McCain's Running Mate Dilemma

The Wall Street Journal says Barack Obama has an easier assignment than John McCain has when it comes to picking a running mate.

And the Wall Street Journal is absolutely right.

"As a young, rookie candidate running on 'change,' Barack Obama can help himself by choosing a safe, seasoned politician like Evan Bayh or Joe Biden," observes the Journal.

"As the trailing candidate from an unpopular party, John McCain has the harder decision because there really is no obvious candidate."

The Journal proceeds to list all the names that get mentioned frequently in this conversation — and includes the reasons why those candidates would be a drag on the Republican ticket:

• Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — "[W]rong last name."


• Florida Gov. Charlie Crist — "[T]oo-frequent political opportunism that would disappoint much of the party."


• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — Ditto.


• Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romeny — "[He] failed to catch fire in the primaries ... and ... his Mormonism seems to be an issue with many evangelicals." The Journal, for its part, finds fault with Romney because he "continues to defend his state health-care reform."


• Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — "[H]e'd probably alienate too many social conservatives."

With some of the other names that have been mentioned, the Journal raises objections that aren't quite as severe — but it still raises objections:

• Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — A conservative who is "as confused as Mr. McCain on global warming, but he seems to have more principles than Mr. Crist."


• Former Management and Budget director Rob Portman — "Some McCain advisers will say his Bush experience rules him out, but he has depth as a policy wonk."


• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — Has "potential and appeal" but lacks "stature" and would "give up Mr. McCain's clear experience edge over Mr. Obama."


• Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — Ditto.


• Meg Whitman of eBay — "[The] magnitude of press scrutiny that any nominee must endure today is a lot to ask of someone who's never sought elective office."


• Fred Smith of FedEx — Ditto.


• South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford — He "did stumble recently during a CNN interview ... . Still, it was a minor misstep, and Mr. McCain could do worse."

The Journal admits to favoring former Sen. Fred Thompson, who "might make sense ... (for) promising to serve one term, clean up the mess, and go home. On the other hand, he might be better suited for Attorney General if Mr. McCain prevails."

When all is said and done, the Journal concedes, "If there were a miracle choice for Mr. McCain, that person would be obvious by now. There isn't, and an attempt to find one can easily backfire."

Jindal Says No to No. 2 Slot

Louisiana's young Indian-American Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, took himself out of the running for the running mate spot on John McCain's ticket today.

"I’ve got the job that I want," Jindal said, insisting that he will do everything he can to promote McCain to Louisiana's voters.

Jindal, reportedly, has been on McCain's "short list" for the vice presidency, but it's probably best that he won't be running. McCain has often criticized his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for being too young and inexperienced — but Obama is a decade older than Jindal, who was elected governor last fall.

Having Jindal on the ticket, even with his conservative credentials, could have undercut McCain's argument about Obama's youth and inexperience.

If Jindal had been nominated for — and then won — the vice presidency, he wouldn't have been our youngest vice president ever.

Close — but not quite.

Most inexperienced? Well, who's to say? I guess it would be fair to say that Jindal would have one of the thinnest résumés of an incoming vice president — although Obama doesn't exactly bring an extensive political résumé to the fall campaign, either.

Who are McCain's top prospects now?

Well, Dana Bash of CNN says "a Republican source ... tells CNN that [McCain] dropped a serious hint about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty."

I'll say this much — with the Republican convention being held in Minnesota, naming the state's governor as running mate would produce a dramatic story.

And Mitt Romney continues to get talked about. Hillary Chabot writes, in the Boston Herald, that Romney is "near the top of a very short list."

At least, that's what one of Romney's confidantes apparently has told Chabot.

And Romney has made no secret of the fact that he'd like to be on the ticket.

But, as I've mentioned before — and, as just about everyone already seems to know — Romney and McCain don't like each other.

Dick Morris writes, in The Hill, that choosing Romney as his running mate would be a bad idea for McCain.

"Would he help McCain win fiscal conservatives?" Morris asks. "If Obama’s tax plans don’t accomplish that, one has to wonder about their sanity."

Morris apparently likes four other prospects — Condi Rice and Colin Powell ... "Or McCain could send a statement to Democrats and independents and become the first candidate since Abraham Lincoln to cross party lines and put a person from the opposite party on his ticket by selecting Joe Lieberman. ...

"Any of these three choices would make a 'wow' statement that would make voters see McCain in a new light."

Morris also likes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a "a slightly less radical" option.

"With almost nothing but his innate skill as a speaker and his warm, friendly personality, Huckabee was able to energize the evangelical base as nobody has since Pat Robertson," writes Morris.

"But, in the process, he challenged it to move on to new issues and embrace causes like global hunger as ardently as the right to life."

In the Wake of the Tsunami

What wisdom can we take in the wake of "Tsunami Tuesday"?

Milliions of Americans voted in primaries and caucuses across the country on Tuesday. And neither party is 100% certain who its nominee will be.

