Consider George W. Bush.

Even if you’d rather not.

In particular, consider what he said while walking into a New York elevator on Tuesday.
“I’m for Mitt Romney,” the former president yelled to an ABC reporter as, presumably, the sliding metal door closed between them.

Not the most thrilling endorsement of all time. But still.

Now factor in a couple more - admittedly lightweight - pieces of political intelligence that have struck a nerve this week.

First, a quasi-rap video featuring Romney from The Gregory Brothers, whose YouTube stylings have garnered millions of hits. Showcased on The New York Times website, the video pokes fun at the former Massachusetts governor’s awkwardness, highlighting his famous love of Michigan’s trees.

The Gregory Brothers’ Romney rap also resurrects a gem of a quote from the campaign trail, in which Romney talks to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about loving comedy: “I used to watch Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, even The Keystone Kops.”

Not sure that will help bridge the gap with younger voters. But, frankly, I’m a huge Laurel and Hardy fan. And they don’t get a lot of press anymore.

Finally, this week also brought us James Lipton’s odd brand of Romney outreach.

On New York Magazine’s website, Lipton offered the candidate unsolicited advice on “How to Act Human,” which must have struck those at Romney HQ as a somewhat slightly cringe-inducing title.

“Another of Mr. Romney’s acting sins is sartorial,” Lipton notes, after fretting about the Republican nominee’s laugh and worrying that his body language is robotic. “Calling Wardrobe! The combination of neatly creased blue jeans below and crisp white dress shirt or bespoke jacket above is a failed mash-up of bowling alley and country club. Inauthenticity is, after all, today’s topic, and I suspect that if Mr. Romney weren’t running for president, he wouldn’t be caught dead in that mismatch.”

But - despite the slights and the jabs - something unexpectedly great happened to Mitt Romney this week: a New York Times/CBS poll reported that he has now pulled three points ahead of President Obama nationwide, up three points from a month ago.

Remarkably enough, the same poll also shows Obama crushing Romney when it comes to favorability, 45% to 31%. But perhaps, in a time of deep economic anxiety, likeability has somehow gotten decoupled from electability.

What if the malaise of 2012 has changed the conventional calculus? Forget “who would you rather have a beer with?” Maybe the new yardstick is: “who would I rather have invest my portfolio?” Or “who would I rather have do my taxes?”

If that’s the case, James Lipton can go back to his day job. Sometimes, acting human can be overrated.

Since I just finished a Drumstick (Nestlé, not chicken), I’m feeling particularly well qualified to write about junk. (Though I’m also feeling a little guilty, since it’s only 10:30 in the morning, and who knows how many chocolate-topped treats lie ahead.)

Recently, of course, sugar has been the object of our national scorn. Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California San Francisco, has argued passionately and publicly about the potentially poisonous properties of the sweet stuff.

Even “60 Minutes” assigned CNN’s Sanjay Gupta to look in-depth at Lustig’s claims. The resulting segment - tellingly titled “Is Sugar Toxic?” - featured Gupta asking Lustig: “What are all these various diseases that you say are linked to sugar?”

“Obesity,” Lustig said.“Type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease itself.”

To a dessert-o-phile like myself, this was a truly horrifying statement.

Kimber Stanhope, a researcher from the University of California Davis, has also studied sugar closely and told Gupta that the data motivated her to make lifestyle changes: “I started drinking and eating a whole lot less sugar. I would say our data surprised me.”

Ensconced on the couch, concern etched into my forehead, I immediately started wondering how many years I’d be willing to sacrifice for brownies. Two, at least. And, to be safe, I should throw in another year for coffee-oreo ice cream.

Of course, there have been many, many verboten foods over the past few decades.

In the early 1970s, Dr. Robert Atkins insisted that carbohydrates were the enemy and encouraged a diet of meat, vegetables and fat. (Atkins based the advice on an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which helped him and many of his patients lose weight.)

In the 1990s, Dr. Dean Ornish advocated a drastic reduction in meat and fat consumption, arguing that this sort of diet could substantially reduce the risk of coronary artery disease.

We’ve cycled through it all: low-carb, high-carb, low-fat, high-protein, meat-intensive, dairy-free. You name it, America’s tried it.

During the low-carb craze, I remember wondering how so many Asians could stay thin if carbs made you fat. During the low fat craze, I wondered why the French looked so good if butter made you fat. And during this anti-sugar moment, I’ve thought often about some lovely time I spent in Geneva, where croissants, mousse, and tarte tatins are on every corner. And yet, people in all those places are generally much trimmer than they are here.

I, apparently, am not the only one who has noticed this, as evidenced by the recent ascendance of European-style parenting manuals, which tout - like Karen Le Billon’s French Children Eat Everything - the importance of well-rounded meals: from organic celery salad to chocolate ice cream. Quelle diversité!

Which brings us back to sugar - and the question of just how harmful that chocolate ice cream is.

Probably not that bad, in my decidedly non-scientific view, if it’s washed down with Le Billon’s celery salad.

Our problem, though, is that we just don’t consume much wholesome food to balance out the ice cream.

As author Michael Pollan has noted, Americans don’t eat enough of the real stuff. Real chicken. Real broccoli. Real rice. Real oranges. Whatever.

Collectively, we've drifted far from the kitchen - and even from the bundt pans - into the world of Hot Pockets, GoGurt, Doritos, and Pop-Tarts. (I absolutely love S'Mores Pop-Tarts, so I’m far from guiltless here.)

As the New York Times reported this week, even Kellogg - the purveyor of super-sugary cereals like Froot Loops (would spelling “fruit” correctly give consumers the wrong impression?) - can’t keep up with on-the-go Americans, who increasingly opt for portable food.

That’s why Kellogg is working hard to develop products like waffles with flavorings baked in (who has time for syrup anymore?) - and will soon shell out $2.7 billion for Pringles.

It’s a steep price, but, as the Times points out, Kellogg has had to wrestle with a strange new truth: “The ultimate convenience food — which is how cereal was once billed — is just not convenient enough any more.”

And that, I would submit - not sugar or butter or carbs - is our core problem.

If the death of Trayvon Martin has started a national discussion about race, get ready for some tough talking points.

Among them: a spate of recent polling about interracial marriage.

Not so long ago, a white man named Richard Perry Loving wanted to marry a black woman named Mildred Jeter (left). They left Virginia - where interracial marriage was then illegal - and traveled to Washington D.C. to get married.

Back in Virginia, they were arrested and pled guilty to breaking the law.

That was 1959.

Eight years later, when Loving and Jeter’s case reached the Supreme Court, every single member of the Court ruled in the couple’s favor, believing that Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

But unanimity on the Supreme Court does not translate into unanimity across the nation.

“As recently as 1994,” according to Gallup, “less than half of Americans approved” of marriage between blacks and whites.

By 2007, 75% of whites approved of interracial marriages (the percentage was considerably higher among blacks - 85%).

And this month, when Public Policy Polling asked Republican primary voters in Illinois their view on interracial marriage, the numbers were similar. Three in four said they thought interracial marriage should be legal.

But look at the flip side of that number.

