Mitt Romney Religion Speech

Here is the transcript of the Mitt Romney Speech on his religious beliefs and how they affect his politics. This transcript provided by the Mitt Romney website:

"Faith In America" Remarks As Prepared For Delivery The George Bush Presidential Library College Station, Texas December 6, 2007

"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction. "It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President. "Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs. "America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family. "Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected. "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.' "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. "Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today. "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. "As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. "As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States. "There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree. "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths. "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings. "It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people. "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong. "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust. "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.' "Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty? "They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united. "We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.' "The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality. "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom. "These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...' "My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency. "Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left. "It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator. "We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion. "I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away. "Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance. "The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed. "In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith. "Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics. "Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. "And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation. "In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.' "God bless the United States of America."

Chris Mathews: Clinton in trouble, attacking kindergarten comments by Obama

As much as I enjoy Chris Mathews and Hardball, he's really full of a lot of crap these days, I think in no small part because of his frustration that the Clinton campaign has so effectively managed his beloved free and reckless press sensibilities.

Yesterday on Hardball Chris foolishly suggested that Clinton's numbers were in "free fall" since her poor performance in an earlier debate regarding immigration. Also that this is why she was slinging some dirt on Obama, suggesting he said something in his foreign kindergarten. Again obviously this was not Clinton gasping for some poll air, rather floating a test balloon to see how negative stuff will gain traction against Obama. Given that it's not working well look for this type of petty attack to stop for the next few weeks, only to return in full force if Clinton is not leading in Iowa 2 weeks out.

She may have dropped a bit, but hardly a free fall Chris, and the main reason for the Iowa surge by Obama is ... obviously ... the fact this is almost make or break for his campaign! Hilary is running a national campaign already, and has done it very effectively. Obama is running an Iowa campaign and he's done that very effectively. However his numbers nationally and in New Hampshire suggest no staying power even with an Iowa win. He'll get a buzz boost if he wins Iowa, and this could lead to a NH victory or great showing which would could *concievably* make him nationally competitive, but this is unlikely.

Prediction: Clinton will come on strong in Iowa in last few weeks, and will win by 5-10%. She'll handily win N.H., and the race will largely be over as soon as it began. Obama has a shot at VP though his views are so compatible with Clinton's I'm not clear he'll be part of the strategy.

Romney on religion

Tomorrow's speech by Mitt Romney on his religious views will be a very significant event in the republican primary (I'd say speech about Romney's "Mormon religious views", but I bet Romney himself will only say the word "Mormon" a few times).

Look for Romney to do this:

Very gently outline Mormon beliefs, stressing their Christian basis and general compatibility with mainstream Protestantism.

Very powerfully suggest how important faith and religion are to his life, stressing things shared by Christians rather than the Mormon items.

Wrap up with suggestions that his views are "just like" the views of mainstream Christian Protestants and Catholics.

Mention Jesus several times and Joseph Smith no more than once.

Many are comparing this to JFK's speech abut his Catholic heritage not being a threat to America, but I think this is probably misguided because times have changed so much in the past 47 American years of elections.

Unless Romney fails miserably with his delivery or gets off point, I think he'll put the religious issues to rest until the general election. Why?

* Mormonism is not a radical religion, rather more of an offshoot of Christianity. Aside from some quirky sect views mainstream Christians won't be as threatened by this as many now suggest.

* Religion is NOT as powerful a force for Republicans as many have suggested. Although Karl Rove and other brilliant manipulations of the religious right wing helped in elections it is not at all clear they changed outcomes, because religious right wing folks are very likely to vote conservative Republican and very likely to vote. Will they vote for Romney? I think yes, because they'll see that he's the best shot against Hilary Clinton. In this sense Huckabee may post a challenge for Romney as he'll draw the votes that Romney would have won over Giuliani.

A master stroke for Romney would pull Huckabee into his campaign immediately as his prospective VP. Very unusual move, but I Huckabee simply does not have the cash to win and this combination would allay many concerns about Romney's religion and sincerity. Also, Huckabee with cash would have a good shot at winning the whole thing. Huckabee plus Romney would be unbeatable in Republican Primary and then could play the national election as a "moderate to liberal Romney" with a "true conservative Huckabee" unifying theme. This would challenge Clinton to also pick a very powerful VP - probably Obama - and we'd see one of the most ideologically contrasted elections in some time.

