The Prime Minister, if you recall, gave the President Obama a pen holder crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British warship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood for the Oval Office’s desk), while the President gave the Prime Minister a collection of 20 classic American DVD’s. The First Lady didn’t help matters when she provided the Brown’s two young sons toy models of Air Force One, compared to the Brown’s who gave the Obama daughters fashionable dresses and matching necklaces from Britain’s famous Top Shop and a variety of books by British authors. [NY Daily News]

Well, apparently, the faux pas aren’t over.

Recently, Robyn Spizman an author and nationally acclaimed gift giving expert contacted the White House over the President’s gifts to the Queen and the Prime Minister at the London G20 summit. What were the gifts you ask?

Ipods.

While, Spizman supported the President’s “non-traditional” choice of gift, she suggested it might have been “more appropriate” to use the Ipods as “gift toppers” placed with larger gifts that had a more permanent value that would have made a lasting place in history.

These gifts – referred to as head of state gifts -  from one leader to another symbolize goodwill, mutual respect and friendship – especially so in the case of Great Britain. They further diplomatic efforts among nations with contradictory world viewpoints. Spizman stresses that these gifts have historical longevity and a personal touch – afterall, “What does the gift say about the giver, and about the country he or she comes from? …Now more than ever, it’s important to look at products that truly represent the heart, soul and spirit of a nation.”

For instance, the gifts from China’s President Hu Jintao gave the President a one of a kind custom made vase by Franz Porcelain, a Chinese manufacturer located in Jinzdezhen -  the homeland of porcelain – who is known for its exquisitely handcrafted and handpainted porcelain sculptures.  Another example is the Prim wristwatch that the Czechoslovakian Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek gave President Obama. Prim is a maker of classic and sport-style Czech watches with cases crafted of platinum, gold, stainless steel or damask steel.

Head of state gifts, as Spizman says,  can create new traditions, celebrate past ones, help the global artist community or pay tribute to handcrafted artistry. “Gifts that leave a legacy and represent cultural spirit, and the spirit of the hand that makes the gift, are a way to bridge countries.”
So what do you think? Do you think Obama represented with the giving of the Ipods?

Speculation the past few months was that the girls would get either a labradoodle or a Portugese Water Dog – the main criteria of the dog would be that it needed to hypoallergenic, and they preferred it to be a shelter dog.

The dog, or puppy rather, first reported by a website First Dog Charlie, was picked up by TMZ on Saturday April, 11.

The Washington Post reported that the big unveiling of the dog would be Tuesday morning, though the first pictures were leaked by the First Dog Charlie website. Throughout March through the DC news networks, rumor had it the puppy was a gift, rumor had it that the New York Times was promised the first puppy exclusive, later to be obtained by the Washington Post. Rumor has it that the Portuguese Water Dog loving Kennedy family is giving the gift of puppy to the Obama’s, however, the Senator’s office is keeping mum on the issue.

The puppy is six months old and was named “Bo” by Obama’s daughters Sasha and Malia who have already begun planning the responsibilities of owning a dog. This dog will be the first pet not only for the two young daughters, but for President and Mrs. Obama, neither of whom grew up with pets.

Regardless of the rumors, the first puppy is on the move, and is on its way to make a splash at the White House in the coming days.

Apparently Laura Ingraham criticized her for implying that Republicans should compromise with Democrats. Ingraham, according to CNN, called McCain “a Valley Girl gone awry” and a “plus-sized model.”

So, McCain, who has portrayed a campaign from a unique perspective, and become a – what I would consider – respected blogger, apparently is considered too fat to write? Megan retaliated saying:

“Why, after all this time and all the progress feminists have made, is weight still such an issue? And in Laura’s case, why in the world would a woman raise it?” [The Daily Beast]

I admit, I’ve never listened to Laura Ingraham, I generally steer away from radio talk shows, I’ve had the misfortune of listening to Rush Limbaugh once or twice if only to see what the hype was. But still, what kind of impression is that for young girls who want to speak their mind? What kind of impression does that give them that, if they don’t write something that everyone agrees with, their opinion is worth jack? That’s kind of crappy Laura Ingraham. Very crappy. As women, shouldn’t we, as Megan says, be a better example for the younger gals of our time and criticize substantively rather than about petty matters such as one’s dress size?