Fully 25% of respondents either believed that interracial marriage should be illegal (16%) or were unsure (9%).

The numbers were even starker during a poll in Mississippi a couple of weeks ago, which appeared to show that 46% of the state’s likely Republican voters either believe interracial marriage should be illegal or aren't sure.

What do these poll results say about a national conversation on race? About the prejudices touched on in the discussion of Trayvon Martin?

The political media has cooked up plenty of odd duos: Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, Al Franken and Arianna Huffington (back when she was conservative).

But Fox News’ Chris Wallace referees what may be the oddest political match-up on air today: Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s longtime advisor, and Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign manager. “I’ve got the best job in the world,” Wallace says. “Rove and Trippi have forgotten more about politics than I’ll ever know.”

And tonight the three will hold court again, hashing through Super Tuesday results in what Wallace, unabashedly, refers to as the political junkie’s Super Bowl.

I talked with the Fox News Sunday host (who once served as NBC’s chief White House correspondent) about preparing for tonight’s coverage, why an “ugly win” is still a win, and what he’ll be doing tomorrow.

What do you have your eye on today?

I’ll be focusing on Ohio, which is enormously important. Blue collar, working class, lots of Catholics. A key state that Republicans may need to win the presidency. If Mitt Romney wins, he starts to separate himself. If Rick Santorum wins, we’re back to talk about Mitt Romney being a weak frontrunner.

The other state I’ll be looking at is Georgia. If Newt Gingrich can’t win, he may have to drop out. But, as we saw with Michigan, even an ugly three-point win is a win.

Why do people keep talking about the white-knight scenario, the idea that Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush will ride in to save the day?

Let’s say Mitt Romney had lost Michigan, his home state. Well, the conventional wisdom in the Republican Party would have been that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum might not be able to beat Obama. And the Party thinks that Obama is vulnerable. If Rick Santorum beats Mitt Romney in some Super Tuesday contests, I think you’ll hear people bring that up again. People will talk about a contested convention

What are election days like at Fox News?

Actually, election days are the longest and most boring days of the campaign until 4 or 5 p.m., when you get exit polls. You wait and wait until 5, and then you are deluged with information. It’s like trying to drink out of a fire hose. If you’re a political junkie, it’s the Super Bowl.

I’ve got the best job in the world, running a panel with Karl Rove and Joe Trippi. They’ve forgotten more about politics that I’ll ever know. It’s particularly amazing to see Karl sit there and crunch the numbers.

What’s the most interesting statistic or bit of analysis that Rove has thrown at you so far this season?

Well, he links into the website of each state's Secretary of State. And he’ll look at individual precincts. He was able to do that on the night of the Michigan primary at about 9 p.m., and by 9:15 he knew Mitt Romney was going to win. The computer models didn’t figure that out for an hour and a half.

How do you prep for tonight? Social media? Favorite go-to websites?

Social media is an important way to get your message out there. I don’t do Twitter myself. Some people on our staff do it. But I’m certainly on the Internet a lot. There’s no way you can’t be - I look at everything from Politico to Fox News to Huffington Post to The Drudge Report.

We did a debate with Google, and, in the process, they were able to show us these amazing ways of measuring the economy in different states. You can see how often people search “foreclosure” or “mortgage refinancing,” for example.

If Mitt Romney emerges as the likely nominee tonight, what do you think the primary process has done to him - both good and bad?

I think it’s done a lot. It has strengthened him, toughened him up. He hasn’t sailed to the nomination but has had to fight for it.

And in a couple of cases - like Florida and Michigan - it has also brought up lines of attack that Democrats will certainly take advantage of in the fall.

What did you think of the media’s focus on Romney’s gaffes - like, for example, the picture of him at Ford Field? Did the press get off-topic by focusing on the fact that 80,000 people can fit in the stadium and only 1,200 came to see the candidate? Or is that a legitimate issue?

It wasn’t the biggest story coming out of that speech. He did announce a tax plan.
But look, to a certain degree, it hurt that his campaign had leaked out some of the details. And for the campaign to make that kind of basic, elementary gaffe was striking. It’s Advance Work 101. Get a small room and put a large crowd in it.

Tomorrow - after we leave Super Tuesday behind - you’ll pick up the Sol Taishoff award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism from the National Press Foundation, which has been won by Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, and Jim Lehrer, among others. How do you feel about getting it?

It’s a big deal. “60 Minutes” has won it - and Ted Koppel, Charlie Gibson, Brit Hume. Quite frankly, some of the people I admire most in the business. To be invited to stand with those heavyweights means a lot. It really means a lot to me.

Ed Schultz isn’t the kind of guy who holds back.

A one-time pro football player, Schultz rose to prominence as liberals’ (tamer) answer to Rush Limbaugh. And in recent days, Schultz has dished up unsparing criticism of Limbaugh, saying that “this could be the beginning of the end for the man behind the golden microphone.”

But, while Schultz keeps one eye on the Limbaugh firestorm, he is also gearing up for Super Tuesday coverage on MSNBC, where, for almost three years, he has hosted “The Ed Show.” After some timeslot hopping, the hard-driving, personality-infused hour now occupies the same 8 p.m. slot held by the network’s one-time lynchpin Keith Olbermann.

I spoke with Schultz about his predictions for tomorrow, his morning reads, what birth control has done for Rick Santorum, and why Newt Gingrich is a “sly fox.”

What is coverage like at MSNBC on a big primary day? Take us behind the scenes.

Normally, about an hour before we go on the air we get a briefing from polling experts, and we get a pretty good idea of the way things are going. But we’re not in a position to say anything.

Really, for primary night, preparation is key. You have to have researched the area, the states in play, the trends, be able to put things into historical perspective. You just can’t show up and wing it. You have to come in with a few different areas where you’re rock solid in your research.

Other than that, it’s basically a crap shoot. Things unfold in front of us on the air that we have to put in perspective quickly. It’s pretty exciting to be a part of it.

So there’s a window of time when you have poll results but you can’t disclose them, since people are still voting?

We get trend information, but we don’t get rock solid information. That gives us an idea of what could unfold so we’re not completely blindsided.

With so many states in play, what do you think we’ll see tomorrow?

If you relate this to the presidential election in November, all eyes should be focused on Ohio. Ohio’s going to be very, very interesting - it’s a state that’s very concerned about the economy. I would say that’s Mitt Romney’s forte. It’s a state that’s very strong on social issues, and that, of course, is a big part of Rick Santorum’s campaign. And Ron Paul has his 10-13%.

Newt Gingrich is really pulling down Santorum’s campaign right now because if Gingrich were out of the race a lot of those votes would go to Santorum. Gingrich has gone on record to say he has to win Georgia.

I would imagine that Romney will not have any problem winning Massachusetts or Vermont. North Dakota’s going to be interesting. Could Santorum peel some votes away from Gingrich in Georgia? What is Romney’s Southern strategy? What state is he going to win?

You know, Newt Gingrich is a sly fox. He’s saying: if I don’t win in Georgia, I’m not relevant. He’s positioning himself for a big win, but he wants everyone to know that he’s really up against the wall here. It’s really interesting how he games the media.

What role does the birth control issue play here?

