I am proud to be an American when I see the way the straw poll seemed to cut through some of the hype created by the media that was in favor of the over financed candidates.

Back about 1915 or so we had a politician named Woodrow Wilson that accepted a bribe to create the Federal Reserve. They were a group of very powerful bankers and businessmen from around the world at the time. Through the monopoly of being the source of our money and by being outside of our government, or paying any taxes, they have built up a fortune that, I believe, includes owning most of the politicians of the world.

It is going to take a determined, We the People, to restore law and order in our government before we can restore law and order in our once great nation.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

-Woodrow Wilson

I would be concerned about a candidates vote on Iraq not as an issue of ideological purity, but about their judgment and ability to lead.

If a candidate made a bad decision (and I'm taking the position that the Iraq War was a very bad decision) on any vote, it's important to understand what they've actually learned from the experience other than to apologize for it when it's politically expedient.

Whuh? When I got on the bus the sign said Romneyville but the driver took a detour and I ended up in Demoncrats? Whassup with that?

I agree that Romney is a fancy box with no cereal but that may be the weakness in the metaphor - neither Connally nor Gramm came as slickly packaged. In Connally's case, LBJ's Texas drawl and bull-y boy attitude was fresh in the minds of voters and brought a subliminal cringe. There was nothing subliminal about the Gomer Pyle cringe Gramm's accent induced and his Texas uber-machismo was even more pronounced than Connally's.

I have a very hard time taking Romney seriously, but then cotton candy repels me and a lot of people just love the stuff...

"... ideological purity ...". A bit simplistic, don't you think? Problem is that some of those who voted the wrong way on the Iraq war do not seem to have changed their position to any useful degree. According to Hillary, it's just W's fault in the way that he ran the project! As to how long the U.S. is going to be there, I have yet to see/hear anything different than we hear from the frigging Republicans from the top two poll-sitters on "our" side.

Another reason to support Edwards -- not because he's flawless, but because he can unequivocally admit a mistake and talk about what has to be done to rectify it.

Yesterday's O column about how Hilary is becoming the GOP's favorite Dem is quite revealing.

Heh. My comparison of choice is Malcolm "Stephen" Forbes IV, who spent a godzillion dollars out of his family fortune trying to buy the Presidency on a platform of regressive taxes, don't you know, wot-wot.

Seems to me the main goal of the Romney campaign is breaking Forbes' record for Most Expensive Midlife Crisis.

I'm not sure that is a fair reading for why the Christian Right is suspicious of Romney. It is not that Romney has changed his position on abortion (and other social issues) but how he did it. Simply put, it’s a flip-flop issue. Look at Giuliani, he is currently the front runner despite holding fairly liberal social positions. For example, when asked at the MSNBC debate what kind of day it would be when Roe v Wade was repealed, Giuliani replied, "It'd be ok." Yet, Giuliani is constantly the front runner. This continued support stems from his persona. Unlike Romney, Giuliani has been fairly constant in his public profile: a hard charging conservative sick of a liberal society, evidenced by his crackdown on crime and "indecent" art. Social conservatives prefer him to Romney, because although Giuliani does not share many of their policy positions, they feel his heart is in the right place. Romney, in contrast, shares their policy positions but they do not trust that he truly shares their values. As such, they feel they cannot trust him to lead in a proper way. The fact that Romney changed is okay, the whole concept of being born again is based upon sin followed by redemption, but the problem is that he did not change in an organic way. Romney’s problem is that he is perceived as this cycles flip-flopping Massachusetts pander. In the end, Clinton may get a pass because “values” voters are less organized among Democrats than among Republicans.

Awwww yes Paddy! Not only were we gleeful in 1980 with the prospect of campaining against Reagan, the cowboy movie star, we were SURE we would win in 1968 against two time loser Dick Nixon, and we all thought it was inconceivable that a bumpkin like George Bush could defeat Al Gore.

The over confidence of some here at BO is becoming a bit uncomfortable....we have a WHOLE LOT OF WORK ahead of us. If our party's nominee breaks loose with just one tiny "Dean Scream", any of the Republicans in the race could win.