Giuliani in trouble. Big trouble

Rudy Giuliani's campaign is in *very big* trouble. It's not really because of the recent allegations that he abused spending in New York City to cover his mistress' (now wife's) security during his affair. It is because he's simply not the kind of candidate Republicans can back very enthusiastically.

Giuliani has a personally very checkered past, he's pro-choice, and he's kind of squirrely in the personality department. Reagan represented the "ideal" candidate for the Republican set of sensibilities. Handsome and imposing but also jovial and "old boy network", no-nonsense with his conservative policies, somewhat polished but not brilliant.

So, who gains from this? Huckabee. It's Huckabee v Romney now, and even though I earlier suggested Romney was "in" I think Huckabee has a shot at this if he can quickly assemble a *substantial* war chest. In America you can't buy elections, as Ross Perot's bottomless money potential only got him so far. But without much campaign cash you will lose. Period.

Obama-Bloomberg 2008?

There has been some speculation after a Bloomberg Obama meeting in New York City that we could see a ObamaBloomberg ticket running for the Democratic nomination.

Although I wouldn't bet on this as "likely", it's certainly a very interesting possibility. Obama has shown a lot of traction in Iowa where today's CNN poll numbers had Obama and Clinton in a virtual dead heat, but he's losing in New Hampshire and things appear to get worse for him after that as South Carolina is clearly in Clinton land. Bloomberg's popularity in the east could further diffuse the Clinton juggernaut, and Bloomberg's billion-fat wallet could fund a lot of campaign advertising.

Clinton Campaign Hostages probably safe

Network news was reporting that the hostages taken at Hilary Clinton's campaign HQ in Rochester, NH were safe, but the press conference a few moments ago suggested there may still be hostages in thebuilding.

The fate of the hostage taker is not clear, though he was reported to have something strapped to his chest and calling it a bomb, and was asking to talk to Senator Clinton.

As of 4:45m EST the police are still surrounding the building, a bomb squad is on the scence, and presumably only the hostage-taker remains inside the building thought that is not clear.

Breaking news: Possible Hostage taken at Cliton Campaign office in NH

Reports are coming in from Rochester, NH that hostages have been taken at Hilary Clinton's NH campaign office. Clinton is *not* in that office, but it appears 2 people have been taken by a man claiming to have a bomb.

Giuliani in Republican debate - I'm not just about 9/11. Thompson still languishing in delivery and in polls

Giuliani very effectively answered the YouTube question asking about whether he is running only on his 9/11 record. Giuliani cited his history of New York City service including prosecution of complex cases, reductions in welfare and crime and abortions, and working with New York's enormous global economy.

Thompson, on the other hand, showed his characteristic debate problems - a slow and somewhat rambling style of delivery combined with what always seems to be a limited grasp of the nuances that underly so many complex political issues. Thompson is no Ronald Reagan and I think he has little chance of a late surge in the polls.

Romney, Huckabee and the Republican debate

Mitt Romney was not "weak" in tonight's debate but he didn't really shine either. In fact the candidate that really seemed to stand out as a forceful and thoughtful proponent was Mike Huckabee, perhaps an indication of why he's surging in many polls.

Huckabee appeared the most poised as he addressed issues like religion and the death penalty.

As candidates often do, Romney carefully parses many answers carefully to avoid damaging sound bites. His exchange with McCain over torture and waterboarding left one wondering if Romney is willing to take a strong stand, though his abortion statements seemed to please the crowd when he said he was wrong to be pro-choice early in his career and is now emphatically pro-life.

McCain - we are winning in Iraq

John McCain has stuck to our guns in Iraq, and argued in tonight's debate that the surge is now working and America must stay the course in Iraq. "If we continue this strategy we can succeed", "There is a lot at stake" "Let us win, let us win".

For a deep and thoughtful view of John McCain see his Charlie Rose interview of last night, which offered some of the best insight into the character and policies of McCain as Presidential candidate. Charlie Rose, PBS

Republican YouTube CNN debate

Tonight the Republicans debate was hosted by CNN and YouTube. Anderson Cooper did a stand up moderating job. I'm not enamored with the YouTube format, feeling that the questions tend to be quirky or sort of "gotcha!" style rather than a thoughtful reflection on the perils and promises of our American democracy.