That issue really hurt Santorum in Michigan. He’s back now to talking about manufacturing and economic issues, and those were the issues he was talking about when he won Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado.

And then all of a sudden his campaign took a turn. He lost the Catholic vote in Michigan. He lost the women’s vote in Michigan. It can all unravel so fast on these candidates.

How do you explain the difficulties that Mitt Romney’s campaign has had? Has the media been fair to him?

I don’t think you can run for president and be a referee on the media at the same time. If you want to get in this game, you have to be prepared for everything.

What do you make of the Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren Senate race?

I guess Elizabeth Warren is a pretty good lefty. And I think there is probably a pretty good angst out there about Brown’s support and co-sponsorship of the Blunt Amendment. It seems to me that would be pretty hard to explain to half of the electorate.

I think because of her consumer protection advocacy work, the Republicans are probably pretty nervous about Elizabeth Warren getting into the Senate.

What is your day like? How do you prep for your nighttime show?

Normally I’m up about 7 a.m. and surf the Net. I pay attention to Twitter obviously. I read the New York Times, the Huffington Post. I don’t go to Politico very much. I used to, but I see a real conservative bent.

I’ll lift some weights and walk. Do that at least four times a week. I get into the office at about 11 and do the radio show from 12 to 3.

I feel like I get a good pulse from listening to callers on a national show. For example, the comments by Limbaugh [about Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke] set people on fire.

On MSNBC, I’ve done the 6 p.m., 10 p.m., and 8 p.m. Three time slots in a period of about a year. Now we’re in second place in the slot. It feels like we’re making good progress.

I have been fascinated by the coverage of Charles Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, in which he notes that marriage has, increasingly, become the domain of the upper class.

In 1960, for example, 88% of those in the top fifth of income earners were married. By 2010, the percentage was nearly identical: 83%.

Among those in the working class, though, the numbers fell off a cliff. In 1960, 83% of those in the bottom 30% of income earners were married; by 2010, only 48% were.

In many ways, this is an astounding transformation, a radical shift that somehow did not
touch those who buy their food at Whole Foods, their sheets at Garnet Hill, and their overstuffed love seats at Pottery Barn.

But why?

Murray attributes the problem to several factors: a reduction in available jobs for those with high school educations, a decline in religiosity, and a disappearing stigma against out-of-wedlock births and divorce, among others.

It’s certainly true that single parents are now the norm in many American cities and towns. Fifty years ago, fewer than 10% of working-class women had children outside marriage. Now we’re about 50%.

“It was like living with another kid,” 27-year-old Amber Strader explained to The New York Times. “...I’d like to do it, but I just don’t see it happening right now. Most of my friends say it’s just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.”

The comment served to buttress statistics showing that unmarried women under 30 now have more children than married women under 30, and educational level appears to be a major factor.

Among white women under 30, only 8% of those with a college degree have children out of wedlock. For those who have never attended college, more than half of children - 51% - are now born to unmarried mothers.

To me, this feels like fascinating stuff, and I’ll follow up in a subsequent column. But first I’d like to hear your view: what has happened here? What do you see around you?

Liz Claman left WHDH-7 for CNBC in 1998. And she quickly became absorbed by the business world - frequently interviewing titans like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Richard Branson.

Now an anchor for the Fox Business Network, Claman just returned from the annual nexus of politics and business: The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This year, the Forum imposed a quota for the second year in a row, requiring many companies to bring at least at one female representative.

But why the need for a quota in the first place? Why have so few women ascended to corporate leadership positions? Read my Boston Globe interview with Claman here, and, below, check out the outtakes from our discussion:

What’s the effect of having so few women at Davos?

Last year, I walked into a panel run by Arthur Sulzberger of the New York Times. I sat down, and I was the only woman in the audience - except for the Forum’s media representative. I was stunned. I just looked around and thought: this is what they’re talking about.

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, has said that women sometimes exclude themselves from the corporate climb, as they think ahead to marriage and children. Is that why there so few women in top management positions?

I think it’s a work in progress. I think that, for me, I never paid attention. Now, I’m a big feminist. I’m a member of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Rah, rah, women. Except that part of that belief is that it’s a meritocracy, and nobody should get in the door unless they deserve to be there. So, in a way, I think part of it is very much women’s fault in that they don’t push themselves in there.

But, on the other hand, a lot of corporate CEOs I spoke to last year said: “you know, we just weren’t thinking about bringing a woman.” But when we they were encouraged to find women, they did find people who deserved to sit at the table. And last I checked, women have just as good ideas as men.

How did you end up breaking through and succeeding?

My parents are Canadian and very nice. I had to say: stop being so Canadian. I was getting passed up to be an anchor, and one day I stormed into my boss’ office, and I made a case to him that I should be an anchor.

This was in Columbus, Ohio, and I was getting passed up because I was a good reporter. And they didn’t want to lose me as a reporter. So I said: “if you don’t let me anchor, you’ll be punishing me for being good.” I said that I’d work unpaid part of the time if they’d let me anchor, and they bought the deal.

Today, Mitt Romney will almost certainly capture Florida.

But the real question brewing in the run-up to the primary is whether he - or Newt Gingrich - can win the state when it really matters: the general election.

Florida, after all, went for President Obama by 2.5 points in 2008. Not a landslide, perhaps, but, by Florida standards, pretty convincing.

And part of that win meant appealing to Latinos, who make up more than 22% of the state’s population. Certainly, some of those Latinos are Cuban-Americans who cotton to anti-Castro rhetoric, but many of them are from other backgrounds: Puerto Rican, Mexican, and others. And they care about politicians’ stands on immigration. (More Latinos in Florida are now Democrats than Republicans.)

“Romney said at the Dec. 10, 2011 debate in Iowa," Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenhimer has noted, "that the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the country should be given a ‘transition period’ to ‘settle their affairs and then return home.’ He later described it as a ‘self-deportation’ plan.”

Syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. has unequivocally condemned Romney’s missteps: “the dishonest and cynical way in which the former governor of Massachusetts has dealt with the immigration issue on the campaign trail shows that he has a problem being consistent... We never forget a slight. And, in that respect, Romney has given us plenty to remember.”

In an election primarily focused on the economy, race may feel somewhat peripheral. But, since Florida is never peripheral, issues of race and immigration could prove crucial in the general election.

Gingrich may have taken down an ad labeling Romney "anti-immigrant," but the Governor still has a tough battle ahead.

One of the most fascinating questions to come out of yesterday's debate - and today's Romney tax returns - is a simple one: who exactly is elite?

On NBC last night, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich spent several minutes arguing about who truly pulled themselves up by their bootstraps - and who operated as an insider.

Gingrich, Romney alleged, not only roamed the halls of power but, after leaving the Speakership, began "working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was paying Speaker Gingrich one million, six hundred thousand dollars."

In the past, of course, Newt has attacked "elites" and "the elite media," presumably excluding himself from either group. And he has insisted that he is the best representative of average, salt-of-the-earth conservatives.

Romney too has tried to distance himself from elites, noting that he "didn't inherit money" from his parents and, instead, made it on his own.

