Pickler’s AP article is fair, if somewhat fluffy. She describes Edwards as angry but “channeling his emotion in a more deliberate way” [than Howard Dean].

Pickler gets sloppy with her union workers sidebar, but that’s my only real criticism with her “slant.”

Yeah, Edwards, Democrats and much of the country are angry—as well they should be. Former Deaniac-turned Edwards senior adviser Joe Trippi sums it up well:

Right now I think there are a lot of people who are really like John Edwards who believe Washington is really broken. It's not about whether you are angry or not, it's about are you expressing in an appropriate way when the rest of the country says, 'Yeah, I'm outraged about that, too.'

This isn't just Democratic anger, and this anger is hard-earned.

Thanks for your comments, New Deal Democrat, and I agree with much of what you wrote. However, you write: “I also know that long-term couples can create a reasonable facsimile of marriage through other legal arrangements.” Which is where I’ll issue a correction/addendum. Many states have introduced and passed laws to restrict agreements that approximate marriage. It could be argued, however, that this is a backlash against pushes for same-sex marriage.

The country isn’t there yet, and I don’t want homosexual rights to follow the path of abortion law. I don’t want for homosexuals to be conferred rights now only to have them gradually legislated and manipulated out of existence by regressive forces. Let’s do this right and in a way that will last. [The stakes were higher with abortion (physical control of your own body and child rearing), so I understand why the law may have gotten ahead of public sentiment.]

It’ll take time, but time is on the side of homosexual equality—when the old guard dies out, their children, the new leaders, are much more open to homosexual equality.

Separate is not equal, and it is not right or fair that homosexual unions are not conferred the same rights as heterosexual unions, but we’ve got bigger fish to fry.

When you last went on "vacation", did you get daily briefings from the Director of National Intelligence?

Elephantman, is this really the direction you want to take? Because I seem to remember George W. Bush heading for a Crawford vacation in August before and ignoring national intelligence information.

When was that? Oh yeah, August 6, 2001 and Bush ignoring the infamous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Presidential Daily Briefing.

AKA Smith makes some fair points about not underestimating Huckabee. I agree that we shouldn't dismiss Huckabee's surprise second place win but for different reasons.

Republicans are not happy with their field. The Republican front-runners are a flip-flopping Mormon (Romney), a thrice married social liberal (Giuliani), a former liberal/independent darling who can't be trusted (McCain) and the unknown and as-yet undeclared Fred Thompson.

The Republican base is not happy but they're the 30% still satisfied with George W. Bush and the rest of the party. And they might just stay home in 2008.

Enter Huckabee with his surprise groundswell of conservative support that he didn't have to buy. We won't win, he won't be the nominee, but his sudden support could renew GOP pandering to the "Religious Right."

Watch out for Republican candidates talking more about their faith, hinting at gay marriage bans and nipping further away at abortion rights. Watch out for behing-the-scenes dirty tricksters saying Mormons aren't really Christians and ever-so-subtly implying that we don't really want a black (Obama) or a woman (Clinton) leading the free world.

Huckabee's win could turn this campaign season ugly fast.

the Mayor Against the Missus

Geez, alliteration makes headline writers stupid.

Any takers for a better teaser (with or without alliteration)?

I say, call it a "Presidential Subway Series."

Yes, he is an evangelical Christian, but I never got the impression that he is interested in forming a theocracy.

Be very careful in thinking people who are passionate about their faith won't legislate their faith.

Judicial case in point: John Roberts. Liberals and moderates were convinced Roberts would be a model of judicial restraint and unguided by political ideology despite his clearly conservative background. What they got was a chief justice in the mold of Scalia, Alito and Thomas, only more affable. http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/

Same for Mike Huckabee. His pro-life position is not periphery to who he is--he considers it central. From the AP:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Wednesday he would have to think long and hard before he would consider joining a ticket with a candidate who supports abortion rights.

-

"This is an issue to me that is very critical. It's one of the reasons that I got into politics because I believe the manner in which we treat innocent life and the matter in which we respect human life, at whatever stage ... is an incredibly powerful statement about who we are as a people," Huckabee told reporters in a conference call.

...

"The sanctity of life is not just some peripheral political position," Huckabee said. "It comes to the very heart of who we are as a culture." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/17/81831.shtml

Huckabee may be a man of principle, but we have very different principles and priorities. Don't let a friendly demeanor lull you into a false sense of security.