Like Those Guys, But Less Fab.

Grassroots movement. Grassroots effort. Grassroots support. At the mere sound of these ubiquitous buzzwords, political operatives everywhere begin to salivate uncontrollably. Everyone wants a grassroots something.

Which makes perfect sense. For political candidates, a strong grassroots simply means: a bunch of people who give you money and campaign for you without asking for anything in return, besides a slightly creepy handshake and/or extended hug. In short, a strong grassroots is a pretty sweet deal.

Unfortunately, like all sweet deals, the devil's in the details.

Campaigns focus an incredible amount of energy on the herculean task of controlling their message. In the era of cable news, YouTube, and the Drudge Report, the slightest misstep, inconsistency, or gaffe is shoved into the unforgiving meat grinder of public scrutiny. Great pains must be taken to ensure that the candidate, and everyone affiliated with the candidate, follows the official script. Yes, this results in boring television, but it sure beats losing an election.

Grassroots supporters, on the other hand, are somewhat lacking in the script department. This isn't usually a bad thing; the unpolished, real-life advocacy these supporters bring to the table is their strongest asset. But, unfortunately, strong grassroots movements can easily take on a decidedly religious aura. The supporters become dogmatic and obsessed, completely sold on the idea that their candidate is a political messiah. Like all religions, these movements are exhilarating for participants, but outsiders are generally repulsed by the fanaticism of their adherents. Gradually, it becomes impossible for observers to mentally separate the secular deity from his followers, tarnishing his image permanently.

The ill-fated presidential campaign of Texas congressman Ron Paul is the textbook example of this concept in action.

While a Republican, Ron Paul's views are more in line with the Libertarian party. This fact alone places him on the fringe of political discourse. Still, there are well-respected libertarians out there, and certain libertarian ideas are appealing to large segments of society. In other words, libertarian politicians aren't always dismissed as nut-cases.

Ron Paul, however, was dismissed as a nutcase, and it wasn't just because of the candidate himself. Early on in his presidential bid, Ron Paul attracted a relatively small, but fanatically loyal core of followers. Most of them were nut-cases. About 50% of them were tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy freaks, 35% were angry students who didn't actually understand what Ron Paul stood for, 5% were members of the KKK, and 10% were normal people -- the least visible group of all. They began flooding YouTube, blogs, and internet forums, singing the praises of the infallible Paul, and attempting to overwhelm anyone who disagreed with a flurry of angry comments. And everywhere they went, these supporters mixed their support of Ron Paul with a heaping tablespoon of conspiratorial nonsense, paired with anti-establishmentarian raving.

Thrilled to have a following, Ron Paul embraced his loyal acolytes. His campaign became one of the most decentralized campaigns in history, totally depending on grassroots activists to spread his message. He raked in tons of money. He was in the lead in every Internet poll. And then, predictably, he lost.

He never had a chance in the first place, but Ron Paul's rabid fans didn't help. To everyone else on the Internet, they were "Paulbots", zealots who attempted to cram pro-Paul propaganda into every nook and cranny they could find. Some forum administrators got so sick of it that they started blocking Ron Paul supporters altogether. Every candidate has unsavory supporters, but these unsavory supporters were the core of Ron Paul's campaign. Everything was fueled by grassroots spontaneity -- a wonderful concept on paper, but something that can turn ugly when it completely replaces a focused campaign organization.

In recent months, some Barack Obama supporters have also crossed the thin boundary between enthusiastic and just-plain-crazy. The grassroots video below, created by will.i.am of Black Eyed Peas fame, is proof. "Yes We Can", an earlier pro-Obama video from the same source, was inspiring. This one is scary. Supporters describe the utopian dream of an Obama presidency, while repeatedly chanting O-ba-ma, in a fit of spiritual fervor brought on by the holy spirit of progress.



