"I was with them all day. They did not see this coming. No one did." - A Clinton friend who watched Hillary Clinton and her team write the first drafts of her speech in a Concord hotel suite."
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Victory in New Hampshire
"I was with them all day. They did not see this coming. No one did." - A Clinton friend who watched Hillary Clinton and her team write the first drafts of her speech in a Concord hotel suite."
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A Poignant Message
"I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here."
On January 3, Andrew Olmsted was killed in Diyala. Olmsted, an Army Major, leaves behind a wife, family, and countless friends and loved ones. He also leaves behind a collection of thoughts that he hoped would "contribute in some small manner to the philosophical and political questions of the day."
In the event of his death, Olmsted wrote a "final post" that he asked a friend to post on his blog. He hoped to use it as a means of saying goodbye, but also to ask that politics be kept out of his death. Needless to say, it is a very poignant read. An excerpt:
"This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it."
On January 3, Andrew Olmsted was killed in Diyala. Olmsted, an Army Major, leaves behind a wife, family, and countless friends and loved ones. He also leaves behind a collection of thoughts that he hoped would "contribute in some small manner to the philosophical and political questions of the day."
In the event of his death, Olmsted wrote a "final post" that he asked a friend to post on his blog. He hoped to use it as a means of saying goodbye, but also to ask that politics be kept out of his death. Needless to say, it is a very poignant read. An excerpt:
"This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it."
Campaign Diplomacy
While some candidates are slowly succumbing to the wear and tear of the campaign trail, it appears that Barack Obama has devoted himself to another cause in what little free time he has these days. As Joe Klein reports, Obama has been working on a daily basis with the U.S. State Department, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and rival Kenyan Leaders to stop the violence in his father's homeland and to bring peace through democracy and the rule of law.
Monday, January 07, 2008
"Reflecting on a Rough Year"
With the second session of the 110th Congress around the corner, the Las Vegas Sun reflects on the success and failures of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It's worth the read.
Hillary Falters
A Kos reader provides an interesting take on the "Hillary Implosion." An excerpt:
"(In 2000), she ran a terrific campaign based on the issues with positive rhetoric and ended up beating a faux moderate congressman named Rick Lazio by ten points. She was charming, endearing, and went out and earned votes. She earned mine. If you had asked me on November 1, 2000 who my first choice for President would have been in 2008, I would have told you Hillary Clinton. But the Hillary of 2008 is not the Hillary of 2000. That's why I won't support her in the primary.
Somewhere along the line, Hillary made a decision to abandon some of her core principles and cast votes not based on her principles but based on what she thought would make her "more electable" in 2008. Her votes on Iraq and Iran were part of the old Washington game of giving yourself political cover by having votes on all side of an issue so you can argue one way or the other depending on which way the wind was blowing x number of years down the road. ...Somewhere inside of her I know she hates herself for doing this because she genuinely knows better and IS better. Her desire to please the Washington Cocktail Party Elitists overtook her common sense.
Gore hated himself for doing this prior to 2000 before his epiphany and John Edwards hated himself for doing this in 2002 and 2003 before he too had a genuine inner transformation. Both men realize that such a strategy keeps tens of millions of Democratic voters home and gives Republicans narrow wins or close losses. Hillary should have known better."
"(In 2000), she ran a terrific campaign based on the issues with positive rhetoric and ended up beating a faux moderate congressman named Rick Lazio by ten points. She was charming, endearing, and went out and earned votes. She earned mine. If you had asked me on November 1, 2000 who my first choice for President would have been in 2008, I would have told you Hillary Clinton. But the Hillary of 2008 is not the Hillary of 2000. That's why I won't support her in the primary.
Somewhere along the line, Hillary made a decision to abandon some of her core principles and cast votes not based on her principles but based on what she thought would make her "more electable" in 2008. Her votes on Iraq and Iran were part of the old Washington game of giving yourself political cover by having votes on all side of an issue so you can argue one way or the other depending on which way the wind was blowing x number of years down the road. ...Somewhere inside of her I know she hates herself for doing this because she genuinely knows better and IS better. Her desire to please the Washington Cocktail Party Elitists overtook her common sense.
Gore hated himself for doing this prior to 2000 before his epiphany and John Edwards hated himself for doing this in 2002 and 2003 before he too had a genuine inner transformation. Both men realize that such a strategy keeps tens of millions of Democratic voters home and gives Republicans narrow wins or close losses. Hillary should have known better."