Unfortunately for women, this is nothing new. This story, as Megan writes in her blog, wouldn’t have been a big deal had the media not picked up on the tiff from Laura Ingraham’s radio show. But the media has been criticizing women and their weight for years. Megan mentions her own mother was criticized during the 2008 presidential race for being too thin. Hillary Clinton has been criticized for wearing pant suits, and Michelle Obama showing off bare arms has recently raised eye brows as well. Rather than be criticized for these traits they should be commended for the inspiration they have given so many young women. Ingraham later said that McCain needed to lighten up, and learn to take criticism lightly. She may be right but, there was no reason for weight to be brought anywhere into the debate.

So, here’s my kudos to Megan McCain. Who cares what bitter jerks like Laura Ingraham think, a gal has every right to voice her opinion. There will always be naysayers, but hopefully they can focus on the ideological and substantive arguments at hand and leave one’s weight/body out of the nation’s politics.

Related Articles

Kiss My Fat Ass: I am Spartacus Megan McCain [Jezebel]
The Politics of Size [The Daily Beast]
Megan McCain: “Kiss My Fat Ass” [Politico]

“I Can Haz Feminism?”

Jezebel had a post today about an ongoing dispute between Ms. magazine and other self described feminists. Basically these “super feminists” are pissed that Barack Obama is on the cover of Ms. because of how he was portrayed as “Superman” which is…not feminism. Some feminists feel that, well, they could have put anyone up there other than Barack Obama. I can’t say I disagree, we as a nation had two women who made huge strides in the “feminist movement” and they chose…Barack Obama who…hasn’t really done anything outstanding for feminism in my opinion. The argument against it is a little ridiculous but I think Naomi Wolff says it best in this video by disagreeing and yet agreeing with the overall point.

I think the argument should be focused less on the fact that he’s a man (Ms. has had men on their cover before) and more because well…what has he DONE for feminism? Having the “ear of the administration” as Ms. Watts said is a huge stride after the past eight years of anti-woman policies from the Bush Administration. But does that explain how when he was a state senator he voted present on a few “horrnedous anti-abortion” votes instead of voting no? If these women who put him up there are the ones who largely define feminism by your stance on reproductive rights then they made a big mistake because while he calls himself “pro-choice” I wouldn’t say he’s voted like he’s proudly pro-choice. A feminist – male or female -  should be PROUD of it, proud of all of his/her opinions in regards to ALL women’s issues. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t but to a lot of us feminists, maybe he hasn’t quite proven it. Overall though, Amy Siskind was right – men can be feminists.

Still though, Barack Obama’s questionable feminist status aside, how 70’s angry butch feminist of us to say men can’t be feminist, while I realize this isn’t exactly what they’re saying- I think anyone devoted to “equalizing” rights (though I personally think they’re all pretty equal as it is) or committed to electing women to office – you know the whole “breaking the glass ceiling?” and creating policies that affect women in positive ways. I think that’s feminism.

Feminism (at least to me) is not just about reproductive rights, it’s not just about the Lilly Ledbetter Act. It’s about equality and empowerment and setting goals and accomplishing them because we’re not in the 1900’s anymore and we can vote, we can run for office and we can have careers and The Man can’t stop us. We’ve come a long way since Jeanette Rankin my friends. What Sarah Palin wasn’t a feminist? She was/is a successful governor, the vice presidential candidate of a party criticized for being the party of middle aged white men and so what if she’s pro-life…she values life over choice – surprisingly a decent sized percentage of this nation is split on this issue and not as pro-choice as we think ourselves to be (much more moderate than many “feminists” would like to think- and that’s their right. But the point is politics aside, that’s the great thing about our nation, we have the RIGHT to opinions. Sarah Palin is still a woman and she broke barriers, like it or not. Hillary Clinton is no more of a feminist than Condi Rice, or Sarah Palin or anyone else I forgot to mention. 80 some-odd years ago women couldn’t even vote and now we’ve had two women run as vice presidential candidates, a woman run for the presidential nomination and lose to a black man (who made strides in his own right which is admirable). All of these women are feminist heros in their own rights. In my humble opinion at least.

People are too quick to define feminism in black and white as a single issue cause. My problem with this is the”feminism is only reproductive rights” feminists.

I am pro-choice however, my feminism is not defined by my pro-choice opinion. I’m not as far left as groups like NARAL, but rather a bit more moderate. How can you be moderate and pro-choice? I value that it’s a decision we as women have the right to make. However I am not gung-ho pro-abortion as many pro-choice women are perceived to be.