Again, this kind of thing excites voters who are already in the Obama camp, but everyone else sees it for what it is: another manifestation of the growing Obama personality cult. Obama's words may unite, but his fanatical supporters tend to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Rational people know that a politician can't deliver the perfect society with a few pen-strokes. If this kind of worshipful behavior continues, it will only widen the gap between common-sense voters and Obama's nebulous campaign, a terrible liability in a race against John McCain -- the epitome of down-to-earth American spirit

Grassroots supporters are an essential part of American democracy; every campaign needs them in abundance. But when they take the spotlight from the campaign's official message, and become synonymous with the candidate himself, bad things can happen. Politicians can't solve our problems, or usher in an age of global tranquility. When the average voter sees a candidate surrounded by people who seem to think otherwise, they can get suspicious, and an otherwise decent message can be drowned out by a mob of political true-believers.

Hillary's Back! (kinda)

What Happened.

Last night, John McCain finally racked up enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination.

Neither of the Democratic candidates had such luck.

It was, of course, a fantastic night for Senator Hillary Clinton, who defied all expectations to win Texas and Ohio. But unfortunately for Hillary, the numbers are still against her.

After all the dust had settled, Hillary's victories in Ohio and Texas still left her over a hundred delegates short of overcoming Obama's commanding lead.

Hillary needed to win Ohio and Texas by huge margins in order to close the gap; ultimately, her margins just weren't big enough. Hillary's ten-point victory in Ohio was respectable enough, if not quite as impressive as the near 20-point victories Obama had earned in February, but her slim three-point lead in Texas was too weak to dent Obama's presidential prospects.

Now, both campaigns will be forced to dig in for a grueling, prolonged struggle that will come to a head in the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary.

Which candidate will benefit from this brutal, political trench-warfare?

Barack H. Obama.

As last night's final delegate tallies clearly showed, the lead Obama gained in February is going to be hard to beat. All Obama has to do from here on out is make sure most of the upcoming races are close, and his roughly 100 delegate lead will cushion him to a narrow victory. If Obama wins a fair amount of the upcoming contests, with decent margins, it will all be icing on his cake of electoral hope.

That is, unless the superdelegates decide to shake things up. Even if Obama retains his pledged-delegate lead at the end of all the primary contests, he still won't have the 2,025 delegates needed to completely secure the nomination. While most people expect the majority of superdelegates to side with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote, anything could potentially happen, especially if Obama's pledged-delegate lead becomes razor-thin.

However, the superdelegate factor could presumably work in Obama's favor. Party insiders tend to consider electability the paramount quality when selecting presidential candidates, and Obama is the only Democratic candidate who consistently beats John McCain in national polls. Hillary will need to improve her national standing against John McCain if she wants the superdelegates to throw their support behind her at the convention.

Why it Happened. (Probably)

Early this morning, The Politico's headline flaunted the conventional interpretation of last night's results:

"Clinton's Lesson: Attacking Obama Works".

Hillary Clinton's increasingly intense attacks on Obama may have had some impact on the election results, but let's be honest here: some of her attacks were pretty lame. Unless the residents of Ohio and Texas have a collective IQ of 42, I highly doubt that Hillary's laughable, oft-mocked "red phone" ad, and similar attacks, really tapped into the psyche of the voters in Tuesday's primaries.

Maybe they were simply sick of being told who was supposed to win.

It's a pattern that seems to be showing up frequently in the current Democratic presidential campaign; whenever a candidate is proclaimed inevitable by the media, a voter backlash occurs. We saw it in Iowa. We saw it in New Hampshire. Now we're seeing it again.

Being the underdog is often politically advantageous; in this case, it was. Obama's coronation was perceived as premature, and combined with his youth and alleged-inexperience, his aura of inevitable could have been interpreted as arrogance. Hillary may not always be the most likeable candidate, but her fall from grace helped win the sympathy of voters.