So those who believed that everything would be settled before Valentine's Day are facing a different reality than the one they expected.

Republicans can be reasonably sure that John McCain will be at the top of their ticket. He has about 60% of the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, and even though the Republican Party awards most of its delegates on a winner-take-all or winner-take-most basis in most states, they are awarded proportionally in most of the states that are left.

So it just doesn't seem possible that Mitt Romney and/or Mike Huckabee can win in enough places and by margins that are large enough to deny McCain the nomination.

But McCain turns 72 in August. No one that old (who wasn't already the incumbent) has ever been nominated by a major party.

People worried about Ronald Reagan's age, and he didn't turn 70 until after he took the oath of office. (For that matter, Reagan hadn't had two bouts with cancer or spent several years of his youth as a prisoner of war, either.)

People worried about Dwight Eisenhower's age and he had just gotten into his 70s when he finished his second term in office. (He also had a history of heart attacks.)

Along with complaints about McCain's conservative credentials from Romney and Huckabee, we might also hear rumblings about how he's "too old."

Well, to misquote Forrest Gump, maybe "old is as old does."

On the other hand, when you consider McCain's age, his selection of a running mate must be assessed in terms that go beyond the potential to gain votes for the nominee. His running mate could very well become president.

As I've pointed out before, this country was in a pattern for well over a century in which the vice president became president about every 13 years due to the incumbent's death or resignation. That hasn't happened since 1974, when Gerald Ford became president upon Richard Nixon's resignation.

It's been more than 40 years since a president died in office. And he was assassinated. The last president who died of natural causes while still in office was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So, in historical terms, we're way overdue.

And if we elect a 72-year-old man president, it's entirely possible that he won't survive a four-year term -- or eight years in office, if he is re-elected in 2012.

Some people have suggested that Huckabee has remained in the race to strengthen his bargaining position for a spot on the ticket. If McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate, be aware of the role vice presidents have played in our history and ask yourself if you want a potential commander-in-chief -- or pastor-in-chief?

Just something else to consider when you're deciding which candidate to support.

On the Democratic side, the race is still wide open. Hillary Clinton won nine primaries and caucuses, including the biggest ones (California and New York), and has 823 delegates pledged to her. Barack Obama won 13 contests and has 741 delegates.

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate must have 2,025 delegates -- so both candidates are well short of the mark right now.

If Obama wants to be president, writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "he will still have to slay the dragon. And his dragon is the Clinton attack machine, which emerged Tuesday night, not invincible but breathing fire."

John Judis writes, in the New Republic, that all four of the leading Democrats and Republicans have their problems. It's hard to argue with that.

At this point, with voters in more than half of the states having voiced their opinions, we still don't know who the nominees will be.

The Tsunami Begins

I can claim a semi-victory in one of my "Tsunami Tuesday" predictions. West Virginia's Republicans held their convention today, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won all 18 of the state's delegates to the national convention.

I predicted that Huckabee and front-runner John McCain would be the top two finishers in West Virginia. Huckabee got 52% of the vote at the convention, Mitt Romney got 47% and McCain got 1%

Huckabee, Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul apparently made in-person appeals for delegate support in West Virginia. McCain, as I understand it, did not make an appearance.

Polls are still open in the primary states so if you haven't voted yet, you still have time.

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!"

And Now, On To New Hampshire

CNN reports that the new front-runners in both parties, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, arrived in New Hampshire on Friday and attempted to capitalize on their Thursday night victories in the Iowa caucuses.

According to Rasmussen Reports, there are "no national front-runners." But as the winners of the first electoral activity in the presidential election season, Obama and Huckabee each have their own challenges to face as the scene shifts to New Hampshire.

For Huckabee, the challenge is to broaden his appeal beyond the evangelical Christians who powered his victory in Iowa. That group is not as influential in New Hampshire as it is in Iowa, so this is Huckabee's opportunity to demonstrate his voter appeal beyond his base.

According to an American Research Group survey completed in New Hampshire on Thursday, John McCain, with 35%, has taken the lead from Mitt Romney, with 25%. Huckabee is more than 20 percentage points behind McCain in that poll.

For Obama, the message in New Hampshire continued to be "change" as he spoke there Friday. Hillary Clinton continued to insist that she is the only candidate with the experience to make change possible.

Journalist Carl Bernstein told CNN that Clinton was "wounded" by her third-place finish in Iowa.

And CNN reports that John Edwards "seemed to suggest ... Clinton's third-place finish in Iowa may have rendered the New York senator effectively out of the presidential race." I'm not sure that's what Edwards was implying. If it was, he may have been indulging in some wishful thinking. With her resources, Clinton is indeed prepared to go the distance, even if she has a few early setbacks.

American Research Group finds a battle building between Clinton and Obama in New Hampshire. Its latest survey shows Clinton with 35% and Obama with 31%. Both candidates gained four percentage points since the last survey a couple of days after Christmas; Edwards dropped six percentage points during that time.

Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard that Clinton's aura of "inevitability" is gone as a result of the caucuses.

Barnes also observes that Huckabee "proved to have impressive campaign skills that may allow him to reach beyond the conservative Christian base responsible for his victory."

The New York Times warns, "It is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from the Iowa caucuses -- a telegenic display of activism by a tiny slice of Americans."

Even so, the Times concedes, "Some powerful political currents were on display in Iowa, starting with a yearning for change and inspirational leadership among Democrats."

And that wasn't all, the Times points out. "Republicans, too, talked about change, but mostly it was changing their association with President Bush."

We'll find out in a few days how the messages of change play with New Hampshire's voters.

Tonight, you can see the Democratic and Republican hopefuls debate in Manchester, N.H., on ABC starting at 7 p.m. Eastern time, 6 p.m. Central time.

In the Aftermath of Iowa

Were you surprised that Barack Obama won in Iowa? Or that Mike Huckabee won on the Republican side?

Neither outcome really surprised me. The caucuses are held with different rules in Iowa, rules that seemed to favor each winning candidate.

For the Democrats, it seemed fairly obvious that money would be a key factor, so it appeared likely that one of the two best financed candidates, Obama and Hillary Clinton, would be at the top.

Things are done in a very public manner in caucuses. In Democratic caucuses, "viability" as a candidate is rewarded. If a candidate fails to get 15% support in a caucus' first round, that candidate is eliminated and his/her supporters are encouraged to line up with their second choice from among the surviving candidates.

For example, Candidate A receives 12% in the first round. Candidate B receives 27%, Candidate C receives 26%, Candidate D receives 24%, Candidate E receives 6%, and Candidate F receives 5%. Candidates A, E and F are eliminated and only Candidates B, C and D will be considered in the second round.

The supporters of A, E and F must choose a candidate to support in the second round. And their support will be critical, since they represent nearly a quarter of the vote in this hypothetical scenario.

The second vote is taken, and that outcome is what is reported.

Clinton's problem was that too few Democrats considered her to be their second choice. Hence, she lost some caucuses she might have won. The results suggest she was only able to hold on to her base in the caucuses, and that may indicate that Clinton has more of a problem with her well publicized "negatives" within her own party than her campaign has been willing to acknowledge.

If Clinton wins the nomination but can't build a coalition of Democrats, she isn't likely to win independents or make a dent among Republicans.

Obama reveled in the victory. "They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But ... at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do."

But, although the victory was significant for Obama, it is a sign of his inexperience in national politics that he doesn't appear to realize that winning tends to subject a candidate to renewed scrutiny. If he is perceived as the front-runner now, everything will be under a media microscope.

That's a lesson that Huckabee's campaign has been learning following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

But it remains to be seen if the Iowa caucuses mean anything. Caucus winners don't always win the nomination or the presidency.

Officially, on the Democratic side, Obama received 38%. John Edwards finished second with 30% and Clinton was third with 29%.

The Republican caucuses are similar, but there is no viability threshold. Republicans vote once and that outcome is what is reported. So it's closer in that regard to a primary. One gets a truer picture of the support for each candidate.

As was anticipated, the activist social conservatives turned out to support former Baptist minister Huckabee, who received 34%. Mitt Romney was second with 25%. Fred Thompson edged out John McCain for third; they both finished with about 13%.

Twenty years ago, another evangelist, Pat Robertson, made headlines by finishing second in the Iowa caucuses. Bob Dole won in Iowa that night, but Vice President George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Romney's campaign is wounded but it has little time to lick its wounds. In a few days, voters will go to the polls in New Hampshire, where McCain is perceived as a legitimate threat to Romney.

It was to be expected that each candidate would put the best spin possible on the outcome.

"The one thing that’s clear with the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won," Edwards proclaimed.

Acting more like a winner than the third-place finisher, Clinton told her supporters, "We are going to have change, and that change is going to be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009."

David Brooks, in The New York Times, calls the victories for Obama and Huckabee "the two earthquakes" that rippled through American politics last night.

"I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country," Brooks writes. "I’ve never been through an election night that brought two."

The Los Angeles Times suggested the Iowa results would help to "narrow the field," which seems to be happening. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd apparently are dropping out of the Democratic race.

New Hampshire's voters go to the polls on Tuesday.

As They Prepare for the Caucus and the Primary ...

Today is Christmas, and my gift to my readers is my view of the presidential races and what is likely to happen when Iowans hold their caucuses a week from Thursday and voters in New Hampshire hold their primaries two weeks from today.

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton likes to use the word "experience" to describe her qualification to be president. But this is her first national campaign as the candidate. Previously, she was in a supporting role.

The one with the experience in a national campaign is John Edwards, and he has a network of support in place in Iowa that propelled him to a second-place finish there four years ago. The question in the caucus is whether those supporters will actually turn out this time. Are those voters as reliable in 2008 as they were in 2004?

