates, can we?

    Oh wait, Clinton is constantly under fire for things her surrogates have said.. I guess that one is out the window, unless you would argue that she is not taking heat from Bill Clinton saying “Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina”.

  • 18. Greg said: Personally, I think Clinton’s exaggerations pale in comparison.

    You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no sense of what ethics are, so this isn’t surprising. The vast majority of people disagree with your extreme lack of judgment, lies a candidate tells personally are far worse than articles in the church bulletin “reprinted from other sources” that the candidate has nothing to do with.

  • If you had ever read his articles in US News you would know that Michael Barone is a rightwing hack, just like Joe Scarborough. MSNBC in the morning has become a constant anti-Obama attackfest in recent weeks, I don’t give it any credibility.

    As for Wright, he’s not a surrogate, the campaign has gone to great lengths to keep Wright away (even uninviting him from the announcement). He has no affiliation with the campaign and no affiliation with Obama now that he has retired as pastor of the church. Unlike Mark Penn, who is the chief strategist of Clinton’s campaign and sticks his foot in his mouth on a weekly basis. It isn’t the same thing, and no amount of selective memory on your part can make it the same.

  • Shalimar #27

    What you mean to say is that the vast majority of Obama supporters who post comments on this blog disagree with me, the fact is that half the country is for Hillary, and half for Obama.. the facts don’t agree with you, so it is in fact you who are disillusioned.

    He has no affiliation with the campaign and no affiliation with Obama – Shalimar #28

    Really? Obama said he could no more repudiate him than he could the black community… he has already decided that in fact he will not cut his ties to this man, pathetic.

  • According to this article:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

    “Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina’s seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group — just one has so far — before that state’s May 6 primary, several Democrats say.”

    I think the situation will become crystal clear in the next few weeks.

    Hannah, still waiting for her state’s primary (May 20!) Oh, and Bill C. is coming to my town tonight… no, I’m not going… might have considered it except I’m still recovering from knee surgery. I hope the campaign has paid in advance for whatever the costs are.

  • the fact is that half the country is for Hillary, and half for Obama

    No, no, no, one more time NO. At best, Greg, half of the Democratic leaning voters in this country are for either candidate. But as far as i know, not a single primary has broken the 50% of registered voters threshold…and that includes both Dem and Rep voters. I think that a high average is something like 30% of registered voters in the Dem primaries. Which makes your “half” a whopping 15%.

    There’s a real world out there, Greg, and it includes Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and ignorant schmucks to boot.

    The very first problem with the Democratic Party and its electoral strategy is that too many Dems figure that the whole country is Democratic…and that those who don’t vote properly belong to a place called Dumbfuckistan. Now i won’t disagree with Dumbfuckistan, but i’d have its borders stretch from sea to shining sea.

    But see, the residents of Dumbfuckistan don’t have much reason to vote Democratic because for too long the Democratic Party hasn’t stood for much. Oh sure, there were those Clinton years where the Democratic Party tried to become more like the Republican Party…but that’s like drinking non-alcoholic beer. And if i know anything about Dumbfuckistan, it’s that those folks like their beer real enough to make them do stupid things.

    30% of the country believes that W. is doing a fine job…where do they fit into your equation; moreover, do you expect them to vote for either Democratic candidate?

  • Wow! The Obamabots are quoting David Brooks now. Whose next Bill Kristol or Dick Cheney?

  • The Clintons only know how to over kill. The Clinton’s have thus far and on several occasiions , discouraged FREDOM OF SPEECH and the right To WORSHIP without harm. Do you really think the purveyor of the Mother of all Gutter campaigns that is being Launched will even KNOW how to be lose graciously?

  • 30. Greg said: “He has no affiliation with the campaign and no affiliation with Obama – Shalimar #28”
    Really? Obama said he could no more repudiate him than he could the black community

    How is that an affiliation with the campaign? I’m so tired of arguing with stupid. I know, don’t feed the troll. I should know better.

  • 33. Lex said: There’s a real world out there, Greg, and it includes Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and ignorant schmucks to boot.