The media, with its typically soft coverage of Obama, and their endless stream of negative stories about Hillary, didn't help matters. Complaints of biased media coverage often make candidates look like pathetic, whiny losers. But in Hillary's case, her not-so-subtle claims of media bias actually resonated with voters, mainly because there was a great deal of truth to them. A surprise flurry of harsh questions directed towards Obama at a press conference on the eve of the primaries was unable to atone for the widely perceived slanting of election coverage.

In the end, the message was clear: voters will decide who gets the nomination, and the contest is far from over.

Deja Vu?

When Rudy Giuliani decided to skip the traditionally important contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in favor of a strategy focusing on big states like Florida, New York, and California, nobody knew whether he was making a brilliant move or the biggest mistake of his life. After Giuliani's candidacy imploded in Florida due to a lack of momentum, it became clear that it was the latter.

Using 20/20 hindsight, we can see the obvious reason for Giuliani's strategic failure. Simply stated, winning is a good thing. When voters across the country see someone losing pathetically in state after state, he gets branded as a loser, even if he wasn't really trying to win those states in the first place. And no one wants to vote for a loser.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton didn't get the memo.

After mediocre results on not-so-super Tuesday, and decisive defeats in places as varied as Washington state and Washington DC, it's getting harder and harder for Hillary to poise herself as the inevitable nominee. But she's still trying to do just that.

As each loss rolls in, the Clinton campaign haughtily dismisses them:

The state was too black.
Too white.
Too red.
Too blue.
That state? She was planning on losing that one.

But regardless of how she spins the latest round of losses, Hillary can't sweep them under the rug. They're still losses. They still hurt. And slowly but surely, they're undermining her frontrunner status.

Did I say undermining? Allow me to correct myself: they have undermined her frontrunner status.

Obama now leads Hillary by around 100 pledged delegates -- delegates selected democratically through primaries and caucuses. Hillary still retains her lead among super delegates, high-ranking members of the Democratic party who can change sides whenever they want to, but even when these delegates are added to Hillary's column, Obama has a 22 delegate lead.

More importantly, Obama has momentum on his side. Following his majestic sweep of the Chesapeake bay primary contests yesterday, Obama can claim a grand total of 8 wins in a row. When Hawaii and Wisconsin vote next Tuesday, that number is expected to rise to ten. Needless to say, Hillary has plenty to worry about.

In fact, Hillary only has one path to victory open to her: landslides in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, three delegate-rich states she currently leads in.

But in a presidential race where double-digit leads have evaporated overnight, betting an entire campaign on a few big states is a risky strategy.

Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

Et Tu, Coulter?

The story of John McCain's life has always been full of drama, but now that McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, some people are determined to turn it into a Shakespearean tragedy. Namely, Julius Caesar. Frightened by the thought of an ambitious, moderate Senator like John McCain seizing the leadership of the American Empire, a veritable who's who of the conservative movement has gathered to plunge their verbal daggers into McCain's political chest.

The first stab came from Rush Limbaugh, who proclaimed that a McCain nomination would spell the end of the Republican party as we know it. Ann Coulter, refusing to be outdone, proclaimed that she would campaign for Hillary if McCain became the Republican nominee. Talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrahm have openly endorsed Mitt Romney, a step that blogger/talk show host Hugh Hewitt had already taken months ago.

All of them cite the same reason for their fervent opposition: John McCain is a Kennedy-hugging liberal.

There's nothing wrong with opposing a candidate you disagree with, but the recent flurry of anti-McCain vitriol has a disingenuous ring to it. For eight years, the same conservative commentators who are currently heaping contempt on John McCain have continuously defended a man with strikingly similar positions: George W. Bush.

The notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law? Bush signed it.

The even-more-notorious McCain-Kennedy immigration reform law? Bush supported it.

On the issue of taxes, it's true that McCain sided with the Democrats against Bush's tax cut packages in 2001 and 2003 -- but it's also true that McCain has a strong history of battling pork barrel spending, while President Bush has passed hundreds of pork-laden bills without the slightest threat of a veto. That's not to mention the fact that John McCain now supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. It may be a flip-flop, but Mitt Romney, McCain's only viable opponent at this point, has more than a few of those in his recent past.

