As a favorite author of mine pointed out years ago, more people are inventing these days by leaving parts of things out. The walkman was created when some creative soul decided to leave the speakers off of a stereo. The iPod took that idea, then left out the tape deck, CD player and radio.

When you think about it, a cell phone is just a regular phone, sans all the plugs and cords, a wireless microphone is a microphone without all the wires, and a diet coke is a coke, hold the calories.

So when we’re figuring out how to reinvent the next administration, it should be helpful to wonder just what could be left out. And we have three candidates, each of which leave out different things. I can’t say that they add a whole lot (as a normal inventor might proceed) because I don’t see that there’s anything really new that any of them bring, at least not anything I’m in the market for.

So for this year’s red-white-and-blue specials, we have on aisle one John McCain and Mike Huckabee. On aisle two, just to the left, sit Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. All four of these products have some flaws, a few touted design improvements and plenty more weight for the American people to carry as they take home their choice in November.

So first up is John McCain. As this year’s war model (an oldie but a goodie), McCain brings with him a 50-to-100 year warranty on the war in Iraq, which many Americans will enjoy seeing (silly them, thinking that products which don’t stop working midway through are best). The McCain comes tested in a way none of the others have been — it’s both thoroughly tested and Independent approved. It doesn’t do much in the way of leaving things out, though, other than earmarks; it’s got the Washington label, 71 attached years and plenty of spunk.

Next in line is the Huck, which comes with an attached Chuck. This model is most notable for leaving out the entire IRS, a design feature which doesn’t seem to have worked well in any previous model. Unfortunately, it also leaves off about 800 electoral votes, without which no voter will take it home.

On the second aisle is Barack Obama — this model’s got the best audio and press, but without any particular new ideas or realism. It also leaves off any warranties, and for all anyone knows could simply break on the first day. After only two years of testing, it seems, America knows very little about the product.

Hillary Clinton is the most interesting widget to come along in a while. Once just an add-on to Bill (the chosen model in 1992 and 1996), this one’s got healthcare plans that appeal to many Americans, as does the Obama (the only real difference is that one only comes in black and one only comes with the female adaptor). Unfortunately, the healthcare plans on both of these models have never been tested and might be too expensive for many Americans (all of whom would have to buy the healthcare product separately).

As it turns out, in 2008, there simply aren’t any good, new features. The old ones work (they squeak quite a bit, but that’s just because they’re old). And so, it seems, America has no choice after all — the Huck being unavailable and the Obama and Clinton being insane… sorry, too expensive, the only choice for consumers this year is the McCain.

Redherringpress

With three different winners now — Romney, McCain and Huckabee — of the earliest states, no one has any idea what will happen. McCain looks like the frontrunner now, winning the national polls an ahead in the next important state, Florida.

February 5 will determine the rest of the race. I sincerely hope that either Giuliani becomes viable again in Florida or Huckabee gets a bump on Super Tuesday. I could vote for any of the Republicans over any of the Democrats (though holding my nose for Romney and knowing that McCain can’t compete if he gets the nomination), but I don’t think anyone — save Giuliani or Huckabee — can win.

Here’s the reason:

McCain is old. That’s not a mean thing, it’s a true thing. And set against either of the Democrats, they won’t hold the age card off the table as the Republicans mostly have done. In addition, McCain is wonderful on foreign policy but hardly a Republican domestically (John Kerry asked McCain to be his running mate just a few years ago and the Mac’s signature achievement is simply liberal).

Romney is a scumbag. That’s said partly (but only partly) in jest. The man will say anything to get elected, and though his issue, the economy, is coming to the forefront, he isn’t viewed as trustworthy by anyone with a working mind. See also: any position he held four years ago vs. his current ones. That isn’t a talking point and it’s not just because of abortion, the one issue for which I can understand his switch; it’s based on just about everything he’s ever stood for (albeit briefly). And the Democrats won’t be afraid to call him a flip-flopper, the death toll for a national campaign since it’s so easily demonstrable.

I agree with this piece, for the most part. Everyone seems to be writing Huckabee off, although he’s winning both nationally and in a few key states coming up in the near future.

RCP blog piece on Hucka-momentum

Iowa was grand for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, but New Hampshire was a bonanza. He cast his bread upon the waters there and though he finished a distant third, it was returned manifold. The one thing that Huckabee cannot afford, at this stage of the race, is head-to-head defeat. He needs at least two “strong” candidates in the field while he puts together the pieces of his Republican proletariat coalition.

-John Ellis, RCP blog

Here are some trackers for internet buzz, all in one place: Techpresident.com

Seems that other than Paul, Huckabee seems to be doing the best online. That’s a good sign; the media doesn’t talk about Paul at all (he wasn’t at the last debate or the round-table discussion the other day), and he’s still being talked about. Hopefully, with New Hampshire looming and Huckabee unlikely to win anything there, he’ll still have positive blog reviews.