The Anniversary of NCLB
Reflecting on the sixth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act, it's unfortunate that so many are using the initiative as a political punching bag despite the merit of its overall approach and many of its provisions, and despite the progress (albeit modest) we've seen since its implementation. Instead of offering meaningful ways to address the legislation's current shortcomings, more and more politicians are going for the easy applause line by saying we should scrap the entire bill. Republicans hate it because the accountability measures have teeth and are administered at the Federal level, and Democrats hate it because it's a highly-touted Bush domestic achievement and because it's been consistently underfunded (thereby undermining many of its intentions).
The enactment of NCLB is itself a great example of the things we can accomplish when legislators place results over politics. During reauthorization of the bill, these same legislators need to seize upon the opportunity to seriously and honestly assess both the successes and the lessons learned of the last six years. It will also be important for all the stakeholders (particularly the teachers' unions) to be honest brokers and to put the best interests of students ahead of everything else. It is an opportunity that we cannot bypass and it is one that shouldn't be punted down the road. Our children deserve more than that.
Ted Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an original author of the bill, reflects on the 6th anniversary of NCLB.
The Beer Vote
The Sleuth highlights an important question: Which presidential candidate would you most like to have a beer with? Well, the National Beer Wholesalers Association is taking that question to voters. No big surprises - Obama and Ron Paul are leading the way while Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel will apparently be drinking alone. To place your vote, check out their website.
Taliban Resurgence
The Bhutto assassination and the growing instability in Pakistan have cast renewed attention on the Taliban, whose resurgence has steadily picked up steam while U.S. forces have prioritized their attention and resources in Iraq. This weekend's New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on the Taliban's reach into Pakistan and the split between the moderate and fundamental Islamists. Also, Frontline produced a fascinating series (which can be viewed online) on the "Return of the Taliban", along with links to supplemental information such as interviews, maps, etc.
"Iowa's Histrionic Hucksters"
George Will, the Washington Post's conservative sage, wrote a scathing column about the populist rhetoric used by Edwards and Huckabee. Will's best shot was at Huckabee's and Edwards' policy solution to battling the "special interests" that have a stranglehold on our Democracy --
"Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity... The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington, and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there."
There are other comments worthy of praise. Read it here.
"Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity... The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington, and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there."
There are other comments worthy of praise. Read it here.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
New Hampshire Debates
If you missed the New Hampshire debates, WMUR provides a great compilation of video highlights. Nothing Earth-shattering, but it's interesting how the two approaches in the Democratic field are solidifying (Obama and Edwards preaching change and Richardson and Clinton preaching experience), and it's interesting how much each of the Republican candidates enjoy taking pot-shots at Mitt Romney (article and video).
CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" on both the Republican and Democratic debates.
Oh, and Hillary's angry response to Edwards taking sides with Obama is getting a good deal of press. See below:
CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" on both the Republican and Democratic debates.
Oh, and Hillary's angry response to Edwards taking sides with Obama is getting a good deal of press. See below:
Saturday, January 05, 2008
I Guess You Take Whatever You Can Get
Coming on the heels of what Romney will undoubtedly portray as a tremendous victory in Wyoming, the few Americans who realized these Caucuses were taking place today have to still be shrugging their shoulders and asking "who cares?" Congratulations Wyoming, it was a valiant effort to make yourself relevant. We all wish you better luck in 4 years. If nothing else, at least you were the first state to provide a delegate for Duncan Hunter. It's a dubious distinction but it's a distinction nonetheless.
New AFSCME Mailings in New Hampshire
Remember the anti-Obama mailings circulated in Iowa on behalf of Hillary by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)? Well, the largest public employee and health care workers union in the United States has struck again in New Hampshire. This time, the rank-and-file is not having it and has gone public with a letter recently sent to the AFSCME president. Here are a couple excerpts:
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
...We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union - through “independent expenditures”–is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack’s standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.”While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of those candidates, Barack Obama.
...We are calling on you to take whatever action that is within your legal purview to immediately end AFSCME’s attack campaign against Sen. Obama. In the event that you are not able to legally compel these staff membersto cease these actions, we are calling on you to immediately take action to discontinue such independent expenditures in order to ensure that no further attacks occur.
One reason for the new mailing - Obama is now up 10 points in New Hampshire.
Friday, January 04, 2008
A Tenuous Peace
It's widely recognized that one of the significant benchmarks toward reconciliation and stability in Iraq is the ground-laying for new elections. The political and security landscape has changed dramatically since the last elections, new players need to be brought in (particularly Sunnis), and local leadership needs to be provided to a growing majority of Iraqis who are distrustful of the current regime that has largely isolated itself in Baghdad. But as Iraq moves toward new elections, jockeying by key players (both Shia and Sunni) could undoubtedly risk many of our recent gains toward peace and stability.