I've heard political analysts say that only about 10% of Iowa's electorate turn out for the caucuses, so the old adage about how "every vote counts" really is true in Iowa.

I have the feeling that Edwards is poised to spring a surprise in Iowa. He can survive until the New Hampshire primary the following week, even if he finishes second again in Iowa. But to remain in the race, he needs a strong showing in one or both of those states -- if only to demonstrate his appeal and vote-getting ability outside the South.

Can Barack Obama fail to win Iowa and New Hampshire -- and still be a factor in the race? That depends on how well he does. If he loses either state -- or both states -- by double digits, it may be over for him. If he is close to the top finisher, his campaign can survive awhile longer.

If Mrs. Clinton finishes first in both states, the party is over for the rest of the field, and momentum will take over. If she loses in both states, the party may be over for her.

REPUBLICANS

I think Mike Huckabee is likely to win Iowa, where evangelical Christians represent a sizable bloc. They seem comfortable with him. He's apparently the kind of candidate those voters thought they were getting when George W. Bush first sought the nomination in 2000.

Mitt Romney will likely finish second in Iowa. I think he and Huckabee will combine for perhaps 60% of the Iowa vote. The remaining 40% will be divided up among the rest of the Republican field.

After that, Romney's main challenge in New Hampshire appears to be coming from John McCain. Like Edwards in Iowa, McCain has a strong core of support in New Hampshire from his successful primary campaign there eight years ago. But McCain must contend with questions about his age. He will be 72 when the next president is sworn in.

I think Romney may be able to pull off the win in New Hampshire, but I think he will be wounded in Iowa and may not be an effective candidate in the other primaries that are coming up in January and early February.

If he's unable to win in New Hampshire, McCain's campaign is probably finished.

I think Rudy Giuliani's best chance to win comes later in January when voters in Florida will vote. Giuliani has been polling well in Florida. American Research Group, for example, has been reporting that Giuliani consistently has been receiving between 26% and 33% in Florida, which leads the field there.

If Giuliani's support in Florida collapses in favor of McCain (following a hypothetical McCain triumph in New Hampshire), Giuliani should consider withdrawing from the race.

Fred Thompson needs to win somewhere early in order to establish the momentum he needs in the primaries to come. The super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5 will be costly for candidates and only those with the best financing and the best organizations will be competitive that day.

One last thing ... VOTE! If you live in Iowa, participate in the caucus. If you live in New Hampshire, vote in the primary.

And a Merry Christmas to all.

Huckacide?

Rich Lowry writes in Townhall.com that Republicans will be committing political suicide -- "huckacide," as the headline on his column calls it -- if they nominate Mike Huckabee for president.

Lowry makes a good case, comparing Huckabee to Howard Dean in 2004, but it can't be overlooked that Townhall.com cast its lot with Mitt Romney earlier this week -- and, therefore, has a vested interest in seeing Huckabee start to fall in the polls.

Lowry points to many Huckabee weaknesses -- his unabashed opposition to the theory of evolution, his history of raising taxes while governor of Arkansas, his lack of national security credentials. "Wherever you scratch Huckabee on policy, he seems an inch deep," Lowry writes.

"Democrats have to be looking at Huckabee the way Republicans once regarded Dean," Lowry says, "as a shiny Christmas present that is too good to be true."

We won't have to wait long to find out how Huckabee's message is really playing with the Republican voters. Iowa holds its caucuses in less than three weeks, and the New Hampshire primary is a little more than three weeks away.

Life Imitates Art?

Well, maybe not exactly.

I was just thinking about "The West Wing" and the fictional presidential campaign that consumed most of the final two seasons of that program -- and its similarities to our current presidential campaign.

Devotees of the series already know how that campaign turned out -- while the first vote has yet to be cast in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Still, we can paint this one in fairly broad brushstrokes. We don't need to know how the story ends right now.

For starters, Rudy Giuliani may not be the only Republican candidate who is pro-choice, but he's really the only one who hasn't run away from that position. And he's been leading in most Republican polls for most of this year, although Christian conservatives have been looking elsewhere.

On "The West Wing," Alan Alda played a pro-choice Republican who won the nomination but struggled to get the support of Christian conservatives and even put one on his ticket to make his candidacy more palatable to Christian conservatives.

Now, on "The West Wing," Alda's character was from California. Giuliani, of course, is from the opposite coast, the former mayor of New York. But Giuliani's nomination would put a large Democratic state in play, much as Alda's character did.

On the Democratic side, it now appears that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be nominated. If that happens, we will have the first woman or the first black at the top of a national ticket. On "The West Wing," the Democrats nominated the first Hispanic candidate -- played by Jimmy Smits.

The fly in the ointment looks like it could be Mike Huckabee, who is now leading in Iowa polls and has pulled into second place, behind Giuliani, in the latest national poll from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation.

Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. "The West Wing" had its Christian conservative making an unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination -- and then declining to be considered for the No. 2 spot. It's far from clear whether Huckabee would accept or reject the No. 2 spot if it is offered to him.

If the rest of the story follows the lead of "The West Wing," it will be a cliffhanger of an election. As divided as the country seems to be politically, it's not much of a stretch to predict that.

It could be a bumpy ride!

A Commanding Lead for Huckabee in Iowa

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has opened up a huge lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa, according to the latest Newsweek poll.

Newsweek found that 39% of Republicans in Iowa favor Huckabee, while 17% favor Romney. Fred Thompson's support level stands at 10%. The rest of the Republican presidential hopefuls drew less than 10% support apiece in the poll, which was released today.

The timing of the poll is interesting, primarily because a large number of Iowa's Republican caucus participants are social conservatives -- the very same group Romney has been trying to appeal to. It's clearly the group he was appealing to in yesterday's speech. (David Kusnet of the New Republic found the speech to be "divinely uninspired.")

Yet Huckabee, who hasn't spent nearly as much money on his Iowa campaign as Romney has, appears to be running away with the apparent victory there. The caucus is to be held January 3, which is less than four weeks away. CNN's John King says he has been told by a senior Romney adviser that Huckabee's lead is "not a surprise" and there is "not a lot of time to turn them around."

The comment about Huckabee's lead not being a surprise reminded me of Election Night 1980 in Arkansas. I was a young University of Arkansas journalism student who was working at the county courthouse as part of a class assignment to help with the county vote tabulation.

History buffs will recall that was the election that put Ronald Reagan in the White House. It was also the night that Gov. Bill Clinton lost his only statewide campaign in Arkansas. He lost a close vote to Frank White, a defeat Clinton would avenge two years later.

I recall many of us gathered around a TV late that night to watch Clinton concede the election. He told his listeners that White's victory was "not a surprise" to his campaign staff, who had been monitoring tracking polls -- but the vote clearly shocked most of us in the courthouse that night.

It will be worth watching Iowa to see what kind of efforts the Romney campaign will make to lure Huckabee supporters to its side in the next four weeks.

Or will Romney's staff be in the role of Clinton's staff in 1980, insisting that the defeat -- much like the deficit in the latest poll -- was not unanticipated?

What About Iowa?

Republicans and Democrats will be making their way to the caucuses in Iowa on January 3. That's about five weeks from now.

And Rasmussen Reports says that, for the first time, a poll shows former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leading the GOP pack.

Rasmussen's latest poll has Huckabee with 28% and his nearest competitor, Mitt Romney, at 25%. Everyone else is far behind. For Huckabee, that reflects a 12-point increase; for Romney, it's a 4-point decrease.

And what makes Huckabee's lead even more remarkable is that he hasn't spent nearly as much money in Iowa as Romney has. In that competition, it hasn't even been close.

Romney's been banking on a win in Iowa to give him momentum in New Hampshire. But it's looking like Huckabee might be the one who comes away from Iowa with the momentum for the New Hampshire primary less than a week later.

More About Huckabee

The Washington Post reports that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's surge in Iowa, which holds its caucuses in about five and a half weeks, "has further scrambled a race that already defied easy prediction."

Huckabee really began drawing attention as a candidate when he finished second in the Iowa straw poll back in August, despite making a minimal financial investment and earning, through his oratorical skill, the support of people who attended the event on Mitt Romney's dimes.

Christian conservatives are the key for Huckabee. If his campaign staff can get them to the caucuses in Iowa and produce a win, their hope is that it will create a groundswell that will carry them in New Hampshire and South Carolina and then translate into big victories in February when most of the big states hold their primaries.

Money has been coming in at a faster clip for Huckabee now that he's rising in the polls and getting more press attention. But he still trails Romney and other high-profile candidates in that department.

His success will depend, in part, on energizing his base, the evangelical Christians.

In the words of Christian conservative radio personality Steve Deace, "The most loyal and largest voting bloc the Republican Party has are pro-life voters . . . marriage issues, family issues. Those are issues of priority for us. Mike, by far -- and it's not even close -- has the most consistently positive positions."

The Post quotes Deace as urging big-name Christian conservative leaders to "stop playing games" and get behind Huckabee. "If we rally around him, he could win. Maybe you're like me. I'm tired of plugging my nose and voting for someone."

Huge Endorsement for Huckabee?

If The American Spectator is correct, at a time when we have recently seen Pat Robertson endorse the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani and former presidential candidate Sam Brownback endorse John McCain, we may be on the verge of witnessing an even bigger endorsement among social conservatives.

According to The American Spectator, Dr. James Dobson is planning to endorse former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee within the next 10 days. The endorsement will include an appearance by Huckabee on Dobson's radio show, which is broadcast nationally.

