Note that Mitt is often referred to by his first name. Also Hillary is called Senator Clinton frequently and occasionally as Mrs. Clinton, usually when the speaker wants to be derogatory. Calling her simply “Clinton” would be ambiguous.

Finally, Senator Clinton’s campaign logo says, “Hillary for President” not “Clinton for President”.

If she wins the presidency it will be interesting to see what she is called. I’m guessing President Hillary Clinton. Note that the Rodham seems to have been dropped several years ago.

The other candidate with a first name campaign logo is “Fred”.

Let me rephrase the qualification, “first active Mormon with a legitimate interest in winning…”

That effectively ought to eliminate Udall (not active, from what I know) and Hatch (who even admitted he just wanted to make it easier for the next Mormon … gee, thanks Orrin, good thing you did your job).

Romney is a cheap phoney

Brilliant analysis. Interesting that I don’t hear of him being characterized that way by the many different people who have worked with him.

Why take pot shots? Are you regurgitating the opinions of others? Do you have some first hand knowledge that you can share with us that leads you to conclude Romney is a phony? If so, please share.

Hey, everyone! Clearly my knowledge of political history is not what it should be. I’d heard that George Romney ran (and forgot when I wrote this post…), but I hadn’t known about Hatch, and I’d never heard of Mo Udall. What a cool name–did he take proper advantage of it?

Good points about “Senator Clinton” and Fred Thompson, etc. I exonerate the media of charges of condescension toward women (or that woman).

You know, Bill, you made an interesting point in your very first comment–Obama has your support because he has the best grasp, in your opinion, of the problems facing the country and what needs to be done. That’s actually been very persuasive for me–listening to the candidates and deciding which one sees the same problems I do. I don’t always know how to evaluate their proposed solutions, though–how do you factor in the law of unintended consequences to these sweeping campaign promises?

And does anyone else get annoyed that the men of the race are called by their last names while the woman of the race gets called by her first name? Since when are last names the sole province of men?

“Hillary” is just a way of distinguishing her from Bill. “Clinton” doesn’t accomplish that. Last time such a distinction was needed (much too recently) the affected party had to go all the way to his middle initial to be distinguished from his father.

The law of unintended consequences is unavoidable, and in any case, the campaign promises are often meaningless. W. Bush, for example, promised a compassionate conservatism and a humble foreign policy. Bush unwisely bet his entire presidency on the war in Iraq, and although he eked out reelection, once people really started paying attention his popularity plummetted and he was unable to enact much more of his agenda such as the reform of social security. Similarly, Clinton’s unwise decisions effectively neutered him in the last years of his presidency.

So character and judgment are important, as are those with whom one surrounds oneself. Are they cronies like Gonzales who only tell you what they know you want to hear? Do you think it’s a good idea to put your personal friend on the supreme court above hundreds of better qualified possibilities? In this respect, I find Obama far superior to Hillary Clinton. He has imaginative and thoughtful advisors and is endorsed by the more independent minds of the party. She is surrounded by partisan hacks, prizes loyalty above all, and is supported by the most hidebound and slerotic elements of the party establishment.

Another reason to admire Obama is that he rarely panders to his audience, often telling them hard truths they may not want to hear. In Michigan, for example, he lectured the auto industry on its failure to improve fuel efficiency. Contrast this with Romney, who this week is telling Michigan that he will fight to bring all the jobs back, even though he knows this will not happen, even though his whole career at Bain Capital was involved with ruthlessly firing workers in less productive companies and industries in order to earn a higher return elsewhere. Geoff B. has suggested that we are seeing the real, unfettered Romney who is now free to be what he always was, that he was never really the moderate he pretended to be. Or would he jettison his more extreme campaign trail positions, if elected, and govern with a measure of sanity? In either case, his recent behavior has made it difficult for me to respect him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101336.html

Naomi!!!! How could you do that?? How could your dad LOL. Actually, I would love to vote for my kids, it would be my Jewish mother thing, knowing what’s best.

Mitt said last night on Larry King that while he had come in second, he still had the most votes. How does that work?

Condoleeza Rice is the opposite of Hillary. While Hillary is brimming with personality (even if I don’t like it) Condoleeza has none. I don’t think people would relate to her at all. It would be like voting for a robot.

I read Larry King’s (first?)book last night and he writes glowingly of Mo Udall. He says he was one of the funniest politicians he ever met.