Both Gingrich and Romney are doing their best to sidle away from the "elite" moniker. But it hardly matters. Both are, by any measure, elites.

(If you want to take it to the dictionary here, my old-school, Webster's New World Dictionary defines "elite" as "1. the group or part of a group selected or regarded as the finest, best, most distinguished, most powerful, etc.")

Gingrich has a Ph.D., served as a college professor, rose to become Speaker of the House (second in line to the presidency), and, according to his tax returns, earned north of $3.1 million last year.

As The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has written, Gingrich has also "co-authored New York Times op-eds with Sen. John Kerry. He served on the bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Security and as co-chair of a task force on UN reform... If Newt Gingrich is not a Washington elite, no one is."

Romney, to his credit, has essentially acknowledged that he is among the financially elite - and today's tax returns, showing he made more than $20 million in both 2010 and 2011 testify to that. But his repeated claim that he made it on his own is questionable.

First, he is the son of a former governor of Michigan who ran for president and headed up a major American car company. The notion, therefore, that he "lived in the real streets of America" seems credible only in the most literal sense. I'm sure he has, in fact, always lived on a real street in America (except when he lived overseas).

Second, PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning arm of the Tampa Bay Times, noted that even while Mitt was still in school, having recently married Ann, they seemed to be benefitting from outside financial help.

"It's not clear who paid for his education, but Romney wasn't exactly a struggling student: enough cash for plane tickets, a car as a wedding gift, stock that kept him from having to work, help buying a home."

Which leads to an interesting question: what exactly is elite? And who is part of it? Is elitism defined by education? By income? (And how much is enough?) By the ability to wield power or influence?

Perhaps, but not if Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich have anything to say about it.

What do you think the definition of elitism is?

John King may be in South Carolina this week gearing up for Saturday's Republican primary, but he's still a Boston-bred boy.

When I caught up with him this week, we chatted about Mitt Romney's taxes, the Willie Horton Effect, Southern BBQ, and - of course - the Patriots.

In some of the recent polling in South Carolina, we see Gov. Mitt Romney at least ten points ahead of his nearest competitor - Newt Gingrich. Could the issue of Romney waiting to release his taxes - and paying a lower rate than many middle-income Americans - make a difference in South Carolina?

I think it has the potential to make a difference. Remember the history of the South Carolina primary. Governor Romney comes in having won New Hampshire and Iowa - and if he wins South Carolina, that might get him awfully close to the nomination.

So, they’re trying to stop him. Is it a surprise that a wealthy man pays lower taxes? Not really. But they’re trying to present it as: "he doesn’t get you."

Gingrich is Romney’s closest competitor, with about a quarter of the vote in South Carolina. What do you make of Gingrich’s chances?

His support is significant. But it doesn’t seem to be growing fast enough to catch Mitt Romney. He’s from Georgia, which is next door. He’s a Southerner. Strong debate performances. An affinity for the South. But it might not be enough.

What does that tell you? People don’t want to go back to the future. More than other candidates, Mitt Romney has decent support in every slice of the Republican Party. He many have a ceiling, but he also has a very strong floor.

You’re in South Carolina right now. Tell me what it feels like there. What’s the energy on the ground?

South Carolina voters feel passionately that they matter. New Hampshire is so proud of being the first primary state, but South Carolina gets their chest puffed out. They view this as a trophy - knowing it’s crucial to the nomination.

In terms of the passion on the ground, you feel less energy from the voters than in past years. It doesn’t mean they’re not listening, though. This just seems like a calmer, more methodical campaign. Republicans want to beat Barack Obama - so they’re very, very serious.

We hear a lot about super PACs, but we’ve seen negative ads in the past - think back to Willie Horton. Are super PACs really so different? Are they changing?

I was the Massachusetts AP guy covering Michael Dukakis. The super PACSs are taking the space of things like Willie Horton. They are taking the place of leaflets that used to appear on people’s cars. But the new ads feel like leaflets hooked up to concert speakers.

We were in a meeting last night, and the TV was on in the corner. We just kept stopping to watch the ads. It’s a bludgeoning. It’s softer during daytime programming. Harder around sports and news. It’s a Rock ’Em, Sock ’Em environment.

You are originally from Massachusetts. How closely are you watching the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren race?

That may be the most interesting race in the country right now - that and the Patriot’s path to Super Bowl victory.

Look, it’s the Kennedy Senate seat. It will get national attention, and it’ll be even more fascinating if Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off. Usually Massachusetts is ignored in election years, but this would bring a lot of attention to Massachusetts.

I asked Fox’s Carl Cameron what he was eating on the trail. Got to ask you too.

Barbeque. We had barbeque last night - pulled chicken, mac and cheese, cardiologist included. It’s a “when in Rome” moment. Some people also eat biscuits and gravy for breakfast, but I don’t. I’m not really a breakfast person. I try to work out at the gym.

In the 1988 campaign, I gained 25 pounds. I promised myself I wouldn’t do that again. In '92, thanks to Clinton, I gained a little, but not as much.

You cover the election a lot with your wife, CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash. When you go home, are you still talking politics? Or do you leave that for work?

It really depends. On the big days, we talk about it when we first get home. It’s like the Patriots post-game show. We’re both passionate about our work. But then we pivot.

Do your children watch you on TV?

I have older children, and they sometimes roll their eyes at me. But I have a son who’s a freshman at BC, and he’s starting to think this stuff is important. My seven-month old is shown CNN by his grandparents, who claim he recognizes me and does a half-yelp, half-laugh. Then he exercises his better judgment and turns away.

Tonight, John King will moderate the final Republican debate before South Carolina votes on Saturday.

(Screenshot courtesy Fox News)

Before 1996, when he joined Fox, he worked at WMUR, the ABC affiliate in Manchester. (And his family has had a home in Carroll County, NH for almost 90 years.)

So, as the Primary enters its final hours, I caught up with Cameron on the trail - he had to run straight from our conversation to an on-air update - to ask which candidates have real energy on the ground, how he sees the race going as we move south, and what he eats on the road (we went into a lot more detail on that question than I expected).

What candidates are pulling in the biggest crowds in NH? Where are crowds the thinnest?

In general, the crowds and energy in NH are substantially less than in cycles past - because Mitt Romney has been the prohibitive front runner for so long. Lots of candidates this time around - especially those less known and less well-funded - chose not to do intensive, on-the-ground work and instead did debates and cable TV interviews. Santorum did the retail stuff in Iowa, and it paid off.

But didn’t Newt Gingrich rise because of media attention, not because of on-the-ground organization?

True, but Rick Santorum’s example in Iowa will come through. I think Jon Huntsman will validate that example. Huntsman’s support in New Hampshire is largely from Independents and Democrats. The latest UNH poll shows that. Also, at some point, the Republican Party will have to decide whether it’s positive or negative to have debates so often, which overshadows campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. These first-in-the-nation voters are bummed out about it. They’re very earnest and interested in the campaign.

You were once the political director at WMUR in New Hampshire. How have you seen the media’s presence in the New Hampshire primary change?

