The New England Patriots....16-0. Now, the important work begins. Win three more games and take home the Lombardi Trophy.

Edwards is surging in Iowa, and Huckabee is showing signs of fading. More on the Huckabee fade. Here is some new polling information from Iowa. It seems like a fluid situation. Who will show up? I still look for only a little separation between Clinton, Edwards and Obama on the Democratic side. If Romney can end up winning in Iowa (especially if he can create some room between himself and Huckabee), that will certainly help him in his effort to hold off McCain here in New Hampshire.

The New York Times hires one of its fiercest critics.

Andrew Cline thinks we should keep an eye on Ron Paul here in New Hampshire. I agree. It is reminiscent of the Pat Buchanan phenomenon in 1996.

The big news today is, of course, the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It appears that Al Qaeda is taking responsibility, but it is too early, in my estimation, to believe anything that comes from any group. Michelle Malkin has a link-filled post on the subject. Here is the story from Sky News, and from Yahoo, and from The Sun. Pajamas Media also has a roundup. I can't imagine anything that would destabilize Pakistan more than this, which is why I find it hard to believe it was anyone other than Al Qaeda. But, having said that, Pakistan is infamous for killing it's own, so I will withhold judgement. Still, this is very bad news, indeed.

John McCain continues to get positive press today, as Bob Novak says Republican insiders now believe he may very well be the last man standing at the end of the nominating process. Here is the Washington Post's story about his resurgence, and a very positive piece in the New York Times about McCain's relationship with his children. Ironically, the McCain surge could be very helpful for Hillary Clinton. How so? If McCain surges here in New Hampshire, he may attract more independents to come into the GOP primary to vote for him, leaving fewer to go into the Democratic primary to vote for Obama, thus helping Hillary win that primary. It gets curiouser and curiouser, eh?

I will be doing the afternoon show on WPRO-AM in Providence (filling-in for Dan Yorke) today. With the Iowa caucuses only eight days away, and the New Hampshire primary to follow five days after that, of course my main topic will be Presidential politics.

Will first-time caucus goers in Iowa actually show up? If so, who benefits most?

Is John McCain enjoying a revival in New Hampshire (Jeff Jacoby says yes), and why is that so?

Grass roots activists are filling the void left by the collapse of the old order in the GOP, at least according to this Boston Globe piece.

If Health Care is a significant issue this year, then this poll of New Hampshire voters on the issue should be of some interest. Also in New Hampshire, one reporter for the New York Times writes about the scary spectre of empty seats as candidates criss-cross the state. Notice that in one particular venue, Mitt Romney faced empty seats, but Obama packed them in.

The New York Times also runs an interesting piece on page one questioning the experience level of Hillary Clinton. It makes one go "hmmmmm".

The Concord Monitor came out yesterday with something unusual, an anti-endorsement. The paper, rather than telling us who they think we ought to support in the upcoming Presidential primary, decided to tell us who they thought we should avoid....Mitt Romney. The editorial board of the Monitor is quite liberal, which means I usually disagree with them. This time, though, I have to agree with their core assessment, which is that Mitt Romney is a phony.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption. There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter. The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life. There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign. People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.

Read the whole thing. Romney supporters can talk all they like about why the Liberals on the Monitor editorial board have an agenda, which they do, and are supposed to dislike a "conservative" like Romney, or that they are afraid of him as the best possible candidate to beat the Democratic nominee, etc., etc., but I use that excerpt for a reason. As a former Massachusetts resident, and a New Hampshire resident who lives near the border, I have followed Romney's career and well remember his campaigns, especially the Senate campaign. Long before the Monitor wrote this editorial, I came to the same conclusion about Mitt Romney, the man who will say whatever it takes to get elected.

Meanwhile, the latest polling data here in New Hampshire shows John McCain, a man who is well known for saying things, from time to time, that do not help him get elected, continues to gain ground. For New Hampshire Republican voters like me, watching the rise of Mike Huckabee, the revelation of Rudy Giuliani's baggage, and contemplating the blow-dried phoniness of Mitt Romney, John McCain just looks better and better (despite his maddening stubbornness on issues like immigration and campaign finance reform).

