Random Thoughts While Watching the Replay of the Debate

I watched some of the New Hampshire debate last night on ABC and I've been watching the replay tonight on CNN. And a thought occurred to me.

It seems like I've been watching Hillary Clinton on TV all my life.

It may seem that way to you as well. But it is no idle exaggeration on my part. I grew up in Arkansas, graduated from Conway High School just north of Little Rock and graduated from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

I was 18 the year Bill Clinton was first elected governor, and I voted in that election. Arkansas elected its governor every two years in those days, so Clinton came up for re-election when I was 20. He lost that race, but won his next bid for governor when I was 22. He was re-elected when I was 24 and 26.

The year I was 24, Arkansas voters wisely chose to amend the state's constitution to make terms in state offices like governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, etc., four-year terms instead of two-year terms. So when Clinton ran again when I was 26, it was for a four-year term. I moved away from Arkansas when I was 28, and I haven't been back there to live in 20 years.

But less than four years after I left Arkansas, Clinton ran for president. And seeing the Clintons on the evening news every night made it seem like I had never left.

In the 16 years that have passed, the Clintons have remained in the public eye. And, with Mrs. Clinton running for this year's Democratic presidential nomination, it once again seems like I never left Arkansas -- even though both of us long ago left that state. After being the nation's first lady for eight years, of course, Hillary went on to be elected -- and re-elected -- to the U.S. Senate from the state of New York.

Actually, now that I reflect on it, I guess I haven't been watching Hillary on TV all my life.

For one thing, my family didn't get a TV set until I was 6 years old, so I really have no memories of seeing an Arkansas governor on TV before Winthrop Rockefeller -- or of seeing an American president before Lyndon Johnson.

And, for another thing, it was 12 more years before Clinton became governor, so I guess Hillary's been on my TV for about two-thirds of my life!

* I have no first-hand memories or knowledge of Mike Huckabee. He became governor many years after I left. But a good friend of mine who still lives in Arkansas was bringing me up to speed on Huckabee a few months before Iowa discovered him.

Huckabee is different from most modern Republicans, but perhaps he has more in common with earlier Republicans than today's Republicans do. In his way, I think he is reacquainting today's Republicans with their roots with his brand of populism.

That's not a bad thing in a campaign that has seen both sides yearning for the "good old days" when other presidents were in charge.

For that matter, we've also seen several polls this year that suggest a high percentage of American voters feel that a third party would be better equipped than the two existing parties to embody the standards and principles people want in their leaders.

Perhaps what the voters really need is to learn about the original principles of each party -- and to see more examples of politicians who live by those principles.

My instincts tell me that Huckabee can't win the Republican nomination, for several reasons. But his insurgent candidacy could prove to be an irresistible force, like George McGovern in 1972 and Barry Goldwater in 1964. It's too early to tell about that.

New Hampshire will tell us a lot about his ability to draw votes from other than his evangelical base. But we'll need to see what happens in Michigan and South Carolina -- and perhaps the mega-primary day on Feb. 5 -- before we'll know what kind of coalition of Republicans Huckabee can build.

* There is a certain inherent danger of reading too much into the results from a single state, like Iowa, but until New Hampshire's voters get out and vote on Tuesday, Iowa is the only thing we have to work with, other than polls.

For the Democrats, I think John Edwards has to do better in New Hampshire than the polls have been showing in order for his campaign to be considered viable. If he is close to the top, I think he can remain in the race for another week or two, competing in the Michigan and South Carolina primaries.

But he has to convince Democrats that he can attract votes outside his native region.

Unless Edwards is able to do that, the race will come down to Obama vs. Clinton very shortly. If it hasn't already.

On the Republican side, I think John McCain can beat Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, and Romney's campaign will be in trouble, having invested so much time and money in the first two states with no victories to show for it.

But the next states on the calendar -- Michigan and South Carolina -- favor different candidates. Romney may do well in Michigan. His father was governor there for six years. But Michigan and South Carolina may have enough evangelical voters to boost Huckabee to victories. And independents are the wild cards. Which candidate -- and which party -- will they favor?

And Rudy Giuliani is counting on a strong showing in Florida.

After that comes the "Super Tuesday" primaries on Feb. 5. Will the Republican picture come into focus on Feb. 6 (which, by the way, is Ronald Reagan's birthday)?

I'm starting to wonder ...

* Barack Obama's triumph in Iowa was impressive, but I think the comparisons between Obama and JFK are a little over done.

As my father told me today, "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine ..."

* Well, Lloyd Bentsen is dead and buried.

But I thought New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had the best line last night.

After listening to several minutes of Clinton, Obama and Edwards parrying and thrusting, Richardson remarked, "I've been in hostage negotiations that were more civil than this!"