The number of media has exploded. Exponential. Now, in addition to all the cameras, there are people working off iPhones and blogging. There’s very little time for anything that isn’t on the record. In 1995, Lamar Alexander walked across New Hampshire by himself in a red, flannel shirt. He sat in people’s living rooms. And almost no one noticed. Of course, he didn’t win.

How big is your entourage in New Hampshire?

My intrepid and fantastic producer, Sarah Courtney. And camera and audio people who have worked with me since 1996. They’re great. They’re not my entourage. We’re a team.

What do you find yourself eating in New Hampshire? Lots of diner food, as you follow campaigns to greasy spoons?

My briefcase is filled with PowerBars. My preference is Harvest, particularly oatmeal raisin. I also carry power drinks - caffeinated and non-caffeinated - as well as Mucinex, my laptop, chargers for seven to fifteen devices, and make-up (because I’m on TV).

OK, back to politics. What do you see looking ahead to South Carolina on January 21st?

If Romney wins in New Hampshire, there’s a chance that this whole process could be over. But conventional wisdom has been turned on its head from the outset.
There’s the possibility that this will be a reflection of 2000. John McCain upset the frontrunner - George W. Bush - in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney is going to win New Hampshire this time, but he may get beaten up in South Carolina, whether he loses or wins there. And we may find out who the conservative alternative will be. Florida could be Romney versus the conservative. Florida has a nice cross-section of the country and is a nice battlefield.

Using history as a guide, no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning South Carolina [whose primary began in 1980]. And no one has won South Carolina without winning either New Hampshire or Iowa. When Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire, he’ll block the others out - at least historically. But it’s also dangerous to use history as a guide.

What will Fox News be doing to distinguish its coverage?

I went to Dixville Notch Tuesday night. It’s fun for me because I have the home-field advantage. South Carolina’s fantastic too. It’s clear that everything that’s done here is aimed at South Carolina voters.

[On Fox tonight, Cameron will be live from a campaign, reporting on the New Hampshire results as they come in.]

Sometimes, perfection has its price.

Mitt Romney outperformed in Iowa. He’ll likely run laps around his opponents tomorrow in New Hampshire (according to the latest poll, he's 17 points ahead of his closest competitior). And he has - essentially - run a flawless campaign.

But what if that’s not quite as awesome as you might think?

A few months ago, in its annual, education-themed Sunday magazine, The New York Times featured an article about the slipperiness of success. In the piece, heads of schools noted that, often, students who perform best in the long run have to deal with setbacks in the short run.

David Levin - co-founder of the widely-praised KIPP charter schools - kept track of students who came to KIPP in the late 1990s, and was shocked by what he discovered.

Turns out, many of the exceptionally high achievers ultimately dropped out of college. And those who did graduate “were not necessarily the ones who had excelled academically at KIPP.”

Instead, they were the kids who hadn’t just skated through, kids who had been roughed up a little by life, kids who knew how to deal with setbacks.

And so, the article asked, “What if the secret to success is failure?”

This may also be a central question for the Romney campaign. Certainly, Romney has failed in the past - he ran for president in 2008 - and dusted himself off to fight another day.

But he may skate through this primary season almost completely unscathed, rarely having to wrestle with a challenging situation. And that may prove to be a liability in the long run.

Sure, Romney hasn’t ever been the flavor of the month. There was Michele Bachmann, who got pushed off her pedestal by Rick Perry’s entrance into the race. There was Perry, of course, who ran into trouble while counting. There was Herman Cain, whose campaign died of a thousand self-inflicted wounds. And there’s Newt Gingrich, whose past caught up with him - as he must have known it would.

Santorum, too, has started to suffer from huge amounts of money and scrutiny being deployed against him: Has he favored big government programs? Pork-barrel projects? How about his personal rejection of contraception? And his recent rant against making “black peoples’ lives better by giving them somebody else’s money”? (Even though, as Charles Blow has noted, 13.3 million whites receive, for example, food stamps, compared to 8.9 million blacks.)

Time and again, Mitt Romney stands by as his opponents self-destruct.

But there are electoral hurdles lurking - hurdles Romney may not start to truly tackle until he gets to the big leagues - and faces an exceedingly well-financed Obama machine.

In December, for example, pollster Peter Hart - working on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Center - asked Republicans to evaluate candidates in different scenarios.

What if Romney needed to get a plane ticket, Hart inquired, but there was only one left?

Voters thought he’d try to pay to get to the front of the line.

And what if Romney was a member of your family, wondered Hart. Who would he be?

“Neighbor." "Cousin." "Twice removed." “The dad who's never home."
Romney hasn't adequately addressed concerns that he’s aloof, overly-removed, or ultra-cautious - because he hasn’t had to. But, for Romney, success may not come without a little failure.

“If Mitt Romney was working at Bain Capital,” former George W. Bush strategist Matt Dowd asked Charlie Rose last week, what would he think of a company whose strategy was to maintain the status quo? A company that said: our four-year plan is not to increase market share, to be ultra cautious, not to make any mistakes, to have the same company in four years that we have today,

“Mitt Romney,” Dowd said, “would probably fire that CEO. That has been Mitt Romney’s campaign."

Getting roughed up in the primaries - as “Comeback Kid” Bill Clinton can attest - often toughens you up for the general election.

So far, of course, perfection has been a winning strategy for Mitt. But sometimes
even perfection has its price.

There's been a lot of chatter about Iowa's near-irrelevance in the presidential nominating process.

First, Iowans don't have a great track record. They picked Mike Huckabee over John McCain in 2004, Bob Dole over George H.W. Bush in 1988, and George H.W. Bush over Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Second, the state is 91% white, while the nation is only 64% white. (Iowa is less than 4% Hispanic, though Hispanics make up more than 16% of the U.S. population.)

So, who cares about the caucuses?

Not Jon Huntsman, certainly, who has been crisscrossing New Hampshire, but has almost completely dismissed Iowa.

But here's why you should care: Iowa acts as a kind of barometer for the base. After three years of Obama - who, himself, rose to prominence on the shoulders of Iowa's hard-core Democrats - how hungry are Republicans to win?

Only hunger will explain an embrace of Mitt Romney who - like John Kerry before him - is widely perceived as a palatable candidate (Howard Dean, by contrast, was seen as too liberal).

Many in Iowa are skeptical of Romney's Massachusetts record - and rightly so, since he has changed many of his views since he was elected to the Governorship less than a decade ago. But caucus-goers also worry about casting their lots with Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, who truly - and consistently - reflect conservative views.

Better go with the moderate, they reason (even if he has waffled a couple of times), than shoot for the moon and fail.

Tonight, Iowa takes the temperature of the base - and gauges its anti-Obama fervor.

Of course, picking the more-mainstream candidate didn't exactly work out for Kerry supporters in 2004. And the Obama team is certainly studying the famous flip-flop line of attack.

Even as Romney supporters cast votes for him tonight, you can bet that the President's campaign deputies are trying to figure out whether Mitt Romney windsurfs.

Who's afraid of predictions?

Not me, though I'm sure I should be.

So, here are my top political and media predictions for 2012.

Politics:

1. Mitt Romney will win the primaries, fending off serious, last-second challenges from Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Even Rick Perry may find himself surging in the polls during the final few days.