Here is a good analysis of what has been happening to the electorate here in New Hampshire over the last few years.

New Hampshire really has changed in many ways. Demographers like Peter Francese note that of its 1.3 million people almost 500,000 have arrived in the last two decades. And, according to a recent study by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute, 207,000 people moved in and 188,000 left between 2001 and 2005, a period that coincides with the post-9/11 awakening of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. The Institute estimates that 23.5 percent of the people voting on January 8 will be first-time New Hampshire voters.

Not all these newcomers are politically identical. Andrew Smith, the director of UNH's Survey Center, maintains, for example, that many of the Massachusetts expatriates in the southern tier who fled high taxes and housing prices are now the most Republican-leaning voters in the state, which still has no income tax.

But there are two other groups that are well represented at the unceasing daytime town meetings and campaign events during primary season. The first are affluent and highly educated retirees from other northeastern states, drawn to New Hampshire by its pastoral environs and low costs. They have the time, money, and interest to listen to candidates unveil their proposals in person, instead of watching them on C-SPAN. Fergus Cullen, the chairman of New Hampshire's Republican party, concedes that these voters "tend to be not that good for Republicans"--though he takes solace in the fact that the state is still far more Independent (44 percent) and Republican (30 percent) than it is Democratic (26 percent).

Read the whole thing.

The one caveat I would add to the analysis is that, one the state level, if the Democrats ever try to use their legislative majority and hold on the governor's office to put through an income tax they can kiss their majorities goodbye. While many of the Massachusetts refugees (and New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc.) and retirees are socially very liberal, and some are on the far left on issues of foreign policy, most will vote their economic interests like everyone else. That means, in the privacy of the voting booth, they will react badly to anything which makes their cost of living go up, especially if it resembles the nonsense that drove them from their states of origin.

Here is John Distaso's analysis of the campaign as we head down the home stretch, from Thursday's New Hampshire Union Leader.

Meanwhile, the FEC, which should be overseeing the campaign, is on hold as there are no longer enough commissioners to hold a quorum. The FEC bureaucracy will continue to function, but no major decisions and rulings are possible until the problem is resolved. As a consistent foe of so-called campaign finance reform, I don't think this development is necessarily a bad thing.

I was part of this story, on the front-page of the Boston Globe, about airline delays in and out of Logan. I was scheduled to fly the 6:30 PM Delta Shuttle from LaGuardia to Logan. Delta essentially surrendered to the snow and cancelled all the afternoon shuttle flights. They did, however, kindly book me on the 7 PM US Airways Shuttle flight from LaGuardia to Logan. After leaving the gate, sitting on the tarmac, and then returning to the gate, we finally pushed back about 11:45 PM or so. I arrived at Logan at 1:04 AM. I understand that the airlines cannot control the weather and are limited by the available runway space and the time required for deicing procedures. What I have difficulty with is why US Airways was able to fly from LaGuardia to Logan (and Logan to LaGuardia), however delayed, but Delta's operations essentially ground to a halt. The suits in Delta's corporate offices in Atlanta need to ask some tough questions. It won't matter with customers like me (my employers pay for my travel, so they choose the airline I fly) but a lot of the Delta refugees I talked with last night as we awaited the efforts of US Airways to get us home do have an option, and I suspect they may consider US Airways as a more reliable carrier than Delta.

An asteroid may strike Mars, while a group of scientists now believe it was a small asteroid that caused the Tunguska explosion.

Women of America...congratulations! Unlike your European cousins, enough of you are actually having children to put our fertility rate numbers up to replacement level. Hitting the 2.1 level for the first time in 35 years, this means a stable population (which will continue to see immigration driven growth), which means a workforce that can keep the economy humming and that will pay the taxes to care for the rest of us as we age. This is not true in most of the rest of the developed world. We'll see which path leads to prosperity and which to ruin.

Tancredo is out of the running for the GOP Presidential nomination. Oh, didn't know he was in that race? That's why he's now out. Which makes his endorsement of Mitt Romney rather weak.