Predictions for NH:

Republicans: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson

Democrats: Obama, Clinton, Edwards (Edwards can’t repeat, and he’s losing people to Obama fast)

Conventional wisdom and the most recent polling (which, frankly, is outdated) suggest that McCain is Romney’s biggest threat in New Hampshire, the next step in choosing a Republican nominee.

Both have put out attack ads (with thanks to Political Buzz, which found links to both and posted them together online):

Seems that we Republicans aren’t immune to the sort of negativity that’s been plaguing the Democratic race all along (anyone else left wondering if either Romney or McCain dreamed of creating attack ads for the presidency in Kindergarten?)

Interesting that Romney is using McCain’s old attack ads to challenge him. Funny how he’s the one going that route, considering that he’s been the most negative in the 2008 race on the Republican side thus far.

I don’t have any hard numbers for this, but we’ve seen an increase in our Web traffic here at christianconservative.wordpress.com from the official Huckabee blog.

While they normally send us about 20 visitors daily in the past few weeks, yesterday about 150 people made the trip from the Huckabee site to this one.

What’s that mean? Likely, that site is getting hit by about seven times its normal traffic — significant, because to this point it was already receiving more hits than any other candidate’s (excluding Ron Paul).

That’s a big deal: more people are listening to the Huckabee message, hopefully people who don’t believe the misinformation Romney’s people have been spreading.

… and Ed Rollins (Huckabee’s campaign manager) has a very awkward interview.

A speech in the right direction, but without much seriousness. By that I mean that he didn’t really mean it. Did she really give her life for Democracy? I think not.

That isn’t said out disrespect (she was sometimes a friend to the U.S. and she sometimes was a friend to the Taliban, so that’s something of a wash); I’m just noting that in our society, it’s apparently not acceptable to speak fairly of their lives.

Interesting.

An interesting study (as published here in a Washington Post blog), with some revealing facts about the media’s impact on the race.

Hillary Clinton has had a rough time on the airwaves. From Oct. 1 through Dec. 15, comments about her on the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox evening newscasts were nearly 3 to 2 negative, compared with more than 3 to 2 positive for Barack Obama and 2 to 1 positive for John Edwards.

In a typical comment about Clinton, according to the study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell said: “Critics say her best known Senate vote, on Iraq, was driven by politics, not by principle.” Clinton was evaluated more often than all her Democratic opponents combined.

Among Republicans, the center found, Mike Huckabee fared best with 50 percent positive comments from journalists and those interviewed, followed by Fred Thompson (44 percent positive), Mitt Romney (40 percent), Rudy Giuliani (39 percent) and John McCain (33 percent).

Overall, the Democratic contenders drew 47 percent positive coverage on the broadcast networks and the Republicans 40 percent. Among the newscasts, the study found Fox’s “Special Report” to be the most evenly balanced in its news reports on candidates of both parties.

See the bolded section? Take that, liberal media. And turning to more pressing matters…

Notice the figures: Huckabee, who had the most positive coverage in the media (and you better believe these numbers don’t match up with his current ones), has awful coverage — compared to Democrats.

Hillary’s numbers (2 of 5 positive) is 40 percent positive. But she’s getting the worst coverage for the Dems, and she’s still close to the top Republicans’ numbers.

See apples-to-apples comparison (because the reporter who wrote the blog tried his best to say that the coverage seemed legitimate by refusing to use the same units to compare the partys’ coverage:

Edwards (D) — 66 percent positive
Obama (D) — 60 percent positive
Huckabee (R) — 50 percent positive
Thompson (R) — 44 percent positive
Clinton (D) — 40 percent positive
Romney (R) — 40 percent positive
Giuliani (R) — 39 percent positive
McCain (R) — 33 percent positive

PLEASE NOTE: this figures are no longer the case — this study only went from Oct. 1 to Dec. 15, which wouldn’t include the negative coverage of Huckabee and some more positive coverage of McCain. Romney I wouldn’t put a guess on, because his speech gave him lots of both negative and positive press. Edwards is not taken seriously, nor would I expect him to be. But Obama shouldn’t be getting such positive coverage — as they’re scrutinized by the media, all being fair and equal, we should be seeing similar numbers for him and Obama, since at the time they were in virtually the same positions on the Republican and Democratic sides. Huckabee, who everyone has been complaining about getting too-good coverage, should have been comparable to Edwards.

Please don’t say it’s because Republicans are bad and Democrats (those warm, cuddly Democrats… ) are good. Clinton getting better coverage than McCain? Really? Let’s name the scandals — those numbers, at least, shouldn’t be close.

Huckabee answers many of the questions being asked about:

• The “cross” in the background of the commercial
• The nature of politicizing religion in the same commercial
• More than 1,000 commutations vs. Romney’s 0 (NOTE: this one’s important, because Huckabee has a great point here).
• The political expediency of not granting pardon
• Foreign policy experience
• Meth dealer sentencing
• Romney’s multiple positions on pardons (Romney’s stance on the Libby commutation and his record)