But Republicans want a winner in 2012, and they sense that Mitt Romney is that person, even if the Governor hasn't captured their hearts. It's a little bit of a Howard Dean/John Kerry replay - a race that made liberals turn away from a more ideologically-pure candidate and embrace an experienced Senator with a strong military record.

(Check out the latest Iowa polls, in which Gingrich has cratered and Romney is holding onto the top spot - with Paul not far behind.)

Which leads me to a second political prediction:

2. Massachusetts will become the central issue in the 2012 campaign. Not to be parochial (OK, maybe a little), I believe that this state will prove to be Romney's greatest hurdle and greatest asset.

Right now, Massachusetts health care features prominently in Republican attacks on Romney, but if the former Governor can nab the nomination, his Massachusetts experience could prove to be a tremendous strength. ("I know how to get both sides of the aisle to work together; heck, I was governor of Massachusetts!")

Wouldn't it be ironic if Massachusetts propelled Mitt Romney to the presidency? I wouldn't rule it out.

And finally... a non-political prediction...

Media:

1. No, I don't know if Katie Couric's new talk show will soar (all I ask is no paternity tests...). And I have no idea whether Anderson Cooper's daytime chatfest will continue to hang in there (could we make Kathy Griffin a co-host?). And I can't begin to guess whether 2012 will be the year that The Today Show introduces maximum blood-alcohol levels for hosts (take your head out of the scorpion bowl, Kathie Lee).

But I do predict that unconventional media - and unconventional media jobs - will continue to proliferate this year. In the past month, we've already seen Ben Smith of the powerful website Politico get poached by Buzzfeed (where?) and one-time CBS news political director Steve Chaggaris move to Yahoo!

As media becomes increasingly splintered, new players will get into the game. Which adds to the excitement - and the competition.

Here's to 2012!

He wasn't expecting an explosion this morning. But that's what Hussain Abbas got.

As Qassim Abdul-Zahra writes in an Associated Press article today, Abbas was asleep when he heard an ambulance packed with explosives detonate. "I jumped from my bed and rushed to my mom's lap. I told her I did not to go to school today. I'm terrified."

The New York Times reports that at least 63 people were killed and close to 200 injured.

An Iraqi official noted: “This has nothing to do with the American withdrawal... When they were here, there were also explosions."

He's got us there.

Ten Christmases ago, in the wake of 9/11, it was hard to imagine that Americans and Iraqis would witnesses a nearly nine-year war.

By Christmas of 2001, after all, we were knee deep in another war. We had been in Afghanistan for two and a half months, hunting down Al Qaeda, taking out the Taliban.

Ten years ago, President Bush insisted we were on a crusade. "We're going to smoke them out," he said of Al Qaeda. We promised that we'd get bin Laden "dead or alive."

But Iraq was already on the horizon. Bob Woodward has reported that on November 21, 2001, the President requested an Iraq "war plan."

Earlier that fall, I had started graduate school (On September 11, I was pulling into the parking lot at school when the local NPR anchor announced that the first plane had hit the World Trade Center).

Though I had always been a political junkie - I used to try get home early during high school to watch Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff on CNN's "Inside Politics" - the events of that fall riveted me.

I became more interested in journalism. I read Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, William Safire, and Frank Rich religiously. I watched the Iraq build-up grow.

Slowly, my focus in graduate school changed, almost involuntarily, magnetically. I started to study presidents, the media, and how officials make a case for war.

Now, ten Christmases after 9/11, a conflict that seemed so clear has become amorphous. A conflict that seemed singular has become multi-faceted (homegrown terrorism, bioterrorism, cyberwar, etc.)

Today's "war on terror" is a war of unpredictability. A war that has changed many lives in America. A war that changed Iraqis' lives forever.

It's a war in which the bombs keep coming. Hussain Abbas does not know when they will stop. And neither do we.

For the past few months, Mitt Romney has watched, perplexed, as other Republican candidates have surged: Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa Straw Poll; Herman Cain, who thought China - a nuclear power since the 1960s - might soon get the bomb; and Newt Gingrich, a consummate insider who insists he is the man to change Washington.

It's been tough for Romney, seeing a series of challengers flame out, while he presses on and on: spending money, knowing policy, trying not to sound too extreme. (He does have to be ready for the general election, after all.)

But a funny thing has happened on the way to the Iowa Caucuses.

The field fractured. In the most recent poll of Iowa Republicans, Ron Paul leads, topping Romney 23% to 20% (Gingrich is now down at 14%). But Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum haven't disappeared. Indeed, they each claim 10%, making the three - all social conservatives - holders of the most votes, at least in aggregate.

In New Hampshire, meanwhile, Romney has lost much of his early lead. But again, his contenders are diverse. Ron Paul is just five points behind him at 24% (the notion that Ron Paul has a relatively low ceiling has been in the air for years, but the ceiling is constantly being shattered). And Jon Huntsman, once a 1% candidate, is now garnering 11% in the Granite State - and over 16% among those age 45-64. Gingrich and Paul are doing extremely well with 18 to 29 year olds, but young voters often don't have impressive showings at the polls.

In the last weeks before the Iowa Caucuses, the surges and flame-outs have died down. And the field is beginning to fracture, breaking apart in strange and unpredictable ways, rather than consolidating behind the steady, let's-not-make-waves candidate.

Mitt Romney has been patient. He's let everyone else make their move. Soon, it may be time for Romney to make his.

Could this be it?

When the Labor Department announced this morning that the U.S. had added 120,000 jobs last month, nudging the unemployment rate from 9% to 8.6%, you better believe there was dancing at the White House.

Metaphorically, at least.

After topping 9% for most of the last two years, unemployment has finally broken through a stubborn barrier - which may finally encourage large companies to start spending their hordes of cash - over a trillion dollars, according to NPR.

On CNBC this morning, Ed Lazear, who advised George W. Bush on the economy and now teaches at Stanford, said he believes the U.S. may have finally turned the corner.

And Austan Goolsbee, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Obama administration, noted that "like the bunny, we keep coming back."

The markets were certainly cheered. After running up almost 500 points earlier in the week, the Dow opened up substantially on news of the falling unemployment rate.

But for those watching the presidential race, the question is: what now? With eleven months until voters head to the polls to pick a new commander-in-chief, what happens if the economy starts roaring (or sputtering) forward?

After all, this has been a race built on a terrible economy.

The improbable rise of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich were all fueled - in part - by the desires of a desperate, disillusioned electorate.

Even Mitt Romney - the sort-of front runner in the Republican primary - has constructed his appeal on a foundation of business experience.

So, what happens if the economy recedes in voters' minds?

Foreign policy and social issues will undoubtedly resurface.

And in foreign policy, at least, Republicans face a serious divide. There are those like Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman who argue (to different degrees) that we are overextended abroad, that it is time to repatriate troops and money. Nation-building, they say, is folly.

Romney, meanwhile, has fully embraced a muscular foreign policy. "This century must be an American Century," he said in an October speech at The Citadel. "In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world."

While Ron Paul has called for massive defense savings - and has consistently won substantial support in primary polls - Romney is staking out a different position: "I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts," he said at The Citadel.