This is why I think reproductive rights do not define feminism. They don’t. Feminism is about more than that. I like Amy Siskind’s idea of a fourth wave of feminism for anyone – man or woman regardless of politics – who is “focused on electing a woman — any woman — to public office regardless of her stance on issues.”

Why? Because, women deserve to represented by their peers. Women deserve to have equal representation. How many women are in the House of Representatives or in the US Senate? Certainly not 50% of either house is female – yet 50% or so of our population is comprised of women. Go figure. Women deserve to break that so-called glass ceiling. Shatter the s**t out of it if you will. But while trying to do this we should not oppress men just because they “oppressed” us. We should be equal, doing otherwise would simply make us hypocrites.

Feminism doesn’t need a face. If you say “I’m a feminist” and you know what it means to you, and you want to empower women? Then that’s freakin’ awesome. If you think you’re a feminist only on the basis that you’re pro-choice? Good for you I suppose. If you’re a feminist because you think we deserve to not be oppressed by the man and you want to do everything in your power to stop it then so be it. I don’t care if you’re a PhD, or if you don’t even have a GED. Feminism shouldn’t just be defined whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, man or woman, Republican or Democrat. Feminism is about a cause, it always has been dating back to the Suffragists of the early 1900’s. They took a stand for a cause that they believed in. Same with the equal rights movement in the 1960’s, with Roe v. Wade and Title IX in the 70’s. Our issue now? Representation? Equality? Why shouldn’t they both be causes? And why shouldn’t we include anyone who wants to get women to higher places – be it in politics or business – in feminism?

Why not?

I’m proud to be a feminist. Feminism, despite the preconceived notion, is not a dirty word.

commentary cross posted to BlogHer and Blast Magazine

This afternoon, the US House of Representatives failed to pass a $700 Billion bailout plan that was the result of a weekend of compromises with the White House. The measure failed with a vote of 228 to 205. By the closing bell the DOW was down 700 points in what is now being referred to as Black Monday.

Now, I’m no economic major, and I’m still trying to figure out how this affects me, the country as whole, one thing I do know is that this is probably not a good sign.

The House and Senate were scheduled to recess until November 4th to give members time to campaign at home, however, both houses were in session for much of the weekend. The measure, though it had the support of the administration, failed to garnish support from many House Republicans and Democrats alike. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) blamed the failure on Speaker Pelosi’s partisan floor speech minutes before the vote opened. The house is currently in recess until Thursday when they will reconvene in hopes of passing a similar measure.

While party politics are a given in Washington and hard to get past, both parties need to come together to pass a measure that not only helps the financial sector but doesn’t leave the American Public paying for it for years to come. Until Thursday, keep your assets frozen (perhaps literally?) and hope for the best?

McCain suspended his campaign this afternoon “calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.”

The problem specifically being the $700 billion bail out legislation that Congress has been negotiating with the White House. Senate Majority Leader claimed “It would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. We need leadership, not a campaign photo op.”

Obama commented on the McCain decision by saying “if I can be helpful then I’m prepared to be anywhere, any time … [I] don’t want to infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics.”

What the Obama campaign fails to realize is that until November 4, his job is not just to be campaigning, he is an elected official which requires making decisions and being a leader. Would it be too much to ask for both of them to be doing their jobs during this time of need for the American People? Both Senators are major players in the US Senate and both could contribute greatly to this debate while showing the American people their leadership skills in action rather than just claiming leadership during a campaign stump speech.

Meanwhile, the University of Mississippi is continuing preparations for Friday night’s debate. The McCain campaigned noted that he would participate in the debates “if an agreement was reached on Friday morning.” While the debate is scheduled to be focusing largely on foreign policy issues, there may be a large portion of economic debate thrown in based on the recent current events.

While I may disagree with her politics, I have to admit that her nomination to the VP slot is a big deal. Hillary Clinton herself proclaimed during her speech last week at the Democratic National Convention that she and her campaign had made eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling. This is one more.

Sarah Palin’s capability to fulfill the duties of Vice President shouldn’t be questioned simply because she’s a mother with young children.  No one has asked Senator Barack Obama, who has two young children himself, if he will have the time to balance being fatherhood and the presidency.