And yes, John McCain vehemently opposes torture -- something he personally endured in Vietnam. But if conservatives have become so out of touch with basic decency that support for torture is considered a positive thing, call me a liberal.

The reality of the situation is that when you look at the respective political records of President Bush and Presidential candidate McCain, they both have roughly the same number of liberal and conservative positions. If conservatives want to raise a ruckus about a moderate Republican getting a shot at the White House, they ought to apply the same standards to the moderate Republican who already occupies the place.

Today, Republicans in 24 states will decide for themselves who they want to represent their party on election day. If Mitt Romney goes down in flames, a score of vocal conservative commentators will have two courses of action to choose from: they can swallow their pride and support a Republican they detest in order to stop the Democratic nominee, or they can keep beating up on John McCain and pave the way for President Hillary or Obama. Something tells me that there'll be more than a few talk show hosts eating crow on February 6th.

Unfortunately, if Romney does pull off a miraculous victory, we'll all have to suffer through hours of talk radio gloating on the subject. No matter who wins, America always seems to lose.

McComeback.

John McCain is old, and no matter how much he tries, he can't hide it. His signature "straight-talk" is often punctuated with faltering pauses and misspoken words. He seems to blink too much, uses stiff-looking hand gestures, and has a nasty habit of repeating himself. When you add it all together, you get a man who isn't exactly the most dynamic politician this side of Howard Dean.

And no one can deny that McCain is a polarizing figure in Republican politics. He co-authored a campaign finance reform bill that activists from both sides of the political spectrum view as a threat to the first amendment. He supported a doomed immigration reform bill that became synonymous with amnesty on conservative talk shows across the country. He supports embryonic stem-cell research, and has called fundamentalist preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance", gestures that have alienated many Evangelical Christians. Given this track record, it's obvious that while journalists and independents often swoon for McCain, he certainly doesn't invite a whole lot of conservative Republican lovin'.

It's no wonder that just a few months ago, McCain's campaign was losing money and staff members like a sinking ship, and dozens of commentators -- including myself -- lined up to proclaim his candidacy officially dead.

Then the New Hampshire primary came along, and McCain emerged victorious. This wasn't entirely surprising, since he won the state by a handy margin eight years ago, and still has a devoted independent following in the state. But nevertheless, the win jolted his campaign back to life.

Four days ago in South Carolina, McCain added another notch to his rusty sword. Unlike his previous victory, McCain's South Carolina success wasn't what media-types would call inevitable. In 2000, South Carolina's powerful evangelical voting bloc derailed McCain's seemingly-unstoppable momentum, setting events in motion that would lead to the nomination of George W. Bush later that year. This time around, it seems that the fickle voters of South Carolina decided to propel McCain to front-runner status. McCain now has the lead in multiple national polls; narrow leads to be sure, but leads nonetheless.

But why McCain? Don't most Republicans hate the guy?

Yes, a lot of them do. But in a field full of candidates with murky pasts and offensive positions, McCain may be seen as the lesser of five evils.

Think of McCain as the anti-Romney. Mitt Romney looks presidential, occasionally sounds presidential, tows the party line perfectly on everything from gun control to immigration, and unlike twice-married McCain, Mitt Romney has a squeaky-clean family that looks like it could have popped right out of Norman Rockwell's imagination. In short, he should be the ideal Republican candidate. Except for one little thing: a couple years ago, he was a completely different man. He was pro-abortion, pro-gay boy scout leaders, and pro a bunch of other things that conservatives tend to despise. His better-homes-and-gardens wife? A planned parenthood donor. His perfection is an awkward plastic mask that thousands can see right through.