I don't think the proportion of Democrats who would not vote for someone who authorized Shrub's invasion is very large. Many Democrats would not vote for an unrepentant Iraq invader like Joe Lieberman. Many would not vote for a candidate who believes the only problem with our Iraq policy is that we have not won a military victory.

Democrats are quite forgiving, possibly too much so. It was clear nine months before the invasion that the pretext for war for a sham. Should those with more access to information [Senators and Representatives] be held to a lower standard of judgment than is the general public? Should those who oppose imperialism only when it does not go easily be put in charge of our foreign policy? What is the reasonable excuse of someone like Hillary Clinton?

That she was taken in by the lies? That she thought the occupation would go smoothly? That, as a woman, she must be seen as a warmonger in order to maintain presidential credibility?

Abortion is a damned trivial issue in comparison to the willingness of the commander in chief of the world's only superpower to wage preemptive war based on lies. I have not heard anything from the presidential candidates who voted for Shrub's war to suggest that they deserve to be given such power.

Paddy,

Any of the R's - with the exception of Ron Paul, who is a trog on domestic economics - would be worse than Hillary on foreign policy and the military. That is, if their words indicate what their policies would be.

I would likely support the Democratic nominee, based on the lack of alternative, while continuing to point out the immorality of US foreign policy under administrations of both parties. My support would not be nearly as active as it would for an honest and moral candidate like Dennis Kucinich, however.

Regarding winning back the White House in 2008, am I the only progressive who's worried about the electability of our two front-runners? Nominee Hillary Clinton will reenergize the rabid right-wing, and I think the prospect of having another Clinton in the White House will turn off independents looking for change. While I love Obama, he has even less experience than Bush did when he ran for President and has the middle name Hussein. I'm not validating opposition based on his name, but isn't there a political reality here that we can't control?

Maybe someone can cheer me up by pointing out how I'm wrong.

I for one will vote for whatever Democrat wins the party nomination for President even if it isn't my first, second, third or eight choice. This election is just too important to get all-sick-up-your-butt about demanding total and complete purity in your candidate. You can't make everybody happy. So come November '08 I'm voting for whoever survives this process even if it is my last choice, Mrs. Clinton.

Please read A Mormon in the White House by Hugh Hewitt to get a better understanding of Romney.

I think there are a lot of misreads on Romney's campaign on here, particularly coming from the left. In states where Romney has campaigned heavily and where the voters are paying more attention given the gravity of being a voter in an early primary state, he's taken leads. Leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan.

Romney is well-liked when known, though his problem is that he's less known on the national level. Everyone knows who Giuliani is, but only 40% of right-leaning voters or Republicans could identify him as the candidate who is pro-choice in this race. The same thing goes for the Democratic candidates.

Romney's strategy is to have his star rising as the rest of the nation begins to turn its eyes to the party nominations. And right now's he's in good stead. His biggest problems are his change on view on abortion (despite vetoing 100% of the pro-abort laws put on his desk), his Mormon faith, and his support of an assault weapons ban. None of these will matter in the general election, but in the picky primaries, it could pose a serious problem.

Romney's biggest problem will be winning the Republican nomination. In a general election, his executive experience dwarfs anyone on the other side of the aisle, as does his eloquence. His statements on policy also dwarf those made on either side of aisle. In short, once he's in the spotlight, he'll shine. His problem now is that the nation's focus is elsewhere.

Here comes the Mormon brigade of Romney supporters. For what they lack in political acumen, they make up for in delirious political fervor. They certainly see the Romney campaign as mission of divine origin.

The problem with Romney is not just that he is a flip-flopper, but that the political expediency behind his flip-flopps is so transparent. It is clear to anyone who has watched his political career that he will say anything to get elected. What scares me most about Romney (and what I believe/hope will eventually doom his campaign) is that he does not want to get elected president in order to accomplish some laudable policy goals, but that it is all about personal ambition and self-agrandizement. I think we have seen only too well what happens when a president's ego and narcissism comes into conflict with the realities of the world around him.

Actually, the Dems are afraid to Romney! The single issue of flip-flopping is what they always raise against him. But, in reality that old issue is no longer a worth buying. Romney has explained everything and convinced anyone who listened to him in an open heart.