I commend Sarah Palin for continuing to push up against that glass ceiling, though I may not be a Republican, I admire her for holding strong to her beliefs, supporting her family, and ignoring the naysayers. I’d like to think America has come a long way since the 1964 film “Kisses for my President” which featured a female President who resigned when she become pregnant while in office ‘for the good of the country.’  I guess we’ll just have to see.

During the roll call, where state delegations announce their votes, New Mexico yielded their time to the Illinois delegation. After announcing themselves as the home of the “next President of the United States of America,” Mayor Daley of Chicago, yielded to the state of New York – home of Senator Hillary Clinton. In a showing of unity, Senator Hillary Clinton, after the state announced themselves, motioned to suspend the rules, count all delegate votes, and nominate Senator Barack Obama by acclamation.

With a loud cheer from the floor and no opposition, Barack Obama was nominated the Democratic Candidate for President. The Democrats, despite the bitter ending of their primaries, have a story book ending with a unified nomination on the Convention Floor. The party has been reunited for the common goal of winning the White House in November, despite the battles over the past few months.

Senator Obama will give his acceptance speech tomorrow evening at Invesco Field.

While Senator Obama had received a number of celebrity endorsements from stars such a Oprah Winfrey early in his campaign, it appears that in Denver he is making an effort to downplay ties to Hollywood.  Perhaps as a response to the series of McCain campaign spots accusing him of being the, “biggest celebrity in the world.”

She has a strong and respectable background, coming from a family with parents who wanted more for her and her brother, parents who worked hard for what they had and knew that they wanted more than that for their children. Michelle Obama has dedicated herself to her work, her community and her family. She is, what I would call, a very respectable woman.

Her speech was full of heartfelt anecdotes about her older brother and her late father as well as why she believed her husband was the best for the job of President of the United States. A speech that was unexpectedly emotional, moved many of the delegates on the floor of the convention hall to tears.

The most inspiring aspect of Michelle Obama is how well she believes in her husband. From the beginning she hadn’t been a big campaigner, however as the primaries progressed she spoke out in favor of her husband, and in favor of what she believed in – her husband leading America in a better direction and to a better future.

I’m sorry, I love Caroline Kennedy, but she just…isn’t a great public speaker. Slightly monotone, lacking excitement. Speaking about her uncle, who since a young age was like a father to her, and walked her down the aisle the day she got married, you’d think she’d be a bit more enthusiastic.

While her facial expressions (thank you C-SPAN) show emotion, her voice? Not so much. She lacks the inspiration and conviction that you would expect given her heritage.

With the diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s (D-MA) brain cancer earlier this spring, the Democratic National Convention wouldn’t have been the same without him making an appearance. When it was finally publicized that his doctors had given him the okay to make the trip, it was as if he had come back from the dead. An impression emphasized by the quasi-memorial tribute video screened at the convention.

I am by far the biggest fan of Teddy. I interned for him in his Boston office my senior year of college, and ask any of my pals, I can spew out Kennedy trivia on command. But really? This memorial/tribute? Senator Kennedy is not dead yet, thank goodness, and I hate that the evening’s programing makes it feel like he is. I know people are worried that he won’t make it to the next convention but really now? This is…moving, and depressing. I can’t imagine a Democratic Party without Senator Kennedy, let’s not bring that to reality any sooner than necessary.

The man finally took the stage, with stoic laughter, and a modest thank you or two or four, with the wounds from his brain surgery obvious, and his face thinner because of chemotherapy. For someone who has been through so much in the past six months, his energy seemingly never faltered.

His energy, courage, and dedication are incredibly moving and motivating. “New hope,” he speaks of, not only does it resonate as the theme for for Senator Obama’s campaign, but also as the political legacy of the Kennedy family. As “Still the One” plays, you see emotion throughout the crowd – through Senator Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) glassy eyes, and through awe-struck Democrats who happen to be lucky enough to witness what could possibly be Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s last convention speech.

Barack Obama finished the night with one win, a disappointment to that camp as Hillary Clinton was expected by many to end her campaign if she suffered losses in Ohio and Texas.

But suffer losses she did not. Senator Clinton clinched wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, and her campaign will trudge on to Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, which looks critical for both sides.

It is estimated that Senator Clinton may have picked up 187 delegates to Senator Obama’s 183 yesterday. It is also rumored that Senator Obama has 50 super delegates waiting in the wings to be announced as a block in the near future. However, super delegates are not committed, and as we’ve already seen are not committed to anyone regardless of whether they’ve already pledged support.