McCain can win. I have pointed out that the Arizona Senator has been surging in the polls, and is now poised to possibly take the New Hampshire primary in a close, three or four-way race. Mark Hemmingway at NRO now sees the possibility of a McCain victory. Here is another analysis of McCain's surge, and the latest New Hampshire poll numbers. Joining the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald has now endorsed McCain. It is just another sign that tells me people who are looking for the best man to be President, with the right mix of experience and personal gravitas, are now giving McCain a second and third look.

I ran into former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen last night at LaGuardia. She was leaving New York after doing some fundraising for her Senate campaign (I was headed back to Boston after another day at Bloomberg Radio). Talking to her got me thinking about how the dynamics of this election has changed since the "surge" began in Iraq. For the New Hampshire Senate race, once Shaheen jumped in the other potential Democrats who had a chance to compete with Republican Senator John Sununu (Swett and Marchand) dropped out. Shaheen only barely lost the last time she took on Sununu, so it appeared like a lock for the Democrats to take that seat in 2008 with Shaheen as their standard bearer, what with the GOP reeling from the bad news coming out of Iraq. Now, though, the atmosphere has changed. The "surge" is working (forget about the whys and wherefores, whether it's the extra troops, the new strategy by Petraeus, the turning of the Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, the decision by Sadr to lay low, or a combination of all of those factors, the domestic political reality is that there is now a perception of success in Iraq rather than failure...here is one example of what is happening). Iraq is no longer the top issue. The Bush Administration, while still low in the polls, is no longer the focus of the race. This means that each local race (for Senate, House seats, Governor's offices, etc.) is now about local issues and, importantly, the strength of the Presidential ticket.

Which brings me to the latest from that race. This ABC News/Washington Post poll of Iowa shows that turnout is the key, with Obama holding a slim lead over Clinton, and Edwards well within striking distance. Another Iowa poll shows Edwards in the lead. In New Hampshire, the latest WMUR/CNN poll of the Democrats, conducted by the UNH Survey Center, shows Clinton still in the lead, but Obama is close and Edwards still has a shot. With Iraq off the table, Edwards now has a real chance to steal this thing from the front runners. Remember that Iraq was Clinton's liability and Obama's advantage (although national security was Clinton's advantage and Obama's liability). Take away Iraq and national security as top issues, then you return to domestic issues, which has always been the main arena for Edwards. If Edwards can win in Iowa, expect a surge (pardon the pun) in New Hampshire.

On the GOP side, the charges and counter-charges are flying as it is now clear that any one of at least four, and maybe five, different candidates could come away with the nomination. Tony Blankley says all the vitriol aimed at the front runner of the week could lead to a brokered convention. Rich Lowry marvels at how Giuliani continues to drop. In fact, in the latest national poll, Huckabee has gained a tie with Giuliani. Huckabee is leading in Iowa, but here in New Hampshire, I find the resurrection of John McCain to be most interesting. Look at the numbers in that WMUR/CNN poll on the GOP side. Romney still has a solid lead, and Huckabee went from nowhere to be a contender. But it is McCain who is really on the upswing. Once upon a time he was the front runner, then his campaign started to sink. But now it is back on the rise. With endorsements from the Union Leader, and even the Boston Globe, in his pocket, he can offer himself as the compromise candidate. A social conservative, but not tied too closely to the evangelical community, a fiscal conservative without the personal baggage of a Giuliani or the perception of flip-flopping that dogs Romney. Right about Iraq first, now and always. The toughest guy in the race, bar none (just ask his North Vietnamese captors). These perceptions are working for him now, as the negative stuff (wrong on campaign finance reform and immigration reform) fade into the background.

Social conservatives may have found their candidate in Mike Huckabee. Who, then will be the alternative? New Hampshire and South Carolina may give us the answer. If not, Blankley may just have it right.

Rich Lowry of the National Review believes the GOP would be committing political suicide if it nominates Mike Huckabee for President.

Huckabee hires former Reagan advisor Ed Rollins to help manage his campaign.

On the Democratic side, Clinton campaign advisor Bill Shaheen, husband of former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, resigns his position after bringing up Obama's youthful drug use as an issue and getting slammed for it. Was it just a blunder by Shaheen, or part of the normal operations of the Clintonistas, as Bill Kristol says. Either way, I think it is more of a negative than a positive for the Clinton campaign.

