I know, I know… “perfect timing you dolt,” but I want to at least be honest about my intellectual wobbling. In case you have no idea what I’m talking about, I wrote a piece after Iowa saying its a good thing Hillary came in third because she wouldn’t be the right woman to break down the barrier. Well, she kicked some ass last night in New Hampshire (in a way – being the projected winner the whole campaign until 3 days before when Obama takes off in some, we now know, very specious polls only to “come back” and reclaim NH is kind of a shaky ass kicking, but she deserves credit for weathering the massive media Obama lovefest).

I’d like to point out that I am a fan of Senator Clinton, just look at what I said in the above linked article,

Senator Clinton is brilliant and has a sharp political mind. I agree with most of her policy stances, and she has proven to be an effective Senator, working quite well across the aisle and playing the part of the bulldog when necessary.

Still, she is not my first choice… but I came to the conclusion last night that I would be very happy voting for her (and donating to her) in the general election should she be the nominee. I believe she would make a great President (as would Edwards and Obama). She could potentially do great things on healthcare, the environment, and repairing our dysfunctional foreign policy.

I’ve come to look at this election in a new light. The top three democrats all offer potential for greatness, but it’s beginning to become a bit clearer as to how that potential might shake out. Senator Edwards is carrying a fantastic populist message that is not tied down to old New Deal rhetoric. He has found a way to make fighting for the middle class fresh. He has the potential to do for America in the 21st century, what FDR did in the 20th… and with a recession looming this is especially appealing.

Senator Obama offers something even greater, a potential that seems to be limitless. Combining his vision and his phenomenal communicative abilities (did you see his speech last night!?), he could fundamentally shift the path of our country – similar to Lincoln. It’s hard to predict how or why because you never know what a President will be faced with, but I do see that potential in him.

Senator Clinton offers great potential as well, but I find it harder to see. She has spoken of great things in this campaign. She would finally bring America into modernity, with the majority gender finally getting representation in the White House. Would she move forward with some of the great things she has spoken of in this campaign, or will she get bogged down in the partisan crap of the 90s (and it most likely would not be her fault)?

If she does move forward, if this competition by Obama was a clarion call for her to shed the past, then her potential is incredibly promising. At this stage, I will be optimistic and say that this will be her path. And with that optimism, I now have great hope for all three candidates.

• Former stomping grounds of an S&P contributor and a bit of a conservative rag, but the Union-Leader is where you’ll find the best local coverage.

• Momentum for Obama continues

• The first votes are in!

• And the closing arguments from the candidates…

• Clinton shows some emotion… doesn’t short circuit in the process.

• Some facts and trivia about our first state to hold the primary

• Like Iowa, we may see a record turnout

• It appears California’s voting has started as well

---

And in non-(US)political news:

• Diplomacy in Kenya

• Joe Gibbs resigns

• Nature overrun… by off road vehicles

• A two loss team wins national championship

• Sorry Dr. Phil, even you can’t fix the Spears’

• No Golden Globes this year

I always approach Baptists with caution. Growing up a Presbyterian in Alabama makes you rather defensive in fending them off when they want to make sure you are “saved” and don’t get it when you explain that Presbyterians just don’t think of things exactly like that. Of course, the stuffy Presbyterians could stand to learn a thing or two about passionate faith from the Baptists, but that is neither here or there in this discussion, because I think I have found a Baptist I can trust, and he is in politics of all places, where one should never, ever put trust in someone. More surprisingly, he is a Republican, and his economic beliefs that led him into that party are where I disagree highly with him, but of all candidates out there for the Republican nomination, Huckabee is the right man for the job. He might be a bit more of a “moralist” than I would like, but you can’t fault the guy for holding true to his beliefs (unlike 21st century Massachusetts candidates tend to do). However, while he may be from the so-called “fundamentalist” camp, he doesn’t seem to be such a fundamentalist. From what I can tell, the guy’s faith led him to understand the necessity of compassion and did his best to inject compassion – not hatred – into Arkansas’ laws while he was governor.

Huckabee did what he could to improve the lives of immigrants while governor, which in the long run will benefit America as a whole much more than trying to deport 12,000,000 million hard working people from our country. (By the way, where are we going to look for a logistical game plan for forcibly moving this many people across a continent? Hitler? Stalin? Amin? Mugabe?) He tried to give the children of illegals a hand up to success, which I thought was what America was all about. Of course, as I write this, Huckabee has apparently toughened up on his stance to do some pandering himself, which is almost as disappointing as his belief that capital punishment has a place in the US. In all honesty, I think he knows better than this in his heart, and I am disappointed in him for not standing by his beliefs there.

While we are on the topic, I would like to point out that Huckabee is not, as another S&P blogger says, a “new earth creationist.” I typically thought such snap beliefs and litmus tests for candidates were held for the Jerry Falwells of the world, but I guess I was wrong. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. There is not a doubt in my mind about that. Does that make me a “new earth creationist?” No. Why? Because no where in the Bible does it say “On the first day, which was 24 hours long with the sun rising at 5:58 a.m. and setting at 7:32 p.m., God created the…” Who are we to limit God to our time frame? Who are we to limit God to what our minds can comprehend – or even what our science can explain? I believe God created the world, and I also see no reason not to accept the prevailing scientific theories regarding the Big Bang and evolution. Why should I not think that one of God’s days could have lasted a 100 million or 100 billion years? Some might want to limit God to their petty minds and say, “The earth has to be only 6,000 years old because that is the way I read my translation of the Bible and that’s how it fits in my time frame,” but I think that is very short-sighted. And, as I understand it, Huckabee feels the same way, according to his standard line for that question: “I believe God created the heavens and the Earth… I wasn’t there when he did it, so how he did it, I don’t know.”