McCain, on the other hand, is unapologetically unorthodox. On the campaign trail, he can be found speaking about global warming and what the government can do to halt it. He still refuses to back down from his stance on illegal immigration in the face of constant attacks from his opponents in general, and Mitt Romney in particular. Waiting for McCain to renounce his support for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act? Keep waiting. One thing's for certain: John McCain's a fighter, and he isn't choosy when it comes to who he picks his fights with. And maybe -- just maybe -- people prefer a fighter with real flaws to a perfect phony.

In politics, sincerity, real or perceived, goes a long way. At the end of the day, every voter will have some beef with every candidate on certain issues. This is definitely the case in the current Republican primary race, where the key players are a thrice-married liberal mayor, an ex-liberal Mormon, a socially-conservative, but economically liberal baptist preacher, and an iconoclastic Senator. When you don't agree with anyone on everything, trust becomes the key factor. A lot of Republicans may have problems with some of the things McCain stands for, but they may appreciate the simple fact that he appears to actually stand for something.

As a bonus, John McCain's independent streak helps him rake in more independent votes than any other Republican candidate. Where conservatives see flawed positions, moderates see positions that look a lot like the one's they'd take. And for McCain, the apparently stabilizing situation in Iraq is helping turn his unflinching support for the "surge" from a liability to an asset among rank-and-file Americans. Electability has always been a major concern when it comes to picking a man (or woman) to run for president, so if McCain maintains his stellar record of winning independent votes, you can bet that more than a few GOP politicos will be giving McCain a second look.

The race is still fluid. In the past few months, dead candidates have come to life, and former front-runners have been left in the dust. Between now and the Republican convention in September, just about anything could happen. But with the February 5th "Super Tuesday" primaries edging closer, the window of opportunity for a candidate to emerge as a clear front-runner is rapidly closing. If McCain can win Florida next Tuesday -- a formidable task, he just might get the momentum he needs to clinch the nomination. If not, who knows?

---

As a side note, I'd like to remind everyone that Rudy Giuliani is still running. Remember him? The bald guy with the lisp? After abandoning his original strategy of "winning through victory", his campaign has decided to shift tactics to the ever-so-stealthy "winning through total defeat". So far, everything seems to be going according to plan.

Crying All The Way To The White-House.

Just one short week ago, every media outlet was repeating the same story: Hillary had no chance in New Hampshire, and no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton, the once inevitable candidate, had finally fallen. In Iowa, New Hampshire and all across the nation, people were looking for a candidate who could shake things up in Washington, and another Clinton wasn't who they had in mind.

The polls agreed. It seemed that every passing hour brought yet another poll showing Barack Obama widening his lead over his sinking opponent. It was obvious that he had the nomination clinched.

And then, the people of New Hampshire went to the polls, and the reigning conventional wisdom hit the ground like an over-ripe honeydew melon.

What happened?

If you believe the hype, Hillary managed to snag gold in New Hampshire because she displayed startlingly realistic, Oprah-style emotions in front of a live audience. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, get yourself a pack of maximum strength tylenol, pour yourself a glass of the strong alcoholic and/or caffeinated beverage of your choice, and fix your eyes on the video below. (Note: the question Hillary is responding to is "how do you do it?")




If you gag at the sight of Hillary Clinton coming to the brink of tears as she talks about how passionate she is about America, I'm right there with you. In fact, when I first saw the video, I was so sold on the idea that it would damage the Clinton campaign that I planned on including it in a future post about Obama's New Hampshire victory. But that victory never emerged, and that video is now being touted as the secret to Clinton's stunning success.

According to the popular theory, Hillary's emotional monologue allowed her to connect with female voters, who happen to make up about 50% of the American electorate. And when John Edwards cast himself as the oppressive white patriarch by ever-so-subtly suggesting that a true leader should be tough, her good fortune only increased. The enraged women of New Hampshire supposedly turned out in droves to defend a sister in need, providing her with the razor thin victory she so desperately needed.