But who am I kidding? The American elections are more an entertainment and marketing excercise than a study in debate and democracy, and tonight was no exception to that as YouTubers did ask some good questions like "what will you do about Black on Black violence" and "What would you do to repair the image of America" in the eyes of the world?

Giuliani still leading nationally

Rudy Giuliani is still the clear Republican frontrunner. Here at President Picker we are predicting a Mitt Romney win based on what we predict will be early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, but this is speculative. In national polls Giuliani is still clearly ahead of Romney, and it's possible the early primaries will not presage any victories in the much larger state primaries that will come later in the season.

What is remarkable is that the decision is now upon us. In only six weeks the primary season begins with the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary follows shortly thereafter.

Barack "Tech" Obama at Google

Over at Webguild there is a recap of Barack Obama's talk with Eric Schmidt over at the Googleplex in Silicon Valley. Obama has some good ideas for tech and Lasandra Brill has noted these points by Obama:

Pro Net Neutrality
Technology can bring governmental transparency
Appoint a Chief Technology Officer for the nation
Boadband internet access for all
Digital Privacy Protections
Electronic Health Records

Sounds like a good start!

Why Romney Will Win the Republican Nomination

President Picker predicts that Mitt Romney will soon be the clear front runner in the Republican primaries, and that Romney will go on to win the nomination. There are several key factors that suggest a Romney win:

First, Fred Thompson has not turned out to be the "Ronald Reagan" his supporters insist he is. Thompson generally appears tired and irritated and impatient with the process, which probably goes against much of the grain of his Limousine Hollywood Conservatism. Like Giuliani Thompson carries more than the normal personal baggage of a presidential candidate, and although conservatives are generally very forgiving of any heterosexual personal transgressions of fellow conservatives this challenge takes a toll with voters on the fence.

With McCain now pretty much out of the picture due to his Iraq war support and money problems, Giuliani is Romney's key competition, and Giuliani will prove no match for Romney. Among the many reasons are Romney's (sincere I assume) born again anti abortionist stance which makes it easy for core conservatives to overlook his Mormon religion. Also, Romney is brilliantly downplaying his religion as a factor in the race. Mormonism is controversial, especially among bible belt conservatives, but if Romney can stress his legitimate claim to solid family values and strong religious beliefs he'll be able to successfully continue to downplay the specific beliefs that might offend other conservatives. Clearly his anti abortion stance will trump Giuliani's pro choice stance and clearly this is more of a factor for conservatives than Mormonism.

Lastly and most importantly Romney is the most *presidential looking* of the candidates. Even those of us who claim to maintain impartialy with respect to looks and demeanor .. do not maintain impartiality. Reagan and Clinton were masters at looking and acting presidential, and both got more credit for this than is commonly recognized. As the election heats up and advertising hits national markets, look for Romney to get a boost simply because he looks and acts very presidential.

Democratic Las Vegas Debate

Hilary wins, game over.

The interesting race now among the Democrats is for the Vice Presidential spot. Tonight and before Bill Richardson seems to be the most enthusiastic of the "VP Candidates", but I'd now lean very strongly to guessing Hilary will pick Obama. This will energize the ticket with those who would otherwise be discouraged to see the "old Democratic guard" come back into power and also will allow Hilary to play a far more conservative role in the general election while Obama can be her clear "liberal card". Look for a Clinton Obama ticket.

Giuliani vs Romney and Clinton vs Obama

OK, I think even the probable winners are clear now (Romney and Clinton), but it's very hard to think any of the "third place" folks have much of a chance now. Some suggest we may see a repeat of the democratic primaries where John Kerry came out of early poor shows to capture the nomination, but the ballgame is very, very different now. First, Clinton is the "heir apparent" to the nomination for the Dems, and it would take simply *enormous* political risk not to back her if the campaigns heat up. You don't build up decades of political capital for nothing, and I can hardly see mayors and governors come out of meetings with Bill Clinton telling him they are not going to publicly support Hilary.