My friend in Vegas used to like Obama, but she said he started to seem too canned, too smooth, too polished and rehearsed and now she’s going to vote for Hillary. She’s a liberal atheist Democratic Nazi environmentalist (and one of my dearest friends) and I’m me. We never fight, we laughingly disagree.

But that’s how she’s seeing Obama now. He is starting to seem that way to me, too, and Romney less so.

George Romney self destructed because he told the truth about the Vietnam War. He might have been a good president, who knows.

I’m thrilled that the top choices include a black man, a woman, and a Mormon. I gave a wee bit of money to Obama and Romney because those were the candidates that I thought would be the most thrilling to have run against each other. And really, I think either would be fine. Neither would destroy the country or run it into the ground.

All the passion is saved for those whom I don’t want to see get the nominations or, heaven forbid, the actual office. Both Giuliani and Hillary seem to lack honesty in their dealings. Giuliani, specifically, from the stories out of New York and his associates’ persistent habits of getting incarcerated, seems like a cheap crook.

Well, duh. That’s because they’re on his payroll!

Romney has worked with many people who haven’t been on his payroll–in his church service for example. The article in the Trib that Jack linked to goes into detail in that area.

Besides, the vast majority of those who have been on his payroll in the past are no longer on his payroll. To me, that says a lot. I agree that people are hesitant (and wisely so) to disparage current employers. But who can’t resist taking an opportunity to take a swipe at their old (and allegedly phony) boss. I just don’t see it.

I know more than one person that worked with him while he was here doing the Olympics that describe him as phoney.

O.K. So what does that tell me? Not much. It tells me that some nameless person who you know formed an opinion about something and then told you about it.

What were the circumstances of the alleged phoniness? Is the “more than one person” willing to provide witnesses and/or go on record with their accusation–i.e. printing their story with their real name attached to it?

If a story/accusation can’t be verified, why even bring it up? How could it possibly be defended against? Comes across as a bit gossipy, don’t you think? I would prefer to get the facts from the “more than one person” that you know (and maybe a few other people that were there) and then decide for myself, rather than simply regurgitating the conclusions of others. So if you have the facts or can get them from the “more than one person” that you know, please share them with me.

I’m not saying that there isn’t legitimate negative criticism about Romney. But taken as a whole, I just don’t see (and I’m still looking) enough evidence to label the guy as a phony–that’s pretty harsh criticism for a guy who appears to have tried to do his best throughout his life. And I’ll cite the SL Tribune article http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7943560 as a reference for making that statement.

Sorry Nate, I can’t give facts. Not because it didn’t happen, but because I work for the people that witnessed the behavior. They were willing to share details with me, but I’m not willing to share more because of how it could affect relationships in the industry I work in. They aren’t willing to share more because he’s gone from “guy that saved the Olympics” to national candidate. They stand to lose too much by speaking badly of the guy most Mormons in Utah will vote for while trying to run a business in that same state.

Besides, you really question his being phony after the NRA mistake he made? He panders like every other politician. And like all politicians, he’s phony.

Queuno: Mo Udall would have been the first Mormon president whether or not he was “active,” because being raised Mormon still informed who he was back in an era when being Mormon was much more of an ethnicity than it is today. I think insisting on him being active is like insisting Obama is not “really black,” due to the fact that he is the son of an immigrant instead of the son of slaves.

Nate: I made the determination that Romney was a phony by watching him give speeches, interviews and participate in debates over the course of the past year. I don’t need to rely on the testimony of witnesses.

Meanwhile, I voted for him in today’s Michigan primary, as I explained here: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/15/why-i-voted-for-mitt-in-todays-michigan-primary/

Well, folks, Romney is back in the house.

Naomi, great post. Beware of Obama — he’s just John Edwards with kind words, big ears, and long fingers. It does remain to be seen whether he can outdo the Clintons when it comes to I-feel-your-pain politics. But in the end, all that any of them offers is the standard Democratic yarn about how everybody sucks and they can’t help it and only the government can make them whole.

You’re right that the question “will I be able to tell my kids and grandkids that I didn’t vote for the first black contender for president?” is a striking one. What occurs to me when I read it is that the speaker is a racist.

Which of the following should be more important:

America’s policy toward Iraq or the color of the president?
Policy decisions aimed at solving the mortgage crisis or the color of the president?
Shrinking the deficit or the color of the president?