Those who always spew dirt to Mitt especially related with that of pandering and flip-flopping are just likened to old and damaged musical disc,which, whenever played, its music never stops repeating lyrics and lines, until its listeners will feel sick and uncomfortable with it.

The issue of flip-flopping and pandering is no longer substantial and no longer debatable. Hillary changed. Rudy changed. McCain changed. Obama changed. Edwards changed.

So, for those who always touched with flip-flopping and pandering issues against Mitt, better upgrade yourselves. Say it promote yourselves to Grade 1, rather than being still a Kindergarten. The majority of the people are dead-tired listening with your issues. You're making sickness to American culture.

If you think you are still convincing, then, why many Iowans voted for Romney in the Ames Straw Poll? And why they made him the winner?

It just concludes that nobody listens you now and nobody cares what you're saying. You are just a piece of spamming medias.

As one who studies political history, I appreciate the John COnnally reference. Although I never would have voted for Connally , he was a dynamic politician and great orator. As most probably know, he was the Texas Governor who nearly died when riding with President Kennedy in Dallas in Nov. 1963. His wife, Nellie, who spoke the last words to JFK, died last year.

Like Romney, Connally was the big business candidate who received a lot of attention, did well in straw polls, and raised the most money, which he wasted trying to run a national campaign at the expense of Iowa/NH, ending up with a million dollar campaign debt.

Romney, too has blown through his money, spending money on ads in states like OR even though we won't vote until May. Connally targeted SC and dropped after he lost big there to Reagan. Romney currently is running a weak 10% in SC. You're probably right Paul, that Romney will end up like Governor Connally.

No. I object with the comparison. Mitt Romney will not be a Connally and never will he be. Their difference is so wide a margin. At Connally's time, he's not in the first-tier. Connally's resume was not very convincing. Reagan and Bush already stole the show at that time. Say it Connally was just a comparison to Brownback at these modern times, (though Brownback has a lesser money than Connally).

Mitt Romney is an excellent figure. He is an A1 to his class. He remained solid and stable even how hard and vicious the MSM attacked him. He's gaining support. He's gaining good grounds among conservatives. His chance is very eminent. He can have the last laugh.

And further, he's never a Connally!

Connally ended up a million dollar campaign debt,... hahaha, that will never happen to Romney. I'm 101% sure!

I love how the Romney supporters try to downplay their candidate's flip-flopping by saying that all the other candidates have changed positions too - therefore suggesting that Romney is no more a flip-flopper than the rest of them. The comparison is simply laughable. Had Romney changed one or two major policy positions over the coarse of a long and distinguished public career, no one would have raised the issue. The problem, of course, is that he has changed over a dozen positions in the last couple of years - certainly within the time he began eyeing a run for the presidency. Sorry Romney suporters, but the flip-flop label will stick because he not only has conveniently changed a huge number of his policy positions to mirror the policy preferences of the majority of GOP delegates, but he has done it in such a reckless and sloppy manner that you have to question either his intelligence or the quality of his campaign handlers.

Romney is not very savy, but worse, he is a major sell-out. He is the worst kind of politician and I hope his campaign goes down in flames to send a sobering message to all the political cynics out there who believe that slick packaging and focus-group-approved policy positions (and, of course, a ton of $) will win out over substance. Romney could have run an interesting campaign, had he stuck to his guns and had the integrity to stick to his principles. Instead he is just another self-promoting empty shirt.

That is not to say he can't win. While as a Democrat I fear a Guliani nomination over a Romney nomination, as many have already pointed out, anything can happen in politics; and obviously the least qualified candidate can ultimately win if the winds blow in a favorable direction. That said, I actually trust the republicans enough to see through Romney's BS and call him on it. I think Romney is peaking now simply as a result of the fact that he has significantly outspent the other contenders. We will now likely see the slow decline of the Romney campaign as the other top candidates start to flex their muscles.

I just hope future candidates will be well reminded, 'you can't completely reinvent yourself for this race, remember what happened to Romney.'