Such an endorsement could be a real bonanza for the Huckabee campaign in terms of fund-raising. According to a source close to the Huckabee campaign, Dobson's endorsement "would help us get to the Thompson-McCain level (in fund-raising) if not higher. Dr. Dobson's endorsement means that much."

It didn't take long for the God-o-Meter to react. Huckabee's ranking is now the best among Republicans -- but, not, apparently, because of Dobson's impending endorsement. The God-o-Meter was responding to another endorsement of Huckabee, this one from Rev. Donald Wildmon of Tupelo, Miss.

Wildmon is the founder of the American Family Association and has been involved in protests against pornography and violence in the media.

Among Wildmon's targets have been the following TV shows -- Three's Company, Charlie's Angels, Magnum P.I., M*A*S*H and Dallas.

Do people pay attention to endorsements when making their voting decisions? Here in Dallas, the candidate who was recently elected mayor was endorsed by former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach. Did Staubach's support make a difference in the election? Some say yes, some say no.

As far as what kind of impact Dobson's endorsement will have on the campaign is concerned, CNN contributor Roland Martin contends that the focus of evangelical Christians "was never really principles of the faith but the Republican Party" and they will line up reliably behind the eventual nominee.

Even if that nominee is Rudy Giuliani, with his record of being pro-gay rights and pro-choice? Martin says yes, because the evangelicals will be united by their concern about Hillary Clinton appointing Supreme Court justices.

Are evangelical voters that united in their views? We'll see.

Surveys have mixed results when it comes to the influence that endorsements have on elections. Newspapers issue endorsements every election season, but there is no solid evidence that such endorsements affect the outcome. There are always a few voters who vote for every candidate endorsed by a publication, and there are always a few who vote against every candidate endorsed by that publication.

Ultimately, though, it seems most voters make up their own minds, and it remains open to debate how much influence endorsements have on their decisions.

The main value that endorsements seem to have is the "buzz" value. The more publicity a candidate gets, the better off he is.

By that measuring stick, the big loser this week is Fred Thompson, who has seen his other rivals pick up big-name endorsements but has failed to gain a big-name endorsement of his own. Giuliani and McCain each snared big names this week, Mitt Romney recently gained the support of Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich and reports indicate that Huckabee is on the verge of getting one (Dobson) following the endorsement of another {Wildmon).

Huckabee May Gain Endorsement in New Hampshire

The Republican members of the New Hampshire State Employees Association (SEA) are planning to meet with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee at the end of this week with the apparent intention of endorsing his candidacy, according to a report in the Manchester Union Leader.

The group's Democratic members have already endorsed John Edwards for his party's nomination. If the Republican members endorse Huckabee, that will mean that the front runners in both parties have been ignored by the organization.

In other news affecting New Hampshire, Democrats in Michigan may make the date of their January primary official tonight. If that happens, it would clear the way for New Hampshire to schedule its primary date. By law, New Hampshire's primary must be the first in the nation.

Defining Moments

Apparently, we've reached a stage in the campaign where leading presidential candidates are having their "defining moments."

In today's New York Times, one of my favorite columnists, Maureen Dowd, makes a point about Hillary Clinton that is similar to the one I've made in a previous post in this blog. Basically, the thing that Hillary feels strongly about is winning.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing for a politician to care about. A politician has to win elections in order to accomplish anything. But that seems to be where Hillary steps off the train. She wants to win. What she wants to accomplish once she wins is really anyone's guess.

Even hers.

In the aftermath of Hillary's have-it-both-ways on illegal immigration moment during last week's Democratic debate, Dowd observes that "there is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be."

Dowd calls it the "Gift of Gall." I call it an absence of vision.

Karen Tumulty writes in Time magazine that Mitt Romney's defining moment actually occurred when he was governor of Massachusetts. And, although he might not embrace it readily today, that defining moment was his health care initiative that transformed the state into an example of universal coverage.

Tumulty says that the people around Romney assumed that his battle for universal health care coverage in Massachusetts, which included reaching out to one-time rival Sen. Edward Kennedy, would be the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House, illustrating his "data-driven, goal-oriented, utterly pragmatic side."

But Tumulty points out that "that other Mitt Romney, the one who wouldn't be satisfied until he found the answer himself" seldom emerges on the campaign trail.

One has to wonder if it will emerge more frequently if he wins the nomination and needs to run more to the center against the Democratic nominee.

For Mike Huckabee, the defining moment may be coming in a series of moments, starting with his surprising second-place finish in the straw poll of Iowa Republicans in August. That's when people really began talking about Huckabee.

Then, polls began to show Huckabee moving up in the standings. And then he made some waves with his speech to the Values Voters Summit in Washington, where he scored points with Christian conservatives, who are looking for the anti-Giuliani candidate who can successfully articulate their values and concerns.

