This bad. Glenn Reynolds:

I think I’d vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I’d feel dirty the next morning. And I’d be even more likely to vote for Hillary or Obama.

Of course, Glenn was a Democrat for a long time (and even worked on Gore’s campaign in 1988, about the time I first met him). He apparently wasn’t as put off by the party in the nineties as I was.

I think I’d just write someone in.

[Evening update]

In response to a commenter here, Glenn expands on his reasoning:

Basically, I believe that both would have similar socialist/populist programs, but that Republicans would combine against Edwards’ programs, producing useful gridlock. On the other hand, Dems would be only too happy to go along with Huckabee’s programs, and too many Republicans might do so too, out of party loyalty. The main thing Huckabee has, policy wise, that Edwards doesn’t is that he favors Second Amendment rights, but I wonder if he wouldn’t jettison them in some sort of “for the children” compromise at a crucial point, knowing that he’d get media adulation for doing so. Plus, the more I watch him [in] operation, the more Clintonian his campaign seems. Edwards’, on the other hand, is just inept, which suggests that he wouldn’t be very scary in office. And both would probably be equally Carteresque in foreign policy.

Do we really want another Arkansas governor “from Hope”?

Of course, this argument assumes that the Democrats will retain Congress…

I don’t always agree with Dick Morris, but I think he’s right here, and he knows the Clintons very well:

The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary

That’s what Freeman Hunt thinks that Mike Huckabee would be. Sounds about right to me. I think that if the choice is another big-government Republican against a big-government Democrat, it opens up a huge opportunity for a new party.

So writes Quin Hillyer. Hope he’s right.

So writes Quin Hillyer. Hope he’s right.

So writes Quin Hillyer. Hope he’s right.

I’m not doin’ hand shows today.

Running for President is serious business. We’re facing pressing issues like national security, bankrupt entitlements, a broken tax code, and out-of-control judges. So what did the liberal moderator want at Wednesday’s debate? A show of hands. We deserve serious discussion not kindergarten antics.

Don’t you want a conservative leader who won’t grovel to the liberal media?

I’m not a conservative, but it’s sure as hell what I want. One more reason to hope that he’s the nominee.

“Let me refer you to everything I’ve said in the past.”

From Ron Silver.

Since 2001 it has become apparent to me that many people are indeed afraid. It has also become apparent to me that the people who are most afraid are behaving hypocritically and cowardly. I do not make these assertions lightly. It

Rich Lowry:

I believed, with a lot of other conservatives, that the Clintons were really good at destroying people. Judging from the last three weeks, they are really bad at destroying people. Maybe all those people they destroyed in the 1990’s were just easily destroyed? This is very disorienting…

I think that there are several factors here. First, when they were successfully destroying people, they had political power, either as Arkansas governor, or as co-president. I don’t think that being an ex-President and senator give them as much clout or ability to hurt their enemies. Also, most people weren’t aware of their record in that regard in the 80s and 90s. Now, it’s their most famous feature. Now, when they attempt to smear someone (as they did with Obama), the press calls them on it, instead of simply being stenographers for the smear. Of course, it helps a lot that the people they’re trying to destroy are fellow Democrats, so even those in the media who want to help them are conflicted in a way they wouldn’t be in the general election.

And, finally, I think that a lot of their former allies and toadies are tired of them, had enough, and starting to turn on them (watch this trend accelerate once people decide that she’s not “inevitable” and they don’t have to worry about being on the wrong end of the wrath of another president Clinton). Without the help of all these others, they are more powerless as well.

Plus, is Hillary Ed Muskie?