    Lex, Greg is a Republican though he won’t admit it. Notice all he ever does is try to tear down Obama? He rarely ever brings himself to defend Clinton in any way, most of his posts don’t even mention her. Probably too hard to forgive and forget the 90s even though that’s what he is getting paid to do here every day.

  • I don’t know, Shalimar, i think that he really believes himself to be a committed Democrat. Of course, i’ve tried really believing that i’m a ninja too…and that didn’t work either.

    But i’m not sure what there is for a Republican to forgive and forget about the nineties; it seems that that Clintons did more for building the Republican Party than they ever could have on their own.

  • It’s also worth noting that when Huckabee DID bow out, he did so with grace and promised to work hard to get his former opponent elected. I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s actually doing that, but I ceased to follow the Republican contest as soon as McCain clinched the nomination, and Huckabee’s promise certainly seemed sincere. There’s a lesson there for Hillary that could go a long way toward healing the bitterness, and many of her supporters will take that lesson from nobody else.

    Please forget about the notion of a Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket. Both know well that the notion of an aggressive, “attack dog” vice president only applies when the president is weak, vacillating and generally dozey. Bush/Cheney is a fine example. Jimmy Carter could have used an attack-dog VP; he wasn’t stupid, but he did present a mild, slightly surprised image to the world. Anyway, both Clinton and Obama are sufficiently dynamic personalities on their own, and both know well how to take control without being gratuitously insulting (although only one of them is doing so). This would not be a dream ticket, it would be a nightmare ticket with the inevitable result of restoring Bill Clinton to some degree of legislative power. Much as I liked Bill Clinton when he was president, I just don’t think he could comfortably remain in anyone else’s shadow. There are term limits for a reason. Also, i fear Bill Clinton would actively work with Hillary to undermine Obama if they all shared the same power structure.

  • Really? Obama said he could no more repudiate him than he could the black community

    I know, feeding trolls is bad. But I think that as bizarre as Greg’s version of reality is, he brings up an important point here. Obama made an excellent distinction between repudiating the man and repudiating his views; sort of a secular version of “hate the sin, not the sinner.” In today’s political culture where people theatrically demand “rejection *and* denunciation”, I thought it was a refreshingly mature comment.

    So did Bill Clinton, it seems, since he echoed Obama’s comments last week in his “I don’t think any of these people oughta be asked to resign” comments.

    Sorry to feed the troll, but since Greg brought it up and one of the Clintons expressed similar views to Obama’s I figured that maybe it was worth trying to teach an old troll new tricks.

  • “[Huckabee] didn’t do anything to undermine McCain…”

    Not so. Because Huckabee was in the race through Texas John McCain’s campaign lined up events seeking televangelist endorsements to shore up McCain’s support on the theocratic right without adequate vetting, and got John Hagey.

    If that doesn’t help sink the McCain campaign, nothing will.

  • I am baffled by someone saying the Rev. Wright episodes did not hurt Obama. If you believe this, you are very unaware of your fellow man.
    Obama has 70% of T.V. exposure.
    Clinton has 30% of T.V. exposure.
    McCain has 18% of T.V. exposure.
    Viewers are tired of being told who they support or who is best. I think there will be some big surprises.
    Personally, I am so disgusted with Congress, Democratic and Republican Parties that I plan to vote for Nader. This is not casting a “lost” vote. I am a citizen and this is the way I feel. This is my vote, the same as yours are yours.

  • Obama has 70% of T.V. exposure.
    Clinton has 30% of T.V. exposure.
    McCain has 18% of T.V. exposure.     -joanie

    That’s 118% of ‘T.V.’ What the hell is ‘T.V.’ anyway? Television is one word. Oh, and you’re voting for Nader? Well, at least someone is competing with Clinton for the moron contingency.

  • Huckabee felt the responsibility to work hard until the end because his supporters made sacrifice. It might sound cheesy but I believe it whole heartedly after watching this guy over the last year.

    His stance on tax reform, military strength, and record as a successful governor were very compelling for me.

    I wish all presidential candidates were as classy as Huckabee.

    • Comments are closed.