If that analysis is correct -- and if Hillary gets the nomination -- things could take a turn for the weird in the general election. Before New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton deliberately ran a gender neutral campaign, which, as I previously noted, made her into an unappealing candidate. But she had a reason for doing this. By running as a bland, emotionless women, she obviously thought that she would alienate fewer people than she would if she went totally aggressive (stereotypical masculine behavior) or totally soft (stereotypical feminine behavior). When she was finally dethroned in Iowa, she knew she had to change her strategy, and change it fast. So, she took a chance and decided to play the gender card, hoping to nab key female voters even at the risk of losing male voters -- who were already abandoning her. Apparently, it worked. If this strategy continues on into November, the presidential election could turn into the battle of the sexes played out on the national stage. Is that really what the Democratic party wants? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

But there is another theory that may have a bit of truth to it, and it's one that suggests a brighter future for the Republicans than many suspect. The theory is rooted in the following simple facts: in New Hampshire, independents can choose to vote in either the Republican or the Democratic primaries -- and New Hampshire is a swing state, where independents are the majority. On the Republican side of the equation, McCain has always attracted large numbers of independents who adore his "maverick" positions. Barack Obama, who has consistently lagged behind HIllary among party-members, also depends heavily on independent support. On Tuesday, McCain was predictably carried to victory by his independent base. Obama, on the other hand, was not. Could it be that McCain stole Obama's victory by drawing away independents who would've normally voted in the Democratic primary? It's certainly a possibility, and if it's even partially true, Democrats should be afraid. Very, very, afraid. That is, if the Republicans nominate McCain. The millions of independents scattered across the country are the people who ultimately decide elections, and if an independent magnet like McCain goes up against a polarizing candidate like Clinton, the Republicans might actually have a shot at securing the white-house for four more years.

On an even brighter note, by the time McCain dies in office, our constitution will be amended to extend the right to run for president to our foreign-born citizens. Then we can all sit back and enjoy the bi-partisan bliss of the Schwarzenegger administration, a veritable golden-age in which we'll see Mexico annexed, Mars colonized, and seal-clubbing made into a government-approved recreational activity. Don't be environmental girlie men!

Just Remember: No Matter Who Wins In the End, Huckabee Will Still Be A Funny Word.

Like the highly convoluted plot of Pirates of the Caribbean 3, the Iowa caucus is something that makes less sense the more you think about it. Why are candidates from both parties forced to spend months pandering to the citizens of a rural state that only enters into the national consciousness every four years? From an objective viewpoint, this seems like an incredibly flawed arrangement: Iowa certainly isn't a cross-section of the American people as a whole, and the disproportionate influence wielded by farmers in the area ensures that candidates from both parties commit to the maintenance and expansion of farm subsidies that were created to pull the country out of the great depression. But for all these flaws, there remains a simple, logical reason for the prominence of the Iowa caucuses in the presidential election process: dude, it's the Iowa caucus.

Sure, It may be unfair that a handful of politically active people in Iowa get to shape the course of presidential elections, while the residents of neighboring states like Nebraska languish in the darkness of their ridiculously late primaries, but that's just the way things are. The political powers-that-be know better than to mess with a system that's been zealously defended by stubborn Iowans for over three decades; rumor has it that the last RNC chairman to challenge Iowa's first-in-the-nation status was found floating face-down in the missouri river, his lifeless body riddled with mysteriously corn-cob-like markings. So, in the spirit of the election season, it's time to turn off your brain, and turn on the speculation about the winners of this dubious contest.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee proved that the so-called Hucka-boom isn't about to fizzle out just yet. Even after sustaining heavy fire from Romney's well-funded attack machine, and apparently turning the other cheek, the Huckster managed to clobber his opponent with a nine-point victory. But despite this hard-earned success, many doubt that Huckabee's considerable powers of persuasion will carry him all the way to the Republican nomination, let alone the white-house. The logical side of my brain agrees with that assessment; but then again, the logical side of my brain once proclaimed that Huckabee would inevitably fade away as soon as Fred Thompson entered the race, a prediction that has been proven dead wrong in recent months. Even though poll-obsessed political junkies like myself wish that presidential races could be predicted using simple equations, politics is ultimately about people. And if there's anything you can be sure about in the topsy-turvy world of presidential politics, it's this: a lot of people like Mike.