In the south, representatives of Muqtada al-Sadr recently met with members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the largest Shiite political party led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. The Shiite militias controlled by these two factions (Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Hakim’s Badr Organization) have been in a turf battle since the onset of the war but signed a “tenuous peace agreement” following bloody clashes in Karbala that left 52 dead this summer. The subsequent cease fire declared by Sadr gave him time to weed out renegade factions within his ranks and is one of the key factors in the reduced levels of violence in Baghdad and the south. But it’s unclear how long that will last as Sadr will undoubtedly do everything in his power prior to new elections to shore up his support and ensure his interests are represented. Those moves would be countered by Hakim who would desperately want to secure his role as the ultimate political power-broker. The recent meetings between their factions should give us some glimmer of hope that both sides recognize the stabilizing factor a peace between them would bring.
Meanwhile, rivalries amongst Sunnis in Anbar have created a situation just as precarious. While today’s relative stability can be credited to the tribal sheiks (dubbed “the Awakening”) who rose up against al-Qaeda, those same sheiks are responsible for fueling the insurgency that killed thousands of Iraqi and Coalition forces in the first years of the war. These sheiks, who boycotted the initial elections, now want a piece of the pie – a move that will be undoubtedly be countered by those Sunnis who participated in the elections and cooperated with Coalition forces from day one. Most of these Sunnis, members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, are viewed as corrupt by the sheiks, who have grown increasingly disgruntled because their communities are not receiving a fair share of reconstruction funds and basic services. The sheiks believe this is happening because they essentially have no representation in the government in Baghdad. Thus they would approach new elections with a different mindset and would seek to “gain back” some of the political influence that has subsequently been accumulated by the Iraqi Islamic Party.
So while new elections in Iraq are essential to any sort of long-lasting stability, we should also prepare for the short-term chaos and violence that they could also bring.
In the south, representatives of Muqtada al-Sadr recently met with members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the largest Shiite political party led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. The Shiite militias controlled by these two factions (Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Hakim’s Badr Organization) have been in a turf battle since the onset of the war but signed a “tenuous peace agreement” following bloody clashes in Karbala that left 52 dead this summer. The subsequent cease fire declared by Sadr gave him time to weed out renegade factions within his ranks and is one of the key factors in the reduced levels of violence in Baghdad and the south. But it’s unclear how long that will last as Sadr will undoubtedly do everything in his power prior to new elections to shore up his support and ensure his interests are represented. Those moves would be countered by Hakim who would desperately want to secure his role as the ultimate political power-broker. The recent meetings between their factions should give us some glimmer of hope that both sides recognize the stabilizing factor a peace between them would bring.
Meanwhile, rivalries amongst Sunnis in Anbar have created a situation just as precarious. While today’s relative stability can be credited to the tribal sheiks (dubbed “the Awakening”) who rose up against al-Qaeda, those same sheiks are responsible for fueling the insurgency that killed thousands of Iraqi and Coalition forces in the first years of the war. These sheiks, who boycotted the initial elections, now want a piece of the pie – a move that will be undoubtedly be countered by those Sunnis who participated in the elections and cooperated with Coalition forces from day one. Most of these Sunnis, members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, are viewed as corrupt by the sheiks, who have grown increasingly disgruntled because their communities are not receiving a fair share of reconstruction funds and basic services. The sheiks believe this is happening because they essentially have no representation in the government in Baghdad. Thus they would approach new elections with a different mindset and would seek to “gain back” some of the political influence that has subsequently been accumulated by the Iraqi Islamic Party.
So while new elections in Iraq are essential to any sort of long-lasting stability, we should also prepare for the short-term chaos and violence that they could also bring.
The Caucus Breakdown: The Morning After
Stuart Rothenberg analyzes the winners and losers from last night:
Iowa Winners
1. Barack Obama. The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused. Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.
2. Mike Huckabee. In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization. Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination. But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney. Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.
3. John McCain. Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.
4. Rudy Giuliani. The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.
Iowa Losers
1. John Edwards. Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message. Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama. Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear. Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.
3. Mitt Romney. How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it. Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”
Iowa Winners
1. Barack Obama. The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused. Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.
2. Mike Huckabee. In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization. Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination. But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney. Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.
3. John McCain. Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.
4. Rudy Giuliani. The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.
Iowa Losers
1. John Edwards. Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message. Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama. Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear. Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.
3. Mitt Romney. How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it. Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