Pundits love races, so people like Chris Mathews are enthusiastically hoping for a horserace and overplaying Obama's recent poll successes in Iowa. He's not talking enough about the fact that even if Obama squeaks by with an Iowa win (unlikely), this won't leave him with enough time and money to spend in the upcoming primaries. The "must take Iowa" strategy was probably wise, but I'm guessing from the polls it's taking it's toll on the Obama campaign. If Obama loses in Iowa he's pretty much out. If Obama wins in Iowa it's an enormous uphill struggle to capture votes in even one of the next several primaries. Ergo..... Clinton wins and this will be clear soon. Dems don't want to be fighting when they can be bashing Bush and the Republican nominee.

Next: Why Romney will win the Republican nomination

Obama+Oprah=Obama?

When Oprah, one of the world's most influential entertainment celebrities, announced that she'd be backing Barack Obama in the democratic presidential primary many thought this would be a huge benefit to the Obama campaign. Some seemed to think this was the boost he needed to catch up to Hilary Clinton in the polls.

However Oprah's endorsement didn't do much if anything to lift Obama out of a distant second in the democratic race.

Why? It now seems clear that Oprah's legendary influence does not extend into the political realm. I'm guessing there are two key factors here: First, viewers already have their political minds made up for the most part. They'll take Oprah's advice for books or lifestyle or personal training or (sometimes) for the virtues of dieting, but they simply won't change their mind about "important" things. Also, I'd guess the Oprah democraphic lines up strongly with support for Hilary Clinton and those viewers like Clinton for much the same reasons they like Oprah.

Iowa Caucuses to be held January 3rd, 2008

The caucus and primary sweepstakes continues as Iowa annoucnces it's caucuses will be held January 3rd. New Hampshire is expected to announce dates this week and appears likely to choose January 8th. These decisions mean the earliest primary season in history, and mean we will probably know the democratic and republican candidates very early in the year - perhaps as early as February.

President Picker is very confident that the Democratic nominee will be Hilary Clinton, who leads hugely in the polls and we predict that Mitt Romney will be the Republican primary winner.

Republican Presidential Debate

FOX News hosted a debate among the Republican contenders for the 2008 US Presidential Crown. It is interesting to see how Huckabee as an "up and coming" candidate in the polls and Romney as one of the leaders seemed to be in top form. At one point Tom Tancredo, who has been an outspoken critic of how the other candidates are not conservative enough, stopped to note that he thought all the candidates were men of quality but offered different alternatives.

As in the prior debate I saw, Thompson seems to be failing to address criticisms and seems to be falling back on canned statements rather than possessing the quick wit of a Giuliani, Huckabee, or Paul. Thompson does clearly not have the campaign presence of Ronald Reagan despite the fact he's being billed like that by Republican supporters. I predict this will condemn his campaign after what will likely be lackluster showings in southern states - probably around February or March of 2008.

Despite a standing ovation after John McCain's joke and criticism of Hilary Clinton, his performances lack the "fire" needed to win this race. He was the front runner and failed to consolidate his position early in the race. I actually think age is playing a role with McCain and he simply does not have the energy required for these massively social experiences which involve traveling millions of miles annually and meeting tens of thousands of people every month.

Man to watch here? Mitt Romney. Clearly he's got *all* the others in the stature department, most conspicuously Giuliani who always looks squirrely and shrill in a Romney v Giuliani persona lineup. Contrary to what most of us think about how we evaluate people it's based in large part on the way they look and carry themselves and not on what they say or do. This factor, in my opinion, will trump what seem to be diminishing concerns about Romney's Mormonism.

Prediction: 2008 election will be Romney vs Clinton

The Hilary Hater Factor

It is often suggested that Clinton can't win the election because her "negative" numbers are so high in many polls. Clearly Clinton is probably one of the most negatively viewed presidential candidates in some time, but I think people are mistaking current perception as future perception. George Bush, in addition to winning reelection, had positive perceptions of himself and his presidency until the Iraq war drained his reservoir of goodwill from the electorate. Conversely I think Clinton's solid campaign style, complete with her somewhat extreme personality makeover, will warm enough of her mild critics to prevent her losing on the basis of negative views about her.

Chris Mathews has been even more unstable than usual on Hardball, suggesting today - I think - that he's predicting Hilary will lose to Giuliani due to the negativity with which many perceive her, especially men.