But not everyone likes Mike. Influential conservative voices as varied as The National Review, The Club For Growth, and the all-knowing Maha Rushi have accused Huckabee of being a pseudo-conservative when it comes to little things like taxes, spending, and the need to shrink government; issues that have been the bedrock of the conservative movement since the days of Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately, the facts appear to back up these accusations. While Huckabee's commitment to key social issues like abortion and gay marriage is unquestionable, his record as governor of Arkansas seems to display a lack of commitment to the vital conservative principle of little government. There's nothing wrong with having a big heart, but sadly, people with big hearts tend to advocate a similarly sized government. Governor Huckabee was no exception.

The modern Republican party has always been a sometimes-awkward amalgamation of social and fiscal conservatives, but if Mike Huckabee manages to capitalize on his victory in Iowa and march all the way to the nomination, the unity of the Republican party could be at stake. For the past eight years, libertarian leaning Republicans have had to put up with a Republican president who preaches consistent conservatism but refuses to restrain federal growth in any meaningful way. Judging by his record, Huckabee would bring more of the same. But even at his most "compassionate", Bush's rhetoric has never approached the almost anti-business tone of Huckabee's heartland populism. To many old-guard conservatives, a Huckabee nomination could be perceived as the final insult from a party that's taken them for granted for far too long. Is a schism inevitable if Huckabee gets nominated? Maybe not. Is it possible? Definitely. If both major party candidates lean towards further government expansion, there just might be an opening for a third-party conservative candidate to enter the race and siphon votes away from the Republican nominee. The third party candidate wouldn't win -- or even come close -- but he might damage the Republicans enough to force the party to shift a little more to the right.

Nonetheless, the strength of Huckabee's natural charisma should not be underestimated. He may look a lot like Bush on certain issues, but he's also one of the smoothest-talking politicians in recent history, a label you probably won't find in a single account of Bush's political career. The man can talk -- and better yet, he can appear sincere at will. If anyone can verbally soothe disgruntled party-members into an obedient stupor, Mike Huckabee can.

Or can he? A painstaking New York Times account of his term as governor came to a different conclusion:

He is also remembered in the state for a style of governing that tended to freeze out anyone of any party who disagreed with his plans. He did not, for example, seek Mr. Clinton’s conciliatory middle, or try to court skeptical state lawmakers. Though he was considered as persuasive a speechmaker as he had been a pastor, Mr. Huckabee largely kept his own counsel — in politics, ethics and a singular clemency policy that continues to haunt him.

“Huckabee didn’t build bridges,” said State Senator Jim Argue Jr., a Democrat and leader in the schools overhaul effort. “If you didn’t agree with him, he attacked you.” Jake Files, a former Republican state representative, recalled that the governor would call lawmakers into his office and state his plans. “Kind of like getting called to the principal’s office,” Mr. Files said. “If you don’t line up with him, Katie bar the door.”

Still, Huckabee doesn't have the nomination clinched just yet. In New Hampshire, a state with far fewer evangelical voters, McCain is widely regarded as a major threat to Huckabee's momentum. And all this speculation about the early primary and caucus results ignores the heavyweight lurking in the corner: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani never planned to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Ultimately, the man who gets the nomination will be the man who has the most delegates at the convention-- and coincidentally, Iowa and New Hampshire don't have a whole lot of those. Giuliani knows this, and is choosing to focus his strategy on the delegate-rich states of California, Florida, and New York. Those are the races that really matter on the road to Minneapolis, and they could easily upset what the media is currently painting as a Romney vs. Huckabee race. As always, it ain't over til' it's over.

As for the Democrats, I think I'll wait and see what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday before I do a write up of Obama. Mainly because I'm lazy -- not quite as lazy as the Thompson campaign, but still.