But, getting back to the presidential race, which has absolutely nothing to do with some petty human argument over something as awesome as the beginning of the world… when it comes to the pandering fields of has-beens, paranoids and demagogues running for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee stands out like a shining star compared to the rest. We don’t need and can’t have another insider running the country if a Republican wins the election. The current Harvard-and-Yale-educated-son-of–a-former-president-vice-president-and-CIA-director-who-resurrected-the-cabinets-of-Nixon-Reagan-and-Bush-all-at-one-time president (otherwise known as the ultimate conglomerated insider) has screwed things up worse than any one could have imagined seven years ago. Not even the ridicu-liberal wing nuts thought it could get this bad.

• Not having an insider means no John McCain, who would make a solid secretary of defense. Despite holding to his morals on many things (McCain-Feingold, for example), he is way to hawkish than America needs right now. If John McCain ran the country, we would get into WWIII before his first term ended. The SoD role might be just right for him, because it keeps him restrained under the president. That is, if the president stands his ground, and Huckabee – who does not seem like the kind of guy who would start a war at the drop of a hat (like Bush did, and like I think Giuliani and Romney and Thompson would) – might fill that role nicely.

• Romney and Giuliani are jokes. Watching them stand there during the You Tube debate and try to make each sound more and more evil for ever speaking/looking at an illegal immigrant was just pathetic pandering. Giuliani knows he wouldn’t be on that stage if it were not for the millions of amazing people in New York that happen to be immigrants, and Romney (despite his flaws) is too brilliant of a financial mind to be pandering on an issue like immigration. He knows immigrants’ value in the economy, and it disgusts me that he wants to pander to that ugly wing of the Republican Party and abandon his Wall St. roots. He would make a good secretary of the treasury, but nothing higher.

• Who else is running? Oh, that’s right, no one else adds any value to the already dumbed-down discourse. Moving on…

Huckabee also took on an important issue that we need to pay more attention to: FAT PEOPLE. He lost over 100 pounds and became a marathoner! Fat people get sick and are a drain on our economy, an embarrassing waste of our wealth in our country, and set a poor example for our children – leading to a type 2 diabetes epidemic. Am I prejudice towards fat people? Yes, I am. Am I a “weightist”? Yes, I am that, too. Do I feel bad about it? No, because I would probably pack on a few pounds too if I didn’t get out and exercise and watch what I eat. There are few things I would rather do than sit on my couch and eat dougnuts, ice cream and fried chicken all the time, but I’m not a fat slob, so I don’t. If Americans simply quit drinking soda and eating so much fat and sugar, we’d all be better off. I generally don’t complain about taxes, but I have little sympathy for fat people who drain Medicare and Medicaid because they can’t resist eating that last drumstick. With a Huckabee presidency, the national dialogue about fat people could be elevated.

As governor, Huckabee also came up with a creative way of working to lower the divorce rate in divorce-happy Arkansas, with his covenant marriages, which allows couples to opt into a marriage that does not allow for divorce without serious counseling beforehand. It’s not forcing anyone into anything people don’t want, and even the ACLU is ok with it! Even though a Baptist pastor came up with the idea! Gosh, someone might even think the ACLU isn’t as anti-Christian as the Christian Coalition makes them out to be! Who would have thought they could be fair and want the best for the country?

So, from one of the tree-hugging hippies, I disgree again. We need someone better than John McCain, we need Mike Huckabee.

The old stomping grounds of a certain friend of ours has announced their endorsement of John McCain. Yup, the reliably conservative outfit has chosen everyone’s favorite “maverick” as their pick to lead our nation.

We don’t agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.

Does this really mean anything? I doubt it. Newspaper endorsements are nice to put on a candidates website, but they really don’t move voters. Come on, are there really that many people in NH who base such important decisions on the whims of the Union-Leader editorial board? Good god, I hope not…

In other, more important (and perhaps related?) news… toad smoking is worrying law enforcement officials in Kansas City. This is not to be confused with pole smoking, a staple of Larry Craig’s personal life. No no, toad smoking is… I’ll just let this wonderful piece of journalism do the explaining,

“Toad smoking,” which is a substitute for “toad licking,” is done by extracting venom from the Sonoran Desert toad of the Colorado River. The toad’s venom - which is secreted when the toad gets angry or scared - contains a hallucinogen called bufotenine that can be dried and smoked to produce a buzz.

So basically, you piss off a toad. Then you either lick the venom that the pissed-off toad secretes, or collect it, heat it up, and smoke it. Is this how the McCain camp turned around the eminent disaster that was his campaign? Maybe they pissed off Johnny Mac, and the subsequent venom he has since been spewing is making right wing news outlets like the Union-Leader hallucinate… at least enough to still think he would make a good president.

But wait, it could be worse. The end of the article explains how the Romney camp has elicited support from so many people,

While smoking toad venom might sound extreme, an even more disturbing method to get high possibly includes sniffing fermented human waste. Vicky Ward, manager of prevention services at Tri-County Mental Health Services in Kansas City, said she has read e-mail warnings about a drug called jenkem.

The drug is made from fermented feces and urine.

I always knew Romney was selling fermented crap.