If Huckabee can do well in Iowa, as Pat Robertson did a generation ago, it won't be necessary for him to win. Nor will it be necessary to win in New Hampshire, writes Charles Mahtesian of the Washington Post. After all, another Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton, didn't win New Hampshire's primary in 1992; he merely beat expectations before moving on to a series of primary victories that led to the nomination.

If Huckabee survives in Iowa and New Hampshire, it probably means one of the leading candidates didn't survive, Mahtesian, editor of The Almanac of American Politics, says. And that will mean a huge opportunity in the South Carolina primary, only days before Super Tuesday, when several Southern states with larger numbers of Southern Baptist voters (including Huckabee's home state of Arkansas) will be voting.

That will be Huckabee's time to shine, Mahtesian says. It's a tricky dance for the one-time Baptist preacher, but not one that is out of his range.

The Expectations Game

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was the subject of my post yesterday. And he's continuing to get press attention today.

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register tells readers today that Huckabee's success is being fueled by a "Reagan-like spirit" at precisely the time when the Republicans are looking for someone like Ronald Reagan to lead their party.

Huckabee has been the talk of Iowa since finishing a strong second to Mitt Romney in a straw poll in August. Now, almost exactly two months before Iowans hold their caucuses, the talk centers on whether he can win the GOP caucus in early January.

Romney has a huge edge in financial support, but he can't match Huckabee when it comes to sounding like a populist Republican. In fact, none of the other Republicans can.

Huckabee has drawn criticism for implementing a tax increase as governor. That tax increase was supported by the voters. In his defense, Huckabee says, "You always ought to be governing by your basic principles, but you also have to understand that government has to work."

It's that kind of understanding of how government works that has helped governors be uniquely suited for the task of being president. Voters keep electing them, at least. Since 1976, five men have been elected president and four were either former or sitting governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush). The exception, George H.W. Bush, had executive experience as the sitting vice president.

Yet Romney hasn't demonstrated the governor's kind of understanding of how government operates. And that may spell disaster for Romney when the Iowa caucuses are held.

And yet ...

Conservatives aren't altogether willing to embrace Huckabee just yet. In fact, the Washington Times says conservatives are wondering if Huckabee can keep evangelicals in the GOP tent instead of bolting to form a third party.

I find it interesting that the conservative Washington Times quotes none other than Phyllis Schlafly as saying that many of the evangelical Christians who "sold" voters on George W. Bush eight years ago are trying to do the same thing with Huckabee now.

In that same article, tax-cut advocate Grover Norquist is quoted as saying Huckabee is "the only Republican in Arkansas who can beat a Democrat for the Senate."

If I read that correctly, Norquist is suggesting that Huckabee should withdraw from the presidential race and run for the Senate next year. The problem with that is, the Senate seat that is up for election in Arkansas in 2008 belongs to Mark Pryor, the son of popular former Gov. and former Sen. David Pryor, who was a fixture in state politics for four decades.

Pryor defeated the last Republican incumbent senator from Arkansas, and I doubt he would have any trouble dispatching Huckabee in a Senate race. Suggesting that Huckabee return to Arkansas and run for the Senate is like suggesting political suicide. At least in 2008.

Roger Simon of The Politico says Huckabee just isn't conservative enough to suit some people.

I'm not sure if he's right about that. But Simon might be on to something when he says that Huckabee's real problem with some fiscal conservatives may be that he's "anti-greed," which is an unusual position for a Republican.

Simon cites another good Huckabee quote in making the point. “I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street. CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder-working, and that is wrong.”

Expectations for Huckabee continue to evolve. It will be interesting to see where the expectations stand around Christmas, which will be about a week before the Iowa voters hold their caucuses.

My Arkansas Roots

I grew up in Arkansas.

But I haven't lived there since 1988. And, while it might be hard to remember those days, I'll try to refresh your memory.

Nineteen years ago, Ronald Reagan was in his last full year in the White House. The Republicans were about to nominate George H.W. Bush to succeed him, and Bush was about to introduce us all to Dan Quayle. Michael Dukakis had just gotten the Democrats' presidential nomination at the convention that introduced America to Ann Richards.

In your movie theaters, Kevin Costner, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were starring in "Bull Durham," and animation mixed with live action in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

In Arkansas, Bill Clinton had been governor longer than anyone since Orval Faubus, but he wasn't well known outside his home state. When I was about to move to Texas that summer, Clinton had just been panned for his lengthy speech nominating Dukakis for the presidency.

He became the butt of so many jokes that he wound up being invited to appear on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson -- an invitation he readily accepted.

Four years later, when Clinton sought the nomination, his disastrous speech at the '88 convention never came up -- even though many of the political pundits of the day had predicted that the speech spelled the end of his national hopes.

I say this, not really thinking so much about Hillary as I am about Mike Huckabee. Hillary wasn't born and raised in Arkansas, she just came there with Clinton after college. But Huckabee was born and raised in Arkansas. He even comes from the same town -- Hope -- as Bill Clinton.