I could go on and on. (Feel free to substitute the word gender for color in the above questions.)

I wonder what NPR would have reported about a someone who mused, “will I be able to tell my kids and grandkids that I didn’t voted against the first black contender for president?”

For my part, I will only be excited about electing the first black president of the first woman president when that president is a Republican. I, for one, would love to annex Britain and draft Margaret Thatcher.

Meant no offense to anyone with earlier comments. I think it is obvious that throughout Romney’s political career, he has tried to identify hot button topics like abortion in Mass., Immigration for the GOP etc. He overtly plays up his similarities and downplays differences to such an extent that I think sometimes he does give people the wrong idea. This tendency of his may not have always been the smartest political move.

However, I don’t fault a guy for doing everything within his power to get into office–as long as it is legal and moral. I guess the difference between myself and others is that I think Romney is genuinely in the race so that he can make a positive difference–while others would question his motives.

The evidence I’ve seen–from many different accounts of people who know him–is overwhelmingly positive. He has made a lot of good impressions on people over the years and I think what most of them have to say is a strong testimony of his character.

Found this NY Times opinion article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15barnett.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I think it illustrates well what I’m saying.

Shouldn’t we call her, “Ms. Clinton”? The honorific “Mrs” is intended to reflect the husband’s name, hence the out of date usage from a few decades ago might refer to her as “Mrs. Bill Clinton.” If my memory is correct, as recently as the 1969 edition of Etiquette Emily Post (actually, Elizabeth Post — another accomplished woman who was no friend to feminism) advised women against using “Mrs” with their own names (e.g., “Mrs. Hillary Clinton”) because it properly goes with the husbands name, even when abbreviated to the family name (“Mrs. Clinton”).

Anyway, I think that it’s kinda cool that if she were to be elected president, we’d call her “Madam President.”

a spectator, the problem with asking “what would Jesus would vote for?” is that people who do it always put loaded questions into His mouth. One could just as easily ask if Jesus would support a fair and equitable tax structure. Anyway, “tax cuts for the rich” is such a tired refrain. Perhaps it would hold more water if it weren’t used to fight every tax cut proposed in the past 25 years, and even non-tax cut policy issues like the indexing of tax-brackets for inflation (Reagan’s triumph over Democrats and over your fictional Jesus). Or perhaps you’d prefer a return to the tax code of the late 70s, in which the highest tax bracket was 70% and few rich people paid any taxes at all.

Hmm.

I think that, all things considered, given the options, you’re best off going with “curphoughill.” That has the advantage of using the gh, which was part of George Bernard Shaw’s famous rant about the English language where he argued that “fish” might as well be spelled “ghoti.”

DKL – I often think flip flopping charges are unfair. I actually think that with many of the charges against Kerry and Romney as well. The problem both had though was how they handled the charges. It bespoke some communicative incompetence. However Romney also has just done tons of things that made him look very opportunistic. Some may have been political dirty tricks. (I’ve heard, for example, mixed stories about the “no muslims in the cabinet” quote and the “I saw the MLK march” quote) But some just are indefensible such as trying to portray himself as a hunter. Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad he’s pro 2cd amendment which is better than most Democrats. (All of them? It was asked at the debate last week with in my view scary answers) I actually think it was the hunting gaffe that turned me from pro-Romney to being pretty underwhelmed by him.

I will say that I think he’s done a much better job this week.

I’m mixed on who I’ll vote for come February. If Thompson is still in the race I’ll probably pick him. Otherwise it’ll be a tossup between Clinton or Romney (simply because I find Obama’s foreign policy very scary and figure some Democrat is likely to win – plus the Clintons are nothing if not pragmatic)

Actually now that I think about it I’m not sure about Utah’s primary rules. I’m registered independent so I’m not sure what the rules are.

Jack – thanks for fwding the link to the trib article. very cool (and it’s in the trib – i’m surprised the editor let it slip thru :)

bfwebster – I agree about the VP preference for Romney. Conversely, if he got knocked out, he could come back in 4 yrs if he turned the auto industry/MI economy around in the meantime (sounded like a Plan B to me when he was speaking in MI).