Meanwhile on the Republican side of the aisle, Governor Mike Huckabee ended his campaign Tuesday night as Senator John McCain officially clinched the Republican Nomination with decisive wins in all four contests.

Governor Huckabee still lagged behind already dropped out GOP candidate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in delegate counts.

Senator McCain now has until August when the conventions will take place to attack the Democratic candidates and win over the crucial independents throughout the country. They will be vital for a win in November.

Over the past few weeks, since his victories in both South Carolina and in New Hampshire, McCain has begun to emerge as something of a steamroller. Depending on how he fares on February 5, in what is as close to a national primary as possible, he could likely secure the nomination in a few weeks.

McCain won all 57 of Florida’s delegates after winning 35 percent of the vote. In Florida, McCain received the endorsements of wildly popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist, and Republican Senator Mel Martinez.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came in second place with 31% of the vote. Romney, despite his second place finishes (with wins in Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming), has enough money to ensure that this campaign carries on and will not likely concede the nomination anytime before the last primary in June.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani finished a disappointing third after throwing all of his resources of the past month into the Florida primary.

Sources say Giuliani will drop out of the race tomorrow at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California and endorse McCain. Despite tensions among the other candidates, the two have always been respectful of one another.

Only Senator Hillary Clinton campaigned in the delegateless Florida primary. She claimed victory at a rally on Tuesday night. The Democratic party stripped Florida of its delegates for holding an early primary.

The nation now turns to February 5, where over 20 states will hold their primaries.

Stick with Blast and our Politics with a Touch of Class blog!

It is not surprising that people refer to him as the Obama-rama because of the glow that he projects when speaking to crowds. It’s this inspiration and passion that moves us and inspires us to hope for something better for America — to move us forward to a more diplomatic foreign policy; to a better health care system; to a presidency that brings change that we can believe in.

Over the past eight years, we have suffered from an administration that lacks sympathy for the little guy, that forgets about the middle class and that leaves students and the sick to fend for themselves.

American’s have suffered for too long in a world where banks are foreclosing on homes at an astonishing rate, putting students in an economy with a growing unemployment rate while carrying thousands of dollars of debt and leaving the terminally ill to fight the health care crisis on their own. We have suffered from a president who does not listen to the American people when they say they demand a change in foreign policy.

Barack Obama would bring needed change in the Democratic Party. He would listen to the American people.

His policies exude change and responsible change at that — getting America out of Iraq in a responsible way, ensuring health care to all Americans and bringing tax cuts back to the middle class. He has seen disparity; he has seen Americans shut out by the government.

Barack Obama has what it takes to bring change to this nation. Change desperately needed after eight years with broken domestic and foreign policies. It his inspiration and passion that moves us and inspires us to hope for something better for America. To move us forward to a more diplomatic foreign policy, to bring better health care to American’s and a policy that brings change that we can believe in.

BLAST MAGAZINE endorses Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

Senator Clinton is facing double defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire if current polls are indicative of the way the Tuesday night primary election will swing with Senator Barack Obama currently leading the way in New Hampshire with 39 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent in the most recent polls. (CNN, January 5).

Insiders are rumored to be split on the issue with advisers like James Carville who led her husband’s campaigns “urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state” according to the Drudge Report.

“She can’t take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada,” laments one top campaign insider told the Drudge Report. “If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn’t want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats.”

Officially, Senator Clinton’s campaign has indicated that she has no reason whatsoever to drop out after only one loss. But with her national lead eroding, and fundraising numbers down it, will be interesting to watch how her strategy changes to handle her shattered myth of her inevitability. Given her show of emotion at an event in New Hampshire last night, her patriotism and passion finally showing through her thick skin, the speculation of her withdrawal is likely just that…

But among Democrats, I’m finding conversations about the candidates to be the same. People are voting for their candidates for hopeful reasons. Hillary supporters by and large are looking to her to lead us forward based on her experience. Or maybe there’s a hint of nostalgia, having gone astray the past eight years from the good old years with Bill. Hopeful Hillary supporters are hoping that she can bring us back to the good times but forward from the havoc that the “evil Republicans hath wrought on America” over the past couple of years.

People who oppose Senator Clinton cite her lack of passion — her voice, which is often seen as being harsh and cold. Senator Clinton has been criticized vastly for coming off as too harsh however, if she were to show a softer feminine side, would this change the views of people who may have held critiques of her since 1992?