The trends continue to look good for Obama and Huckabee, and bad for Clinton, Romney and Giuliani. How might things play out? On the Democratic side, I can see Obama taking the nomination, even though he lacks the ideal resume in terms of foreign policy experience or even general government experience at the national level. The Democrats have nominated people in the past with a thin national political resume (Bill Clinton in '92, Mike Dukakis in '88, Jimmy Carter in '76, even John F. Kennedy was considered inexperienced when he was nominated in '60, even though he had been in Washington as a Representative and Senator since '48). The difference, of course, is that those others, with the exception of Kennedy, at least had executive experience on the state level, whereas Obama has had only a couple of years as a U.S. Senator and only State Senate experience in Illinois before that. Still, Democrats have swooned in the past for a candidate that seems to promise a return to idealism, which is why I like Obama's chances.

On the GOP side, the rise of Huckabee might just be the break Rudy Giuliani needs to win the nomination. I can see Huckabee winning in Iowa, but not here in New Hampshire, which will probably see a close finish between Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani, with McCain, Thompson and Ron Paul trailing the field. McCain and Thompson will be forced to drop out (much like Kucinich on the Democratic side, Paul will continue to campaign as he does not need a lot of money to continue). Huckabee could then take South Carolina, but Nevada might see a finish similar to NH. Then the race either breaks down into a Huckabee vs. Romney or a Huckabee vs. Giuliani campaign (with a possibility that all three could remain viable down the stretch). Brokered convention, anyone? While Romney seems like the best compromise candidate on the surface, it seems to me (and seems strange even as I write it) that Giuliani might be the better compromise, as he would be acceptable to fiscal conservatives, certainly, and might get enough social conservative votes, if those folks are turned off by Romney's flip-flopping (Rudy, while on the wrong side of the abortion issue, at least is consistent, and says he will nominate judges like Scalia for the Supreme Court) or by Romney's Mormonism.

This is all just speculation, of course. What I like about this cycle is its unpredictability.

I've been saying it for more than a year now, Obama is the man to watch in the New Hampshire primary. Now, Howard Fineman of Newsweek has this analysis of the Presidential race...

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is teetering on the brink, no matter what the meaningless national horse race numbers say. The notion that she has a post-Iowa “firewall” in New Hampshire is a fantasy, and she is in danger of losing all four early contests, including Nevada and South Carolina – probably to Sen. Barack Obama, who is now, in momentum terms, the Democratic front runner.

Fineman says this about Obama...

National polls still give Hillary a double-digit lead. Those polls mean nothing. What matters now is not the number but the direction, and Obama is movin’ on up at a rapid pace. Little pieces of evidence matter. In Manchester, N.H., the other day, Democratic Gov. John Lynch showed up at the Obama-Oprah rally, ostensibly to introduce Oprah, but, really to cover his bets politically. The newest polls in the state show why: Obama is tied with Hillary, and people are literally exchanging her lawn signs for his. If he can win Iowa – and it remains a big if – Hillary’s campaign could collapse. New Hampshire would almost surely go his way. The Culinary Workers in Nevada might well endorse him, as could influential South Carolina Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn. Black Democrats have complained for years that Iowa and New Hampshire are “too white.” But the irony is, South Carolina African-Americans I talked to last weekend want to see if Obama can win white votes before they commit to him. There is no better way of doing that than in Iowa and New Hampshire. And don’t forget something else: he has 150,000 online contributors. He can raise cash fast.

If Obama wins in Iowa, or finishes a close second, the momentum will drive left-leaning Independents here in New Hampshire into the Democratic primary and give him the win. If, as Fineman predicts, that leads South Carolina African-Americans to feel assured that Obama can win white votes, they may storm the polls for him there. Things look pretty bleak for Hillary at the moment, with not a lot of time to make things right.

If Hillary Clinton loses in Iowa, what is her Plan B? Why, I'm living there, of course. It's New Hampshire. While she has an excellent organization here, as I've been saying for many months, the real wild card is the impact of all those independents. Will they storm the Democratic side to vote for Oprah's favorite candidate?

The editors of the National Review have made their choice...Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee raises more questions about Mormonism. Also, Matt Drudge reports that some Democrats think a Huckabee nomination would make for "an easy kill". Those kinds of reports haven't made an impact, as of yet, as Huckabee continues to rise in the polls.