I have a (non-LDS) friend at work who met Romney at Harvard and found him to be very impressive and personable. Most guys with a Harvard degree would be getting the same “phony” epithet. He’s a business man–call it “phony” or just professional, polished, rich and good looking. As a businessperson, I trust him (it’s the same reason I like Obama). I also like Thompson, but better if he would wake up. I also have a nephew (non-LDS) who is a political consultant who says Romney’s the only honest one in the lot and the rest are pretty much b*stards.

So, not necessary to be on the payroll to like him. I imagine it’s situational like with all of us.

Mo Udall would have been the first Mormon president whether or not he was “active,” because being raised Mormon still informed who he was back in an era when being Mormon was much more of an ethnicity than it is today. I think insisting on him being active is like insisting Obama is not “really black,” due to the fact that he is the son of an immigrant instead of the son of slaves.

But we live in this era, not that one. In this era, do we really consider Mo Udall a “Mormon” just because he was born one. I don’t buy that having once been baptized into the Church means I’m “Mormon”, if I haven’t bothered to practice it for years.

For me, the idea of identity is an interesting topic. Did Udall even consider *himself* a Mormon? Would he have touted himself the first Mormon president? Or are we as a cultural Church so starved for cultural celebrity that we’ll latch onto anyone who may have been a Mormon at one time (but isn’t by any stretch anymore)? (Christina Applegate, anyone?)

I’m oft reminded of Tiger Woods claim that he was “cablinasian”, a not-so-subtle reminder at the time that just because we saw him as black, he didn’t necessarily see himself that way. I can’t find the quotes anymore, but Halle Berry and Jason Kidd have commented before that their white parents had just as much to do with their success but aren’t counted in the racial scorecard.

At the same time, I’m leery of letting people define themselves when it comes to participation in a group based on activity or “merit”. Katherine Heigl still touts herself a Mormon, but it’s more of a label than anything.

Hmm. Interesting “Duke.” So I have to decide how to play things. I’ve actually been somewhat interested in getting more active in politics once I’m not so ridiculously busy. Outside of Hatch I like most of my representatives. I need to read up more on State politics though as that’s where the real issues are. But few know what goes on in their state houses.

A perhaps more unsettling aspect of Romney’s campaign is that he’s singlehandedly proving that the most important part of winning in American politics is not character or ideas or courage or even stage-management; it’s money. His political fortunes will stand or fall on the foundation of his campaign war chest and nothing else.

still, Clark, his overall political fortunes seem to be tied to $ more than to anything else.

Brad, I’m just not sure I can agree with that in the least.

Actually, Clark, a decade ago, the campaign would barely have been underway last September. This time, the Republicans, for example have already had 20 candidate debates, dating back to May of last year. The Democrats have had 22, the earliest last April. In 1991 Clinton didn’t announce his candidacy until October.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/31/opinion/meyer/main2419923.shtml

I completely agree “Hawkgrrl.” But that over-consultation makes him seem very artificial and untrustworthy. My feeling is that this judgment by the population is established enough now that it will be tremendously difficult to overcome.

Bill, that’s a good point but ends up being beside the issue. The campaign, for various reasons, got underway early this time. (Personally I blame McCain-Feingold in large part: it’s harder to raise money)

Brad, Romney was the early establishment leader which then in turn netted him a lot of money. But the story isn’t that Romney was raising lots of money but rather how little all that money has gained him. He’s still in a weak position and will have his work cut out for him to beat McCain.

Clark, [Brad] “how little all that money has gained him?”

Don’t tell me your falling for the Huckabee one note Whine: “we were outspent [20-50] to 1 here in [state that he just lost in] and were still able to come out with a [place other than first]“.

Guiliani and Romney have received comparable campaign contributions (including what Romney has put in). Rudy is a national hero. Rudy has spent all of his money. What has it gotten him? Rudy is statistically tied with Romney and 2 others in Florida. McCain is also a national hero with plenty of name recognition? And what has he done? Won NH. Barely. Mitt has spent his money wisely.

Romney has run an amazing campaign. Made a few mistakes and got a few unlucky breaks. But if he can pull out the nomination (and maybe even if he doesn’t), his innovative tactics will be studied/copied for some time.

Bottom line: Romney would have the nomination locked up right now if it was not for one thing: Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is competitive in this race for one reason: his evangelicism. There isn’t much that Romney could have done differently to defend himself against the onslaught of bigotry and nepotism (from Huckabee’s evangelical brothers and sisters) that he has–so far–managed to survive.