Flipper floppper, sure, but what's offensive is that he's an unrepentant liar. He stated baldly at the R debate that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in. Sorry they were pulled by GWB right before the invasion. He called it a question of context when braced about it a week or so later. No context whatever, a bald faced lie. (that or choose that he's so ignorant to be disqualified for janitor)

Mormonism isn't his religion, political expediency is. Mittrolls shouldn't come around - you may have to deal with the truth. Personally I hope he's the nominee - easy meat.

I'm not perfect in my grammar, or say, if I've that stilted English, who cares? I'm not a brighter-than-thou persona like Steve Davis, who, in his unauthorized act in editing my post, even made a mistake. (This makes me cause to laugh out loud!) Please refer to the last sentence he offered,... [All your base are belong to Mitt Romney!] I think if you use the word belong, it is never used in a progressive verb. It should be "All your base belong to Mitt Romney!"

(Don't worry, before I have to remove the mote from other's eyes, I have to remove the beam within my eyes.)

Anyway, Steve, thank you for correcting me,... I found out that my post here is not wasted because there is someone like you who will edit my grammar.

Anyway, as what I've mentioned, nobody's perfect. I just made an awareness in this site, that Romney is just any other candidates who also committed changed in positions. If the issue you claimed that he becomes a pro-life from a pro-choice, well, that's not a very sensitive issue, he's just evolved for the better. And by that, he even received an award from a pro-life group in Massachusetts affirming his pro-life stance. What matters most is that he can deliver his promise of serving well his constituents as what he did in Massachusetts. And I'm anxious that he can also serve well the American people once he'll become the President. I'm waiting for that. There is no time of finding faults here, but there is so much time of comparing candidates here and judge for the best candidate who has the excellent qualification. And Romney stands among them. That's the truth. Even his opponents can attest to it!

I'd rather campaign and vote for a problem-solver Mitt Romney and enjoy my days ahead when he'll become President of America than listen to the murmurings, lies, deceptions and attacks of the cynics, bigots and dumbheads who offer no better solutions for America but only spread hatred, chaos and contention, and see no progress in the government.

Before I forget, kudos to Todd for jumping on those who try to minimize Obama's experience.

But, isn't Obama's experience pretty limited? When looking at the Dem candidates, I'm ideologically in the same camp as the top three. So my next criteria is to pick someone that can make rational, fact-based policy decisions even when under enourmous stress. I personally think executive leadership is a learned skill that is very different from legislative leadership, and so I'm not terribly happy with any of the candidates. But I would put national legislative experience above state legislative experience any day.

My question to Obama supporters is this: Doesn't his relative lack of exposure to federal and international policy trouble you? What has Obama done in his life that has prepared him to be president of the world's largest economy, commander of the most powerful military force in history, and generally most powerful person in the world? Is the Illinois state legislature really all that?

If Romney has spent millions of dollars in his campaign, do you think his campaign chest will dry up (out of funds), no way, the guy is a multi-million dollar businessman. He is worth a quarter of a billion dollar. And lately, he earned additional 15 million dollars to his worth. Maybe, it's better to say,... your mouth will dry-up forecasting nonsense! Forbes, Gramm, Connally,... come'on guys, Romney is unique compared with them. He proved his leadership, he solved problems, fixed businesses, smart, articulate, dynamic, competent and holds a very impressive resume. Do you think he will fade out? No way again! Look, the latest score he got,... he's leading in NH, IA, Michigan, Nevada, Utah,... and he has 5 more months to go to campaign for Florida, SC, California, Ohio, NY, and so forth. How about the IA poll, what does it mean? He's getting national attention and look at the number of his supporters, it's fast increasing. So no way, for those who are desperately seeking Romney's downfall and fading. Romney is the true strength of the Americans. He is the best man for the job and he will turn around the WH that every citizen in this great land will be benefited.

I'd rather campaign and vote for Mitt Romney because he has the best qualities rather than wait for someone incapable to govern American government.

"Is it me, or does richardlands sound like Mitt Romney's campaign outsourced the job of reviewing political blogs and making pro-Romney posts to Kang and Kodos, the two aliens from Rigel VII in "The Simpsons" who share a similarly stilted command of English?"

He sounds to me like the guy that's always sending me emails wanting to get his money out of Nigeria.

Curt