The annual Summer melt of the Arctic ice is accelerating, leaving some scientists to fear that a global warming tipping point is being reached. Other scientists descend upon a UN conference about the subject with the opposite message.

Vladimir Putin's hand-picked choice to succeed him as President of Russia is now saying, not surprisingly, that Putin should serve as Prime Minister. Wouldn't it be simpler if they just named him Tsar?

Google's Street View comes to Boston, starting this morning.

Human evolution is speeding up.

David Brooks says we may be looking at a post-war election. Of course, all it takes is one big setback, either in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in Pakistan, or a major act of terror against Americans at home or abroad, and we revert back to a wartime atmosphere.

A nasty new virus starts like a cold, but can turn deadly.

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, who finds his fifteen minutes of fame every four years (I know the feeling), says there are many questions still unanswered as we draw closer to the Iowa caucuses. With the caucuses scheduled for January 3, so close to the Holidays, it is hard to predict what effect that will have on turnout. However, with exciting races in both parties, it may not have any effect.

Michelle Malkin says an armed female security guard ended one of those Colorado church shootings by killing the gunman.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown tells British troops that their war will soon be over. Abandoned by almost all of our allies, our troops will, meanwhile, soldier on.

Another deleterious effect of prolonged weightlessness is that it suppresses the immune system, and may simultaneously energize certain nasty microbes. A nasty problem for those who are planning our effort to build a moon base and send people to Mars. Of course the most elegant solution would be to provide artificial gravity to our astronauts.

A new poll from Newsweek puts Huckabee into the lead in Iowa, with Obama getting closer to Clinton on the Democratic side. Dick Morris, in a guest appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor", has this analysis of the latest in the Presidential race. I agree with his contention that Huckabee is gaining strength as social conservatives look for an alternative to Giuliani. Thompson failed to catch on in this regard and Romney is losing ground because of the perception (quite correct, in my view) that he is a flip-flopper. Meanwhile, Hillary is also losing ground because she is being exposed as a phony. I now feel, as Morris does, pretty confident that Huckabee and Obama will win in Iowa, which will result in a crash in Romney's support here in New Hampshire (with unpredictable results at this time) and a chance for Obama to catch Hillary here, as well.

NBC rejects a pro-soldier ad from a conservative group.

In Darfur, the bad guys move closer to victory.

Derrick Z. Jackson releases his annual list of graduation rates for the major college football teams. It is one of the few areas where I can say, without reservation, read his column, because he is right.

Two Iraq War veterans, one who has been highly critical of Administration policy and the other who has been a supporter, jointly write an op-ed that outlines a way forward in what they call "The Long War".

According to this morning's New York Times, the change in the intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear activities was made after the discovery of a journal which indicated the Iranian military was frustrated with the decision to halt the military nuclear program in 2003. The estimate says that other information corroborates that journal. I smell a rat.

Why do I smell a rat? Because the political implications that follow from the new assessment result in an unqualified victory for the Iranians. New sanctions are now all but impossible. Military action is off the table, as well. Why, after all, should Iran be punished economically or militarily when they already have halted their pursuit of nuclear weapons?

Some people, though, don't trust the Iranians. Others, like former UN Ambassador John Bolton, don't trust our intelligence community to come up with an unbiased analysis. I'm with them on both counts.