While Obama may not have the advantage of being in the West Wing previously, he does have one thing to give his supporters — hope. For many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, he creates an excitement when he brings a Kennedy-esque youthfulness to the stage, much like he did after his victory in Iowa on Thursday night.

However, even those he manages to rouse excitement in are skeptical about his lack of experience on the Federal level which is something he will have to overcome when being compared to Hillary Clinton.

What is really going to differentiate the winner from the loser in this race to the top of the Democratic ticket is really going to be how the voters value experience over passion. Voters this year seem to agree that we need a candidate who will take us forward but it’s going to be a fight to determine who will be the better candidate to take us there.

Moving forward from their victory in Iowa, both Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee face the challenge of translating their early success into momentum which will sustain their candidacies through the remainder of the primaries.

Senator Obama won the Democratic Iowa Caucus’s on Thursday night with 38% of the vote. In second place, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards came out with 30% of the vote with Edwards having a slight edge over Senator Clinton in third place with 29%.

On the GOP side, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney taking second place with 25% of the vote. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and Arizona Senator John McCain tied for third with 13% of the vote.

Both winners are widely seen as the “likable” candidates out of the wide playing field of presidential hopefuls. However, historically Iowa has not been a reliable predictor of the eventual nominees. In recent New Hampshire polls for instance, Governor Huckabee has been polling in the single digits behind Senator McCain

The next primary in New Hampshire will bring the candidates in front of a different electorate. Whereas in Iowa, Huckabee relied heavily on his Evangelical beliefs, religious values tend not to be as important to New Hampshire voters. It’s an open question whether Huckabee can broaden his appeal beyond the self described Evangelical and born again Christians responsible for his rise to the top tier in Iowa.

Ultimately, the most important factor that Iowa serves is to narrow down the field of candidates in the race — by the end of the night two Democrats, Delaware Senator Joe Biden and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, ended their bids for the presidency, and no doubt several other may follow suit in the coming days.

Blast Magazine staff writer John Guilfoil contributed to this report.

In a controversial move, former Arkansas Governor and current Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee left the campaign trail the night before the Iowa caucuses to appear as Jay Leno’s guest on The Tonight Show for its return to live broadcast Wednesday.

Acknowledging the ongoing writers strike, the Governor’s campaign explained that the decision to appear was made only once they were, “…assured that no replacement writers were being used in the show’s production.” because, “Governor Huckabee believes that the writers deserve to be fairly compensated for the sale of their work.”

Huckabee said he would like to been seen by the American people as the, “…guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off.” A view apparently shared by some political bloggers who have taken to referring to him as “Awshucksabee.” He is a former Baptist minister, and explained to Leno that he entered the political arena when he realized that decision makers were making policy “without knowing real poverty.”

Adding to his down home image, Huckabee is also known for his rock band “Capitol Offense” who performed in Des Moines at a January 1, 2008 fundraiser where he cajoled former Congressman and current MSNBC morning anchor Joe Scarborough to join him on guitar. In a moment reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s famous campaign appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show, Huckabee even accepted an offer to join Kevin Eubanks and The Tonight Show Band for a brief set.

Generally, the conversation between Leno and Huckabee avoided policy specifics, with the exception of a brief description of his Fair Tax proposal. Which is essentially a national sales tax in which everyone would pay 23 percent of what they consume – food, gas, sales however, the poor – below a certain threshold would be “untaxed” by getting a rebate. Huckabee said his plan would free people up to earn what they want.

Governor Huckabee also explained his decision to pull his first attack ad two days ago, minutes before a press conference with major media outlets seated only to then showed it to the media anyhow because he didn’t want them to think it didn’t really exist when it did. He cited that his conscious got in the way of dissing Romney, who has spent $8-9 million on negative ads in Iowa and New Hampshire against his two biggest opponents – Governor Huckabee and Senator John McCain. Huckabee pulled his own attack ad because he claimed in front of Leno he wanted to “stick to his message” which is to “stay positive” and talk about what the country needs, rather than what’s wrong with the other guys.

One Republican Party activist — not affiliated with a specific candidate — said the decision to appear on the show highlights Huckabee’s confidence with his current standing in Iowa. However, he noted, it is reminiscent of former Governor Howard Dean’s ill-fated decision in 2004 to leave the campaign trail during a similar time frame in favor of a joint appearance with former President Jimmy Carter.