If the economy turns, the Republican field may start to show real fissures. But, then again, an internal debate could strengthen the party as it looks ahead to November.

Around the world, this has been the year of uprisings - spurred in large part by financial concerns.

Athens, of course, has witnessed months of fiery protests. But the disaffected have also crowded the streets of Paris, London, Rome, and New York.

And economic woes extend far beyond the obvious.

As former New York Times war reporter - and current Truthdig columnist - Chris Hedges told me in August, the Arab Spring had a lot "to do with food prices. Commodity prices - especially wheat, which has increased in price by 100% in past eight months - has really made it difficult for families, especially poor families - and half of the population in Egypt lives on about two dollars a day - to feed themselves."

Hedges argued that skyrocketing prices helped foment dissatisfaction - and pushed people into the streets. "And that's why, if you looked closely," he said, "you saw within the crowds oftentimes, people actually carrying loaves of bread. And that's not going to go away."

Indeed, on the day before Thanksgiving, The Financial Times reported that more then 40% of food producers intend to hike consumer prices in the next few months, attempting to compensate for the rising cost of raw materials.

But the problem encompasses much more than food. Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia, wrote recently that the cost of education continues to outpace inflation - even as a four-year degree becomes a prerequisite for a comfortable, middle-class life. "Poor kids can't meet tuition," wrote Sachs, "and they drop out of college in droves. Yet with more cuts in state support for tuition and in federal Pell Grants, the situation is rapidly getting worse."

A few of the families that can't afford high tuitions protest. But most just feel angry, dispirited, and betrayed.

Still, as Sachs says, there is a strange, alternate narrative: "we have two economies, not one. The economy of rich Americans is booming. Salaries are high. Profits are soaring. Luxury brands and upscale restaurants are packed. There is no recession."

Hit up some of the more expensive restaurants in Boston, and you'll see $45 steaks and $60 bottles of wine liberally dotting packed tables.

The question, then - as prices for food, education, and health care continue to rise - is how long dissatisfaction can be contained.

"I drive by gated communities," the renowned geographer Jared Diamond wrote a few years ago, "guarded by private security patrols, and filled with people who drink bottled water, depend on private pensions, and send their children to private schools."

But financial insecurity can prove combustible. As Greece, the Arab Spring, and Occupy Wall Street have so powerfully demonstrated.

"If conditions deteriorate too much for poorer people," Diamond says, with a nod to history, "gates will not keep the rioters out."

2011 may have seemed like a year of upheaval. But the real fireworks could be yet to come.

A vast wasteland?

Well, sure. You can watch teenage girls gripe about homework on "16 and Pregnant," eavesdrop on catfights between "The Real Housewives of New Jersey," and dip into the rantings of Sean Hannity on Fox and Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

But what if - slowly, slowly - viewers are rebelling, and media execs are tuning into the rebellion.

Of course, the shouting (Obama's a socialist! Republicans only care about rich people!) stopped a long time ago on "Morning Joe," which debuted on MSNBC in 2007.

But "Morning Joe"'s collegiality and substantive focus - which seemed, for quite a while, to mark it as an outlier - now appears to have been a harbinger of real change.

Take Charlie Rose, host of one of the most serious programs on TV. Rose is now in talks to join "The CBS Early Show," where segments on fall fashion and easy desserts once reigned.

Already, CBS has undergone a complete morning overhaul, featuring extensive political and cultural commentary (Monday's show included a meditation on the meaning of a 7-billion-person world, as well as a conversation with Malcolm Gladwell).

Unlike their competitors on ABC and NBC, who often stand or sit in front of live audiences, CBS' anchors use a "bleak blue backdrop," as The New York Times' Alessandra Stanley called it, "that gives the show the look of a Soviet newscast in the Brezhnev era."

And there's more evidence of hard-nosed journalism invading the wasteland.

Take, for example, "Rock Center," a sort of homage to "60 Minutes" (and its popularity) debuting on NBC last night.

And now there's talk that CNN will upend its morning format and bringing in Soledad O'Brien and Ashleigh Banfield, who have done extensive in-the-field reporting.

Not that everyone is about to catch Murrow fever. You can still watch Kim Kardashian whine about skin problems - or catch Snooki hurling expletives and dripping mascara.

But, at least for now, some of the decision-makers have decided that there's a market for seriousness. For reality. And not the Snooki kind.

It's been a good week for the Republican presidential candidates. A brilliant week, in fact.

At least from Saturday Night Live's perspective.

We've seen the rise of the Hermanator. The popularity of 9-9-9 (and, thanks to Michele Bachmann, 6-6-6).

And then, thank goodness, there's Rick Perry.

On Tuesday, while at Dartmouth College, Perry paid a quick visit to a Dartmouth fraternity and told those boys a little something about America's history.

"Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom,"
Perry said, just after finishing up a debate at the College.

"As a matter of fact they were very much afraid if that because they’d just had this experience with this far-away government that had centralized thought process and planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away from that kind of onerous crown if you will."

I wonder what the guys at the fraternity house were thinking. I certainly hope they weren't taking notes for midterms.

Of course, it may not matter if our president thinks Thomas Jefferson washed ashore before the Mayflower. Or that - as Bachmann said - the shot heard round the world was fired in New Hampshire. Maybe American history is best left to the Harvard (or Dartmouth) elites.

One thing that should not be left to the elites, though, is economic policy.

Paul Krugman, stand aside.

This, after all, was the week of Rich Lowrie.

Herman Cain, who is now beating Mitt Romney in some national polls, stepped forward to explain how he crafted his 9-9-9 plan.

My "advisers come from the American people," Cain said at the Dartmouth debate. One, he noted, was Rich Lowrie from Cleveland, Texas.

“He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career," Cain noted.

If you've never heard of Cleveland, Texas, don't worry. Herman Cain probably hasn't either. As it turns out, he meant Cleveland, Ohio.

He also, apparently, meant "economist" in the loosest possible sense, since Lowrie is not an economist (see, for reference, Politico's article: "Herman Cain's economic adviser is not an economist").

According to The Washington Post, Lowrie "has a bachelor’s degree in accountancy from Case Western Reserve University, not economics. Lowrie, in an e-mail, said he did not consider himself an economist, just 'senior economic advisor' to the Cain campaign."

And - who knows? - this could be a boon to Herman Cain. After all, you don't need a Ph.D. to have an economic plan. Why not let accountants deal with trillion-dollar deficits and tax overhauls. Decision-making should not be the domain of the elites.

Thomas Jefferson would have been proud. Or Ponce de Leon. Whatever.

For the last few days, the media has not just pressed Chris Christie on his presidential ambitions.

It has also dwelled - rather uncomfortably - on his weight.

But should a politician's girth concern the punditocracy? Is it fair game in the same way that affairs, gaffes, and names of hunting lodges tend to be (see: Clinton, Bill; Palin, Sarah; and Perry, Rick)?

At first, the answer appeared to be yes. On September 29, both Michael Kinsley and Eugene Robinson penned op-eds blasting Christie for his weight and suggesting, at the very least, that it would pose problems for him as president.