John Distaso analyzes the most recent New Hampshire polling information. The key, in my estimation, is the volatility of the electorate, especially on the Republican side. An astounding sixty percent of Republicans say they could still change their minds, with 30 percent saying it is likely they will change their minds. This with only a few weeks to go. While Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney still hold the lead in their respective parties here, expect the Iowa results to have a major impact. Meanwhile, Ron Paul continues to raise a lot of money but, according to this Washington Post story, his campaign lacks organization, if not enthusiasm. He remains a wild card in the race. Bob Novak has some thoughts on the decision by the Romney campaign to address the issue of his Mormon faith in a speech today at the George H.W. Bush Library in Texas.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate from the American intelligence community says that Iran halted work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Michael Ledeen doesn't believe it. Norman Podhoretz doesn't either, and thinks that many members of the intelligence community have ulterior motives in producing this information. Oliver Kamm, apparently writing before the release of the NIE, says it is a dangerous illusion to believe that the Iranians are not working on a bomb. A few things need to be remembered when thinking about this stuff. First, up until 2003 the intelligence community believed that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons, possibly a nuclear program, perhaps a biological program). Their estimates were shown to be completely inaccurate. Second, in 2005 the NIE stated that they had high confidence the Iranians DID have an active nuclear weapons development program. As an American citizen of at least average intelligence, this leads me to conclude that I should have low confidence in any appraisal by our intelligence community, which puts me back to square one. So, what to do? As before, I maintain that the United States should not take unilateral military action against a nation that has not attacked us. The American people are bitterly divided over the war in Iraq because the justifications for that war were never clean and simple, and have become less so over time (contrasted by Afghanistan, which clearly was harboring Osama, who clearly was responsible for 9/11). This latest NIE will make it all but impossible for the U.S. to garner the political support for military action against Iran, either from the rest of the international community (Israel excepted), or the American people.

A new USA Today/CNN Gallup poll shows how the race for President is changing, with Clinton and Giuliani losing ground while Huckabee and Obama are closing the gap. Michael Barone analyzes what is happening in Iowa. In the Weekly Standard, some thoughts on the rise of Mike Huckabee. I think we now have ourselves a race in both parties. Here in New Hampshire, as I have written many times, it will all depend on which contest draws the lion's share of independent voters. I still believe, as I have been writing from the beginning, that most of those voters will go into the Democratic primary, driven by enthusiasm for Senator Obama. Iowa will be the spark. If Obama wins in Iowa, or at least finishes a very close second to Hillary, that will energize independents to come into the Democratic primary here in the Granite State. Meanwhile, if Huckabee wins in Iowa on the GOP side, that will energize fiscal conservatives in this state to look for the most viable alternative to Huckabee. I think John McCain can still be that man, especially with the recent Union Leader endorsement. Why not Romney? He still has the lead and a lot of strength here, but if he loses in Iowa a lot of that strength will evaporate. Why not Giuliani? Because fiscal conservative voters here in New Hampshire know that our nominee still has to be acceptable to our more religiously inclined brethren, or we lose the general. We know that Giuliani is unacceptable to those folks. The compromise that keeps the GOP together has always been (and will remain for at least the near future) that the religious conservatives get a pro-life nominee, and fiscal conservatives get someone who at least says he is for cutting taxes and spending. Unless the party can unite around someone acceptable to both groups, expect a Democrat to win next November.

The New Hampshire Union Leader endorses John McCain for President. While they don't have the influence they once did, the Union Leader is still a force to be reckoned with in the Granite State. If there are a lot of undecided Republicans out there (and I think there are, in fact, I am one of them), then a Union Leader endorsement might make the difference among a not inconsiderable number of them. I haven't made my own decision yet, but I have been leaning toward McCain. Some other "leaners" might fall into the McCain camp because of this endorsement.

Mitt Romney, who has a solid lead here in New Hampshire but is watching Mike Huckabee pass him in Iowa, has decided he needs to address the issue of his Mormon faith. I will listen with interest, but that is really not the big issue for me when it comes to Governor Romney. I just can't get past the fact that whenever I see him speak or see one of his commercials on TV or see him in a debate, one word comes into my mind...PHONY. I guess you can't call me a Romney "leaner".

More problems for Idaho Senator Larry Craig, as the local paper is reporting on a number of alleged gay liaisons involving the Senator, with testimony from the other men involved.

Don Imus is back on the air in New York, with a black female as his sidekick. That's good PR and, if she's funny, it might be an entertaining show, too.

Two elections, two different results. In Venezuela, President Chavez loses a vote that would have made constitutional changes beneficial to the continuation, almost indefinitely, of his rule. Meanwhile, President Putin of Russia shows us how it's done, by rigging the vote so that his party, United Russia, wins a smashing victory. The lesson? Not surprisingly, Vladimir Putin is a more cunning and competent dictator than Hugo Chavez, which means he is more likely to hold onto his power longer.

Some thoughts on the possibility of World War III.