As an Arkansas boy, I sometimes find it hard to accept that Arkansas natives have commanded so much attention from the nation (and, in Clinton's case at least, the world) for so long.

I find it especially remarkable in Huckabee's case because Republicans were, mostly, non-existent in Arkansas when I was growing up.

For four years when I was a child, Winthrop Rockefeller was governor, but he was really the only Republican of any significance from Arkansas for many years -- and he certainly wasn't one of the breed of today's Republicans.

He was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, who managed to appeal to many Democrats in Arkansas who didn't like the segregationist nature of Democratic nominees in that state at that time.

After Dale Bumpers came out of nowhere and defeated both Orval Faubus (in the Democratic primary) and Rockefeller (in the general election) in 1970, Republicans would go many more years before becoming truly competitive in Arkansas.

And that came about in large part because of the influence of the religious right, embodied in Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.

So, I guess, it's appropriate that the most noteworthy Republican from Arkansas has been a Baptist preacher as well as a governor.

It's that gift of being able to speak well to an audience that is grabbing attention for Huckabee.

Today, for example, Fred Siegel of Commentary magazine calls Huckabee William Jennings Huckabee. I guess that has to be my favorite play on words in this campaign, not only because Huckabee has been gaining a reputation for a "silver tongue" (which wouldn't be hard to do in this Republican lineup) but also because William Jennings Bryan rode his reputation as an outsider to the Democratic nomination three times in four elections (1896, 1900 and 1908).

Unfortunately for Bryan, he lost all three general elections.

In the final years of his life and career, Bryan gave speeches in Chatauqua meetings and participated in the Scopes "monkey" trial. Bryan was a diehard opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution -- and he actually died five days after the trial ended (not unlike the character played by Frederic March in the film version of the story, "Inherit the Wind").

Which should provide a couple of lessons for Huckabee.

If you're going to remind people of someone from the past, it better be somebody who won.

Or, at least, somebody who didn't die in the attempt.

Romney, Huckabee Favorites At The Values Voters Summit

Republicans have been gathering in Washington this weekend to appeal to Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit.

There never really was any question that abortion would be a hot topic at the summit.

And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani deserves credit for facing up to his stated position, which isn't very popular with Christian conservatives. Giuliani is pro-choice, and he didn't walk away from that position to win some votes.

"Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" Giuliani asked his listeners.

The sentiment was admirable, but not successful.

Even though Giuliani spoke about his own faith and his reliance on religion being "at the core of who I am," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished first in a straw poll of Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit, receiving 1,595 votes (27.6%) from 5,775 that were cast online, in person or by mail.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came in a close second with 1,565 votes (27.1%), Texas Rep. Ron Paul was third with 865 votes (15.0%) and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes (9.8%).

The remaining 20% were divided among the other Republican candidates. In that group, Giuliani received just 102 votes (1.8%).

Based on that, it appears that Giuliani has considerable work to do to convince Christian conservatives to support him in both his bid for the nomination and, if successful, his bid to win the general election -- even though Giuliani tried to reassure the restless Christian conservatives by telling them that he would appoint conservative judges, support school choice and demand victory in Iraq.

Those are all issues that are important to Christian conservatives -- but it appears that abortion remains the No. 1 issue with that voting bloc.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who emphasized his own conservative credentials and his opposition to abortion, appears to be increasingly irrelevant to the presidential campaign. He received only 81 votes (1.4%).

Among those who voted in person at the summit and heard all the candidates speak, Huckabee, who criticized the "holocaust of liberalized abortion," was the clear choice, receiving 488 of 952 in-person votes (51.3%). Romney received 99 in-person votes (10.4%).

It's odd that Romney should win the overall vote, based on his support for the anti-abortion cause. His original position was pro-choice, but he has switched to pro-life since deciding to enter the presidential race. Romney also has some work to do to persuade Christian conservatives that Mormons are Christians. About half of Christian conservatives polled are unconvinced.

On the Democratic side, there's some news from Iowa. The Storm Lake Times endorsed Delaware Sen. Joe Biden for the presidency, following Biden's recent visit to the small town of Storm Lake in western Iowa. The newspaper told its readers that Biden has the "professional skills and ... the personal strength" to be president.

Will Huckabee Win In Iowa?

A report in the Washington Post suggests that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee could be the surprising winner of Iowa's Republican caucus in January.

Huckabee has already pulled off one surprise in Iowa, finishing second behind Mitt Romney in the August straw poll. That poll was non-binding. The caucus in January won't be.

I have a friend in Arkansas who used to be a Democrat but now considers himself an independent. He has concluded -- as I have -- that experience as a governor (i.e., executive branch) is better, both for winning and for governing, than experience in the House or Senate (i.e., legislative branch).

It's hard to argue with that conclusion. Since 1960, we've had current and former vice presidents (Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush) and former governors (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) in the presidency, but only one sitting member of Congress (John F. Kennedy) has been elevated to the White House.