Kinsley went even further: "Look, I’m sorry, but New Jersey Governor Chris Christie cannot be president: He is just too fat... It is just a too-perfect symbol of our country at the moment, with appetites out of control and discipline near zilch."

Robinson allowed for more flexibility on the issue. "Christie’s problem with weight ceased being a private matter when he stepped into the public arena — and it’s not something you can fail to notice."

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Mika Brzezinski chided Robinson for advising the New Jersey Governor to "Eat a salad and take a walk," though Robinson stuck to his argument.

Frank Bruni shot back at Kinsley and Robinson by getting personal, writing about his own struggles with weight (as he did in a recent book). "My borderline obesity in my mid-30s," Bruni noted in the New York Times, "wasn’t a sign of indolence and drift. Professionally, I was working harder and more reliably than ever."

In my view, Bruni has it right here.

Obesity is a problem, but it's Christie's problem. We have had presidents with health challenges before - think of FDR, who hid his paralysis for years and, ultimately, struggled with a weakened (and then failing) heart.

After all, if fitness and slimness foreshadowed good leadership, then Sarah Palin is surely the gal for us. Look at her amazing self-control! The many indicators of her longevity! We certainly wouldn't have to worry about Palin cutting her presidential tenure short.

Obviously, pant size is a poor measure of presidential character. We all know this from our own lives. Niceness, honesty, competence and intelligence have nothing to do with weight.

Of course, for an industry already obsessed with all things visual, it may be an occupational hazard. Sooner or later, though, let's hope the media figures out what really matters.

The New Newsmagazine:

While Brian Williams' new prime-time news show, "Rock Center," waits for its moment in the sun - scheduling, apparently, depends on which NBC drama fails first - the buzz around the program grows. At the moment, the broadcast looks to be a "60 Minutes"-style newsmagazine - which isn't such a bad thing when you look at last season's "60 Minutes" ratings.

And, like its CBS predecessor, "Rock Center" is attracting some high-profile talent: Harry Smith (lured away from CBS), Kate Snow (poached from ABC), and now, apparently, Ted Koppel (whose career at ABC started in the 1960s).

News junkies await Rock's debut.

CNN's Misstep:

Meanwhile, CNN's choice of contributors continues to baffle. Witness the latest addition to their line-up: Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush's former spokesman, who joins the cable channel as a political talking head. Fleischer's opinions are largely predictable, and, more importantly, he brings no objective depth.

CNN has made these sorts of inexplicable choices before - RedState.com's Erik Erikson and radio host Dana Loesch, for example. Fortunately, though, CNN continues to rely on David Gergen and Gloria Borger, both of whom offer thoughtful, informed, and unpredictable analysis.

If CNN wants to break out of third place in prime time, it'll need more Gergens and fewer Fleischers.

How much should you spend on a good guest?

For plenty of "news" outlets, that question is neither shocking nor academic.

Take Jaycee Dugard, for example. Dugard, who was held by kidnappers for almost twenty years, received more than $100,000 from ABC for the right to broadcast video of her.

Not surprisingly, when Dugard had a choice of sitting down with NBC's Matt Lauer or ABC's Diane Sawyer, she went with ABC.

The Washington Post's Paul Farhi details the cutthroat, semi-ethical, and often completely preposterous world of morning bookers in a fascinating piece in The Washington Post.

As a Today producer tells Fahri: “It’s really the first person there who gets the exclusive, and that’s the prize. Either you’re aggressive and on top of it 24 hours a day, or you lose.”

Of course, the notion of paying for interviews is nothing new. I wrote about the phenomenon in June when ABC awarded Meagan Broussard - former Representative Anthony Weiner's phone buddy - north of $10,000 for a few poorly-shot photos and then, miraculously, secured the first network interview with her.

Slowly, though, the practice has become standard operating procedure for morning shows. Indeed, as Fahri points out, even guests who don't get cash generally land in a Manhattan hotel with a per-diem food budget (along, sometimes, with complimentary wine, flowers, and/or chocolates).

But networks can point to a long history of pay-to-play. In 1912, as Jeremy Peters has noted in the New York Times, the Times paid a Titanic survivor $1,000 to tell his tale.

The question now is whether viewers have any idea that the media is greasing guests' palms - and how money might affect what people say. It's a dangerous practice, and one that, I fear, will become more and more common mainstream on TV.

I'm not sure what MSNBC was thinking when the network gave Al Sharpton his own show.

But at least we know what Sharpton was thinking: "after 5 p.m.," he told the St. Petersburg Times, "the format doesn’t call for a journalist."

Alrighty, then.

So, how much patience do viewers have for one talking head after another? Does it make sense for MSNBC to follow Chris Matthews with Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz? How much advocacy can an audience handle?

Remember too that those on the West Coast see Matthews starting at 2 p.m., followed by the rest of the line-up.

Another - and more glaring question - is why MSNBC has not sought to launch a prime-time version of "Morning Joe," a tremendously successful venture that lands great guests, generally eschews stridency, and feels politically balanced.

Though MSNBC may believe that they are replicating Fox News Channel's winning formula - and, indeed, Fox substantially and consistently outpaces CNN and MSNBC - Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity only reign over a two-hour block of intense advocacy. Before and after, viewers are in the far-gentler hands of Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, and Greta Van Susteren.

Certainly, Keith Olbermann found a ratings sweetspot when he decided to be overtly liberal on MSNBC's "Countdown." But endlessly replicating that formula - which, I would argue, was initially far more newsy - will not necessarily guarantee success. Instead, it may exhaust the audience and marginalize the network.

Yesterday, when I suggested here that the media has done an inadequate job covering Ron Paul's candidacy - given that Paul nearly tied Michele Bachmann in the Iowa Straw Poll, 28.6% to 27.7% - I never could have anticipated what followed.

By afternoon, thousands of readers had shared my post or put it up on their Facebook pages (today, that number swelled to more than 18,000). And last night, Jon Stewart - whose politics, I suspect, also differ considerably from those of Ron Paul - noted that media outlets blatantly ignore the candidate, no matter how impressive his support.

"This pretending Ron Paul doesn't exist - for some reason - has been going on for weeks," Stewart said, pointing to both Fox News and CNN clips in which anchors revealed disdain for Paul and his supporters.

In a particularly embarassing exchange, CNN anchor Drew Griffin chuckled to a correspondent in Iowa: "If you get video of Sarah Palin or get a soundbite from her, bring that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff."

But why? Isn't the media's job to tell the story? And if there's a candidate who racked up significant delegate counts during the last election, a candidate who has raised tremendous amounts of money from individuals (including those in the military, who - during much of the lead-up to 2008 - donated more money to Paul than they did to either McCain or Obama), that candidate merits coverage.

But somehow Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin have garnered far more television facetime, largely because their views align with those of establishment Republicans.

Curiously, that makes Paul an even better story. Why are there so many in the Republican party who support a candidate that is anti-war, pro-gun, and tolerant of gay marriage (because he argues it's a states' rights issue)?

Why have so many in the military donated to Paul? And what would happen if his message got more press? Could he have wider appeal - posing a real threat to Romney, Perry, or Bachmann?

Given the media's near-blackout, we may never know.