Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

1) As a Politician There is a big distinction between experience and being a good politician. Obama is a good politician because he understands how to run a campaign, make political alliances etc. Huckabee lacks these skills as we saw in Iowa. His campaign did nearly all it could do to fumble away the Iowa win just days before the vote. Huckabee swore not to make a negative ad, then, showed the press the ad he would have run if he were running negative ads....which he isn't...somehow. This shows his lack of political skill, not just his inexperience. New Hampshire proves that the only reason Huckabee was able to win Iowa is due to its overwhelmingly religious populous in comparison to NH. He finished in a distant third, even with his Iowa momentum. McCain and Clinton, perhaps the two MOST "washington" of the bunch, just won NH. Obviously people don't mind good politicians with experience. The assumption that all politicians have lobbyists, or that all lobbyists are bad is a misconception that your whole argument is premised around. There are good practical purposes for lobbyists as well. The point remains that a good politician is going to be needed in order to win the presidency. Huckabee isn't one. He runs an awkward campaign which relies on trendy references and religious appeals. If he wasn't as funny and personable as he is, he wouldn't even be being considered as a candidate because of his weak political skills. This is obviously not just because of his experience, and is not a good thing. Obama is very politically savvy, yet unexperienced and has a non-D.C. reputation, but still is viable in both states and seen as a very electable candidate. Huckabee retains no political skills, regardless of experience. The two are very different. 2) Position Obviously all republicans are going to have most issues and stances in common. However, Huckabee has no unique or original stances or views on any major issues. He does not literally have NO PLAN, just no original or unique one. All candidates talk about being energy diversified and independent despite common conception. My principle point here is that Huckabee is not a policy thinker. He gets beat up in the debates and on talk shows on the issues other than religious or moral ones. This is obvious. The Bhutto example was just one. Huckabee is becoming famous for slipping his way out of speaking on policy issues by shifting the focus onto moral anecdotes or trendy jokes. Here he is getting beat up on meet the press: http://youtube.com... Here he is caught fumbling through another policy decision: http://youtube.com... There are dozens of times where Huckabee proves that he flat out does not have the policy chops to win the presidency. Why do you think all of his ads are about how much of a "christian leader" he is? He has played the relgion card enough in Iowa, and it worked. Now we see NH, a less religious state, realizing the lack of political knowledge and skill Huckabee has. I did not mean to imply that he had NO positions. I was simply pointing out that Huckabee is one of the weakest candidates on the issues devoid of morals and religion. His policy merit is weak and it shows. 3) Personability Maybe we misunderstand each other on this point. I'm not talking about public speaker in the sense that one has confidence and can clearly articulate. All politicians can do this. Huckabee, however, can not seem to makes his points clearly, dodges questions and does not articulate himself ON THE ISSUES. In any debate, or in any speech, Huckabee uses zingers and witty stories to dodge his way out of explaining the tough questions. This is true, WATCH HIM. Finally, I don't say that being nice or honest, or being religious is a bad thing. I DO say that these are the only things Huckabee has going for him. I would hope that my president is a personable guy. I would also hope though, that he has some policy knowledge (experienced or no) and can cogently explain himslef and his positions without referencing Chuck Norris or some religious anecdote from boyhood. All of my points from the first round go unanswered. You don't answer the fact that Huckabee would be unable to beat the Democrats, or that his zealous relgious nature (doesn't believe in evolution) would take the party back decades. You don't answer the fact that he doesn't have political merit (experience is different). Huckabee has proven to us that he doesn't not have the political where-with-all to win the presidency. My point in this debate is that his nomination would be a damaging embarassment to the party and that he doesn't deserve to be our nominee. You haven't responded to any point on this subject, merely pointed out that Huckabee is a likeable guy (which I don't deny). But, the fact that he is likeable is part of the problem. Thats all he has to offer as a candidate (as I have illustrated above) and I fear (as do many other republicans) that his nomination would bite us in the long run. What have you said that proves me otherwise?