Huckabee, sticking to his message, ended the evening on a positive note. When Leno asked which candidate he’d like to see on the Democratic side, Huckabee noted that all the Democrats were “sincere” however, there is a fundamental difference in their politics but he “respected anyone running for president.” He did note, that it seems as if Senator Barack Obama and him share a similar value in horizontal politics that is, politics is not just about left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrats and Republican but rather values vertical politics – where the candidate wants to bring the country up and not down, forward – not backwards.

It doesn’t take a political genius to tell someone that this is beyond unusual. But anyone who saw Robin Williams in “Man of the Year” or happened to know that commentators compare the Colbert candidacy to that of Ralph Nader and Ross Perot, then it’s not so odd. Celebrity candidacies are not as rare an occurrence as one might think (see Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura). After all, a large and often overlooked aspect of a candidate’s success is name recognition.

After Colbert announced, a D.C.-based Republican polling firm did a sample poll of how the Colbert candidacy would affect the South Carolina primary. The poll consisted of 1,000 likely voters in a 2008 primary that included Colbert’s name in both Democrat and GOP polls. In the mock Democratic primary, Colbert took 2.8% of the vote, coming in fifth behind Hilary Clinton (40%), and ahead of Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

The Colbert Nation website  has a poll for a running mate, giving the options of Jon Stewart, Colbert himself, Vladimir Putin, Mike Huckabee, or no running mate. Currently, Stewart is ahead in the poll with 52%. Colbert’s campaign website,  provides links to download the petition to get his name on the South Carolina primary ballot and encourages volunteers to obtain 20 signatures.

While some may question how serious Colbert’s candidacy is, he clearly has generated a great deal of excitement. The “Stephen Colbert – One Million Strong” Facebook group boasts 1.2 million members, amassed in a little over a week. The Barack Obama group has only about 380,000 members after months on the campaign trail.

Colbert’s candidacy is essentially making a point. He’s unsatisfied with candidates on both parties and is making a stand for democracy. If there is anyone who is suited to sharpen the debate, it’s Stephen Colbert.

Recently, MoveOn.org came out with an ad labeling U.S. General David Petraeus as a conniving Bushie who isn’t serving America as a respected general. In a world that already views the New York Times as the flagship source of media bias, how did this love affair between a liberal anti-war group and an alleged liberal newspaper come to be, and where did it go wrong?

No one contests MoveOn.org’s constitutional right to free speech. However, reports show the New York Times had changed their own policy to allow this ad, a policy which specifically says: “we do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” The Times is now being accused even more of being biased to the left by conservative tycoons such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh because of its subsidizing of the MoveOn.org ad. The Times is disputing this mistake by claiming that an advertising sales representative had made a mistake in granting the discount and that Move On should have been charged $142,083 as opposed to the $77,508 that Move On claims they paid for the ad. Because of this “mistake” the Times is denying any allegations of “bias.”

And then, as with any love affair in came a third party: Congress got involved. The House and the Senate have both voted on resolutions condemning MoveOn.org’s actions. In the House, it was voted on as an amendment attached to an appropriations bill, it passed with 347 votes, with 79 votes against. Seventy-nine votes? Where’d those come from? But of course, the liberals of the bunch – Barney Frank (D-MA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA) and a slue of others from the typically liberal areas – the Northeast and the West Coast. Whose name doesn’t show up? Why Speaker Pelosi of course, however it is typical for the Speaker of the House to not vote. Majority Leader Hoyer did however come out against Move On. The Democratic House leadership seemed relatively divided on the issue, while the Republican party remained united in their opposition to Move On.

The Senate’s resolution passed with 72 votes in favor and 25 against. However, both Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) voted against the resolution. Guess those presidential campaigns are protecting their base where as Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) were both absent for the vote with Senator Obama positioning his absence as taking the high road and not commenting on an issue that is not worthy of Senate comment. Most of the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle denounced the Move-on ads but Senator Clinton never came outright to denounce it but rather kept her denouncement of the ad ambiguous in an interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” by saying “I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don’t believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that.” However, thanks this is another instance of having it both ways, condemning something on Meet the Press and taking the opposite approach when voting in the Senate.

What does this all amount to? A menial controversy created by a media giant and an already controversial anti-war group avoiding the important matters at hand such as creating an effective solution to the war in Iraq, approving another Attorney General and passing the 2008 fiscal budget. So it goes, another nonbinding resolution passed by Congress, another week in Washington with the people’s business left undone.